Connecticut News

[NE2]

According to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ct/ct0500/ct0526/data/ct0526data.pdf there were plans for an interchange at Cross Highway (town line) or Redding Road. The Fairfield zoning map shows a suspiciously shaped parcel at Cross Highway (that now has a house).

[KEVIN_224]

http://wtnh.com/2015/03/02/connecticut-approved-for-federal-highway-toll-pilot-project/

Saw this little nugget via wtnh.com (ABC channel 8 of New Haven). This project would be allowed to bypass federal highways rules of some sort. I just hope they do this wisely.

[Mergingtraffic]

http://wtnh.com/2015/03/02/connecticut-approved-for-federal-highway-toll-pilot-project/

Saw this little nugget via wtnh.com (ABC channel 8 of New Haven). This project would be allowed to bypass federal highways rules of some sort. I just hope they do this wisely.

Here's another article:
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/State-qualifies-for-electronic-toll-6109193.php

Thoughts:

1) this is one "tax" I support if it goes into transportation ONLY.

2) the article states people are writing the state b/c they're opposed to tolls.  Gee, I wish there was this much outrage and action when CL&P doubled their rates and your local town increases their mill rate. 

3) I read other articles on this as well and I'm amazed that even after officials say there wouldn't be any booths or toll plazas how many people still think it's the 1960s style of toll booths. 

4) Other states can have tolls and it isn't an issue, life goes on.... but here in CT people revert back to the infamous toll plaza accident of 1983.  While that was a tragedy, let's not forget MA and NH had similar accidents, they didn't remove their toll plazas.  There could be another accident just like it at a stop light.  So do we remove all stop lights?!

5) I hope the state doesn't walk away from it.  This may be the only way to get extra lanes on I-95 or I-84 or get some money for badly needed improvements.
See this site: http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/i-95-scope.html

6) This Boucher woman has done more to worsen transportation than anyone I know.  She is against Super 7 and now is lobbying people to go against tolls.

[D-Dey65]

I can't find a more appropriate Connecticut-related thread to put this in, so I'll leave this here for a while.

Tonight I was looking up real events that took place on December 14, 1961 (don't ask me why), and I stumbled upon an article about a railroad accident in Colorado. Then I looked up Wikipedia's list of railroad accidents between 1960 and 1969, and discovered one on the New Canaan Branch which I later found was at "the Hoyt Street Crossing in Darien." So naturally, I scanned for that on Google Street View.

The Hoyt Street crossing they were talking about was Connecticut State Route 106, and it looks way too dangerous!

And I know this crossing had nothing to do with the accident in '69, but it still looks like something that CDOT really should do something about, but probably never will.

[Duke87]

And I know this crossing had nothing to do with the accident in '69, but it still looks like something that CDOT really should do something about, but probably never will.

Definitely never will because it's in a well-to do residential area with houses and driveways immediately adjacent. Can't be grade separated without significantly disturbing the properties of some people with money. Locals will insist there is nothing wrong with it unless/until there is a high profile accident there.

For what it's worth, speaking as someone who grew up in the area, that grade crossing may look dangerous but I don't think it is exceptionally accident prone compared to any other grade crossing. The angle is harsh but there is a significant lagtime between when the lights start to flash and when the train comes through.
The notorious crossing on the New Canaan Branch is actually this one. There are lights and bells there but no gates, so it's a lot easier to try and beat the train. Every few years, someone fails to beat it and gets their car wrecked. Unfortunately both accidents I recall at this location did not kill or maim the driver, so natural selection was not successful.

Also worth noting: the speed limit on most of the New Canaan Branch is 40 mph. The speed limit on the track where the deadly accident occurred in New York a few weeks ago is 65 mph.

[D-Dey65]

Definitely never will because it's in a well-to do residential area with houses and driveways immediately adjacent. Can't be grade separated without significantly disturbing the properties of some people with money. Locals will insist there is nothing wrong with it unless/until there is a high profile accident there.

Yes, I can see that. On the off chance that CDOT were to add a grade separation, the only way it would be possible would be to elevate the tracks, but those locals with money wouldn't let that happen either.

Something else I noticed though; the next crossing seems to be a private one across from the intersection with Greenwood Avenue, and has a staircase that seems to lead to a platform. Is there any chance that was the old Woodway New Haven RR station?

[PHLBOS]

1) this is one "tax" I support if it goes into transportation ONLY.

