CT Governor Malloy wants I-84 and I-95 widened in the state

[Pete from Boston]

If they ever were to try and make 1-95 from New Haven or Bridgeport to Greenwich, CT to 5 lanes each way and 2 HOV lanes, it would be about a 5 billion dollar project getting the right of way. Let alone the cost to construct all the over passes, under passes, and bridges needed.

Eventually, the cost of extending the LIE and building a Long Island Sound crossing could actually be less than the cost of widening I-95 in CT.  The LIE is a ghost town east of exit 65 to it's end in Riverhead.

Except that cost is not the only or even main obstacle.

Except the environmental disruption would be politically unpalatable.

Except Eastern Long Islanders probably don't want to be a relief corridor for Connecticut.

[cpzilliacus]

If they ever were to try and make 1-95 from New Haven or Bridgeport to Greenwich, CT to 5 lanes each way and 2 HOV lanes, it would be about a 5 billion dollar project getting the right of way. Let alone the cost to construct all the over passes, under passes, and bridges needed.

Eventually, the cost of extending the LIE and building a Long Island Sound crossing could actually be less than the cost of widening I-95 in CT.  The LIE is a ghost town east of exit 65 to it's end in Riverhead.

Except that cost is not the only or even main obstacle.

Except the environmental disruption would be politically unpalatable.

Except Eastern Long Islanders probably don't want to be a relief corridor for Connecticut.

This is an example of failure by the federal government.  Congress should allow FHWA to sanction states that pander to NIMBYs and NIMBYism in places where there is an obvious need to expand, extend or otherwise improve the interstate (note little "i," though such a crossing would probably have an Interstate route number) highway network.

[ARMOURERERIC]

There should definitely be a threshold wherein after a certain number of deaths/injury/property damage.  Enviromental impacts become less weighted as reasons to rectify the deficiencies.

[NE2]

Environmental impacts cause deaths/injury/property damage...

[Pete from Boston]

This is an example of failure by the federal government.  Congress should allow FHWA to sanction states that pander to NIMBYs and NIMBYism in places where there is an obvious need to expand, extend or otherwise improve the interstate (note little "i," though such a crossing would probably have an Interstate route number) highway network.

Failure to do what?  Open up Eastern Long Island to maxed-out development like the highways facilitated on the rest?  The new road (run into Long Island for the regional/national good, of course) would fill up and become as jammed as the rest of the LIE.

Even in comparatively liberal states like New York people are not looking for the Federal government to step in and require the building of roads that have limited public support.  We still do things at least superficially democratically here -- let's not abandon at least that veneer just yet.

[cpzilliacus]

This is an example of failure by the federal government.  Congress should allow FHWA to sanction states that pander to NIMBYs and NIMBYism in places where there is an obvious need to expand, extend or otherwise improve the interstate (note little "i," though such a crossing would probably have an Interstate route number) highway network.

Failure to do what?  Open up Eastern Long Island to maxed-out development like the highways facilitated on the rest?  The new road (run into Long Island for the regional/national good, of course) would fill up and become as jammed as the rest of the LIE.

Even in comparatively liberal states like New York people are not looking for the Federal government to step in and require the building of roads that have limited public support.  We still do things at least superficially democratically here -- let's not abandon at least that veneer just yet.

(1) Where did all of that traffic that is out there today come from?

(2) There's the matter of network redundancy (or, more to the point, lack thereof) when we discuss Long Island.  Not unique to the counties there, but it's an issue that has not gotten the attention it deserves.

As for development, highways don't cause development - people and demand for housing does that.  If local and state governments are so terrified of highway-related development, then they can  use their powers of land use planning and zoning to prevent what they don't want.  Beyond that, limited-access highways don't need to have interchanges to allow development to take place.  Case in point (and not so far from Long Island) is I-87 (NYS Thruway) between Exit 15 (N.J. 17) and Exit 16 (N.Y. 17).  Little or no "sprawling" development because there is no access to I-87.

