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.
Stamford/Norwalk/Greenwich is our fastest growing area. It is an economic powerhouse but it has significant issues to face, the most significant is a shortage of reasonably priced housing. The towns surrounding these cities are some of the most expensive in the country so an average middle-management level employee with a family is forced to live pretty far away from their job. Without a reliable mode of transportation to bring people to and from their jobs, companies will not want to locate in the area which is not good. You can't have things both ways you know and it really is about time the state seriously looked into the problems and set out for reasonable solutions.
We have discussed here previously the so-called "fact" that adding capacity to a road does not work because the road just will fill up with more traffic. That concept is based on flawed data and logic. This concept that is often quoted as fact by the highway-haters is based on data and a study from the 1960's. It was conducted in areas out west where there was the potential for significant growth on an abundance of undeveloped land. This is not the case in southwest Connecticut where basically all the towns along and near the corridor are nearly fully developed and have very strong zoning laws prohibiting massive new development. That is not to say the area has no new development but it certainly is limited. The logic behind this concept is flawed because say you have a six lane highway like I-95 and you double the size of it to twelve lanes, it is highly unlikely that the highway is going to fill up with traffic without any significant additions to the population of the area. And that can't happen due to the limited potential to add new development and population to the region. Again simple logic. I-95 needs to be rebuilt to serve the world today and not the world from 65 years ago. That likely means the addition of another lane from New Haven to New York. The lane will likely be a HOV lane restricted to use by mass transit. The study will determine this and determine the cost of this. Remember too that the study is being conducted to guide the state in what should be done to the highway in the future and how it will be improved in the future. Without that study, nothing will be done but patchwork improvements to keep the highway the way it currently is. Jay
Middle Management can afford to be closer to work with some sacrifice on home/lot size. Moving further out is a personal choice.
Strict zoning laws can be flexible for the greater good.
What happens to residents of say a Henderson Rd for example who will need to have their backyards taken away in order to accommodate a 4th lane. I'm sure your familiar with the road and probably even know someone who lives on it.
I'm going to disagree. Basing almost the bulk of home to office commuting on personal transport is something designed in the 50s that has become a flaming money pit. Not a highway hater, or a hater of personal transport, but even if we increase highway capacity by even 50% through travelers are going to increase. Instead of taking planes and trains they will come in personal autos.
All that will happen is that workers will look further for housing, thus negating any advances to flow-rate. The days of Stamford to Bridgeport in 20mins in rush hour died in the 70's. What would be much better and cheaper are things like spot changes, exit/entrance closures, and additions like (IIRC it's called) Posi-lane technology. There will never be enough roads for cars.
Where adding lanes really works for flow are areas with wide easements on both sides, not in Urban environments. It's unfortunate but that's just the way the cookie seems to crumble.
I'm curious how 24/7 service on MNR would help with future traffic flow. Is there really demand enough to justify trains over the those few hours each night with no service?
I'd like to see MNR finally complete bridge & track work and get all rail lines working again. Bi-level rail cars are probably a distant pipe dream.
People need to realize something, funding for mass-transit improvements (like Metro North) come from different sources than funding for highway improvements on I-95. Rail funding comes from the Federal Transit Agency while highway funds come from the Federal Highway Administration. Two very different agencies and funding sources and you CAN'T transfer funds between them. I am not sure why people don't understand this.
I-95 was designed over 60 years ago for a very different era in time. At the time, no one knew how different the world would become. The fact that I-95 has not been significantly improved or expanded since it was built is appalling. The area has grown significantly and I-95 has long been past its ability to handle the traffic it receives each day. The fact that CTDOT is looking at both I-95 and Metro North shows that they want to tackle the problem on BOTH fronts, improve Metro North service AND bring I-95 into the 21st Century with a truly modern highway designed to modern standards. Without doing both, the southwest portion of our state is doomed to continue with economic stagnation.
Stamford/Norwalk/Greenwich is our fastest growing area. It is an economic powerhouse but it has significant issues to face, the most significant is a shortage of reasonably priced housing. The towns surrounding these cities are some of the most expensive in the country so an average middle-management level employee with a family is forced to live pretty far away from their job. Without a reliable mode of transportation to bring people to and from their jobs, companies will not want to locate in the area which is not good. You can't have things both ways you know and it really is about time the state seriously looked into the problems and set out for reasonable solutions.
