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

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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, 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 may apply.  The Wikipedia entry for the Merritt Parkway says it is on the National Register, 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.

[connroadgeek]

I infer that you mean the 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 may apply.  The Wikipedia entry for the Merritt Parkway says it is on the National Register, 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.

[cpzilliacus]

I infer that you mean the 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 may apply.  The Wikipedia entry for the Merritt Parkway says it is on the National Register, 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.

[Pete from Boston]

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.

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.

[Duke87]

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.

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.

[spmkam]

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.

[Alps]

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.

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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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).

[mc78andrew]

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. 

[froggie]

But 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.

[Brandon]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

But 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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[PHLBOS]

Seemed 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.

[Mergingtraffic]

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.

[spmkam]

Seemed 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

[Brandon]

But 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.

[spmkam]

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

[PHLBOS]

As 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.

[mc78andrew]

Seemed 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.   

[Perfxion]

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.

[empirestate]

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...

[Pete from Boston]

Seemed 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.