[Pete from Boston]

This is an example of failure by the federal government.  Congress should allow FHWA to sanction states that pander to NIMBYs and NIMBYism in places where there is an obvious need to expand, extend or otherwise improve the interstate (note little "i," though such a crossing would probably have an Interstate route number) highway network.

Failure to do what?  Open up Eastern Long Island to maxed-out development like the highways facilitated on the rest?  The new road (run into Long Island for the regional/national good, of course) would fill up and become as jammed as the rest of the LIE.

Even in comparatively liberal states like New York people are not looking for the Federal government to step in and require the building of roads that have limited public support.  We still do things at least superficially democratically here -- let's not abandon at least that veneer just yet.

(1) Where did all of that traffic that is out there today come from?

(2) There's the matter of network redundancy (or, more to the point, lack thereof) when we discuss Long Island.  Not unique to the counties there, but it's an issue that has not gotten the attention it deserves.

As for development, highways don't cause development - people and demand for housing does that.  If local and state governments are so terrified of highway-related development, then they can  use their powers of land use planning and zoning to prevent what they don't want.  Beyond that, limited-access highways don't need to have interchanges to allow development to take place.  Case in point (and not so far from Long Island) is I-87 (NYS Thruway) between Exit 15 (N.J. 17) and Exit 16 (N.Y. 17).  Little or no "sprawling" development because there is no access to I-87.

1.  Induced demand.

2.  I realize Long Island has its limitations, but I'm not sure there is the public pressure to eliminate the facts that come with being an island.  If there is, there's also the sort of inverse equivalent of NIMBYism -- the idea that everyone gets to have something they want built. 

But I think the system works reasonably well enough, if slowly (the tradeoff we made for participatory government).  If the demand is that compelling, people will, well, demand it.  Right now it's not.

As far as highways causing development, they don't, but they sure do lead and promote it.  In the same general area you mention, the completion of 287 in 1993 was followed by a pretty significant wave of development along its corridor. 

I'm curious how the controversy over an all-express Long Island highway would play out.  I've heard people toss about ideas about building one over the years, even double-decking the LIE with express lanes. 

[cpzilliacus]

1.  Induced demand.

I don't buy that argument, though it frequently gets trotted out by opponents of highway  improvements and additions to the highway network.  I especially don't buy that argument if the improvements are tolled, which is how more and more highway network improvements and additions are going to be funded.

2.  I realize Long Island has its limitations, but I'm not sure there is the public pressure to eliminate the facts that come with being an island.  If there is, there's also the sort of inverse equivalent of NIMBYism -- the idea that everyone gets to have something they want built.

Public pressure had a lot to do with objections to the bridge over Long Island Sound between Rye and Oyster Bay.

But I think the system works reasonably well enough, if slowly (the tradeoff we made for participatory government).  If the demand is that compelling, people will, well, demand it.  Right now it's not.

Unfortunately, many people complain about transportation system congestion, but either don't remember those complaints on Election Day, or (even worse) don't bother to vote at all, especially in primary elections.

As far as highways causing development, they don't, but they sure do lead and promote it.  In the same general area you mention, the completion of 287 in 1993 was followed by a pretty significant wave of development along its corridor.

Might that have been because there was land available for development along that corridor?  And perhaps the demand was from people that could not afford a home in closer-in suburbs or in New York City itself?  Consider that legal restrictions and limitations in parts of North Jersey and New York have pushed "sprawling" development as far out as Pike County, Pennsylvania - and presumably in other directions as well, including north along the Hudson River and south along the GSP in the direction of Toms River. 

The metropolitan area around New York City is part of the Zoned Zone, as Paul Krugman brilliantly put it in a 2006 New York Times op-ed (here).

I'm curious how the controversy over an all-express Long Island highway would play out.  I've heard people toss about ideas about building one over the years, even double-decking the LIE with express lanes.

Could such new lanes be toll-funded?

[Duke87]

There are places where you have islands without convenient access because the people who live or vacation on said island like the quiet remoteness that lack of convenient access brings. But Long Island is not one of those islands - with the exception of its eastern end, it is entirely developed to decent suburban density, hardly quiet and remote.