Good luck with that; CT history has shown otherwise.  Let me remind you that the Mianus River Bridge collapse predated the elimination of toll collections along the CT Turnpike (I-95).  If memory serves, not all of CT's state gas taxes goes towards transportation (at least such didn't through the 1980s/90s); fix that issue first if such hasn't already been done so.

3) I read other articles on this as well and I'm amazed that even after officials say there wouldn't be any booths or toll plazas how many people still think it's the 1960s style of toll booths.

While there are are still many that equate toll facilities = stopping to pay a toll; there have been more an more reports of AET-related issues as it towards users that either rent cars, don't nor want to sign up for EZ-Pass or equivalent and/or being needlessly gouged at a significantly higher toll rate.  IMHO, those issues haven't yet reached the boiling point but could down the road. 

4) Other states can have tolls and it isn't an issue, life goes on.... but here in CT people revert back to the infamous toll plaza accident of 1983.

IMHO, the bridge collapse tragedy that occurred that same year is a much bigger issue. 

While that was a tragedy, let's not forget MA and NH had similar accidents, they didn't remove their toll plazas.

While not necessarily for the same reason, there have been several attempts to get tolls eliminated along the original stretch of the Mass Pike (NY State Line to Weston) for decades.  Until recently, there was no toll charged for the stretch west of Springfield since 1996(?).   

5) I hope the state doesn't walk away from it.  This may be the only way to get extra lanes on I-95 or I-84 or get some money for badly needed improvements.
See this site: http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/i-95-scope.html

Personally, since the Interstates are part of a Federal network; if such tolling measures are indeed necessary/implemented, there needs to be a strict set of guidelines towards such (i.e tolling only for additional Express Lanes a la MD, plus toll revenue only going towards that road and that road only) to avoid a CT version of Act 44 from happening.  Otherwise, the CT taxpayers and all users of the highways will not be getting their best bang for the buck.

[Pete from Boston]

While that was a tragedy, let's not forget MA and NH had similar accidents, they didn't remove their toll plazas.

While not necessarily for the same reason, there have been several attempts to get tolls eliminated along the original stretch of the Mass Pike (NY State Line to Weston) for decades.  Until recently, there was no toll charged for the stretch west of Springfield since 1996(?).

The plan is in motion to eliminate toll booths entirely in Massachusetts.  They've already been removed from the Tobin Bridge, which is sort of the pilot, work-out-the-kinks project.

[PHLBOS]

The plan is in motion to eliminate toll booths entirely in Massachusetts.  They've already been removed from the Tobin Bridge, which is sort of the pilot, work-out-the-kinks project.

The key word in your post is booths not the tolls themselves.  I was strictly referring to removals of tolls period; not the method of collection.

The MA examples you listed refer to the conversion of existing toll facilities to AETs. 

Since CT hasn't had any toll facilities for over 2 decades; even the installation of AETs means that a highway currently not tolled will be tolled once again.

Again, let me remind everyone here that prior to the I-35W bridge collapse in MN; most if not all the major highway bridge/tunnel deck collapses not induced by hurricanes or earthquakes occurred on tolled facilities... including the 1983 I-95/CT Turnpike/Mianus River Bridge collapse.  Such disproves the notions that tolled highways always = better maintained highways; more often than not, the opposite's been proven true.

[cpzilliacus]

Again, let me remind everyone here that prior to the I-35W bridge collapse in MN; most if not all the major highway bridge/tunnel deck collapses not induced by hurricanes or earthquakes occurred on tolled facilities... including the 1983 I-95/CT Turnpike/Mianus River Bridge collapse.  Such disproves the notions that tolled highways always = better maintained highways; more often than not, the opposite's been proven true.

Roads can be poorly-maintained even if they are toll roads, and the Mianus River failure was pretty clearly poor maintenance.  Though I drove much of the Connecticut Turnpike when it was still a toll road, I do not know if the toll revenues collected on it were subject to diversion away from maintenance to other uses (such as transit subsidies).   The Schoharie Creek bridge failure in 1987 on the New York State Thruway was also due to improper maintenance (though on a road that is generally considered to be pretty well-maintained, then and now), combined with a 50 year flood.  Then there's the Sunshine Skyway (I-275), which was not designed to withstand a strike from a ship, and which was (apparently) a challenge for pilots even with the weather was good.

