Comments
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]
iamsce t1_j638gnm wrote
I've seen pics of traffic in LA. Bpt to Stamford is terrible during rush hour. Going north is fine in the morning, south is fine in the afternoon.
No way it's as bad as LA. They have 6 lanes on both sides and still doesn't move.
your_inner_monologue t1_j63ogn5 wrote
I lived in LA for 15 years and for me whats worse about LA is that not just the freeways that are clogged. its every surface street, side street, cul de sac and avenue is jammed up with stop and go traffic almost every hour of every day.
throwaway_5863 t1_j63agar wrote
Wouldn’t it effectively be the same here with more lanes? Induced demand?
BenVarone t1_j63n8rh wrote
You’re not wrong about induced demand, but neither is u/iamsce about how it’s both ways in LA (and Seattle). I think the big difference is that southern CT is basically a big suburb of NYC, and so all of the traffic is tied to people commuting. The flight to the suburbs during the pandemic (when there were also less people on the road) hasn’t helped.
I’m fortunate enough to WFH in Stamford, and the only time I really notice the congestion is when my wife and I visit her family in NJ & PA. When I lived in NYC and Philly, the traffic was constant and unavoidable.
Whaddaulookinat t1_j63w6fz wrote
> southern CT is basically a big suburb of NYC, and so all of the traffic is tied to people commuting.
The issue that it isn't, people assume it is and the infrastructure treats it as such instead of the third largest concentration of commerce in the US that's actually fairly self contained economically, socially, and certainly politically. Edit: numbers coming in have alluded that the god awful failure of i95 and the other network is that people that were using the train for intrastate travel haven't been because the MTA focused on CT-NYC commuters which for decades hasn't been the bulk of trip generation.
Bridgeport-Norwalk-Stamford is by it's own measure a massive economic centre with over 600k high paying jobs whereas only 40kish in FFC leave the state for employment (with about 25k inflow from NYS).
johnsonutah t1_j63ykko wrote
Yeah but the area around the train in Bridgeport isn’t economically thriving…the area around Stamford has some office buildings yes but otherwise you’d have to bring & ride a bike to get to the many other employers throughout the city (aka just drive instead), and idk enough about around the Norwalk station to comment.
We really need to do a better job building up / redeveloping around our stations
Whaddaulookinat t1_j640h6n wrote
> We really need to do a better job building up / redeveloping around our stations
100% in agreement. The fact there's any surface or structured parking right at the station is beyond a waste of tax rolls and economic development.
Norwalk has the Merritt 7 complex which has the main campus of Datto (huge homegrown corp) and to my knowledge still the day-to-day c suite offices of GE that will probably stay there for quite a while, if not indefinitely due to the failure of the Boston campus.
Bridgeport... ho boy yeah. There are a few issues there from no pedestrian path to the east side (which could expand the fabric of the CBD by a huge margin) and a serious lack of Class A office suites/office apartments. Interest in building new Class A has been tepid, largely because propriety buildings have "vacancy" (cough, Bridgeport Centre) but aren't really for rent which throws off many potential developers on first glance, as does the reputation that Bridgeport politics has/had/will have. That said, the housing market in the CBD is still white hot, with any rentals getting interest within weeks of coming online. There's too much parking, too many property owners that are depreciation harvesting, and too many poor uses like the Bob's strip mall. So I'd say the CBD is chugging along, not booming, but also not quite anemic.
W00DERS0N t1_j65jn62 wrote
Merritt7 needs more trains to it. There should be a flyover just past Sono to avoid train congestion.
tonysnight t1_j644kvt wrote
Yea the traffic here is greatly exaggerated. I mean there's traffic but as you say I've seen the traffic there. Not in person but random clips here and there of live footage and that is like Brooklyn traffic. Like going to AC traffic during the summer but year round.
Luis__FIGO t1_j64d9nx wrote
>No way it's as bad as LA. They have 6 lanes on both sides and still doesn't move.
It's worse, that's exactly what the report says.
iamsce t1_j64p19s wrote
Written by people who drive from bpt to stsmford everyday, probably.
Luis__FIGO t1_j64pc7o wrote
no... they work and live in kirkland, washington.... they're data anaylsts who specialize in traffic.
