U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study
Draft Final Report
Prepared for: South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization Vineland, New Jersey
Prepared by: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. East Orange, New Jersey
In association with: CH Planning, Ltd. New Jersey
April 2004 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1
1.1 Regional Setting...... 1 1.2 Study Location...... 1 1.3 Purpose of the Study ...... 3 1.4 Relationship to Existing Documents...... 4 1.5 Coordination With Other Studies/Projects...... 5
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 7
2.1 Socioeconomics ...... 7 2.1.1 Population...... 7 2.1.1.1 Population Change...... 7 2.1.2 Employment...... 8 2.1.3 Environmental Justice...... 9 2.1.3.1 USDOT Criteria...... 9 2.1.3.2 Study Methodology and Goals...... 10 2.1.3.3 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Study Area ...... 11 2.2 Land Use...... 14 2.3 Traffic Conditions...... 14 2.3.1 Traffic Data Collection...... 14 2.3.2 Volume Development ...... 17 2.3.3 Capacity and Operational Analysis...... 18 2.3.3.1 Methodology...... 18 2.3.3.2 Locations...... 23 2.3.3.3 Results...... 25 2.3.4 Field Observations...... 30 2.4 Other Transportation Modes...... 31 2.4.1 Pedestrian/Bicycles...... 31 2.4.1.1 U.S. 9...... 31 2.4.1.2 Roosevelt Boulevard...... 32 2.4.1.3 Bay Avenue...... 32 2.4.2 Transit ...... 33 2.4.2.1 Rail Service...... 33 2.4.2.2 Bus Service...... 33 2.4.3 Park-and-Ride...... 34 2.5 Physical Conditions ...... 35 2.5.1 NJDOT Management Systems...... 35 2.5.1.1 Safety...... 35 2.5.1.2 Pavement...... 42 2.5.1.3 Drainage/Flooding...... 45 2.5.1.4 Structures...... 46
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page i U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
2.5.2 Other ...... 49 2.5.2.1 Signage...... 49 2.5.2.2 Geometrics ...... 50 2.6 Environmental Constraints...... 57
3.0 FUTURE NO-BUILD CONDITIONS ...... 58 3.1 Socioeconomics ...... 58 3.1.1 Population...... 58 3.1.2 Employment...... 59 3.1.3 Environmental Justice...... 60 3.1.3.1 Upper Township...... 60 3.1.3.2 Ocean City...... 60 3.1.3.3 Somers Point City...... 61 3.2 Land Use ...... 61 3.3 Traffic Conditions...... 61 3.3.1 Growth Rate...... 61 3.3.1.1 Garden State Parkway...... 62 3.3.1.2 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Study Area ...... 62 3.3.1.3 Conclusion...... 63 3.3.2 Volume Development ...... 63 3.3.3 Capacity and Operational Analysis...... 66 3.3.3.1 Signalized Intersections...... 66 3.3.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections...... 70 3.3.3.3 Two-Lane Highway Sections...... 71 3.3.3.4 Basic Freeway Segments ...... 71 3.3.4 Travel Characteristics...... 72 3.4 Other Transportation Modes...... 72 3.4.1 Pedestrians/Bicycles...... 72 3.4.2 Transit ...... 72 3.4.2.1 Rail Initiatives...... 72 3.4.2.2 Bus Initiatives...... 72 3.4.3 Park-and-Ride...... 72
4.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS ...... 73 4.1 General ...... 73 4.2 U.S. 9 ...... 73 4.2.1 Segment South of Route 50 ...... 73 4.2.2 Route 50 (M.P. 23.76)...... 73 4.2.3 Segment from Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 23.76 -28.57)...... 73 4.2.4 Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 28.57)...... 74
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page ii U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
4.2.5 Segment from Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.57-28.79) ...... 75 4.2.6 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.79) ...... 75 4.2.7 Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) (M.P. 29.2)...... 76 4.2.8 Segment from Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) to the Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 28.79 -30.7)...... 76 4.2.9 Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.7 – M.P. 31.9) ...... 76 4.2.10 Segment from the Beesley’s Point Bridge to Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 30.7 – 32.64) ...... 77 4.2.11 Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 32.64) ...... 77 4.2.12 Segment from Mays Landing Road to Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 -33.23)...... 78 4.2.13 Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 33.23)...... 78 4.3 Garden State Parkway...... 78 4.3.1 Interchange 20 (M.P. 20.25)...... 78 4.3.2 Segment from Interchange 20 to Interchange 25 (M.P. 20.25 – 25.34)...... 78 4.3.3 Interchange 25 (M.P. 25.34)...... 78 4.3.4 Segment from Interchange 25 to Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 25.34 – 27.4)...... 79 4.3.5 Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.4 - 28.9) ...... 79 4.3.6 Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza (M.P. 28.6 -28.9)...... 79 4.3.7 Interchange 29 (M.P. 28.9)...... 79 4.3.8 Segment from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30 (M.P. 28.9 – 30.0) ...... 79 4.3.9 Interchange 30 (M.P. 30.0) ...... 79 4.4 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)...... 80 4.4.1 Segment from U.S. 9 to Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.0 – 0.23)...... 80 4.4.2 Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23)...... 80 4.4.3 Northbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.31) ...... 81 4.4.4 Segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 – 1.32) ...... 81 4.4.5 Segment from Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue (M.P. 1.32 – 2.04)...... 81 4.4.6 Segment from Bay Avenue (M.P. 2.04) to West Avenue (M.P. 2.22)...... 81 4.4.7 West Avenue (M.P. 2.22) ...... 81 4.5 Bay Avenue ...... 82 4.5.1 35th Street ...... 82 4.5.2 34th Street (M.P. 0.0)...... 82
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page iii U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
4.5.3 Segment from 34th Street (M.P. 0.0) to 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)...... 82 4.5.4 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)...... 82 4.6 West Avenue ...... 83 4.6.1 35th Street ...... 83
5.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS) ...... 84
6.0 CONCEPT SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 87 6.1 General ...... 87 6.1.2 Short Term Recommendations...... 87 6.1.3 Long Term Recommendations...... 87 6.2 U.S. 9 ...... 88 6.2.1 Route 50 (M.P. 23.76)...... 88 6.2.1.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 88 6.2.1.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 88 6.2.2 Segment from Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 23.76 – 28.57)...... 88 6.2.2.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 88 6.2.2.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 95 6.2.3 Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 28.57)...... 95 6.2.3.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 95 6.2.3.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 95 6.2.4 Segment from Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.57 – 28.79) ...... 95 6.2.4.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 95 6.2.5 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.79) ...... 100 6.2.5.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 100 6.2.5.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 100 6.2.6 Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) (M.P. 29.2)...... 100 6.2.6.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 100 6.2.6.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 100 6.2.7 Segment from Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) to the Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 28.79 – 30.7) ...... 100 6.2.7.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 100 6.2.7.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 104 6.2.8 Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.7 – M.P. 31.9) ...... 104 6.2.8.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 104 6.2.8.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 104 6.2.9 Segment from the Beesley’s Point Bridge to Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 30.7 – 32.64) ...... 107 6.2.9.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 107
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page iv U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
6.2.9.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 107 6.2.10 Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 32.64) ...... 107 6.2.10.1 Short Term Recommendations ...... 107 6.2.10.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 107 6.2.11 Segment from Mays Landing Road to Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 – 33.23)...... 112 6.2.11.1 Short Term Recommendations ...... 112 6.2.11.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 112 6.2.12 Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 33.23)...... 112 6.2.12.1 Short Term Recommendations ...... 112 6.2.12.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 112 6.3 Garden Sate Parkway...... 112 6.3.1 Interchange 20 (M.P. 20.25)...... 112 6.3.1.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 112 6.3.1.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 112 6.3.2 Interchange 20 to Inter. 25 (M.P. 20.25 – 25.34)...... 113 6.3.2.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 113 6.3.2.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 113 6.3.3 Interchange 25 (M.P. 25.34)...... 113 6.3.31 Short Term Recommendations...... 113 6.3.3.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 113 6.3.4 Segment from Inter. 25 to Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 25.34-27.4)...... 114 6.3.4.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 114 6.3.4.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 114 6.3.5 Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.4 – 28.6)...... 114 6.3.5.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 114 4.3.5.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 114 6.3.6 Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza (M.P. 28.6 – 28.9) ...... 114 6.3.6.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 114 6.3.6.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 115 6.3.7 Interchange 29 (M.P. 28.9)...... 115 6.3.7.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 115 6.3.7.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 115 6.3.8 Segment from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30 (M.P. 28.9 – 30.0)...... 115 6.3.8.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 115 6.3.8.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 115 6.3.9 Interchange 30 (M.P. 30.0)...... 117
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page v U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
6.3.9.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 117 6.3.9.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 117 6.4 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)...... 119 6.4.1 Segment from U.S. 9 to Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.0 – 0.23)...... 119 6.4.1.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 119 6.4.1.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 119 6.4.2 Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23)...... 119 6.4.2.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 119 6.4.2.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 119 6.4.3 Northbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.31) ...... 119 6.4.3.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 119 6.4.3.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 120 6.4.4 Segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 – 1.32)...... 120 6.4.4.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 120 6.4.4.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 120 6.4.5 Segment from Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue (M.P. 1.32 – 2.04)...... 120 6.4.5.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 120 6.4.5.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 120 6.4.6 Segment from Bay Avenue (M.P. 2.04) to West Avenue (M.P. 2.22)...... 125 6.4.6.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 125 6.4.6.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 125 6.4.7 West Avenue (M.P. 2.22) to Central Avenue (M.P. 2.33)...... 125 6.4.7.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 125 6.4.7.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 125 6.5 Bay Avenue...... 125 6.5.1 35th Street ...... 125 6.5.1.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 125 6.5.1.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 125 6.5.2 34th Street (M.P. 0.0)...... 128 6.5.2.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 128 6.5.2.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 128 6.5.3 Segment from 34th Street (M.P. 0.0) to 9th Street (M.P. 2.70).....128 6.5.3.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 128 6.5.3.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 128 6.5.4 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)...... 128 6.5.4.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 128 6.5.4.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 128
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page vi U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
6.5 West Avenue...... 133 6.6.1 35th Street ...... 133 6.6.1.1 Short Term Recommendations...... 133 6.6.1.2 Long Term Recommendations...... 133
7.0 FUTURE NO BUILD CONDITIONS...... 134 7.1 Volume Development ...... 134 7.2 Analysis Results...... 135 7.3 Projected Costs...... 141
8.0 INDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND COORDINATION /PUBLIC INVOLEMENT ...... 153 8.1 Scheduled Meetings...... 153 8.1.1 Technical Advisory Committee ...... 153 8.1.2 Technical Advisory Committee ...... 154 8.2 Context Sensitive Design...... 155 8.3 Environmental Justice and Public Involvement...... 155
9.0 CONCLUSION ...... 157 9.1 Analysis Results...... 157 9.2 Recommendations...... 159
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page vii U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2-1 Population Data - Existing Conditions ...... 8 Table 2-2 Employment Data – Number of Jobs Existing Conditions...... 9 Table 2-3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ...... 21 Table 2-4 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria...... 21 Table 2-5 Two-Lane Highway Sections Level of Service Criteria...... 22 Table 2-6 Basic Freeway Segments Level of Service Criteria...... 22 Table 2-7 Accident Rates U.S. 9 Corridor ...... 39 Table 2-8 Accident Rates Garden State Parkway Corridor...... 40 Table 2-9 Accident Rates Roosevelt Boulevard (C.R. 623) Corridor...... 41 Table 2-10 Accident Rates Bay Avenue (C.R. 656) Corridor...... 42 Table 2-11 Bridge Inventory Data U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Study Area ...... 48 Table 3-1 Future Conditions Population Data and Growth Rates...... 59 Table 3-2 Future Conditions Employment Data and Growth Rates ...... 60 Table 7-1 Summary Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements..142 Table 7-2 Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 142 Table 7-3 U.S. 9/Route 50 (M.P. 23.76) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 142 Table 7-4 U.S. 9 Segment from Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (M.P. 23.76 to 28.57) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 143 Table 7-5 U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road (M.P. 28.57) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 143 Table 7-6 U.S. 9 Segment from Tuckahoe Road to Roosevelt Blvd. (M.P. 28.57 to 28.79) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 144 Table 7-7 U.S. 9/Roosevelt Blvd. (M.P. 28.79) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 144 Table 7-8 U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road Extension (M.P. 29.2) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 144 Table 7-9 U.S. 9 Segment from Roosevelt Blvd. to Beesley’s Bridge (M.P. 28.79 to 30.70) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 145 Table 7-10 U.S. 9 Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.70 to 31.90) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 145 Table 7-11 U.S. 9 Segment from Beesley’s Point Bridge to Mays Landing Rd. (M.P. 30.70 to 32.64) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 146 Table 7-12 U.S. 9/Mays Landing Rd. (M.P. 32.64) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 146
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page viii U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 7-13 U.S. 9 Segment from Mays Landing Rd. to Route 52/ Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 to 33.23) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 146 Table 7-14 U.S. 9 and Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 33.23) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 147 Table 7-15 Garden State Parkway Interchange 20 (M.P. 20.25) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 147 Table 7-16 Garden State Parkway Interchange 25 (M.P. 25.34) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 147 Table 7-17 Garden State Parkway Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.40 to 28.60) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...148 Table 7-18 Garden State Parkway Interchange 29 (M.P. 28.9) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 148 Table 7-19 Garden State Parkway Segment from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30 (M.P. 28.9 to 30.0) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 148 Table 7-20 Garden State Parkway Interchange 30 (M.P. 30.0) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 149 Table 7-21 Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 631) Vernon Rd./Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 149 Table 7-22 Roosevelt Blvd./Northbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.31) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 149 Table 7-23 Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 631) Segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 to 1.32) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 150 Table 7-24 34th Street (CR 631) Segment from Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue (M.P. 1.32 to 2.04) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 150 Table 7-25 34th Street (CR 631) Segment from Bay Avenue to West Avenue (M.P. 2.04 to 2.22) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 150 Table 7-26 34th Street Segment from West Avenue (M.P. 2.22) to Central Avenue (M.P. 2.33) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 151 Table 7-27 Bay Avenue/35th Street Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 151 Table 7-28 Bay Avenue/34th Street (M.P. 0.0) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 151
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page ix U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 7-29 Bay Avenue (CR 656) Segment from 34th Street (M.P. 0.0) to 9th Street (M.P. 2.70) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 151 Table 7-30 Bay Avenue/9th Street (M.P. 2.70) Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements ...... 152 Table 7-31 West Avenue/35th Street Timeframe and Costs for Recommended Improvements...... 152 Table 9-1 Level of Service Results 2025 No Build Versus Build Peak Hour Conditions ...... 157 Table 9-2 General Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements .159 Table 9-3 U.S. 9/Route 50 (M.P. 23.76) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 159 Table 9-4 U.S. 9 Segment from Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (M.P. 23.76 to 28.57) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 160 Table 9-5 U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road (M.P. 28.57) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 160 Table 9-6 U.S. 9 Segment from Tuckahoe Road to Roosevelt Blvd. (M.P. 28.57 to 28.79) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 160 Table 9-7 U.S. 9/Roosevelt Blvd. (M.P. 28.79) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 161 Table 9-8 U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road Extension (M.P. 29.2) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 161 Table 9-9 U.S. 9 Segment from Roosevelt Blvd. to Beesley’s Bridge (M.P. 28.79 to 30.70) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 161 Table 9-10 U.S. 9 Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.70 to 31.90) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 161 Table 9-11 U.S. 9 Segment from Beesley’s Point Bridge to Mays Landing Rd. (M.P. 30.70 to 32.64) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 162 Table 9-12 U.S. 9/Mays Landing Rd. (M.P. 32.64) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 162 Table 9-13 U.S. 9 Segment from Mays Landing Rd. to Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 to 33.23) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 162
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page x U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 9-14 U.S. 9 and Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 33.23) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 162 Table 9-15 GSP Interchange 20 (M.P. 20.25) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 162 Table 9-16 GSP Interchange 25 (M.P. 25.34) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 163 Table 9-17 GSP Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.40 to 28.60) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 163 Table 9-18 GSP Interchange 29 (M.P. 28.9) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 163 Table 9-19 GSP Segment from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30 (M.P. 28.9 to 30.0) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 163 Table 9-20 GSP Interchange 30 (M.P. 30.0) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 163 Table 9-21 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) Vernon Rd./Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 164 Table 9-22 Roosevelt Boulevard/Northbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.31) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 164 Table 9-23 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) Segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 to 1.32) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 164 Table 9-24 34th Street (CR 623) Segment from Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue (M.P. 1.32 to 2.04) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 164 Table 9-25 34th Street (CR 623) Segment from Bay Avenue to West Avenue (M.P. 2.04 to 2.22) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 164 Table 9-26 Segment from West Avenue (M.P. 2.22) to Central Avenue (M.P. 2.33) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 165 Table 9-27 Bay Avenue/35th Street Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 165 Table 9-28 Bay Avenue/34th Street (M.P. 0.0) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements...... 165 Table 9-29 Bay Avenue (CR 656) Segment from 34th Street (M.P. 0.0) to 9th Street (M.P. 2.70) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 165
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page xi U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 9-30 Bay Avenue /9th Street (M.P. 2.70) Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 165 Table 9-31 West Avenue/35th Street Timeframe and Priority for Recommended Improvements ...... 165
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page xii U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1 US9/GSP Study Area...... 3 Figure 2-1 U.S. 9/GSP Minority Communities ...... 12 Figure 2-2 U.S. 9/GSP Low Income Communities ...... 13 Figure 2-3 U.S. 9/GSP Generalized Land ...... 15 Figure 2-4 U.S. 9/GSP Count Locations ...... 16 Figure 2-5 U.S. 9/GSP 2002/2003 Existing Summer Saturday Peak Period Volumes...... 19 Figure 2-6 U.S 9/GSP 2002/2003 Existing Off-Peak Weekday AM/PM Peak Period Volumes...... 20 Figure 2-7 U.S. 9/GSP Analysis Locations ...... 24 Figure 2-8 U.S. 9/GSP 2002/2003 Existing Summer Saturday Peak Period LOS...... 26 Figure 2-9 U.S. 9/GSP 2002/2003 Existing Off-Peak Weekday AM/PM Peak Period LOS...... 29 Figure 2-10 U.S. 9/GSP Accident Rates...... 37 Figure 2-11 U.S. 9/GSP Bridge and Pavement Conditions...... 44 Figure 3-1 2025 No Build Summer Saturday Peak Period Volumes ...... 63 Figure 3-2 2025 No Build Off-Peak Weekday AM/PM Peak Period Volumes....64 Figure 3-3 2025 No Build Summer Saturday Peak Period LOS ...... 67 Figure 3-4 2025 No Build Off-Peak Weekday AM/PM Peak Period LOS...... 68 Figure 6-1 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 88 Figure 6-2 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 89 Figure 6-3 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 90 Figure 6-4 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements ...... 91 Figure 6-5 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 92 Figure 6-6 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 93 Figure 6-7 U.S 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 96 Figure 6-8 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 97 Figure 6-9 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 98 Figure 6-10 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 99 Figure 6-11 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 100 Figure 6-12 U.S. 9/GSP 2025 Long Term Improvements...... 101 Figure 6-13 U.S. 9/GSP 2025 Short Term Improvements...... 102 Figure 6-14 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 105 Figure 6-15 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 106 Figure 6-16 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 108
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page xiii U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 6-17 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 109 Figure 6-18 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 110 Figure 6-19 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 111 Figure 6-20 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 115 Figure 6-21 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 118 Figure 6-22 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 121 Figure 6-23 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 122 Figure 6-24 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 123 Figure 6-25 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 124 Figure 6-26 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 126 Figure 6-27 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 127 Figure 6-28 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 129 Figure 6-29 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 130 Figure 6-30 U.S. 9/GSP Short Term Improvements...... 131 Figure 6-31 U.S. 9/GSP Long Term Improvements...... 132 Figure 7-1 U.S. 9/GSP 2025 Build Summer Saturday Peak Period Volumes.....136 Figure 7-2 U.S. 9/GSP 2025 Build Off-Peak Weekday AM/PM Peak Period Volumes...... 137 Figure 7-3 U.S. 9/GSP 2025 Build Summer Saturday Peak Period LOS...... 138 Figure 7-4 U.S. 9/GSP 2025 Off-Peak Weekday AM/PM Peak Period LOS ....139
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page xiv U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Regional Setting
The U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway (GSP) corridor serves as the main north-south access routes for the New Jersey Shore and the barrier island resort cities. Together, these two parallel roadways provide the primary recreational routes into Cape May County from Central and Northern New Jersey, as well as New York, New England and Canada. The two routes complement each other in that they have numerous points of entry from one to the other in Southern New Jersey. While the GSP is a tolled limited access freeway carrying most of the incoming and outgoing traffic in the region, U.S. 9 is a land-access roadway bounded by a variety of development types primarily serving more locally- based traffic. When extreme backups occur on the GSP due to accidents or other incidents, U.S. 9 is often utilized by through traffic as an alternative route.
The limits of the U.S. 9 and GSP corridor being studied are from Route 52 in Somers Point City to just south of Route 50 in Upper Township. Both U.S. 9 and the GSP cross over the Great Egg Harbor connecting Cape May and Atlantic Counties. Within these Counties, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) classifies U.S. 9 as an Urban Minor Arterial south of milepost 32.2 (bridge over GSP) and an Urban Principal Arterial north of milepost 32.2. The GSP is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial south of milepost 23.1 (bridge over Penn/Reading Seashore Railroad) and an Urban Freeway/Expressway north of milepost 23.1.
1.2 Study Location
The overall U.S. 9/GSP Corridor Study Area is comprised of three municipalities: Upper Township, Ocean City, and Somers Point City (Figure 1-1). The three municipalities were chosen because they represent the areas that most affect travel patterns on the roadways being studied. Demographic data and transit service information were studied within the study area municipalities in order to identify current and future travel characteristics. These data were also utilized to identify alternative strategies that could reduce the number of single occupant vehicles traveling through the study area. U.S. 9 and the GSP pass through a small portion of Egg Harbor Township as they cross Great Egg Harbor. As a result, this township was not included within the primary study area.
Within the overall study area, four principal roadways were analyzed in detail. The first roadway is the 10.2 mile section of U.S. 9 from just south of Route 50 in Upper Township to Route 52 in Somers Point City (M.P. 23.1 to 33.3). The second roadway is the GSP from Interchange 20 in Upper Township to Interchange 30 in Somers Point (M.P. 20.0 to 30.2). This includes all GSP ramps at Interchanges 20, 25, 29, and 30. The third roadway is the two mile stretch of Roosevelt Boulevard in Upper Township/34th Street in Ocean City (CR 623) from U.S. 9 in Upper Township to Bay Avenue in Ocean City. The last roadway is the 2.7 mile portion of Bay Avenue in Ocean City (CR 656) located between 34th Street (Roosevelt Boulevard) and 9th Street. In terms of agency jurisdiction, U.S. 9 is under the auspices of NJDOT, the GSP is under the auspices of the
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 1 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, New Jersey Highway Authority Division (NJHA), and Roosevelt Boulevard and Bay Avenue are under the auspices of Cape May County.
A buffer was established around the periphery of U.S. 9, GSP, CR 623, and Bay Avenue 2,000 feet from the roadway centerlines to define the study corridor analysis areas (Figure 1-1). The collection and analysis of data was performed within the study corridors for traffic operations, roadway geometry, and environmental constraints. In addition, the NJDOT Management Systems, NJHA, and local county and municipal data sets for safety, pavement, drainage, and structure information were also analyzed to identify corridor deficiencies.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this Corridor Study was to develop general concepts that address documented needs and deficiencies throughout the U.S. 9 and GSP corridors, as well as along CR 623 and Bay Avenue. Short- and long-term concepts and recommendations, as well as multi-modal and non-motorized alternatives, were evaluated as part of this study. All of the proposed concepts, recommendations, and alternatives were screened based upon environmental and cultural resource constraints identified throughout the corridor. The process included an intensive public outreach program, which served as an important means of identifying needs and deficiencies, developing concepts, and garnering community support. As part of concept development, context-sensitive design opportunities have been considered. An order of magnitude cost estimate has also been developed for the proposed concepts.
The alternatives analysis was prepared pursuant to the general procedures utilized by the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) as part of their Congestion Management System (CMS) requirements. SJTPO will review the methodology utilized to develop the alternatives for the Route U.S. 9 and GSP Corridor Study. The appropriate agency for each of the roadways will review the final concepts to identify future projects within the study area (Scope Development within NJDOT for U.S. 9, NJHA for the GSP, and Cape May County for CR 623 and Bay Avenue). The results of the alternatives analysis, including increases in capacity, will be sent to SJTPO for incorporation into the Regional Transportation Plan. Concepts will be prioritized for funding in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
According to the SJTPO’s 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, adopted in 2001, these sections of U.S. 9, the GSP, CR 623, and Bay Avenue experience capacity problems due to heavy congestion at some locations during the summer and weekday peak periods. Aside from capacity, there are many issues such as safety, structures, pavement, drainage, signage, and roadway geometry in the corridor that need to be addressed. The purpose of this study is to assess the corridor in these regards and to determine the existing and future (2025) U.S. 9, GSP and CR 623 operational needs. Data required to develop this study were obtained from the NJDOT, Atlantic and Cape May Counties Department of Planning and Economic Development, New Jersey Transit, SJTPO, and other available sources.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 2 Figure 1-1 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
1.4 Relationship to Existing Documents
According to SJTPO’s 2025 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for Southern New Jersey, the U.S. 9 and GSP corridors are the primary connection between the Atlantic City area and Cape May County serving both local and regional travel needs. U.S. 9 is the center of commerce for many towns that lie along its path providing vital local access to business properties and the GSP serves as the primary thoroughfare for regional travel between the Atlantic City area and portions of Cape May County and interregional tourism-based travel. As a result of these local, regional, and tourism-based travel needs, the corridor is very congested during summer and weekday peak periods.
The RTP identifies several problem/need areas in the U.S. 9 and GSP corridors including deficient bridges, poor pavement conditions, safety concerns, and other existing and future problem areas (i.e. congested intersections and roadway segments, poor bicycle access, and inadequate pedestrian facilities). The RTP also recommends improvements to address these problems/needs and outlines an implementation plan to implement them. More specifically, the GSP between Interchanges 17 and 20 and between Interchange 25 and the Atlantic County Line has been identified in the RTP as future problem areas. Interchange 20 is projected to be particularly problematic and is recommended to be improved. Another problem area that has been identified in the RTP is the Somers Point Circle. This location has been identified in the 2001-2003 TIP for improvements including the construction of a circle cut-through to address deficiencies.
Based on the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP), adopted in 2001, the U.S. 9 and GSP Corridor study area consists of various Planning Areas and two Pineland Management Areas. Somers Point City is located within a Metropolitan Planning Area (PA1) and much of Ocean City is considered part of an Environmentally Sensitive/Barrier Islands Planning Area (PA5B). The section of Upper Township located along U.S. 9 and the GSP is located within a Suburban Planning Area (PA2), while the remainder of the municipality outside of the U.S. 9 and GSP study corridor is partially within a Rural Planning Area (PA4), Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA5), Parks and Natural Areas, and two Pineland Management Areas (Rural Development Area and Forest and Preservation Area).
The State’s Long Range Transportation Plan, Transportation Choices 2025 (developed in 2001), is a collaborative effort between NJDOT and New Jersey Transit that has analyzed the existing statewide transportation system and has identified necessary changes based upon deficiencies and future trends for the next 5, 10, and 25 years. Since much of the future transportation system is already in place, a “fix it first” approach has become a top priority for NJDOT, New Jersey Transit, and other transportation providers over the next 10 to 20 years.
In terms of NJDOT, state-of-good-repair initiatives identified in Choices 2025 include reducing the backlog of structurally deficient bridges, deficient pavement segments, and drainage problems and the implementation of maintenance programs for bridges, pavement, and drainage systems. New Jersey Transit has identified initiatives in the plan
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 4 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
to maintain its assets and to stay competitive in the regional transportation market including: the purchase of new rail and bus equipment; rehabilitation of tunnels and bridges; upgrade of tracks, signals and communication systems; improvement of support facilities including stations, yards, and terminals; maintenance of rights-of-way; and the enhancement of rail and bus service.