But both of us also know of cases where toll-maintained roads are kept in great condition, and if they are not up to snuff, there are efforts made to fix the problems, without having to wait for an increase in motor fuel taxes.

[Duke87]

Something else I noticed though; the next crossing seems to be a private one across from the intersection with Greenwood Avenue, and has a staircase that seems to lead to a platform. Is there any chance that was the old Woodway New Haven RR station?

No, that driveway is for a cemetery on the other side of the tracks and the staircase is for pedestrian access to the same. Woodway station was further to the north, near Woodway road. No trace of it remains today as far as I can tell.

[cl94]

Again, let me remind everyone here that prior to the I-35W bridge collapse in MN; most if not all the major highway bridge/tunnel deck collapses not induced by hurricanes or earthquakes occurred on tolled facilities... including the 1983 I-95/CT Turnpike/Mianus River Bridge collapse.  Such disproves the notions that tolled highways always = better maintained highways; more often than not, the opposite's been proven true.

Roads can be poorly-maintained even if they are toll roads, and the Mianus River failure was pretty clearly poor maintenance.  Though I drove much of the Connecticut Turnpike when it was still a toll road, I do not know if the toll revenues collected on it were subject to diversion away from maintenance to other uses (such as transit subsidies).   The Schoharie Creek bridge failure in 1987 on the New York State Thruway was also due to improper maintenance (though on a road that is generally considered to be pretty well-maintained, then and now), combined with a 50 year flood.  Then there's the Sunshine Skyway (I-275), which was not designed to withstand a strike from a ship, and which was (apparently) a challenge for pilots even with the weather was good.

But both of us also know of cases where toll-maintained roads are kept in great condition, and if they are not up to snuff, there are efforts made to fix the problems, without having to wait for an increase in motor fuel taxes.

Diversion of toll revenues to non-toll facilities certainly isn't a rare phenomenon. Pennsylvania's toll revenue goes into the general transportation coffer and some of the New York revenue goes towards transit (TBTA and PA crossings) or the Cross Westchester. Used to be worse when stuff went to I-84 as well. Bad things happen to transportation infrastructure.

Back to the toll bridge failures, do note that toll bridges tend to be larger, highly-trafficked crossings that are more likely to make the news. In many cases, tolls are independent of the maintenance quality. In New York, for example, NYSDOT limited-access highways of similar importance to NYSTA-maintained roads are in very similar condition. Can't say the same about Pennsylvania, where the Turnpike infrastructure is in better shape than PennDOT infrastructure.

[PHLBOS]

Back to the toll bridge failures, do note that toll bridges tend to be larger, highly-trafficked crossings that are more likely to make the news.

To clarify, the Mianus River Bridge along the CT Turnpike (1983 collapse) and the Schoharie Creek Bridge (1987 structure failure) along the NY Thruway were not separate tolled facilities in and of themselves.  Both of those bridges were basically viaducts/glorified overpasses within their respective tollway systems.

But both of us also know of cases where toll-maintained roads are kept in great condition, and if they are not up to snuff, there are efforts made to fix the problems, without having to wait for an increase in motor fuel taxes.

Yes & no.  The toll agencies that keep their roads in good condition are not usually the ones that keep begging for toll increases every few years and/or don't divert their revenues outside the system and/or to general funds or into some hack employees' pockets.  Which brings up the next point.

Another issue with (mostly older) toll road agencies, though debatable with the increased proliferations of AETs, is the perception of such becoming political hack havens (i.e. tolls takers being close relatives to some politicians)... exhorbitant salaries included.  Be it perception or reality, that issue alone (in previous years) has left a bad taste in taxpayers' mouths whenever someone mentions the prospect of adding more tolls.  They, the taxpayers, view tolls = money in some hack/politician's pocket.

While AETs reduces the prospect of some politician's relative becoming a (potentially overpaid) toll collector; a state that has a long history of past abuses and/or misuses of toll revenue is (IMHO) going to have a tough sell convincing taxpayers that tolls be reinstated/re-established.

As I mentioned earlier, unlike NH (which was probably one state you (CP) were referring to), CT does not have a positive history in this regard. 

If revenue collected from CT's state gas tax is still going into a general fund (as opposed to a strictly-transportation-only fund/account) where transporation projects have to fight with non-transportation project for those dollars; there's one problem right there.  CT needs to fix that first before it implements any new tolls.

