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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2012, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
21,749 posts, read 28,070,632 times
Reputation: 6710

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfsnowgirl View Post
Cali is just stupid and in driving there for over 15 years and having just visited there as well. They have mass amounts of freeways, many of which cross over each other, the ramps are just everywhere and all it really does is exacerbate an already bad problem. Coming off one freeway and going directly onto another, traffic is stopped on the freeway you are merging onto, the ramp meter has all the cars backed up onto the freeway people want to exit. Its ugliness. Agree to the earlier comment that when there are limited alternate routes it doesn't make sense to do this. However, if we can do it smartly as you suggested, than what the hell lets do it.
It's also been proven in Minnie:

Quote:
In 2000, a $650,000 experiment was mandated by the Minnesota State Legislature in response to citizen complaints and the efforts of State Senator Dick Day [3]. The study involved shutting off all 433 ramp meters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area for eight weeks to test their effectiveness. The study was conducted by Cambridge Systematics and concluded that when the ramp meters were turned off freeway capacity decreased by 9%, travel times increased by 22%, freeway speeds dropped by 7% and crashes increased by 26%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2012, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Southwestern CT
209 posts, read 607,908 times
Reputation: 84
Another fine place, lived here for a couple years way before this though. One cool thing they did there was they took the middle lane of the main highway into Minneapolis and changed the direction depending on the flow of traffic. Heading into town in the am and out of town at night, this middle lane would be flowing in or out depending on the the commute time. I thought this was pretty cool. Not trying to argue and I am for the lights if we can do it better here but doesn't the above study state that when the meters were turned off "The study was conducted by Cambridge Systematics and concluded that when the ramp meters were turned off freeway capacity decreased by 9%, travel times increased by 22%, freeway speeds dropped by 7% and crashes increased by 26%" So this argument would say that they don't help? Also perhaps my lovely town of fairfield doesn't need 5 exit ramps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
21,749 posts, read 28,070,632 times
Reputation: 6710
I remember driving through some cities in the midwest that would repurpose entire highways depending on the rush hour. It was pretty cool.

The study is saying that when they shut off the existing meters, traffic and accidents increased. They did that to prove they worked (or didn't).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 01:20 PM
 
21,619 posts, read 31,197,189 times
Reputation: 9775
Bottom line - the design of CT's highways are incredibly antiquated and the morons who run the state only make the problem worse. The biggest issue is the people in Hartford failing to recognize the enormity of the issue between New Haven and New York City. It's a case of "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 01:43 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,930 posts, read 56,935,296 times
Reputation: 11228
I have said this before, the problem is not the people in Hartford, it starts with the planning agencies in your own back yard. They determine the transportation programs that get funded and what the priorities will be. In Fairfield county, I-95 is not one of them. ConnDOT wanted to develop a comprehensive plan to widen I-95 from New Haven to New York and it was shot down. The agencies preferred more emphasis on mass transit. Add to this an outspoken environmental community and you get a very minimal investment in highways in southwest CT. That is why except for the Q Bridge, the improvements to I-95 through Bridgeport and some minor lane improvements in Norwalk, you will not see a lot of highway investment in that area. Jay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 01:49 PM
 
21,619 posts, read 31,197,189 times
Reputation: 9775
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
That is why except for the Q Bridge, the improvements to I-95 through Bridgeport and some minor lane improvements in Norwalk, you will not see a lot of highway investment in that area. Jay
That's unfortunate. My parents who have lived in lower FFC for years left because of the diminishing quality of life largely due to traffic. They could have more than afforded to stick around, but why stick around if you can't get anywhere in a decent time frame? The area is so dependent on New York, yet it's overlooked due to the large size of the metro area, and it's overlooked in CT.

It doesn't take widening highways, it takes simple updating. As stylo said, fix on/off ramps - also make lanes better marked, get rid of the odd bobs and weaves. The highway between Greenwich and New Haven is an absolute mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
21,749 posts, read 28,070,632 times
Reputation: 6710
A lot of the ultra left in the state put their heads in the sand when it comes to transportation. They are anti highway and pro mass transit to a fault - to the point where the highways are almost ignored. Like people will magically stop using highways if they neglect the issue of congestion. It's a terrible strategy and will wind up costing the state dearly with people and businesses leaving FFC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 03:39 PM
 
2,362 posts, read 2,183,879 times
Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
A lot of the ultra left in the state put their heads in the sand when it comes to transportation. They are anti highway and pro mass transit to a fault - to the point where the highways are almost ignored. Like people will magically stop using highways if they neglect the issue of congestion. It's a terrible strategy and will wind up costing the state dearly with people and businesses leaving FFC.
Widening I-95 is really just not feasible, it's not an issue of pro/anti mass transit or roads. The cost is prohibitive both in terms of construction cost and getting the right-of-way. Something like 3/4ths of the residents of Fairfield County live 2 miles within I-95. As is most of the commercial space. That's why SWRPA and GBRPA shot down the idea after looking at it for years and years. As well, as we have seen in the last 50 years, bigger highways just means congestion relief for a small spell as nature abhorres a vacuum and people are nature.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 07:05 AM
 
3,435 posts, read 3,943,622 times
Reputation: 1763
There were also plans to add a deck to 95.

I saw a mention of congestion pricing on the local news last week. It would be between New Haven and Greenwich. Could be promising, but depends on the execution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,930 posts, read 56,935,296 times
Reputation: 11228
Adding a deck to I-95 will never happen. It would be an ugly eyesore and ever since the decked highway in CA collapsed in an earthquake killin g people, the concept is pretty much dead.

Also if you think that the people opposing highways are extreme, you should check out the bicycling group in New Haven who want all streets to be two lanes wide with bike lanes in each direction. They are very vocal and sort of out of touch with reality. Jay
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




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. The time now is 11:25 PM.

© 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