AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_j6398tt wrote
Fun details: the Merritt was built to relieve congestion on Route 1. The expressway that became I-95 was built to relieve congestion on the Merritt.
Route 1 remains quite congested.
Shmeves t1_j63h2nt wrote
It's not ever going to get better unless public transportation takes a huge swing up. Free buses is nice, but they don't run often enough for a ton of people and only cover certain areas. And the time is insane, I used to have someone working for me almost a decade ago that would travel 4 hours a day on the bus (round trip), where if they had a car it would've been maybe 1.5 hours with bad traffic, an hour normally. who the fuck wants to sit on a bus for 4 hours a day?
1234nameuser t1_j63l4t3 wrote
By definition, suburbs don't have the density to make mass transit affordable.
There's literally a train line that runs directly parallel to all of this, but getting to the train from the burbs ain't quick either.
johnsonutah t1_j63pgz0 wrote
That’s not the problem with the train - it’s just that it’s slow as fuck. And aside from like Norwalk and Stamford, there’s no office space or jobs near the actual stations. Even Stamford is fairly spread out. Trains need to speed up, and need to build up around the stations (even in our cities - New Haven has nothing by the train!!)
W00DERS0N t1_j65h16c wrote
Need light rail from harbor point up to the triangle of Long and high ridge rds.
mkt853 t1_j64hdbh wrote
There are usually shuttles in Greenwich, Stamford, and Norwalk that take you from a certain point where there are a bunch of office buildings straight to the train. I used to work in an office like that where there was a shuttle that ran all day and made 4 round trips per hour.
johnsonutah t1_j64vqeb wrote
Nothing I’ve seen in Stamford is convenient - mostly trolleys for the harbor pt area. Either way - still don’t see that as an excuse to not build up more around our train stations
W00DERS0N t1_j65j3mi wrote
There's a big slice of ghetto and open parking lots between Stamford station and the nicer Harbor Pt areas that would make for amazing infill area.
johnsonutah t1_j65mbat wrote
You are spot on. The area around Stamford station sucks
W00DERS0N t1_j6iekjr wrote
Even just putting in something nice in those empty lots would do wonders, but I get the feeling there's some prohibitive costs associated with brownfield reclamation, because that' absolutely prim real estate (major train stop, two exit ramps from 95, walk to the waterfront...)
johnsonutah t1_j6ihnxd wrote
Probably - most likely need state or federal funding which is tough to come by in CT. Feel like this is the case for a place like bridgeport and New Haven too wherever there are dilapidated old industrial buildings. We’re talking real estate within 2 hours of Manhattan - the entire area is economically worth redeveloping
Asleep_Dependent6064 t1_j63qqob wrote
If you can't find your way around new haven easily by the busses, this is your failure not the transit system. There's bus service all over new haven.
johnsonutah t1_j63rsiu wrote
I just think it’s pathetic / sad that there’s virtually zero development around Union Station - no restaurants, shops, office space. There’s The Towers a few streets over by the highway…
And asking people to take the bus around New Haven…most people will just drive. There’s enough parking, there’s only a few areas that truly feel walkable anyways, and people prefer transit on rail (like the T) vs a bus.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j63u2qh wrote
What's right around the station like now? Was very low income housing projects last I was there. Vaguely remember some development though. Just looked at the map, it's just vacant lots?
johnsonutah t1_j63x6kv wrote
Large empty lot across the street. Projects like apartment building to the right across from the parking garage. Adjacent to the train is a parking garage and then a surface parking lot. Across from the surface lot is a police station lol.
The only place to get food is a tiny Dunkin’ Donuts inside the station and the tiny sbarro when it’s actually open, nothing available around the station.
The saddest part to me is that the now empty lot where church st projects were is evidently going to be developed by the same landlord who ran that project into a slum…and surprise there is zero development being done in this lot, in the station, or anywhere else around the station.
OpelSmith t1_j63vr4p wrote
There is a project that is supposed to be happening across from the station. It's why the Church st south project was demolished. Also a new parking garage next to the station wherw the surface lot is, with retail on the ground floor
johnsonutah t1_j63wszg wrote
The website for that project has zero updates since mid last year, there is no construction or any visible progress whatsoever which is sad. Tearing down the Church St projects started in I believe 2018 and didn’t wrap up until like last year or 2021…pretty sure the same landlord who ran those decrepit projects has development rights to the empty land and surprise surprise…nothing is in progress.
This area should be an economic powerhouse for the state smh
OpelSmith t1_j63xkem wrote
Yeah I'm worried with the rise of interest rates they're just saying fuck it. Like the big hole in the ground at Elm/Orange in the heart of downtown. But the Colosseum site is finally going after years, so fingers crossed
Whaddaulookinat t1_j64360s wrote
Generally, developers get dedicated lines of credit for those types of projects that are essentially shorter mortgages. So as long as they had the funding secured before the rate hike, and the line is still open, interest rate isn't too much of an issue.
btmc t1_j63ou4b wrote
Also that train line is way too slow
Enginerdad t1_j63wckg wrote
That's not true at all. Suburbs in all different parts of Europe, Japan, and other places have many time more more public transportation than we do here. It's much more about the car culture that we live in, where everybody owns a car and it's generally the most convenient way to travel.
toasterb t1_j66au3i wrote
Suburbs in CT are way too spread out and that sustains the car culture. I live in Vancouver now, and every time I return home, I am shocked at how much space there is.
