Connecticut News

[cl94]

Might I remind you that the Merritt Parkway goes through one of the wealthiest areas in the country, with a lot of people who have an endless amount of cash to pay for the best lawyers just to keep ConnDOT from making any substantive changes to the Parkway. Note that more than 30 years after the US-7 freeway was extended past the Parkway, they're still fighting over whether or not to complete the 7/15 interchange.

I don't think that interchange will ever be completed. The original interchange and the ones at 8 and 25 caused a massive uproar even before the MPC was powerful. ConnDOT is not allowed to change the appearance of the road.

[kernals12]

Might I remind you that the Merritt Parkway goes through one of the wealthiest areas in the country, with a lot of people who have an endless amount of cash to pay for the best lawyers just to keep ConnDOT from making any substantive changes to the Parkway. Note that more than 30 years after the US-7 freeway was extended past the Parkway, they're still fighting over whether or not to complete the 7/15 interchange.

I don't think that interchange will ever be completed. The original interchange and the ones at 8 and 25 caused a massive uproar even before the MPC was powerful. ConnDOT is not allowed to change the appearance of the road.

As far as I can tell, the MPC has been powerful since the 70s when they supposedly were able to block 8 lanes on the Merritt.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does the Merritt Parkway really need to be 8 lanes wide? Or would 6 lanes be sufficient, in the unlikely event that a widening proposal isn't shot down? What are the present-day traffic counts on the Merritt Parkway?

[kernals12]

Does the Merritt Parkway really need to be 8 lanes wide? Or would 6 lanes be sufficient, in the unlikely event that a widening proposal isn't shot down? What are the present-day traffic counts on the Merritt Parkway?

Adding a lane in each direction to the existing Merritt is not possible. You'd need to replace all 69 of the famous art deco bridges, it'd just be far too expensive and disruptive (and unpopular). Building a second Merritt in the surplus right of way to the south would however be pretty simple. In which case you might as well add 4 lanes, because if you built 2, you'd wind up with this weird 2-2-2 configuration.

[Roadgeek Adam]

Your comment literally proves our points.

[Conn_Roadgeek]

Kernals, the simple act of making the Merritt 8 lanes wide will completely ruin it's character and set half the state alight. You're definitely off the mark on this one.

[kernals12]

Kernals, the simple act of making the Merritt 8 lanes wide will completely ruin it's character and set half the state alight. You're definitely off the mark on this one.

You can duplicate all the bridges onto this 2nd Merritt. And based on the anecdotes I've seen, people are really annoyed by the traffic. And the original Merritt was designed with this expansion in mind, hence the reserved right of way to the south.

[Rothman]

Kernals, the simple act of making the Merritt 8 lanes wide will completely ruin it's character and set half the state alight. You're definitely off the mark on this one.

You can duplicate all the bridges onto this 2nd Merritt. And based on the anecdotes I've seen, people are really annoyed by the traffic. And the original Merritt was designed with this expansion in mind, hence the reserved right of way to the south.

Stating the same incorrect points over and over is really not a good move.  Might want to think about the broader consequences of doing such.

[vdeane]

I'm not even sure what his nonsense about building two new carriageways in reserved ROW is about.  I just did a search and could only find one reference to such a thing, and looking it over on Google Maps, I can't find anywhere where two new carriageways could be fit in without taking property, relocating utilities, etc.

[kernals12]

I'm not even sure what his nonsense about building two new carriageways in reserved ROW is about.  I just did a search and could only find one reference to such a thing, and looking it over on Google Maps, I can't find anywhere where two new carriageways could be fit in without taking property, relocating utilities, etc.

https://kurumi.com/roads/ct/merrittpkwy.html
https://portal.ct.gov/DOT/Merritt-Parkway-Trail-Study/Study-Area
https://www.amherst.edu/users/B/hfbloomer56/merrittpkytrl/node/117945

[noelbotevera]

Y'know, how about we like, ignore him? Considering his viewpoint of "hating public transit" is stupid (news flash: public transit ain't going anywhere), I don't see the reason to reason with him.

I've seen the Merritt. It's narrow, it's old. You may as well try and build a bridge across the Long Island Sound while you're at it.

