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.
Are they proposing to build new highways in the Hartford area that cut swaths through suburban neighborhoods? well that stinks. I would fight that if I were you.
Nothing like this is being proposed, I'm just vehemently against it in principal. I reject the idea that simply widening the highway will solve the problem. In some cases, it's justifiable, particularly for those stretches of highway that are congested around the clock and have only 2 lanes. But again, it's not a guarantee that it will solve the problem, and if it involves gutting a neighborhood or seizing a large business district, then no. People have a right to their property, and again, at what point will we realize that if we everything becomes asphalt that there won't be anything to drive to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveM85
Why don't they just improve or upgrade the existing highways where they wouldn't need to do that?
To me, this makes the most sense. I actually had a chance to ask Congressman Larson about our transportation recently, commenting on this very thing and how people increasingly want more transportation options, and he acknowledged that we can't repeat the same mistakes that we made with 84 and 91 in Hartford. So it's not just me who feels this way.
Nothing like this is being proposed, I'm just vehemently against it in principal. I reject the idea that simply widening the highway will solve the problem. In some cases, it's justifiable, particularly for those stretches of highway that are congested around the clock and have only 2 lanes. But again, it's not a guarantee that it will solve the problem, and if it involves gutting a neighborhood or seizing a large business district, then no. People have a right to their property, and again, at what point will we realize that if we everything becomes asphalt that there won't be anything to drive to?
To me, this makes the most sense. I actually had a chance to ask Congressman Larson about our transportation recently, commenting on this very thing and how people increasingly want more transportation options, and he acknowledged that we can't repeat the same mistakes that we made with 84 and 91 in Hartford. So it's not just me who feels this way.
You do realize that Congressman Larson is proposing a massive rebuilding of I-84 and I-91 in Hartford and East Hartford that would involve taking a number of private properties? He has proposed to realign and bury the highways much like Massachusetts did with the Central Artery in Boston. The realignment would move the I-84 crossing of the Connecticut River and the I-84/I-91 interchange to the north. To do this a lot of private land would be needed.
And yes, widening of highways do help solve problems despite what those often wrongly quoted studies are thought to say. As I said, it is one part of a solution. To blankety say that a 65 year old highway, long past its design usefulness should not be improved is kind narrow minded and shortsighted.
Just look at the Q Bridge project in New Haven, East Haven and Branford. The project added lanes to seven miles of highway and reconfigured interchanges. The result has been phenomenal with reduced congestion and significantly improved safety. The same was experienced on I-84 east of downtown Waterbury where regular daily traffic backups literally disappeared overnight when the additional lanes of travel opened up. Hard to argue with that. Jay
You do realize that Congressman Larson is proposing a massive rebuilding of I-84 and I-91 in Hartford and East Hartford that would involve taking a number of private properties? He has proposed to realign and bury the highways much like Massachusetts did with the Central Artery in Boston. The realignment would move the I-84 crossing of the Connecticut River and the I-84/I-91 interchange to the north. To do this a lot of private land would be needed.
And yes, widening of highways do help solve problems despite what those often wrongly quoted studies are thought to say. As I said, it is one part of a solution. To blankety say that a 65 year old highway, long past its design usefulness should not be improved is kind narrow minded and shortsighted.
Just look at the Q Bridge project in New Haven, East Haven and Branford. The project added lanes to seven miles of highway and reconfigured interchanges. The result has been phenomenal with reduced congestion and significantly improved safety. The same was experienced on I-84 east of downtown Waterbury where regular daily traffic backups literally disappeared overnight when the additional lanes of travel opened up. Hard to argue with that. Jay
The reconfiguring of interchanges has far more of an impact.
^the third source summarizes a paper behind a paywall.
Look Jay, I'm not against "success."
Rather, Imagine this:
Let's say you're starting from Fairfield driving to Mohawk because you like skiing.
To do that you get on the I 95 entrance ramp and work your way up to speed.
Here's the first key point: If the ramps are so short you can't get up to speed before getting on the highway you are causing traffic by slowing the cars behind you.
Next: you're on the highway at full speed. Barring an accident nothing, not even the number of lanes, influences your driving speed.
Next: You're merging onto RT 8. Another short off/merging ramp that's only 1 lane forces you to slow down before the ramp, causing traffic by slowing the cars behind you.
Next: You're on 8 north, Again driving at the same speed regardless of the lane number.
Finally: You get off on 254 to head up to Cornwall. But, to do so, If the highway is wider on average you move over more lanes to exit and cause more traffic (by causing more disruption to other cars).
Get it now? Adding more lanes to a core highway does nothing to reduce traffic. It's the interchanges that are key. And while accidents do happen cars merging on/off happens orders of magnitude more frequently.
If I’m not mistaken, I thought Larson’s Dig took 84 on a more southerly path and had it submerge somewhere near the Flatbush Ave curve but continue straight under the Trinity College neighborhood, then intersect a buried I-91 just north of the Charter Oak Bridge before re-emerging somewhere near Governor St in East Hartford.
Get it now? Adding more lanes to a core highway does nothing to reduce traffic. It's the interchanges that are key. And while accidents do happen cars merging on/off happens orders of magnitude more frequently.
Who ever said it needed to be one or the other?
Upgrading 95 should involve both adding a lane and improving interchanges.
Whatever comes of it comes of it, but it needed to get done yesterday.
Nothing like this is being proposed, I'm just vehemently against it in principal. I reject the idea that simply widening the highway will solve the problem. In some cases, it's justifiable, particularly for those stretches of highway that are congested around the clock and have only 2 lanes. But again, it's not a guarantee that it will solve the problem, and if it involves gutting a neighborhood or seizing a large business district, then no. People have a right to their property, and again, at what point will we realize that if we everything becomes asphalt that there won't be anything to drive to?
It was a rhetorical question. You mentioned they were going to raze mcmansions in Glastonbury.
95 upgrades wouldn't require any razing or taking of property that I can see.
Its an upgrade, you know like when you upgrade your kitchen counters. We're not talking about building new highways altogether and razing mcmansions.
^the third source summarizes a paper behind a paywall.
Look Jay, I'm not against "success."
Rather, Imagine this:
Let's say you're starting from Fairfield driving to Mohawk because you like skiing.
To do that you get on the I 95 entrance ramp and work your way up to speed.
Here's the first key point: If the ramps are so short you can't get up to speed before getting on the highway you are causing traffic by slowing the cars behind you.
Next: you're on the highway at full speed. Barring an accident nothing, not even the number of lanes, influences your driving speed.
Next: You're merging onto RT 8. Another short off/merging ramp that's only 1 lane forces you to slow down before the ramp, causing traffic by slowing the cars behind you.
Next: You're on 8 north, Again driving at the same speed regardless of the lane number.
Finally: You get off on 254 to head up to Cornwall. But, to do so, If the highway is wider on average you move over more lanes to exit and cause more traffic (by causing more disruption to other cars).
Get it now? Adding more lanes to a core highway does nothing to reduce traffic. It's the interchanges that are key. And while accidents do happen cars merging on/off happens orders of magnitude more frequently.
We’ve talked about this before buts it’s been a while. The sources you link are not unbiased. They are known for promoting mass transit so they are a bit biased.
Much of the contention that widening a highway just leads to more traffic is based on 50 year old studies from California. They were done on highways that served areas that were not matured or fully developed. Of corse more traffic came with a widened highway. It would have come anyways. What happens in a more mature area is going to be very different.
Think about this, I-95 in Fairfield County is six lanes (three lanes in each direction). According to this logic, if we double the capacity of the highway (to 12 lanes, six in each direction), do you really think we are going to have it fill up with traffic? Not unless we have a tremendous growth in population and that’s unlikely.
Just look at I-95 in New Haven. The Q Bridge project was completed about five years ago. Has it filled with traffic? No it has not. It operates pretty well with traffic congestion occurring where the highway transitions to the old highway. The rest, including the I-91 interchange, works pretty well.
Finally we have to keep in mind that highways is where the money is. It is the gas tax that generates the most revenue used for transportation. Mass transit does not pay for itself let alone generate additional money. We can’t ignore highways because there comes a point where drivers are going to get tired of paying and getting little back from it. Jay
We’ve talked about this before buts it’s been a while. The sources you link are not unbiased. They are known for promoting mass transit so they are a bit biased.
Much of the contention that widening a highway just leads to more traffic is based on 50 year old studies from California. They were done on highways that served areas that were not matured or fully developed. Of corse more traffic came with a widened highway. It would have come anyways. What happens in a more mature area is going to be very different.
