AARoads Forum

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-Said-I-95-I-84-Should-Be-Widened-212969391.html

The picture used in the article is from a DOT camera, looking westward at Exit 41 of I-84/US 6 in West Hartford. Channel 30 is off of Exit 40, about a half mile west of that picture.

As for the widening he wants, they should at least get going on I-95 east of Old Saybrook!  :banghead:

I would save at least 4 lanes from NY boarder through New Haven.

Long overdue for both roads.  Along I-84 west of Hartford, I have seen some mainline overpasses that were sized for a future widening (to 6 lanes).  In those areas, all that's needed is additional continuous pavement to match the abutments.

Quote from: Perfxion on June 26, 2013, 06:40:49 AM
I would save at least 4 lanes from NY boarder through New Haven.

At the very least, it should get widened from I-287 through Stamford, maybe with an HOV lane to encourage mass transit and carpooling.  That said, he's talking about widening portions that currently have two lanes to three.  I'm not sure that they have quite the same degree of traffic problems out in Middlesex, New London, and Tolland counties.

One small example of I-95 widening I've encountered is a stretch in Norwalk, immediately south and west of Exit 15 (US Route 7 North), close to mile marker 15. I know a fire station in the vicinity was taken out for that project.

the question is where exactly and how much would it cost the state

Quote from: dgolub on June 26, 2013, 08:29:23 AM

Quote from: Perfxion on June 26, 2013, 06:40:49 AM
I would save at least 4 lanes from NY boarder through New Haven.

At the very least, it should get widened from I-287 through Stamford, maybe with an HOV lane to encourage mass transit and carpooling.  That said, he's talking about widening portions that currently have two lanes to three.  I'm not sure that they have quite the same degree of traffic problems out in Middlesex, New London, and Tolland counties.

Oh, they need that area to be 3 lanes almost as badly as they need I-95 to be widened from 4 to 5 lanes west of New Haven.

What do you mean, it's not 4 lanes yet?

Quote from: Steve on June 26, 2013, 06:17:25 PM
What do you mean, it's not 4 lanes yet?

Unless there's been a widening project since 2010 that I don't know about, it's three lanes in most places from the New York border to a little past New Haven. I recently took a train trip up to Danbury and the parts of I-95 that the train goes by looked the same as they did three years ago.

I believe the confusion stems from Perfexion saying "I would save at least 4 lanes" when he meant "I would have at least 4 lanes". I-95 south of New Haven is, indeed, for the most part only six lanes. The key exception is the section from exits 25 to 29 that was widened to eight lanes several years ago. Other than that there is an auxiliary lane here and there (such as southbound from exits 10 to 8 and northbound from exits 10 to 11), but still only six through lanes.

A wholescale widening to 8 or 10 lanes from I-287 to I-91 would be well justified for the present traffic counts but unfortunately that is neither politically viable nor within the realm of available budgets.

*whoosh*

I could see 8 lanes on 95 from 287 to 91, and 6 lanes to east of New London (say Mystic or thereabouts)...not sure it needs to go all the way to Rhode Island.  Problem is, the right-of-way is pretty tight along much of the corridor west of New Haven.  Any significant widening will require some pricey right-of-way acquisition.

As for I-84, consistent 6-lanes from Waterbury to Hartford and eliminating all the left-side entrances/exits in the Hartford area would help, but I'm not sure 6 lanes from Danbury ot Waterbury is necessary...in my experience, traffic is only a problem here if there's a crash, and widening won't help those crash-related issues.

Oh, but the $1000 per inch busway from New Britain to Hartford is going to alleviate the I-84 problem west of Hartford.  It's the greatest thing since sliced bread :sombrero:  We should have used that $600 million and parlayed it into widening 84 from Hartford to Waterbury and 95 from the NY line to East Lyme.

There is also a website www.transformct.org   They want you to share your ideas for transportation in CT.  Allegedly they will look at it.  Some people have shared their ideas such as the Hartford Bypass, US6, US7 & 11 expressways

Not bad.  Of course, you will get some of your average "do something about crime!" posts, but many of them seem to have actual thought behind them, even if the idea itself is ridiculous.

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 26, 2013, 10:28:48 AM
One small example of I-95 widening I've encountered is a stretch in Norwalk, immediately south and west of Exit 15 (US Route 7 North), close to mile marker 15. I know a fire station in the vicinity was taken out for that project.

That fire station was not taken out because of highway expansion. It's an outdated facility that Norwalk has been trying to replace or relocate for some time now. The expansion of I-95 through Norwalk is similar to the widening that occurred in Darien a few years ago in that it merely added operational lanes for exiting and entering traffic. That kind of project doesn't help. If anything it hurts because it adds to the weaving where traffic tries to spread out across all lanes only to realize that one lane way off to the right where traffic is moving along is an exit only forcing them to merge back left before the next exit ramp. I've seen this behavior many times driving through there. That highway will never be wider than 3 lanes unfortunately as there is simply no room to expand. Right of way acquisition is cost prohibitive never mind all the bridge modifications that would be required. In my opinion, it needs to have a minimum of six through lanes in both directions just to handle today's traffic. Maybe even an express/local setup from the state line through at least Norwalk due to the close spacing of ramps. If this were Texas they'd make it 10 lanes in both directions and be done with it.

If the budget allowed, they would make it 8 or 10 lanes of traffic per side. What they really need is another highway. The true Texas way, lure a corporation into town, then spend a billion on building a highway to it. Worked for Compaq/HP and Exxon.

Quote from: connroadgeek on June 28, 2013, 08:14:48 PM

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 26, 2013, 10:28:48 AM
One small example of I-95 widening I've encountered is a stretch in Norwalk, immediately south and west of Exit 15 (US Route 7 North), close to mile marker 15. I know a fire station in the vicinity was taken out for that project.

That fire station was not taken out because of highway expansion. It's an outdated facility that Norwalk has been trying to replace or relocate for some time now. The expansion of I-95 through Norwalk is similar to the widening that occurred in Darien a few years ago in that it merely added operational lanes for exiting and entering traffic. That kind of project doesn't help. If anything it hurts because it adds to the weaving where traffic tries to spread out across all lanes only to realize that one lane way off to the right where traffic is moving along is an exit only forcing them to merge back left before the next exit ramp. I've seen this behavior many times driving through there. That highway will never be wider than 3 lanes unfortunately as there is simply no room to expand. Right of way acquisition is cost prohibitive never mind all the bridge modifications that would be required. In my opinion, it needs to have a minimum of six through lanes in both directions just to handle today's traffic. Maybe even an express/local setup from the state line through at least Norwalk due to the close spacing of ramps. If this were Texas they'd make it 10 lanes in both directions and be done with it.

From the looks of the I 95 overpasses in fairfield county they are going to need to be replaced at some point.  I hope when they do tackle that project that they allow for more lanes.

CT lured number of European banks to stamford over the past 20 years. Not sure they got much in new road support for it. 

The commuter rail, metro north, was the big reason for that

The reason for that had nothing to do with transportation of any sort. It was because the city of Stamford (of which Dan Malloy was the mayor at the time) offered those companies massive tax breaks to move their operations there.

Quote from: mc78andrew on June 30, 2013, 09:35:31 AM

Quote from: connroadgeek on June 28, 2013, 08:14:48 PM

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on June 26, 2013, 10:28:48 AM
One small example of I-95 widening I've encountered is a stretch in Norwalk, immediately south and west of Exit 15 (US Route 7 North), close to mile marker 15. I know a fire station in the vicinity was taken out for that project.

That fire station was not taken out because of highway expansion. It's an outdated facility that Norwalk has been trying to replace or relocate for some time now. The expansion of I-95 through Norwalk is similar to the widening that occurred in Darien a few years ago in that it merely added operational lanes for exiting and entering traffic. That kind of project doesn't help. If anything it hurts because it adds to the weaving where traffic tries to spread out across all lanes only to realize that one lane way off to the right where traffic is moving along is an exit only forcing them to merge back left before the next exit ramp. I've seen this behavior many times driving through there. That highway will never be wider than 3 lanes unfortunately as there is simply no room to expand. Right of way acquisition is cost prohibitive never mind all the bridge modifications that would be required. In my opinion, it needs to have a minimum of six through lanes in both directions just to handle today's traffic. Maybe even an express/local setup from the state line through at least Norwalk due to the close spacing of ramps. If this were Texas they'd make it 10 lanes in both directions and be done with it.

From the looks of the I 95 overpasses in fairfield county they are going to need to be replaced at some point.  I hope when they do tackle that project that they allow for more lanes.

CT lured number of European banks to stamford over the past 20 years. Not sure they got much in new road support for it. 

