Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-14-2018, 06:05 PM
 
712 posts, read 524,603 times
Reputation: 725

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10 View Post
CT did a very poor job at NH 91/95 intersection. That is actually a beautiful natural setting at the bottom (Q river emptying into the bay) but with concrete overpasses overhead, beating like huge drums in the worst cacophony and visual pollution possible.

It’s totally upside down. That entire spider web should be buried. Just imagine how different that area would look. This is not esoteric. This has to do with Quality of Life, scenic and natural settings. In due time, humangous tanks will also disappear. That’s how you improve the environment and QOL.
That has zero effect on QOL. Where do people come up this stuff? No one is travelling over 95 in new haven for views. Plenty of scenery in CT to see elsewhere. If we listened to people like this the interstate system would have never been built. Environmentalist and nimby fanatics. It's why the merritt is still a dilapidated hellhole to drive on. A TINY vocal minority. Talking about Spending billions to bury roads and stuff. Just crazy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2018, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,316 posts, read 4,177,352 times
Reputation: 2822
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Actually the state looked at tunneling I-95 through New Haven. It would have cost $8 to $12 billion instead of the $2 billion that the Q Bridge cost. This is because the soils are very poor and a tunnel would be below water grade. Given that the highway primarily goes through industrial area that is not all that attractive to begin with, pretty much everyone, including the city’s mayor and planning department, agreed the added expense could not be justified. Plus there was no way the state could afford that given that the Transportation Fund was drying up. Jay
New Haven / commmunity has gradually improved that area along Quinnipac River, South of Grand Street. There is a Wildlife Refuge just above Grand Street Bridge, City built the Q River Park, then some developer put condos south of that.

We have to think of these improvements long term. 10 years out, 25, even 50 years out. Gulf Oil tanks one day will not be there. Yet New Haven is stuck with that monstrosity of an elevated highway.

About the water table and tunneling -- this is not 1874. We have built tunnels under waterways for over 100 years now. Nothing new about that. We know how to do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyondtheHorizon View Post
That has zero effect on QOL. Where do people come up this stuff? No one is travelling over 95 in new haven for views. Plenty of scenery in CT to see elsewhere. If we listened to people like this the interstate system would have never been built. Environmentalist and nimby fanatics. It's why the merritt is still a dilapidated hellhole to drive on. A TINY vocal minority. Talking about Spending billions to bury roads and stuff. Just crazy.
I am sure people in 1920s thought that Interstate Highways system was a crazy idea. After all, Lincoln Highway was great although it used pioneers' wagon ruts.

When it come to transportation actually 50 years is not such a long time. Actually some planners think 75-100 years out. Designers did not design Merritt for people to shuttle from the suburbs to their jobs or go to malls. They designed it actually for a Sunday drive.

Just because our generation doesn't have the balls to do something better -- that's not their fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2018, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,316 posts, read 4,177,352 times
Reputation: 2822
Besides reclaiming land use in expensive real estate, tunneling has a couple of other advantages. Operators, via air filtering system actually can control pollution of road traffic, which they can't do with an open roadway.

Secondly, tunneling reduces or eliminates noise nuisance in the neighboring communities. Nobody is saying to tunnel I-80 thourgh Wyoming, but I-95 through FFC - absolutely. Nothing new, you dig, build the sheeting / walls, put a slab over it, plant vegetation, install benches, walkways, bikeways, cafes, restaurants, shopping, green spaces. It looks nice, no 14,000 18-wheelers passing daily next to Johnny's window in Stamford, fumes, dust, noise. Retain and recycle ground water. This is nothing new, we know how to build it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,727 posts, read 56,531,322 times
Reputation: 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10 View Post
New Haven / commmunity has gradually improved that area along Quinnipac River, South of Grand Street. There is a Wildlife Refuge just above Grand Street Bridge, City built the Q River Park, then some developer put condos south of that.

We have to think of these improvements long term. 10 years out, 25, even 50 years out. Gulf Oil tanks one day will not be there. Yet New Haven is stuck with that monstrosity of an elevated highway.

About the water table and tunneling -- this is not 1874. We have built tunnels under waterways for over 100 years now. Nothing new about that. We know how to do it.




