Connecticut News

[Mergingtraffic]

A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?

I remember there being another reason the tolls were removed after 1983.  The media picks up and says the toll booth crash of 1983.  What was the other reasons?

[shadyjay]

Is exits 74 and 75 really a priority? Yes, 74 is of poor design, but right now I'd say rebuilding exit 80 into a route that gets you to I-395 (even if it means via Oil Mill up the road). It would be helpful for those who go to the Waterford Speedbowl rather than take CT 85 all the way up. There is room for an entrance ramp from Oil Mill to I-395 northbound.

If there was that much demand for a 95SB->395NB connector, it would have been done by now.  I don't believe it was even a feature of the plan for the 95/395/11 interchange (same with the 395SB->95NB merge).  Route 85 can effectively handle the connection between the two interstates, so can Route 32.  Personally, I'd get rid of Exit 80 altogether and move Exit 81-SB closer to Cross Road itself.  No need for an interchange with a backwoods country road when there's another one a mile away.  I have to wonder what ConnDOT's plans originally were when it was decided to have an interchange there.  Perhaps a placeholder for Route 11?  Or maybe, "why not?"

The problem at Exit 75-76 is the lack of travel lanes and a short merge from Exit 75-NB.  It'd be nice to have I-95 be 4 lanes from Exit 74, continuing to a rebuilt right-hand Exit 76, with 3 travel lanes continuing to I-95 (one being an option lane to I-395), and one dedicated lane to I-395.  With an Exit 76 on the right, a new Exit 75-NB onramp could split, with one half going to I-395 and the other going to I-95.  Southbound, have Exit 75 leave I-95 before the I-395 merge.  That way you eliminate all crossing traffic.  I-95 SB would have 3 lanes, then 4 lanes after the I-395 merge, with the right 4th lane becoming an exit-only for Exit 74. 

I'd also improve Exits 71-72.  Close Exit 71 completely, extend the Rocky Neck Connector to the north/west to Four Mile River Road, and make the existing ramps at Exit 72 intersections.  A ConnDOT plan for the area years ago maintained separate ramps at Exit 71 and 72 with flyovers.  Keep it simple.   Couple it with a widening from the Baldwin Bridge to Exit 72.  A later project can tackle Exit 72 to 74.  Then another from Exit 76 to Exit 83. 

[PHLBOS]

A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?

At present, for CT to place tolls on existing free Interstates; permission to do such must be sought from the Feds/FHWA... period.  Additionally & if approved, the revenue generated from the tolls must go to the road(s) that are being tolled.

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.

I remember there being another reason the tolls were removed after 1983.  The media picks up and says the toll booth crash of 1983.  What was the other reasons?

The collapse of the Mianus River Bridge/Overpass that also happened in 1983.  The removal of the tolls was a condition, at least along the CT Turnpike (I-95/395 (originally CT 52)), to received the needed-Federal money to make the emergency repairs to that bridge.

That collapse, for me, put to rest once and for all the notion that placing tolls on highways always means better, maintained roads.

[Mergingtraffic]

A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?

At present, for CT to place tolls on existing free Interstates; permission to do such must be sought from the Feds/FHWA... period.  Additionally & if approved, the revenue generated from the tolls must go to the road(s) that are being tolled.

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.

Interesting to note, because you don't hear that in news articles. You hear people being suspicious of money going actually towards transportation and talk about the lockbox to safeguard that money.  PS...I do think a lockbox is needed.

People think the lockbox needed are for the toll revenue based on the articles that are written.

[RobbieL2415]

I would just like to say as a matter of fact that tolls were collected on the Charter Oak Bridge and the Bissell Bridge as late as 1989.

[Alps]

A lot of talk about tolls here in CT:

2 questions I have.
If CT charges tolls, is CT allowed to spend revenue raised from tolls on other issues or is it against FHWA rules and law?

At present, for CT to place tolls on existing free Interstates; permission to do such must be sought from the Feds/FHWA... period.  Additionally & if approved, the revenue generated from the tolls must go to the road(s) that are being tolled.

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.

I remember there being another reason the tolls were removed after 1983.  The media picks up and says the toll booth crash of 1983.  What was the other reasons?

The collapse of the Mianus River Bridge/Overpass that also happened in 1983.  The removal of the tolls was a condition, at least along the CT Turnpike (I-95/395 (originally CT 52)), to received the needed-Federal money to make the emergency repairs to that bridge.

That collapse, for me, put to rest once and for all the notion that placing tolls on highways always means better, maintained roads.

How can they get away with tolling commercial vehicles on Interstates? Wouldn't the Interstate Commerce Act have some interplay here? If you can't toll the highway, you can't toll any users.

[PHLBOS]

The only known exception to such I'm aware of is the recently-approved tolls for commercial vehicles (passenger vehicles will not be tolled) along RI highways.  That revenue will be spent on repairing other roadway bridges that aren't necessarily along the tolled highway corridor.

