[Stratford, Ct. Resident]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Oh so you mean adding stations on existing lines, that makes sense.....

Yes, it absolutely makes a ton of sense. Instead of adding parking at existing stations, or building new stations with adequate parking and closing stations that don't have the parking capacity, we'll just keep adding more stops to already slow moving trains.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

Yes, it absolutely makes a ton of sense. Instead of adding parking at existing stations, or building new stations with adequate parking and closing stations that don't have the parking capacity, we'll just keep adding more stops to already slow moving trains.

Yeah, that was my next comment once I got clarification.......

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Oh so you mean adding stations on existing lines, that makes sense.....

More stops means slower travel times.

[DarkWolf]

Adding more Stations to the New Haven line isn't a bad idea , its a good idea. It take strain off existing stations and spur Developments.... But CT should focus on adding stations on the branch lines. Theres also more stations on both the Hudson and Harlem lines then the New Haven. But there used less. There trains are faster in Acceleration but so are the New M8's. Unfortunately the New Haven line can't buy Double Decker trains due to the Park Ave Tunnels , this would solve the Capacity issues... Adding more Express trains is the Answer to solving the slowness of the line....

https://www.city-data.com/forum/19540111-post97.html

[bobtn]

Adding stations does not solve the essential problem. Unless development is only built next to rail stations, the traffic congestion one hopes to relieve will NEVER happen.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Adding stations does not solve the essential problem. Unless development is only built next to rail stations, the traffic congestion one hopes to relieve will NEVER happen.

Well Developments are planned around all the New stations or the stations are in Developed areas....

[bobtn]

They are, but 99% of the traffic of existing stations will always be outside that area, unless the intent is to demolish permanently business development not within walking distance of any existing train station, and relocate all of them within areas within walking distance of any current or new train station.

Short of that, new stations simply never change the commuting pattern on a macro level.

Nexis, That's why, despite more stations than ever, CT's road traffic is as bad as it has ever been. A disconnect b/w concept and reality.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by bobtn

They are, but 99% of the traffic of existing stations will always be outside that area, unless the intent is to demolish permanently business development not within walking distance of any existing train station, and relocate all of them within areas within walking distance of any current or new train station.

Short of that, new stations simply never change the commuting pattern on a macro level.

Nexis, That's why, despite more stations than ever, CT's road traffic is as bad as it has ever been. A disconnect b/w concept and reality.

Well CT needs to focus outside the New Haven line corridor , to get some of half of the traffic. The New Stations are for Development purposes not really for people commuting from Outside the towns. If you want outside the 5 mile radius of the line , you need to enhance and restore other lines....and add more stations to other lines.

[bobtn]

Actually, Nexis, there is no answer to the congestion problem. Quite frankly, its a older vs newer city development problem. Most cities like NY only have subways because they were built 100 or more years ago. If proposed new now, they could never justify a Return on Investment analysis (except for more limited metro subways, which cost less, but are less extensive). For that reason, NYC will always have an edge vs BOTH Ct and NJ, in terms of means to alleviate the natural traffic congestion. As bad as NYC city traffic, is , with 2 million people inside Manhattan, it is still not as bad as Ct would be if you had 2 mill in as few sq miles. Public transit, at the street grid level, is why.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by bobtn

Actually, Nexis, there is no answer to the congestion problem. Quite frankly, its a older vs newer city development problem. Most cities like NY only have subways because they were built 100 or more years ago. If proposed new now, they could never justify a Return on Investment analysis (except for more limited metro subways, which cost less, but are less extensive). For that reason, NYC will always have an edge vs BOTH Ct and NJ, in terms of means to alleviate the natural traffic congestion. As bad as NYC city traffic, is , with 2 million people inside Manhattan, it is still not as bad as Ct would be if you had 2 mill in as few sq miles. Public transit, at the street grid level, is why.

Actually the Return for Subways is still there , same with Regional Rail.... It depends on where it goes and where the stations are.... CT seems to be planning for the Future at least , alot of states are....