There are two problems with Long Island. One is that most of the water separating it from the mainland is this special thing called Long Island Sound - it's a decently sized estuary, and thus environmentally sensitive, which makes building a bridge over it a high-impact proposition. The second is that the shores of said water are developed all up and down on both sides with people who have lots of money and enjoy their pristine waterfront view - a bridge anywhere would thus also disrupt a lot of rich people, which is even more of a political deal killer than disrupting the environment.

A tunnel might be less problematic because it would alleviate both of these concerns. But it would be a lot more expensive to build and difficult to ventilate properly due to the large distance. And it would still have the problem of being a significant new freeway in a part of the country where freeway construction is politically uncool because zomg sprawl, global warming, etc.

Nonetheless, the fact that it is, with the exception of a couple of ferries, not possible to enter or leave Long Island via ground transportation without going through New York City is both a strategic vulnerability and a cause of undue urban congestion.

[cpzilliacus]

There are places where you have islands without convenient access because the people who live or vacation on said island like the quiet remoteness that lack of convenient access brings. But Long Island is not one of those islands - with the exception of its eastern end, it is entirely developed to decent suburban density, hardly quiet and remote.

That's correct.

There are two problems with Long Island. One is that most of the water separating it from the mainland is this special thing called Long Island Sound - it's a decently sized estuary, and thus environmentally sensitive, which makes building a bridge over it a high-impact proposition. The second is that the shores of said water are developed all up and down on both sides with people who have lots of money and enjoy their pristine waterfront view - a bridge anywhere would thus also disrupt a lot of rich people, which is even more of a political deal killer than disrupting the environment.

Agreed on all counts.  But curiously, once a bridge is built, people will sometimes pay a premium for a home with a nice view of a bridge.  Case in point in Bay Ridge, Anne Arundel County, Md. here.  That bridge is over a different estuary, but one with  a lot of environmental sensitivity (I have not heard of any significant negative environmental impacts associated with this bridge).

A tunnel might be less problematic because it would alleviate both of these concerns. But it would be a lot more expensive to build and difficult to ventilate properly due to the large distance.[

The Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line bridge-tunnel has a tunnel segment that is 9.6 kilometers long (though there is a vent structure in the middle of the tunnel section).

And it would still have the problem of being a significant new freeway in a part of the country where freeway construction is politically uncool because zomg sprawl, global warming, etc.

Those same people that oppose highway projects are usually the same  people still keep purchasing motor vehicles, right?

Nonetheless, the fact that it is, with the exception of a couple of ferries, not possible to enter or leave Long Island via ground transportation without going through New York City is both a strategic vulnerability and a cause of undue urban congestion.

That is an issue that is rarely discussed.  And it should be.

[froggie]

I don't buy that argument,

Even though there's about 30 years of traffic evidence to support it.  I don't have access to the relevant studies out at sea here, but it's long been demonstrated that if you improve transportation access, people will generally take more trips per capita.  It's not just "jobs and demand for housing", especially since only about 20% of all trips (per the ongoing American Commuter Surveys from the Census) are work-related.

[cpzilliacus]

I don't buy that argument,

Even though there's about 30 years of traffic evidence to support it.  I don't have access to the relevant studies out at sea here, but it's long been demonstrated that if you improve transportation access, people will generally take more trips per capita.  It's not just "jobs and demand for housing", especially since only about 20% of all trips (per the ongoing American Commuter Surveys from the Census) are work-related.

I did not say that the added trips were work-related.

More than once, I have seen a story about "induced" demand for highway capacity that left-out one or more important aspects of the story. Perhaps the most-notorious of which was a 1999 article by Alan Sipress of the Washington Post entitled Md.'s Lesson: Widen the Roads, Drivers Will Come about the aftermath of a reconstruction and widening of much of I-270 in Maryland. 

What Sipress forgot to mention was a discussion of the network assumptions used in the pre-construction travel demand forecasting process.  In particular, the assumed network for the out years of those forecasts (which were done in the 1970's) included a highway called the InterCounty Connector as well as an Outer Beltway connection from the present-day I-270/I-370 interchange across the Potomac River at Watkins Island to Northern Virginia.