CT doesn't think that big, look when they four lane roads.  Texas would add center turning lane, CT doesn't. 

If the I-95 Bridgeport widening was done in, let's say Texas or Deleware, the project would've removed the awful CT-25 loop ramp and replace it with a flyover. 

Quote from: doofy103 on June 30, 2013, 10:32:35 PM
If the I-95 Bridgeport widening was done in, let's say Texas or Deleware, the project would've removed the awful CT-25 loop ramp and replace it with a flyover.

Wouldn't have been possible to do that without taking structures. Which, if attempted, would have delayed and possibly killed the project over the inevitable NIMBY backlash and ensuing court cases. You really can't take structures in a city in the northeast unless you can argue that by doing so you are improving the quality of life in said city. And no, making an interchange flow more freely does not count as improving "quality of life" since it only benefits cars. Now, if the ramp had a bus or bike lane, then you might be in business. :-|

Quote from: doofy103 on June 30, 2013, 10:32:35 PM
CT doesn't think that big, look when they four lane roads.  Texas would add center turning lane, CT doesn't. 

US 7/202 begs to slam your point into a rope like Owen Hart.

QuoteIf this were Texas they'd make it 10 lanes in both directions and be done with it.

If this were Texas, they would've had the open, unused right-of-way to build it that wide.  But Connecticut has buildings.  Could easily be a case where the right-of-way costs would be higher than the actual construction costs.

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.

Quote from: Perfxion on July 04, 2013, 04:55:27 PM
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.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 04, 2013, 06:36:59 PM

Quote from: Perfxion on July 04, 2013, 04:55:27 PM
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.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 04, 2013, 07:01:04 PM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 04, 2013, 06:36:59 PM

Quote from: Perfxion on July 04, 2013, 04:55:27 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2013, 08:32:27 PM
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.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 07:59:08 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2013, 08:32:27 PM
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.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2013, 10:17:07 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 07:59:08 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 04, 2013, 08:32:27 PM
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. 

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 05, 2013, 10:53:29 AM
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.

Quote2.  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.

QuoteBut 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.

QuoteAs 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html)).

QuoteI'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?

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.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2013, 08:54:37 PM
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.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2013, 08:54:37 PM
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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bay+Ridge,+Annapolis,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland+21403&hl=en&ll=38.941453,-76.450574&spn=0.004665,0.009645&sll=38.795336,-77.005234&sspn=0.018697,0.038581&t=h&gl=us&geocode=FSMlUgIdSlBx-w&hnear=Bay+Ridge,+Annapolis,+Maryland+21403&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.941592,-76.450673&panoid=4ExzVtEFiE55D16PhkZPsw&cbp=12,45.37,,3,-1.71).  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).

Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2013, 08:54:37 PMA 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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).

Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2013, 08:54:37 PMAnd 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?

Quote from: Duke87 on July 05, 2013, 08:54:37 PMNonetheless, 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.

QuoteI 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.

Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2013, 04:27:13 AM

QuoteI 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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/traffic4.htm) 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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=watkins+island+potomac+md&hl=en&ll=39.042386,-77.278862&spn=0.149058,0.308647&sll=39.052585,-77.294676&sspn=0.009315,0.01929&gl=us&hnear=Watkins+Island&t=m&z=12) to Northern Virginia.

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...

Quote from: froggie on July 07, 2013, 01:29:57 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 07, 2013, 08:46:18 PM
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).

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 07, 2013, 08:46:18 PM
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). 

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.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2013, 10:36:57 PM
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.

Quote from: kkt on July 08, 2013, 01:13:07 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 05, 2013, 10:36:57 PM
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.

Quote from: spmkam on July 07, 2013, 11:50:15 PM
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.

Quote from: spmkam on July 07, 2013, 11:50:15 PM
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.

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 08, 2013, 05:52:45 AM

Quote from: spmkam on July 07, 2013, 11:50:15 PM
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.

(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.

Quote from: spmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
(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. 

Quote from: spmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
(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.

Quote from: spmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
(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.

Quote from: pmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
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). 

Quote from: spmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
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.

Quote from: spmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 08, 2013, 07:44:38 PM
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.

Sounds a lot like long sections of U.S. 1 across Virginia and Maryland.

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 08, 2013, 07:44:38 PM
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.

I infer that you mean the Merritt Parkway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_Parkway), right?

I do not know the legal or ownership status of the Merritt - but - if the park part of Merritt Parkway matters (and I speculate that it does), then provisions of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50section4f.cfm) may apply.  The Wikipedia entry for the Merritt Parkway says it is on the National Register (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places), which also implies that there may be restriction on changes to its physical appearance and layout.

None of the above means that it is forbidden to widen the Merritt Parkway.  But it may be an expensive and time-consuming process to design such improvements and get them approved before they can be advertised for construction.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2013, 08:24:20 PM
I infer that you mean the Merritt Parkway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_Parkway), right?

I do not know the legal or ownership status of the Merritt - but - if the park part of Merritt Parkway matters (and I speculate that it does), then provisions of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50section4f.cfm) may apply.  The Wikipedia entry for the Merritt Parkway says it is on the National Register (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places), which also implies that there may be restriction on changes to its physical appearance and layout.

None of the above means that it is forbidden to widen the Merritt Parkway.  But it may be an expensive and time-consuming process to design such improvements and get them approved before they can be advertised for construction.

Yeah I was talking about the Merritt. Half joking of course. I realize there's no chance of widening ever happening there, but of the two right of ways, I'd say it would be slightly easier to acquire than land along 95.

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 08, 2013, 08:46:07 PM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2013, 08:24:20 PM
I infer that you mean the Merritt Parkway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merritt_Parkway), right?

I do not know the legal or ownership status of the Merritt - but - if the park part of Merritt Parkway matters (and I speculate that it does), then provisions of Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50section4f.cfm) may apply.  The Wikipedia entry for the Merritt Parkway says it is on the National Register (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Historic_Places), which also implies that there may be restriction on changes to its physical appearance and layout.

None of the above means that it is forbidden to widen the Merritt Parkway.  But it may be an expensive and time-consuming process to design such improvements and get them approved before they can be advertised for construction.

Yeah I was talking about the Merritt. Half joking of course. I realize there's no chance of widening ever happening there, but of the two right of ways, I'd say it would be slightly easier to acquire than land along 95.

It's not illegal to improve parkways. 

Down here in Maryland and Virginia, where most of our "real" parkways are owned and administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, there have been significant improvements over the past 10 or 20 years (but no large-scale widening projects).

The federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway got a pretty through reconstruction from about 1989 to 1999, and some of the interchanges got significantly improved, though there was not much widening done.

There have been several reasonably big projects on the George Washington Memorial Parkway that added acceleration and auxiliary lanes where there were none before.

The Suitland Parkway was once a two-lane parkway for much of its distance in Maryland, but it was widened to a four-lane divided parkway.

The National Park Service and the Federal Highway Administration are currently planning for a major (and badly-needed) rehabilitation and repair project of the Arlington Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River.

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 08, 2013, 08:46:07 PMYeah I was talking about the Merritt. Half joking of course. I realize there's no chance of widening ever happening there, but of the two right of ways, I'd say it would be slightly easier to acquire than land along 95.

You wouldn't have to.  For reasons of either buffering, future flexibility, or both, the State of Connecticut acquired twice the ROW width it needed for the Merritt.  You hear of times they've considered using that ROW, but particularly since the NRHP designation and Connecticut's embrace of the road as almost a tourist attraction, that talk has died down. 

To that end they've done a lot of work on finally restoring some of the spalling concrete details (in past years either ignored or unsympathetically troweled over flat).  The exit 48 SPUI (rebuilt as a wider version of the original overpass design) is a great example of modernizing while retaining essential historic elements of the road.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2013, 07:33:47 PM
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.

Speaking as someone who grew up in Stamford, yes, it is easy, and yes, people do it. When I worked for the City of Stamford, most of the employees were local, but a couple of the people in the Engineering office did commute daily via Metro-North between Stamford and New Haven.
An interesting factoid that I've heard quoted but don't have a source to cite for: the Stamford train station is a destination point for more morning commute rail trips than it is an origin point. Part of this is because a lot of people use the train to commute to Stamford... and part of this is because Stamford station is tougher to drive to compared to other nearby stations and parking is more expensive. When I lived in Stamford and commuted to the city, I got on the train at Noroton Heights (the next stop up the mainline) rather than at Stamford for exactly these reasons.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2013, 07:33:47 PM

Quote from: spmkam on July 08, 2013, 06:34:24 PM
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.

