[mp775]

Originally Posted by mp775

It's in Connecticut and maintained by CTDOT, i.e. paid for by Connecticut taxpayers. The toll opponents are effectively arguing that they want Connecticut to subsidize New Yorkers' roads. Alternately, the two states could work out a change in jurisdiction to NYSDOT, like the piece of I-86 that cuts through South Waverly, Pennsylvania.

I stand corrected; I read elsewhere that NYSDOT does maintain it. However, they do so under contract from CTDOT; Connecticut still pays for the maintenance.

[JayCT]

The heads of some of the state’s biggest employers are lining up behind Governor Lamont’s CT2030 Transportation Plan. Now if only the weak and small minded politicians would follow. Jay

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-...bx4-story.html

[ProudFairfielder]

I finally got the chance to read the whole plan.

What I like:
- Improving Tweed/ Sikorsky
- Tolls
- FINALLY adding a lane to the 91-84 interchange (one of the rare cases where adding a lane will work)

What I don't like:
- Widening I-95 in FFLD and BPT (especially since it's only northbound!)
- High speed ferry idea

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by ProudFairfielder

I finally got the chance to read the whole plan.

What I like:
- Improving Tweed/ Sikorsky
- Tolls
- FINALLY adding a lane to the 91-84 interchange (one of the rare cases where adding a lane will work)

What I don't like:
- Widening I-95 in FFLD and BPT (especially since it's only northbound!)
- High speed ferry idea

The widening of I-95 in Bridgeport and Fairfield is part of the state’s plan to have a two lane exit to Route 8 to relieve backups there. It’s not really to add capacity to the highway. I’m not really a fan of the high speed ferry either. I’m not sure it will do much for congestion relief.

I also like the idea of expanding either Tweed or Sikorsky but I’m not sure it will go anywhere. There is likely going to be a lot of opposition to either. Still it’s definitely needed since major airports are kind of far from the region. Jay

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The widening of I-95 in Bridgeport and Fairfield is part of the state’s plan to have a two lane exit to Route 8 to relieve backups there. It’s not really to add capacity to the highway. I’m not really a fan of the high speed ferry either. I’m not sure it will do much for congestion relief.

I also like the idea of expanding either Tweed or Sikorsky but I’m not sure it will go anywhere. There is likely going to be a lot of opposition to either. Still it’s definitely needed since major airports are kind of far from the region. Jay

They’re widening it for exit 27A toward Trumbull/Valley? They will be a huge headache relief. The main issue there, other than volume, is you have impatient drivers who bypass the line of traffic and cut in at the last second. That causes both road rage and accidents regularly. CT state police are probably relieved this is being done.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

LA has a sprawl issue and they kept on adding more and more lanes instead of planning development around any particular cores or mass transit. I grew up in the area and the traffic simply got worse and worse as they kept adding more and more lanes. It would be an improvement for a few months on some stretches and then creep up to being worse than it ever was. LA also has probably the worst of both worlds in that it ended up with dense sprawl where it’s not easy to get around by walking/mass transit and sprawled out so much that you need to drive everywhere, but so densely packed that you’re hitting traffic almost immediately. They’ve been trying to change that a bit, but it’s often two steps forward one step backwards.

Herein lies the future of Connecticut: Widening highways that provide a temporary relief (if any at all), yet the long-term effect will merely be more sprawl and congestion. And pollution.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

They’re widening it for exit 27A toward Trumbull/Valley? They will be a huge headache relief. The main issue there, other than volume, is you have impatient drivers who bypass the line of traffic and cut in at the last second. That causes both road rage and accidents regularly. CT state police are probably relieved this is being done.

It is very needed. Horrible choke point.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by jxzz

There seems to be a lot of resistance in ConnDOT on EMUs, citing incompatible fleet, etc.

Amtrak hardly works well with commuter rail. I would not assume SLE tracks are that much ready.

Is the idea that Amtrak is what's holding up electrification? I can believe that, but then CT should be applying more public pressure to be ready.

Originally Posted by GeoffD

The axle loading on EMUs is a small fraction of a locomotive. The wear and tear on the track is brutal and the reason why the speed limits are so low. The rest of the planet uses lightweight EMUs on dedicated track and won’t allow freight on the track. In the long run considering track maintenance, it’s cheaper to electrify everything and import European lightweight EMUs.

Yea, and for a long time FRA rules made running light-weight EMUs that got their crash-worthiness through modern engineering of crumple zones extremely difficult. Those rules were changed a few years back after a long slog of citing innumerable examples of such. Electrifying SLE just makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

Herein lies the future of Connecticut: Widening highways that provide a temporary relief (if any at all), yet the long-term effect will merely be more sprawl and congestion. And pollution.

Well, there's still a sizable split towards mass transit in the plan that would be a lot more than what most states in the US would do, so that's something. I just wish that split leaned even heavier towards transit. All the mass transit proposals save for maybe the vague airport connector for Bradley are solid, but there were certainly other worthwhile transit improvements that didn't get mention.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

They’re widening it for exit 27A toward Trumbull/Valley? They will be a huge headache relief. The main issue there, other than volume, is you have impatient drivers who bypass the line of traffic and cut in at the last second. That causes both road rage and accidents regularly. CT state police are probably relieved this is being done.

The state will widen it if they find the money. Under current funding it is way way down on a very large no list of projects. That is true for many of the projects on the list. Tolls however make their construction now possible since they will basically pay for themselves. Makes it sort of a no brainer to get it done in the next 10 years rather than 30 years from now. Jay

[ProudFairfielder]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The widening of I-95 in Bridgeport and Fairfield is part of the state’s plan to have a two lane exit to Route 8 to relieve backups there. It’s not really to add capacity to the highway.

If it's true that it's to add a second lane to the route 8 exit than I am for it. However that extra lane doesn't need to start all the way back in Southport.