The Big Four
Currently, there are four “I-95 solutions” being proposed.

Add “exit lanes” and extended acceleration entrance lanes

The use of  “exit lanes” and extended acceleration entrance lanes in key locations to relieve bottlenecks has been proven to work, at least in the short term.  The new Exit 8 lane from Darien into Stamford has had a major impact on traffic flow, while improving safety at the base of the ramp.  Acceleration lanes on the Merritt Parkway have had a similar positive impact on traffic flow and safety.  While every entrance and exit is not a candidate for this treatment, some are and should be improved.  Bottleneck removal is the quickest way to smoother flow.

Add additional full lanes or deck the roadway with a second level.

The political, environmental, and cost barriers to adding an additional lane or decking the highway are so powerful as to make them meaningless options.  This scale of expansion has been studied and rejected repeatedly over the past 25 years. It is now time for us to accept the reality and start investing in alternative approaches, such as rail expansion.

Designate an existing lane as a high occupancy or high-speed toll lane.

Either an HOV or a HOT approach would need to attract more than 1/3 of current vehicles or add a new lane to function successfully.  Otherwise, congestion in the two lanes that are left in general service would become much worse.  No HOV or HOT lane in the U.S. has ever come close to the 1/3 utilization rate. As for adding a lane?  Please reread the paragraph directly above.

Operate the breakdown lanes during rush hour.

Four issues need to be addressed before calling for opening the breakdown lanes to traffic.  Failure to resolve any one of the four is a deal breaker.

Can the breakdown lane physically withstand the wear and tear of rush hour operation?  In the Boston area, for example, breakdown lanes were opened and, a year later, had to be closed for rebuilding.

Can a breakdown lane operate without creating dangerous conditions? I-95 has a host of bridges that crowd the roadway, as well as a large number of entrances and exits in close proximity.  

Is there a plan to cope with breakdowns that occur when the breakdown lane is in operation?  Total traffic increases when a breakdown lane is opened.  The congestion reduction occurs because the new capacity (an extra lane) is greater than new demand (cars and trucks attracted to the faster traffic flow).  However, when a breakdown occurs, the road now has more traffic in the original number of lanes, without a breakdown lane to allow emergency vehicle access or to receive the disabled car.  “Incidents” can rapidly become congestion nightmares. 

Will the environmental regulations permit commuter use of the breakdown lane? And, in a related question, would environmental litigation on air quality issues lead to a full environmental impact statement being completed?

The Business Council first called for an analysis of the feasibility of operating the breakdown lanes in 1995.  At the time, the Connecticut Department of Transportation called the idea both impractical and impossible.  Six years later, the Governor called for the opening of the lanes and the DOT Commissioner announced that it could happen in less than a year.  Three years – and two DOT Commissioners later - the idea is again under public discussion.

Politics and bureaucracy aside, the four issues named above need to be addressed before a responsible organization could support or oppose the idea.  It is our understanding that ConnDOT has commissioned an outside professional analysis of all four points.  Until the results are in and fully analyzed, wishful “calls for action” and reflexive “the sky is falling” opposition are equally irrelevant.

Where should we go from here?  
We should proceed immediately to assess every bottleneck, exit and entrance between Greenwich and New Haven for potential congestion relief and safety improvements.  We should also conduct a full analysis of all four points in the breakdown lane issues (physical adequacy of the roadbed, safety, incident management, and environmental concerns).

Most importantly, we should accept the fact that there is no “I-95 only” solution to our congestion problems.  I-95 enhancements need to be part of a larger coastal corridor strategy that includes mass transit, freight movement, and a host of customer-focused actions that would reduce the need for commuters to drive alone during rush hour.  

For details on the state’s transportation master strategy go to http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp/view.asp?a=3005&Q=385366&opmNav_GID=1810.