[JViello]

Originally Posted by goldenband

Well, all I can say is that the Oxford English Dictionary has long been considered the pre-eminent source for any and all questions of etymology, earliest usage, etc. I don't know what collection you're using, but etymology is a notoriously treacherous field, because there are tons of people who pass on old wives' tales and incorrect surmises as fact. People have the bad habit of looking for the etymology that suits their preconceptions, rather than the one that falls closest to the truth. (Not saying you're doing this, just saying it's a real minefield for that reason.)

The definition of "freeway" that maps best onto the modern usage is attested from 1926, and ironically, the definition emphasizes restriction and limitations: "A thoroughfare to which the owners of abutting premises are denied the right of direct access, in order to protect the free movement of traffic. Now chiefly: an express highway, esp. one with controlled access; a toll-free highway." A citation from San Antonio in 1926: "Cars parked along the curb and rendering the freeway still narrower." And from a zoning manual in 1936: "The increase of freeways..will help to solve the problem of too extensive business districts along main arteries." These all emphasize the free movement of traffic and the limited access, not the absence of tolls or "checkpoints".


Words that, it must be emphasized, appeared nowhere in the original post. There's nothing about "stupid", nothing about "gas guzzling", nothing about "save the world" or "righteousness", and not even anything about "rich"! You may be right that there were implications of that, but people don't need to sanitize their posts for any trace of such things.


The first post was fine, I think, but the second one was a bit inflammatory, sure. And yes, it ramps up -- and sir, you ramped it up, by adding suppositions, overt insults, and words (in quotes!) that weren't there in the original post.

Look, we all have our biases, and I think you can admit that you aren't shy about yours. I could dog your every post, calling you out on every political aside or little dig. But I don't, because a civil discourse -- much like dinner with one's extended family -- depends on the combination of you reining yourself in a bit, and me being tolerant of the small stuff. Otherwise, this board will degenerate into a perpetual flame war. So if you don't want to be hounded, then let some things slide, even if they annoy you, just as other people do the same for you. Or if you must object, do so as succinctly and as neutrally as possible, so that things don't escalate and everyone can stay civil. Deal?

By the way, I know registered Republicans who loathe SUVs, so it's not a stance confined to those on the left! (I'll admit, I'm disgusted by luxury SUVs, and wish there were fewer of them on the road, but OTOH there are plenty of people who have good reason to drive a larger vehicle.)


Like I said, it sounds like a very good idea to me. People might play games with residency to get around it, and it might be a hassle for people who live on one side and work on the other (as in Springfield/Hartford), but that'd just be an incentive for them to move to CT anyway, and the tax base could use the support. Honestly, I'm a tiny bit surprised that you would endorse it, as I know internal "checkpoints" are a hot-button issue for you!

I was asked by a moderator to not further this discussion between us so I'll have to take a "pass". Sorry.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

As near as I can tell, NIMBYs in Connecticut are unwilling to tolerate any improvements in transportation infrastructure.

And thank God for this! I could not imagine beautiful southern CT being ruined the way SoCal has, as well as Atlanta and Dallas.

I posted it before on this thread and I'll repeat it - If you build it, they will come.

[goldenband]

Originally Posted by JViello

I was asked by a moderator to not further this discussion between us so I'll have to take a "pass". Sorry.

Full disclosure: me too! But it's OK, we're better off talking about white-label drum 'n' bass records anyway.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

And thank God for this! I could not imagine beautiful southern CT being ruined the way SoCal has, as well as Atlanta and Dallas.

The beautiful parts of Connecticut are the parts furthest from the shore.

I posted it before on this thread and I'll repeat it - If you build it, they will come.

The theory of "induced demand" is not true for all roads. How much more densely populated could southern Connecticut get?

As a counter example, consider route 8 - the section north of Waterbury is rarely or never congested; no demand seems to have been induced there.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

The beautiful parts of Connecticut are the parts furthest from the shore.

I agree to an extent. IMO the most beautiful area of CT is Sherman, Roxbury, Kent, etc. Doesn't mean the GOld Coast or Madison, Guilford up to Fenwick isn't. Actually I think they are some of the nicest towns in the country. If you're talking about the towns between New Haven and Bridgeport, then I agree. Much of Milford is an eyesore.

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

The theory of "induced demand" is not true for all roads. How much more densely populated could southern Connecticut get?

As a counter example, consider route 8 - the section north of Waterbury is rarely or never congested; no demand seems to have been induced there.

Southern CT can get much more crowded than it currently is. Look at northeastern NJ and Nassau County, LI. Or Long Beach, Encino and Pasadena. If the Merritt were ever turned into a 6 lane highway, it would bring a plethora of issues. The Merritt, IMO, helps keep much of SW CT hidden.

Regarding Route 8, population growth is quickly working its way up. The outer Valley towns (Shelton, Seymour, Oxford, Bethany) have seen HUGE growth since Route 8 was built. The heavy traffic south of Beacon Falls is an indication of this.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Regarding Route 8, population growth is quickly working its way up. The outer Valley towns (Shelton, Seymour, Oxford, Bethany) have seen HUGE growth since Route 8 was built. The heavy traffic south of Beacon Falls is an indication of this.

I wrote: north of Waterbury.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

I wrote: north of Waterbury.

A population boom isn't going to happen out of nowhere. It crawls from an already overpopulated area: NYC and Fairfield County. It's happening, and it will continue to shift northeastward as NYers grow tired of the house prices and taxes.

Anyway, the one reason why the Torrington area hasn't grown much IMO is due to lack of jobs up that way. There is not a lack of jobs between Greenwich and the New Haven area, where the Merritt stretches.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Anyway, the one reason why the Torrington area hasn't grown much IMO is due to lack of jobs up that way. There is not a lack of jobs between Greenwich and the New Haven area, where the Merritt stretches.

The original claim was that building a road by itself generated excess traffic.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

The original claim was that building a road by itself generated excess traffic.

Sprawl = traffic.

[seymourct]

So again we digress . LOL. I think that the state could eminent domain the ramp space for building an Exit 43 off the Merritt w/o widening the whole road.

Hey if they can steal beach front homes out in New London via eminent domain, and homes in Trumbull when they built Rte 25, then they can ease the traffic load in Ffld county w/o too much problems. As it is EVERYONE knows how to get off the road in and zip through southport anyway, or zig zag through Congress and LongLots to get past the NoExit. That route can almost be tagged a highway.