Garden State Parkway Interchange 40 Improvement Feasibility Study

Galloway Township Atlantic County, NJ

Overview

The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (Authority) has completed a study to evaluate the need for, and

feasibility of completing all missing movements at Interchange 40 on the Garden State Parkway in

Galloway Township, New Jersey. Based on the results of the traffic projections and impact analysis

performed for each of the alternatives studied, construction of the new ramps to the missing movements

at Interchange 40 is not considered critical. The current projected pattern of growth in Galloway

Township, as well as the greater Atlantic City region, would not justify completion of the interchange at

this time, given the significant infrastructure, utility, and environmental constraints associated with the

various alternatives studied.

Garden State Parkway (Parkway) Interchange 40 is a partial interchange located approximately one mile

south of the Atlantic City Service Area in Galloway Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey. It primarily

facilitates access to and from southeastern portions of Galloway Township and Absecon, and provides a

secondary un-tolled route into Atlantic City via the White Horse Pike (US 30), a major east-west corridor.

Interchange 40 provides partial access to and from the north via a southbound off-ramp to eastbound US

30, and a northbound on-ramp from westbound US 30. A southbound on-ramp and northbound off-ramp

do not exist and are considered the missing movements. Access to westbound US 30 from the southbound

Parkway, and to the northbound Parkway from eastbound US 30, is currently provided indirectly via a

signalized jug handle at 3rd Avenue, approximately 1,400 feet east of the Interchange.

History

In April 2005, the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (Authority) conducted a study within the area of

Interchanges 40 – 44 to evaluate alternatives to enhance access to and from the south, eliminate the use

of the Atlantic City Service Area as an interchange to improve safety, and accommodate future growth in

the region. The previous study recommended constructing a new interchange (41) at Jimmie Leeds Road

(CR 561), as well as completing Interchange 44, Pomona Road (CR 575), to provide access to and from the

south. However, no improvements were recommended at Interchange 40 at that time.

At a recent project meeting, Galloway Township requested that the Authority review the findings of the

previous study and re-evaluate the potential of completing Interchange 40 to provide full access from

both directions on the Parkway. The Township believes that a full interchange would enhance access to

US 30, which could in-turn support economic development along the corridor. (See Roadway System

Map Figure).

Summary of Alternatives

The following summarizes the results of the Interchange 40 Improvement Feasibility Study. Technical

analyses were performed to project future traffic volumes in order to compare alternatives and to

determine if construction of new ramps at Interchange 40 is warranted. The analyses took into account

the completion of improvements at Interchange 41, Jimmie Leeds Road (CR 561), and Interchange 44,

Pomona Road (CR 575). Traffic projections were developed based on background growth rates, currently

planned developments, and potential future development along US 30. Given the proximity of existing

large-scale retail centers within five miles of the study area, it was determined that large-scale

retail/commercial development, which would attract a large number of vehicles from the Parkway, is not

likely to occur along US 30. Furthermore, the proximity of the US 30 corridor, west of the Parkway, to the

Atlantic City Airport will further limit the potential for commercial and residential growth between the

Parkway and Jimmie Leeds Road.

In order to assess the feasibility of completing the missing movements at Interchange 40, four alternatives

with various configurations were developed. Concept plans were prepared and advantages/disadvantages

and project costs were presented for each alternative for comparison purposes. In addition to the four

alternatives developed to complete the missing movements, two additional low cost alternatives that

would only provide access to westbound US 30 from the southbound Parkway were evaluated. See

Concept Alternatives Figures for all alternatives studied.

Comparison of Alternatives

The alternatives were compared with respect to traffic operations, cost, right of way requirements,

environmental impacts, and infrastructure impacts. Based on these criteria, the advantages and

disadvantages of each alternative were identified. The traffic analysis concluded that all intersection

approaches and ramp segments would operate acceptably in the 2035 Build Condition for all alternatives,

with the exception of the southbound approach at the intersection of Damson Avenue and US 30, which

would fail in both peak hours in Alternative 1A. Therefore, the comparison of alternatives was based

largely on cost, right of way, environmental impacts, and infrastructure impacts.

Alternative 1, Full Diamond Interchange, would result in the fewest environmental, ROW, and

infrastructure impacts, and would be relatively low-cost, while meeting the project objective of completing

all movements at the Interchange. However, this concept would result in two new traffic signals within

500 feet of each other on US 30, would introduce left turns along a section of the corridor where left turns

are prohibited, and would signalize the southbound to eastbound movement, a high volume movement

that provides access to Atlantic City. In addition, obtaining New Jersey Department of Transportation

(NJDOT) approval for the closely spaced signalized intersections may be difficult.

Alternative 1A, Modified Diamond Interchange, would not necessitate two new traffic signals, but would

eliminate existing direct movements and would require the continued use of the Damson Avenue and 3rd

Avenue jug handles. Therefore, it would not meet the project objectives of providing full access to and

from the Parkway and is not recommended to be considered further. Finally, Alternatives 2 (Northbound

Off-Ramp Flyover) and 3 (Partial Diamond with Damson Avenue Ramps) would meet the project

objectives and would limit the impact to US 30 by using existing signalized intersections. However, they

would both result in significant right of way (ROW) acquisitions, environmental and utility impacts, and

would not be justified based on the projected traffic volumes and the proximity to Interchange 41.

Although Alternatives 4A and 4B do not meet the full purpose and need to complete all of the missing

movements at Interchange 40, one of them could be implemented as a low-cost improvement that would

not require major environmental permits. Alternative 4A, New Signalized Intersection at Southbound

Off-Ramp, would result in the fewest environmental, ROW, and infrastructure impacts. However, it

would only provide access from the southbound Parkway to westbound US 30, and would require a new

signalized intersection. Alternative 4B, Southbound Off-Ramp Connection to Damson Avenue, would

provide similar access to westbound US 30 and would utilize the existing traffic signal at the intersection

of US 30 and Damson Avenue.