US 1 is not worthy for non-local trips. Lots of lights, goes basically entirely through developed areas.

That said, part of I-95's problem is that it has so many exits (an average of 1 per mile for the first 50 miles in Connecticut). This not only slows down traffic at all of the merge points, but it also encourages a lot of fairly short distance trips to hop on the interstate for an exit or two whereas on other highways in other suburban areas this wouldn't be possible.

But would closing exits really take a noticeable amount of traffic off I-95? I drive mostly between I-287 and Exit 8 and the bottlenecks usually begin (or end) at Exit 7. Also, the redone welcome center in Darien has a hideous sign but the building looks very nice from the road.

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 08, 2013, 09:46:26 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 08, 2013, 08:46:07 PMYeah I was talking about the Merritt. Half joking of course. I realize there's no chance of widening ever happening there, but of the two right of ways, I'd say it would be slightly easier to acquire than land along 95.

You wouldn't have to.  For reasons of either buffering, future flexibility, or both, the State of Connecticut acquired twice the ROW width it needed for the Merritt.  You hear of times they've considered using that ROW, but particularly since the NRHP designation and Connecticut's embrace of the road as almost a tourist attraction, that talk has died down.

The Garden State Parkway started out as 2 lanes each way, and look where that got it. So I understand why CT is resistant to widen its road. That said, the Garden State can still clog 5 lanes each way in the heaviest-traveled sections, so that tells you the amount of latent demand that's probably sitting in CT. Widening to 3x3 will do little; best to make it 4x4 right off the bat.

Quote from: Steve on July 09, 2013, 07:20:24 PM
The Garden State Parkway started out as 2 lanes each way, and look where that got it. So I understand why CT is resistant to widen its road. That said, the Garden State can still clog 5 lanes each way in the heaviest-traveled sections, so that tells you the amount of latent demand that's probably sitting in CT. Widening to 3x3 will do little; best to make it 4x4 right off the bat.

But I bet if the Garden State was still 2 lanes each way, the backups would be more severe and last longer.

Quote from: Steve on July 09, 2013, 07:20:24 PM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 08, 2013, 09:46:26 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 08, 2013, 08:46:07 PMYeah I was talking about the Merritt. Half joking of course. I realize there's no chance of widening ever happening there, but of the two right of ways, I'd say it would be slightly easier to acquire than land along 95.

You wouldn't have to.  For reasons of either buffering, future flexibility, or both, the State of Connecticut acquired twice the ROW width it needed for the Merritt.  You hear of times they've considered using that ROW, but particularly since the NRHP designation and Connecticut's embrace of the road as almost a tourist attraction, that talk has died down.

The Garden State Parkway started out as 2 lanes each way, and look where that got it. So I understand why CT is resistant to widen its road. That said, the Garden State can still clog 5 lanes each way in the heaviest-traveled sections, so that tells you the amount of latent demand that's probably sitting in CT. Widening to 3x3 will do little; best to make it 4x4 right off the bat.

Steve, I don't dispute that the demand is there to fill four lanes each way (and I defer to your knowledge and that of others in this thread that know Connecticut much better than I do).

But what's missing is setting a price on that Merritt Parkway capacity.  Even if the Merritt Parkway were to be widened to just three lanes each way, pricing that capacity to maintain level-of-service D conditions (and implicitly free-flowing traffic) should be part of any proposal to add capacity.  Also provides a handy source of cash to fund (or help fund) the improvements.

I realize that not everyone agrees with me when it comes to pricing scarce highway capacity, but I don't see any other choice.

Quote from: doofy103 on July 09, 2013, 07:58:23 PM
But I bet if the Garden State was still 2 lanes each way, the backups would be more severe and last longer.

Not if the price was set correctly! 

Note that I am not a fan of pricing highways and keeping capacity severely constrained. 

That is not what people want (and I concede that many people don't want to pay for new capacity either).

One point that hasn't been made in a while is that the Merritt is super fun to drive with its current alignment, especially if you have a nice vehicle that can handle high speed cornering.  I hit it at 630AM and there is no traffic then.  What little traffic there is knows that the min speed is 70mph and that you should average more than that. 

That last turn headed south before you hit NY or the first turn headed north when you enter the state is truely a joy with its perfect banking.  It's like being on a race track.  It's always fun and scary to see out of state drivers come it too hot for their comfort and panic with the brake mid turn. 

I would be afriad that any further updating to the road in greenwich would take away all the fun.  Especially if we are comaring it to the GSP, which is zero fun from end to end. 

QuoteBut I bet if the Garden State was still 2 lanes each way, the backups would be more severe and last longer.

Perhaps...perhaps not.  It's a pretty safe bet that, if the GSP remained 2 lanes (or fewer lanes than current), development pressures would have been lessened and, while probably still congested, there wouldn't have been as much development driving that congestion.

Quote from: spmkam on July 09, 2013, 12:25:56 AM
But would closing exits really take a noticeable amount of traffic off I-95? I drive mostly between I-287 and Exit 8 and the bottlenecks usually begin (or end) at Exit 7. Also, the redone welcome center in Darien has a hideous sign but the building looks very nice from the road.

Maybe not, but closing exits would eliminate conflict points at merges and exits, possibly improving traffic flow.

Quote from: froggie on July 10, 2013, 02:26:50 AM

QuoteBut I bet if the Garden State was still 2 lanes each way, the backups would be more severe and last longer.

Perhaps...perhaps not.  It's a pretty safe bet that, if the GSP remained 2 lanes (or fewer lanes than current), development pressures would have been lessened and, while probably still congested, there wouldn't have been as much development driving that congestion.

But you assume that highway capacity (or lack thereof) will inhibit residential growth. 

It's been a matter of faith among persons opposed to highways and automobile use that this is true, but I believe it is false.  I can name plenty of places in and around metropolitan D.C. that have grown (some enormously) without the highways being expanded, and you probably can too.

Quote from: Brandon on July 10, 2013, 11:09:35 AM

Quote from: spmkam on July 09, 2013, 12:25:56 AM
But would closing exits really take a noticeable amount of traffic off I-95? I drive mostly between I-287 and Exit 8 and the bottlenecks usually begin (or end) at Exit 7. Also, the redone welcome center in Darien has a hideous sign but the building looks very nice from the road.

Maybe not, but closing exits would eliminate conflict points at merges and exits, possibly improving traffic flow.

In a more strategic sense, closing some exits on the Connecticut Turnpike might put those local trips where they belong, which is on the local arterial highways and streets. 

Seemed pretty clear to me that there are far too many on- and off-ramps on I-95 between I-287 and I-91.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2013, 11:38:02 AMSeemed pretty clear to me that there are far too many on- and off-ramps on I-95 between I-287 and I-91.

Maybe parallel frontage roads between interchanges (similar to what I-35E & US 67 has in the Dallas, TX area) could be one option for I-95 in this area. 

Maybe the more recent reconfiguration of the interchanges & ramps along the freeway portion of US 30 in Lancaster, PA may be more appropriate option.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2013, 11:35:19 AM
It's been a matter of faith among persons opposed to highways and automobile use that this is true, but I believe it is false.  I can name plenty of places in and around metropolitan D.C. that have grown (some enormously) without the highways being expanded, and you probably can too.

Yes US 7 in Wilton and Norwalk, the traffic came anyway even without the expressway.

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2013, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2013, 11:38:02 AMSeemed pretty clear to me that there are far too many on- and off-ramps on I-95 between I-287 and I-91.

Maybe parallel frontage roads between interchanges (similar to what I-35E & US 67 has in the Dallas, TX area) could be one option for I-95 in this area. 

Maybe the more recent reconfiguration of the interchanges & ramps along the freeway portion of US 30 in Lancaster, PA may be more appropriate option.

There are a few frontage roads such as North and South State Streets in Stamford, CT

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2013, 11:35:19 AM

Quote from: froggie on July 10, 2013, 02:26:50 AM

QuoteBut I bet if the Garden State was still 2 lanes each way, the backups would be more severe and last longer.

Perhaps...perhaps not.  It's a pretty safe bet that, if the GSP remained 2 lanes (or fewer lanes than current), development pressures would have been lessened and, while probably still congested, there wouldn't have been as much development driving that congestion.

But you assume that highway capacity (or lack thereof) will inhibit residential growth. 

It's been a matter of faith among persons opposed to highways and automobile use that this is true, but I believe it is false.  I can name plenty of places in and around metropolitan D.C. that have grown (some enormously) without the highways being expanded, and you probably can too.

I can name several around Chicago.  Can we start with McHenry County and western Lake County?  Then move on to Homer Township in Will County (which got an expressway in the form of I-355 after decades of growth)?