Enginerdad t1_j63wmnt wrote
The number of lanes doesn't have anything to do with congestion, that's volume. A six lane highway at 11 in the morning can easily be less congested than a 1 lane highway at 5:00 in the afternoon
beneath_the_bottom t1_j64h9sb wrote
Completely agree lol
mkt853 t1_j64if5h wrote
LA also has a shi*ton more highways. There's only the 6 lane 95 and 4 lane glorified road funneling traffic into the country's largest city here, and LA is also inland quite a bit giving it a lot more options.
poboy212 t1_j639tvd wrote
What a joke. CT traffic is nothing compared to LA.
No-Coast-Punk t1_j63bzm8 wrote
LA traffic when I lived there in like '06 was magnitudes worse than CT traffic in '23.
poboy212 t1_j63cf7u wrote
Exactly. There’s no comparison. CT have slowdowns and some periods of standstill. LA highways are massive parking lots most of the time.
No-Coast-Punk t1_j63nu84 wrote
It's not even the highways.
We don't have the gridlocked surface streets here either.
worm_on_acropolis t1_j63fhbn wrote
Agreed. Lived in LA for years. Soul crushing commute.
Knineteen t1_j63l7ga wrote
And CT is nothing like LA. Imagine driving through an hour of traffic just to arrive at….Bridgeport!?
johnsonutah t1_j63psqe wrote
You can definitely drive through an hour of traffic in LA to arrive at a place that looks a lottt like Bridgeport
Kolzig33189 t1_j63dt21 wrote
LA and whatever the major highway that runs through Atlanta has perpetual never ending traffic probably 90% of the day. 95 sucks but nothing near as bad as those two.
pilcase t1_j63j2pq wrote
I was coming in to say this - no fucking way traffic is worse on 95. Even I-93 in Boston has worse traffic.
hithereimross t1_j63l6rf wrote
As someone who lives in CT, was born and raised in ATL, and does work in LA occasionally, I-95 is the easiest drive compared to the others. This article doesn’t ring true to me at all.
Luis__FIGO t1_j64dntb wrote
You should read the report, it's backed up by a ton of data
park28 t1_j63gl5w wrote
False. Cross Bronx expressway
splimp t1_j63iuop wrote
That thing is a horrible shitshow
mkt853 t1_j64j5o6 wrote
You should have seen it 20 years ago when it was being reconstructed. Today, you're looking at the new and improved CBX. Traveling through NYC during that time forced me to use 287 if coming from well into NJ, or doing the whole GW to HH Parkway bypass because it royally sucked trying to get through all that construction.
jaywillct t1_j63v8vo wrote
And the Van Wyck, they say no one's ever beat it
[deleted] t1_j6608ua wrote
[deleted]
EdRedSled t1_j669s5a wrote
Corso de’Satan?
nycemt83 t1_j63flmy wrote
I made it from West Hartford to Queens last Friday in two hours flat, zero traffic on the Merritt. I'm serious. I couldn't believe it either.
Edit - I forgot to mention that I left at 3 pm but all the rush hour traffic seemed to be heading in the opposite direction
AMerrickanGirl t1_j63rj7h wrote
I used to live in WH and my mother lived in Little Neck, Queens (good old North Shore Towers). I’ve done the trip in under two hours, but I had to leave Queens by 5 am.
AvogadrosMoleSauce t1_j64agwd wrote
Are you a wizard?
nycemt83 t1_j64b0tk wrote
I must be. The only hiccup I encountered was that the southbound exit from 84 to 8 is still closed so I had to go north and loop around, otherwise it was smooth sailing
[deleted] t1_j64jskw wrote
[deleted]
wakinupdrunk t1_j68csn0 wrote
I’ve done New Haven to Philly in under 3, but yours might be more impressive here.
nycemt83 t1_j68kqtg wrote
considering that on more than one occasion it took me 3-ish hours to get to Philly from NYC before, I'd say you win. I once sat on the street leading to the holland tunnel entrance for two hours on a friday afternoon.
azathot t1_j63ctw7 wrote
Whomever wrote this article has never been to LA. There is nothing like I-5 on a Friday in the summer, it's like actual hellmouth opened, and forced you understand that pain is real, and you will never leave this eldritch horror of unspeakable, twisting congestion. It's the actual representation of the highway to hell.