[kernals12]

In the 80s, Bridgeport Businessman Francis D'Addario was a big booster of duplicating the Merritt. Here you can see him with a mock up of what it would've looked like

[shadyjay]

Well..... moving on from the Merritt dualization pipedream  ......

Some concrete (pun intended?) work on the Route 9 sign replacement project - southern section was observed today with new concrete foundations in the ground at the Exit 11 onramps in Middletown.  Thank god the experiment to convert onramp signage to sheet aluminum was just that, only making it to the Route 8 - middle section and some spots here n' there. 

Nothing on the mainline yet, though there's some work taking place just before Exit 9, which could be for the new overhead that will replace the ground-mount.  Hard to tell as I always come through that section after dark.  No other progress to report, outside of stakes in place in the approximate location for new guide signs.... there's just one stake per sign (more of a generalization than the usual two stakes where each foundation will go). 

Haven't checked on the central or northern sections yet for progress there, but soon hopefully. 

[connroadgeek]

No one in Greenwich and New Canaan care how long your commute on the Merritt takes, and if the people in those towns don't want changes to the Merritt then that is what we'll get. And you could widen 95 to 12 lanes and it would still look like that at rush hour, in the summer, and around holidays. It was so much nicer during the lockdown a year ago lol.

[kernals12]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

[RobbieL2415]

I think the best course of action would be for the state to create a CT Parkway Authority as a public benefit corporation, appoint the members of the Conservancy to its board of directors, and transfer to it the ownership of the Merritt and WC Parkways.

Then ConnDOT should consider the feasibility of new Interstate corridor between I-84 and CT 15, possibly cutting across the entire state.

[kernals12]

I think the best course of action would be for the state to create a CT Parkway Authority as a public benefit corporation, appoint the members of the Conservancy to its board of directors, and transfer to it the ownership of the Merritt and WC Parkways.

Then ConnDOT should consider the feasibility of new Interstate corridor between I-84 and CT 15, possibly cutting across the entire state.

You mean revive the old Peekskill-New Haven Expressway plan? That would definitely not be feasible. Even in 1969, ConnDOT could reassure Ridgefielders that it was "just a line on a map".

[abqtraveler]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.

[RobbieL2415]

I think the best course of action would be for the state to create a CT Parkway Authority as a public benefit corporation, appoint the members of the Conservancy to its board of directors, and transfer to it the ownership of the Merritt and WC Parkways.

Then ConnDOT should consider the feasibility of new Interstate corridor between I-84 and CT 15, possibly cutting across the entire state.

You mean revive the old Peekskill-New Haven Expressway plan? That would definitely not be feasible. Even in 1969, ConnDOT could reassure Ridgefielders that it was "just a line on a map".

More like Peekskill to Jamestown. Have it end at RI 138.

[Alps]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.

That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

[kernals12]

Whatever. If the state had the money, I think Super 7 would get extended from Brookfield to New Milford, CT 11 would be finished, and 384 would be a freeway to the Rhode Island border. How about that?

Uhh...nope.

That sounds reasonable to me. What's your nope? I'd add the NW loop of I-291.

The only way you could finish 291 is if you put heating coils into the part that goes near the Hartford reservoirs to eliminate the use of road salt.

[The Ghostbuster]

Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.

[Alps]

Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.

Maybe the gas tax would be lower instead? 

[jp the roadgeek]

Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.

Maybe the gas tax would be lower instead? 

Probably not.  Once a tax is enacted, it's almost impossible to get rid of it unless it's replaced with another tax.  In 1991, the legislature passed a "temporary"  state income tax.  30 years later it's still there.

[kernals12]

Even if the state of Connecticut had an infinite amount of money to spend, I highly doubt anything would be any different transportation-wise. Everything that could-have/should-have been built would still not be constructed, not even one inch. Please correct me if any of you think I'm mistaken in my assumption about transportation in Connecticut.

Maybe the gas tax would be lower instead? 

Probably not.  Once a tax is enacted, it's almost impossible to get rid of it unless it's replaced with another tax.  In 1991, the legislature passed a "temporary"  state income tax.  30 years later it's still there.

Yeah no, Governor Lowell Weicker was very clear at the time that he intended the income tax be permanent.