As far as I've seen, then growth comes first, then the roads are added later.

I agree, Wilton, CT resisted the US-7 for a very long time, and the growth still came.

Quote from: Brandon on July 10, 2013, 01:58:56 PMAs far as I've seen, then growth comes first, then the roads are added later.

Similar coiuld be said regarding the Blue Route (I-476) in PA.  It was oringally planned to be fully built (& 6 lanes all the way through) and open by 1976 but was delayed 15 years due NIMBY lawsuits and the like.  During that 15-year delay period, development along feeder roads like MacDade Blvd., Baltimore Pike and West Chester Pike (PA 3) went unrestrained and as result; the current road (downsized from its original design circa 1979) was already at its projected 20-year capacity within the first year it opened.

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2013, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2013, 11:38:02 AMSeemed pretty clear to me that there are far too many on- and off-ramps on I-95 between I-287 and I-91.

Maybe parallel frontage roads between interchanges (similar to what I-35E & US 67 has in the Dallas, TX area) could be one option for I-95 in this area. 

Maybe the more recent reconfiguration of the interchanges & ramps along the freeway portion of US 30 in Lancaster, PA may be more appropriate option.

I think frontage roads in fairfield county are even less possible than adding additional lanes given the ROW issues we all mentioned earlier in this thread.  Most of the development along side of 95  (ex downtown stamford) is pretty much residential...I know you can have frontage roads in resi areas such as those along side the LIE, but I always thought they worked best for commercial development. 

Texas must be the leader of the world in frontage road development.  Not sure if there are any stats on that like who leads the world in frontage road miles.   

Texas has a habit  in under developed areas and on long term projects to put the frontage road and leave room for the highway later. This gives them the right of way without having to have too much problem later. The I-95 corridor in the Northeast has the unfortunate problem of being settled pretty densely for almost 400 years. Right of way via land clearance, values, and development have made things a lot more difficult. Its easy for Texas to build SH99 from US290 to US59/I-69. That might ED 10 houses(trailer homes built on the land owned by the state) on a 40 mile stretch versus I-95 gaining 2 lanes each way in Stamford taking out 30 homes and 4 Fortune 500 companies. I highly doubt Vince McMahon wants to move Titan Towers, and will do it for cheap.

On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that driving through or across Connecticut needs to suck less. On the other, I don't know that turning the state into Texas or southern California is at all the right answer...

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 10, 2013, 09:10:53 PM

Quote from: PHLBOS on July 10, 2013, 11:55:42 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 10, 2013, 11:38:02 AMSeemed pretty clear to me that there are far too many on- and off-ramps on I-95 between I-287 and I-91.

Maybe parallel frontage roads between interchanges (similar to what I-35E & US 67 has in the Dallas, TX area) could be one option for I-95 in this area. 

Maybe the more recent reconfiguration of the interchanges & ramps along the freeway portion of US 30 in Lancaster, PA may be more appropriate option.

I think frontage roads in fairfield county are even less possible than adding additional lanes given the ROW issues we all mentioned earlier in this thread.  Most of the development along side of 95  (ex downtown stamford) is pretty much residential...I know you can have frontage roads in resi areas such as those along side the LIE, but I always thought they worked best for commercial development. 

Texas must be the leader of the world in frontage road development.  Not sure if there are any stats on that like who leads the world in frontage road miles.

Worse, Fairfield County contains some of the most well-off and influential folks you could ever want to not have an interest in you not seizing their land or building more lanes through it.  95 is one thing -- it largely hits densely developed areas.  The Merritt, through verdant areas rife with mansions (Mc and otherwise), is another entirely.

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 09, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
One point that hasn't been made in a while is that the Merritt is super fun to drive with its current alignment, especially if you have a nice vehicle that can handle high speed cornering.  I hit it at 630AM and there is no traffic then.  What little traffic there is knows that the min speed is 70mph and that you should average more than that. 

That last turn headed south before you hit NY or the first turn headed north when you enter the state is truely a joy with its perfect banking.  It's like being on a race track.  It's always fun and scary to see out of state drivers come it too hot for their comfort and panic with the brake mid turn. 

I would be afriad that any further updating to the road in greenwich would take away all the fun.  Especially if we are comaring it to the GSP, which is zero fun from end to end. 

While at first it may seem jejune to want to preserve a road for its "fun", if you remember that parkways were initially built at least partially for recreational purposes, the idea doesn't seem too far-fetched.

That said, I actually enjoy going the speed limit (50) on the Merritt. It causes all of the other traffic to zoom by all at once in a huge left-lane phalanx, leaving myself relatively unperturbed in the right lane. In fact, I'm beginning to find that's an upside of left-lane abusers everywhere: sure, they're in the wrong lane if they're not passing anyone, but as a result I often end up with the right lane damn near to myself, a non-congested roadway almost completely separate from the traffic-choked left and center lanes alongside of me.

Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2013, 11:13:47 PM

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 09, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
One point that hasn't been made in a while is that the Merritt is super fun to drive with its current alignment, especially if you have a nice vehicle that can handle high speed cornering.  I hit it at 630AM and there is no traffic then.  What little traffic there is knows that the min speed is 70mph and that you should average more than that. 

That last turn headed south before you hit NY or the first turn headed north when you enter the state is truely a joy with its perfect banking.  It's like being on a race track.  It's always fun and scary to see out of state drivers come it too hot for their comfort and panic with the brake mid turn. 

I would be afriad that any further updating to the road in greenwich would take away all the fun.  Especially if we are comaring it to the GSP, which is zero fun from end to end. 

While at first it may seem jejune to want to preserve a road for its "fun", if you remember that parkways were initially built at least partially for recreational purposes, the idea doesn't seem too far-fetched.

That said, I actually enjoy going the speed limit (50) on the Merritt. It causes all of the other traffic to zoom by all at once in a huge left-lane phalanx, leaving myself relatively unperturbed in the right lane. In fact, I'm beginning to find that's an upside of left-lane abusers everywhere: sure, they're in the wrong lane if they're not passing anyone, but as a result I often end up with the right lane damn near to myself, a non-congested roadway almost completely separate from the traffic-choked left and center lanes alongside of me.

I take the Merritt in large part because it's a more enjoyable drive.  I know lots of folks who do.

As I alluded to upthread, I think Connecticut has come around on this idea of late, and the road borders on being a tourist attraction unto itself.  This and its greater speed might actually be the best reason to toll it again (prestige pricing?).

Lastly, in reference to your point about driving the Merritt slow, I will say that if I am in no hurry and it's daytime, the Merritt is one of very few places I don't mind getting caught in slow traffic.  I get a lot of good close-up looks at those overpasses that usually require books or the HAER. 

Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2013, 11:13:47 PM

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 09, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
One point that hasn't been made in a while is that the Merritt is super fun to drive with its current alignment, especially if you have a nice vehicle that can handle high speed cornering.  I hit it at 630AM and there is no traffic then.  What little traffic there is knows that the min speed is 70mph and that you should average more than that. 

That last turn headed south before you hit NY or the first turn headed north when you enter the state is truely a joy with its perfect banking.  It's like being on a race track.  It's always fun and scary to see out of state drivers come it too hot for their comfort and panic with the brake mid turn. 

I would be afriad that any further updating to the road in greenwich would take away all the fun.  Especially if we are comaring it to the GSP, which is zero fun from end to end. 

While at first it may seem jejune to want to preserve a road for its "fun", if you remember that parkways were initially built at least partially for recreational purposes, the idea doesn't seem too far-fetched.

That said, I actually enjoy going the speed limit (50) on the Merritt. It causes all of the other traffic to zoom by all at once in a huge left-lane phalanx, leaving myself relatively unperturbed in the right lane. In fact, I'm beginning to find that's an upside of left-lane abusers everywhere: sure, they're in the wrong lane if they're not passing anyone, but as a result I often end up with the right lane damn near to myself, a non-congested roadway almost completely separate from the traffic-choked left and center lanes alongside of me.

As long as you are having fun too, that's all that matters.

That's what makes the Merritt one of the most pleasurable drives around!

Quote from: spmkam on July 11, 2013, 03:38:34 PM
That's what makes the Merritt one of the most pleasurable drives around!

If you are down in Northern Virginia, the same can be said about the George Washington Memorial Parkway (mostly maintained by the National Park Service). 

