U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 08-07-2012, 11:23 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,381 posts, read 24,444,118 times
Reputation: 4542

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
Double decker is a great idea but I wonder what the cost would be.
LOL , in CT Billlions....and property values would sink even further....pollution levels would climb every so higher.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-07-2012, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
18,117 posts, read 21,704,714 times
Reputation: 5427
What do you mean, "sink even further"? Lower FFC did pretty well in the housing bust compared to most of the country.

I don't see how that would affect property values negatively. No one is going to see it from their homes unless they're right up against the highway, and it would alleviate one of the biggest problems in the area. If traffic gets even worse there in the next 10 years, that could certainly bring values down. It also generally stifles the economy and makes the area unattractive for businesses.

As far as pollution, do you have any idea how much pollution is caused by cars sitting in stop and go traffic for hours, every single day along a 25 mile stretch on BOTH 95 and the Merritt? If anything, it could drastically reduce emissions.

I'd love to know how many billions. 10? 20? It's a problem that needs fixing and is only one of a few stretches of highway in the country that is THAT bad.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 06:34 AM
 
370 posts, read 520,458 times
Reputation: 724
A double decker would be a maintenance nightmare especially here in the northeast. Why can't out state just grow some balls and proceed with eminent domain. The 405 cutting through Los Angeles recently expanded and they now up to a dozen lanes in some sections.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 06:45 AM
 
Location: New England
8,155 posts, read 19,304,661 times
Reputation: 3301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey View Post
LOL , in CT Billlions....and property values would sink even further....pollution levels would climb every so higher.
LOL So says the boy obsessed with choo choo trains. Sorry bud, your idea of the world comes from some Sim City game and not reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UconnHusky1 View Post
A double decker would be a maintenance nightmare especially here in the northeast. Why can't out state just grow some balls and proceed with eminent domain. The 405 cutting through Los Angeles recently expanded and they now up to a dozen lanes in some sections.
How would maintenance be any different from the elevated highways we currently have?

As for eminent domain, there's this little thing called constitutional rights. Eminent domain is one of the worst personal property violations in the history of our nation. It's all good until it's YOUR home - that was perhaps in your family for a 100 years that they want to take away.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 07:42 AM
 
Location: NoVA/SoFLO
18,361 posts, read 25,255,404 times
Reputation: 6789
I don't know about the "double-decker" idea. What happens when the bridges need fixing 25 years down the road? It will be $$$$ and a traffic mess.

I'm not all for the idea of more highways - build it, and they will come. I'm all for upgrading our existing highways. Do what they did on the NJ turnpike (which is relatively traffic-free except getting onto the GW); limit onramps and off ramps. One per town. Greenwich doesn't need 5 on/off ramps.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 07:43 AM
 
Location: NoVA/SoFLO
18,361 posts, read 25,255,404 times
Reputation: 6789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stylo View Post
The one caveat is the money would HAVE to be used for transportation and nothing else.
Absolutely!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:31 AM
 
3,143 posts, read 3,445,008 times
Reputation: 1678
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
I don't know about the "double-decker" idea. What happens when the bridges need fixing 25 years down the road? It will be $$$$ and a traffic mess.

I'm not all for the idea of more highways - build it, and they will come. I'm all for upgrading our existing highways. Do what they did on the NJ turnpike (which is relatively traffic-free except getting onto the GW); limit onramps and off ramps. One per town. Greenwich doesn't need 5 on/off ramps.
Our towns are MUCH bigger than NJ towns. Technically Greenwich only has one ramp per "town"- Bryam, Greenwich proper, Riverside and Old Greenwich. In reality, the GSP has more frequent exits than 95 in CT, but gets progressively wider in conjunction with population density and flows fairly well. There can be serious traffic, but on a much less frequent basis compared to SW CT.

As it stands today, there is capacity to go to 5 lines in both directions from Stamford to Bridgeport. Double decking is very unsightly and problematic in terms of routing flow. Obviously 18-wheelers would need to take the lower level, but would there be common exit ramps for both levels? Tolls are a non-starter if federal highways funds are lost in the process.

As much as our resistance to change is often stifling, in this case we are a victim of being a wealthy, mature state with little open land at the time the highways were erected. That left little room for future expansion.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:51 AM
 
5,065 posts, read 14,519,581 times
Reputation: 3538
I have a serious claustrophic fear of double decker highways after watching all the news footage of the 1989 earthquake in California. I can't even sit under a bridge at a traffic light without getting the willies now. And I think the cost to build and maintain such a highway would be astronomical. Look at our bridges in Ct., I have read that many of those are in dire need of repair, and that's basically what the upper level of a double deck highway is, a bridge.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:53 AM
 
Location: NoVA/SoFLO
18,361 posts, read 25,255,404 times
Reputation: 6789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
Our towns are MUCH bigger than NJ towns.
It really has little to do with size of the town. NJ only has ~15 exits in an approx. 90-100 mile stretch. We have 90.

I do agree though that widening, double-decker, etc would only bring more problems and more bills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve View Post
In reality, the GSP has more frequent exits than 95 in CT, but gets progressively wider in conjunction with population density and flows fairly well. There can be serious traffic, but on a much less frequent basis compared to SW CT.
The GSP is what the Merritt should look like.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
18,117 posts, read 21,704,714 times
Reputation: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidyankee764 View Post
Do what they did on the NJ turnpike (which is relatively traffic-free except getting onto the GW); limit onramps and off ramps. One per town. Greenwich doesn't need 5 on/off ramps.
Or at least ramp meters. They've been proven to work elsewhere.
Rate this post positively 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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:42 AM.

© 2005-2021, 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