Luis__FIGO t1_j64dtry wrote
The article is written by someone who read a study on traffic that determined this area was the worst...
benk4 t1_j63hyx5 wrote
Depends how they measured it. It's not completely clear from the article. I'm in Houston and it can get pretty bad here, but a lot of that is the length of Houston commutes. Like the highway isn't quite as slow, but it's much longer.
Evan_802Vines t1_j63fe5p wrote
Sounds like they're comparing Stamford to a county the size of CT? Odd. I had always wondered when visiting LA in the 90s why we always opted for back roads and public transportation most of the time. It dawned on me as soon as I started driving there. The parking lot known as the 405.
alliesl t1_j63cs7u wrote
I lived in LA for many years. LA is worse. Plus when you get off the highways the traffic doesn't stop.
howdidigetheretoday t1_j64qtl2 wrote
My unsubstantiated claim: put unlimited free parking at every Metro-North station, and watch the world change. Eminent domain, nice tall parking garages, and run roughshod over local zoning regulations. I am not saying I support this, but it would be the fastest way to change things at the lowest cost.
Luis__FIGO t1_j65f48e wrote
And say goodbye to any income tax from fairfield County
howdidigetheretoday t1_j6i5tyy wrote
So you are confirming this would solve the traffic problem? ;)
1234nameuser t1_j63d6me wrote
Am I the only not concerned at all about this?
I can't compete with NYC salaries for a decent standard of living in CT.
johnsonutah t1_j63q2mh wrote
This is very concerning, given that Fairfield County and Stamford at this point are very important economic hubs for CT, practically the only part of the state growing, and far more desirable for new employers and employees alike.
If we can’t solve our traffic issues (likely via public transport), our economy won’t improve.
Whaddaulookinat t1_j63wxao wrote
> This is very concerning, given that Fairfield County and Stamford at this point are very important economic hubs for CT, practically the only part of the state growing, and far more desirable for new employers and employees alike. > >
All of the major urban centers in CT grew. It's the exurbs that are depopulating at a fairly massive clip.
>If we can’t solve our traffic issues (likely via public transport), our economy won’t improve.
Absolutely agree
johnsonutah t1_j63xeu5 wrote
Did Hartford grow? I thought the stats I saw showed Hartford county stagnant while FFC grew
Whaddaulookinat t1_j6414nh wrote
>The only other counties to see growth through the 2010s were Hartford County and New Haven County.
I really don't have the time to go granular but Hartford and New Britain and it's immediate inner ring grew as the hinterland shrunk... Same thing with New Haven/West Have and Waterbury. CT's population is concentrating in areas where neighborhood density was already some of the highest in the nation.
johnsonutah t1_j64f62j wrote
What is the hinterland?
Sounds like our cities are seeing greater interest - we should redevelop them so they’re actually attractive to talent and to employers
Whaddaulookinat t1_j64gm6o wrote
Exurb/Semi-rural. And if we're considering the urban inner ring municipalities I absolutely agree
blueberry_0834 t1_j63lpy5 wrote
WOOHOO WE'RE NUMBER ONE❗️❗️❗️
fuhry t1_j63pl04 wrote
> “I just don’t understand why people put up with, tolerate, endure those kinds of [road traffic] conditions, even if it’s just one or two days a week, instead of taking the train,” Cameron said.
Because the train is almost laughably expensive.
My Ford Focus RS, at an average of 19.5mpg of 93 octane fuel, costs $26.83 to drive the 56.9 mile round trip from my home to the office on W 23rd in Manhattan at $4.60/gal, plus the $3 toll for the Henry Hudson Bridge.
That same trip in my wife's RAV4 Prime costs $9.87 plus tolls, based on the current $3.29/gal or so for 87 octane.
Round trip Metro North peak fare (Wilton to GCT) is $34 a person, so it's $68 just for me and my wife to get into and out of the city for a weekday outing. That also does not count subway fares if our destination isn't within walking distance of Grand Central.
So the cost is comparable if I take the car that drinks premium fuel and it's just me. But not under any other circumstances. $68 vs $13 is a complete joke if you're doing that more than occasionally.
I would also theorize that the increase of remote work has resulted in most white-collar employees in NYC only being in the office 1-3 days a week and working the other 2 days from home. If your in-office schedule is unpredictable it makes almost no sense to buy the 20-trip or unlimited ride passes. MNR discounts are rather paltry with the 10-ride tickets.
