[BeyondtheHorizon]

Originally Posted by Lincolnian

I agree with you. His "Bus to Nowhere" ads and criticism of rail investment shows that he doesn't believe in meeting the 21st-Century transportation needs and desires of younger people. Making all the highways 10 lanes wide is not the answer to moving people around.

There needs to be a mixture of transportation options. HOV lanes could be expanded and include micro-cars that are under a certain GVWR that would have less impact on the roads and environment.

A small state like Connecticut could be a model of connectivity with walkability, greenways, rail/light rail, buses, and smart highways. Markley's plan is solely focused on roads and is stuck in the past. Anyone who is forced to travel the congested and dangerous highway system knows that highways cannot be the sole answer to moving people around.

Microcars/walkability/greenways/buses...lol Global warming activist alert. Make sure you recognize the posters agenda.

I'd argue making the highways 10 lanes wide works at reducing congestion especially in areas without huge population growth. There's no induced congestion. It's simply a matter of huge population growth. Without those concurrent increases in highway width the highway would become impassable.

If you're talking about "desires of younger people" then they have no interest in living in boring ct suburbs. Right? That's what CT basically is. The millennial environmentalist movement wants everyone packed into large cities taking public transit and being "green". Let's just be honest about that. It's just like when people on the left talk about common sense gun laws. Many*(not all) want to ban or make it really hard to get guns. They don't believe in the right to own guns. Which is fine to have that opinion, but be honest about what you really want. Stop trying to manipulate people on both sides And I'm a democrat saying that.

CT has cul de sacs and is rural in many areas. You can't make mass transit work in these areas the way it does in nyc and other big cities. You'd have to build up new haven with towers and have everyone to move into new haven. The way everything is spread out does absolutely need cars to get around. Having suburbs is not compatible with everyone taking mass transit. You'd have to get rid of cheshire/simsbury/avon/ridgefield/ ect. These are not walkable type of millennial towns you're talking about and they never will be

If you want less impact on the environment than become a vegetarian. More greenhouse gases come from production of meat than cars. You don't need meat. You eat it because you like it.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by BeyondtheHorizon

Microcars/walkability/greenways/buses...lol Global warming activist alert. Make sure you recognize the posters agenda.

I'd argue making the highways 10 lanes wide works at reducing congestion especially in areas without huge population growth. There's no induced congestion. It's simply a matter of huge population growth. Without those concurrent increases in highway width the highway would become impassable.

If you're talking about "desires of younger people" then they have no interest in living in boring ct suburbs. Right? That's what CT basically is. The millennial environmentalist movement wants everyone packed into large cities taking public transit and being "green". Let's just be honest about that. It's just like when people on the left talk about common sense gun laws. Many*(not all) want to ban or make it really hard to get guns. They don't believe in the right to own guns. Which is fine to have that opinion, but be honest about what you really want. Stop trying to manipulate people on both sides And I'm a democrat saying that.

CT has cul de sacs and is rural in many areas. You can't make mass transit work in these areas the way it does in nyc and other big cities. You'd have to build up new haven with towers and have everyone to move into new haven. The way everything is spread out does absolutely need cars to get around. Having suburbs is not compatible with everyone taking mass transit. You'd have to get rid of cheshire/simsbury/avon/ridgefield/ ect. These are not walkable type of millennial towns you're talking about and they never will be

If you want less impact on the environment than become a vegetarian. More greenhouse gases come from production of meat than cars. You don't need meat. You eat it because you like it.

Amen.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BeyondtheHorizon

If you want less impact on the environment than become a vegetarian. More greenhouse gases come from production of meat than cars. You don't need meat. You eat it because you like it.

I am not sure this is correct. According to this article transportation accounts for 14% of greenhouse gas emissions while all agriculture accounts for 24%. It does not indicate how the agriculture number breaks down but I doubt it accounts for more than 14%. IF you have something that breaks it down further, I would be interested but that said you cannot shut down the agriculture industry but you can continue to reduce the transportation portion of that number. Jay

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-air-pollution.html

[BeyondtheHorizon]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I am not sure this is correct. According to this article transportation accounts for 14% of greenhouse gas emissions while all agriculture accounts for 24%. It does not indicate how the agriculture number breaks down but I doubt it accounts for more than 14%. IF you have something that breaks it down further, I would be interested but that said you cannot shut down the agriculture industry but you can continue to reduce the transportation portion of that number. Jay

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-air-pollution.html

That's pretty damn close anyway you look at it. It says in the article

"According to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, agriculture accounts for 24% of annual emissions. However, this estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector."