If you start at the south end, at the front door to George Washington's Mount Vernon in Fairfax County and head north, the Parkway starts out as a four lane arterial. There are lots of nice views of the tidal Potomac River and the Maryland shoreline on the other side.  As you approach the City of Alexandria, the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge comes in to view, then the parkway becomes an arterial street (Washington Street) through Alexandria.  Once out of Alexandria, the Parkway resumes, and you pass National Airport, with some big office buildings peeking over the trees on your left, and the Monumental Core of Washington, D.C. appears on the right across the river.  As you pass under I-395, the Pentagon is visible on the left, and then you cross a small bridge and you are in the District of Columbia (there's no sign), with nice views of the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. 

Then you go under the Arlington Memorial Bridge and back into Virginia (again, no sign), under I-66.  The massive buildings of Rosslyn are visible on your left, and more of Washington across the river on your right.  You then pass under the massive Key Bridge (U.S. 29), and the Parkway's elevation starts to rise steadily up onto the palisades on the Virginia side of the Potomac River (it's enough of a rise that you can feel the change in temperature sometimes).  There are two overlooks with nice views of the river's gorge and the Chain Bridge that runs over the river below.   There's Fort Marcy, a historic Union Army fort from the Civil War.  Then some sharp curves and Va. 123 (Chain Bridge Road), then the back entrance to the Central Intelligence Agency and Turkey Run Park.  A few more bridges and you arrive at the north end of the Parkway at I-495.

Except in Alexandria, the speed limit varies from 35 MPH to 50 MPH, and is at times strictly enforced by the U.S. Park Police.

Quote from: spmkam on July 11, 2013, 03:38:34 PM
That's what makes the Merritt one of the most pleasurable drives around!

Likewise for Lake Shore Drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Shore_Drive) in Chicago.  The Lake on one side, city on the other, and parks on both sides.  It's good enough, a song was written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Shore_Drive_%28song%29) about it.  The limit is 40-45 mph, not really enforced by the Chicago Police Department, and traffic will go 50-70 mph depending upon the section of LSD you're on.

Yes, LSD reminded me of the Merritt in its unenforced speed limit and occasional sharp curves.

Quote from: Brandon on July 12, 2013, 11:19:24 AM
depending upon the ... LSD you're on.

Quote from: spmkam on July 12, 2013, 02:29:55 PM
Yes, LSD reminded me of the Merritt in its unenforced speed limit and occasional sharp curves.

Reading so much more into this than you intended...

that is for you to decide

Quote from: spmkam on July 12, 2013, 02:29:55 PM
Yes, LSD reminded me of the Merritt in its unenforced speed limit and occasional sharp curves.

The few times I have driven it, I have noticed that the Connecticut State Police appeared to have a consistently visible and active presence on the Connecticut Turnpike.

Perhaps more than any other segment of I-95 from South Carolina to Maine (I have not been on I-95 in Georgia or Florida since the 1980's), with the exception of the speed trap that Emporia, Virginia runs - and the similar one that Hopewell, Virginia runs on I-295.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2013, 10:27:14 AM
The few times I have driven it, I have noticed that the Connecticut State Police appeared to have a consistently visible and active presence on the Connecticut Turnpike.

Perhaps more than any other segment of I-95 from South Carolina to Maine (I have not been on I-95 in Georgia or Florida since the 1980's), with the exception of the speed trap that Emporia, Virginia runs - and the similar one that Hopewell, Virginia runs on I-295.

Really? Where? There is no where for them to sit and target cars really. In my experience there is rarely speed enforcement on I-95 through Connecticut. Mostly because I-95, at least through Fairfield and New Haven counties, rarely affords one the ability to speed. If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day. Once in a while you will see a trooper sitting at the weigh station just over the state line, but usually if you see a state police officer he is just in his car working on his computer (and waiting on the inevitable accident to respond to) not really paying attention. The lower part of Fairfield County is a long way from the state police barracks in Bridgeport, and they aren't really needed down here for law enforcement since 95 passes through cities that have their own police departments.

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2013, 10:27:14 AM
The few times I have driven it, I have noticed that the Connecticut State Police appeared to have a consistently visible and active presence on the Connecticut Turnpike.

Perhaps more than any other segment of I-95 from South Carolina to Maine (I have not been on I-95 in Georgia or Florida since the 1980's), with the exception of the speed trap that Emporia, Virginia runs - and the similar one that Hopewell, Virginia runs on I-295.

Really? Where? There is no where for them to sit and target cars really. In my experience there is rarely speed enforcement on I-95 through Connecticut. Mostly because I-95, at least through Fairfield and New Haven counties, rarely affords one the ability to speed. If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day. Once in a while you will see a trooper sitting at the weigh station just over the state line, but usually if you see a state police officer he is just in his car working on his computer (and waiting on the inevitable accident to respond to) not really paying attention. The lower part of Fairfield County is a long way from the state police barracks in Bridgeport, and they aren't really needed down here for law enforcement since 95 passes through cities that have their own police departments.

Coming north, late on a Friday night last month, I must have seen at least 8 or 9 unmarked Connecticut trooper cars in Fairfield County.  It was super-congested in part because of a miserable construction zone around Norwalk that narrowed the northbound side to one lane.  I saw two or three more between New Haven and the Rhode Island border. 

I came south on during the day the following Sunday, and there were not as many as Friday night, but I still observed 5 or 6 of them (and yes, it was badly congested through Stamford, and much of the trip between New Haven and the New York border was no better than level-of-service E).

Perhaps that is not a representative sample?   

For the sake of comparison, I have driven I-95 across Virginia (which is about 177 miles) and frequently not seen even one Virginia trooper car the entire way.

The weigh station is on the northbound side in Greenwich, roughly at mile marker 2. I wonder if the old toll plaza would've been there in the past? (I wasn't on I-95 in Fairfield County until about 1990 myself.)

Any idea how long that construction will be going on in Norwalk? I really can't see how adding a lane is going to do much in that area, being just south of the US Route 7 junction.

Likewise, isn't there widening on I-95 east of New Haven? I've only been on that portion once, oddly enough (from east of Exit 48 to the Old Saybrook area).

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2013, 12:47:52 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 13, 2013, 10:27:14 AM
The few times I have driven it, I have noticed that the Connecticut State Police appeared to have a consistently visible and active presence on the Connecticut Turnpike.

Perhaps more than any other segment of I-95 from South Carolina to Maine (I have not been on I-95 in Georgia or Florida since the 1980's), with the exception of the speed trap that Emporia, Virginia runs - and the similar one that Hopewell, Virginia runs on I-295.

Really? Where? There is no where for them to sit and target cars really. In my experience there is rarely speed enforcement on I-95 through Connecticut. Mostly because I-95, at least through Fairfield and New Haven counties, rarely affords one the ability to speed. If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day. Once in a while you will see a trooper sitting at the weigh station just over the state line, but usually if you see a state police officer he is just in his car working on his computer (and waiting on the inevitable accident to respond to) not really paying attention. The lower part of Fairfield County is a long way from the state police barracks in Bridgeport, and they aren't really needed down here for law enforcement since 95 passes through cities that have their own police departments.

Coming north, late on a Friday night last month, I must have seen at least 8 or 9 unmarked Connecticut trooper cars in Fairfield County.  It was super-congested in part because of a miserable construction zone around Norwalk that narrowed the northbound side to one lane.  I saw two or three more between New Haven and the Rhode Island border. 

I came south on during the day the following Sunday, and there were not as many as Friday night, but I still observed 5 or 6 of them (and yes, it was badly congested through Stamford, and much of the trip between New Haven and the New York border was no better than level-of-service E)..

Perhaps that is not a representative sample?   

For the sake of comparison, I have driven I-95 across Virginia (which is about 177 miles) and frequently not seen even one Virginia trooper car the entire way.

I usually see tons of DOT maintainence going on.  I see more DOT trucks in CT than other states it seems. 

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day.

And to think the day I was in CT in 2011 I went 65 the whole way down 95 (speed limit 55).

QuoteBut you assume that highway capacity (or lack thereof) will inhibit residential growth. 

It's been a matter of faith among persons opposed to highways and automobile use that this is true, but I believe it is false.  I can name plenty of places in and around metropolitan D.C. that have grown (some enormously) without the highways being expanded, and you probably can too.

I do not believe this to be patently false (as apparently opposed to you and some of the others on this forum).  It is but one factor to consider.  Rapid growth in areas without a developed road network can be attributed to other factors.  The DC area, for example, has seen TREMENDOUS growth in government jobs and defense contractors, which would more than adequately explain the growth you cite in the DC area.  Another factor to consider, especially from the 60s into the 80s, is that a lot of this development was made on the assumption that the freeway network in many cities would be significantly bigger than what was actually built.