[froggie]

What you describe would apply to that specific example.  There are a number of case studies nationwide where such "network assumptions" were not applicable, and of which an increase in traffic well in excess of projections was noted.  Plenty of data to sift through with the American Commuting Surveys done by the Census as well.

Just because you were soured by one reporters shoddy reporting does not mean it's a phenomenon that does not exist...

[cpzilliacus]

What you describe would apply to that specific example.  There are a number of case studies nationwide where such "network assumptions" were not applicable, and of which an increase in traffic well in excess of projections was noted.  Plenty of data to sift through with the American Commuting Surveys done by the Census as well.

Just because you were soured by one reporters shoddy reporting does not mean it's a phenomenon that does not exist...

"Induced" demand was repeatedly cited as an excuse not to reconstruct the Woodrow Wilson Bridge as a wider crossing, not to reconstruct the 11th  Street Bridge  (and the I-295/D.C. 295/I-695 interchange) in D.C. and not to build Md. 200 as well.  It has also been mentioned as a reason not to improve the highway connection between Montgomery County, Md. and Northern Virginia.

Beyond the flawed analysis in the Sipress article, there are three other factors that should be considered when discussing "induced" demand:

(1) Is the demand for highway capacity "induced" or latent (I believe there's a difference between the two, though some disagree on that point)?
(2) Are governmental entities helping to "induce" that demand through land use restrictions and limitations (resulting in "leapfrog" development in jurisdictions further out from the central jurisdiction), which then results in increased travel which sometimes gets attributed to "induced" demand?
(3) Is the new road capacity is priced or tolled (which should mean much less "induced" demand (to the extent it exists))?

I found it interesting that Phil Andrews of the Montgomery County Council, who opposed Md. 200 as long and as loudly  as he could (citing among other things, "induced" demand) has recently been singing a different tune, complaining that "there's not enough traffic on Md. 200" and demanding that the MdTA Board cut the tolls in order to increase traffic.

[mc78andrew]

I am always fascinated by this debate.  I don't have anything factually new to add.

I will say this...even if induced demand is true, which seems to be obviously true to me, why is that a reason not to build?  Can't we make the situation at least a little better by building or widening?  And then doing it again and again.  What's the alternative?  The status quo?  I was on 95 in CT on Thursday, Saturday and today...she was jammed as she always is. 

I think the silent majority would favor giving it a shot.  At least to try and make it better.  At a minimum, more people will have more affordable housing options(wont make it cheap by any means) after those last few Long Island farms are paved over for a sub-division. But that would upset the rich people who have way more power than any EIS every could.

[cpzilliacus]

I am always fascinated by this debate.  I don't have anything factually new to add.

I will say this...even if induced demand is true, which seems to be obviously true to me, why is that a reason not to build?  Can't we make the situation at least a little better by building or widening?  And then doing it again and again.  What's the alternative?  The status quo?  I was on 95 in CT on Thursday, Saturday and today...she was jammed as she always is.

There are two solutions to the problem of traffic congestion that have been shown to work (and I favor them both, ideally in combination):

(1) Adding capacity to the network where needed; and
(2) Pricing the capacity (or in my fantasy world, pricing all lanes as part of the expansion project) so that the road runs at an uncongested level of service.

Some anti-auto/anti-highway advocates are very much in favor of (2) alone - with all of the revenue diverted to transit subsidies.  I don't think that will pass muster with most elected officials (even in New York City, where there have been repeated proposals to put tolls on the currently "free" bridges over the East River, as well as a toll cordon around much of Manhattan, those proposals have been shot-down at the municipal or state levels).

I think the silent majority would favor giving it a shot.  At least to try and make it better.  At a minimum, more people will have more affordable housing options(wont make it cheap by any means) after those last few Long Island farms are paved over for a sub-division. But that would upset the rich people who have way more power than any EIS every could.

People make rational decisions about where to live, and more than a few residents  of the United States have moved further out to get the larger home or larger lot or better public schools or lower crime (or a combination of these).  Some call that "sprawl" (I don't usually use that term). 