The back half of that is misleading though because soil/biomass/trees also sequesters co2 from cars, which you could also argue offsets emissions from cars. Trees in central park breathe in c02 whether it's from cars or cow farts. lol

And my point remains the same. We'd have a MASSIVE change in co2 emissions if everyone went vegetarian. Much more than simply having eveyone take more mass transit. SO I'd hope anyone who's a global warming activist is also a vegetarian and not being a hypocrite. lol

[7express]

As I've said here before adding lanes on 95 will accomplish NOTHING in the long run. Sure, it may help for 2 or 3 years, but then when you have the additional capacity because now more people are driving with the extra lane(s) that weren't driving before, in 6 or 7 years you are back to the same problem we are on now (above capacity). And after a while you can't keep just "adding lanes."

[BeyondtheHorizon]

Originally Posted by 7express

As I've said here before adding lanes on 95 will accomplish NOTHING in the long run. Sure, it may help for 2 or 3 years, but then when you have the additional capacity because now more people are driving with the extra lane(s) that weren't driving before, in 6 or 7 years you are back to the same problem we are on now (above capacity). And after a while you can't keep just "adding lanes."

So in 6 years, everyone who doesn't have a car will buy a car and start commuting on 95 because 95 added a lane? Where would the increased congestion come from without concurrent population increase? And if you have population increase then won't the road be even worse with 3 lanes instead of 4? So doing nothing would make things worse than doing something.

If what you're saying is true, why don't we decrease 95 to 2 or maybe even 1 lane? Or maybe just have all the cars go on route 1 and get rid of 95 and the merrit? If the model of induced congestion is true then there should be no increase in traffic as people will simply not drive on it if it isn't there. We'll save so much on highway maintenance and there will be no traffic and you'll be able to get around to where you want to go at the same speed as before. I guess increase the speed limit on route 1 to 55mph.

Can't you see the flawed logic in what you're saying? The math doesn't add up.

[East of the River]

It should be noted transit induces demand too. If there really is enough demand then any solution will simply fill up.

[BeyondtheHorizon]

I wonder if induced demand works for business. Let's say a town of 5,000 has 5 ice cream shops. As a businessman would it make sense to open up 50 more in that town? After all, induced demand LOL If you build it they will come. It will fill up as more and more people have more ice cream shops and will be "induced" into buying more ice cream. Go to a bank with that business plan. Let me know how it works out No market saturation there, eh?

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by BeyondtheHorizon

So in 6 years, everyone who doesn't have a car will buy a car and start commuting on 95 because 95 added a lane? Where would the increased congestion come from without concurrent population increase? And if you have population increase then won't the road be even worse with 3 lanes instead of 4? So doing nothing would make things worse than doing something.

If what you're saying is true, why don't we decrease 95 to 2 or maybe even 1 lane? Or maybe just have all the cars go on route 1 and get rid of 95 and the merrit? If the model of induced congestion is true then there should be no increase in traffic as people will simply not drive on it if it isn't there. We'll save so much on highway maintenance and there will be no traffic and you'll be able to get around to where you want to go at the same speed as before. I guess increase the speed limit on route 1 to 55mph.

Can't you see the flawed logic in what you're saying? The math doesn't add up.

With less traffic, people will commute from farther away. The Stamford/Norwalk job market would be more accessible to people in New Haven county. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[BeyondtheHorizon]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

With less traffic, people will commute from farther away. The Stamford/Norwalk job market would be more accessible to people in New Haven county. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Plenty of people commute to stamford from new haven county already. That's why there's already a ton of traffic. Is it possible there will an increase in amount commuting farther? Yes, but certainly not enough to cause a massive shift in traffic congestion in 6 years solely from widening a highway. There's much more to it than that.

You also have issues of housing affordability causing people to live farther and farther from where they work. This issue is likely going to lead to more urban sprawl than simply widening highways. They have no choice but to live farther out. You've seen this phenomenon in boston metro area. Used to be little to no traffic outside the 128, but as people moved over to 495 suddenly congestion showed up. It has nothing to do with widening a highway. It has to do with ever increasing housing costs FORCING people to move farther and farther away and to consider insane commutes. Housing affordability is way more important in forcing urban sprawl than highway widening projects. People will put up with 2 hours commutes if they have no choice. Horrible quality of life, but this is not caused by highway widening, but by ever increasing housing costs. Widening highways simply makes it less bad. It doesn't induce anything