[JayCT]

Originally Posted by FILF

Blocking the waterview on 95 in New Haven would be key. Traffic would lighten up there since the idiots won't be able to slow down to look at the water anymore!

Lowering I-95 through Long Wharf was studied and found that it would have cost $1 billion (yes, $1 billion) to construct that one mile of highway underground. The proble there is the soils make it very expensive to build any type of structure the size needed. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

I think Route 8 hurts Bridgeport more then 95 , you can cap Route 8 with a Park between Lafayette and Highland Ave were it depresses. Or an Extreme idea would be to remove it from 95 to Exit 5 and transform it into an Urban Boulevard similar to West Street or New Haven's Route 34. NJ 29 in Trenton is being transformed into an Urban Boulevard that will free up 30 acres of land along the Delaware... It depends on how many people use Route 8 , if its less then 30,000 drivers a day then an Urban Boulevard wouldn't cause congestion , more then it would cause congestion and would be worth it.

Route 29 in Trenton is not Route 8 in Bridgeport. There is a lot more traffic. You will never see that happen. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

84 is collapsing so its either going to be placed in a tunnel with a realigned Knowledge Corridor or your going to get a Urban Boulevard. Its already being studied and alot of people support the tunnel which frees up alot of space in Hartford. The Exit 46 Interchange would also come down. Sections of depressed 95 in City Point and East Haven could receive a Park cap which is pretty cheap. There have been a few proposes to depress and cap 95 along the Waterfront or create a curved park ontop of it... 91 in New Haven has come up , people want to boulevard it....

I-84 is not collapsing. The large viaduct west of downtown is a maintenance problem. The state keeps having to spend money to repair it because of its design. The only people who thought about an urban boulevard for I-84 are the idiots who know nothing about transportation. And the plan for I-84 in Hartford is not a tunnel, it is to relocate the Ne wHaven Hartford Springfield rail line and then lower I-84 and tuck it into the side of Asylum Hill. I explained the reason I-95 in Long Wharf wil not be lowered. It would cost $1 billion. Jay

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Stylo

The parking requirement is a big debate in New Haven now. Developers want to be able to build apartments without "dated" parking zoning rules.

You know, it's a tough issue. But CT's cities have been parking crazy for decades now: I think both New Haven and BPT (not sure about Hartford) require .3/parking spaces for each bedroom and office desk. And structured parking costs about $10k/space it makes the downtown pretty undesirable to build out. There were studies that showed bigger cities like Philly, DC, Chicago required much less generally .1 space per unit. Perhaps a better way to go about it is to surcharge parking requirements (like sewers) pool it and for the municipalities build structured parking instead of it being the responsibility of developers?? I don't know.

[Comp625]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

You know, it's a tough issue. But CT's cities have been parking crazy for decades now: I think both New Haven and BPT (not sure about Hartford) require .3/parking spaces for each bedroom and office desk. And structured parking costs about $10k/space it makes the downtown pretty undesirable to build out. There were studies that showed bigger cities like Philly, DC, Chicago required much less generally .1 space per unit. Perhaps a better way to go about it is to surcharge parking requirements (like sewers) pool it and for the municipalities build structured parking instead of it being the responsibility of developers?? I don't know.

Interesting comparison!

Would you be able to elaborate on that the .3/parking spaces mean? Is the .3 a per person per parking space metric? Or is .3 a monetary figure?

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

You know, it's a tough issue. But CT's cities have been parking crazy for decades now: I think both New Haven and BPT (not sure about Hartford) require .3/parking spaces for each bedroom and office desk. And structured parking costs about $10k/space it makes the downtown pretty undesirable to build out. There were studies that showed bigger cities like Philly, DC, Chicago required much less generally .1 space per unit. Perhaps a better way to go about it is to surcharge parking requirements (like sewers) pool it and for the municipalities build structured parking instead of it being the responsibility of developers?? I don't know.

We can't compare BPT and NH to Chicago and DC since mass transit options are much more plentiful in the latter. IMHO, the number of spaces per bedroom should be INCREASED in Connecticut high rises. This is a car-centric state, no getting around that.