I am sure people in 1920s thought that Interstate Highways system was a crazy idea. After all, Lincoln Highway was great although it used pioneers' wagon ruts.

When it come to transportation actually 50 years is not such a long time. Actually some planners think 75-100 years out. Designers did not design Merritt for people to shuttle from the suburbs to their jobs or go to malls. They designed it actually for a Sunday drive.

Just because our generation doesn't have the balls to do something better -- that's not their fault.
I did not say tunneling could not be done, it was just found to be extremely expensive and beyond the available funds the state had. Also the cost to maintain the pumps needed to drain an underground tunnel along the water was very high as well. Sorry that you do not like the highway but I find the Q Bridge to be very attractive, particularly when lit up at night.

Actually Federal Highway Administration guidelines requires that highways be designed for just 20 years out. Further out than that is too hard to project with any accuracy. A lot has changed in the last 50 years. No one foresaw the suburbanization of our country to the point it is today. To put the changes into perspective, Route 1 was not even a paved road until the 1930's. That is just 80 or so years ago. Who knows what the world would be like in 80 years. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 07:46 AM
 
3,433 posts, read 3,914,420 times
Reputation: 1758
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
I did not say tunneling could not be done, it was just found to be extremely expensive and beyond the available funds the state had. Also the cost to maintain the pumps needed to drain an underground tunnel along the water was very high as well. Sorry that you do not like the highway but I find the Q Bridge to be very attractive, particularly when lit up at night.
This. If the state had a extra $10 billion laying around, I'd rather it be spent on widening 95 or improving metro north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,316 posts, read 4,177,352 times
Reputation: 2822
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
I did not say tunneling could not be done, it was just found to be extremely expensive and beyond the available funds the state had. Also the cost to maintain the pumps needed to drain an underground tunnel along the water was very high as well. Sorry that you do not like the highway but I find the Q Bridge to be very attractive, particularly when lit up at night.

Actually Federal Highway Administration guidelines requires that highways be designed for just 20 years out. Further out than that is too hard to project with any accuracy. A lot has changed in the last 50 years. No one foresaw the suburbanization of our country to the point it is today. To put the changes into perspective, Route 1 was not even a paved road until the 1930's. That is just 80 or so years ago. Who knows what the world would be like in 80 years. Jay
Large scale capital projects - I have seen 50 years out minimum. It takes close to 20 years to do the planning, feasability, environmental review, stakeholder meetings, public comments, funding, and that’s even before they get to design development. Whew - it’s tiring just mentionening
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,316 posts, read 4,177,352 times
Reputation: 2822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike 75 View Post
This. If the state had a extra $10 billion laying around, I'd rather it be spent on widening 95 or improving metro north.
No state or Govt has 10 billion laying around. Never had. Govt issues bonds with the plan how to pay it back — economic growth, increased revenue, etc. etc. Nobody pays cash. Financing people also approve periodical disbursements, based on work progress. Audits, compliance, 3rd party engineering inspections, monitors — and I am probably mentioning 1/20 of players involved.

How do you think Govt paid for previous projects?

Due to politics, it’s easier to finance some much larger projects than filling potholes, because improving transportation will pay for itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,316 posts, read 4,177,352 times
Reputation: 2822
It’s 2018. Technology of road building, surface, subsurface or even elevated roadways— that’s not what it used to be even 20 years ago. CT needs to think big and long term. It’s embarrassing to look at congestion in Danbury or Waterbury for example. There is nothing there to justify it. No tourism, no attractions, nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,727 posts, read 56,531,322 times
Reputation: 11163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10 View Post
Large scale capital projects - I have seen 50 years out minimum. It takes close to 20 years to do the planning, feasability, environmental review, stakeholder meetings, public comments, funding, and that’s even before they get to design development. Whew - it’s tiring just mentionening
Yes, it does take years to build major projects but FHWA clearly calls for a 20 year plan. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2018, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Ubique
4,316 posts, read 4,177,352 times
Reputation: 2822
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
Yes, it does take years to build major projects but FHWA clearly calls for a 20 year plan. Jay
CT needs to do something, especially in FFC. One can see that “sleeper” cities like Norwalk and Bridgeport might turn around if infrastructure / commute was better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top