Another factor to consider:  census data and commuter surveys suggest there is a ceiling on what the average person considers an acceptable commute time...I most often see a figure in the area of 30 minutes.  Whether consciously or subconsiously, people will tend to do something different if their commute time is significantly higher, whether it be find a new job closer in or move closer to their workplace.  Of course, there are those who do long commutes (as we saw with that WTOP super-commuter article a couple months ago), but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Quote from: froggie on July 14, 2013, 03:40:45 AM

QuoteBut you assume that highway capacity (or lack thereof) will inhibit residential growth. 

It's been a matter of faith among persons opposed to highways and automobile use that this is true, but I believe it is false.  I can name plenty of places in and around metropolitan D.C. that have grown (some enormously) without the highways being expanded, and you probably can too.

I do not believe this to be patently false (as apparently opposed to you and some of the others on this forum).  It is but one factor to consider.  Rapid growth in areas without a developed road network can be attributed to other factors.  The DC area, for example, has seen TREMENDOUS growth in government jobs and defense contractors, which would more than adequately explain the growth you cite in the DC area.  Another factor to consider, especially from the 60s into the 80s, is that a lot of this development was made on the assumption that the freeway network in many cities would be significantly bigger than what was actually built.

Agreed regarding the D.C. area - especially in Northern Virginia, for six primary reasons:

(1) Home to a large mass of the bigger-spending federal agencies (the Pentagon and other DoD activities, most of the "intelligence" agencies (CIA, NRO, parts of DIA and (now) all of NGA and a lot of federal government "back office" work);

(2) Two Interstate connections (I-66 and I-395) to downtown D.C., plus two or three expressway connections (depending on how you count - I consider the  G.W. Memorial Parkway to be expressway north of I-66, plus U.S. 50 (Arlington Boulevard) plus the southern part of the GWMP to be expressway as far south as Alexandria) - Maryland has exactly one, I-295, which serves a lot of Virginia traffic as well due to its location;

(3) Home to National Airport and Dulles Airport;

(4) Much easier to get development approvals in Virginia than it is in Maryland;

(5) Some of the best public school systems in the United States (Montgomery County, Md. have been on a long and steady decline, and the public schools in Prince George's County, Md. were badly damaged by busing, the voter-imposed property tax cap known as TRIM and resulting white and black flight); and

(6) Virginia in general and Fairfax County, Va. especially have had very shrewdly-run economic development operations (and have lured many large private-sector employers to leave Maryland, especially Montgomery County, and move south of the Potomac River).

As for assumptions about freeways getting built, that was a major reason why Md. 200 finally got built over the objections of many (especially) in Montgomery County and (less so) in Prince George's County.  Montgomery County, since the 1970's, approved tens of thousands of new homes in several master plan areas with the assumption that Md. 200 would eventually get built, and removing the road from the planning maps would have effectively ended development approvals across a large swath of the county, since that future highway  capacity would have disappeared and been impossible to recreate elsewhere.

Quote from: froggie on July 14, 2013, 03:40:45 AM
Another factor to consider:  census data and commuter surveys suggest there is a ceiling on what the average person considers an acceptable commute time...I most often see a figure in the area of 30 minutes.  Whether consciously or subconsiously, people will tend to do something different if their commute time is significantly higher, whether it be find a new job closer in or move closer to their workplace.  Of course, there are those who do long commutes (as we saw with that WTOP super-commuter article a couple months ago), but these are exceptions, not the rule.

Though so-called agricultural preservation efforts in both Montgomery County and Prince George's County have played a role in so-called "leapfrog" development to the next tier of counties out (all of these Maryland counties have been on the receiving end of leapfrog development: Frederick, Carroll, Howard, Anne Arundel, Queen Anne's, Calvert, St. Mary's and Charles).

I have also heard that thirty minute figure, but commuter trip length also matters, and this is where Northern Virginia has excelled, in spite of many severely congested highways.  Job growth there means that while congestion can be bad, the distance is not so long.  Maryland, on the other hand, has some of the longest trip lengths and commute times in the United States, which does not reflect well on statewide (or especially) county and municipal planning.   

Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2013, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day.

And to think the day I was in CT in 2011 I went 65 the whole way down 95 (speed limit 55).

Must have been at 4 AM on a holiday.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2013, 12:05:06 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2013, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day.

And to think the day I was in CT in 2011 I went 65 the whole way down 95 (speed limit 55).

Must have been at 4 AM on a holiday.

I was able to go 65-70 on I-95 on a Sunday morning last October.  Didn't get slowed down really until the construction at I-91.

Expanding the Merritt is basically out of the question for that reason.

Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2013, 11:13:47 PM

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 09, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
One point that hasn't been made in a while is that the Merritt is super fun to drive with its current alignment, especially if you have a nice vehicle that can handle high speed cornering.  I hit it at 630AM and there is no traffic then.  What little traffic there is knows that the min speed is 70mph and that you should average more than that. 

That last turn headed south before you hit NY or the first turn headed north when you enter the state is truely a joy with its perfect banking.  It's like being on a race track.  It's always fun and scary to see out of state drivers come it too hot for their comfort and panic with the brake mid turn. 

I would be afriad that any further updating to the road in greenwich would take away all the fun.  Especially if we are comaring it to the GSP, which is zero fun from end to end. 

While at first it may seem jejune to want to preserve a road for its "fun", if you remember that parkways were initially built at least partially for recreational purposes, the idea doesn't seem too far-fetched.

That said, I actually enjoy going the speed limit (50) on the Merritt. It causes all of the other traffic to zoom by all at once in a huge left-lane phalanx, leaving myself relatively unperturbed in the right lane. In fact, I'm beginning to find that's an upside of left-lane abusers everywhere: sure, they're in the wrong lane if they're not passing anyone, but as a result I often end up with the right lane damn near to myself, a non-congested roadway almost completely separate from the traffic-choked left and center lanes alongside of me.

I never really looked at the speed limit on the merrit but noticed it this weekend.  There are a few signs for 55, but they are very far and few between.  This was between stamford and Westport.

Also, it's worth noting...what kind of shape do you think 95 would be in without the merrit?  I think the answer is to finish 6 laning 84 with the hope that thru traffic bound for or from New England will opt for that route over 95.

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 15, 2013, 08:27:48 PM

Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2013, 11:13:47 PM
That said, I actually enjoy going the speed limit (50) on the Merritt.

I never really looked at the speed limit on the merrit but noticed it this weekend.  There are a few signs for 55, but they are very far and few between.  This was between stamford and Westport.

The speed limit on the Merritt is 50 from the state line until the Guinea Road overpass just within Stamford. From there it is 55 the rest of the way. The reason for the lower limit in Greenwich is that there are a couple of sharp curves along that segment that have been notorious crash sites, which has prompted ConnDOT to try various things to rectify the problem. First it was milling the pavement on and approaching those curves (this has since been undone). Then it was adding flashing lights to the curve advisory signs. Then it was lowering the speed limit, initially to 45 before later raising it back to 50.

All that said, speed limit enforcement on the parkway is... not terribly common, and not terribly strict. Go ahead and go 70, ain't no one stopping you. Same goes for I-95.

QuoteI think the answer is to finish 6 laning 84 with the hope that thru traffic bound for or from New England will opt for that route over 95.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey both seem to think so. Both have signs directing New England bound traffic to use I-84 - the former on I-81 approaching the I-78 split, the latter on I-287 approaching the NY state line.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 15, 2013, 11:00:53 PM

Quote from: mc78andrew on July 15, 2013, 08:27:48 PM

Quote from: empirestate on July 10, 2013, 11:13:47 PM
That said, I actually enjoy going the speed limit (50) on the Merritt.

I never really looked at the speed limit on the merrit but noticed it this weekend.  There are a few signs for 55, but they are very far and few between.  This was between stamford and Westport.

The speed limit on the Merritt is 50 from the state line until the Guinea Road overpass just within Stamford. From there it is 55 the rest of the way. The reason for the lower limit in Greenwich is that there are a couple of sharp curves along that segment that have been notorious crash sites, which has prompted ConnDOT to try various things to rectify the problem. First it was milling the pavement on and approaching those curves (this has since been undone). Then it was adding flashing lights to the curve advisory signs. Then it was lowering the speed limit, initially to 45 before later raising it back to 50.

All that said, speed limit enforcement on the parkway is... not terribly common, and not terribly strict. Go ahead and go 70, ain't no one stopping you. Same goes for I-95.

QuoteI think the answer is to finish 6 laning 84 with the hope that thru traffic bound for or from New England will opt for that route over 95.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey both seem to think so. Both have signs directing New England bound traffic to use I-84 - the former on I-81 approaching the I-78 split, the latter on I-287 approaching the NY state line.

Route 7 in Norwalk is largely uneneforced too. Many people will do 80 on the Merritt.