Extrapolating the daily costs with tolls, it would cost about $257 to drive the RAV4 Prime into the city and back for 20 days - the average number of working days in a month. A monthly commuter pass is $333.
I could go on endlessly with pros and cons, talk about parking costs, working from the train (if you're lucky enough to get a seat), depreciation/maintenance/repairs, fixed costs associated with vehicle ownership, subway fares, whatever. You get the deal.
Bottom line, Metro North is more expensive in most circumstances, and the WFH revolution has resulted in it making even less financial sense.
Whaddaulookinat t1_j63xpp2 wrote
> I would also theorize that the increase of remote work has resulted in most white-collar employees in NYC only being in the office 1-3 days a week and working the other 2 days from home.
The thing is that NYC bound commuters wasn't as large of a pool than the MTA thought when they were redesigning the scheduling post COVID. Once you see it in this light the New Haven line passenger numbers makes far more sense and the solution far easier.
teknorpi t1_j65ogmd wrote
Totally this. I have a 10 mile commute that takes 30-45 minutes. I could do the same commute in 20 minutes with the train.
Parking $6, train $5.50. Total $11.50 per day.
Gas car $2
EV $1
AMerrickanGirl t1_j63rql4 wrote
It’s $34 round trip now? How much is a monthly pass?
LessMiserables49 t1_j661ksq wrote
Why are you putting 93 octane in a Focus?
j0892 t1_j66kzb0 wrote
The Focus RS is a sporty, turbocharged version of the standard Focus that requires 93.
LessMiserables49 t1_j691bkz wrote
Ah, I did not know that
louied13 t1_j66p1ml wrote
You just nailed exactly why I also drive the one day a week I have to go into my office in soho from Easton. I work 7-3 so I leave at 5am so no rush hour traffic, it takes 60-90 minutes and costs about $60 - $42 to park, $6 for the Henry Hudson toll total, and 5ish gallons of gas. If I took mnr it’s 15 min drive to the train station, an 80-90 minute train ride, 15 on the subway plus any waiting around time. Cost is $36 for round trip off peak, $6.50 to park at the station and $5.75 round trip subway. So for basically the cost of gas a week I get a seat, my own music, and the ability to stop anywhere or anytime I want/need and save myself 1-2 hours or my time.
douche_mongrel t1_j63n93q wrote
Having lived in Stamford for 10 years I’d say the traffic has gotten significantly worse. My friends and I just call 95 ”The Parking Lot”
AtomWorker t1_j63t3cp wrote
I'm not surprised at all. Conditions already sucked a decades ago, but it's gradually gotten worse. At least back then there were seasonal lulls; nowadays it's bad all the time.
State government is at least partially to blame for this mess. Over the years they've wasted money on lightly populated corners of the state instead of focusing resources where the congestion is heaviest. What projects they did undertakehave always been too small in scope and in some cases ultimately made things worse; exit 27 in Bridgeport comes to mind.
MetroNorth isn't helping matters either. It's better than it used to be, but it's still not ideal. Too slow and there are a lot of annoyances.
Whaddaulookinat t1_j63y144 wrote
> exit 27 in Bridgeport comes to mind.
To be completely fair, the idea was that Super 7 would help connect to i84 and ultimately i90 in Western Mass which would have relieved some of the truck freight traffic. Also the thought that truck based freight in general would get to the usage it has is a huge point for bottlenecking.
jamalamadangdong t1_j63gi64 wrote
So I’m not crazy, then
IndicationOver t1_j63qpha wrote
nope
ucbmckee t1_j63nm8x wrote
I've only lived here a month, but I've yet to experience true bumper-to-bumper stuck-for-ages traffic on either 95 or 15. It gets a bit slow sometimes and occasionally stops, but nothing, nothing, nothing like traffic elsewhere. London, Portland, San Francisco, LA, etc. I've been stuck regularly where it takes you an hour to go a couple of miles (or less on bad days). Maybe it was different before the pandemic, but it's definitely not bad here.
Fit_Low592 t1_j63t4sw wrote
YES! We’re #1 in something!
skylargray t1_j63ucaf wrote
I recently moved here from LA/Orange County where I lived for almost 10yrs. Nothing in CT comes remotely close to the congestion in LA.