We have discussed here previously the so-called "fact" that adding capacity to a road does not work because the road just will fill up with more traffic. That concept is based on flawed data and logic. This concept that is often quoted as fact by the highway-haters is based on data and a study from the 1960's. It was conducted in areas out west where there was the potential for significant growth on an abundance of undeveloped land. This is not the case in southwest Connecticut where basically all the towns along and near the corridor are nearly fully developed and have very strong zoning laws prohibiting massive new development. That is not to say the area has no new development but it certainly is limited. The logic behind this concept is flawed because say you have a six lane highway like I-95 and you double the size of it to twelve lanes, it is highly unlikely that the highway is going to fill up with traffic without any significant additions to the population of the area. And that can't happen due to the limited potential to add new development and population to the region. Again simple logic. I-95 needs to be rebuilt to serve the world today and not the world from 65 years ago. That likely means the addition of another lane from New Haven to New York. The lane will likely be a HOV lane restricted to use by mass transit. The study will determine this and determine the cost of this. Remember too that the study is being conducted to guide the state in what should be done to the highway in the future and how it will be improved in the future. Without that study, nothing will be done but patchwork improvements to keep the highway the way it currently is. Jay
Bingo. 91 is 4 lanes from mass to ct state line and doesn't get nearly the traffic that new haven to greenwich gets. The only chokepoint is where 91 goes down to 2 lanes through dowtown hartford, but still nothing compared to delays on 95 It's called progress. There's this insane movement to get rid of cars, which of course is totally unrealistic. Automobiles is what created the suburbs. . We'd all have to live in cities, which is what they want of course.
People like their cars. Investment in both rail and highway is what's need to move forward.
Bingo. 91 is 4 lanes from mass to ct state line and doesn't get nearly the traffic that new haven to greenwich gets. The only chokepoint is where 91 goes down to 2 lanes through dowtown hartford, but still nothing compared to delays on 95 It's called progress. There's this insane movement to get rid of cars, which of course is totally unrealistic. Automobiles is what created the suburbs. . We'd all have to live in cities, which is what they want of course.
People like their cars. Investment in both rail and highway is what's need to move forward.
91 going into Hartford gets a lot of traffic around Windsor & Bloomfield as well. Not sure why, but it also gets a good amount of traffic at night going south into Hartford. It certainly gets more than mornings on 91 North from Middletown to Hartford, or at night going from Hartford to Cromwell/Middletown going South.
Good luck using eminent domain in this day and age to purchase properties on either side of 95 and the Merritt in Greenwich, Darien, New Canaan, Wesport, etc. The state couldn't afford all the land, let alone the army of lawyers (and PR nightmare) needed to do so, and that's before the cost of highway widening or upgrades are even considered.
I'm going to disagree. Basing almost the bulk of home to office commuting on personal transport is something designed in the 50s that has become a flaming money pit. Not a highway hater, or a hater of personal transport, but even if we increase highway capacity by even 50% through travelers are going to increase. Instead of taking planes and trains they will come in personal autos.
All that will happen is that workers will look further for housing, thus negating any advances to flow-rate. The days of Stamford to Bridgeport in 20mins in rush hour died in the 70's. What would be much better and cheaper are things like spot changes, exit/entrance closures, and additions like (IIRC it's called) Posi-lane technology. There will never be enough roads for cars.
Where adding lanes really works for flow are areas with wide easements on both sides, not in Urban environments. It's unfortunate but that's just the way the cookie seems to crumble.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. Ignoring the problem is definitely not the answer. And just giving up on the highway is quite frankly just ridiculous.
But also note that even the little things you propose must be planned out. What exits can/should be closed? What little improvements need to be made? Where are the bottlenecks that should be fixed? Where are the accidents occurring? A study will identify all of this.
The one thing I did not mention in this is safety. Each hundreds are injured or killed on this highway. There are millions of dollars wasted in accidents along the highway as well. There are many causes for this but one key element is the roadway design. Again being a highway that was designed in 1955, I-95 does not meet current design standards for things like curves, profiles and the cross-slope of the highway would be a lot different if the highway were designed today. Just look at the new I-95 through New Haven. It is much different than the rest of the highway. There is no reason that I-95 should not be like that from New Haven down to New York. The time has come to begin this long overdue process. Remember it is going to take years, if not decades for changes to be made but we have to start somewhere. Jay
Middle Management can afford to be closer to work with some sacrifice on home/lot size. Moving further out is a personal choice.
Strict zoning laws can be flexible for the greater good.
What happens to residents of say a Henderson Rd for example who will need to have their backyards taken away in order to accommodate a 4th lane. I'm sure your familiar with the road and probably even know someone who lives on it.