Once the existing transportation system, which is made up of both the highway and public transportation networks, has been brought to and maintained in a good state of repair, new initiatives can be realized. Choices 2025 identifies a combination of multi- modal approaches to accommodate projected travel demand in the state in 2025. Choices 2025 calls for transportation demand management (TDM), transportation system management (TSM), intelligent transportation system (ITS), and selective highway system expansion strategies in varying combinations that best fit the different regions of the state.
1.5 Coordination With Other Studies/Projects
A number of related studies/projects have been completed, are currently being performed in the study area, or are on the TIP (FY 2003 – 2005). The project team has coordinated with SJTPO, Atlantic County, and Cape May County representatives, other pertinent agencies, and the appropriate consultants to ensure consistency with the U.S. 9 and GSP Corridor Study. Specific studies/projects include:
• NJ Route 52 (1) Causeway between City of Somers Point and Ocean City, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 4(f) Evaluation, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and New Jersey Department of Transportation, July 2002. The proposed project will reconstruct and widen 1.0 kilometer of Route 52 between U.S. 9 and the Somers Point Circle, signalize and reconfigure the traffic circle, and replace four deficient and geometrically obsolete bridges that form the causeway (2.2 kilometers) over Great Egg Harbor Bay between the traffic circle and Bay Avenue in Ocean City. This project is being sponsored by NJDOT and is included on the TIP (DBNUM 244). • Study of Beesley’s Point Bridge Traffic Options, (GEC Assignment 93-16), NJHA, August 1995. This study evaluated alternatives that would rehabilitate, replace, or close this bridge and their effect on traffic crossing Great Egg Harbor. • Roosevelt Boulevard Improvement Study, Cape May County, October 1994. This study developed a comprehensive plan to improve safety and traffic flow for the Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) corridor from U.S. 9 in Upper Township to West Avenue in Ocean City. • Draft Report, SJTPO Congestion Management System Update, July 2002. • New Jersey Summer Recreational Transportation Survey, 1999 Final Report, NJHA. An aerial photo survey of the GSP was conducted as part of a continuing program to monitor highway traffic quality during summer weekend periods in 1999. • New Jersey Summer Recreational Transportation Survey, 2001 Final Report, NJHA. An aerial photo survey of the GSP was conducted as part of a continuing
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 5 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
program to monitor highway traffic quality during summer weekend periods in 2001. • Garden State Parkway, Traffic Projections 2000-2020, General 2000 Update to the Comprehensive Study (TEC Assignment 99-10), NJHA, June 2000. This study provided an update to the demand projections and existing capacities in the 1995 Update to the 1987 Comprehensive Traffic Study to assist in the long-range planning for capacity improvements along the GSP. • Ocean City, NJ, Ninth Street Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Program, SJTPO, February 2001. • Technical Memorandum: Interchange 17 Improvements, Comparison of Alternatives (TEC 99-02), NJHA, June 2002. This study assessed the usage of Interchange 17 and analyzed the design alternatives for the addition of a southbound entrance ramp to the GSP and a northbound exit ramp from the GSP. The addition of the ramps has been funded on the FY 2003-2005 TIP through the NJHA (DBNUM GSP134-02017). • Final Report, Feasibility Study of: Adding a Northbound Entrance and a Southbound Exit at Garden State Parkway Interchange 20, (TEC Assignment 97- 01), NJHA, June 1997. • Feasibility Study for Interchange 25, NJHA, February 1988. This study identified traffic and safety deficiencies for the GSP Interchange 25 southbound off-ramp and evaluated alternatives that would address these deficiencies. • Needs and Feasibility Assessment of Mainline Parkway Widening, Interchanges 30 to 80, NJHA, October 1996. This study addressed mainline GSP capacity deficiencies in this section of roadway projected for 2010. A third travel lane is proposed on the GSP Interchange 30 to 80 and is funded on the FY 2003-2005 TIP through the NJHA (DBNUM 133-01042). • Ten Year (2003 – 2012) Needs for the Major Repair and Improvement Program, NJHA, December 2002. • Bay Avenue Signal Upgrades in Ocean City is funded on the FY 2003-2005 TIP through SJTPO (DBNUM S0214). • Rehabilitation and reconstruction of Mays Landing – Somers Point Road between U.S. 9 and Route 52 is funded on the FY 2003-2005 TIP through SJTPO (DBNUM S9907). • The Atlantic County Strategic Growth Management Plan, which includes Somers Point City, is being conducted by Atlantic County’s Department of Regional Planning and Development.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 6 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
As part of the development of existing conditions within the U.S. 9/GSP study area, socioeconomic (including environmental justice), land use, traffic, alternative transportation, physical conditions, and environmental constraints. A thorough review of these databases was conducted to establish a baseline condition. The type, location, and severity of problems that currently exist within the U.S. 9/GSP study area were identified for each database. The activities associated with the study of existing conditions for each data element are detailed in the following sections for the year 2002 except where otherwise noted.
2.1 Socioeconomics
This section provides an overview of socioeconomic factors that influence local travel patterns within the U.S. 9/GSP study area. These factors include population and employment levels within the study area. In addition, environmental justice populations were identified within the study area. The U.S. 9/GSP study area includes the Atlantic County municipality of Somers Point City, and the Cape May municipalities of Ocean City and Upper Township. Demographic data and background information for the study area were collected from several sources including Rutgers University’s Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR), the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, New Jersey Department of Labor (NJDOL), the 1998 Upper Township Review of the 1989 Master Plan, the Ocean City Master Plan, and the Somers Point Master Plan.
2.1.1 Population
2.1.1.1 Population Change
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the year-round (non-seasonal) population within the U.S. 9/GSP study area experienced a 4.5% increase in population between 1990 and 2000. As shown in Table 2-1, the greatest population increase occurred in Upper Township. The population of Upper Township, which is the most sparsely populated municipality in the study area, increased at a rate of 13.4% over the ten year period. The population of Somers Point City increased about 3.5% between 1990 and 2000. Ocean City, which has the highest population in the study area, experienced a slight decline in population between 1990 and 2000.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 7 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-1 POPULATION DATA EXISTING CONDITIONS U.S. 9/GARDEN STATE CHANGE PARKWAY STUDY AREA 1990 2000 1990 - 2000 MUNICIPALITIES Atlantic County Somers Point City 11,216 11,614 3.5% Cape May County Upper Township 10,681 12,115 13.4% Ocean City 15,512 15,378 -0.9% STUDY AREA TOTAL 37,409 39,107 4.5% Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 1990 and Census 2000
According to the Cape May Planning Board, the peak summer seasonal populations were estimated at 36,607 for Upper Township and 111,015 for Ocean City in 2001. These figures represent an increase of 3 times the normal population in Upper Township and 7 times the normal population in Ocean City during the peak summer season. Conversely, the population in Somers Point City remains relatively constant throughout the year.
2.1.2 Employment
Employment data for the U.S. 9/GSP study area were obtained from a recent study conducted by CUPR. Data from the NJDOL (Workforce New Jersey Public Information Network) were not utilized because this data set represents the number of employed persons in a municipality (resident-based), and does not represent the number of jobs within a municipality (job-based). The distinction between resident-based and job-based employment figures is critical in the evaluation of future travel in the U.S. 9/GSP study corridor.
Table 2-2 shows the employment data1 (number of jobs) in the U.S. 9/GSP study area municipalities in 1990 and 2000 as provided by the CUPR. According to the CUPR study, the number of jobs within the study area increased by 17% over the ten year period from 1990 to 2000. The study projected that there were more than 15,500 jobs in study area municipalities in 2000. The highest number of jobs was estimated for Somers Point City in 2000 by CUPR. Somers Point City also had the highest increase in employment (29%) from 1990 to 2000. During this period, Upper Township had the lowest number of jobs in the study area and would have an increase in employment at the same rate as the overall study area. Within Ocean City, a small increase (4%) in employment was estimated between 1990 and 2000.
1 Employment data for 2000 are estimated CUPR Trend Scenario figures.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 8 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-2 EMPLOYMENT DATA – NUMBER OF JOBS EXISTING CONDITIONS U.S. 9/GARDEN STATE PARKWAY CHANGE 1990 2000 STUDY AREA MUNICIPALITIES 1990 - 2000 Atlantic County Somers Point City 4,708 6,615 29% Cape May County Upper Township 2,547 3,070 17% Ocean City 5,605 5,843 4% STUDY AREA TOTAL 12,860 15,528 17% *CUPR Trend Estimated Figures Source: Center for Urban Policy Research, "Trend Scenario Projections,” for Impact Assessment Study, September 2000. http://www.state.nj.us/osp/plan2/ias/iasproe.htm
2.1.3 Environmental Justice
This section provides an overview of the Environmental Justice analysis performed in accordance with Executive Order 12898 (E.O. 12898). This directive requires agencies to address the effects of funded programs, policies and regulations on low income and minority communities in accordance with the criteria established by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). The intent of the order is to prevent disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations with respect to human health and the environment. The US 9/GSP Corridor Study is subject to this directive.
2.1.3.1 USDOT Criteria
The USDOT has established review criteria to address environmental justice concerns. According to USDOT criteria, federally funded transportation projects should:
• Improve the environment and public health and safety in the transportation of people and goods, and the development and maintenance of transportation systems and services; • Harmonize transportation policies and investments with environmental concerns, reflecting an appropriate consideration of economic and social interests; • Consider the interests, issues and contributions of affected communities, disclose appropriate information and give communities an opportunity to be involved in decision-making; and • Integrate the provisions of the order into existing DOT programs, policies, activities, regulations and guidance to the greatest extent possible.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 9 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
2.1.3.2 Study Methodology and Goals
Environmental Justice considerations were incorporated throughout the US 9/GSP Corridor Study. First, low income and minority communities were identified and mapped using block level data collected from the 2000 Census. Second, a public involvement plan was developed and implemented in a manner that specifically addresses notification and outreach to low income and minority communities. Third, Environmental Justice guidelines were established for developing and evaluating proposed alternatives.
US Census block group data was used to identify low income and minority communities in the three study area municipalities. The study area was analyzed and the block groups with the highest percentages of low income or minority residences were characterized as Environmental Justice communities for the purposes of this study.
Environmental Justice considerations were central in the development of the public involvement plan. The public involvement plan submitted to SJTPO (Appendix A) included a detailed mailing list for media outlets and organizations that serve or represent low income or minority communities. The maps of low income and minority communities were used to build a mailing list and also to identify areas within these communities where meeting notices might be posted such as Laundromats, grocery stores, and other public places.
Environmental Justice considerations were incorporated in the alternatives analysis and in the design of recommended improvements. Alternatives considered the following:
• Incorporate strategies for improving the mobility of household members who may not have access to reliable automobiles; • Provide improvements to signage to improve mobility for newcomers as well as long-time residents; • Enhance access to employment opportunities for residents at all income levels; and • Minimize neighborhood disruption or other adverse affects on environmental quality or quality of life
Minority Communities
For the purposes of this analysis, minorities are defined according to the guidelines established by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by the FHWA Order on Environmental Justice (December 1998). Data used in the analysis are statistics that were reported to the US Census Bureau. Minority populations include the persons in the following ethnic groups:
• Black (origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa); • Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race);
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 10 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Asian American (origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, or the Indian subcontinent); or • American Indian and Alaskan Native (origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition).
Low-Income Communities
Low income communities are also defined relative to the composition of study area municipalities. Areas with the highest percentages of people living below the poverty level are included in the Environmental Justice analysis even though the rate of poverty for these areas might be lower than that of the state of New Jersey or of the region. Poverty designations for families and individuals take into a count a range of factors including household size.
2.1.3.3 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Study Area
Minority Communities
Minority communities are defined relative to the composition of study area municipalities. According to data from the 2000 Census, minorities comprise 9.2% of the combined population of Upper Township, Somers Point City, and Ocean City. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, any block group or group of adjacent block groups comprised of minority populations of 9.2% or higher are classified as minority communities (Figure 2-1).
A total of five block groups within the U.S. 9/GSP study area qualify as minority communities based upon the established criteria. Within Somers Point City, a total of four block groups are identified as minority communities. These blocks are comprised of varying densities of African-American and Hispanic inhabitants. Within Ocean City, one block group was identified as a minority community. The main minority group found within this block was African-American. No minority communities were identified in Upper Township.
Low-Income Communities
The poverty rate for the study area municipalities was calculated based upon 2000 US Census block group data. The sum of population for all of the block groups in the three study area municipalities was divided by the sum of all persons in the municipalities living at or below the 2000 poverty level. Based upon the data, any block group or group of adjacent block groups in the study area comprised of a poverty rate higher than 5.8% was identified as a low income area for the purposes of identifying Environmental Justice communities (Figure 2-2).
A total of seven block groups within the U.S. 9/GSP study area qualify as low income communities based upon the established criteria. Within Somers Point City, a total of
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 11 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
four block groups are identified as low income communities. Three of these blocks also qualify as minority communities. Within Ocean City, two block groups were identified as low income communities. One of these blocks also qualifies as a minority community. The final low-income community is located in Upper Township in a sparsely populated rural block group located just to the west of U.S. 9.
2.2 Land Use
The land use data for the U.S. 9/GSP study area were developed based upon an update of the 1986 land use/land coverage from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) geographic information system (GIS) database using the 1995/97 color infrared digital imagery of New Jersey’s Watershed Management Areas. A generalized view of land uses in the U.S. 9/GSP study area, based upon the revised 1995/97 NJDEP database, is presented in Figure 2-3.
Land Use information for the U.S. 9/GSP study area was compiled using recent aerial photography data from the Upper Township Master Plan Reexamination, the Somers Point City Master Plan, and the Ocean City Master Plan. Field reconnaissance was used to verify area land use adjacent to the major study corridors within the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
2.3 Traffic Conditions
The U.S. 9/GSP study corridor is located in an area of the state that supports a large number of tourists during the summer months. As a result, traffic volume counts were collected at key intersection locations and along mainline sections within the U.S 9/GSP study corridor during two separate seasonal peaks: summer (Saturday midday) and fall/spring (weekday AM and PM). The peak hour data for each season were analyzed to determine existing level of service (LOS) ratings, which quantify congestion at an intersection or roadway. LOS ratings range from A (no congestion on the road) to F (roadways are congested).
2.3.1 Traffic Data Collection
A total of thirteen (13) locations were identified for the collection of traffic data within the existing transportation network (Figure 2-4). Two vehicle class categories including cars and heavy vehicles (trucks and buses) were counted at each location. The manual counts were recorded in 15-minute intervals during each peak period.
Manual turning movement counts were conducted during the peak (summer) season at key locations along the U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard corridors on Saturday, August 10 and 17, 2002 during the midday (9:00 AM to 3:00 PM) peak period. Manual turning movement counts were conducted for the off-peak (fall) mid-week days (Tuesday, October 8, 2002 and Thursday, October 10, 2002) during the AM (7:00 to 9:30) and PM (3:30 to 6:30) peak periods. The following locations were selected for manual turning movement counts:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 14 Figure 2-3
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
1. U.S. 9 and Mays Landing Road (CR 559) 2. U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) 3. U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) 4. U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) 5. U.S. 9 and Route 50 6. Vernon Road/GSP Southbound on ramp and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) 7. GSP Northbound on/off-ramps and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
Manual turning movement counts were also conducted during the off-peak (spring) and peak (summer) season in 2003 at key locations in the Bay Avenue corridor. These counts were conducted on an off-peak (spring) mid-week day (Tuesday, June 12, 2003) during the AM (7:00 to 9:00) and PM (4:00 to 6:30) peak periods and on a peak (summer) Saturday (August 2, 2003) during the midday (10:00 AM to 3:00 PM) peak period. The following locations were selected for manual turning movement counts:
8. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 34th Street (CR 623) 9. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 9th Street 10. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 10th Street (summer only) 11. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 35th Street (summer only) 12. 34th Street (CR 623) and West Avenue (summer only) 13. West Avenue and 35th Street (summer only)
In addition, continuous (24-hour) directional Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) machine counts were conducted by SJTPO for an eight day period during the summer season (July and August 2002) at the following nine (9) locations (Figure 2-4):
1. Mays Landing Road (CR 559), east of U.S. 9 2. U.S. 9, south of Mays Landing Road (CR 559) 3. U.S. 9, north of Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) 4. Tuckahoe Road (CR 631), west of Roosevelt Road (CR 623) 5. U.S. 9, north of Butter Road 6. Route 50, west of U.S. 9 7. U.S. 9, south of Route 50 8. Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), east of the GSP 9. Bay Avenue (CR 656), north of 34th Street (CR 623)
2.3.2 Volume Development
The manual counts and ATR traffic volumes were summarized during the peak (summer) Saturday midday and off-peak weekday AM and PM peak periods. The peak hour within each peak period was determined by summing the cumulative total of the four highest consecutive 15-minute intervals for all manual and ATR count locations. The volumes were also used to calculate the peak hour factors (PHF) and heavy vehicle percentages for each location during each peak hour. Based upon the count data, the peak travel periods identified in the study corridor were between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM during the peak
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 17 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
(summer) Saturday midday period, between 7:00 and 9:00 AM during the off-peak (fall/spring) weekday AM period, and between 4:00 and 6:00 PM during the off-peak (fall/spring) weekday PM period.
Traffic data collected from the SJTPO, NJDOT, NJHA, and other projects conducted in the study area were utilized to supplement the existing count data and to balance the peak hour traffic volumes identified within the U.S. 9/GSP study corridor. The existing condition traffic volumes for existing conditions (2002/2003) are shown on Figure 2-5 for the peak (summer) Saturday peak hour and on Figure 2-6 for the off-peak (fall/spring) weekday AM and PM peak hours. Summaries of the manual and ATR counts are provided in Appendix B.
2.3.3 Capacity and Operational Analysis
2.3.3.1 Methodology
Detailed capacity analyses were conducted at the critical signalized and unsignalized intersections, two-lane highway sections, and basic freeway segments in the study corridors using the analytical procedures described in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000, published by the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. The criteria used to define level of service (LOS) for each type of facility are described below.
Signalized Intersection
The LOS of a signalized intersection is defined in terms of control delay per vehicle (seconds per vehicle). Control delay is the portion of total delay experienced by a motorist that is attributable to the traffic signal. It is comprised of initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The LOS criteria for signalized intersections as defined in the HCM, is provided on Table 2-3.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 18
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE LOS (Seconds Per Vehicle) A < 10 B > 10 to 20 C > 20 to 35 D > 35 to 55 E > 55 to 80 F > 80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
LOS A describes operations with minimal delays, up to 10 seconds per vehicle, while LOS F describes operations with delays in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. Under LOS F, excessive delays and longer queues are common as a result of over-saturated conditions (i.e., demand rates exceeding the capacity). Delays experienced at LOS A, B, C, or D (below 55 seconds per vehicle) are generally considered acceptable. LOS E and F represent unacceptable operating conditions.
Unsignalized Intersection
The LOS for a stop sign controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. The LOS criteria for unsignalized intersections as defined in the HCM, is provided on Table 2-4.
TABLE 2-4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA AVERAGE CONTROL DELAY LOS (Seconds Per Vehicle) A <10 B >10 to 15 C >15 to 25 D >25 to 35 E >35 to 50 F >50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
Two-Lane Highway Sections
Two-lane highways are evaluated as either a Class I or II facility. Class I facilities are characterized by the efficient movement of through traffic on a regional basis whereas
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 21 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Class II facilities accommodate more localized shorter trips. Although U.S. 9 handles a diverse variety of traffic, it more closely resembles the characteristics of Class I. In terms of LOS, Class I facilities are evaluated based upon percent time-spent-following other vehicles and average travel speed. The LOS criteria for two-lane highway sections are provided on Table 2-5.
TABLE 2-5 TWO-LANE HIGHWAY SECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA PERCENT TIME-SPENT AVERAGE TRAVEL LOS FOLLOWING SPEED (Miles Per Hour) A < 35 >55 B > 35 to 50 > 50 to 55 C >50 to 65 >45 to 50 D >65 to 80 >40 to 45 E >80 <40 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000. Note: LOS F applies whenever the flow rate exceeds the section capacity
Basic Freeway Segments
To qualify as a basic freeway segment for analysis purposes, a segment must be limited access with interchange spacing at 2 miles or greater, free-flow speeds between 55 and 75 miles/hour, 12 foot lane widths, level terrain, and a minimum lateral clearance of 6 feet for the shoulder and 2 feet for the median. For basic freeway segments, the LOS is estimated based on the density of the vehicles (a measure that quantifies the proximity of vehicles to each other within the traffic stream) and indicates the degree of maneuverability within the traffic stream. The LOS criteria for basic freeway segments are provided on Table 2-6.
TABLE 2-6 BASIC FREEWAY SEGMENTS LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA DENSITY RANGE LOS (Passenger cars per mile per lane) A 0 to 11 B > 11 to 18 C >18 to 26 D >26 to 35 E >35 to 45 F >45 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000.
LOS A describes completely free flow conditions, densities of up to 11 passenger cars per mile per lane, while LOS F represents forced break down flow with densities in excess of 45 passenger cars per mile per lane. The densities corresponding to LOS A, B,
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 22 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
C or D are equal to or less than 35 passenger cars per mile per lane and are considered acceptable operating conditions. LOS E and F represent unacceptable conditions.
2.3.3.2 Locations
A total of twenty-three (23) locations were selected for traffic analysis within the U.S. 9. GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard, and Bay Avenue study corridors (Figure 2-7). These locations include:
Upper Township, Cape May County
Signalized Intersections 1. U.S. 9 and Route 50 2. U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) 3. U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) 4. Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Vernon Road/Southbound GSP on/off- ramps 5. Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Northbound GSP on/off-ramps
Unsignalized Intersection 6. U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662)
Two-Lane Highway Sections 7. Northbound/Southbound U.S. 9 between Wright Lane and Route 50 8. Northbound/Southbound U.S. 9 between Stagecoach Road and Hope Corson Road (CR 671) 9. Northbound/Southbound U.S. 9 between Hope Corson Road (CR 671) and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) 10. Northbound/Southbound U.S. 9 between Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) and Roosevelt Road (CR 623) 11. Northbound/Southbound U.S. 9 between Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) and Beesley’s Point Bridge
Basic Freeway Segments 12. Northbound/Southbound GSP between Interchange 20 and Interchange 25 13. Northbound/Southbound GSP between Interchange 25 and milepost 27.0 14. Northbound/Southbound GSP between milepost 27.0 and the Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 23
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Somers Point City, Atlantic County
Signalized Intersection 15. U.S. 9 and Mays Landing Road (CR 559)
Two-Lane Highway Section 16. Northbound/Southbound U.S. 9 between GSP Interchange 29 and Mays Landing Road (CR 559).
Basic Freeway Segments 17. Northbound/Southbound GSP between Interchange 30 and Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza.
Ocean City, Cape May County
Signalized Intersections 18. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 34th Street (CR 623) 19. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 9th Street 20. Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 10th Street (summer only) 21. 34th Street (CR 623) and West Avenue (summer only)
Unsignalized Intersection
22 Bay Avenue (CR 656) and 35th Street (summer only) 23 West Avenue and 35th Street (summer only)
2.3.3.3 Results
The results of the analysis performed for the 23 critical locations within the U.S. 9, GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard, and Bay Avenue study corridors are summarized in the following sections. Two signalized and two unsignalized intersections studied in the Bay Avenue corridor were only analyzed during the peak summer Saturday period.
Signalized Locations
The ten (10) signalized intersections were analyzed for daily peak period operating conditions using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. Traffic volumes, intersection geometry (i.e. lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.), and bus stop activity data were used in the analysis. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2002/2003 summer Saturday and the 2002 fall/2003 spring weekday off-peak hours are summarized in Figures 2-8 and 2-9, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The majority of signalized intersections operate at a level of service (LOS) “D” or better during the summer Saturday peak period with the exception of the following:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 25
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Road (CR 623) The intersection operates at overall LOS “D”. Specific movements that operate at poor LOS are:
• Eastbound approach (through) operates at a LOS “E”. • Westbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”. • Northbound approach (right turn) operates at a LOS “E”.
U.S. 9 and Mays Landing Road (CR 559) The intersection operates at LOS “F”. Specific movements that operate at poor LOS are:
• Eastbound approach (left, through and right turn) operates at a LOS “F”. • Westbound approach (left, through and right turn) operates at a LOS “F”. • Northbound approach (left, through and right turn) operates at a LOS “E”.
Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623)/GSP Exit 25 SB off-ramp/Vernon Rd. The intersection operates at LOS “C”, however, the southbound left turn movement operates at a LOS “E”.
Bay Avenue/34th Street The intersection operates at LOS “D”. Specific movements that operate at poor LOS are:
• Eastbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “F”. • Westbound approach (left turn and through) operates at a LOS “E”. • Northbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”.
Bay Avenue/9th Street The intersection operates at LOS “D”. Specific movements that operate at poor LOS are:
• Eastbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”. • Northbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “F”.
During the existing weekday off-peak (fall/spring) period, the following two (2) intersections operate at poor levels of service:
U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) The intersection operates at LOS “F” during the AM peak period LOS “D” during the PM peak period. The following movements operate at poor levels of service:
• Eastbound approach (through) movement operates at a LOS “E” during the AM and PM peak period.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 28 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Westbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E” during the PM peak period. • Northbound approach (right turn) operates at a LOS “F” and “E” during the AM and PM peak period, respectively.
U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) The intersection operates at overall LOS “C” in the AM peak period while the eastbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “F” in the AM peak period.
Unsignalized Locations
Unsignalized intersection analysis was performed for three (3) daily peak period operating conditions using the HCS, version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. Traffic volumes and intersection geometry (i.e. lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.) data were used in the analysis. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2002/2003 summer Saturday and the 2002 fall/2003 spring weekday off-peak hours are summarized in Figures 2-8 and 2-9, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
All of the unsignalized intersections operate at an acceptable LOS during the existing summer Saturday and weekday off-peak (fall/spring) peak periods with the exception of the 35th Street/West Avenue intersection. The westbound approach of this intersection operates at LOS “F” during the summer Saturday peak hour.
Two-Lane Highway Sections
Six (6) two-lane sections on U.S. 9 were analyzed for peak period operating conditions using the HCS, version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. All other sections did not qualify because of the presence of bottlenecks, numerous conflict points, and close proximity of major intersections. The results of the capacity analyses for the existing summer Saturday and weekday off-peak periods are summarized in Figures 2-8 and 2-9, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following U.S. 9 two-lane highway sections operate at poor levels of service for the summer peak period:
Between Route 50 and Wright Lane This section of roadway operates at a LOS “E” during the summer peak period.
Between Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) This section of roadway operates at a LOS “E” during the summer peak period.
Between Mays Landing Road (CR 559) and GSP NB off-ramp This section of roadway operates at a LOS “E” during the summer peak period.
The following U.S. 9 two-lane highway section operates at a poor level of service for the fall peak period:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 29 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Between Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) This section of roadway operates at a LOS “E” during the AM and PM peak period.
Basic Freeway Segments
Four (4) Basic Freeway Segments for the GSP were analyzed for peak period operating conditions using the HCS, version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. The results of the capacity analyses for the existing summer Saturday and weekday off-peak periods are summarized in Figures 2-8 and 2-9, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following GSP Basic Freeway Segment operates at a poor level of service for the summer peak period:
Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza This section of roadway operates at a LOS “F” in the northbound and southbound directions during the summer peak period.
The following GSP Basic Freeway Segment operates at a poor level of service for the fall peak period:
Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza This section of roadway operates at a LOS “F” in the northbound and southbound directions during the AM and PM peak period.
2.3.4 Field Observations
Backups at these intersections often do occur, especially during the peak summer weekends. Some specific problems observed during field visits to the corridor include:
• Difficulty of left-turning traffic to access the left-turning lane on northbound U.S. 9 due to vehicle queuing at the intersection with Route 52; • Vehicle queuing in both directions of U.S. 9 at the intersection with Route 559 due to left-turning vehicles attempting to turn and the existence of only one lane in each direction at the intersection; • Queuing was observed for westbound left turn and northbound right turn vehicles at the U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) intersection. • Northbound vehicles on U.S. 9 had trouble passing vehicles turning onto Tuckahoe Road (CR 631)
Areas of congestion along the GSP and roadways connecting to the GSP were identified as part of the New Jersey Summer Recreational Transportation Survey, 2001 Final Report, prepared for the NJHA. These locations included:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 30 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Southbound vehicles exiting the GSP at Interchange 25 periodically backed up onto the ramp from the Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) intersection. • Traffic backed up on eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) from the Crook Horn Creek Bridge to the GSP. • Westbound vehicles entering the GSP at Interchange 30 were queued along West Laurel Drive and Route 52 to the east of the Somers Point Traffic Circle. • Southbound vehicles exiting the GSP at Interchange 30 were queued along the exit ramp and onto the southbound shoulder. • Northbound GSP vehicles experienced congestion at the merge with Interchange 30. • Moderate congestion was observed on the Beesley’s Point Bridge.