[spmkam]

In the case of I-95 in CT, not widening and higher gas prices have led to more train commuters. However, the New Haven Line stations have shortages in parking so even public transit can't fix it. I wonder if widening 84 cheaper for the state and more politically palatable. This might divert truck traffic from I-95, but might make sprawl worse in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

[kkt]

But curiously, once a bridge is built, people will sometimes pay a premium for a home with a nice view of a bridge.  Case in point in Bay Ridge, Anne Arundel County, Md.

If the bridge is in the distance, say at least 3/4 mile away, and it's a pretty bridge, yes.  If it's a utilitarian bridge, no.  And if it's right next door to your property so it dominates the view and you hear every truck and smell every diesel, no.

[mc78andrew]

But curiously, once a bridge is built, people will sometimes pay a premium for a home with a nice view of a bridge.  Case in point in Bay Ridge, Anne Arundel County, Md.

If the bridge is in the distance, say at least 3/4 mile away, and it's a pretty bridge, yes.  If it's a utilitarian bridge, no.  And if it's right next door to your property so it dominates the view and you hear every truck and smell every diesel, no.

I assume then that the new tappan zee bridge will boost property values...it's going from something super ugly to something modern.

[mc78andrew]

In the case of I-95 in CT, not widening and higher gas prices have led to more train commuters. However, the New Haven Line stations have shortages in parking so even public transit can't fix it. I wonder if widening 84 cheaper for the state and more politically palatable. This might divert truck traffic from I-95, but might make sprawl worse in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

I always thought that people use the train in fairfield county because they commute to NYC where parking and tolls combine with traffic in manhattan make the train an obvious choice.  Not sure there are many people commuting to greenwich and stamford from Westport or fairfield or even new haven, but I could be wrong.  There are a decent amount of reverse commuters out of NYC to fairfield county, but that's because having a car in NYC is very cost prohibitive and would only be needed to commute since walking or mass transit can accommodate all other trips.

[cpzilliacus]

In the case of I-95 in CT, not widening and higher gas prices have led to more train commuters. However, the New Haven Line stations have shortages in parking so even public transit can't fix it. I wonder if widening 84 cheaper for the state and more politically palatable. This might divert truck traffic from I-95, but might make sprawl worse in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

Park-and-ride lot capacity gets to be a problem in almost any suburban location that has a successfully gotten people to ride transit (doesn't matter if it's bus or train) or car-pool.  Many of the parking lots and parking decks along the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system (which reaches pretty far beyond the corporate limits of the District of Columbia into the Maryland and Virginia suburbs) have had to be expanded - some repeatedly.

I don't know the operational aspects of the Metro-North lines at all, but in some cases (quite possibly including the Metro-North stops along the I-95 corridor in Connecticut), building more park-and-ride capacity will invariably lead to more transit patronage [is that an example of "induced" demand?]. 

But it is also important to ask if the trains can handle more patrons that come from expanding the park-and-ride lots.

If the trains and the tracks can handle added riders (or train service can be increased), then building new park-and-ride capacity should quite possibly be part of a congestion management plan for the I-95 corridor - ideally along with pricing and widening.

[cpzilliacus]

In the case of I-95 in CT, not widening and higher gas prices have led to more train commuters. However, the New Haven Line stations have shortages in parking so even public transit can't fix it. I wonder if widening 84 cheaper for the state and more politically palatable. This might divert truck traffic from I-95, but might make sprawl worse in Danbury, Waterbury, and Hartford.

I always thought that people use the train in fairfield county because they commute to NYC where parking and tolls combine with traffic in manhattan make the train an obvious choice.  Not sure there are many people commuting to greenwich and stamford from Westport or fairfield or even new haven, but I could be wrong.  There are a decent amount of reverse commuters out of NYC to fairfield county, but that's because having a car in NYC is very cost prohibitive and would only be needed to commute since walking or mass transit can accommodate all other trips.

Suburb-to-suburb trips are notoriously difficult to serve with transit, though I would think  that for some people, Metro-North might be a winning alternative for "local" trips that do not involve travel to New York City.