Our suburbs look like blocks upon blocks of this, and these aren't dense enough to support the type of transit that could cut traffic significantly.
Sure there are buses in our burbs that are more effective than just about anything in CT, but you need significant multi-family density to really change things.
Enginerdad t1_j66br12 wrote
There we go, now we're addressing the issues. It's not the existence of suburbs, it's the distance between them. But it's also the fact that we've been a car culture for so long that basically everybody outside of cities owns a car, so they don't see a need for public transit. It's this weird Domino effect where, because we didn't have public transit 100 years ago, people figured out other ways to get around (namely cars), so now we don't need public transit as much. But of course we need it a lot more than we have it currently. This car culture is unsustainable both and environmental and traffic sense.
toasterb t1_j66d71f wrote
To be clear, I'm not referring to the suburbs being too far spaced between each other -- which may be the case. The homes are just too spread out and nobody can do anything but drive to get day-to-day tasks done.
For buses to be functional, you need a critical mass of folks that can easily walk to bus stops and then those buses need to be able to relatively quickly get them to where they need to go. And that means more density.
Though I think a lot of this is semantics about what a "suburb" actually is. We need more "urban style" development whether that happens in towns we think of as "suburbs" or not.
CT could actually have decent bones to support more transit in certain cities. But we have hollowed out our downtowns to the point where there's nothing worth going to there. And the malls/big box stores have really cemented it.
It'll take a big shift in how we live to really make a change. Living in a city now, we get by just fine as a family of four with one car, and honestly we don't use the car all that much. Lots of buses and cycling. It's pretty great.
rubyslippers3x t1_j67522a wrote
There was a decent rail line in CT once upon a time. In Hartford County its now mostly converted to recreational bike paths
1234nameuser t1_j65zany wrote
Those suburbs either have far more density than Stamford or they sit between 2 major destination on an existing route.
Regardless of terminology, it's about density.
Enginerdad t1_j66a5cy wrote
ALL of the suburbs in Europe and Japan are more dense than Stamford?
1234nameuser t1_j68bq73 wrote
You tell me.
What suburbs with density levels the same as suburbs of Stamford have train access in EU?
shotpun t1_j646yw9 wrote
every other country with suburbs has proven this wrong
grottycrumpet t1_j65dcte wrote
Have you been on that train? It’s so bumpy and slow, feels like no one’s maintained the tracks in 100+ years
What’s funny is it’s slow as fuck but still manages to move 180,000 people per day, 30k more than i95.
Edit: and thank GOD for metro north, else we’d need a 3rd and maybe a 4th highway running parallel to 95 and Merritt
Jenaxu t1_j65j3wu wrote
Not with that attitude. Suburbs can be built in a more transit orientated way without increasing density (depending on what you're defining as density), we just have to actually put the effort in to actually do that. But we've deliberately done the opposite so it's not surprising that it'd be hard to immediately overlay effective transit all at once.
Plus, affordability is kind of a whatever point. Driving a car is not very affordable either, not just in maintaining the roads and infrastructure, but in forcing every family to have at least one or more depreciating assets that they have to pay to maintain, insure, fuel, etc. just to do anything. And regardless, transit should be a service, there's nothing wrong with the government providing a service without being inherently profitable.
FxTree-CR2 t1_j63pifr wrote
Anyone that has ever tried to use yung metro as a regular transit option knows that it ain’t adequate.
ThemesOfMurderBears t1_j64bfh0 wrote
I live near Hartford so I don't go near 95 very often (maybe a few times a year, and almost never during rush hour). I would be happy to use alternate transportation if was viable, but it isn't. Getting to my job is about 25 minutes in my car. If I were to take public transportation, it is closer to two hours -- and that is only one way.
Fit_Low592 t1_j63te6j wrote
This is true. There is a “induced demand” fallacy, that it’s easy to assume that widening or building more roads will relieve congestion, but in reality it makes people want to drive more since there is more space and options, thus creating more traffic anyway. More Mass transit options are the only way to combat this. They need to make the trains more efficient. It would be nice if one thing we could have would be the double-decker trains like NJT has, although I’m sure there is some investment needed in catenaries and tunnels.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j63uekd wrote
Small vehicles is another option. That Segway guy was ahead of his time.
Fit_Low592 t1_j63uip2 wrote
There is this thing called a bike too. 🤣 although people can’t realistically do a commute on either of those vehicles.
AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j63unhb wrote
🤯
lilmoshx t1_j64pcvr wrote
I had that same thing a whole lot more recently than a decade ago. I used to commute from Stratford to Meriden by MNR and Hartford rail. Between the two trains and layover, it was 2 hours one way, whereas it's about 45 minutes by car.