2.4 Other Transportation Modes
Alternative modes of travel to the motor vehicle have been identified within the study area. These modes include pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. The transit component was further disaggregated into rail, bus, and park-and-rides. The compatibility of the corridor roadways for use by pedestrians and bicyclists was also examined.
2.4.1 Pedestrians/Bicycles
Pedestrian activity throughout the U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard corridors is typically very light. Sidewalks are not provided on a consistent basis through these corridors. This forces some children walking to school bus stops on U.S. 9 to use the shoulders. The treatments used to facilitate pedestrian movements along specific sections and intersections vary greatly within the study corridors. It should be noted that pedestrians and bicycles are not permitted on the GSP.
Bicycle activity was observed along the U.S. 9 corridor during the summer months. Currently, no bicycle facilities are currently provided within the U.S. 9 corridor in the study area even though bicycle activity was observed. The current environment along Roosevelt Boulevard is extremely uninviting for bicyclists.
2.4.1.1 U.S. 9
At the intersection of U.S. 9 and Route 50, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and crosswalks are not provided on any of the approaches. However, pedestrian push buttons are provided on all four corners of the intersection. U.S. 9 southbound (M.P. 24.5) near Hope Corson Road (CR 671) has two inlets that are not bicycle compatible. There are no sidewalks, crosswalks or pedestrian signals at the Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection; however, there are pedestrian buttons. Generally between Route 50 and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631), curbs and sidewalks are intermittently located in this segment.
Between Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) and the Beesley’s Point Bridge, there are inconsistent sidewalks. In addition, no bicycle facilities are currently provided within this section of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. Specifically between
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 31 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), curbs and sidewalks are in poor condition and are not continuous. At the Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) intersection, there are no sidewalks on any of the intersection approaches. A crosswalk is provided on the northbound approach but not on the southbound or eastbound approaches. Pedestrian push buttons are provided for all three intersection approaches.
At the Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) intersection, crosswalks and pedestrian signals are not provided on any of the approaches. Sidewalks are only provided on the northwest side of the intersection in front of the church. Pedestrian push buttons are provided with information guiding pedestrian to cross the appropriate street. Crosswalks and sidewalks are not provided at the Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) intersection. The Beesley’s Point Bridge and U.S. 9 over Drag Channel have no shoulders or sidewalks.
Sidewalks are generally not provided between the Beesley’s Point Bridge and Route 52/West Laurel Drive. A small sidewalk is provided on the east side of the U.S. 9 bridge over the GSP. There are two inlets at M.P. 32.2 that are not bicycle compatible.
At the Mays Landing Road (CR 559) intersection, crosswalks and pedestrian signals are not provided on any of the approaches, however, pedestrian push buttons are provided. Sidewalks are not continuous through the intersection. Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided on all approaches of the Route 52/West Laurel Drive intersection.
2.4.1.2 Roosevelt Boulevard
Sidewalks are inconsistent between U.S. 9 and Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps. At the Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps intersection, crosswalks are not provided on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches. The crosswalk on the eastbound approach at this location is faded. Pedestrian buttons and signals are provided for pedestrians to cross the eastbound approach of Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623). Curbs and sidewalks are not provided or are not continuous at this intersection.
At the Northbound GSP Ramps intersection, no sidewalks are provided. There are also no pedestrian buttons or signals provided at this intersection. No sidewalks are currently provided between the Northbound GSP Ramps and the Crook Horn Creek Bridge. The Crook Horn Creek Bridge has no sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians or bicyclists. To the east of the bridge to Bay Avenue, there are no sidewalks.
2.4.1.3 Bay Avenue
At the Roosevelt Blvd/34th Street intersection, pedestrian buttons are located on the islands located at either side of the eastbound and westbound approaches. There are two crosswalks provided at the intersection. One is provided on the northbound approach crossing Bay Avenue while the other is provided on the westbound approach crossing 34th Street. The inlets provided at this intersection are bicycle compatible.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 32 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
2.4.2 Transit
Existing transit service is available within the U.S. 9/GSP study area including regional bus service within New Jersey and to New York City and Philadelphia by New Jersey Transit and private carriers. Regional commuter rail service is not provided within the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Park-and-ride lots are provided in the study area to support the existing transit services. The existing transit services provided within the study area are discussed in more detail below.
2.4.2.1 Rail Service
The Cape May Branch travels through the U.S. 9/GSP study area connecting the 54 miles between Winslow Junction (Atlantic City Line) and Cape May City. New Jersey Transit owns the right-of-way and track for the Cape May Branch but does not provide any passenger service. Between Winslow Junction and Tuckahoe, an easement has been retained to provide freight service by the shared assets operations of CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railroad Company. In 1999, the Cape May Seashore Lines, Inc. entered into a 30-year lease agreement with New Jersey Transit to provide the sole and exclusive right to operate both excursion passenger and as needed common freight service. The agreement covers 29 miles from Tuckahoe to Cape May City along the Cape May Branch and the 2.6 miles of the Cape May Point Branch. Currently, regularly scheduled excursion service operates between just north of Cape May County Court House (4-H Fairgrounds Station) and Cape May City. Groups can arrange charter train service with trip times and destinations tailored to their interests or needs.
At Tuckahoe, a spur track (Ocean City Branch) owned by New Jersey Transit was used in the past to provide passenger service to Ocean City. However, only the right-of-way and the remnants of the tracks remain along the eastern portion of the Ocean City Branch from Petersburg to Ocean City. An easement is provided on the active portion of the Ocean City Branch located between Tuckahoe and Petersburg to allow freight service to be conducted by the shared assets operations of CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railroad Company. The original grade crossing of the Ocean City Branch that was located on U.S. 9 just to the south of the Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) intersection has been removed. Separate bridges remain along northbound and southbound GSP that cross the Ocean City Branch right-of-way.
Also within the U.S. 9/GSP study area is the three mile Beesley’s Point Branch that connects the Ocean City Branch at Petersburg with the Atlantic Electric power plant located on Great Egg Harbor in Beesley’s Point. The main purpose of the freight operations on this track is to supply the power plant with coal.
2.4.2.2 Bus Service
New Jersey Transit does not operate revenue or closed-door passenger bus service on U.S. 9 between Route 50 (MP 23.1) and Route 52 (MP 33.3). Within this area, New Jersey Transit bus service operates along the GSP, directly serving Ocean City.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 33 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
On the GSP between mileposts 20 and 30, New Jersey Transit bus service is provided by Bus Route 319 (closed-door express New York to Atlantic City to Wildwood), between Roosevelt Boulevard (Interchange 25) and Interchange 20, throughout the year. Bus Route 319 serves Wildwood, Ocean City, Atlantic City, Toms River, Newark, Jersey City, and New York. During the summer, New Jersey Transit provides limited weekend express trips along the GSP (express service to/from Wildwood). New Jersey Transit also provides bus service on the Bus Route 552 Cape May to Atlantic City, (serving Cape May, North Cape May Villas, Rio Grande, North Wildwood, Cape May Court House, Burdette-Tomlin Hospital, Ocean View (Park & Ride), Casino Employee Park/Ride Lot, and Atlantic City). Service on Bus Route 552 is provided year-round along this stretch of the GSP on all trips. Also, during the summer season only, New Jersey Transit operates Bus Route 316 from Philadelphia to Wildwood to Cape May. Express service is provided along the GSP for this stretch on all trips with several trips traveling the full distance between Interchanges 20 and 30 and some trips traveling between Roosevelt Boulevard (Interchange 25) and Interchange 20.
New Jersey Transit offers limited bus service on Roosevelt Boulevard between U.S. 9 in Upper Township and Bay Avenue in Ocean City. Bus Route 551 (Philadelphia-Atlantic City-Ocean City) offers one weekday round-trip between Ocean City and Philadelphia including the GSP park-and-ride at Interchange 25 and along Roosevelt Boulevard in Ocean City. Bus Route 316 serves Roosevelt Boulevard between West Avenue and the GSP on selected trips (those serving Ocean City) during the summer season only. Bus Route 319 operates limited year-round service on Roosevelt Boulevard between West Avenue and the GSP on trips serving Ocean City.
There are many school bus stops located along U.S. 9 within Upper Township.
2.4.3 Park-and-Ride
Existing official and unofficial park-and-ride locations were identified in the "Park & Ride Locator," as provided on New Jersey Transit’s website and the NJDOT website. The following official park-and-ride locations are located within the U.S. 9/GSP study area municipalities:
GSP Southbound, Exit 25 (connection available to Bus Route 551) – located in Upper Township, adjacent to the GSP at the corner of Roosevelt Boulevard and Vernon Road. Activity at this Park-and-Ride lot was minimal and the lot was not filled to capacity.
Ocean City Transportation Park Ride (connection available to Bus Routes 319, 507, 509, 551, and 316 [seasonal]) – located in Ocean City, at 10th Street & Haven Avenue.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 34 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
2.5 Physical Conditions
This analysis was primarily conducted utilizing information provided by NJDOT’s Management Systems data for safety, pavement, drainage, and structures. Field visits to the U.S. 9/GSP corridor were also conducted in order to supplement the Management System data. Obvious or visible deficiencies with regard to safety, pavement, drainage, and structures were identified. In addition, deficiencies pertaining to roadway signage, areas of flooding, and geometrics were documented.
2.5.1 NJDOT Management Systems
2.5.1.1 Safety
Available traffic accident statistics were obtained for the 3-year period from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2000 from the computerized files of the NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs for U.S.9, Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), and Bay Avenue (CR 656). For the GSP, accident statistics were obtained for the 3-year period from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2001 from the NJHA traffic accident database. Accidents are generally classified into two categories: “reportable” and “non- reportable”. An accident is considered non-reportable if there was no personal injury, no motorist accident report was filed, or the amount of vehicular damage did not exceed $500. These accidents do not appear in the accident summaries prepared by NJDOT. Reportable accidents are classified as either fatal, injury, or property damage.
The reportable accidents measured at or between intersections for the 3-year period were further disaggregated into individual segments along the U.S. 9, GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), and Bay Avenue (CR 656) study corridors using the NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs data and for the GSP study corridor using NJHA data. Accident rates per million-vehicle miles (MVM) were calculated for each of these segments based upon the following formula:
Rate per MVM = Number of Accidents/Year x 1,000,000 Section Length (mile) x AADT Volume x 365
Statewide accident rates for Interstate, U.S., and New Jersey numbered roadways under NJDOT jurisdiction for the year 2000 were obtained from the NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs. The statewide accident rates per MVM were calculated for all reported mainline accidents occurring at or between intersections. The statewide accident rates for the following cross section characteristics are as follows:
Cross Section Geometry Statewide Accident Rate 2 lanes with shoulder 2.68 accidents/MVM 2 lanes with no shoulder 4.62 accidents/MVM 3 lanes with or without shoulder 6.55 accidents/MVM
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 35 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
4 or more lanes, no median, with shoulder 5.26 accidents/MVM 4 or more lanes, barrier median, with no shoulder 4.35 accidents/MVM 4 or more lanes, grass median, with shoulder 1.73 accidents/MVM 4 or more lanes, grass median, with no shoulder 4.41 accidents/MVM
Accident information for each of the study area segments is summarized on Tables 2-7 through 2-10 for U.S. 9, GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), and Bay Avenue (CR 656), respectively, for the following data: start and end mileposts, accident rates (based upon 1998 through 2000 data), cross section geometry, and year 2000 statewide accident rate. The accident rates computed for the study area segments were compared with the statewide accident rates to determine the relative severity of accident occurrences at these locations. The results of the comparison are graphically depicted in Figure 2-10.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 36 Figure 2-10 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-7 ACCIDENT RATES U.S. 9 CORRIDOR U.S. 9 SEGMENTS ACCIDENT 2000 NEAREST CROSS-STREETS/ START END RATE* CROSS SECTION GEOMETRY STATEWIDE INTERSECTIONS MILEPOST MILEPOST (1998-2000) LANES MEDIAN SHOULDER RATE* Corson Tavern Road (CR 628) 23.54 23.63 3.69 4 Grass No 4.41 Route 50/GSP Ramp 23.63 23.83 12.74 4 Grass No 4.41 N/A 23.83 23.97 2.02 4 Grass No 4.41 Pastime Place/Stagecoach Road 23.97 24.17 0.47 2 None No 4.62 Katharine Avenue 24.17 24.37 1.89 2 None No 4.62 E. Katharine Avenue/Erica Avenue/Island View Terrace 24.37 24.57 1.42 2 None No 4.62 Hope Corson Road (CR 671) 24.57 24.77 0.47 2 None No 4.62 Crestview Drive/Ortlieb Lane 24.77 24.97 0.47 2 None No 4.62 Harriet Lane/Unnamed Road 24.97 25.17 0.00 2 None No 4.62 Elizabeth Lane/Evergreen Drive/Schuler Terrace 25.17 25.37 2.36 2 None No 4.62 Unnamed Road 25.37 25.57 2.36 2 None No 4.62 Nadine Boulevard 25.57 25.77 3.77 2 None No 4.62 N/A 25.77 25.97 2.83 2 None No 4.62 Stephen Drive 25.97 26.17 2.83 2 None No 4.62 Harrys Court/Butter Road (CR 637) 26.17 26.37 3.30 2 None No 4.62 White Oak Drive 26.37 26.57 1.42 2 None No 4.62 Klains Lane/Seasound Avenue 26.57 26.77 1.42 2 None No 4.62 Bayview Avenue/Seaside Avenue/Pacific Avenue/Ocean Avenue 26.77 27.04 3.14 2 None No 4.62 Dolores Avenue/Ross Boulevard 27.04 27.24 2.83 2 None Yes 2.68 Timber Drive/Hilltop Drive 27.24 27.44 0.94 2 None Yes 2.68 Church Road (CR 602) 27.44 27.64 5.66 2 None Yes 2.68 N/A 27.64 27.84 2.36 2 None Yes 2.68 N/A 27.84 28.04 3.30 2 None Yes 2.68 N/A 28.04 28.24 3.77 2 None Yes 2.68 N/A 28.24 28.53 6.83 2 None Yes 2.68 Tuckahoe Road (CR 631)/Roberts Avenue 28.53 28.77 6.16 2 None Yes 2.68 Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623) 28.77 28.83 18.47 2 None Yes 2.68 Wistar Avenue/St. Martin's Place 28.83 29.03 1.23 2 None Yes 2.68 St. Andrews Place/Randolph Boulevard/St. George Place/Holly Berry Lane 29.03 29.15 1.03 2 None Yes 2.68 Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662)/ Redwish Avenue/Bayaire Road/Teal Lane 29.15 29.35 3.89 2 None Yes 2.68 Gardners Lane/Lenape Lane/Seaview Avenue/Margate Avenue 29.35 29.55 0.97 2 None Yes 2.68 Ventnor Avenue/Golden Oak Lane 29.55 29.73 5.40 2 None Yes 2.68
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 38 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-7 (Continued) ACCIDENT RATES U.S. 9 CORRIDOR U.S. 9 SEGMENTS ACCIDENT 2000 NEAREST CROSS-STREETS/ START END RATE* CROSS SECTION GEOMETRY STATEWIDE INTERSECTIONS MILEPOST MILEPOST (1998-2000) LANES MEDIAN SHOULDER RATE* Hollywood Lane/Mapleshade Lane/Wilkie Boulevard 29.73 29.93 1.94 2 None Yes 2.68 Youngs Lane/Heritage Drive/Highland Avenue/Point Pleasant Avenue 29.93 30.13 0.00 2 None Yes 2.68 Beesley’s Place/Staples Court 30.13 30.33 1.94 2 None Yes 2.68 South Drive/Walton Avenue/North Drive/Harding Avenue/Clay Avenue 30.33 30.61 2.78 2 None Yes 2.68 Harbor Road 30.61 31.84 1.77 2 None No 4.62 N/A 31.84 31.89 1.23 2 None No 4.62 N/A 31.89 32.09 0.31 2 None No 4.62 N/A 32.09 32.20 0.00 2 None No 4.62 Garden State Parkway 32.20 32.40 1.23 2 None Yes 2.68 Atkinson Avenue/Chestnut Avenue 32.40 32.60 4.00 2 None Yes 2.68 Mays Landing Road (CR 559) 32.60 32.80 2.46 2 None Yes 2.68 Village Drive/Village Drive North 32.80 33.09 0.85 2 None Yes 2.68 N/A 33.09 33.10 0.00 4 Grass No 4.41 Holly Hill Road/Laurel Drive/Route 52 33.10 33.27 11.52 4 Grass No 4.41 Source: NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs (2002) Notes :(*): Accident rates are measured in million vehicle miles traveled. (N/A): No intersections within this segment. Shaded areas represent U.S. 9 segments that exceed the 2000 statewide accident rates for Interstate, US, and New Jersey numbered roadways under NJDOT jurisdiction.
The accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways at the following locations:
• Route 50 intersection • Segment in the vicinity of Church Road • Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) intersection. • Segment from Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) • Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) intersection. • In the vicinity of Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) intersection. • In the vicinity of Ventnor Avenue to the north of the curve in the road • Atkinson Avenue/Chestnut Avenue intersections • Route 52/West Laurel Drive intersection
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 39 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-8 ACCIDENT RATES GARDEN STATE PARKWAY CORRIDOR ACCIDENT GSP SEGMENTS RATES* 2000 NEAREST CROSS-STREETS/ START END (1999-2001) CROSS SECTION GEOMETRY STATEWIDE INTERCHANGES MILEPOST MILEPOST NORTH SOUTH LANES MEDIAN SHOULDER RATE* Interchange 20 20.2 20.5 0.00 0.89 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 20.5 21.0 0.14 0.00 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 21.0 21.5 0.28 0.13 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 21.5 22.0 0.14 0.93 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 22.0 22.5 0.14 0.93 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 22.5 23.0 0.69 0.27 4 Grass Yes 1.73 Penn Reading Seashore Railroad 23.0 23.5 0.69 0.67 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 23.5 24.0 0.55 0.53 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 24.0 24.5 0.14 0.13 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 24.5 25.0 0.69 0.27 4 Grass Yes 1.73 Interchange 25 25.0 25.5 0.47 0.30 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 25.5 26.0 0.48 0.48 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 26.0 26.5 0.67 1.06 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 26.5 27.0 0.38 0.19 4 Grass Yes 1.73 N/A 27.0 27.4 0.60 0.24 4 Grass Yes 1.73 Harbor Road 27.4 27.7 1.28 0.48 4 Barrier No 4.35 Great Egg Harbor Bay 27.7 28.1 0.84 0.60 4 Barrier No 4.35 Drag Harbor 28.1 28.5 0.24 0.36 4 None Yes 5.26 Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza 28.5 28.9 1.32 3.01 4 None Yes 5.26 U.S. 9 28.9 29.3 0.47 1.37 4 Grass Yes 1.73 Mays Landing Road 29.3 29.8 0.25 0.85 4 Grass Yes 1.73 Interchange 30 29.8 30.2 1.26 0.46 4 Grass Yes 1.73 Source: NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs (2002) Notes :(*): Accident rates are measured in million vehicle miles traveled. (N/A): No interchanges within this segment. Shaded areas represent GSP segments that exceed the 2000 statewide accident rates for Interstate, US, and New Jersey numbered roadways under NJDOT jurisdiction.
There are no segments of the northbound or southbound GSP that have an accident rate that is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 40 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-9 ACCIDENT RATES ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (C.R. 623) CORRIDOR C.R. 623 SEGMENTS ACCIDENT 2000 NEAREST CROSS-STREETS/ START END RATE* CROSS SECTION GEOMETRY STATEWIDE INTERSECTIONS MILEPOST MILEPOST (1999-2001) LANES MEDIAN SHOULDER RATE* U.S. 9/Allendale Road/Norwood Road/Lyndhurst Road/Stanhope Road 0.00 0.21 6.56 4 None Yes 5.26 Vernon Road/Garden State Parkway Ramp 0.21 0.41 7.57 4 None Yes 5.26 N/A 0.41 0.61 2.10 3 None No 6.55 N/A 0.61 0.81 0.70 3 None No 6.55 N/A 0.81 1.01 0.70 3 None No 6.55 N/A 1.01 1.21 0.35 2 None No 4.62 N/A 1.21 1.41 0.00 2 None No 4.62 Waterview Road 1.41 1.61 1.75 2 None Yes 2.68 Westminster Lane 1.61 1.81 1.40 4 None Yes 5.26 Bay Avenue 1.81 2.05 4.95 4 None Yes 5.26 Source: NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs (2002) Notes :(*): Accident rates are measured in million vehicle miles traveled. (N/A): No intersections within this segment. Shaded areas represent C.R. 623 segments that exceed the 2000 statewide accident rates for Interstate, US, and New Jersey numbered roadways under NJDOT jurisdiction.
The accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways at the following locations:
• Segment from U.S. 9 to Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps • Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps intersection • Northbound GSP Ramps intersection
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 41 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-10 ACCIDENT RATES BAY AVENUE (C.R. 656) CORRIDOR C.R. 656 SEGMENTS ACCIDENT 2000 NEAREST CROSS-STREETS/ START END RATE* CROSS SECTION GEOMETRY STATEWIDE INTERSECTIONS MILEPOST MILEPOST (1999-2001) LANES MEDIAN SHOULDER RATE* 35th Street/34th Street (CR 623) - 0.00 3.34 2 None No 4.62 33rd Street 0.00 0.20 1.20 2 None No 4.62 Waterway Road/32nd Street 0.20 0.33 0.62 2 None No 4.62 31st Street/30th Street/29th Street 0.33 0.60 0.89 2 None Yes 2.68 28th Street/Vineyard Way 0.60 0.80 0.80 2 None Yes 2.68 26th Street 0.80 1.00 0.00 2 None Yes 2.68 25th Street/24th Street 1.00 1.20 1.20 2 None No 4.62 23rd Street/Tennessee Avenue/22nd Street 1.20 1.40 1.20 2 None No 4.62 21st Street/Pine Road/20th Street/Walnut Road 1.40 1.60 3.20 2 None No 4.62 Arkansas Avenue/Michigan Avenue/18th Street 1.60 1.80 3.60 2 None No 4.62 17th Street/16th Street/Bayonne Place 1.80 2.00 1.60 2 None No 4.62 Sunset Avenue/15th Street/Bayview Place/14th Street 2.00 2.20 2.80 2 None No 4.62 Marine Place/13th Street/12th Street 2.20 2.40 0.80 2 None No 4.62 11th Street/Walton Place/10th Street 2.40 2.60 3.20 2 None No 4.62 9th Street/Revere Place/8th Street 2.60 2.81 8.01 2 None No 4.62 Source: NJDOT Bureau of Accident Records and Safety Programs (2002) Notes :(*): Accident rates are measured in million vehicle miles traveled. (N/A): No intersections within this segment. Shaded areas represent C.R. 656 segments that exceed the 2000 statewide accident rates for Interstate, US, and New Jersey numbered roadways under NJDOT jurisdiction.
The accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways for the segment containing the 9th Street, Revere Place, and 8th Street intersections.
2.5.1.2 Pavement
The primary criteria used by NJDOT to evaluate pavement condition are the Ride Quality Index (RQI) and Surface Distress Index (SDI). The RQI describes comfort level by measuring roadway roughness. As part of the SDI, data pertaining to the severity of surface distress such as cracking, patching, shoulder condition, shoulder drop, faulting, and joints is compiled and measured. The scale for each of these indices is measured from 5 (absolute best) to 0 (absolute worst). The Final Pavement Rating (FPR) is calculated using both the RQI and SDI scores for each segment. The ratings for U.S.9 and the GSP were calculated separately for each direction of travel. If either score is below 2.0, the lowest ranking is used for the FPR. If the lowest score is between 2.0 and 2.5, then 75% of the lower score and 25% of the higher score are used to calculate the
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 42 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
FPR. If both scores exceed 2.5, then the RQI and SDI are averaged to calculate the FPR. If the FPR is less than 3.0 for at least 6/10 mile, then a resurfacing project may be initiated. In addition, in cases where the rut depth of the pavement is less than 0.5 inches, a resurfacing project may also be initiated. However, resurfacing projects based solely on rut depth are given the lowest priority.
Automatic Road Analyzer (ARAN) testing of the pavement was conducted by NJDOT in both directions along the U.S. 9 study corridor in 2001 and along the GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), and Bay Avenue (CR 656) study corridors in 1998. The results of the ARAN testing are summarized in the NJDOT Pavement Management System. Based upon the FPR for each segment, the pavement was rated as either very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor. There are some segments along U.S. 9 in the vicinity of the Beesley’s Point Bridge where pavement data were not available. The results of the pavement testing for each of these roadways are graphically depicted in Figure 2-11. Test results of the individual segments are provided in Appendix D. Although the pavement ratings are provided as a result of ARAN testing along each of the study corridors, isolated locations were identified as problem areas based upon visual inspection and public input.
U.S. 9
Generally, the pavement on U.S. 9 in the study area was rated as good. However, two sections were rated as poor as a result of the ARAN testing in 2001. These sections were identified from Edward Creek to Roosevelt Boulevard (M.P. 27.2 to 28.8) and from Chestnut Avenue to Route 52 (M.P. 32.4 to 33.2). In response, NJDOT repaved U.S. 9 from just south of Edward Creek to just north of Roosevelt Boulevard (approximately 2 miles) and from Chestnut Avenue to Route 52 (approximately 0.8 mile) in the fall of 2002. This effort has significantly improved the FPR within these sections. Pavement ratings were not identified on the Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.7 to 31.5) since this structure is in private ownership.
Some localized areas along the U.S.9 corridor within the study areas have been identified in poor condition based upon field visits. The pavement at Youngs Lane (M.P. 29.97) was considered poor in the field. Further to the north, the pavement on the Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.7 - M.P. 31.9) was in very poor shape. In Somers Point, the shoulders are generally in poor condition with an uneven surface and eroding between M.P. 32.3 to 32.6. The inlet nearest the State Police Driveway is not even with the pavement (M.P.32.3). Pavement is fair to poor on the Mays Landing Road (CR 559) approaches at the intersection with U.S.9. Between Mays Landing Road and Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 – 33.23), the shoulders are of variable widths and condition. The shoulders are nonexistent at the curve in the road (M.P. 33.1).
Garden State Parkway
The pavement on the GSP in the study area was generally rated as good. However, the southbound section identified from M.P. 30.4 to 28.8 (between Interchanges 29 and 30)
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 43 Figure 2-11 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
were rated as poor as a result of the ARAN testing in 1998. In terms of visual inspection, the pavement at the end of the southbound off-ramp at Interchange 25 is poor at the intersection of Wistar Avenue. Poor pavement was also identified on the Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.4 - 28.6).
Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
The pavement along Roosevelt Boulevard was generally rated as good by the ARAN testing. At the Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23) intersection, the pavement was observed to be uneven on the southbound approach.
Bay Avenue (CR 656)
As a result of the ARAN testing in 1998, the overall Bay Avenue pavement in the study area was rated as fair. The pavement on the northbound approach of the 34th Street intersection was observed to be in poor condition. Similarly, the pavement at the 16th Street intersection was also observed to be in poor condition.
2.5.1.3 Drainage/Flooding
The NJDOT Drainage Management System (2001) is comprised of 168 statewide drainage projects ranked in order of priority for funding. According to the database, there are no drainage projects identified within the U.S. 9, GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), or Bay Avenue (CR 656) corridors.
In general, storm drains on U.S. 9, GSP, and C.R. 623 adequately accommodate rain water from storm events. Information pertaining to specific local areas within the U.S. 9/GSP study area prone to flooding was gathered from various sources including field investigations, area municipalities, local police, Cape May County, Atlantic County, NJDOT, and public input.
U.S. 9
Along U.S. 9, storm water collects along properties and driveways in the vicinity of M.P. 26. At the U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) intersection, drainage is poor and curbs are inconsistent. Between Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) and Roosevelt Boulevard (M.P. 28.6 – 28.8), significant flooding was documented at the intersection of Pine Road and along most of the driveways and shoulders in this segment due to poor drainage (inconsistent curbs and inlets). During storms, it was observed that water collects within the right turn lane of the eastbound approach of the U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard intersection. Standing water was observed at the intersections and shoulders between mileposts 29.0 – 29.2 to the north of Roosevelt Boulevard. Between the GSP and Mays Landing Road (M.P. 32. 0– 32.65), the inlet nearest the State Police Driveway is not even with the pavement, causing storm water to runoff and flow down the driveway. The travel lanes in this section drain well, but the shoulders collect water. Drainage is poor on the west
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 45 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
side of U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Chestnut Street because water has no direct path to the drainage ditch to the west of the road. To the east of U.S. 9 on Mays Landing Road (CR 559), tidal flooding occurs during certain high tide periods.
Garden State Parkway
No drainage issues were identified on the GSP within the study area.
Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
Along Roosevelt Boulevard, water drains poorly at the Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps intersection. Roosevelt Boulevard floods east of the GSP during periods of extreme high tides.
Bay Avenue (CR 656)
No drainage issues were identified on Bay Avenue within the study area.
2.5.1.4 Structures
Structures are rated by NJDOT primarily based upon a sufficiency rating derived from formulas that evaluate superstructure, substructure, culverts, and inventory rating evaluation data. The scale for a sufficiency rating is measured from 100.0% (absolute best) to 0.0% (absolute worst). Based upon the sufficiency rating, each structure is recommended for one of three courses of action (normal maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement). A sufficiency rating over 80 indicates that a structure is sound and requires only normal maintenance. Rehabilitation is recommended for a structure when the sufficiency rating is less than 80 but higher than 50. The degree of rehabilitation can vary depending upon whether the structure is identified by NJDOT as either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. A structurally deficient rating indicates structural integrity problems that can be remedied through rehabilitation. A functionally obsolete rating indicates that an intrinsic design flaw for its existing use can be remedied through rehabilitation. A sufficiency rating of 50 or lower indicates that the structure should be replaced.
The results of the NJDOT Bridge Management System inventories for 2000/2001 were reviewed to assist in the identification of bridge and culvert locations within the study corridors and their structural integrity. In total, 21 structures were inventoried, of which eight are highway bridges, seven cross navigable bodies of water, four are culverts, and two are railroad bridges. A total of 14 of the structures are located along the Garden State Parkway corridor, six are located along the U.S. 9 corridor, and one is located along the Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) corridor. There are no structures along Bay Avenue (CR 656). Figure 2-11 displays the location and the maintenance status of each structure. A detailed summary for each structure including name, reference number, milepost, sufficiency rating, physical status (functionally obsolete or structurally deficient), and
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 46 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
recommended maintenance by NJDOT based upon the sufficiency rating is provided in Table 2-11.
In terms of the physical status of the study area structures, a total of nine (43%) are currently rated as sufficient and six (29%) are rated as functionally obsolete by NJDOT. Only two bridges within the study corridors are rated as structurally deficient (9%) by NJDOT standards. In addition to these bridges, the remaining four culverts (19%) are not rated by NJDOT. Each bridge is also evaluated by NJDOT to determine historic significance based upon its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. According to the database, none of the bridges within the study corridors are eligible.
Based upon the sufficiency ratings, NJDOT has recommended varying degrees of maintenance for each bridge evaluated. A total of nine have been recommended for normal maintenance and three have been recommended for rehabilitation. The five most deteriorated of these structures, recommended for replacement by NJDOT based upon the results of the sufficiency ratings, are located at:
• U.S. 9 over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) (M.P. 31.15) • U.S. 9 over GSP (M.P. 32.22) • Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623) over Crook Horn Creek (M.P. 1.32) • GSP northbound over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Rd. (M.P. 27.77) • GSP southbound over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Rd. (M.P. 27.77)
Information pertaining to specific structures within the U.S. 9/GSP study area was gathered from field investigations and public input.
U.S. 9
U.S. 9 over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) and the U.S. 9 Over Drag Channel are privately owned by the Beesley’s Point Bridge Company. Tolls are collected from vehicles traveling in each direction at a single booth located on the Beesley’s Point Bridge. The toll was increased in 2003 from $0.50 to $0.60 to cover increasing maintenance costs. There are no shoulders or sidewalks on the Beesley’s Point Bridge or the U.S. 9 Bridge over Drag Channel. The height of the Beesley’s Point Bridge from the bay is minimal, prompting the drawbridge to open 8 to 10 times per day during peak summer season. The U.S. 9 Bridge over Drag Channel has a sufficiency rating just exceeding the threshold for replacement based upon the NJDOT Bridge Management System. Although replacement is not recommended at this time, the bridge requires rehabilitation.
No shoulders are provided at the culvert located on U.S. 9 at milepost 24.17. A small sidewalk is provided on the east side of the U.S.9 Bridge over the GSP.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 47 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 2-11 BRIDGE INVENTORY DATA U.S. 9/GARDEN STATE PARKWAY STUDY AREA STRUCTURE MILE SUFFICIENCY PHYSICAL RECOMMENDED ROUTE NUMBER NAME POST RATING STATUS MAINTENANCE U.S. 9 N/A N/A 24.17 Info. Not Available - Culvert < 20 Feet U.S. 9 N/A U.S. 9 Over Edward Creek 27.17 Info. Not Available - Culvert < 20 Feet U.S. 9 N/A U.S. 9 Over Run Creek 28.05 Info. Not Available - Culvert < 20 Feet U.S. 9 3900001 U.S. 9 Over Great Egg Harbor 31.15 43.2 Functionally Replacement (Beesley’s Point Bridge) Obsolete U.S. 9 3900002 U.S. 9 Over Drag Channel 31.79 50.9 Neither Rehabilitation U.S. 9 36028.95 U.S. 9 Over GSP 32.22 31.8 Functionally Replacement Obsolete GSP 360202S GSP SB Over Exit 20 Ramp to Route 20.25 97.7 Neither Normal 50 GSP 360231N GSP NB Over Penn Reading Seashore 23.10 94.8 Functionally Normal RR Obsolete GSP 360231S GSP SB Over Penn Reading Seashore 23.10 94.8 Functionally Normal RR Obsolete GSP 360253N GSP NB Over Roosevelt Blvd (CR 25.34 97.2 Neither Normal 623) GSP 360254S GSP SB Over Roosevelt Blvd (CR 25.34 97.2 Neither Normal 623) GSP 360280N GSP NB Over Great Egg Harbor & 27.77 13.5 Structurally Replacement Harbor Rd. Deficient GSP 360280S GSP SB Over Great Egg Harbor & 27.77 30.5 Structurally Replacement Harbor Rd. Deficient GSP 360285N GSP NB Over Drag Channel 28.48 66.9 Functionally Rehabilitation Obsolete GSP 360285S GSP SB Over Drag Channel 28.48 65.9 Functionally Rehabilitation Obsolete GSP 360293N GSP NB Over Mays Landing Rd. (CR 29.30 99.0 Neither Normal 559) GSP 360294S GSP SB Over Mays Landing Rd. (CR 29.30 99.0 Neither Normal 559) GSP 360300N Exit 30 Ramp Over GSP NB 30.00 91.1 Neither Normal GSP 360300S Exit 30 Ramp Over GSP SB 30.00 91.1 Neither Normal GSP N/A GSP Over Mill Creek 30.34 Info. Not Available - Culvert < 20 Feet CR 623 0500004 Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623) Over Crook 1.32 48.7 Neither Replacement Horn Creek Source: NJDOT Bridge Management System (2002) NOTE: (NA) – Data Not Available
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 48 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
No curbs or sidewalks are currently provided on the Crook Horn Creek Bridge. Sharp curves are located at two locations on this bridge (M.P. 1.2 and M.P. 1.4).
Bay Avenue
There are no structures located on Bay Avenue within the study area.
2.5.2 Other
2.5.2.1 Signage
There are generally three types of signage (regulatory, warning, and guide) found within the U.S 9/GSP study area. Regulatory signs inform drivers of specific traffic laws that apply at a given time or place. These signs include the white speed signs designating the speed limit. Warning signs alert drivers of unexpected conditions within a short distance ahead on a roadway. These signs are generally yellow in color (except for construction and maintenance) and most are “diamond” shaped including “Curve” signs placed before horizontal curves, “Winding Road Signs” and “Advisory Speed Plate” signs before curves and “Bridge Freezes before Road Surface Sign” placed before bridges, “Slippery When Wet Sign”, and “Merge Sign”.
Generally, the regulatory, warning, and guide signs appear to be adequate within the U.S 9/GSP study area with some exceptions. Information pertaining to specific locations within the U.S. 9/GSP study area was gathered from field investigations and public input.
U.S. 9
Signage at Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) is partially covered by trees and bushes. The Heritage Links Golf Course has poor signage at M.P. 25.9 on U.S. 9. Advanced signage for Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) intersection is poor for the northbound approach. Signage identifying lane utilization is lacking on the westbound approach at the Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) intersection. The advanced signage for the Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) intersection is poor. Billboards are located on the railing of the Beesley’s Point Bridge. Trees/bushes cover some signage on the curve (M.P. 33.1) between Mays Landing Road and Route 52/Laurel Drive.
Garden State Parkway
Signage at Interchange 25 for the southbound off-ramp is not consistent with signage at other locations on the GSP. Usually, the local community is posted on the top of the sign which is not the case at this location. This creates confusion for motorists exiting at this interchange. Signage is provided on the GSP mainline north of Interchange 30 indicating upcoming Ocean City access points.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 49 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
Directional signage is deficient prior to the Vernon Road/Roosevelt Boulevard intersection in the southbound direction. The current sign is located across Roosevelt Boulevard on the opposite side (south) of the intersection. This signage is difficult for southbound motorists to see. The signing deficiency does not provide vehicles proper advanced warning to queue in the appropriate lane. Errant turns from Vernon Road at this intersection force some vehicles to make U-turns on Roosevelt Boulevard in order to travel in their intended direction. The signing deficiency also creates traffic congestion at this intersection and causes traffic to back up onto the southbound off-ramp. During the peak summer months, traffic has been observed to queue onto the southbound mainline of the GSP. Center lane turn signs were not posted for the segment between M.P. 0.9 to 1.2.
Bay Avenue
No signage issues were identified on Bay Avenue within the study area.
2.5.2.2 Geometrics
Throughout the study area, U.S. 9 and GSP generally operate parallel to each another. Within most of the study area, U.S. 9 is situated to the west of the GSP. At the northern end of the study area, U.S.9 crosses to the east of the GSP immediately to the north of the Great Egg Harbor. U.S. 9 parallels to the east of the GSP for the remainder of the study area in Somers Point. Within the proposed project area, there are several opportunities to connect between the GSP and U.S. 9 at four interchange locations:
• Southbound GSP at Interchange 30 to U.S. 9 via W. Laurel Drive; • U.S. 9 to northbound GSP at Interchange 30 via W. Laurel Drive; • Direct connection from northbound GSP to northbound U.S. 9 at Interchange 29); • Direct connection from southbound U.S. 9 to southbound GSP at Interchange 29); • All movements to and from the GSP at Interchange 25 to and from U.S. 9 via Roosevelt Boulevard; • Northbound GSP at Interchange 20 to U.S. 9; and • U.S. 9 to southbound GSP at Interchange 20.
Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) connects U.S. 9 and the GSP to Ocean City. Bay Avenue is a north/south arterial in Ocean city connecting 9th Street (Route 52) and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623).
U.S. 9
U.S. 9 generally consists of one lane in each direction with variable shoulder widths, including some areas where the shoulders are wider than a typical lane width. NJDOT classifies U.S. 9 as an Urban Minor Arterial within Upper Township and as an Urban Principal Arterial in Somers Point. There are six traffic signals throughout the study
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 50 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
corridor. The number of travel lanes remains constant in each direction throughout the study corridor with the exception of one location. The travel lanes and shoulders are of variable widths throughout the corridor. The posted speed limit throughout the U.S. 9 study corridor varies between 40 and 45 mph with the exception of one location. The speed limit on the Beesley’s Point Bridge and the U.S. 9 bridge over Drag Channel is 25 mph.
At the southern end of U.S. 9, a left turn bay is provided in the northbound direction at the CR 628 (M.P. 23.56) unsignalized “T” intersection. Just to the north, is the four legged fully actuated signalized intersection at Route 50. This intersection has been recently reconstructed by NJDOT to increase capacity and improve safety. The northbound approach at the Route 50 intersection is comprised of three exclusive lanes (left, through, and right). The northbound approach has exclusive left, through, and right turn lanes. The northbound approach is separated from the southbound lanes by a raised curb. The right turn movement is separated by an island and controlled by a “YIELD” sign. The southbound approach is comprised of three lanes: exclusive through and left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. The right turn movement is separated by an island and controlled by a “YIELD” sign. On the southbound approach, right turning vehicles use part of the shoulder to make right turns on red. The southbound approach is separated from the northbound lanes by a raised curb. The two southbound lanes emanating from the Route 50 intersection merge to one travel lane south of the intersection. The eastbound approach has exclusive left, through and right turn lanes. The right turning lane is a ramp that is separated by a grass island and controlled by a “YIELD” sign. The westbound approach has exclusive left, through, and right turn lanes.
To the north of the Route 50 intersection, U.S. 9 is comprised of two-travel lanes and a center turning lane from M.P. 23.8 to 24.0. Within this section, vehicle conflicts are due to vehicle queuing on southbound U.S. 9 and the center turning lane that accommodates turning movements in and out of the Acme/Jamesway shopping center located just north of the Route 50 intersection. Left turns out of Commerce Bank onto U.S.9 are difficult for vehicles.
From Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631), shoulder widths are generally seven-feet in the southbound direction and nine-feet in the northbound direction. The terrain is generally level with slight composite grades between mileposts 24.7 – 26.2. Due to the relatively high speed of the vehicles and short passing zones, passing was difficult in the nine passing zones in this segment:
• Northbound only between Stagecoach Road and Katherine Avenue (M.P. 24.12 - M.P. 24.38) • Northbound only between CR 671 and Harriet Lane (M.P. 24.55 – 24.97) • Both directions between Harriet Lane and Evergreen Drive (M.P 24.97 – 25.30) • Southbound only between M.P. 25.5 - 25.66 • Northbound only between M.P. 26.35 – 26.5 • Southbound only between M.P. 26.5 – 26.8 • Northbound only between M.P. 27.6 – 27.7
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 51 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Both directions between M.P. 27.7 – 28.3 • Southbound only between M.P. 28.4 – 28.5
The Heritage Links Golf Course entrance is located on the horizontal curve at milepost 26.0. This location has poor sight distance (curve and trees), is poorly signed, and is poorly illuminated at night.
The Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) signalized intersection has poor sight distance on U.S. 9 due to its location on a sharp curve. In addition, no turning lanes are provided on U.S. 9 at this “T” intersection. The eastbound approach at this intersection has a “No Turn on Red” sign. The Butter Road (CR 637) intersection intersects with U.S. 9 at a sharp angle resulting in poor sight distance. There are no exclusive turning lanes provided at this unsignalized intersection. The unsignalized Church Road (CR 602) intersection has poor sight distance, no exclusive turning lanes, and has narrow lanes. Turns from Church Road to U.S. 9 are difficult to make during the peak season.
At the signalized Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) “T” intersection, one 11-foot northbound travel lane and one 17-foot southbound travel lane are provided. The eastbound approach has two lanes at the intersection (one 11-foot wide exclusive right turn lane and one-10 foot wide exclusive left turn lane). There is a two-foot wide shoulder eastbound and a five-foot wide shoulder westbound on CR 631. On the northbound approach, there is a nine-foot wide shoulder. Heavy vehicles have difficulty making southbound right turns and eastbound left and right turns due to geometric constraints (e.g. small curb radii). There is no northbound exclusive left turn lane or southbound right turn lane provided at this intersection. Vehicles traveling northbound pass on the right of vehicles making left turns by traveling on the shoulder.
The segment between Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) is a two-lane undivided roadway with 18 foot lanes and no shoulders. The terrain is level and there are no passing zones in this area. There are two unsignalized intersections in this segment. There is no delineation of driveways in some businesses. Vehicles encounter friction/conflicts as they turn into and out of business driveways. Turning lanes are not provided within this segment. Shoulders are inconsistent throughout this segment. “No Stopping or Standing” signs are posted in both directions and no on street parking is permitted.
Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623) is a four legged signalized intersection with two travel lanes provided northbound and southbound, three lanes provided eastbound and westbound, and no shoulders. In the southbound approach, there is an exclusive left turn lane and a shared through and right turn lane. In the northbound approach, there is an exclusive right turn lane and one exclusive through lane. In the eastbound and westbound approaches there are exclusive lanes for left, through, and right turning movements. The right turn lanes are separated by an island from the other movements. The westbound approach roadway alignment, striping, and lane utilization is confusing to the motorist. Signage identifying lane utilization is also lacking. The southbound left turn bay is short and can only accommodate several vehicles. The northbound approach has a “No Left
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 52 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Turn” sign, delayed green, and “No Stopping or Standing”. The eastbound approach has a stop sign at the exclusive right turn lane and a delayed green sign. The westbound approach has a stop sign at the exclusive right turn lane.
The Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) intersection is unsignalized with one travel lane in each direction. This intersection intersects with U.S. 9 at a sharp angle resulting in poor sight distance. There are no turning lanes provided at this unsignalized intersection. Vehicles traveling northbound are impeded by vehicles turning left onto CR 662 and must use the shoulder to maneuver around these vehicles.
The segment between Roosevelt Boulevard and the Beesley’s Point Bridge is a two-lane undivided roadway, with 11-foot lanes and varying shoulder widths between 9 and 16- feet. The general terrain is level with one horizontal curve on the road. Parking was permitted on the shoulders in some areas. Horizontal curves are located at two locations in this segment (M.P. 29.3 and M.P. 30.1). There were three passing zones in this segment, but due to the relatively high speed of the vehicles and short passing zones, passing was not possible. These locations include:
• Southbound only between the Beesley’s Point Bridge and Harbor Road (M.P. 30.6 – 30.8) • Both directions between Harbor Road and Harding Ave. (M.P. 30.4 – 30.6) • Northbound only between Highland Ave. and South Drive (M.P. 30.0 – 30.4)
The Beesley’s Point Bridge (toll) is a two-lane undivided drawbridge with 14-foot lanes and no shoulders. The toll booth is located on the bridge, approximately near M.P. 31.1. The U.S. 9 bridge over Drag Channel is a two-lane undivided roadway with 10-foot lanes and limited shoulders. The segment between the Beesley’s Point Bridge and Mays Landing Road is a level terrain, two-lane, undivided roadway with 11-foot travel lanes and 10-foot shoulders northbound and southbound, with the exception of the U.S. 9 bridge over the GSP, where shoulder widths decrease. Traveling southbound over this bridge, there is a grade and an exclusive right turn exit lane provided for the on-ramp to southbound GSP. An acceleration lane is provided for vehicles exiting northbound GSP (Exit 29) to northbound U.S. 9. Passing is not allowed in this segment. No curbs were provided in this segment of roadway except for the driveway at M.P. 32.5.
Mays Landing Road (CR 559) is a four legged signalized intersection with one travel lane provided in each direction. No turning lanes are provided at this intersection. Vehicles on the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches are sometimes able to maneuver around vehicles making left turns, but not on the southbound approach. Shoulder widths are minimal in three of the four approaches. The roads intersect at an angle, resulting in poor sight distance from all approaches. No stop bars are provided at this intersection. Curbs are missing in some sections, specifically on the southbound U.S. 9 approach.
The segment from Mays Landing Road to Route 52/West Laurel Drive is a two-lane, undivided roadway, with 11-foot travel lanes, and variable shoulder widths ranging from
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 53 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
0 to 10-feet. The condition of the shoulders located in this segment varies considerably. There are sharp curves located at two locations in this segment (M.P. 32.9 and M.P. 33.1). The curve at M.P. 32.9 is complicated by a change in elevation. Several streets intersect at the curve (M.P. 33.1) further reducing sight distance at this location. Most of the minor streets intersect with U.S. 9 at acute angles creating wide intersections. Passing is not allowed in this segment.
The Route 52/West Laurel Drive intersection is a four legged signalized intersection with exclusive left and through lanes and an exclusive right turn ramp on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches. The eastbound approach is comprised of three lanes: exclusive through and left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. Two eastbound lanes emanate from the West Laurel Drive onto Route 50 east of the intersection. The northbound and eastbound left turn bays are short and can only accommodate several vehicles.
Garden State Parkway
The GSP within the study area is a toll road characterized by two-limited access lanes (12-feet each) in each direction, with acceleration and deceleration lanes at interchanges. Full shoulders (10-feet) exist on the right side of each travel way. The median width and type varies by location. The majority of the study segment is unprotected grass median of varying widths. One section over Great Egg Harbor is protected/divided with a barrier and varying left shoulder width. The GSP is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial to the south and an Urban Freeway/Expressway to the north of M.P. 23.10 (GSP over Penn Reading Seashore Railroad). A total of four interchanges exist in the study area including Interchanges 20, 25, 29 and 30. One set of mainline toll booths (Great Egg Harbor) exists in both directions just south of the confluence with the Interchange 29 ramps. A set of toll booths (Somers Point) also exists at the confluence of the Interchange 30 ramps with West Laurel Drive.
Interchange 20 is located at M.P. 20.25 and does not provide ramps for all roadway connections. No access is provided from the GSP southbound to Route 50 and U.S. 9 or from Route 50 and U.S. 9 to the GSP northbound. The lack of a full interchange diverts traffic to U.S. 9. Emergency response between Seaville and the hospital in Somers Point is affected because of the missing ramps. The northbound off-ramp is left-handed with a short deceleration lane and a sharp curve.
Interchange 25 is located at M.P. 25.34 and provides ramps for all roadway connections. The northbound off-ramp has a short deceleration lane, the northbound on ramp has a short acceleration lane, and the southbound off-ramp has a short deceleration lane. Further to the north, vehicles generally traveled at slower speeds over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge due to shorter lateral clearance.
Interchange 29 is located at M.P. 28.9 and does not provide ramps for all roadway connections. No access from southbound GSP to U.S. 9 or from U.S. 9 to GSP northbound is provided. The lack of a full interchange necessitates the use of West
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 54 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Laurel Drive. West Laurel Drive bifurcates a residential area with a school. Interchange 30 operates as a complement to Interchange 29 providing the missing movements. No access is provided from the northbound GSP to West Laurel Drive or from West Laurel Drive to the southbound GSP. Extensive westbound queues were observed on a summer Saturday approaching the Somers Point Toll Plaza on West Laurel Drive and Route52. The southbound off-ramp at Interchange 30 has a sharp curve.
Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
Roosevelt Boulevard is an undivided county road with various cross sections. The number of lanes range between 2 and 4 and the widths of the shoulders are between 0 and 15-feet. A center lane (two-way left turn lane) is provided between M.P. 0.05 and 0.2 and between M.P. 0.9 and 1.2. The cross section, signage and geometric constraints of the center turning lane are confusing between M.P. 0.05 and 0.2. West of the GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial and as an Urban Principal Arterial east of the GSP.
Between U.S. 9 and Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps the number of travel lanes is inconsistent. One hour on-street parking is permitted on the north side of Roosevelt Boulevard between Stanhope Road and Vernon Road. The Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps signalized intersection is four legged intersection. The southbound approach has exclusive left and right turn lanes with no shoulders. Through movements are not permitted from this approach. There is poor sight distance for vehicles southbound due to bushes and a traffic control box located at the northeast corner of the intersection. This leg of the intersection connects to the GSP southbound on-ramp. The eastbound approach has separate exclusive left and through lanes and a shared through and right lane with a 9-foot shoulder. The westbound approach has separate exclusive left and through lanes and a shared through/right lane. The eastbound right turn vehicles and westbound left turn vehicles combine to form the one-way southbound GSP on-ramp.
The GSP Northbound Ramps intersection is a fully actuated signalized four legged intersection. The northbound approach connects to the GSP northbound off-ramp. It is comprised of exclusive left and right turn lanes separated by an island. Through movements are not permitted from this approach. No shoulders are provided at this location. The eastbound approach has an exclusive left turn lane and two exclusive through lanes. Little or no shoulder is provided on this approach. The westbound approach has two exclusive through lanes and right turn lane. The right turn lane is separated by an island and operates as a ramp. Traffic is controlled by a “YIELD” sign at its merge with the traffic emanating from the eastbound left turn lane. These two traffic streams combine to form the one-way northbound GSP on-ramp. The westbound lanes and the eastbound lanes east of the intersection are separated by approximately 11-feet of pavement striping.
Eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard east of the GSP is reduced from two lanes to one lane. The segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 – 1.32) is comprised of two-travel lanes and a center turning lane to accommodate turning
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 55 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
movements in and out of the commercial uses. Traffic backups were observed on eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard from the bridge to west of the GSP on peak summer Saturdays in the early afternoon period. The segment from the Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue has sharp curves located at two locations on the bridge at M.P. 1.2 and M.P. 1.4. East of the bridge, eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard widens from one to two travel lanes while westbound Roosevelt Boulevard narrows from two to one travel lane. The segment from Bay Avenue to West Avenue is characterized by significant congestion into and out of the business establishments on Summer Saturdays during the Midday period that affects traffic flow on 34th Street. The West Avenue signalized intersection is actuated.
During the summer months, 35th Street east of Bay Avenue is used as a by-pass to the congestion observed on 34th Street. Because of the high volume of traffic on 35th Street, Ocean City has proactively implemented traffic operation measures during the summer months on both West Avenue and 35th Street. On southbound West Avenue, the two travel lanes are restriped to merge into one lane south of the 34th Street intersection. Eastbound 35th Street is converted into a right turn only lane through the use of striping and chanalization piping affixed to the pavement. This prevents any through or left turn movements out of eastbound 35th Street. The eastbound right turning vehicles flow freely from 35th Street into the unoccupied southbound travel lane on West Avenue without needing to merge into traffic.
Bay Avenue
Bay Avenue is an undivided county road located in Ocean City between Route 52 (known locally as 9th Street) and Route 623 (known locally as 34th Street). This segment of Bay Avenue is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial. Bay Avenue is comprised of one travel lane in each direction throughout most of the corridor. The lone exception is a small segment northbound just north of 34th Street where two travel lanes merge into one. There are seven signalized intersections within the corridor (including Tennessee Avenue activated in 2003). Poor sight distance was observed at the Vineyard Way intersection. Some sections of Bay Avenue accommodate on-street parking.
The Bay Avenue intersections at 9th Street and 34th Street are the most congested within the corridor. The Bay Avenue at 9th Street intersection is signalized and fully actuated. This intersection can be greatly impacted by vehicle queuing resulting from opening of the Route 52 drawbridge, further exacerbating an already congested situation. Eastbound vehicles on 9th Street were observed to use residential streets (Pleasure Avenue and Palen Avenue) west of Bay Avenue to access 10th Avenue as a by-pass to the Bay Avenue at 9th Street intersection during summer months. The Bay Avenue at 10th Street intersection is a pre-timed signalized intersection.
The Bay Avenue at Roosevelt Blvd/34th Street intersection is a four leg signalized intersection. The northbound approach has a left turn bay and a shared through and right turn lane. The southbound approach has exclusive left, through, and right turn lanes. The eastbound approach has a shared left and through lanes and a shared through and
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 56 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization right turn lane. The right turn movement is separated by an island. The westbound approach has exclusive left, through, and right turn lane. The right turn lane is separated by an island and the northbound left turn bay is short.
2.6 Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints within the U.S. 9 and GSP study corridor were identified from existing published sources including: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), United States Geological Survey (USGS), New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO), and others as detailed later in this section. The types of environmental constraints considered included wetlands and floodprone areas, regulated facilities and known contaminated sites, threatened or endangered species, parkland/open space, and known cultural resources/archaeology. This effort was undertaken to identify preliminary key environmental constraints within the U.S. 9 and GSP corridor area that could affect or limit proposed concept solutions. A summary of the results are provided in Technical Memorandum #1.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 57 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
3.0 FUTURE NO-BUILD CONDITIONS
Operational conditions projected in the future within the U.S. 9/GSP study area corridors were assessed to establish a no-build condition assuming no improvements would be made to the corridor. For purposes of analysis, the year 2025 was utilized for these analyses. As part of the development of no-build conditions within the U.S. 9/GSP study area, socioeconomic, land use, traffic, and alternative transportation issues were analyzed and are discussed separately below. The type, location, and severity of problems that were projected within the U.S. 9/GSP study area were identified. These data were also used as a baseline for comparison to the existing conditions within the U.S. 9/GSP study area and corridor.
