[BugsyPal]

For the record there once was the "Air Line" route ROW that bypassed New Heaven's "Shoreline" which was billed as "fastest and shortest" route between Boston and NYC.

Amtrak briefly considered restoring this ROW for use as higher or high speed rail to get around the curvaceous Shoreline route which makes up NEC from Boston to NYC.

Initial studies came back that it would simply cost too much so plan was scrapped.

https://rc-pedalpoint.blogspot.com/2...ine-trail.html

For record Amtrak has made all sorts of studies or whatever on how to speed up trains through CT which lie in large part in getting away from Shoreline ROW. Nearly every single one was killed before it even got serious traction by local residents of various areas of CT that would be affected.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussi....php?4,5781861

[JayCT]

Guess Jim Cameron touched a lot of nerves with last week’s column on I-95. He got lots of comments.

https://ctmirror.org/2023/12/10/ct-i...logged-artery/

[BPt111]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Guess Jim Cameron touched a lot of nerves with last week’s column on I-95. He got lots of comments.

https://ctmirror.org/2023/12/10/ct-i...logged-artery/

CT should reduce amount exits on I-95 and they should close some on-ramps why there are 300 feet away from people exiting their cars.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by BPt111

CT should reduce amount exits on I-95 and they should close some on-ramps why there are 300 feet away from people exiting their cars.

Exits aren't as much of an issue as on-ramps are.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by BPt111

CT should reduce amount exits on I-95 and they should close some on-ramps why there are 300 feet away from people exiting their cars.

Originally Posted by Stylo

Exits aren't as much of an issue as on-ramps are.

On and off ramps should be reduced BUT unless the roads onto which the increased traffic would be moved onto are also addressed, it will be a futile exercise.

You only have to look at the Big Dig in Boston. The old elevated Central Artery had 27 on and off ramps. The tunnel has only 14 but a huge improvement was made to the surface streets in order to handle now more traffic with the half the ingress/egress points.

[SteveM85]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Guess Jim Cameron touched a lot of nerves with last week’s column on I-95. He got lots of comments.

https://ctmirror.org/2023/12/10/ct-i...logged-artery/

Quote from the article "Love it or hate it, I-95 is the carotid artery of this state’s economy."
Love it or hate it?? Who in the hell would love it?

Whoever that retired traffic engineer from Glastonbury is that sent the email , that guy knows what the hell he's talking about. They should talk him out of retirement.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by robr2

On and off ramps should be reduced BUT unless the roads onto which the increased traffic would be moved onto are also addressed, it will be a futile exercise.

You only have to look at the Big Dig in Boston. The old elevated Central Artery had 27 on and off ramps. The tunnel has only 14 but a huge improvement was made to the surface streets in order to handle now more traffic with the half the ingress/egress points.

I would be down to "beta test" ramp meters. You'd have to pick a long enough on ramp so it doesn't back up into side streets, and also use the smart ones that don't allow too much of a backup.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I would be down to "beta test" ramp meters. You'd have to pick a long enough on ramp so it doesn't back up into side streets, and also use the smart ones that don't allow too much of a backup.

How about off ramps? Without the ability to get the traffic off 95 quickly, it's simply going to back up onto the highway.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by robr2

How about off ramps? Without the ability to get the traffic off 95 quickly, it's simply going to back up onto the highway.

Ramp meters are just for on ramps

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I would be down to "beta test" ramp meters. You'd have to pick a long enough on ramp so it doesn't back up into side streets, and also use the smart ones that don't allow too much of a backup.

The problem with ramp meters is that you have to have room to store vehicles waiting to get on the highway. CTDOT studied them 25 years ago and found that they weren’t reasonably feasible along I-95. The local street networks had little capacity or ability to accommodate the waiting vehicles and the on-ramps weren’t long enough to operate properly. Altering them would be prohibitively expensive.