Lets be real here. A middle manager cannot afford even a modest home in Greenwich, Darien or New Canaan and even if they could, there is a very limited supply of those homes so prices would just keep skyrocketing out of their price range. Also there is no way you are going to get zoning in those towns changed to accommodate more housing. People there do not want significant change and quite frankly I don't blame them. Why destroy these town's character for the questionable sake of greater good. It sounds good but if I owned a million dollar home I know I would fight it and I am sure you would too.
So you know, the right-of-way for I-95 is wider than you think. Look at the reconstruction in Bridgeport. It was done with minimal right-of-way takes. Of course some additional properties will be needed but still that is the chance people taking buying a home (and I would guess most homeowners along the corridor bought their homes in the last 60 years by now). Again it is for the greater good. Jay
"If they build it, they will come" is just "global warming anti-car get everyone on the bus" propoganda. They also like to talk about it "cutting off neighborhoods" and creating ghettos. People create ghettos, not highways.
Actually, highways DO cut off neighborhoods and HAVE caused them to fall into disrepairs, creating ghettos. Anyone who disputes this knows nothing about urban planning and should read "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro which confirms beyond a doubt how cities, suburbs and communities are permanently, often negatively, impacted by highways. I'm sure nobody here will bother to do that, though, preferring instead to read the "news" according to what appears in their iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyondTheHorizon
The mess in fairfield county is inexcusable and should have been fixed decades ago. No excuse for 30 mile daily backups when you're 50 miles outside of a major city.(nyc). Stamford/bpt are small cities. If you travel towards pa or nj or even upstate ny. Even 25 miles outside the city in rockland county ny there is very little traffic compared to fairfield.
If widening highways creates congestion, then shouldn't reducing the number of lanes ease congestion? Come on people. And of course the Merritt should be widened.
Fixing the FFC mess sounds fine until it's your home and your neighborhood at stake. Everyone can always come up with a reason why they want a highway widened until it's YOUR home or YOUR neighborhood being seized or impacted by it. And for those who say they wouldn't object to this if it WAS impacted, I simply don't believe you. Until it happens to you, it's always somebody else's problem.
And let's keep in mind our state's population has been stagnant as companies and people continue to leave. You can expect this to continue, regardless of which party is at the helm in the years to come. So is it really justifiable to pour money into projects like this when MNR and Amtrak ridership continues to climb, our state's population could potentially go down, and even if we did add a lane of highway it would have minimal impact, if any?
Forget about the Merritt Parkway being widened. It's a National Scenic Byway and you'd destroy it by widening it. You don't want the Merritt to end up looking like the Garden State Parkway, believe me.
I'm surprised nobody in this forum is talking about ride-sharing programs or other means to get around. If public transit isn't for people or isn't an option, this may be.
Lets be real here. A middle manager cannot afford even a modest home in Greenwich, Darien or New Canaan and even if they could, there is a very limited supply of those homes so prices would just keep skyrocketing out of their price range. Also there is no way you are going to get zoning in those towns changed to accommodate more housing. People there do not want significant change and quite frankly I don't blame them. Why destroy these town's character for the questionable sake of greater good. It sounds good but if I owned a million dollar home I know I would fight it and I am sure you would too.
So you know, the right-of-way for I-95 is wider than you think. Look at the reconstruction in Bridgeport. It was done with minimal right-of-way takes. Of course some additional properties will be needed but still that is the chance people taking buying a home (and I would guess most homeowners along the corridor bought their homes in the last 60 years by now). Again it is for the greater good. Jay
Who says they have to be in Greenwich, NC, Darien. Fairfield/Norwalk/Stamford also have great quiet suburban neighborhoods if some square footage compromises can be made. Many middle and upper managers, directors, VPs are there now as we speak. Again, personal choices.
I'm not for or against it, doesn't affect me since I don't need 95 for commuting, but just don't see how realistic it is. Thankfully I don't commute to Stamford, but neighbors/friends tell me the recently added lane in Norwalk/Darien hasn't made any difference.
I suppose you can probably widen 95 through most of Westport and East Norwalk since there are fields/grass there. Fairfield and Stamford would be challenging. Greenwich I guess wouldn't be needed since commute congestion pretty much ends at downtown Stamford.
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.
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.
Bingo. 91 is 4 lanes from mass to ct state line and doesn't get nearly the traffic that new haven to greenwich gets. The only chokepoint is where 91 goes down to 2 lanes through dowtown hartford, but still nothing compared to delays on 95 It's called progress. There's this insane movement to get rid of cars, which of course is totally unrealistic. Automobiles is what created the suburbs. . We'd all have to live in cities, which is what they want of course.