3.1 Socioeconomics
3.1.1 Population
Primary resources including the SJTPO and Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) projections were reviewed to determine the best fit for the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Municipal officials were also consulted regarding current and future trends and conditions in the U.S. 9/GSP study area. It should be noted that all of the available population projections were made prior to the release of the Census 2000 population data.
Upon comparing population projections prepared by SJTPO and CUPR, it was determined that SJTPO projections provided a more accurate forecast of future population in the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Since the SJTPO projections were based on 1990 Census data, the average annual population rates of change from 2000 to 2025 (in 10 and 25 year increments) were applied to Census 2000 population figures in each municipality to determine projected population estimates for the years 2010 and 2025, respectively.
Table 3-1 presents projected 2010 and 2025 population figures and rates of change for all study area municipalities. The population in the three study area municipalities is expected to grow by 31.8% between 2000 and 2025. The combined population of these municipalities is projected to exceed 50,000 people by 2025. Somers Point City is generally expected to maintain its current population, experiencing a small population increase of approximately 0.4% between 2000 and 2025, while Ocean City and Upper Township are projected to both have substantial growth at 38.3% and 53.5%, respectively, over the same period. Growth in Upper Township is predicted to result from new development while growth in Ocean City is expected as a result of residential conversions.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 58 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 3-1 FUTURE CONDITIONS POPULATION DATA AND GROWTH RATES CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE U.S. 9/GSP study area 2000 - 2010 - 2000 – MUNICIPALITIES 2000* 2010 1 2025 1 2010 2025 2025 Atlantic County Somers Point City 11,614 11,637 11,660 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% Cape May County Upper Township 12,115 14,708 18,597 21.4% 26.4% 53.5% Ocean City 15,378 17,731 21,268 15.3% 19.9% 38.3% STUDY AREA TOTAL 39,107 44,076 51,525 12.7% 16.9% 31.8% Sources: SJTPO population projections, 1998, United States Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census NOTES: (*) U.S. Census Figures (1) Projected figures for 2010 and 2025 are estimated by applying the SJTPO percentage change (from 2000 to 2025) to U.S. Census 2000 population figures.
3.1.2 Employment
The SJTPO and Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) employment projections were compared to determine the best fit for the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Upon comparing these projections, it was determined that the SJTPO projections provided a more accurate forecast of future employment in the U.S. 9/GSP study area. The SJTPO employment projections for 2000, 2010 and 2025 were based upon 1998 data. These projections were not adjusted since 2000 employment data from the U.S. Census Bureau is not yet available.
The Department of Labor data were not utilized in this study for employment projections, since the data represents the number of employed persons in a municipality, rather than the number of jobs in a municipality. This distinction is important in the evaluation of future travel in the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
The projected 2010 and 2025 population figures and rates of change for all study area municipalities are presented in Table 3-2. Employment in the three study area municipalities is projected to increase by 21.9% between 2000 and 2025. It is projected that Ocean City will have minimal new job growth through 2025. However, both Somers Point City and Upper Township are projected to experience significant increases in employment. Employment in Somers Point City and Upper Township is expected to increase by 35.1% and 39.9%, respectively, through 2025. According to officials from Somers Point City, it is anticipated that employment growth within this municipality will be fueled by residential conversions in Ocean City. It is likely that employment growth in Upper Township will be the result of commercial development planned in this municipality.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 59 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 3-2 FUTURE CONDITIONS EMPLOYMENT DATA AND GROWTH RATES CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE U.S. 9/GSP study area 2000 - 2010 - 2000 – MUNICIPALITIES 2000* 2010 2025 2010 2025 2025 Atlantic County Somers Point City 5,617 6,518 7,588 16.0% 16.4% 35.1% Cape May County Upper Township 3,054 3,542 4,273 16.0% 20.6% 39.9% Ocean City 6,114 6,135 6,167 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% STUDY AREA TOTAL 14,785 16,195 18,028 9.5% 11.3% 21.9% Source: SJTPO employment projections, 1998 NOTE: (*)SJTPO estimated figures
3.1.3 Environmental Justice
Historical demographic trends and interviews with municipal officials were utilized to evaluate the effects of residential development and employment growth on low income and minority populations. A summary of this evaluation has been provided for the three municipalities located within the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
3.1.3.1 Upper Township
Recent trends indicate that Upper Township will continue to include a population of rural low income residents and that no large influx of minorities is expected. Since there is only modest development pressure in Upper Township, the displacement of low income residents is unlikely. Most of these residents are rural property owners who might benefit from job growth that is expected in the retail sector. The Township plans to develop more affordable housing to accommodate young families and the elderly who currently live in this municipality.
3.1.3.2 Ocean City
Census data indicates that the year-round population in Ocean City has decreased over the recent decade. The loss of population has included a decrease in both the number of minorities and non-minorities. According to local officials, a decrease in low income and minority populations can be attributed to the shift in the local economy toward resort development. Many low income and minority families are selling their properties and leaving the community in order to capitalize on high real estate values. These families are moving to other nearby communities that are more family oriented and more affordable.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 60 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
3.1.3.3 Somers Point City
Somers Point City is expected to experience an increase in jobs and employment through 2025. The population trend indicates that the minority population of Somers Point City is projected to grow through 2025. Over the past decade, a growing number of Hispanics have become residents in this relatively affordable community in order to work in neighboring Ocean City and to take advantage of other employment opportunities in the region. According to municipal officials, there is some anecdotal evidence that minority and low income residents from Ocean City have migrated to Somers Point City as housing costs in Ocean City have increased.
3.2 Land Use
Transportation in the U.S. 9/GSP study area will be influenced by several factors including area land uses. Existing land use, land use plans, and estimates of development potential were analyzed in order to predict the most likely land use pattern within the study area municipalities in 2025. Information used in the analysis includes 2000 aerial photography, zoning maps and permits, and adopted master plans for Upper Township, Somers Point City, and Ocean City. Memoranda on land use and development trends provided by municipal officials were also considered. Field reconnaissance was used to verify the location and condition of large undeveloped parcels. Municipal officials were consulted in order to confirm the results of the analysis. Environmental constraints considered in the evaluation included the 100 year floodplain, designated wetlands, and public open space.
Assumptions used in the analysis are based on input from municipal master plans and input from municipal officials. The analysis of future land use conditions in Upper Township assumes that new development will occur on undeveloped parcels that are not environmentally constrained. The analysis of future land use in Ocean City and Somers Point City assumes that most new development will occur through increasing densities on sites that are already developed.
While 2025 land use is addressed for each of the study area municipalities, a focus of the analysis was on the U.S. 9 frontage in Upper Township where the greatest potential exists for new development to occur in the future. It is along this corridor that new development is likely to have the most direct and predictable impact on travel conditions in the U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway corridor. Future land uses in the remainder of Upper Township, Somers Point City, and Ocean City are also discussed as development projected in these areas will also affect future traffic volumes in the study area.
3.3 Traffic Conditions
3.3.1 Growth Rate
The calculation of future No-Build condition background traffic growth rates for the U.S. 9/GSP corridor through 2025 was based upon the analysis of data sets obtained from
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 61 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
various sources. The year 2025 was selected because it represents the time when all proposed long-term recommendations would be implemented. Because traffic is more regionally based on the GSP and locally based within the remainder of the U.S. 9/GSP study area, separate growth rates were developed. Based upon the information analyzed, it appears that an annual 1.4% linear No-Build background traffic growth rate through 2025 appears to be reasonable for the GSP corridor while a 1.162% linear No-Build background traffic growth rate through 2025 appears to be reasonable for the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Individual data sets have been evaluated in the following sections to determine their contribution in the selection of these annual linear No-Build condition background traffic growth rates for the GSP and the remainder of the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
3.3.1.1 Garden State Parkway
Data provided by the NJHA were reviewed to determine a representative growth rate for the GSP through 2025. The growth rate provided in Garden State Parkway, Traffic Projections 2000-2020, General 2000 Update to the Comprehensive Study (TEC Assignment 99-10), NJHA, June 2000 (Table 2-3) for Mileposts 0 through 36 from 2000 to 2020 is 2.6% per year. This annual rate of growth is very high when compared with the demographic growth trends projected for the region. Within the body of the report, it states that this growth rate represents unconstrained conditions over this period. Realistically, constraints on the availability of developable land, roadways that feed traffic to the GSP, and the GSP itself to the north would act to constrain volumes in this section of the GSP. The growth rates appearing in Traffic Projections 2000-2020, NJHA, June 2000 (Table 5-1) are based directly on the annual demographic growth projections over the next 20 years in southern New Jersey. The section of the GSP in the U.S. 9/GSP Corridor Study (Exits 20 to 30) lies mostly in Cape May County. In addition, most of the vehicles traveling south of Interchange 30 on the GSP would have an origin or destination in Cape May County. Based upon this information, the 1.4% annual growth rate provided for Cape May County in Traffic Projections 2000-2020, NJHA, June 2000 (Table 5-1) would be most appropriate to estimate GSP traffic to 2025.
3.3.1.2 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Study Area
Sources reviewed included historical traffic volume data, demographic data and projections, other recent studies conducted within the U.S. 9/GSP study area, and knowledge of developments proposed within the municipalities within the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
Demographic Data
Demographic data were gathered from several sources including the U.S. Census Bureau and the South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO). The data from each of these sources were reviewed to determine which would be most appropriate for this study. According to the SJTPO projections, the population in the three study area municipalities (Upper Township, Ocean City, and Somers Point City) is expected to grow
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 62 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization by 31.8% between 2000 and 2025. The SJTPO employment projections for these three study area municipalities are projected to increase by a composite 21.9% between 2000 and 2025. A weighted average of the population and the employment projections in the study area yields a 29.1% growth rate between 2002 and 2025. This translates into a linear 1.162% annual growth rate to 2025.
Traffic Data
Historical traffic volume data were analyzed from NJDOT’s ATR count database. However, because traffic count data was limited at each of the count locations, no historical patterns of traffic growth could be developed.
Other Studies
Other studies conducted recently in the vicinity of the U.S. 9/GSP study area utilized the following growth rates. NJ Route 52 (1) Causeway between City of Somers Point and Ocean City, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Section 4(f) Evaluation, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and New Jersey Department of Transportation, July 2002 utilized a composite background growth rate of 8.0% from 1996 to 2004 (1.0% annual growth) and 32.0% from 1996 to 2024 (slightly greater than 1.0% annual growth) for background traffic. Site-specific trip generation volumes were not added in addition to these volumes. This rate is comparable to the 1.162% per year linear growth rate projected for the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
3.3.1.3 Conclusion
Background data sets for the U.S. 9/GSP study area were analyzed to determine an annual traffic growth rate for the GSP corridor and the U.S. 9/GSP study area. An annual 1.4% linear No-Build background traffic growth rate through 2025 appears to be reasonable for the GSP corridor. An annual 1.162% linear traffic growth rate, considering future No-Build background conditions out to the year 2025, appears to be reasonable for the U.S. 9/GSP study area. These rates consider that developable land will become increasingly scarce as 2025 approaches. It should be noted that these rates do not consider potential infrastructure projects in the study corridors such as roadway widening, bridge replacements, or interchange improvements. Rather, these improvements will be addressed as part of the Build condition.
3.3.2 Volume Development
Applying a period growth factor of 1.27% (based upon an annual 1.162% linear rate) for U.S. 9, Roosevelt Boulevard, and Bay Avenue and 1.32% (based upon an annual 1.4% linear rate) for the GSP for 23 years to the existing 2002 baseline traffic volumes yields the projected 2025 No-Build condition traffic volumes. This assumes that no physical improvements are made to the roadways, intersections or interchanges in the three corridors. The 2025 No-Build traffic volumes for the Summer Saturday and Weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 63
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
3.3.3 Capacity and Operational Analysis
The results of the 2025 No-Build HCS analyses conducted at the 17 critical study locations within the U.S. 9, GSP, and Roosevelt Boulevard study corridors are described is the following sections.
3.3.3.1 Signalized Intersections
The results of the capacity analyses for the ten (10) signalized intersections during the summer and off peak 2025 No-Build peak periods are summarized in and Figures 3-3 and 3-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following intersections are expected to operate at poor levels of service during the 2025 No Build summer Saturday peak period.
U.S. 9/GSP Exit 20 Ramps/Route 50 This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “D”. Specific movements that are projected to operate at poor levels of service are:
• Eastbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “E”. • Northbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. • Northbound approach (through movement) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
U.S. 9/Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) This intersection is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. Specific movements that are projected to operate at poor levels of service are:
• Eastbound approach (through movement) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. • Westbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. • Northbound approach (right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
U.S. 9/Mays Landing Road (CR 559) All approaches are projected to operate at LOS “E” or “F”.
GSP Exit 25 SB off-ramp/Vernon Road/Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “E” with the exception of the southbound approach (left turn) that is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
Bay Avenue and 34th Street This intersection is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. Specific movements that are projected to operate at poor levels of service are:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 66
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Eastbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. • Westbound approach (through and left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”. • Northbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
West Avenue and 34th Street This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “D”. Specific movements that are projected to operate at poor levels of service are:
• Eastbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “E”. • Eastbound approach (through and right turn) is projected to operate a LOS “E”. • Northbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
The following intersections operate at poor levels of service during the 2025 No Build weekday off-peak period:
U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “E” and “C” during the AM and PM peak period, respectively. Specific movements that operate at poor levels of service are:
• Eastbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the AM peak period. • Northbound approach (left and through turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “E” during the AM and PM peak period.
U.S. 9/Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) This intersection is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the AM and PM peak periods. Specific movements that are projected to operate at poor levels of service are:
• Eastbound approach (through movement) is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the AM peak period. • Westbound approach (left turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the AM and PM peak periods. • Northbound approach (right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the AM and PM peak periods.
U.S. 9/Mays Landing Road (CR 559) This intersection is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the PM peak period. Specific movements that are projected to operate at poor levels of service are:
• Westbound approach (left, through, and right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the PM peak period.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 69 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Northbound approach (left, through, and right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F” during the PM peak period.
GSP SB Exit 25 off-ramp/Vernon Road/Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “D” and “C” during the AM and PM peak period with the exception of the following movements:
• Eastbound approach (through and right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “E” during the AM peak period. • Southbound approach (right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “E” during the PM peak period.
GSP NB Exit 25 on ramp/Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “D” during the AM peak period with the exception of the eastbound approach (left turn) that is projected to operate at LOS “F” during the AM peak period.
Bay Avenue/34th Street This intersection is projected to operate at an overall LOS “D” during the AM and PM peak period with the exception of the eastbound approach (left turn) that is projected to operate at LOS “F” and “E” during the AM and PM peak.
3.3.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections
Three (3) unsignalized intersections were analyzed for daily peak period operating conditions. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2025 No Build summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following intersections operate at poor levels of service during the 2025 No Build summer Saturday peak period:
35th Street and West Avenue • Westbound approach (through, left and right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
35th Street and Bay Avenue • Westbound approach (left and right turn) is projected to operate at a LOS “F”.
The unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the 2025 No Build weekday off-peak AM and PM periods.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 70 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
3.3.3.3 Two-Lane Highway Sections
Six (6) two-lane sections on U.S. 9 were analyzed for 2025 No Build peak period operating conditions. The results of the capacity analyses for the summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
In the 2025 No Build summer Saturday peak period analysis all mainline segments on U.S. 9 are projected to operate at LOS “E,” except for the segment between Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) and Beesley’s Point Bridge, which operates at a LOS “D”.
The following U.S. 9 two-lane highway segments are projected to operate at a poor level of service for the 2025 No Build weekday off-peak period:
Between Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Tuckahoe Road (CR 662) This section of roadway is projected to operate at LOS “E” during the AM and PM peak period.
Between GSP NB Exit 29 off-ramp and Mays Landing Road (CR 559) This section of roadway is projected to operate at LOS “E” during the PM peak period.
3.3.3.4 Basic Freeway Segments
Four (4) Basic Freeway Segments for the GSP were analyzed for 2025 No Build peak period operating conditions. The results of the capacity analyses for the summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 3-3 and 3-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following GSP Basic Freeway Segments are projected to operate at poor levels of service for the 2025 No Build Summer Saturday peak period:
Between Interchange 25 and Mileposts 27.0 This section of roadway operates at a LOS “E” in the northbound direction.
Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza This section of roadway operates at a LOS “F” in the northbound and southbound directions.
The following GSP Freeway Segments are projected to operate at a poor level of service for the 2025 No Build weekday off-peak period:
Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza This section of roadway is projected to operate at LOS “F” in the northbound and southbound directions during the AM and PM peak periods.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 71 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
3.3.4 Travel Characteristics
The origins and destinations of vehicles traveling in the U.S. 9, GSP, and Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) study corridors were calculated using the latest calibrated South Jersey Model (SJM). This model was used in the last SJTPO budgeting process (11/02) and is now being used for the FY 2004-2006 TIP Conformity process. Population & Employment forecasts (as endorsed by the SJTPO TAC on May 5, 2000) were used to forecast future year traffic conditions in the SJTPO region. The model used the 2025 Plan traffic network including all projects listed in the Conformity analysis. The assignments were run through the Feedback Day loop and then through the Analysis Day loop to obtain the final assignments by season and time of day. The final traffic assignments were produced using the TP Plus program suite version 3.0 (see Technical Memorandum #3 for details).
3.4 Other Transportation Modes
3.4.1 Pedestrians/Bicycles
Cape May County is currently developing bike path between U.S. 9 and Stagecoach Road that would connect to a County Park.
3.4.2 Transit
3.4.2.1 Rail Initiatives
Plans have been discussed to extend Cape May Seashore Line service between the 4-H Fairgrounds Rail Station in Cape May Courthouse north to Tuckahoe over the tracks that were part of the 30-year lease agreement with New Jersey Transit in 1999. Beyond this extension, Cape May Seashore Lines would like to expand passenger service north from Tuckahoe to connect with New Jersey Transit’s Atlantic City Line. Ridership generated by this expanded rail service will not significantly affect regional travel patterns or auto usage in the future.
3.4.2.2 Bus Initiatives
No future improvements to bus service are proposed within the U.S. 9/GSP study area at this time.
3.4.3 Park-and-Ride
No future park-and-ride facilities are proposed within the U.S. 9/GSP study area at this time.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 72 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
4.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS
Specific problems in the form of deficiencies were identified along the U.S. 9, GSP, Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623), and Bay Avenue (CR 656) corridors within each individual link and/or interchange/intersection based upon a review of the data collected and analysis performed for existing and 2025 No Build conditions. The types of problems identified include: congestion, safety, drainage, maintenance, signage, and access. A summary of these problems is presented by location, throughout each corridor in the following sections.
4.1 General • There is an overall lack of sidewalks on U.S. 9. • Aesthetics along U.S. 9 lack landscaping. • No bicycle facilities are currently provided within the U.S. 9 or Roosevelt Boulevard corridors. • School bus stops are located along U.S. 9.
4.2 U.S. 9
4.2.1 Segment south of Route 50
• This segment currently operates and is projected to operate in 2025 at a poor level of service during the summer Saturday peak hour.
4.2.2 Route 50 (M.P. 23.76)
• The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Northbound approach (through and left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Eastbound approach (left turn) during the Summer Saturday peak hour. • On the southbound approach, right turning vehicles use part of the shoulders to make right turns on red. • Sidewalks are not provided on any of the approaches. • Pedestrian signals or crosswalks are not provided on any of the approaches. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways. • The eastbound right turn ramp has no speed limit sign and the merge with southbound Route 9 is poor.
4.2.3 Segment from Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 23.76 - 28.57)
• The segments between Stagecoach Road and Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) and between Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) are
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 73 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
projected to operate at a poor level of service during the summer Saturday peak hour in 2025. • Vehicle conflicts are due to vehicle queuing on southbound U.S. 9 and the center turning lane accommodating turning movements in and out of the Acme/Jamesway shopping center located just north of the Route 50 intersection. • Left turns out of 1st Bank of Sea Isle are difficult to make. • Due to the relatively high speed of the vehicles and short passing zones, passing was difficult in the nine passing zones in this segment. • No bicycle facilities are currently provided within this segment of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. • U.S. 9 southbound near Hope Corson Road (CR 671) has two inlets that are not bicycle compatible. (M.P. 24.5). • There are no sidewalks, crosswalks and no pedestrian signals at the Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. • Curbs and sidewalks are intermittently located in this segment. • Signage at Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) is partially covered by trees and bushes. • Along U.S. 9, storm water collects along properties and driveways in the vicinity of M.P. 26. • The Heritage Links Golf Course entrance is located on the horizontal curve at milepost 26.0. This location has poor sight distance (curve and trees), is poorly signed, and is poorly illuminated at night. • The Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) intersection is located on a sharp curve and there are no turning lanes on U.S. 9. • The Butter Road (CR 637) intersection intersects with U.S. 9 at a sharp angle resulting in poor sight distance. There are no turning lanes provided at this unsignalized intersection. • The Church Road (CR 602) intersection has poor sight distance, no turning lanes, and the lanes are narrow. Turns from Church Road to U.S. 9 are difficult to make during the peak season. • A cemetery is located at the Church Road (CR 602) intersection. Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways in the vicinity of Church Road.
4.2.4 Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 28.57)
• The eastbound left turn movement currently operates at a poor level of service during the weekday off-peak AM hour. • The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Eastbound left turn movement during the off-peak AM hour. o Northbound approach during the off-peak AM and PM hours. • There are no sidewalks on any of the intersection approaches. • There are no crosswalks on the southbound or eastbound approaches. • Drainage is poor at the intersection. • Curbs are inconsistent surrounding the intersection.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 74 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Heavy vehicles have difficulty making southbound right and eastbound left and right turns due to geometric constraints. (e.g. small curb radii) with no right turn lane. • There is no northbound exclusive left turn lane provided at this intersection. Vehicles traveling northbound pass on the right of vehicles making left turns by traveling on the shoulder. • Advanced signage for the northbound approach of the intersection is poor. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
4.2.5 Segment from Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.57 - 28.79)
• This segment is currently and is projected to operate in 2025 at a poor level of service during the summer Saturday peak hour and the weekday off-peak AM and PM hours. • Vehicles encounter friction/conflicts as they turn into and out of business driveways. There are no turning lanes within this section. • Inconsistent curbs, sidewalks, and shoulders throughout this segment. • There is poor drainage due to lack of consistent curbs and inlets. The result is flooding, especially in the shoulder areas and driveways, during rain events. • No bicycle facilities are currently provided within this section of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
4.2.6 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.79)
• The following currently operate at poor levels of service: o Eastbound approach (through) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Westbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (right turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Westbound approach (left turn) during the weekday off-peak AM and PM period. o Northbound approach (right turn) during the weekday off-peak AM period. • The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Eastbound approach (through) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Westbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (right turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Eastbound approach (through) during the weekday off-peak AM period. o Westbound approach (left turn) during the weekday off-peak AM and PM periods. o Northbound approach (right turn) during the weekday off-peak AM and PM periods. • Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are not provided on any of the approaches. • Sidewalks are only provided on the northwest side of the intersection in front of the church.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 75 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Water collects within the right turn lane of the eastbound approach of the intersection. • The westbound approach roadway alignment, striping, and lane utilization is confusing to the motorist. Signage identifying lane utilization is also lacking. • Southbound left turn bay is short. • A cemetery and church are located at the Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) intersection. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
4.2.7 Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) (M.P. 29.2)
• Crosswalks and sidewalks are not provided at this intersection. • Intersection intersects with U.S. 9 at a sharp angle resulting in poor sight distance. • There are no turning lanes provided at this unsignalized intersection. • Vehicles traveling northbound are impeded by vehicles turning left onto CR 662 and must use the shoulder to maneuver around these vehicles. • Advanced signage for the intersection is poor. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
4.2.8 Segment from Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) to the Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 28.79 – 30.7)
• No bicycle facilities are currently provided within this section of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. • Curbs and sidewalks are not continuous in the segment and are provided intermittently. • Pavement is poor at Youngs Lane (M.P. 29.97). • Standing water was observed at the intersections and shoulders between mileposts 29.0 – 29.2 to the north of Roosevelt Boulevard. • Sharp curves are located at two locations in this segment (M.P. 29.3 and M.P. 30.1) • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways in the vicinity of Ventnor Avenue to the north of the curve in the road.
4.2.9 Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.7 - M.P. 31.9)
• There are no shoulders or sidewalks on the bridges. • No bicycle facilities are currently provided within this section of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. • Pavement is very poor on both bridges. • The U.S. 9 Over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) Bridge has been identified for replacement by the NJDOT Bridge Management System (M.P. 31.15).
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 76 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• U.S. 9 Over Drag Channel has a sufficiency rating just over the threshold for replacement based upon the NJDOT Bridge Management System and requires rehabilitation. • The height of the bridge from the bay is minimal, prompting the drawbridge to open 8-10 times per day during peak summer season.
4.2.10 Segment from the Beesley’s Point Bridge to Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 30.7– 32.64)
• This segment is currently operating at a poor level of service during the summer Saturday peak hour. • This segment is projected to operate in 2025 at a poor level of service during the summer Saturday peak hour and the weekday off-peak PM hour. • No bicycle facilities are currently provided within this section of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. • Curbs and sidewalks are generally not provided in this segment. • A small sidewalk is provided on the east side of the bridge over the GSP. • U.S. 9 Over GSP Bridge has been identified for replacement by the NJDOT Bridge Management System (M.P. 32.22). • There are two inlets at M.P. 32.2 that are not bicycle compatible. • Shoulders are generally in poor condition, with uneven surface and eroding between M.P. 32.3 to 32.6. • Between the GSP and Mays Landing Road (M.P. 32.0 – 32.65), the inlet nearest the State Police Driveway is not even with the pavement, causing storm water to runoff and flow down the driveway. • The travel lanes in this segment drain well, but the shoulders collect water. • Drainage is poor on the west side of U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Chestnut Street because water has no direct path to the drainage ditch to the west of the road.
4.2.11 Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 32.64)
• The eastbound, westbound, and northbound approaches currently operate at poor levels of service during the summer Saturday peak hour. • All approaches are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025 during the summer Saturday peak hour. • The westbound and northbound approaches are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025 during the weekday off-peak PM hour. • Mays Landing Road (CR 559) intersects U.S. 9 at an angle, resulting in poor sight distance from all approaches. • Crosswalks and pedestrian signals are not provided on any of the approaches. • No turning lanes are provided at this intersection. Vehicles in the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches are sometimes able to maneuver around vehicles making left turns, but not in the southbound approach. • Sidewalks are not continuous through the intersection. • Pavement is fair to poor on the Mays Landing Road (CR 559) approaches.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 77 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• To the east of U.S. 9 on Mays Landing Road (CR 559), tidal flooding occurs during certain high tide periods.
4.2.12 Segment from Mays Landing Road to Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 – 33.23)
• Curbs and sidewalks are generally not provided in this segment. • No bicycle facilities are currently provided within this section of the U.S. 9 corridor although bicycle activity was observed. • U.S. 9 bifurcates a golf course within this segment. • Sharp curves are located at two locations in this segment (M.P. 32.9 and M.P. 33.1) • The curve at M.P. 32.9 is complicated by a change in elevation. • Trees/bushes cover some signage on the curve (M.P. 33.1). • Shoulders are of variable widths and condition throughout this segment. The shoulders are nonexistent at the curve in the road (M.P. 33.1).
4.2.13 Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 33.23)
• Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways. • Northbound and eastbound left turn bays are short.
4.3 Garden State Parkway
4.3.1 Interchange 20 (M.P. 20.25)
• No access from southbound GSP to Routes 50 and 9 or from Routes 50 and 9 to GSP northbound. • Lack of a full interchange diverts traffic to U.S. 9. • Emergency response between Seaville and the hospital in Somers Point is affected because of the missing ramps. • Northbound off-ramp is left-handed, with a short deceleration lane, and a sharp curve. • Southbound off-ramp has a short deceleration lane.
4.3.2 Segment from Interchange 20 to Interchange 25 (M.P. 20.25 – 25.34)
• No issues identified.
4.3.3 Interchange 25 (M.P. 25.34)
• Northbound off-ramp has a short deceleration lane. • Northbound on ramp has a short acceleration lane. • Southbound off-ramp has a short deceleration lane.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 78 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Pavement is poor at the intersection of Wistar Avenue and the southbound off- ramp. • Signage at Interchange 25 is different from other signs (local community is usually on top) and confusing to motorists. • Southbound on ramp has a short acceleration lane.