Tried to catch a bus to my first day of work in Hartford to save money compared to the train. Maybe this is just an outlier, but I got there 3 hours later than I was supposed to.
rubyslippers3x t1_j674q4b wrote
I live in Hartford County. I would love to take mass transit to anywhere in the state and have tried. It's just not realistic. I can't even pick up the Hartford line that goes to New Haven without driving 40 minutes to the nearest station. I can drive to New Haven in 1 hour 5 minutes... there's no point. Give us a Torrington or West Hartford stop and I might give it a go. Also 95 sucks. Lived in Fairfield County for 10 years.. good riddance!!
Bobinct t1_j642v5m wrote
Smart cars that work together would help.
[deleted] t1_j63iu6n wrote
[deleted]
Warpedme t1_j63jw80 wrote
This is simply not true. At this point a very large chunk of Fairfield residents are NYC transplants that are used to decent public transit and complain about CT's lack of it every single day. They would absolutely use it regularly. Hell, if there were regular, reliable, frequent, affordable buses or subways from the train in Stamford out to bulls head and throughout the main city of Stamford, it would put a HUGE dent in 95 rush hour traffic AND Stamford internal traffic.
johnsonutah t1_j63pk3t wrote
Have you never ridden metro north? Train is packed and everyone gets off at stops in Fairfield County…there’s barely anyone left by New Haven lol
BobbyRobertson t1_j63bkck wrote
Just one more lane bro, I swear we're gonna fix traffic just one more lane
RededHaid t1_j63ki9v wrote
If the extra lane is HOV and busses, it’s a start.
Delicious_Score_551 t1_j64eqnt wrote
I think adding light rail & eliminating parking in cities may have a better impact.
Trains = more volume, and an express bus that needs the highway would be better served by a train. Eliminating parking ensures people are forced to take the trains.
RededHaid t1_j64hpba wrote
Try getting a cab/Uber in NYCX when it's raining. Now add light rail and take away some parking. What have you solved? I'll often do an errand in Manchester, then drop by West Hartford, perhaps before picking somebody up at BDL. Using light rail wouldn't get me near my stops, so it would add extra time at best. And if I bought stuff?
Delicious_Score_551 t1_j64px4o wrote
Local busses - those are for getting you from transit hubs to the neighborhood. They are part of the transit picture.
Busses are not good for heavy/high volume/long distance transport.
RededHaid t1_j650yw5 wrote
I disagree with you. Cars are for when you have things to do and aren’t spending time going downtown to transfer for the blue line back out of town. Busses are awesome for long distances but not when you associate them with the port authority bus station in New York.
mkt853 t1_j64hvch wrote
How popular is CT FastTrak? That's a bus that rides in its own special lane that no one else can use.
RededHaid t1_j64i74v wrote
And this has what to do with the 95 and the Merrit?
mkt853 t1_j64jyhf wrote
Because someone suggested buses running in HOV lanes as a solution. We already have that in Connecticut, so we should know whether that's a legitimate solution for this corridor or not because we have a decade's worth of data.
RededHaid t1_j64ksz5 wrote
Are you comparing a bus/HOV lane on 95 to a convoluted commuter bus path from new Britain to Hartford?
W00DERS0N t1_j65jcae wrote
Why is it convoluted? They reused an old RR right of way, and with the BRT solution they used, different routes can branch off as needed.
It's been rated highly as a good use of the technology.
RededHaid t1_j65k2kz wrote
>level 6mkt853 · 4 hr. agoBecause someone suggested buses running in HOV lanes as a solution. We already have that in Connecticut, so we should know whether that's a legitimate solution for this corridor or not because we have a decade's worth of data.
absurd-bird-turd t1_j64xv4d wrote
I know that people always argue against the one more lane thing. But atleast in the south east where I-95 is only two lanes it really should be 3. I mean there are sections where the grade is pretty high and often times the entire highway gets held up by two 18 wheelers trying to drag race up a hill at 45 mph. Sure in the long run it would relieve all the congestion. But its getting more and more to be a safety issue that its not 3 lanes at this point
ThemesOfMurderBears t1_j66a0f2 wrote
Redditors trying to act like every city planner and transit manager in existence doesn’t already know about induced demand.
ffchusky t1_j63ijrf wrote
I'm pretty sure the main point of the merit was just to give people jobs. It was a Roosevelt new deal project. Every mile or two had to be designed and built by a different company and every bridge too to maximize the number of people/companies working on it.
Not to say your wrong but getting people to work was the main goal, the actual highway was a bonus.
hymen_destroyer t1_j65bt39 wrote
The Merritt was never supposed to be a commuter road
fingers t1_j662pwk wrote
Literally a PARK way. There were parks on the sides of the road that you could stop and have a picnic at.
somegridplayer t1_j64y3o8 wrote
I thought the Merritt was built to resemble Mad Max
radish-slut t1_j65a2wo wrote
fun fact: building highways/widening roads has never improved congestion, ever. and never will
[deleted] t1_j67muxp wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments