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.
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 3
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