With regard to those New England bound traffic, that looks over the cities in southern New England such Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Providence that are much better accessed via 287 to 95.

Quote from: spmkam on July 16, 2013, 12:47:00 AM
With regard to those New England bound traffic, that looks over the cities in southern New England such Stamford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Providence that are much better accessed via 287 to 95.

Well technically, they are in New England.  However Stamford, Bridgeport, and maybe New Haven seem to have more in common with/more ties to NYC than to New England, and are generally not what people think of when they say New England.  Providence is the only city that is definitely culturally New England and bypassed by these signs. 

This is why FHWA doesn't allow "control regions" on signs and instead wants an actual city.  If Hartford were used on those signs, it would be obvious that the detour route only works for those intending to pass through Hartford. 

Quote from: signalman on July 15, 2013, 11:01:29 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2013, 12:05:06 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2013, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day.

And to think the day I was in CT in 2011 I went 65 the whole way down 95 (speed limit 55).

Must have been at 4 AM on a holiday.

I was able to go 65-70 on I-95 on a Sunday morning last October.  Didn't get slowed down really until the construction at I-91.

I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

If you can get to the left lane, 80 is possible but not rush hour.

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM

Quote from: signalman on July 15, 2013, 11:01:29 AM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 15, 2013, 12:05:06 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 13, 2013, 06:43:57 PM

Quote from: connroadgeek on July 13, 2013, 11:01:38 AM
If you can even go the speed limit, even on the weekend, then it's your lucky day.

And to think the day I was in CT in 2011 I went 65 the whole way down 95 (speed limit 55).

Must have been at 4 AM on a holiday.

I was able to go 65-70 on I-95 on a Sunday morning last October.  Didn't get slowed down really until the construction at I-91.

I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

There was a comment upthread about I-95 enforcement.  From experience heavily weighted to nights and weekends, I see very few cops on that road, leading me to believe that the experience reported was seasonal enforcement (weekends near holidays, summer flight/return times, etc.) or one of the announced specially-funded enforcement periods, which do indeed result in major increases in cop visibility.

As with anyplace, always be the second fastest car, and be discreet in general.

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.  Also, all this talk about cops on I-95 in CT.  I didn't see one from the NY line until I exited at I-395.  Didn't see any cops on I-395 in CT either, for that matter.  Massachusetts had a decent police presence, but I did not hit their target speed apparently.

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 03:05:21 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.

Unfortunately, Connecticut drivers' attempts at this result in them simply being...Connecticut drivers. :-(

As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM
As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

Sounds like you have never experienced drivers in the District of Columbia. 

Bad drivers with an attitude, combined with no traffic enforcement (so many of those bad drivers are behind the wheels of "hoopties" or "summer cars" that have tags from another vehicle and absolutely no insurance).  Because they are not registered, their drivers don't worry at all about D.C. automated red light and speed limit enforcement.

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 03:05:21 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.

Unfortunately, Connecticut drivers' attempts at this result in them simply being...Connecticut drivers. :-(

As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

Thanks for the kind words, empirestate.  We New Jerseyans have become masters at driving living in the most densly populated state.  Although, we cetrainly have our fair share of crummy drivers too.

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 02:46:56 PM

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 03:05:21 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.

Unfortunately, Connecticut drivers' attempts at this result in them simply being...Connecticut drivers. :-(

As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

Thanks for the kind words, empirestate.  We New Jerseyans have become masters at driving living in the most densly populated state.  Although, we cetrainly have our fair share of crummy drivers too.

Yes.  Those drivers are people that recently moved here from other states, and probably have no clue what "Keep Right Except to Pass" means.

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 03:05:21 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.

Unfortunately, Connecticut drivers' attempts at this result in them simply being...Connecticut drivers. :-(

As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

I'm not sure I follow the stereotype of "Connecticut driver" here. There are only two stereotypes of Connecticut drivers that I can think of, and they are:
1) drive in the center lane if there are three lanes, no matter what speed you want to go
2) obey the ridiculously low speed limits on back roads

Quote from: Duke87 on July 17, 2013, 07:49:53 PM

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 03:05:21 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.

Unfortunately, Connecticut drivers' attempts at this result in them simply being...Connecticut drivers. :(

As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

I'm not sure I follow the stereotype of "Connecticut driver" here. There are only two stereotypes of Connecticut drivers that I can think of, and they are:
1) drive in the center lane if there are three lanes, no matter what speed you want to go
2) obey the ridiculously low speed limits on back roads

First one: Mostly true.
Second one: Largely untrue in my experience.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 17, 2013, 01:31:43 PM

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM
As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

Sounds like you have never experienced drivers in the District of Columbia. 

'Course I have, but I didn't rank them in comparison to Connecticut and New Jersey because they're not a group I'm likely to encounter en masse in the greater NYC area. But yes, they're even more abysmal.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 17, 2013, 07:49:53 PM
I'm not sure I follow the stereotype of "Connecticut driver" here. There are only two stereotypes of Connecticut drivers that I can think of, and they are:
1) drive in the center lane if there are three lanes, no matter what speed you want to go
2) obey the ridiculously low speed limits on back roads

I don't know if it's a stereotype at all, just my own observation, but in Connecticut you get the same bad habits and sheer dickheadedness you expect in any major metro area, except it's somehow more entitled and personal. Or maybe it's just that we expect better of Connecticut and are that much more disappointed when it doesn't live up to our expectation. :-P

Quote from: empirestate on July 18, 2013, 09:28:21 AM
I don't know if it's a stereotype at all, just my own observation, but in Connecticut you get the same bad habits and sheer dickheadedness you expect in any major metro area, except it's somehow more entitled and personal. Or maybe it's just that we expect better of Connecticut and are that much more disappointed when it doesn't live up to our expectation. :-P

I've noticed that there are certain similarities and yet distinct differences in the drivers in the three southern New England states. I characterize it like this:

Massachusetts drivers are fearless.
Connecticut drivers are reckless.
RI drivers are clueless.

There's 2 types of CT drivers, and there's 2 types of MA drivers.  CT can be divided into Fairfield County, and non-Fairfield County. MA is Inside 495, and Outside 495. Fairfield County drives at 80 MPH no matter what, even if it means treating the highway like a slalom course and weaving in and out of traffic sans signal like a skiier.  The non-Fairfield and Outside 495 drivers can actually be grouped together, oftentimes setting their cruise control 3 MPH below the speed limit, even if that limit is only 25.  The left lane is also considered a travel lane, even at 55 MPH with the rest of the traffic doing 65.  Passing on the right is also encouraged.  Inside 495 is, of course Masshole territory.  Weave in and out, drive in the breakdown lane, and God forbid you leave yourself a car length between you and the car in front of you; that will be filled no matter what.

^^ Sounds like Illinois.  There are also two main types of drivers: Chicago and Downstate.  Downstate drivers will often enter a freeway at 40 mph, travel at the limit or just below, and have a habit of not always entering an intersection on a green ball to turn left.  Chicago drivers have habits that lead to complete anarchy on the road.  They are very similar to Massholes, and seem to think driving is a full-contact sport.  Take note of the number of dented vehicles if you visit.  They will run red lights en masse and pull Pittsburgh lefts rather commonly, even at four-way stop signs.  :wow:

Michigan is a bit different, having about four types of drivers: Detroit, West Coast, Mid-Michigan, and Yooper.  West Coasters will go the speed limit and obey most traffic laws.  Mid-Michigan drivers are similar, but will go 5 mph over the limit.  Detroit drivers will go fast; limit, what limit?  85-90 mph is not uncommon on the freeway.  They do have respect, unlike the Chicago driver, for stop signs and red lights.  They also have a belief that one should enter a freeway at 70 mph or better.  Lane discipline seems to be very much better than Chicago.  Yooper drivers will go fast on two-lanes outside of towns.  70 mph is not uncommon.  They will also keep going fast with snow on the ground and in snowstorms.

yep, the typical Masshole driver (and I'm proud to say I am one) grew up learning to drive in Boston - a very specific subset of Massachusetts.

I'll take them, and the metro NYC/NJ drivers, any day over the bovines which clog the left lane, and are proud of their inattentiveness and indifference.  to those, I say: "if you don't want to go, stay home!"

Quote from: spmkam on July 17, 2013, 07:54:25 PM

Quote from: Duke87 on July 17, 2013, 07:49:53 PM

Quote from: empirestate on July 17, 2013, 07:41:03 AM

Quote from: signalman on July 17, 2013, 03:05:21 AM

Quote from: Steve on July 16, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
I've averaged 70 MPH all the way down I-95. Gotta drive like a New Jerseyan. And no, there's really no enforcement.