Points to ponder:

(1) Are the employment centers at those Connecticut locations within walking distance of the Metro-North stations?  I know a lot of jobs in Stamford are hard by I-95.

(2) Is parking at the Connecticut employment centers free?

(3) If I-95 in Connecticut (and Conn. 15) were to be tolled, that might encourage some intra-Connecticut trips to take Metro-North.

[spmkam]

(1) Are the employment centers at those Connecticut locations within walking distance of the Metro-North stations?  I know a lot of jobs in Stamford are hard by I-95.


Many new offices are opening near Metro-North stations such as in Stamford. Other companies also provide shuttle service.

(2) Is parking at the Connecticut employment centers free?


This depends on the area but usually.

(3) If I-95 in Connecticut (and Conn. 15) were to be tolled, that might encourage some intra-Connecticut trips to take Metro-North.


This is possible but some towns and cities are not well serviced by Metro-North. I think if tolls are introduced, they might be at state borders so the intra-CT trips won't be changed. I wonder if upgrading Route 1 could incentivize people to not use I-95 for cross-town or next town trips. Most Metro-North stations do not have free parking so many would probably forgo Metro-North.

[cpzilliacus]

(1) Are the employment centers at those Connecticut locations within walking distance of the Metro-North stations?  I know a lot of jobs in Stamford are hard by I-95.

Many new offices are opening near Metro-North stations such as in Stamford. Other companies also provide shuttle service.

I had not driven the Connecticut Turnpike since before it was detolled - until last month, when I drove most of it (from the N.Y border to the I-395 interchange in East Lyme). 

The number and size of the buildings next to I-95 in Stamford was pretty impressive.  Reminded me a little of Tysons Corner in Fairfax County, Va., though the buildings in Stamford looked to be built in a denser pattern.  Since the Metro-North station is on the south side of I-95 and most (all?) of the heavy commercial development  is on the north  side, it was not clear to me how easy it might to walk to those buildings from the Metro-North trains. 

(2) Is parking at the Connecticut employment centers free?


This depends on the area but usually.

Free parking usually means people are going to use that free parking.

(3) If I-95 in Connecticut (and Conn. 15) were to be tolled, that might encourage some intra-Connecticut trips to take Metro-North.

This is possible but some towns and cities are not well serviced by Metro-North.

That is a (perhaps unfortunate) consequence of the Metro-North's heritage being to serve trips bound for Grand Central Terminal, and not really about other destinations.

I think if tolls are introduced, they might be at state borders so the intra-CT trips won't be changed.

I am very much (personally) opposed to tolling schemes that propose to only impose tolls on interstate trips.  I do not think the Federal Highway Administration would agree to them (though I know they have been studied as one of the Connecticut tolling alternatives). 

I wonder if upgrading Route 1 could incentivize people to not use I-95 for cross-town or next town trips.

I have never driven U.S. 1 in Connecticut, so I don't know the answer to that.  If it is anything like U.S. 1 in Maryland and Virginia (little if any access control), then I think it would be very difficult and expensive to upgrade.

Most Metro-North stations do not have free parking so many would probably forgo Metro-North.

I am of a very mixed opinion about charging for parking at park-and-ride lots.  On the one hand, charging means a revenue source to maintain and even expand parking capacity.  On other hand, charging for parking effectively increases the out-of-pocket cost of a trip by transit.

[connroadgeek]

Route 1 is not an alternative to 95. It's signalized at virtually every intersection and is nothing more than a big arterial that parallels 95. You're better off sitting in stop and go traffic on 95 than navigating 500 traffic lights if you're going from say Greenwich to Norwalk which if 95 were empty would be a 15 minute ride tops. Let them chop down the trees on the Parkway and make it cars only 3x3. There are no buildings out there in the woods. You'd need some serious bridge and ramp work (the third lane would have to serve mostly as an acceleration/deceleration lane) though as those Parkway ramps are dangerous being only a couple hundred feet long in some cases with stop signs at the end of the on-ramps for traffic trying to enter the highway.