[East of the River]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Yes, this was discussed back on page 65 of this thread. Jay

Doh went back a page but not far enough. I like the tunnel idea but really it depends on how it's paid for I think depressing the highway is reasonable. 91 Being underground would be a good thing for the city but it would be pretty complex to do and maintain the interchange with 84.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Anyone else see this?
Larson Calls For $10 Billion Tunnel Project - Hartford Courant

Were back to a I-84 tunnel again maybe with Federal funds

CT News Junkie | OP-ED | John Larson

This may never materialize, but IMO it's worth exploring. I don't mean to bring it up for the umpteenth time, but 84 left scars on the capitol city, and if burying the highway could link downtown with the area north of it instead of keeping it isolated (as it currently does), then maybe this would be practical. Call it The Big Dig, Part Deux.

I know some people will automatically react to this by calling it far-fetched and unrealistic, but if you consider how Boston have benefitted by having the forethought to do what they did, the end result seems more worthwhile. I realize Hartford is nowhere nearly as stimulating, as popular, or as vibrant as Boston, but on its own terms, on a smaller scale, it may benefit from this in the long run and help play a role in revitalizing it. The city obviously has a long way to go in other areas (lowering crime, curbing corruption, addressing quality of life issues in the outlying neighborhoods), but IMO this is worth considering as well.

With regards to the issue of public transit, as stated above, there is a need for it. While I don't agree that we should rely solely on our cars, it can't be all bus stops and rail stations every 200 yards, either (for reasons already stated above). There needs to be a balance. There's a shift in this country with respect to where people are living, and more and more people are choosing to live either in cities or right on the outskirts where the means of transportation tend to vary. As someone who lives in one of these areas, I'm glad to see high-speed rail is finally coming to town, and in speaking with a number of people, this is a means of transit that they say they support. This doesn't mean everyone should abandon their two-story house and car and settle for a mid-rise or high-rise building in a densely populated area just to be close to a rail station or a bust stop, but if people are increasingly choosing to live in these areas, this is where the demand lies. Obviously it makes no sense to lay rail tracks or place bus stops in rural suburbs where the primary means is the car, but as we gravitate closer to metro areas that's where things change. This is where there's some diversity as to the means of travel.

[East of the River]

So I like numbers sometimes. So I looked for some. I-93 in Boston (big dig) has ADT (average daily traffic) of 140-180k cars.

I-95 in Fairlfield between exit 21 and 22 is listed at 143k ADT. (I included a link below this is about average for most segments of 95 to the border and maybe a little on the high side)

I - 84 in Hartford is 141k at the Bulkley bridge and an astounding 170k ADT at Asylum ave.

Looking into it I tried to find a rule of thumb for highway ADT and size. FL DOT seems to list anything over 159K ADT as requiring 4 lanes in either direction.

Based on that it would seem 84 has a real capacity problem likely worse then 95's (but for a much shorter distance) It's also interesting to note that the traffic volumes are close to what Boston had when the big dig was started. (they have better mass transit thou)

Capacities used by state highway departments
https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Port...MHS_Report.pdf
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/docume...nburyUnion.pdf
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/docume...Stonington.pdf

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Doh went back a page but not far enough. I like the tunnel idea but really it depends on how it's paid for I think depressing the highway is reasonable. 91 Being underground would be a good thing for the city but it would be pretty complex to do and maintain the interchange with 84.

You are right, the engineering of such a project would be monumental to say the least. I also think that $10 billion is not a reasonable estimate of the cost of such a tunnel. The Central Artery in Boston cost $14 billion and it was completed 20 years ago. I doubt this could be done for that amount. The state studied building a tunnel for the Aetna Viaduct project and found just that section would cost $12 billion. I am not sure why John Larson thinks a bigger and longer tunnel would cost less. Jay

[Beeker2211]

Tunnels today, thanks to Tunnel Boring Machines, cost a fraction of what they did even 10 years ago.

From the WSJ about TBM:

The High-Tech, Low-Cost World of Tunnel Building - WSJ

[BeyondtheHorizon]

Originally Posted by East of the River

Based on that it would seem 84 has a real capacity problem likely worse then 95's (but for a much shorter distance) It's also interesting to note that the traffic volumes are close to what Boston had when the big dig was started. (they have better mass transit thou)
]

Yes... 6.5 miles of congestion on 84 around hartford from downtown to exit 41 compared to 45 miles of congestion on 95.(nearly 100 miles during summer Fridays). The congestion in waterbury is being fixed as we speak so 84 is clear sailing except for the hartford section.

[BPt111]

Hartford Line make big improvements is still on track for late 2017/early 2018 time frame

Cutting Edge Machine Helping to Keep Commuter Rail Project on Schedule | WNPR News

[mr2448]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Hartford Line make big improvements is still on track for late 2017/early 2018 time frame

Cutting Edge Machine Helping to Keep Commuter Rail Project on Schedule | WNPR News

this is how they laid track on the NE Corridor between New Haven and Boston when the line was electrified. While probably not in my lifetime, I think there is a good possibility of electrifying the Hartford line to Springfield from New haven if there is enough usage. This would allow through trains to NYC and beyond.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by mr2448

this is how they laid track on the NE Corridor between New Haven and Boston when the line was electrified. While probably not in my lifetime, I think there is a good possibility of electrifying the Hartford line to Springfield from New haven if there is enough usage. This would allow through trains to NYC and beyond.

I think we may see it electrified in the next 20 years or so if they can keep ridership. Honestly there is a fair number of daily riders to NYC from Hartford, if the price was lower I would use it more. Right now if works paying I take the train from Hartford, If I'm paying I either drive all the way in or pickup Metro north in New Haven.

[ayoskillz]

Originally Posted by East of the River

I think we may see it electrified in the next 20 years or so if they can keep ridership. Honestly there is a fair number of daily riders to NYC from Hartford, if the price was lower I would use it more. Right now if works paying I take the train from Hartford, If I'm paying I either drive all the way in or pickup Metro north in New Haven.

Hartford to nyc working in my opinion is not worth it. Too far. That would be a easy 3 plus hour 1 way trip. You will spend just has much of your time traveling than at work and even more less time at home.

The usa needs to look at Japan and these other countries that have high speed trains. Instead of building tracks for todays they need to plan and build for the future which is a high speed network. They high speed trains we have here now cant even compete there top speed from dc to nyc because of track conditions and too many curves ect, but they top speeds still dont equal does to other countries