4.3.4 Segment from Interchange 25 to Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 25.34 – 27.4)
• This segment is projected to operate in 2025 at a poor level of service in the northbound direction during the summer Saturday peak hour.
4.3.5 Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.4 - 28.6)
• This segment currently operates and is projected to operate in 2025 at a poor level of service in the northbound and southbound directions during the summer Saturday peak hour and the weekday off-peak AM and PM hours. • Vehicles generally traveled at slower speeds at the Great Egg Harbor Bridge due to shorter lateral clearance. Heavy vehicle use is frequent. • Poor pavement was identified on the Great Egg Harbor Bridge. • GSP Northbound Over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road has been identified for replacement by the NJDOT Bridge Management System (M.P. 27.77). • GSP Southbound Over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road has been identified for replacement by the NJDOT Bridge Management System (M.P. 27.77).
4.3.6 Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza (M.P. 28.6 - 28.9)
• No issues identified.
4.3.7 Interchange 29 (M.P. 28.9)
• No access from southbound GSP to U.S. 9 or from U.S. 9 to GSP northbound. • Lack of a full interchange necessitates the use of West Laurel Drive.
4.3.8 Segment from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30 (M.P. 28.9 – 30.0)
• Poor pavement was identified for the southbound GSP from the NJDOT Pavement Management System (M.P. 30.4 to 28.8) • Northbound GSP vehicles experienced congestion at the merge with Interchange 30.
4.3.9 Interchange 30 (M.P. 30.0)
• No access from northbound GSP to West Laurel Drive or from West Laurel Drive to GSP southbound.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 79 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• West Laurel Drive bifurcates a residential area with a school. • Extensive westbound queues were observed on a summer Saturday approaching the Somers Point Toll Plaza. • The southbound off-ramp has a sharp curve. • Southbound vehicles exiting the GSP at Interchange 30 were queued along the exit ramp and onto the southbound shoulder on a summer Saturday. • Northbound on ramp has a short acceleration lane. • Southbound off-ramp has a short deceleration lane.
4.4 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
4.4.1 Segment from U.S. 9 to Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.0 – 0.23)
• The number of travel lanes is inconsistent within this segment. • This section has curbs, however, sidewalks are inconsistent. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
4.4.2 Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23)
• The southbound approach (left turn) currently operates at a poor level of service during the summer Saturday peak hour. • The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Southbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday hour. o Eastbound approach (through/right) during the weekday off-peak AM period. o Southbound approach (right turn) during the weekday off-peak PM period. • There is poor sight distance for vehicles southbound due to bushes and a traffic control box located in the northeast corner of the intersection. • Directional signage is deficient prior to the Vernon Road intersection in order to direct people into the proper lane. The current sign is located across Roosevelt Boulevard and is difficult to see. This causes traffic congestion on the ramp and forces vehicles to make U-turns on Roosevelt Boulevard that turn in the wrong direction. • The crosswalk on the eastbound approach at this location is faded. • Crosswalks are not provided on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches. • Curbs and sidewalks are inconsistent at this location. • Pavement is uneven on the southbound approach. • Water drains poorly on Roosevelt Boulevard at this intersection. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 80 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
4.4.3 Northbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.31)
• The eastbound approach (left) movement is projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025 during the weekday off-peak AM period. • There are no sidewalks serving this intersection. • There are no pedestrian buttons or signals at this intersection. • Accident rate is higher than the statewide rate for similar roadways.
4.4.4 Segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 – 1.32)
• There are no curbs or sidewalks within this segment. • Roosevelt Boulevard floods east of the Garden State Parkway (during periods of extreme high tides). • Eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard east of the Garden State Parkway (reduction from two lanes to one lane). • The Roosevelt Boulevard right-of-way is close to tidal wetlands. • Traffic backups were observed on eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard from the bridge to west of the GSP on peak summer Saturdays in the early afternoon period.
4.4.5 Segment from Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue (M.P. 1.32 – 2.04)
• There are no curbs or sidewalks within this segment including the bridge. • Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) Over Crook Horn Creek Bridge has been identified for replacement by the NJDOT Bridge Management System (M.P. 1.32). • Sharp curves are located at two locations on this bridge (M.P. 1.2 and M.P. 1.4). • East of the bridge, eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard widens from one to two travel lanes. • East of the bridge, westbound Roosevelt Boulevard narrows from two to one travel lane.
4.4.6 Segment from Bay Avenue (M.P. 2.04) to West Avenue (M.P. 2.22)
• There is significant congestion into and out of local businesses on summer Saturdays during the midday period that affects traffic flow on 34th Street.
4.4.7 West Avenue (M.P. 2.22)
• The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Eastbound approach (all movements) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 81 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
4.5 Bay Avenue
4.5.1 35th Street
• The westbound approach (left and right turn) currently and is projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025 during the summer Saturday peak hour.
4.5.2 34th Street (M.P. 0.0)
• The following currently operate at poor levels of service: o Eastbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Westbound approach (all movements) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. • The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Eastbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Westbound approach (all movements) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Eastbound approach (left turn) during the weekday off-peak AM and PM periods. • The pavement is poor on the northbound approach.
4.5.3 Segment from 34th Street (M.P. 0.0) to 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)
• There is poor sight distance at the Vineyard Way intersection. • The pavement is poor at the 16th Street intersection.
4.5.4 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)
• The following currently operate at poor levels of service: o Eastbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. • The following are projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025: o Eastbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Westbound approach (through/right turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Northbound approach (left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. o Southbound approach (through/left turn) during the summer Saturday peak hour. • Eastbound vehicles on 9th Street were observed to use Pleasure Avenue and Palen Avenue west of Bay Avenue to access 10th Avenue as a by-pass to the Bay Avenue at 9th Street intersection during summer months.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 82 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
4.6 West Avenue
4.6.1 35th Street
• The westbound approach currently and is projected to operate at a poor level of service in 2025 during the summer Saturday peak hour.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 83 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
5.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS)
The South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization (SJTPO) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the southern New Jersey region. Federal Transportation Legislation, namely the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the subsequent Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1997 requires that all MPOs develop and implement a Congestion Management System (CMS) as part of the metropolitan transportation planning process (23 CFR 500). A CMS provides information on transportation system performance (i.e. congestion, delay) and offers alternative strategies for alleviating congestion and enhancing mobility. A region may not use any Federal funds for any major capacity- adding projects in an ozone non-attainment area unless a fully operational CMS is put in place. The SJTPO adopted its Fully Operational CMS Plan in November 1997 and has made several subsequent amendments over the past few years.
The SJTPO released its final CMS report Congestion SJTPO Congestion Management System: Phase II Update – Final Report and Technical Memorandum in June 2003. This report addresses key work items undertaken in the development of a systematic process which identifies congestion and mobility problems in targeted areas/systems, and screening alternative strategies, appropriate for South Jersey conditions. The US 9/ Garden State Parkway study would require the analysis and documentation of all reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management strategies.
To fully measure the impact of congestion, four performance measures have been recommended for the SJTPO to fully measure these components of congestion:
• Volume to capacity ratio (v/c) • Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by Level of Service by trip purpose • Peak period vehicle unacceptable delay (in vehicle hours) • Vehicle-hours traveled (VHT) by Level of Service by facility type
Currently, the SJTPO only uses volume to capacity ratio (v/c) to determine the extent of congestion. In the future, the SJTPO plans to incorporate the remaining measures in subsequent phases of its CMS development.
The South Jersey Travel Demand Model (SJTDM) is the standard tool used to conduct regional long-range planning analysis for the SJTPO region. Data from the SJTDM can be used to evaluate the various performance measures indicated above (i.e. v/c ratio). Using the aforementioned CMS performance measures, the SJTPO completed a CMS needs assessment for SJTPO CMS network. As a result, one intersection and one roadway segment were identified with CMS needs within the U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway study corridor:
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 84 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• U.S. 9 and Route 50 Intersection • CR 623 (Roosevelt Boulevard) segment between U.S. 9 and Bay Avenue (CR 656)
The purpose of this section is to provide a comprehensive analysis of potential TDM strategies, TSM strategies, and Maintenance Measures that address the problems and issues identified within the US 9/Garden State Parkway corridor. The CMS strategies were screened for their potential applicability to the characteristics of the study area and their ability to mitigate identified problems. Initially, candidate CMS strategies were evaluated based upon potential applicability within the study area as a whole and not for a specific location. The strategies not meeting the minimum criteria were eliminated from further consideration. The remaining strategies were evaluated further to determine their potential in reducing single occupant vehicles or reducing congestion for specific locations.
The following alternatives were assessed for their potential applicability to the characteristics of the US 9/Garden State Parkway study area, their ease of implementation and their ability to address the identified issues along the corridor:
TDM Strategies
• Ridesharing • Employer Trip Reduction (ETR) Plans • Financial Incentives • Flextime and Staggered Work Hours • Park-and-Ride Lots • Vehicle Replacement/Upgrade • Improvement in Pedestrian Access / Bicycle Facilities • Transit Enhancements • Rail Initiatives • Bus Initiatives • Site Design Improvements / Negotiated Agreements (with developers) / Land Use Plans / Arterial Access Management • Growth Management • Truck restrictions (height restriction improvements under railroad and passenger bridges) • Auto Restriction Zones (Pedestrian Malls)
TSM Strategies
• Advanced Directional Signage • Provide / Improve Pedestrian Access • Roadway Access Restrictions • Signal Improvements (signalization timing, etc.)
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 85 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
• Channelized Turning Bays • Travel Lane Improvements (Lane Striping and Lane Delineation) • Intersection Turn Restrictions / Exit Only Lanes • Roadway Signage • Use of Shoulder Lanes (shoulder lane expansion on bridges; shoulder lane expansion for accommodation of bicycling, etc.) • Access Control to Available Development Sites • Restripe Exit-Only Lane to Shared Travel Lane • Creation of Express Lanes • Creation of Collector/Distributor Lanes (Local Lanes) • Elimination of Bottlenecks • Ramp Metering • Roadway Widening • Redesign of Interchanges • Modification / Construction of On- and Off- Ramps • Roadway Realignment
Maintenance Measures
• General Maintenance Measures (bridges, roadway pavement, drainage issues, guiderails, etc.) • Rehabilitation Measures • Replacement Measures
The aforementioned TDM, TSM and Maintenance strategies have the potential to provide improvements to safety and capacity on U.S. 9 the GSP, CR 623, and Bay Avenue
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 86 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.0 CONCEPT SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The effectiveness of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures surviving the screening level analysis focused on the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle hours traveled (VHT) in the study area and the net reduction in peak hour trips within the U.S9/GSP study area. For the analysis of the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies, the resulting changes in Levels of Service (LOS) at key locations in the project area were evaluated to determine the effectiveness of reducing congestion levels and ameliorating delays. Safety improvements were also factored into the evaluation process for TSM strategies. Of the strategies identified from the preliminary strategy screening, many may not significantly reduce single occupant vehicles (SOVs) and area congestion. Each strategy was evaluated on an individual basis based upon the costs and the level of public and political support required for implementation relative to the net benefit derived from each strategy. In addition, complementary strategies were evaluated for effectiveness in conjunction with the TDM or TSM strategies identified for implementation. The maintenance measures were evaluated based upon need. The strategy screening results were consistent with other planning analyses completed within the project study area. As part of this process, legitimate strategies may not be recommended because they do not fit a specific problem within the corridor.
The concepts and recommendations were divided into two categories including short term and long term. It was assumed that short term concepts could be implemented by the responsible agency within a few years because they would not require extensive design or analysis, right-of-way taking, environmental review, or large capital expenditures. These concepts would include the fixing of pavement, pavement markings, replacement of non-bicycle compatible inlets, signage installation or replacement, signal timing adjustments, etc. Long term concepts must be prioritized by the responsible agencies. The long term concepts would require extensive design or analysis, large capital expenditures, and perhaps right-of-way taking. The specific recommendations developed in response to the identified problems have been presented by location and timeframe in the following sections.
6.1 General
6.1.2 Short Term Recommendations
No concepts recommended.
6.1.3 Long Term Recommendation
Exclusive left turn lanes should be provided where appropriate along U.S. 9 at intersections with county and state roads to improve capacity and reduce delays. A minimum 8-foot shoulder width should be provided throughout the U.S. 9 corridor to improve vehicle safety where it is possible to do so. Bicycle compatible lanes should be designed and constructed along U.S 9 in northbound and southbound shoulders from
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 87 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
M.P. 23.73 to M.P. 33.23 if feasible. In addition, bicycle compatible lanes should be designed and constructed along Roosevelt Boulevard in the eastbound and westbound shoulders from U.S. 9 (M.P. 0.00) to Bay Avenue (M.P. 2.04) if feasible.
6.2 U.S. 9
6.2.1 Route 50 (M.P. 23.76)
6.2.1.1 Short Term Recommendations
The merge of the high speed eastbound right turn ramp into southbound U.S. 9 is abrupt and should be extended. A speed limit sign should also be provided on this ramp to control speeds. The southbound right turn lane is short and should be extended to allow right turning vehicles to bypass the queue of southbound through vehicles. In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks and signals should be provided for all four approaches. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-1.
6.2.1.2 Long Term Recommendation
Traffic volumes projected for this intersection in 2025 require the provision of an additional northbound through lane and signal timing improvements. To the east of this intersection, access to the Acme/Jamesway shopping center and adjacent properties could be improved by constructing a signalized intersection from the GSP Exit 20 ramp. This improvement would need to be coordinated by NJHA, Cape May County, NJDOT, and the property owners. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-2.
6.2.2 Segment from Route 50 to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 23.76 - 28.57)
6.2.2.1 Short Term Recommendations
To facilitate southbound bicycle travel on U.S. 9, bicycle compatible inlets should be provided near Hope Corson Road (CR 671) M.P. 24.5. In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks should be provided at the Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. The removal of vegetation that obscures the directional sign on the northbound approach at Hope-Corson Road intersection would improve visibility. A drainage study should be performed in the vicinity of M.P. 26.0 due to the collection of storm water along properties and driveways. The sight distance at the Heritage Links Golf Course entrance (M.P. 26.0) intersection should be improved by removing vegetation. In order to provide access to existing and future development, a center turn lane should be constructed from Church Road (CR 602) to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631). In addition, curbs and sidewalks should also be constructed in this section of U.S. 9 to improve pedestrian access. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6- 3, 6-4, 6-5 and 6-6.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 88 LEGEND: Sidewalks/ Curbs Remove Existing Facility Reconstruct/ Construct Overpass Extend Southbound New/ Modified Signage Right Turn Lane Intersection Improvements/ Pedestrian Improvements Drainage Improvements Realignment/ Restriping/ New Construction Provide pedestrian Maintenance crosswalks and signals
Provide signage
Improve merge
Extend southbound on ramp acceleration lane
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Extend northbound off- Date: March 2004 ramp deceleration lane File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-1 East Orange, NJ 07018 Restrict Left Turns out of the Shopping Center
Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders Geometric improvements
Signal timing improvements
Provide access to Shopping Center from Exit 20 ramp.
Reconfigure interchange and add missing ramp connections
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-2 East Orange, NJ 07018 Improve visibility of signage on the NB approach (remove vegetation obscuring signs). Provide intersection crosswalks
Provide bicycle compatible inlets
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-3 East Orange, NJ 07018 Improve intersection sight distance
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Perform Client: SJTPO drainage Date: March 2004 study File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-4 East Orange, NJ 07018 Construct center turn lanes
Provide curb lanes and sidewalks
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-5 East Orange, NJ 07018 Provide crosswalks Lengthen northbound on and pedestrian signals ramp acceleration lane
Provide overhead Extend Lengthen directional signage SB left southbound Drainage improvements - turn lane. off-ramp including Tuckahoe Rd./ Restripe westbound deceleration Roosevelt Blvd. intersection approach and provide for lane eastbound travel lanes Improve Improve pavement signage Provide curbs and sidewalks, including context sensitive design Improve sight Provide distance crosswalks Provide Improve crosswalks Construct pavement center Improve turn lane signage
Lengthen southbound on ramp acceleration lane Lengthen northbound off- Construct center turn ramp deceleration lane lanes
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Provide curb lanes Corridor Study and sidewalks Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-6 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.2.2.2 Long Term Recommendation
Because of vehicle conflicts due to vehicle queuing on southbound U.S. 9 from the nearby Route 50 intersection, left turns should be restricted from the Acme/Jamesway shopping center. This prohibition would be implemented in conjunction with the construction of alternate access on the GSP Exit 20 ramp. The capacity and sight distance of the Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) intersection should be improved by constructing a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane. The Butter Road (CR 637) intersection geometry and sight distance should be improved by realigning the intersection and constructing a northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and westbound left and right turn lanes. The Church Road (CR 602) intersection capacity and safety should be improved by constructing a northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and westbound left and right turn lanes. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6-2, 6-7, 6-8 and 6-9.
6.2.3 Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) (M.P. 28.57)
6.2.3.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks should be provided on the southbound and eastbound approaches. Advanced directional signage should be provided on the northbound and westbound approaches of this intersection. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-6.
6.2.3.2 Long Term Recommendation
The Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) intersection should be reconstructed to improve safety, the turning radii, and capacity by constructing a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-10.
6.2.4 Segment from Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.57 - 28.79)
6.2.4.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to provide access to existing and future development, a center turn lane should be constructed from Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) to Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623). In addition, curbs and sidewalks should also be constructed in this section of U.S. 9 to improve pedestrian access. These improvements, in conjunction with other amenities such as landscaping, street furniture, and brick pavers, would create a sense of place for downtown Marmora. These improvements can be developed as part of context sensitive design principles based upon public participation. Because of identified flooding in this section of U.S. 9, drainage improvements between the Tuckahoe Road and Roosevelt Boulevard intersections should be implemented. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-6.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 95 Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Improve intersection sight distance
Improve intersection capacity
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: Match 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-7 East Orange, NJ 07018 Improve intersection Design and construct geometry and sight distance bicycle compatible and realign intersection lane in shoulders
Improve intersection capacity
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-8 East Orange, NJ 07018 Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Improve intersection geometry and safety
Improve intersection capacity
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-9 East Orange, NJ 07018 Reconstruct intersection Improve intersection capacity
Improve intersection capacity
Reconfigure Reconstruct Park & Ride lot intersection
Drainage Improve improvements intersection capacity
Signal timing adjustments
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt Design and construct bicycle The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-10 compatible lane in shoulders East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.2.5 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) (M.P. 28.79)
6.2.5.1 Short Term Recommendations
Roosevelt Boulevard east of U.S. 9 should be restriped to extend the left turn lane and to provide for two eastbound travel lanes. An overhead directional signage should be provided on the westbound approach to designate the lane designations. The southbound left turn lane is short and should be extended to provide additional storage for left turning vehicles. In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks and signals should be provided for all four approaches. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-6.
6.2.5.2 Long Term Recommendation
The capacity and safety of this intersection could be improved by constructing a high speed northbound right turn ramp directly into eastbound Roosevelt Boulevard. Vehicles using this ramp would not be required to stop at the traffic signal at this intersection. In addition, traffic volumes projected for this intersection in 2025 require the conversion of the exclusive eastbound left turn lane to a shared left turn/through lane with signal timing improvements. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-10.
6.2.6 Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) (M.P. 29.2)
6.2.6.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks should be provided on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches. Advanced directional signage should be provided on the northbound and southbound approaches of this intersection. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-11.
6.2.6.2 Long Term Recommendation
The U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road (CR 662) intersection geometry and sight distance should be improved by realigning the intersection and constructing a northbound left turn lane, a southbound right turn lane, and westbound left and right turn lanes. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-12.
6.2.7 Segment from Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) to the Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 28.79 – 30.7)
6.2.7.1 Short Term Recommendations
The poor pavement located Youngs Lane (M.P. 29.97) should be improved. This short- term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-13.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 100 Provide crosswalks Improve signage
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-11 East Orange, NJ 07018 Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Reconfigure intersection
Drainage Title: Long Term Improvements improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-12 East Orange, NJ 07018 Improve pavement
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-13 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.2.7.2 Long Term Recommendation
A drainage study should be performed between M.P. 29.0 and M.P. 29.2 (north of Roosevelt Boulevard) to identify flooding problems. This long-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-12.
6.2.8 Beesley’s Point Bridge (M.P. 30.7 - M.P. 31.9)
6.2.8.1 Short Term Recommendations
The U.S. 9 Over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) Bridge and the U.S. 9 Over Drag Channel Bridge should be rehabilitated to extend the life of these bridges. Rehabilitation of these bridges could be performed during the off-peak season and would have a much smaller effect on traffic operations. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6-14 and 6-15.
6.2.8.2 Long Term Recommendation
A report “Study of Beesley’s Point Bridge Traffic Options,” was prepared by the New Jersey Highway Authority (GEC Assignment 93-16) in August 1995. This study evaluated alternatives that would rehabilitate, replace, or close this bridge and their effect on traffic crossing Great Egg Harbor. These analyses were updated using the data collected for the U.S. 9/GSP Corridor Study.
Traffic analyses were performed for the 2025 peak summer Saturday conditions assuming the permanent closure of the bridge. Based upon the analysis, a complete closure of the Beesley’s Point Bridge was not considered because of traffic impacts identified during the summer months due to the permanent diversion of traffic to the GSP and Roosevelt Boulevard corridors. The U.S. 9 and Roosevelt Boulevard, Roosevelt Boulevard and Vernon Road/GSP SB ramps, and the Roosevelt Blvd and GSP NB ramps intersections would all be affected by the diverted traffic flows.
The NJDOT Bridge Management System has identified the Beesley’s Point Bridge (over Great Egg Harbor) for replacement. A detailed inspection of the bridge would be needed to determine if corrective measures could extend the life of this bridge. Even after rehabilitation, the height of the Beesley’s Point Bridge from the bay is such that it would still require the frequent opening of the drawbridge during the peak summer season. Rehabilitation could work in the short term, but it does not properly address the long term viability of the structure. Based upon the data analyzed and the input provided by the Technical Advisory Committee, it is recommended that the long term solution is to replace both structures currently owned by the Beesley’s Point Bridge Company. These bridges should be constructed with one lane in each direction with shoulders that could accommodate bicyclists. In addition, the bridge should be constructed with the requisite navigable clearance to support marine traffic.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 104 Rehabilitate bridge.
Rehabilitate bridge.
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-14 East Orange, NJ 07018 Rehabilitate bridge.
Rehabilitate bridge.
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Rehabilitate bridge. Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-15 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
It is recommended that the existing bridges would not be closed during the bulk of the construction in order to avoid the regional traffic impacts previously discussed. Rather, parallel spans could be constructed that would allow the existing bridges to remain open during construction. At the end of the construction period, traffic may be temporarily suspended along U.S. 9 while the new bridges are connected to the existing roadway network. The main issues with this option are funding and wetlands impacts due to the parallel span replacement. Coordination between NJDOT and the Beesley’s Point Bridge Company would be required for all of the bridge options considered. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6-16 and 6-17.
6.2.9 Segment from the Beesley’s Point Bridge to Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 30.7– 32.64)
6.2.9.1 Short Term Recommendations
The inlet at M.P. 32.3 should be improved so that it is even with the pavement so that the roadway drains normally. In addition, two bicycle compatible inlets should be provided at U.S. 9 (M.P. 32.2). The pavement along the shoulders from M.P. 32.3 to M.P. 32.60 should be improved. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-18.
6.2.9.2 Long Term Recommendation
The U.S. 9 over Garden State Parkway Bridge (M.P. 32.22) should be replaced and northbound and southbound shoulders should be provided. Because of identified flooding in this section, drainage improvements should be implemented on the west side of U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Chestnut Street. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-19.
6.2.10 Mays Landing Road (CR 559) (M.P. 32.64)
6.2.10.1 Short Term Recommendations
The pavement on the eastbound and westbound Mays Landing Road (CR 559) approaches should be improved. In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks and signals should be provided for all four approaches. Drainage improvements to the east of U.S. 9 on Mays Landing Road (CR 559) are currently being developed by Atlantic County. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-18.
6.2.10.2 Long Term Recommendation
Since this intersection is currently and projected to operate at a poor level of service, geometric and capacity improvements should be implemented. These improvements would include exclusive left turn, through, and right turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches, an exclusive left turn lane and shared through/right turn lane on the westbound approach, and a shared left turn/through and a shared through/right turn
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 107 Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Replace bridge and provide shoulders Replace bridge, provide shoulders and improve navigational clearance.
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-16 East Orange, NJ 07018 Replace bridge and provide shoulders
Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Replace bridge, provide shoulders and improve navigational clearance. Replace bridge and provide shoulders
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Replace bridge, provide Corridor Study shoulders and improve Client: SJTPO navigational clearance. Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-17 East Orange, NJ 07018 Intersection improvement - NJDOT
Provide crosswalks Remove vegetation Improve pavement and pedestrian signals obscuring signs on Mays Landing Rd. approaches
Improve shoulders Title: Short Term Improvements Drainage U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway improvements - Corridor Study Atlantic County Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt Drainage The Louis Berger Group, Inc. improvements 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-18 East Orange, NJ 07018 Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Signal timing adjustments
Reconstruct intersection Improve intersection Construct new capacity interchange ramps Title: Long Term Improvements Drainage U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway improvements Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Provide Date: March 2004 signalized File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. intersection 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-19 Reconstruct bridge East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
lane on the eastbound approach. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-19.
6.2.11 Segment from Mays Landing Road to Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 32.64 – 33.23)
6.2.11.1 Short Term Recommendations
The vegetation obscuring the safety signs at M.P. 33.1 should be removed. This short- term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-18.
6.2.11.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.2.12 Route 52/Laurel Drive (M.P. 33.23)
6.2.12.1 Short Term Recommendations
The New Jersey Department of Transportation is planning to extend the northbound and eastbound left turn bays to improve intersection as part of the Route 52 improvements. This short-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-18.
6.2.12.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.3 Garden State Parkway
6.3.1 Interchange 20 (M.P. 20.25)
6.3.1.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to improve safety, the southbound on ramp acceleration lane and the northbound off-ramp deceleration lane should be lengthened. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-1.
6.3.1.2 Long Term Recommendation
Interchange 20 does not provide access from the southbound GSP to U.S. 9 or from U.S. 9 to the GSP northbound. These missing movements necessitate the use of Interchange 25 and add traffic to Roosevelt Boulevard between the GSP and U.S. 9 and on U.S. 9 between Roosevelt Boulevard and Route 50. It is recommended to reconfigure Interchange. 20 and add ramp connections from the southbound GSP to Route 50 and U.S. 9, and from Route 50 and U.S. 9 to GSP northbound. Potential wetland impacts would need to be evaluated before this project would become a reality.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 112 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
A southbound off-ramp would be constructed to connect the GSP with the existing ramp access road to the U.S 9 and Route 50 intersection. The existing northbound left-hand off-ramp would be closed. The existing two-way ramp access road would be extended east across the existing bridge over the southbound GSP and across a new bridge that would be constructed over the northbound GSP. In order to minimize potential wetland impacts, northbound on and off slip ramps would be constructed adjacent to the northbound GSP that would connect to the ramp access road at a new unsignalized intersection. The decision on whether these new ramps would be tolled lies with the NJHA.
The benefits of upgrading this interchange to accommodate all directions of access would improve regional access and mobility, reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduce vehicle hours traveled (VHT), reduce emergency vehicle response time, improve level of service and reduce congestion on the Roosevelt Boulevard mainline and intersections between U.S. 9 and the GSP, and improve level of service and reduce congestion on the U.S.9 mainline and intersections between Route 50 and Roosevelt Boulevard. It is estimated based upon origin/destination data that approximately 128 northbound and 122 southbound vehicles would be diverted from U.S. 9 to the GSP during the summer Saturday peak hour in 2025. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-2.
6.3.2 Segment from Interchange 20 to Interchange 25 (M.P. 20.25 – 25.34)
6.3.2.1 Short Term Recommendations
No concepts recommended.
6.3.2.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.3.3 Interchange 25 (M.P. 25.34)
6.3.3.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to improve safety, the southbound on ramp acceleration lane, southbound off- ramp deceleration lane, northbound on ramp acceleration lane, and the northbound off- ramp deceleration lane should be lengthened. The signage at the southbound off-ramp in advance of Wistar Avenue should be improved by adding a sign that clearly identifies the direction for Ocean City (to the east) and Marmora and U.S. 9 (to the west). The pavement at the intersection of Wistar Avenue and the southbound off-ramp should be improved. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-6.
