[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Stylo

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.

[Stylo]

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.

[UconnHusky1]

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.

[JViello]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

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.

Originally Posted by UconnHusky1

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.

[kidyankee764]

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.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Stylo

The one caveat is the money would HAVE to be used for transportation and nothing else.

Absolutely!

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.

[andthentherewere3]

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.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

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.

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

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.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

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.