[Mergingtraffic]

Update:  The General Transportation committee approved the bill on tolls.  It completed it's first hurdle.  However, they are insisting funds raised by tolls go towards transportation only and tolls will only be at the borders. 

[PHLBOS]

Update:  The General Transportation committee approved the bill on tolls.  It completed it's first hurdle.  However, they are insisting funds raised by tolls go towards transportation only and tolls will only be at the borders. 

I don't believe the Feds allow such along existing free Interstates. 

The likely reason being that there would be a lot of shunpiking taking place at the borders (been along I-95/Delaware Turnpike at the DE/MD border lately?).

[cpzilliacus]

Update:  The General Transportation committee approved the bill on tolls.  It completed it's first hurdle.  However, they are insisting funds raised by tolls go towards transportation only and tolls will only be at the borders. 

I don't believe the Feds allow such along existing free Interstates. 

The likely reason being that there would be a lot of shunpiking taking place at the borders (been along I-95/Delaware Turnpike at the DE/MD border lately?).

The Connecticut legislature can pass it (just like Pennsylvania's passed Act 44), but that does not mean that USDOT/FHWA will approve it, and if the only tolls are at the borders, I am confident that they will reject it.

[ARMOURERERIC]

What has been the history of federal funding for what is the former Conneticut Turnpike?  Do they even need fed permission to place a border toll on the Merritt?

[Mergingtraffic]

I think CT was approved for a pilot program.

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/article/20150302/News/150309947

and this
http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/index.html

[PHLBOS]

What has been the history of federal funding for what is the former Conneticut Turnpike?

This might have been mentioned at least a page or two back, but in case it wasn't: once the tolls were eliminated from the Connecticut Turnpike (Dec. 31, 1985), it became a free Interstate that was subject to the then-90/10 federal/state funding requirements (that included tolling restrictions & prohibitions).   

Do they even need fed permission to place a border toll on the Merritt?

In theory, no; but CT knows darn well that if only the Merritt becomes a tolled highway again, traffic would shunpike to Interstates & other roads just to avoid the tolls.

Again, I point to the Newark, DE plaza along I-95 near the DE/MD line as a poster child for shunpiking border tolls ($4 each way with NO EZ-Pass discounts whatsoever).  The only reason why that plaza's there was due to the fact that the highway itself was originally built as a toll facility (Delaware Turnpike).

[Zeffy]

In theory, no; but CT knows darn well that if only the Merritt becomes a tolled highway again, traffic would shunpike to Interstates & other roads just to avoid the tolls.

Which makes me think Connecticut's only option is to do either HO/T lanes or just tolled lanes in general. Of course, how you are going to widen I-95 in some ritzy parts of Fairfield County is behind me.

[cl94]

What has been the history of federal funding for what is the former Conneticut Turnpike?

This might have been mentioned at least a page or two back, but in case it wasn't: once the tolls were eliminated from the Connecticut Turnpike (Dec. 31, 1985), it became a free Interstate that was subject to the then-90/10 federal/state funding requirements (that included tolling restrictions & prohibitions).   

Do they even need fed permission to place a border toll on the Merritt?

In theory, no; but CT knows darn well that if only the Merritt becomes a tolled highway again, traffic would shunpike to Interstates & other roads just to avoid the tolls.

Again, I point to the Newark, DE plaza along I-95 near the DE/MD line as a poster child for shunpiking border tolls ($4 each way with NO EZ-Pass discounts whatsoever).  The only reason why that plaza's there was due to the fact that the highway itself was originally built as a toll facility (Delaware Turnpike).

Yep. There are also a couple of good shunpike examples in New Hampshire illustrating a similar thing. Place a border toll and the Turnpike will only get worse.

[vdeane]

Border tolls should be illegal.  If CT wants tolls, then they should revive the Turnpike and make it impossible to make a free trip on an interstate or CT 15 anywhere in the state.  Border tolls are nothing more than a way to extort money from out of state motorists.

[cl94]

Border tolls should be illegal.  If CT wants tolls, then they should revive the Turnpike and make it impossible to make a free trip on an interstate or CT 15 anywhere in the state.  Border tolls are nothing more than a way to extort money from out of state motorists.

Tell that to New Jersey and their "exit tax"

[Zeffy]

Tell that to New Jersey and their "exit tax"

Just wait - we're gonna start charging you soon to use the Scudder Falls Bridge to leave our state.

[NE2]

If the border is a river that requires expensive bridges, quit bitching.