Luis__FIGO t1_j64e41j wrote
Not surprising the people here disagreeing didnt read the report to see the stats that back this up...
2-timeloser2 t1_j63frog wrote
I call “bs”. Los Angelino here, there is NO WAY ct is even close. Been in ct ten years and it’s so much better here
Enginerdad t1_j63wx6n wrote
I'm loving all the people on here who think their personal perspective is more valid than actual data. Read the article, people. It tells you exactly how they measure and define congestion.
ertebolle t1_j63wz6b wrote
If only there was some way to charge people to drive on I-95 in order to discourage unnecessary trips + nudge out-of-staters to drive through Massachusetts instead.
smackrock t1_j644hrr wrote
Not surprising. I-95 in CT exceeded it's capacity by 1965.
>The Connecticut Turnpike opened southwest Connecticut to a mass migration of New Yorkers, leading to substantial residential and economic growth in Fairfield and New Haven counties. The turnpike became a primary commuter route to New York City. With additional segments of I-95 that opened in the 1960s connecting to Providence and Boston, the turnpike became an essential route for transporting people and goods throughout the Northeast. As a result, much of the turnpike had become functionally obsolete by 1965, with traffic exceeding its design capacity.
>Originally designed to carry 60,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on the four-lane sections and 90,000 VPD on the six-lane portion west of New Haven, the turnpike carried 75,000–100,000 VPD east of New Haven, and 130,000–200,000 VPD between New Haven and the New York state line as of 2006.
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j644jft wrote
>The Connecticut Turnpike (officially the Governor John Davis Lodge Turnpike) is a controlled-access highway and former toll road in the U.S. state of Connecticut; it is maintained by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT). Spanning approximately 128 miles (206 km) along a generally west–east axis, its roadbed is shared with Interstate 95 (I-95) for 88 miles (142 km) from the New York state border in Greenwich to East Lyme; I-395 for 36 miles (58 km) from East Lyme to Plainfield; and State Road 695 (SR 695) for four miles (6. 4 km) from Plainfield to the Rhode Island state line at U.S. Route 6 (US 6) in Killingly.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
DBIDSmarksman t1_j64lton wrote
Lol CT has the highest ranks in the most undesirable categories
STODracula t1_j64vnic wrote
I used to have to commute down there and I don't miss it at all. It was like rolling a 20 sided dice where only a 20 would guarantee no accidents and a smooth commute.
BookOfMakai t1_j65274u wrote
Wow I’m on 95 all the time and never would’ve thought it was the MOST congested. It’s definitely busy sometimes but that’s surprising
stronghealthjourney t1_j65zvra wrote
They've got to find a way to better accommodate the exit ramps from some of the major highways onto Merritt.
Valuable_Notice_3358 t1_j65zw1o wrote
i dread 95 south of new haven - way more congested, closer you get to NY the more....assertive the drivers are too":)
bramletabercrombe t1_j666g8b wrote
Let's stop kidding ourselves, there are PLENTY of solutions to the problem of traffic but there is no political will to solve them. Not when lobbying firms like AAA spend billions lobbying congress to nix any legislation that favors mass transit over cars.
[deleted] t1_j63dqeg wrote
[deleted]
midmodmad t1_j63g20c wrote
No way. Lifelong Fairfield County resident here. I visited LA and it was so much worse. Didn’t matter what time of day, we were always stuck in traffic. Air quality was horrible. We actually cut our time in LA short to get the f***out of there and go to San Diego.
[deleted] t1_j63mjjv wrote
[deleted]
IndicationOver t1_j63rnzv wrote
Damnit where is the butt hurt guy the other day who I told why would you want manual for you daily driver and that car post with the kid asking about dealerships/cars.
Man I wish I had his name right now.
pastafaz t1_j64345b wrote
Start work earlier and leave earlier. End of problem.
howdidigetheretoday t1_j64qbe7 wrote
I spent a career of starting work earlier, and then staying later (because the boss wouldn't let me leave early) just to avoid the traffic on 95 & 15. In general, the commutes were not terrible, but the 13 hour workday can wear you down after a couple of decades... also, you still gotta "fit in" between the end of nighttime lane closures in the AM and the beginning of same that night :(
pastafaz t1_j64vbp6 wrote
You got OT right?
kesagatame-and-Chill t1_j64a4yf wrote
Both roads should be part of my commute, but I take back roads instead. The truth is most of that congestion is people driving through the state. It should be a toll road, with an EZ pass system that charges local vehicles little or no money.