[Stylo]

Comp, there are zoning regulations and it's per person.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

We can't compare BPT and NH to Chicago and DC since mass transit options are much more plentiful in the latter. IMHO, the number of spaces per bedroom should be INCREASED in Connecticut high rises. This is a car-centric state, no getting around that.

Because what I-95 needs is more cars? You do know that this same argument against cars was made by Nutmeggers that gotten used to the trolley system? Times change.

For BPT at least, parking is choking development. At grade gives little to no tax and makes retail operations seem isolated. Transit is a possible issue but the CBD is barely a half mile square with every corner easily accessible to the train/ferry (which provides four directions into and out of the CBD: Towards Fairfield, Stratford, the Valley and Long Island). As well, the parking zoning rules essentially double the cost of development, while giving low per/foot value to the owners. Add to that there's so much slack capacity as is with almost 30% am and pm spaces are vacant. The city could develop 1,000 spaces of at grade lot that it owns and add either about 4k more residents or 6k more employees with no need changes in the parking situation. I'm not saying that parking isn't needed, but it shouldn't be given as much weight as it was until we've reached near capacity. As well I'm talking about rationalising the current parking stock to better suit the area.

As for other city comparisons I think it's appropriate. I'm not saying that we should try to match their parking requirements, but the idea that more parking is always a good thing has not bore true. Most of the cities I've mentioned have much newer office space stock than we realise and BPT, NH, Stamford, and Hartford missed a lot of potential of Class-A, AA, and B space that was going up in those areas because of the "assumption" that CT is car-centric. And then the complaints about how rents are sky-high, traffic so bad, and we haven't had the office -level job growth other regions have had roll in.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Although my answer was indeed terse, it was not a simple cop out response. It really doesn't make sense to compare small cities with world cities and major population centers like DC or Chicago with mature mass transit systems. I also feel strongly that parking, zoning and other similar decisions have not impaired NH, BPT and Stamford (which by the way is booming- the largest commercial construction project in the Northeast Corridor is Harbor Point). What has constrained our metros was their considerable industrial base. We also aren't going to see a major metropolis in this state when NY and Boston are also within commuting distance from the respective state corners.

Do you honestly think that re-purposing an at-grade parking lot is going to attract residents to Hartford and BPT? These cities are rotting away. Schools are poor and the suburbs provide a much safer environment and space for raising families. Artists aren't going to flock to converted factories as lofts either when a large hipster community doesn't exist. Leave that to Brooklyn.

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Because what I-95 needs is more cars? You do know that this same argument against cars was made by Nutmeggers that gotten used to the trolley system? Times change.

For BPT at least, parking is choking development. At grade gives little to no tax and makes retail operations seem isolated. Transit is a possible issue but the CBD is barely a half mile square with every corner easily accessible to the train/ferry (which provides four directions into and out of the CBD: Towards Fairfield, Stratford, the Valley and Long Island). As well, the parking zoning rules essentially double the cost of development, while giving low per/foot value to the owners. Add to that there's so much slack capacity as is with almost 30% am and pm spaces are vacant. The city could develop 1,000 spaces of at grade lot that it owns and add either about 4k more residents or 6k more employees with no need changes in the parking situation. I'm not saying that parking isn't needed, but it shouldn't be given as much weight as it was until we've reached near capacity. As well I'm talking about rationalising the current parking stock to better suit the area.

As for other city comparisons I think it's appropriate. I'm not saying that we should try to match their parking requirements, but the idea that more parking is always a good thing has not bore true. Most of the cities I've mentioned have much newer office space stock than we realise and BPT, NH, Stamford, and Hartford missed a lot of potential of Class-A, AA, and B space that was going up in those areas because of the "assumption" that CT is car-centric. And then the complaints about how rents are sky-high, traffic so bad, and we haven't had the office -level job growth other regions have had roll in.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Do you honestly think that re-purposing an at-grade parking lot is going to attract residents to Hartford and BPT? These cities are rotting away.

I agree with everything you said except what is in bold. Hartford is a much better city than Bridgeport in almost every way.