1234nameuser t1_j63l4t3 wrote
Reply to comment by Shmeves in I-95 in CT ranks as most congested corridor in USA beating out LA; Merritt Parkway also makes top 10 by celticnutjob
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments