In the last article I discussed the ridicules amount of traffic that runs along the segment of two lane highway on Route 9 in Lakewood. I mentioned how the NJTPA held a meeting in August, with city participation. And I jotted down a couple of ideas – some better, some worse – for widening the 9. There were some great comments too.

Now, if I may, allow me to be a bit more pointed. Although there are many considerations that go into correcting the problem, and there are attempts at rectifying the mess to some degree, there are still some things that get me mad. There may be some good answers out there, so I am not accusing anyone of anything. I hope some commenters can shed some light on all of this.

1) We agree that the traffic is insane. The city says that they want to help. But, can we all agree that the very first thing that ought to be done in a situation like this, is to not make matters worse? Granted that widening the 9 is super expensive, but does it make any sense at all to continue building along the narrow, over choked and perpetually backed up, two lane segment of roadway? If in fact the city agrees that there is a traffic issue (and accidents are up, and longer response times for first responders etc.) would they not agree that additional building makes things even worse? I am at a total loss here for at least a justification.

One point. A comment was made in Part 1 that Lakewood is in need of more housing. That may be so. But as another commenter pointed out, that does not mean that building should continue on a highly overstrained roadway. In fact, most parts of Lakewood present a better setting for building than does this stretch of Route 9, from Route 88 until Toms River.

2) To compound the issue, some of the new projects popping up on route 9 are being built in locations that seem to be very problematic in terms of pulling in/out and turning. Aside from the general traffic issue, some spots on this stretch of highway are especially problematic due to other already dense developments and schools in the immediate vicinity. There may be some good answers to this, but it requires an explanation. (And, by the way, although traffic lights are great for safety, they add to traffic significantly). To be a bit more specific, traffic is most intense from Route 88 (Main street) until around Oak Street. From there until Route 70, it (currently) lightens up (although still heavy).

3) A final question to the city. Do builders have any requirement to pay-in when negatively impacting the existing traffic patterns in the surrounding areas of where they build? Doesn’t it make sense that XYZ builders should have to pay toward alleviating any traffic damage that is caused by their building? Let’s say, traffic is projected to slow down 5% due to XYZ’s 50 units, do they need to pay-in to, say, widen the roads to negate the harm? And, if there are any kinds of requirements, do they adequately reflect the damage done, or is it a token payment to keep things running business-as-usual?

I would love to get some answers.