How can they get away with tolling commercial vehicles on Interstates? Wouldn't the Interstate Commerce Act have some interplay here? If you can't toll the highway, you can't toll any users.

One of the links in the Rhode Island News thread, see Reply #83 might contain the answer/reasoning for such.  However, it is worth noting that fore-mentioned tolls have been enacted yet.

The only place I know where passenger vehicles aren't tolled but commercial vehicles are is the Spring Valley plaza along the NY Thruway (I-87/287) but that plaza originally charged a toll for all vehicles.  Then again, since the Thruway is & has been a tolled facility from day one; such is allowed without federal approval.

[Duke87]

How can they get away with tolling commercial vehicles on Interstates? Wouldn't the Interstate Commerce Act have some interplay here? If you can't toll the highway, you can't toll any users.

Rhode Island is currently in possession of one of FHWA's special pilot approvals to toll interstates. They could toll everyone but have decided to specifically target trucks because of the same "they don't vote here" thing that motivates transponder discrimination.


As for Connecticut, they have an annual tradition of having some state legislator propose putting tolls back on I-95 and possibly other roads as well. Said proposal always generates a media flurry and then dies unceremoniously.

It's possible it may have actually happened by now if not for the FHWA prohibition against the practice. And knowing how Connecticut operates you would likely see extreme transponder discrimination, since there is precedent for this sort of thing already within the state. If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

[dgolub]

If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

Not to be confused with a whole batch of Long Island beaches that are flat-out closed to people who don't live in the town.

[roadman65]

If EZPASS existed in the 80's most likely I-95 and the Merrit Parkway would be ORT to this day, as that would be the excuse that the state would have used to keep the tolls when the decision was made to tear down the plazas.

Its a no brainer now with many other states going cash less, that CT government is pushing for reinstatement of implimenting the tolls again.

[PHLBOS]

If EZPASS existed in the 80's most likely I-95 and the Merrit Parkway would be ORT to this day, as that would be the excuse that the state would have used to keep the tolls when the decision was made to tear down the plazas.

Its a no brainer now with many other states going cash less, that CT government is pushing for reinstatement of implimenting the tolls again.

This has been mentioned before.  The Feds ordered the removal of the tollbooths along I-95 as a condition for repair funding for the Mianus River Bridge that just coincidentally collapsed that same year as the toll-booth pile-up (1983).  Had AET been around during the 1980s; the tolls on non-Interstates in CT would've likely remained but the ones along I-95 still would've been removed due to the emergency bridge repair funding from the Feds.

[TravelingBethelite]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but Exit 47 on I-95 is now longer signed as being for CT 34. The overheads were modified to remove the CT 34 shields and to read 'MLK Blvd', with a "control city" of "Downtown New Haven". I saw this as my dad and I were headed home from Branford last night.

[shadyjay]

Interesting, though honestly I'm not surprised, given the downsizing of the "Oak Street Connector".  I'll check it out Saturday and get some pics.

[PHLBOS]

Wasn't that Exit 47 BGS a fairly new sign?

[jp the roadgeek]

Might just make sense to truncate CT 34 back to CT 10 if ConnDOT isn't going to sign it coming off of I-95 (and I'm assuming the I-91 Exit 1 sign will be changed too).  Actually, would be neat if they gave the mileage east of CT 10 to the west end in Newtown to connect it to US 6.   Unless you read the state route log, you don't even know where it officially ends and assume it connects to US 6.

[TravelingBethelite]

Might just make sense to truncate CT 34 back to CT 10 if ConnDOT isn't going to sign it coming off of I-95 (and I'm assuming the I-91 Exit 1 sign will be changed too).  Actually, would be neat if they gave the mileage east of CT 10 to the west end in Newtown to connect it to US 6.   Unless you read the state route log, you don't even know where it officially ends and assume it connects to US 6.

That's an interesting point you raise. Many locals actually think 34 ends at Wasserman Way. For the longest time, I did as well.

[Mergingtraffic]

All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34." 

[Duke87]

If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

Not to be confused with a whole batch of Long Island beaches that are flat-out closed to people who don't live in the town.

Which used to happen in Connecticut as well, until the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional for a municipality to deny access to public parks based on residency. The logic behind this ruling is interesting - they ruled that a public park is a public forum, and therefore denying people access to it violates their right to free speech.

[dgolub]

If you ever want to be entertained and possibly horrified, look up what it costs to get a summer beach parking pass in one of the shore towns in Fairfield county as a resident versus as a non-resident.

Not to be confused with a whole batch of Long Island beaches that are flat-out closed to people who don't live in the town.

Which used to happen in Connecticut as well, until the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional for a municipality to deny access to public parks based on residency. The logic behind this ruling is interesting - they ruled that a public park is a public forum, and therefore denying people access to it violates their right to free speech.

Interesting.  As far as I know, it's still happening in New York.

[dgolub]

All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34."