Jersey drivers do it best.   :sombrero:  If we're motivated to move, we'll find a way to cruise, unless all lanes are stopped dead.

Unfortunately, Connecticut drivers' attempts at this result in them simply being...Connecticut drivers. :(

As a New Yorker it pains me to say this, but I'll take a New Jerseyan over a Connecticutian on the road any day, and that's saying something!

I'm not sure I follow the stereotype of "Connecticut driver" here. There are only two stereotypes of Connecticut drivers that I can think of, and they are:
1) drive in the center lane if there are three lanes, no matter what speed you want to go
2) obey the ridiculously low speed limits on back roads

First one: Mostly true.
Second one: Largely untrue in my experience.

Second one's true in my experience. I'll add 3) Going nightmarishly fast on freeways least equipped to handle it. (Edit: noticed that seems to be covered under "Fairfield County drivers")

Fourth thing stereotypical about CT drivers: When there's only one lane on a road and no specific left turn lane, get all the way to the right to make a left turn so no one can squeeze by on the right.

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 22, 2013, 09:54:08 AM
Fourth thing stereotypical about CT drivers: When there's only one lane on a road and no specific left turn lane, get all the way to the right to make a left turn so no one can squeeze by on the right.

I've seen CT drivers do this manuver and it's extremely obnoxious.  There's a reason why many folks in North Jersey refer to them as Connectic**ts.  (I won't use the dirty word on here, so use your imagination to fill in the missing letters.)

Quote from: signalman on July 22, 2013, 12:05:29 PM

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on July 22, 2013, 09:54:08 AM
Fourth thing stereotypical about CT drivers: When there's only one lane on a road and no specific left turn lane, get all the way to the right to make a left turn so no one can squeeze by on the right.

I've seen CT drivers do this manuver and it's extremely obnoxious.  There's a reason why many folks in North Jersey refer to them as Connectic**ts.  (I won't use the dirty word on here, so use your imagination to fill in the missing letters.)

What's a cwxt?

A cwxt is a baby kwyjibo.

Quote from: Duke87 on July 24, 2013, 10:07:22 PM
A cwxt is a baby kwyjibo.

So a small, dumb, hairy, North American ape?

That certainly describes plenty of drivers, so yes. :spin:

It's not just that I-95 has too few lanes, it has too many exits and is not built to freeway standards in many spots.
Shoulders are small, curves too big, to support high speed traffic.
If it were my call I'd:

1) Improve I-95 at the very least to have more high speed interchanges and to be at interstate standards

and

2) Finally build the mid-Suffolk bridge from East Haven to Long Island so there would be viable alternative from Long Island traffic going to the northeast to avoid I-95 in western CT.

Quote from: bluecountry on October 10, 2013, 05:01:10 PM
It's not just that I-95 has too few lanes, it has too many exits and is not built to freeway standards in many spots.
Shoulders are small, curves too big, to support high speed traffic.
If it were my call I'd:

1) Improve I-95 at the very least to have more high speed interchanges and to be at interstate standards

and

2) Finally build the mid-Suffolk bridge from East Haven to Long Island so there would be viable alternative from Long Island traffic going to the northeast to avoid I-95 in western CT.

What shoulders? The exits aren't going anywhere and Connecticut is not unique in having closely spaced interchanges. The problem isn't with shoulders, or exits, or any of that stuff that people use as excuses. It's just simply overmatched for the amount of traffic trying to use it - and not just in lower Fairfield County. If they built a Long Island Sound bridge, how would that help? It would likely extend I-91, but for what? It's not like the new terminus would be with an underutilized highway with excess capacity in the middle of nowhere. I guess it would conceptually be a NYC (Bronx/Manhattan) bypass, but still not sure if you're actually saving much time if you're traveling through the NYC metro area to points south. Since more lanes are never going to happen I'd rather just put money into more mass transit options at this point. The Merritt Parkway has room for expansion but they will never do it, so let's add trains that serve Connecticut residents working in Connecticut (rather than NYC).

By eliminating many of the interchanges, you'd force local traffic onto US 1, thereby taking traffic off of I-95.  There'd also be a lot less merging, which is a major slowdown for traffic.  Think about a lane closure for a work zone.  The backup happens before the merge point.  Once everyone has merged, traffic flows freely again, despite the closed lane.

But how many interchanges could you eliminate without drastically reducing the effectiveness of the highway for CT residents?

Probably quite a few... CT drivers do use the interstates for trans-CT travel, right?  They're not really meant for people who would get on and then get off at the next exit.

But for it to actually improve traffic flow you would have to eliminate at least one exit and/or entrance every few miles.

Quote from: vdeane on October 13, 2013, 06:52:06 PM
Probably quite a few... CT drivers do use the interstates for trans-CT travel, right?  They're not really meant for people who would get on and then get off at the next exit.

As you may know, when most of I-95 across Connecticut was tolled as the Connecticut Turnpike, it used a barrier system (every 10 or 15 miles you had to throw 25¢ in the basket), not a Thruway- or NJTP-style ticket system for tolling.

I don't believe the Connecticut Turnpike had any "side" or "ramp" tolls (common even now on the Garden State Parkway and the Dulles Toll Road). 

The Connecticut Turnpike toll barriers were carefully positioned to not toll most local trips.

Even though it was detolled in the 1980's, I believe the legacy of encouraging local, short trips to use the Turnpike remains.

Yeah, the idea would be to turn that on its head.

It's been well-documented that closely spaced exits like such encourage traffic to use the freeway for one-or-two-exit trips.  And the reduced efficiency it creates on freeways is also well-documented.

If i recall, when the Turnpike was built in the 1950s, it was built in segments that made some sense (hence all the US 1 interchanges....traffic would be funneled onto the Post Road, to the next open section of the Turnpike, unlike many of the Interstates what would end in the middle of nowhere, and traffic would be funneled most any which-way to the next Interstate).  Also, many of the interchanges were there to serve the locals (remember, this road was designed and engineered before the Interstate system, so making it as useful for the locals as possible was a high priority...even if that meant you jumped on the Turnpike at Exit 68 (US 1) and bailed out at Exit 70 (CONN 156/ (CONN 51) US1) to visit a family member, that was one purpose of the road. 

What we are running into here is that 1950s engineering philosophy running into mid-2010 realities, and something somewhere may have to give to make i-95 continue to be somewhat usable not just to the locals, but the other traffic served... 

Would it work if only the route numbers had exits?

Also, would it upset people that their exit was removed?




handheld electronic Sorry game

Quote from: 1 on October 14, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
Would it work if only the route numbers had exits?

Also, would it upset people that their exit was removed?

Well, I think it would have to be the important roads regardless of them being numbered routes or not.  An exit for a street close to a numbered route should be sufficient, I would think, in some instances.

As for people being pissy about their exit being removed, that would not be first time.  When the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94) was rebuilt through Chicago, a few exits and entrances were removed.  There was a shitstorm about their removal from the locals.

Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2013, 02:07:03 AM
It's been well-documented that closely spaced exits like such encourage traffic to use the freeway for one-or-two-exit trips.  And the reduced efficiency it creates on freeways is also well-documented.

I strongly agree. 

If persons making policy decisions want  a freeway used for local and longer trips, then C-D lanes are probably a good idea - ideally with the "thru" lanes being charged a toll in exchange for higher speeds (and higher posted speed limits).

Quote from: Brandon on October 14, 2013, 02:20:33 PM

Quote from: 1 on October 14, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
Would it work if only the route numbers had exits?

Also, would it upset people that their exit was removed?

Well, I think it would have to be the important roads regardless of them being numbered routes or not.  An exit for a street close to a numbered route should be sufficient, I would think, in some instances.

As for people being pissy about their exit being removed, that would not be first time.  When the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-90/94) was rebuilt through Chicago, a few exits and entrances were removed.  There was a shitstorm about their removal from the locals.

Ahhh, while that might be true for Chicago, the SW part of Connecticut is laced with fairly well-off folk who would follow their anger with direct action against the local and State officials that removed the local exits during the next elections....NIMBYism in reverse, if you like. 

There may simply be too many local political factors to be able to remove exits off I-95 (i do recall that Exit 49 Stiles Rd was closed but only after much local hand-wringing, and that it was accepted after it was shown that it could not safely stay open after the rebuild of the I-91-1-95 interchanges....)   

The other factor too, was that the speed limits west of East Haven were far lower than east, because you had something like 54 exits in the first 50+ miles....even once you get to the Old Lyme exit 70 (US 1-CONN 156), you are still only on Mile 78...and while the east exits are a bit more spaced out, you seldom had more than three miles between them