I take the train whenever I can. The issue is I am on the Waterbury line. Diesel train, slow as hell, and not even a train every hour. So if you miss the train, you are fucked. For some reason, there is a two-hour gap between 8-10, so it fucks anyone with a local commute. I love the train and would take it more, but it is a hassle. I do it once or twice a week to take a breather from the death race of Route 8.
Certainly enough density around lines down the valley.
tonyMEGAphone t1_j64i29y wrote
We're actually number one at complaining.
Sonakstyle t1_j64ktk9 wrote
Well yeah it does.
dirtyMETHOD t1_j652eac wrote
Good thing I never have to take it. Maybe once a decade
Flimsy_Patience_7780 t1_j653gpt wrote
Fuck yeah! Putting CT on the map!! 💪🏻😤🤣
Kodiak01 t1_j65al3z wrote
Least-Chip-3923 t1_j65d4o7 wrote
Absolutely no surprise here
SnooRevelations6632 t1_j65hnx8 wrote
Not accurate at all, the list sucks
capttony84 t1_j65i1o9 wrote
95 in CT is god awful but looking at the rest of the list how is 495 and 270 in Maryland not on that list?
Fun-Ad-6554 t1_j65m97u wrote
It's also worth noting the lack of affordable housing not just for the poor but middle class means everyone who works in Stamford/Greenwich/Fairfield is forced to live North/East of work to have a half decent living arrangement despite dealing with the 1.5 hour ride from Bridgeport to Greenwich at 7am.
EdRedSled t1_j669kb9 wrote
Well we know it’s not the cops pulling people over!
Mrripleyg t1_j66tlta wrote
I literally drive this every single day. if you don't leave Greenwich northbound by 2pm you're fucked.
mianrezooy t1_j66zn7w wrote
Ehhhh I don’t believe it. LA is different monster lol.
Forward-Ant-4433 t1_j67poxj wrote
I’ve been telling people for years we need a bridge across the sound… BRIDGEport would be the obvious place to put it.
Rude_Technician655 t1_j63fx7x wrote
No way 95 should only be 2 lanes.
RededHaid t1_j63l0i8 wrote
If only many sections of it were three lanes.
bristleboar t1_j63xezl wrote
Written by someone who has never been to LA apparently
Luis__FIGO t1_j65fasu wrote
Written by people who study traffic all day
Glittering_Stock_798 t1_j6416l8 wrote
I've driven through LA and between LA and San Diego, and I'm sorry, but 12 lanes of standstill traffic is an everyday occurrence in Socal. It's bad here, but it's mind-boggling out on the West Coast.
Sonakstyle t1_j64kvn1 wrote
We need to open the shoulder during rush hour
Justinontheinternet t1_j65tijj wrote
Fucking pathetic it’s been over 40 years and no one has done shit to make it better in one of the wealthiest Counties in the entire country. If this doesn’t show they don’t give a fuck about you idk what will.
Think about that on your 15 mile 2 hour each way commute. Then think of the taxes you pay for this shit. This state is absolutely pathetic.
Knineteen t1_j63ldf3 wrote
And our esteemed politicians are doing what to correct this?
PS - More mass transit isn’t the answer.
johnsonutah t1_j63q7zg wrote
So you just want to add some more lanes which will inevitably get clogged up? What happens when there’s an accident, highway still gets rocked. Faster mass transit and more if it is the best strategy
Knineteen t1_j641r8v wrote
Love all the empty buses and off-peak Metro-North trains. Solid investment.
It shouldn’t take 90 minutes to go from Bridgeport to Grand Central.
johnsonutah t1_j64ez20 wrote
Exactly we need to increase the train speeds, and build up around Bridgeport / Norwalk / Stamford / New Haven stations.
These are great investments. An extra lane will do nothing for people who travel the busiest corridor of our state (and among the busiest in the country).
OpelSmith t1_j63v45z wrote
Yea it is. Mode shift is literally the only answer
Whaddaulookinat t1_j643rol wrote
I think he thinks that the top minds in the General Assembly should be working left and right for teleportation technology, because besides mass transit that'd be the only other solution.
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.