[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Widening I-95 from Greenwich to New Haven won’t work

Here in TX for example

“its widest point, the Katy Freeway has 26 lanes including the feeder roads. It doesn't matter. Those 26 lanes at the Katy Freeway at Beltway 8 were ranked the second-worst bottleneck in the country in 2004.”

Vox points out that adding more lanes just brought in more drivers that might not have used the highway before, making all efforts to mitigate the paralyzing traffic moot.


https://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...s-15945843.php

As a transportation professional, I strongly disagree. The argument of Induced Demand, which this video and highway opposition cite, has a fatal flaw. It assumes that traffic is infinite. It is not. There is a definite limit to the amount of traffic that any region can generate, so it’s a question of can the highway be rebuilt to accommodate that amount. In theory it can. In reality it cannot.

If you notice, the video you posted gives a number of suggestions of transportation and planning improvements as an alternative to highway widening. Southwestern Connecticut already has implemented MOST of those measures. There is a very active and well used mass transit system consisting of Metro North’s New Haven Line as well as an expansive interconnected intra-city bus network. It mentions work from home and alternative work hours program. Connecticut has required these programs be implemented in major southwestern Connecticut developments for more than three decades. The video calls for strong zoning to limit development. Our state has that. It calls for implementing transit oriented development. All up and down the corridor are areas with that type of development. The only thing the state hasn’t done in southwestern Connecticut is congestion pricing and that is because the state has not reestablished tolls on our highways. That could be the next step if I-95 is expanded.

As I’ve noted here before I-95 in southwestern Connecticut was designed and built more than 65 years ago. It has not been significantly altered or expanded since. The world was very different back then. Highway design standards have changed as well. It is well past the time for I-95 to be rebuilt to modern to modern standards. That includes a comprehensive review of the number of exits and entrances to the highway and the number of lanes.

I’d also like to point out some misinformation in that video. It pointed to Boston’s Central Artery project as an example of a highway that has been removed and replaced by a surface boulevard. This is false. The Central Artery expressway was tunneled underground and the boulevard replaced the above ground elevated structure, not the expressway. That’s a big difference.

Another thing that this video fails to consider is funding. Despite what people think, mass transit does not even come close to generating enough revenue to pay for itself. Highways do. In fact gas and transportation taxes more than pay for themselves and even generate enough revenue to pay for a portion of mass transit. That must be considered as well. Jay

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by JayCT

It assumes that traffic is infinite. It is not.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by JayCT

If you notice, the video you posted gives a number of suggestions of transportation and planning improvements as an alternative to highway widening. Southwestern Connecticut already has implemented MOST of those measures. There is a very active and well used mass transit system consisting of Metro North’s New Haven Line as well as an expansive interconnected intra-city bus network. It mentions work from home and alternative work hours program. Connecticut has required these programs be implemented in major southwestern Connecticut developments for more than three decades. The video calls for strong zoning to limit development. Our state has that. It calls for implementing transit oriented development. All up and down the corridor are areas with that type of development. The only thing the state hasn’t done in southwestern Connecticut is congestion pricing and that is because the state has not reestablished tolls on our highways. That could be the next step if I-95 is expanded.

Here we go again with tolling a federal highway. CT took the money upfront. You (CT) can't have the cake and eat it too.

CT didn't move geographically into where it is. It knew its corridor sliver would be the major thoroughfare connecting New England with the rest of the Eastern US.

Regardless, CT is at a checkmate on 95 "widening", regardless how much money Feds (aka other states) pour into FFC's highway -- due to lack of space, you can't rebuilt ground-surface I-95 without major economical impairment for decades, of CT's cash cow. The only way to do this is underground. Nibbling at the edges won't solve the problem long-term. And don't even bring up transit. That also is going nowhere.

[BobNJ1960]

Not sure about am express times which seemed not much better than 2021, but was on train coming home today, and the shortest Harlem-Milford option is just 5 minutes longer vs pre covid. 532-655 run now, 532 to 650 pre covid. Add 18 minutes GCT-Harlem, its a 1 hour, 41 minute run. A mile longer vs the early 2010s, though, right Stylo?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Here we go again with tolling a federal highway. CT took the money upfront. You (CT) can't have the cake and eat it too.

CT didn't move geographically into where it is. It knew its corridor sliver would be the major thoroughfare connecting New England with the rest of the Eastern US.

Regardless, CT is at a checkmate on 95 "widening", regardless how much money Feds (aka other states) pour into FFC's highway -- due to lack of space, you can't rebuilt ground-surface I-95 without major economical impairment for decades, of CT's cash cow. The only way to do this is underground. Nibbling at the edges won't solve the problem long-term. And don't even bring up transit. That also is going nowhere.

Actually I-95 was not built with Federal Interstate Highway funds. It was built as the Connecticut Turnpike by the State Highway Department before the Interstate Highway program was created. It was built with tolls to pay for itself. Also it was selected as one of several highways that the FHWA will allow tolls on to pay for improvements. They recognize that many states like Connecticut have limited funds to take on such projects.

Also despite what you think there is sufficient right-of-way for widening the highway. You can’t widen it significantly but there is room to add a lane without impacting our state’s economy. Jay

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Here we go again with tolling a federal highway.

Originally Posted by JayCT

Actually I-95 was not built with Federal Interstate Highway funds. It was built as the Connecticut Turnpike by the State Highway Department before the Interstate Highway program was created.

Classic

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Not sure about am express times which seemed not much better than 2021, but was on train coming home today, and the shortest Harlem-Milford option is just 5 minutes longer vs pre covid. 532-655 run now, 532 to 650 pre covid. Add 18 minutes GCT-Harlem, its a 1 hour, 41 minute run. A mile longer vs the early 2010s, though, right Stylo?

The shortest train home pre Covid was 88 minutes from GCT. I believe it left at 5.

Early 2010’s there was a few 80 minute expresses going home. 82 min was the fastest going in.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Stylo

The shortest train home pre Covid was 88 minutes from GCT. I believe it left at 5.

Early 2010’s there was a few 80 minute expresses going home. 82 min was the fastest going in.

Those were the days of excellent service!

[1000fc]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Despite what people think, mass transit does not even come close to generating enough revenue to pay for itself. Highways do. In fact gas and transportation taxes more than pay for themselves and even generate enough revenue to pay for a portion of mass transit. That must be considered as well. Jay

Mass transit isn't supposed to be profitable, its supposed to alleviate the stress on other transit non-mass transit systems. That's how its viewed anywhere in the world where mass transit is taken seriously.

if we took out the subsides on both side, ie oil subsidies on the car side., mass transit would be cheaper. The oil subsidies are what keep people driving cars since the price of gas is artificially lower.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by 1000fc

Mass transit isn't supposed to be profitable, its supposed to alleviate the stress on other transit non-mass transit systems. That's how its viewed anywhere in the world where mass transit is taken seriously.

if we took out the subsides on both side, ie oil subsidies on the car side., mass transit would be cheaper. The oil subsidies are what keep people driving cars since the price of gas is artificially lower.

That’s not true. The so called gas subsidies are tax credits given oil companies for doing business. They are very similar to deductions allowed by other businesses for doing business so you can’t fairly completely eliminate them. Even if they are made the same as other businesses, it comes no where near the amount of money the $52.8 billion gas taxes generate. Jay