6.3.3.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 113 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.3.4 Segment from Interchange 25 to Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 25.34 – 27.4)
6.3.4.1 Short Term Recommendations
No concepts recommended.
6.3.4.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.3.5 Great Egg Harbor Bridge (M.P. 27.4 - 28.6)
6.3.5.1 Short Term Recommendations
The GSP over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road Bridge and the GSP over Drag Channel Bridge should be rehabilitated to extend the life of these bridges. Rehabilitation of these bridges could be performed during the off-peak season and would have a much smaller effect on traffic operations. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6- 14 and 6-15.
6.3.5.2 Long Term Recommendation
Although the NJDOT Bridge Management System has identified the GSP over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road (M.P. 27.77) and the GSP over Drag Harbor (M.P. 28.48) for replacement, detailed inspection of these bridges would be needed to determine if corrective measures could extend the life of these bridges. Rehabilitation could work in the short term, but it does not properly address the long term viability of these structures. Based upon the data analyzed and the input provided by the Technical Advisory Committee, it is recommended that the long term solution is to replace both structures. These bridges should be constructed with two lanes in each direction with shoulders.
It is recommended that the existing bridges would not be closed during the bulk of the construction in order to avoid the regional traffic impacts previously discussed for the Beesley’s Point Bridge. Parallel spans could be constructed that would allow the existing bridges to remain open during construction. At the end of the construction period, traffic may be temporarily suspended along the GSP while the new bridges are connected to the existing roadway network. Potential wetlands impacts due to the construction of the parallel span replacement would need to be investigated in detail. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6-16 and 6-17.
6.3.6 Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza (M.P. 28.6 - 28.9)
6.3.6.1 Short Term Recommendations
No concepts recommended.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 114 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.3.6.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.3.7 Interchange 29 (M.P. 28.9)
6.3.7.1 Short Term Recommendations
No concepts recommended.
6.3.7.2 Long Term Recommendation
Interchange 29 does not provide access from the southbound GSP to U.S. 9 or from U.S. 9 to the GSP northbound. These missing movements necessitate the use of West Laurel Drive by all motorists traveling between the GSP and Somers Point or northern Ocean City. Because of its proximity to Interchange 30, Interchange 29 would be a viable alternative for relieving identified traffic congestion at this interchange during the summer months (details provided in Section 6.3.9.2).
Because of wetland issues, the options for constructing the missing ramps at Interchange 29 are limited. The concept proposed would consist of constructing the new interchange ramp connections from southbound GSP to U.S. 9 and from U.S. 9 to GSP northbound within the wide median of the GSP. These ramps would connect to the GSP as a left- handed off-ramp and a left-handed on ramp. The use of the median is plausible since there are no identified wetlands between the northbound and southbound GSP roadways and these new ramps would not interfere with the existing Interchange 29 ramps. A right handed southbound off-ramp would have been in direct conflict with the existing ramp connecting U.S. 9 to the southbound GSP. It is proposed that the new southbound off- ramp and northbound on ramp would intersect U.S.9 on the reconstructed U.S. 9 over Garden State Parkway Bridge at a single point signalized intersection. The decision on whether these new ramps would be tolled lies with the NJHA. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-19.
6.3.8 Segment from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30 (M.P. 28.9 – 30.0)
6.3.8.1 Short Term Recommendations
Pavement improvements should be implemented on the southbound GSP between M.P. 28.8 and 30.4 based upon the results of NJDOT Pavement Management System. This short-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-20.
6.3.8.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 115 Lengthen M.P. 30.2 southbound off-ramp deceleration lane
Lengthen northbound on ramp acceleration lane
Pavement improvements southbound from Interchange 29 to Interchange 30
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-20 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.3.9 Interchange 30 (M.P. 30.0)
6.3.9.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to improve safety, the southbound off-ramp deceleration lane and the northbound on ramp acceleration lane should be lengthened. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-20.
6.3.9.2 Long Term Recommendation
During the summer months, the southbound off-ramp and northbound on ramp at Interchange 30 are congested with tourist traffic. The main access to this interchange (West Laurel Drive) traverses a residential neighborhood. The previous interchange is located 5.82 miles to the north at M.P. 35.82. Interchange 29 is located one mile to the south of Interchange 30. However, this interchange does not have a complimentary southbound off-ramp or northbound on ramp to reduce Interchange 30 traffic. Portable variable message signs have been placed along southbound GSP in advance of Interchange 30 to detour Ocean City bound motorists to Interchange 25. However, congested conditions are also experienced at this interchange.
Alternative concepts have been identified and studied to remedy these conditions. A concept that would close Interchange 30 and relocate it 0.7 miles to the south at Mays Landing Road (CR 559) was studied. This concept would introduce a southbound slip off- ramp and northbound slip on ramp connecting the GSP with Mays Landing Road (CR 559) at two separate signalized intersections. This concept was dismissed because of the potential impact on wetlands and the Mays Landing Road (CR 559) and U.S.9 interchange could not accommodate the increase in traffic without significant property taking and a widening of Mays Landing Road (CR 559) between the GSP and Route 52. In addition, changes would need to be made to the current plans developed for the reconstruction of the Mays Landing Road (CR 559) and Route52 intersection by NJDOT.
Based upon the data analyzed, it is recommended that Interchange 30 remain open in its current configuration. However, the construction of the missing ramps at Interchange 29 (as outlined in section 6.3.7.2) would divert some traffic from Interchange 30 ameliorating the congestion that is projected in the future at Interchange 30. In addition, the NJHA should investigate a suitable location to the north of Interchange 30 that would further divert vehicles from Interchange 30. Some candidate locations include Ocean Heights Avenue at M.P. 31.58 and Zion Road at M.P. 33.55.
The geometry of the southbound off-ramp and the northbound on ramp should be improved by reconstructing the superelevation on the curves of these ramps. These long- term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-21.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 117 M.P. 30.2
Improve geometry
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-21 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.4 Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623)
6.4.1 Segment from U.S. 9 to Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.0 – 0.23)
6.4.1.1 Short Term Recommendations
As a result of restriping the pavement east of the U.S. 9 intersection, two travel lanes would be provided in each direction between U.S. 9 and the GSP. This short-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-6.
6.4.1.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.4.2 Vernon Road/Southbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.23)
6.4.2.1 Short Term Recommendations
Sight distance for southbound vehicles at this intersection could be improved by reducing vegetation and relocating traffic control box located at the northeast corner of the intersection. In order to facilitate pedestrian safety, pedestrian crosswalks should be provided on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches. The poor pavement located at this intersection should be improved. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-6.
6.4.2.2 Long Term Recommendation
Traffic operations can be improved at the Roosevelt Boulevard and Northbound GSP Ramps intersection in 2025 by adding an exclusive southbound left turn lane. As a result of this improvement, the northbound travel lane would be shifted to the east and the existing Park & Ride lot would be reconfigured and shifted slightly to the north of its current location. A drainage study should be performed in the vicinity of this intersection to identify flooding problems. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-10.
6.4.3 Northbound GSP Ramps (M.P. 0.31)
6.4.3.1 Short Term Recommendations
No concepts recommended.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 119 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.4.3.2 Long Term Recommendation
Traffic operations can be improved at the Roosevelt Boulevard and Northbound GSP Ramps intersection in 2025 by modifying the signal timing. This long-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-10.
6.4.4 Segment from Northbound GSP Ramps to Crook Horn Creek Bridge (M.P. 0.31 – 1.32)
6.4.4.1 Short Term Recommendations
The addition of a second westbound travel lane from just east of the GSP to the Roosevelt Boulevard and Northbound GSP Ramps intersection would reduce westbound traffic delays in the summer as vehicles leave Ocean City. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-22.
6.4.4.2 Long Term Recommendation
A drainage study should be performed to determine measures that would minimize the effects of tidal flooding. Two travel lanes and shoulders in each direction with a center turning lane should be constructed between the GSP and the Crook Horn Creek Bridge. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-23.
6.4.5 Segment from Crook Horn Creek Bridge to Bay Avenue (M.P. 1.32 – 2.04)
6.4.5.1 Short Term Recommendations
The Roosevelt Boulevard bridge over Crook Horn Creek should be rehabilitated to extend the life of the bridge. Cape May County is planning rehabilitation work to begin in the fall of 2004. This short-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-24.
6.4.5.2 Long Term Recommendation
The existing Roosevelt Boulevard bridge over Crook Horn Creek should be replaced to provide two travel lanes and shoulders in each direction. A design element of this project would determine whether two separate spans (using the existing structure) or one new span accommodating all of the travel lanes and shoulders would be constructed. Two travel lanes and shoulders would be constructed to the east of the bridge to Bay Avenue in each direction. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-25.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 120 Add travel lane
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-22 East Orange, NJ 07018 Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in shoulders
Drainage improvements
Provide two travel lanes with a center turn lane and shoulders in each direction
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-23 East Orange, NJ 07018 Rehabilitate Bridge
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-24 East Orange, NJ 07018 Replace bridge and provide shoulders Provide two travel Design and construct lanes and shoulders in bicycle compatible each direction lane in shoulders
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-25 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.4.6 Segment from Bay Avenue (M.P. 2.04) to West Avenue (M.P. 2.22)
6.4.6.1 Short Term Recommendations
In order to improve traffic operations during the summer months, one-way traffic flow should be away from 34th Street on all alleys. In addition, left turn into and out of businesses along 34th Street should be prohibited during summer months. These short- term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-26.
6.4.6.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.4.7 West Avenue (M.P. 2.22) to Central Avenue (M.P. 2.33)
6.4.7.1 Short Term Recommendations
Prohibit parking on 34th Street between Asbury Avenue and Central Avenue to provide an eastbound left turn lane from 34th Street to Central Avenue. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-26.
6.4.7.2 Long Term Recommendation
Traffic operations on a summer Saturday can be improved at the 34th Street and West Avenue intersection by modifying the signal timing. This long-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-27.
6.5 Bay Avenue
6.5.1 35th Street
6.5.1.1 Short Term Recommendations
A stop sign should be added on northbound approach of this intersection during summer months to improve traffic flow. This short-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6- 26.
6.5.1.2 Long Term Recommendation
This intersection is projected to operate at an improved level of service in 2025 as a result of prohibiting westbound through movements at the West Avenue and 35th Street intersection. This long-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-27.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 125 Signal timing improvements One way traffic flow away from 34th Street Improve pavement on NB approach Prohibit left turns into and out of Add stop sign NB businesses during during summer summer months. months
Prohibit parking Prohibit WB left & through movements during summer season Title: Short Term Improvements Provide EB U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study left turn lane Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-26 East Orange, NJ 07018 Geometric improvements
Signal timing improvements
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-27 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.5.2 34th Street (M.P. 0.0)
6.5.2.1 Short Term Recommendations
Traffic operations on a summer Saturday can be improved at the 34th Street and Bay Avenue intersection by modifying the signal timing. The poor pavement located on the northbound approach of the 34th Street and Bay Avenue intersection should be improved. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-26.
6.5.2.2 Long Term Recommendation
In order to improve traffic operations in 2025, it is recommended to add exclusive eastbound and westbound turning lanes on 34th Street. In addition, the northbound left turn lane should be lengthened to provide additional storage for queued vehicles. These long-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-27.
6.5.3 Segment from 34th Street (M.P. 0.0) to 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)
6.5.3.1 Short Term Recommendations
The sight distance at the Bay Avenue and Vineyard Way intersection (M.P. 0.71) should be improved by eliminated approximately three on street parking spaces on the west side of Bay Avenue. The poor pavement located at the 16th Street and Bay Avenue intersection (M.P. 1.96) should be improved. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figures 6-28 and 6-29.
6.5.3.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
6.5.4 9th Street (M.P. 2.70)
6.5.4.1 Short Term Recommendations
Traffic operations on a summer Saturday can be improved at the 9th Street and Bay Avenue intersection by modifying the signal timing. Eastbound right turns to Pleasure Avenue and Palen Avenue from 9th Street should be prohibited during summer months to prevent tourist traffic from using these residential streets. These short-term recommendations are depicted on Figure 6-30.
6.5.4.2 Long Term Recommendation
Traffic operations can be improved at the 9th Street and Bay Avenue intersection in 2025 by modifying the signal timing. This long-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6- 31.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 128 Improve sight distance
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-28 East Orange, NJ 07018 Improve poor pavement at intersection
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-29 East Orange, NJ 07018 Prohibit eastbound right turns during summer months Signal timing improvements
Title: Short Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-30 East Orange, NJ 07018 Signal timing improvements
Title: Long Term Improvements U.S. 9/ Garden State Parkway Corridor Study Client: SJTPO Date: March 2004 File Id: l:\gis\sjtpo\images\orthos.ppt The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 100 Halsted Street Figure 6-31 East Orange, NJ 07018 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
6.6 West Avenue
6.6.1 35th Street
6.6.1.1 Short Term Recommendations
Prohibit westbound left and through movements during summer season at the West Avenue and 35th Street intersection to improve traffic flow and safety. This short-term recommendation is depicted on Figure 6-26.
6.6.1.2 Long Term Recommendation
No concepts recommended.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 133 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
7.0 FUTURE BUILD CONDITIONS
Operational conditions projected in the future within the U.S. 9/GSP study area were assessed to establish a build condition assuming improvements would be made to the corridor based upon the concepts identified in the previous section. For purposes of analysis, the year 2025 was utilized in order to compare the results to the no-build condition analyses. An increase in capacity at key intersection locations would reduce delays within the U.S. 9/GSP study area. The analysis results presented within this chapter were used to measure how congestion was reduced based upon the various concepts presented in the previous section. In addition, preliminary order of magnitude costs for the concepts have been developed.
7.1 Volume Development
According to New Jersey Transit’s The 2020 Transit Report: Possibilities for the Future, the U.S. 9/GSP study area has limited potential to warrant transit service in the future. The only exceptions within the study corridor include the extension of service on the Cape May Seashore Lines from Cape May Courthouse to Tuckahoe. Within the foreseeable future, there are no bus improvement projects or studies scheduled to be performed within the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures such as car pooling, park-and-ride, flexible work hours, etc. would only marginally (less than 1%) reduce peak hour traffic in the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
Most of the Transportation System Management (TSM) measures (physical improvements) proposed as part of the build condition would similarly not affect the majority of the traffic volumes within the U.S. 9/GSP study area. However, the completion of the GSP Interchange 20 would have a profound effect on traffic volumes in the U.S. 9/GSP study area. This improvement would increase traffic volumes on the GSP between Interchanges 20 and 25 and reduce traffic volumes on the Roosevelt Boulevard mainline and intersections between U.S. 9 and the GSP, and reduce traffic volumes on the U.S.9 mainline and intersections between Route 50 and Roosevelt Boulevard. It is estimated based upon origin/destination data that approximately 128 northbound and 122 southbound vehicles would be diverted from U.S. 9 to the GSP during the summer Saturday peak hour in 2025.
The other concept that would affect traffic volumes is the completion of the GSP Interchange 29. This improvement directly affects traffic volumes and turning movements at the U.S. 9 and Mays Landing Road (CR 559) and the U.S.9 and Route 52 intersections. It is estimated that all of the traffic currently exiting at Interchange 30 crossing the Beesley’s Point Bridge would use the new Interchange 29 ramps. This would lower the northbound and southbound volumes traveling through the U.S. 9 and Mays Landing Road (CR 559) intersection. However, some diverted traffic from points east (Ocean City) would increase the westbound left turn and northbound right turn volumes at this intersection. This concept would generally reduce volumes at the U.S.9 and Route 52 intersection for the eastbound left turn and through movements, the northbound left turn movement, and the westbound through movement.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 134 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
The 2025 Build traffic volumes for the Summer Saturday and Weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2.
7.2 Analysis Results
Detailed capacity analyses were conducted at critical signalized and unsignalized intersections, two-lane highway segments, and basic freeway segments in the study corridor for 2025 conditions with the implementation of the proposed project improvements.
Signalized Locations
The ten (10) signalized intersections were analyzed for daily peak period operating conditions using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. Traffic volumes, intersection geometry (i.e. lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.), and bus stop activity data were used in the analysis. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2025 Build summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 7-3 and 7-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The majority of signalized intersections are projected to operate at a level of service (LOS) “D” or better during the 2025 Build summer Saturday peak period with the exception of the following:
U.S. 9 and GSP Exit 20 Ramps/Route 50 The intersection is projected to operate at overall LOS “D” with the exception of the following specific movements: • Westbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”.
U.S. 9 and Mays Landing Road (CR559) The intersection is projected to operate at overall LOS “D” with the exception of the following specific movements: • Eastbound approach (left, through, right turn) operates at a LOS “E”. • Southbound approach (through) operates at a LOS “E”.
Bay Avenue and 34th Street The intersection is projected to operate at overall LOS “D” with the exception of the following specific movements: • Eastbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”. • Westbound approach (through) operates at a LOS “E”. • Northbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 135
U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
West Avenue and 34th Street The intersection is expected to operate at overall LOS “D” with the exception of the following specific movements: • Eastbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “E”.
Bay Avenue and 9th Street The intersection is expected to operate at overall LOS “D” with the exception of the following specific movements: • Eastbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “F”. • Westbound approach (through and right turn) operates at a LOS “F”. • Northbound approach (left turn) operates at a LOS “F”. • Southbound approach (through and left turn) operates at a LOS “F”.
During the 2025 Build weekday off-peak periods none of the intersections are projected to operate at poor levels of service.
Unsignalized Locations
Three (3) unsignalized intersection were analyzed for daily peak period operating conditions using the HCS, version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. Traffic volumes and intersection geometry (i.e. lane utilization, lane widths, parking regulations, etc.) data were used in the analysis. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2025 Build Summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 7-3 and 7-4, respectively. The unsignalized intersections are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the both analysis periods. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
Two-Lane Highway Sections
Six (6) two-lane sections on U.S. 9 were analyzed for peak period operating conditions using the HCS, version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. All other sections did not qualify because of the presence of bottlenecks, numerous conflict points, and close proximity of major intersections. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2025 Build summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 7-3 and 7-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following U.S. 9 two-lane highway sections are projected to operate at poor levels of service for the 2025 summer Saturday peak period:
Between Route 50 and Wright Lane This section of roadway is projected to operate at a LOS “E” during the summer peak period.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 140 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Between Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) This section of roadway is projected to operate at a LOS “E” during the summer peak period.
Between Mays Landing Road (CR 559) and GSP NB off-ramp This section of roadway is projected to operate at a LOS “E” during the summer peak period.
The following U.S. 9 two-lane highway section is projected to operate at a poor level of service for the 2025 weekday off-peak period:
Between Roosevelt Boulevard (CR 623) and Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) This section of roadway is expected to operate at a LOS “E” during the AM and PM peak period.
Basic Freeway Segments
Four (4) Basic Freeway Segments for the GSP were analyzed for peak period operating conditions using the HCS, version 4.1c, based upon the HCM. The results of the capacity analyses for the 2025 Build summer Saturday and weekday off-peak AM and PM periods are summarized in Figures 7-3 and 7-4, respectively. The HCS worksheets are included in Appendix B.
The following GSP Basic Freeway Segment is expected to continue to operate at a poor level of service for the 2025 summer Saturday Peak Period:
Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll Plaza This section of roadway is projected to operate at a LOS “F” in the northbound direction and a LOS of “E” in the southbound direction during the summer Saturday peak period.
The GSP basic freeway segments are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during the 2025 weekday off-peak analysis periods.
7.3 Projected Costs
Cost estimates were calculated for each of the recommended conceptual improvements. The total cost for all recommended improvements was estimated at more than $218.6 million, with short term improvements totaling almost $3.8 million and long term improvements totaling more than $214.8 million. These totals are found in Table 7-1 and represent composites of the short term and long term sub-totals shown on Tables 7-2 through 7-31.
These estimates were primarily based on the Construction Cost Estimation Preparation Manual for Preliminary Design (English Units) prepared by the Program Support Services’ Construction Cost Estimating Unit of the NJDOT. In some cases, the NJDOT
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 141 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
average bid prices from 2002 and engineering judgment and experience were used. The estimates presented below include general construction costs but do not include costs associated with right-of-way acquisition, utility costs, contingencies, escalation, design or construction engineering, or environmental mitigation.
Tables 7-1 through 7-31 provide the cost estimates for each recommendation and identify the agency responsible for implementation. All cost estimates were prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. unless otherwise indicated.
TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS TIMEFRAME COST Short Term $3,780,930 Long Term $214,829,270 Total $218,610,200
TABLE 7-2 TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Long Term Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in northbound and southbound shoulders on NJDOT NA U.S. 9 from M.P. 23.76 to M.P. 33.23. Cape May Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in eastbound and westbound shoulders on NA County Roosevelt Boulevard from U.S. 9 to Bay Avenue (M.P. 0.00 to M.P. 2.04). Long Term Subtotal NA
TABLE 7-3 U.S. 9/ROUTE 50 (M.P. 23.76) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Improve the merge of eastbound right turn ramp with southbound Route 9. $34,240 NJDOT Provide speed limit sign at the eastbound right turn ramp. $1,500 NJDOT Extend southbound right turn lane. $124,500 NJDOT Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals for all approaches. $46,430 Short Term Subtotal $206,670 Long Term NJHA, Cape May Co., Upper Provide access to Shopping Center from Exit 20 ramp. $244,200 Township and NJDOT NJDOT Provide signal timing improvements. $5,000 NJDOT Provide geometric improvements. $24,900 Long Term Subtotal $274,100
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 142 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-4 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM ROUTE 50 TO TUCKAHOE ROAD (M.P. 23.76 to 28.57) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Provide bicycle compatible inlets at U.S. 9 southbound near Hope Corson Road (CR 671) NJDOT $1,500 M.P. 24.5. NJDOT Provide crosswalks at Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. $500 Improve visibility of signage on the northbound approach at Hope-Corson Road intersection NJDOT $500 (remove vegetation obscuring signs). NJDOT Perform drainage study in the vicinity of M.P. 26.0. $50,000 NJDOT Improve intersection sight distance at Heritage Links Golf Course entrance (M.P. 26.0). $500 NJDOT Construct center turn lane from Church Road (CR 602) to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631). $660,360 NJDOT Provide curbs and sidewalks from Church Road (CR 602) to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631). $502,920 Short Term Subtotal $1,216,280 Long Term Restrict left turns from Acme/Jamesway shopping center located just north of the Route 50 NJDOT $3,000 intersection. NJDOT Improve intersection sight distance at Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. $500 NJDOT Improve intersection capacity at Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. $52,800 Improve the Butter Road (CR 637) intersection geometry and sight distance, and realign NJDOT intersection. $260,100 NJDOT Improve Butter Road (CR 637) intersection capacity by adding turning lanes. NJDOT Improve Church Road (CR 602) intersection capacity. $105,600 NJDOT Improve Church Road (CR 602) intersection geometry and safety. Long Term Subtotal $422,000
TABLE 7-5 U.S. 9/TUCKAHOE ROAD (M.P. 28.57) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Provide crosswalks on the southbound and eastbound approaches. $690 NJDOT Improve advance signage for the northbound and westbound approaches of the intersection. $5,000 Short Term Subtotal $5,690 Long Term
NJDOT Reconstruct intersection. $52,800 NJDOT Improve intersection capacity. Long Term Subtotal $52,800
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 143 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-6 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM TUCKAHOE ROAD TO ROOSEVELT BLVD. (M.P. 28.57 to 28.79) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Construct center turn lane. $146,120 NJDOT Drainage improvements including Tuckahoe Road and Roosevelt Blvd. intersections. $50,000 NJDOT, Cape May Co. and Provide curbs and sidewalks including context sensitive design. $55,330 Upper Township Short Term Subtotal $251,450
TABLE 7-7 U.S. 9/ROOSEVELT BLVD. (M.P. 28.79) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals for all approaches. $46,090 NJDOT Provide overhead directional signage in westbound approach. $10,000 NJDOT Restripe westbound approach and provide for eastbound travel lanes. $6,940 NJDOT Extend southbound left turn lane. $12,450 Short Term Subtotal $75,480 Long Term NJDOT Reconstruct intersection. $86,850 NJDOT Improve intersection capacity. Long Term Subtotal $86,850
TABLE 7-8 U.S. 9/TUCKAHOE ROAD EXTENSION (M.P. 29.2) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Provide crosswalks at this intersection. $480 Improve advanced signage in advance of U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road Extension (southbound and NJDOT $5,000 northbound). Short Term Subtotal $5,480 Long Term NJDOT Reconfigure U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road intersection. $260,100 Long Term Subtotal $260,100
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 144 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-9 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM ROOSEVELT BLVD. TO BEESLEY’S BRIDGE (M.P. 28.79 to 30.70) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Improve pavement at Youngs Lane (M.P. 29.97). $570 Short Term Subtotal $570 Long Term NJDOT Drainage improvements between M.P. 29.0 and M.P. 29.2 (north of Roosevelt Boulevard). $100,000 Long Term Subtotal $100,000
TABLE 7-10 U.S. 9 BEESLEY’S POINT BRIDGE (M.P. 30.70 to 31.90) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT and Rehabilitate the U.S. 9 bridge over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) (M.P. Beesley’s Point $500,000 31.15). Bridge Company NJDOT and Beesley’s Point Rehabilitate the U.S. 9 bridge over Drag Channel. $250,000 Bridge Company Short Term Subtotal $750,000 Long Term NJDOT and Replace the U.S. 9 bridge over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) providing Beesley’s Point $60,000,000 northbound and southbound shoulders, and improving navigational clearance (M.P. 31.15). Bridge Company NJDOT and Replace the U.S. 9 bridge over Drag Channel providing northbound and southbound Beesley’s Point $13,150,000 shoulders, and improving navigational clearance. Bridge Company Long Term Subtotal $73,150,000
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 145 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-11 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM BEESLEY’S POINT BRIDGE TO MAYS LANDING RD. (M.P. 30.70 to 32.64) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Drainage improvements at M.P. 32.3 (inlet is not even with the pavement). NJDOT $6,500 Provide two bicycle compatible inlets at U.S. 9 (M.P. 32.2). NJDOT Improve shoulders from M.P. 32.3 to M.P. 32.6 $193,250 Short Term Subtotal $199,750 Long Term Replace U.S. 9 bridge over Garden State Parkway Bridge (M.P. 32.22) and provide NJDOT $3,800,000 northbound and southbound shoulders. NJDOT Drainage improvements on the west side of U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Chestnut Street. $100,000 Long Term Subtotal $3,900,000
TABLE 7-12 U.S. 9/MAYS LANDING RD. (M.P. 32.64) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Improve pavement on Mays Landing Road (CR 559) approaches. $32,350 Atlantic County Drainage improvements to the east of U.S. 9 on Mays Landing Road (CR 559). NA NJDOT Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals in all approaches. $45,900 Short Term Subtotal $78,250 Long Term NJDOT Signal timing adjustment $5,000 NJDOT Reconstruct intersection improving sight distance. $153,400 NJDOT Improve intersection capacity. Long Term Subtotal $158,400
TABLE 7-13 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM MAYS LANDING RD. TO ROUTE 52/LAUREL DRIVE (M.P. 32.64 to 33.23) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJDOT Remove vegetation obscuring signs at M.P. 33.1. $500 Short Term Subtotal $500
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 146 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-14 U.S 9 AND ROUTE 52/LAUREL DRIVE (M.P. 33.23) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term The New Jersey Department of Transportation to extend northbound and eastbound left turn NJDOT NA bays to improve intersection. Short Term Subtotal NA
TABLE 7-15 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 20 (M.P. 20.25) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJHA Lengthen southbound on ramp acceleration lane. $126,370 NJHA Lengthen northbound off-ramp deceleration lane. $54,800 Short Term Subtotal $181,170 Long Term Reconfigure interchange. Add ramp connections from southbound GSP to Routes 50 and NJHA $952,070 U.S. 9, and from Routes 50 and U.S. 9 to GSP northbound. Long Term Subtotal $952,070
TABLE 7-16 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 25 (M.P. 25.34) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJHA Lengthen southbound on ramp acceleration lane. $126,370 NJHA Lengthen southbound off-ramp deceleration lane. $54,780 NJHA Lengthen northbound off-ramp deceleration lane. $54,780 NJHA Lengthen northbound on ramp acceleration lane. $126,370 NJHA Improve signage at the southbound off-ramp in advance of Wistar Avenue. $1,500 Cape May Improve pavement at the intersection of Wistar Avenue and the southbound off-ramp. $1,700 Co./NJHA Short Term Subtotal $365,500
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 147 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-17 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY GREAT EGG HARBOR BRIDGE (M.P. 27.40 to 28.60) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJHA Rehabilitate the GSP bridge over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road (M.P. 27.77). $500,000 NJHA Rehabilitate the GSP bridge over Drag Harbor (M.P. 28.48). $250,000 Short Term Subtotal $750,000 Long Term Replace the GSP bridge over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road providing northbound and NJHA $89,527,700 southbound shoulders (M.P. 27.77). Replace the GSP bridge over Drag Harbor providing northbound and southbound shoulders NJHA $18,395,260 (M.P. 28.48). Long Term Subtotal $107,922,960
TABLE 7-18 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 29 (M.P. 28.9) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Long Term Construct new interchange ramp connections from southbound GSP to U.S. 9 and from U.S. NJHA $200,000 9 to GSP northbound. NJDOT Provide signalized intersection. $165,000 Long Term Subtotal $365,000
TABLE 7-19 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY SEGMENT FROM INTERCHANGE 29 TO INTERCHANGE 30 (M.P. 28.9 to 30.0) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Long Term NJHA Pavement improvements (M.P. 28.8-30.4). $337,920 Long Term Subtotal $337,920
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 148 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-20 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 30 (M.P. 30.0) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term NJHA Lengthen northbound on ramp acceleration lane. $140,690 NJHA Lengthen southbound off-ramp deceleration lane. $58,520 Short Term Subtotal $199,210 Long Term
NJHA Improve geometry of existing ramps. $375,300 Long Term Subtotal $375,300
TABLE 7-21 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (CR 631) VERNON RD./SOUTHBOUND GSP RAMPS (M.P. 0.23) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Improve sight distance for southbound vehicles due to bushes and a traffic control box Cape May Co. $500 located in the northeast corner of the intersection. Provide crosswalks on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches. Restripe Cape May Co. $1,520 eastbound crosswalk. Cape May Co. Improve pavement on southbound approach. $5,100 Short Term Subtotal $7,120 Long Term Cape May Co. Improve intersection capacity. $200,000 Cape May Co. Reconfigure Park & Ride lot to accommodate southbound left turn lane. $81,300 Cape May Co. Drainage improvements. $50,000 Long Term Subtotal $331,300
TABLE 7-22 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD/NORTHBOUND GSP RAMPS (M.P. 0.31) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Long Term Cape May Co. Signal timing adjustments. $5,000 Long Term Subtotal $5,000
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 149 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-23 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (CR 631) SEGMENT FROM NORTHBOUND GSP RAMPS TO CROOK HORN CREEK BRIDGE (M.P. 0.31 to 1.32) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Cape May Co. Add westbound travel lane from M.P. 0.6 to M.P. 0.3. $197, 210 Short Term Subtotal $197, 210 Long Term Cape May Co. Drainage improvements. $50,000 Cape May Co. Provide two travel lanes and shoulders in each direction with center turning lane. $1,124,380 Long Term Subtotal $1,174,380
TABLE 7-24 34TH STREET (CR 631) SEGMENT FROM CROOK HORN CREEK BRIDGE TO BAY AVENUE (M.P. 1.32 to 2.04) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Cape May Co. Rehabilitate Roosevelt Boulevard over Crook Horn Creek Bridge. NA Short Term Subtotal NA Long Term Replace Roosevelt Boulevard over Crook Horn Creek Bridge providing two travel lanes and Cape May Co. $24,386,500 shoulders in each direction (M.P. 1.32). Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in northbound and southbound shoulders to Cape May Co. NA east of bridge. Cape May Co. Provide two travel lanes and shoulders in each direction east of bridge. $500,340 Long Term Subtotal $24,886,840
TABLE 7-25 34TH STREET (CR 631) SEGMENT FROM BAY AVENUE TO WEST AVENUE (M.P. 2.04 to 2.22) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Ocean City Prohibit left turns into and out of businesses during summer months. $4,000 Ocean City One-way traffic flow away from 34th Street on all alleys. $5,000 Short Term Subtotal $9,000
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 150 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-26 34TH STREET SEGMENT FROM WEST AVENUE (M.P. 2.22) TO CENTRAL AVENUE (M.P. 2.33) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Prohibit parking on 34th Street between Asbury Avenue and Central Avenue to provide an Ocean City $2,300 eastbound left turn lane from 34th Street to Central Avenue Short Term Subtotal $2,300 Long Term Cape May Co. Signal timing improvements. $5,000 Long Term Subtotal $5,000
TABLE 7-27 BAY AVENUE/35TH STREET TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Ocean City Add stop sign on northbound approach during summer months. $2,000 Short Term Subtotal $2,000
TABLE 7-28 BAY AVENUE/34TH STREET (M.P. 0.0) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Cape May Co. Signal timing improvements. $5,000 Cape May Co. Improve pavement on northbound approach. $5,100 Short Term Subtotal $10,100 Long Term Cape May Co. Geometric improvements. $64,250 Long Term Subtotal $64,250
TABLE 7-29 BAY AVENUE (CR 656) SEGMENT FROM 34TH STREET (M.P. 0.0) TO 9TH STREET (M.P. 2.70) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Cape May Co. Improve sight distance at Vineyard Way intersection (M.P. 0.71). $2,200 Cape May Co. Improve pavement at 16th Street intersection (M.P. 1.96). $8,000 Short Term Subtotal $10,200
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 151 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 7-30 BAY AVENUE/9TH STREET (M.P. 2.70) TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Cape May Co. Signal timing improvements at 9th Street. $5,000 Prohibit eastbound right turns during summer months from 9th Street to Pleasure and Palen Ocean City $1,000 Avenue Short Term Subtotal $6,000 Long Term Cape May Co. Signal timing improvements at 9th Street. $5,000 Long Term Subtotal $5,000
TABLE 7-31 WEST AVENUE/35TH STREET TIMEFRAME AND COSTS FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS LEAD TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION COST AGENCY Short Term Ocean City Prohibit westbound left and through movements during summer season. $1,000 Short Term Subtotal $1,000
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 152 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
8.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND COORDINATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The U.S. 9/GSP Corridor Study included a public involvement program that was coordinated with the SJTPO. This program was designed to provide a foundation for informed public input to agency decision-making. A plan was developed is to solicit input and support from the general public, stakeholders, and local officials regarding the study (Appendix F). Specifically, the plan encouraged dialogue between SJTPO and interested and/or affected citizens and agencies by: providing them with up-to-date study information; encouraging open and ongoing communication; and facilitating receipt of informed public input to be used by the affected agencies in identifying and prioritizing development of short- and long-term concepts to address existing transportation deficiencies, context sensitive design, and environmental justice issues.