Think about this, I-95 in Fairfield County is six lanes (three lanes in each direction). According to this logic, if we double the capacity of the highway (to 12 lanes, six in each direction), do you really think we are going to have it fill up with traffic? Not unless we have a tremendous growth in population and that’s unlikely.
Just look at I-95 in New Haven. The Q Bridge project was completed about five years ago. Has it filled with traffic? No it has not. It operates pretty well with traffic congestion occurring where the highway transitions to the old highway. The rest, including the I-91 interchange, works pretty well.
Finally we have to keep in mind that highways is where the money is. It is the gas tax that generates the most revenue used for transportation. Mass transit does not pay for itself let alone generate additional money. We can’t ignore highways because there comes a point where drivers are going to get tired of paying and getting little back from it. Jay
I hate this argument of "where will the extra people come from?"
They're already here and choosing not to drive due to the current traffic. Remember we're between NYC and Boston. That is the "induced demand" mentioned.
Also that is why I added the third source (which is actually an academic paper) and a study done recently so there should be no bias.
Additionally anecdotal evidence on your part is no better - by definition it is biased because it's all influenced on your experiences.
Why am I against widening the highway? Because it's not cost effective.
I hate this argument of "where will the extra people come from?"
They're already here and choosing not to drive due to the current traffic. Remember we're between NYC and Boston. That is the "induced demand" mentioned.
Also that is why I added the third source (which is actually an academic paper) and a study done recently so there should be no bias.
Additionally anecdotal evidence on your part is no better - by definition it is biased because it's all influenced on your experiences.
Why am I against widening the highway? Because it's not cost effective.
The third reference is not an academic paper. It is a biased organization’s summary and opinion of an academic paper. It’s not the actual paper which you are not able to access. Still the article says the following:
They found that for every 1 percent increase in highway capacity, traffic increases 0.29 to 1.1 percent in the long term (about five years out), and up to 0.68 percent in the short term (one or two years). One recent study found a one-to-one relationship between new highway lane capacity and traffic increases.
If induced demand capacity truly eats up added capacity why is the range of increase 0.29 to 1.1%? Without the actual data, it is hard to say but it appears that the average of the increase is less than 0.7% which means there still is capacity available. Also note that we do not know where or how this data was taken or how it would apply to Connecticut.
Again I will point to the Q Bridge. We are five years past it’s completion and eight years past the first additional capacity added on the bridge itself. It still operates well with little congestion. If Connecticut had such great induced capacity, it would certainly be fully congested by now.
As for the cost effectiveness of widening the highway, you do not know that it would not be cost effective. That is just your opinion and not based on actual facts. We are talking improvements that will serve people for generations to come affecting hundreds of thousands vehicle trips every day. How is improving that many trips not effective? The fact is most Connecticut highways were designed for a very different era. It’s time they were brought into the 21st Century. Jay
The third reference is not an academic paper. It is a biased organization’s summary and opinion of an academic paper. It’s not the actual paper which you are not able to access. Still the article says the following:
They found that for every 1 percent increase in highway capacity, traffic increases 0.29 to 1.1 percent in the long term (about five years out), and up to 0.68 percent in the short term (one or two years). One recent study found a one-to-one relationship between new highway lane capacity and traffic increases.
If induced demand capacity truly eats up added capacity why is the range of increase 0.29 to 1.1%? Without the actual data, it is hard to say but it appears that the average of the increase is less than 0.7% which means there still is capacity available. Also note that we do not know where or how this data was taken or how it would apply to Connecticut.
Again I will point to the Q Bridge. We are five years past it’s completion and eight years past the first additional capacity added on the bridge itself. It still operates well with little congestion. If Connecticut had such great induced capacity, it would certainly be fully congested by now.
As for the cost effectiveness of widening the highway, you do not know that it would not be cost effective. That is just your opinion and not based on actual facts. We are talking improvements that will serve people for generations to come affecting hundreds of thousands vehicle trips every day. How is improving that many trips not effective? The fact is most Connecticut highways were designed for a very different era. It’s time they were brought into the 21st Century. Jay
Yes, I meant it links. Thanks for pulling out the useful part. As you can see you can pay millions of dollars and the traffic only increases.
If you're spending millions and the outcome is the opposite of the desired one I don't see that as very cost effective.
Again I'm not against improving the highways, so you can't use the "I'm against progress/ delaying hundreds of thousands of people."
Look to one of my previous posts as to why the width of a highway doesn't affect speed of cars or can even reduce it.
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.