My guess is that they didn't decommission it but just made it unsigned from the highways.  The purpose was probably to minimize through traffic in Downtown New Haven.  Motorists headed for points west are now directed to stay on I-95 to CT 10 and take that north to CT 34.

Does anyone know what the signage on CT 10 at CT 34 looks like now?  That would answer the question of whether or not it's unsigned east of CT 10 altogether or just from the highways.

Also, if it winds up that I'm wrong and they did decommission it, that begs the question of whether maintenance was transferred to the City of New Haven or if ConnDOT is still maintaining it, presumably under a new unsigned SR or SSR number.

[PHLBOS]

Which used to happen in Connecticut as well, until the state supreme court ruled it unconstitutional for a municipality to deny access to public parks based on residency. The logic behind this ruling is interesting - they ruled that a public park is a public forum, and therefore denying people access to it violates their right to free speech.

Interesting.  As far as I know, it's still happening in New York.

Maybe that's because nobody has yet raised the issue in New York nor took it to court (that I'm aware of).

[Mergingtraffic]

All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34."

My guess is that they didn't decommission it but just made it unsigned from the highways.  The purpose was probably to minimize through traffic in Downtown New Haven.  Motorists headed for points west are now directed to stay on I-95 to CT 10 and take that north to CT 34.

Does anyone know what the signage on CT 10 at CT 34 looks like now?  That would answer the question of whether or not it's unsigned east of CT 10 altogether or just from the highways.

Also, if it winds up that I'm wrong and they did decommission it, that begs the question of whether maintenance was transferred to the City of New Haven or if ConnDOT is still maintaining it, presumably under a new unsigned SR or SSR number.

I don't see people changing their driving habits b/c of this.  Locals will still use the same streets to get to where they want to go anyway.  Non-locals will use GPS and will still go thru downtown b/c of distance or mileage issues.  I really don't see anyone changing their driving patterns.

[TravelingBethelite]

All signs for CT-34 on I-95/I-91 etc are new b/c of the recent improvements.  I don't see the benefit of removing CT-34?!  People think of it as "Route 34."

My guess is that they didn't decommission it but just made it unsigned from the highways.  The purpose was probably to minimize through traffic in Downtown New Haven.  Motorists headed for points west are now directed to stay on I-95 to CT 10 and take that north to CT 34.

Does anyone know what the signage on CT 10 at CT 34 looks like now?  That would answer the question of whether or not it's unsigned east of CT 10 altogether or just from the highways.

Also, if it winds up that I'm wrong and they did decommission it, that begs the question of whether maintenance was transferred to the City of New Haven or if ConnDOT is still maintaining it, presumably under a new unsigned SR or SSR number.

There was still signage for it at CT 10 when I was there.

[shadyjay]

First some good news:

Was out driving around today and caught the new Society Road overpass on I-95, definitely wide enough to accomodate 3 lanes each way:

IMG_3074 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Also I observed the first sign being put up for the I-95 sign replacement project from Groton to RI.... a big orange "CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" sign.  And in the same area, work well underway on the I-95 southbound Gold Star Bridge reconstruction project.  At least one, if not two lanes closed (24/7 closure until further notice).  No work started NB, as that contract hasn't been released yet.

Lots more pics taken throughout the state over the past few days, at my FLICKR page (link at bottom).

Now the bad news:

Due to truck issues, I won't be taking I-95 to CT 8 to reach Thomaston on Saturday.  Instead, I'll be taking CT 9 to 66 to I691 to I84 to Waterbury, then up CT 8, then cutting over in the afternoon towards I-91 to head back to VT.  So I won't be clinching CT 8 this time around, nor will I check out I-95 Exit 47 signage in New Haven.  There's always next time for that!

[abqtraveler]

First some good news:

Was out driving around today and caught the new Society Road overpass on I-95, definitely wide enough to accomodate 3 lanes each way:

IMG_3074 by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Also I observed the first sign being put up for the I-95 sign replacement project from Groton to RI.... a big orange "CONSTRUCTION AHEAD" sign.  And in the same area, work well underway on the I-95 southbound Gold Star Bridge reconstruction project.  At least one, if not two lanes closed (24/7 closure until further notice).  No work started NB, as that contract hasn't been released yet.

Lots more pics taken throughout the state over the past few days, at my FLICKR page (link at bottom).

Now the bad news:

Due to truck issues, I won't be taking I-95 to CT 8 to reach Thomaston on Saturday.  Instead, I'll be taking CT 9 to 66 to I691 to I84 to Waterbury, then up CT 8, then cutting over in the afternoon towards I-91 to head back to VT.  So I won't be clinching CT 8 this time around, nor will I check out I-95 Exit 47 signage in New Haven.  There's always next time for that!

That's always been one of the biggest limiting factors in expanding the Turnpike is while there's enough right-of-way to add a lane in most places (save for stretches through major cities), the length of most of the original overpasses does not provide enough space to add a lane to the mainline.  I'm glad to see that ConnDOT is showing some forethought and designing its new Turnpike overpasses to accommodate future expansion of the road.