8.1 Scheduled Meetings
Public involvement planning and participation were crucial aspects of the overall work effort. Establishing a dialog between the stakeholders within the study area and the study team was an important step in developing recommendations that will adequately address deficiencies to serve the local communities and users of the corridor. Consensus is the ultimate goal of the public involvement process. However, reaching consensus on a wide range of topics with stakeholders that come from varying backgrounds and priorities was a challenge. This was accomplished through separate meetings set up at key junctures throughout the study with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), as well as the general public. Minutes from these meetings can be found in Appendix F.
8.1.1 Technical Advisory Committee
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established at the onset of the study and functioned as a significant source of study review and discussion throughout this phase of development. As a first step, a list of key stakeholders and study participants was developed in coordination with SJTPO. The list included local municipal officials (mayor/administrator, Planning Board Director, etc.), local municipal and county technical staff and consultants (planning, traffic engineering, public works, etc.), elected State officials (State senators and legislators), local police and the local Transportation Management Association (TMA). The local municipalities that were invited to participate included the three municipalities closest to the study corridor: Upper Township and Ocean City in Cape May County and Somers Point City in Atlantic County. The list of TAC members is provided in Appendix F.
The TAC served the dual function of generating and sharing vital input with SJTPO and the study team and channeling study information to interested constituencies. The TAC met three (3) times between October 2002 and October 2003 to review the results of technical studies and overall progress, define problems and existing conditions, discuss specific issues, and review and comment on proposed short- and long-term concepts and
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 153 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
recommendations. TAC meetings were also scheduled in advance of public meetings to provide members with the opportunity to review and comment on materials prior to their presentation to the general public.
The TAC provided first-hand knowledge of the corridor and responded to information and recommendations provided by the study team. Each TAC member was given ample opportunity to provide comments throughout the meeting. Through this open discussion period, consensus was generally reached on individual topics discussed at each meeting via successive rounds of dialogue between individual committee members and the study team. All meetings were documented to record discussions and each TAC member was given an opportunity to review the meeting minutes (whether they attended the meeting or not) to provide feedback. Copies of meeting minutes and other related materials are provided in Appendix F.
The focus of discussions with the TAC changed as the study progressed. Initial meetings concentrated on reviewing existing roadway conditions and identifying real and perceived problems along the corridor. As the planning process progressed, the TAC’s emphasis shifted to investigation of potential short- and long-term improvements to address roadway deficiencies. Other issues of concern related to funding, timetable for improvements, coordination with other projects (roadway and transit) within the corridor and land use. A resolution of support for the study findings and recommendations has been requested from each municipality. The receipt of such official, local concurrence is important for the prioritization of concepts to be advanced.
8.1.2 Public Meetings
Two public meetings were held at a central location within the study area to supplement the TAC meetings. The study team presented study findings and recommendations to the meeting attendees. These meetings were used as a forum to solicit information and receive feedback about perceived corridor transportation issues and problems, study goals and proposed solutions from attendees of all communities within the corridor. In advance of each meeting, notices were distributed to groups and individuals on the mailing list. The list included members of the TAC, elected officials, media, municipalities along the corridor, etc. The mailing list is provided in Appendix F.
Both public meetings were held at the Upper Township Elementary School in Marmora on December 3rd 2002 and 2003 exactly one year apart. The purpose of the first meeting was to introduce residents of affected municipalities to the scope of the study, review results of the existing conditions investigation and receive comments on problems within the corridor. The second meeting was used to present conceptual short- and long-term transportation improvements for the previously identified roadway deficiencies. Prior to the public meeting, the concepts were reviewed and endorsed by the TAC. SJTPO prepared and distributed a press release announcing both public meetings to the local and regional media (newspapers, television stations, etc.). As a result, newspaper coverage was provided at each meeting by several local newspapers.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 154 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
A third public information meeting will be scheduled for the spring of 2004.
8.2 Context Sensitive Design
It is important that the concepts reflect the goals and vision that the stakeholders have for their community in the future. However, the visions must also include any limiting factors so that the implementation of the concepts in the future would be realistic. It is also important to strike a balance between creativity and safety for all modes of travel. The efficient movement of vehicles needed to be weighed against providing adequate safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and the preservation of the visual and aesthetic beauty and character of the community. Each mode of travel was also considered when developing the concepts. The FHWA’s Flexibility in Highway Design and Designing New Jersey, prepared by the Office of State Planning were used as tools for incorporating context sensitive design into the concepts. The downtown Marmora area was identified within the study as a location where context sensitive design principles such as landscaping, street furniture, and brick pavers would create a sense of place. This downtown area could be transformed into a “place” through the efforts of public participation initiated by local citizen groups.
8.3 Environmental Justice and Public Involvement
One of the principal objectives of addressing environmental justice in a study of this type is to identify minority and low-income communities in an effort to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on those communities as a result of a potential project. However, of equal concern is to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities, including minority and low-income communities, in the transportation decision-making process. In this regard, once the minority and low-income communities located in proximity to a potential project have been identified, then a concerted effort to solicit input from the residents of those communities needs to be made, as appropriate.
Based on the environmental justice analysis conducted for this study and as presented earlier in this report, there are only three Census block groups within the study area that qualify as minority communities based upon established criteria. The first, located in Upper Township, is a low-income community that is sparsely populated with a small percentage of minorities. The second, located in Somers Point, is a low-income community that is predominately African-American and Hispanic. The third, located in Ocean City, is predominately African-American.
The primary method for encouraging participation by low income and minority individuals, communities, and constituencies were mailings of the public meeting notice to service agencies, churches, and other organizations identified on the contact list (Appendix F). Spanish language media outlets were contacted to broadcast and print the announcement of the public meetings. Other tools for engaging environmental justice populations included the provision of Spanish language support during public meetings.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 155 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
Fact sheets were provided in language that was easy to understand in English and Spanish.
As part of the public outreach program initiated as part of this study, representatives of all of the municipalities within the Route 57 study corridor were contacted to participate as members of the TAC. Each municipality was given the opportunity to provide feedback and comments in this regard, whether or not they attended the TAC meetings. The public was given notice prior to both public meetings and each attendee was given an opportunity to speak in regard to the U.S. 9/GSP study area.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 156 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 Analysis Results
The overall reduction in peak hour traffic within the U.S. 9/GSP study area through the implementation of TDM strategies (including transit) would not be enough alone to significantly reduce congestion and improve safety throughout the U.S. 9/GSP study area. These measures should be promoted in conjunction with specific TSM strategies as part of an overall Build condition to effectively reduce congestion and improve safety throughout the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Based upon the analyses conducted, U.S. 9, GSP, CR 623, and Bay Avenue would operate with less delay and would be safer in 2025 with the implementation of the proposed concepts than it does today. Table 9-1 summarizes the comparison of the level of service results between the 2025 No Build conditions and the Build conditions for the intersections and roadway sections within the U.S. 9/GSP study area. Based upon the results of the analysis, all study locations would operate at an equivalent or improved level of service during the Build condition in comparison to the No Build condition.
Since it is recommended that the mainline of U.S. 9 should continue to operate with one travel lane in each direction, the six (6) mainline segments would continue to operate at the same levels of service for the Build condition as the No Build condition during the periods analyzed. However, if a full interchange is constructed at GSP Interchange 20, all U.S. 9 segments between Route 50 and Roosevelt Boulevard would experience a reduction in traffic volumes and an improved level of service.
TABLE 9-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 2025 NO BUILD VERSUS BUILD PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS SUMMER AM OFF PEAK PM OFF PEAK HOUR HOUR 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 LOCATION No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build Signalized Intersections U.S. 9/GSP Exit 20 Ramps/Route 50 D D C C C C U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Rd. (CR 631) C B E B C B U.S. 9/Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623) F C F C F C U.S. 9/Mays Landing Rd. (CR 559) F D C B F C Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623)/GSP Exit 25 SB off- E C D D C B ramp/Vernon Road GSP NB on ramp/Roosevelt Blvd. (CR 623) B B D B B B Bay Avenue/34th Street F D D B D C West Avenue/34th Street D D - - - - Bay Avenue/10th Street B B - - - - Bay Avenue/9th Street E E C C C C
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 157 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-1 (Continued) LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 2025 NO BUILD VERSUS BUILD PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS SUMMER AM OFF PEAK PM OFF PEAK HOUR HOUR 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 LOCATION No Build Build No Build Build No Build Build Unsignalized Intersections U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 622) A A A A A A Northbound (U.S. 9) U.S. 9 and Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 622) D D C C C C Eastbound 35th Street/West Avenue –Northbound (35th Street) A A - - - - 35th Street/West Avenue – Southbound (35th Street) A A - - - - 35th Street/West Avenue – Westbound (West Ave.) F B - - - - 35th Street/Bay Avenue – Southbound (Bay Ave.) B B - - - - 35th Street/Bay Avenue – Westbound (35th Street) F E - - - - Two Lane Highway Sections Between Wright Lane and Route 50 E E C C D D Between Stagecoach Road and Hope-Corson Road E D C C D D (CR671) Between Hope-Corson Road (CR 671) and E D D D D D Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) Between Tuckahoe Road (CR 631) and Roosevelt E E E E E E Boulevard (CR 623) Between Tuckahoe Road Extension (CR 662) and D D C C D D Beesley’s Point Bridge Between GSP NB Exit 29 off-ramp and Mays E E D D E E Landing Road (CR 559) Basic Freeway Segments Between Interchange 20 and Interchange 25 – D D A A A A Northbound Between Interchange 20 and Interchange 25 – D D A A A A Southbound Between Interchange 25 and Milepost 27.0 – E E B B B B Northbound Between Interchange 25 and Milepost 27.0 – D D A A B B Southbound Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll F F F B F B Plaza – Northbound Between Milepost 27.0 and Great Egg Harbor Toll F E F B F C Plaza – Southbound Between Interchange 29 and Interchange 30 – D D B B A A Northbound Between Interchange 29 and Interchange 30 – D D A A B B Southbound Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc.(2003) Notes: Shaded areas represent poor levels of service
(E or F)
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 158 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
9.2 Recommendations
Tables 9-2 through 9-31 summarize the recommendations and identify their relative priority and need based upon each location. The priority for each recommendation was identified as high, medium or low. High priority was assigned to recommendations that would address deficiencies that are either severe or need immediate attention. Medium and low priority recommendations should be addressed as funding becomes available or as the identified problem becomes more acute in the future. Medium priority recommendations should be addressed before low priority recommendations.
The need for each recommendation was categorized by short term and long term. Short term recommendations were assumed to be implementable by a sponsoring agency within a few years because they would not require extensive design or analysis, right-of-way taking, environmental review or large capital expenditures. Long term concepts must be prioritized by a sponsoring agency and SJTPO. The long term recommendations would require extensive design or analysis, large capital expenditures and perhaps right-of-way taking.
TABLE 9-2 GENERAL TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in northbound and southbound shoulders on Medium Long Term U.S. 9 from M.P. 23.76 to M.P. 33.23. Design and construct bicycle compatible lane in eastbound and westbound shoulders on Medium Long Term Roosevelt Boulevard from U.S. 9 to Bay Avenue (M.P. 0.00 to M.P. 2.04).
TABLE 9-3 U.S. 9/ROUTE 50 (M.P. 23.76) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Improve the merge of eastbound right turn ramp with southbound Route 9. Short Term Medium Provide speed limit sign at the eastbound right turn ramp. Short Term Medium Extend southbound right turn lane. Short Term Medium Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals for all approaches. Short Term Medium Provide access to Shopping Center from Exit 20 ramp. Long Term Medium Provide signal timing improvements. Long Term Medium Provide geometric improvements. Long Term
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 159 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-4 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM ROUTE 50 TO TUCKAHOE ROAD (M.P. 23.76 to 28.57) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Provide bicycle compatible inlets at U.S. 9 southbound near Hope Corson Road (CR 671) Medium Short Term M.P. 24.5. Medium Provide crosswalks at Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. Short Term Improve visibility of signage on the northbound approach at Hope-Corson Road intersection Medium Short Term (remove vegetation obscuring signs). High Perform drainage study in the vicinity of M.P. 26.0. Short Term Medium Improve intersection sight distance at Heritage Links Golf Course entrance (M.P. 26.0). Short Term High Construct center turn lane from Church Road (CR 602) to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631). Short Term High Provide curbs and sidewalks from Church Road (CR 602) to Tuckahoe Road (CR 631). Short Term Restrict left turns from Acme/Jamesway shopping center located just north of the Route 50 Medium Long Term intersection. Medium Improve intersection sight distance at Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. Long Term Medium Improve intersection capacity at Hope Corson Road (CR 671) intersection. Long Term Improve the Butter Road (CR 637) intersection geometry and sight distance, and realign Medium intersection. Long Term Improve Butter Road (CR 637) intersection capacity by adding turning lanes. Improve Church Road (CR 602) intersection capacity. Medium Long Term Improve Church Road (CR 602) intersection geometry and safety.
TABLE 9-5 U.S. 9/TUCKAHOE ROAD (M.P. 28.57) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Provide crosswalks on the southbound and eastbound approaches. Short Term Medium Improve advance signage for the northbound and westbound approaches of the intersection. Short Term Reconstruct intersection. High Long Term Improve intersection capacity.
TABLE 9-6 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM TUCKAHOE ROAD TO ROOSEVELT BLVD. (M.P. 28.57 to 28.79) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Construct center turn lane. Short Term High Drainage improvements including Tuckahoe Road and Roosevelt Blvd. intersections. Short Term High Provide curbs and sidewalks including context sensitive design. Short Term
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 160 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-7 U.S. 9/ROOSEVELT BLVD. (M.P. 28.79) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals for all approaches. Short Term Medium Provide overhead directional signage in westbound approach. Short Term High Restripe westbound approach and provide for eastbound travel lanes. Short Term Medium Extend southbound left turn lane. Short Term High Reconstruct intersection. Long Term High Improve intersection capacity. Long Term
TABLE 9-8 U.S. 9/TUCKAHOE ROAD EXTENSION (M.P. 29.2) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Provide crosswalks at this intersection. Short Term Improve advanced signage in advance of U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road Extension (southbound and Medium Short Term northbound). Low Reconfigure U.S. 9/Tuckahoe Road intersection. Long Term
TABLE 9-9 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM ROOSEVELT BLVD. TO BEESLEY’S BRIDGE (M.P. 28.79 to 30.70) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Improve pavement at Youngs Lane (M.P. 29.97). Short Term Medium Drainage improvements between M.P. 29.0 and M.P. 29.2 (north of Roosevelt Boulevard). Long Term
TABLE 9-10 U.S. 9 BEESLEY’S POINT BRIDGE (M.P. 30.70 to 31.90) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Rehabilitate the U.S. 9 bridge over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) (M.P. High Short Term 31.15). High Rehabilitate the U.S. 9 bridge over Drag Channel. Short Term Replace the U.S. 9 bridge over Great Egg Harbor (Beesley’s Point Bridge) providing High Long Term northbound and southbound shoulders, and improving navigational clearance (M.P. 31.15) Replace the U.S. 9 bridge over Drag Channel providing northbound and southbound High Long Term shoulders, and improving navigational clearance.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 161 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-11 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM BEESLEY’S POINT BRIDGE TO MAYS LANDING RD. (M.P. 30.70 to 32.64) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Drainage improvements at M.P. 32.3 (inlet is not even with the pavement). High Short Term Provide two bicycle compatible inlets at U.S. 9 (M.P. 32.2) Medium Improve shoulders from M.P. 32.3 to M.P. 32.6. Short Term Replace U.S. 9 over Garden State Parkway Bridge (M.P. 32.22) and provide northbound High Long Term and southbound shoulders. Medium Drainage improvements on the west side of U.S. 9 in the vicinity of Chestnut Street. Long Term
TABLE 9-12 U.S. 9/MAYS LANDING RD. (M.P. 32.64) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Improve pavement on Mays Landing Road (CR 559) approaches. Short Term High Drainage improvements to the east of U.S. 9 on Mays Landing Road (CR 559) Short Term Medium Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals in all approaches. Short Term High Signal timing adjustment. Long Term Reconstruct intersection improving sight distance. High Long Term Improve intersection capacity.
TABLE 9-13 U.S. 9 SEGMENT FROM MAYS LANDING RD. TO ROUTE 52/LAUREL DRIVE (M.P. 32.64 to 33.23) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Remove vegetation obscuring signs at M.P. 33.1. Short Term
TABLE 9-14 U.S 9 AND ROUTE 52/LAUREL DRIVE (M.P. 33.23) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME The New Jersey Department of Transportation to extend northbound and eastbound left turn Medium Short Term bays to improve intersection.
TABLE 9-15 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 20 (M.P. 20.25) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Lengthen southbound on ramp acceleration lane. Short Term High Lengthen northbound off-ramp deceleration lane. Short Term Reconfigure interchange. Add ramp connections from southbound GSP to Routes 50 and Medium Long Term U.S. 9 and from Routes 50 and U.S. 9 to GSP northbound.
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 162 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-16 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 25 (M.P. 25.34) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Lengthen southbound on ramp acceleration lane. Short Term High Lengthen southbound off-ramp deceleration lane. Short Term High Lengthen northbound off-ramp deceleration lane. Short Term High Lengthen northbound on ramp acceleration lane. Short Term High Improve signage at the southbound off-ramp in advance of Wistar Avenue. Short Term Medium Improve pavement at the intersection of Wistar Avenue and the southbound off-ramp. Short Term
TABLE 9-17 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY GREAT EGG HARBOR BRIDGE (M.P. 27.40 to 28.60) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Rehabilitate the GSP bridge over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road (M.P. 27.77). Short Term High Rehabilitate the GSP bridge over Drag Harbor (M.P. 28.48). Short Term Replace the GSP over Great Egg Harbor & Harbor Road providing northbound and Medium Long Term southbound shoulders (M.P. 27.77). Replace the GSP over Drag Harbor providing northbound and southbound shoulders (M.P. Medium Long Term 28.48).
TABLE 9-18 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 29 (M.P. 28.9) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Construct new interchange ramp connections from southbound GSP to U.S. 9 and from U.S. Medium Long Term 9 to GSP northbound. Medium Provide signalized intersection. Long Term
TABLE 9-19 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY SEGMENT FROM INTERCHANGE 29 TO INTERCHANGE 30 (M.P. 28.9 to 30.0) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Pavement improvements (M.P. 28.8-30.4) Long Term
TABLE 9-20 GARDEN STATE PARKWAY INTERCHANGE 30 (M.P. 30.0) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Lengthen northbound on ramp acceleration lane. Short Term High Lengthen southbound off-ramp deceleration lane. Short Term Medium Improve geometry of existing ramps. Long Term
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 163 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-21 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (CR 623) VERNON RD./SOUTHBOUND GSP RAMPS (M.P. 0.23) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Improve sight distance for southbound vehicles due to bushes and a traffic control box High Short Term located in the northeast corner of the intersection. Medium Provide crosswalks on the northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches. Short Term Medium Improve pavement on southbound approach. Short Term High Improve intersection capacity. Long Term High Reconfigure Park & Ride lot to accommodate southbound left turn lane. Long Term Medium Drainage improvements. Long Term
TABLE 9-22 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD/NORTHBOUND GSP RAMPS (M.P. 0.31) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Low Signal timing adjustments. Long Term
TABLE 9-23 ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD (CR 623) SEGMENT FROM NORTHBOUND GSP RAMPS TO CROOK HORN CREEK BRIDGE (M.P. 0.31 to 1.32) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Add westbound travel lane from M.P. 0.6 to M.P. 0.3. Short Term Medium Drainage improvements. Long Term Medium Provide two travel lanes and shoulders in each direction with center turning lane. Long Term
TABLE 9-24 34TH STREET (CR 623) SEGMENT FROM CROOK HORN CREEK BRIDGE TO BAY AVENUE (M.P. 1.32 to 2.04) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Rehabilitate Roosevelt Boulevard over Crook Horn Creek Bridge. Short Term Replace Roosevelt Boulevard over Crook Horn Creek Bridge providing two travel lanes and Medium Long Term shoulders in each direction (M.P. 1.32). Medium Provide two travel lanes and shoulders in each direction east of bridge. Long Term
TABLE 9-25 34TH STREET (CR 623) SEGMENT FROM BAY AVENUE TO WEST AVENUE (M.P. 2.04 to 2.22) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Prohibit left turns into and out of businesses during summer months. Short Term High One-way traffic flow away from 34th Street on all alleys. Short Term
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 164 U.S. 9/Garden State Parkway Corridor Study South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization
TABLE 9-26 SEGMENT FROM WEST AVENUE (M.P. 2.22) TO CENTRAL AVENUE (M.P. 2.33) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Prohibit parking on 34th Street between Asbury Avenue and Central Avenue to provide an High Short Term eastbound left turn lane from 34th Street to Central Avenue Medium Signal timing improvements. Long Term
TABLE 9-27 BAY AVENUE/35TH STREET TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Add stop sign on northbound approach during summer months. Short Term
TABLE 9-28 BAY AVENUE/34TH STREET (M.P. 0.0) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Signal timing improvements. Short Term Medium Improve pavement on northbound approach. Short Term High Geometric improvements. Long Term
TABLE 9-29 BAY AVENUE (CR 656) SEGMENT FROM 34TH STREET (M.P. 0.0) TO 9TH STREET (M.P. 2.70) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Improve sight distance at Vineyard Way intersection (M.P. 0.71). Short Term Medium Improve pavement at 16th Street intersection (M.P. 1.96). Short Term
TABLE 9-30 BAY AVENUE/9TH STREET (M.P. 2.70) TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME High Signal timing improvements at 9th Street. Short Term Prohibit eastbound right turns during summer months from 9th Street to Pleasure and Palen High Short Term Avenue High Signal timing improvements at 9th Street. Long Term
TABLE 9-31 WEST AVENUE/35TH STREET TIMEFRAME AND PRIORITY FOR RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PRIORITY TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION TIMEFRAME Medium Prohibit westbound left and through movements during summer season. Short Term
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Draft Final Report Page 165