Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KEVIN_224]

Looks like the Constitution state wants to be even more greedy now! Isn't the fourth-highest gas tax in the nation enough? 

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/study-to-look-at-toll-options?ref=scroller&categoryId=10001&status=true

[Duke87]

The idea comes up every couple of years as a funding idea. The Connecticut Turnpike wasn't built with interstate funding, so they don't need FHWA approval to stick tolls back on it. But it keeps going nowhere.

The problem is that while people accept new roads opening as toll roads, taking a road that is currently free and sticking a toll on it is a non-starter politically. The only case I can think of offhand where it has actually been done is a section of the NYS Thruway near Rochester that was originally opened as a free freeway a couple years prior to the toll road coming through.

[Revive 755]

The problem is that while people accept new roads opening as toll roads, taking a road that is currently free and sticking a toll on it is a non-starter politically. The only case I can think of offhand where it has actually been done is a section of the NYS Thruway near Rochester that was originally opened as a free freeway a couple years prior to the toll road coming through.

It's nowhere near New England, but in Chicagoland the currently free Elgin - O'Hare Expressway will charge tolls to pay for an extra lane each way plus an eastward extension.

[vdeane]

Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised if CT re-instated tolls once all-electronic tolling is more accepted.  The only reason they removed tolls in the first place was due to crashes at toll booths.

[cpzilliacus]

The idea comes up every couple of years as a funding idea. The Connecticut Turnpike wasn't built with interstate funding, so they don't need FHWA approval to stick tolls back on it. But it keeps going nowhere.

I think they do need federal approval to retoll, because they took federal dollars to improve and maintain the Connecticut Turnpike after it was detolled.

The problem is that while people accept new roads opening as toll roads, taking a road that is currently free and sticking a toll on it is a non-starter politically. The only case I can think of offhand where it has actually been done is a section of the NYS Thruway near Rochester that was originally opened as a free freeway a couple years prior to the toll road coming through.

Virginia's U.S. 17 Coleman Bridge (over the York River) was once a toll crossing,then was detolled, but tolls were again imposed (northbound only) when the swing spans were replaced.

[roadman]

The idea comes up every couple of years as a funding idea. The Connecticut Turnpike wasn't built with interstate funding, so they don't need FHWA approval to stick tolls back on it. But it keeps going nowhere.

I think they do need federal approval to retoll, because they took federal dollars to improve and maintain the Connecticut Turnpike after it was detolled.

That is correct.  FHWA approval would be required to re-toll the highway.  Note that ConnDOT's plan for permitting peak hour breakdown lane travel on I-95 in Fairfield County (similar to what Massachusetts currently allows on sections of I-95 (MA 128) and I-93) was abandoned after FHWA rejected the proposal - citing safety concerns.

[Steve]

The idea comes up every couple of years as a funding idea. The Connecticut Turnpike wasn't built with interstate funding, so they don't need FHWA approval to stick tolls back on it. But it keeps going nowhere.

I think they do need federal approval to retoll, because they took federal dollars to improve and maintain the Connecticut Turnpike after it was detolled.

That is correct.  FHWA approval would be required to re-toll the highway.  Note that ConnDOT's plan for permitting peak hour breakdown lane travel on I-95 in Fairfield County (similar to what Massachusetts currently allows on sections of I-95 (MA 128) and I-93) was abandoned after FHWA rejected the proposal - citing safety concerns.

Seems like FHWA is acting against its self interest. Once you have anything non-standard, never give up on it. Keep charging tolls, keep using the shoulder, because the instant you stop, they'll never let you back in.

[vdeane]

They allowed it on I-66 in VA... why not I-95 in CT?

[xcellntbuy]

Because what is good for the people who communte to metropolitan Washington, DC is not good for the taxpaying, inconvenienced public.

[Steve]

They allowed it on I-66 in VA... why not I-95 in CT?

There were a lot of concessions on I-66 to get it in there, including truck bans and peak period HOV restrictions in all lanes. I think it would be a terrible idea for CT because there are a ton of ramps as one approaches NY, and most of them are fairly heavily used. (I also think it's a terrible idea in Massachusetts.)

[roadman]

They allowed it on I-66 in VA... why not I-95 in CT?

There were a lot of concessions on I-66 to get it in there, including truck bans and peak period HOV restrictions in all lanes. I think it would be a terrible idea for CT because there are a ton of ramps as one approaches NY, and most of them are fairly heavily used. (I also think it's a terrible idea in Massachusetts.)

In Massachusetts, we refer to peak hour breakdown lane travel as "the poor-man's road widening project" and the "suicide lanes".  Personally, I agree it's a bad idea as well.

[connroadgeek]

The idea comes up every couple of years as a funding idea. The Connecticut Turnpike wasn't built with interstate funding, so they don't need FHWA approval to stick tolls back on it. But it keeps going nowhere.

I think they do need federal approval to retoll, because they took federal dollars to improve and maintain the Connecticut Turnpike after it was detolled.

That is correct.  FHWA approval would be required to re-toll the highway.  Note that ConnDOT's plan for permitting peak hour breakdown lane travel on I-95 in Fairfield County (similar to what Massachusetts currently allows on sections of I-95 (MA 128) and I-93) was abandoned after FHWA rejected the proposal - citing safety concerns.

Breakdown lane use is pretty dangerous, so I can't say I disagree with the FHWA on this one. Breakdown lanes in CT are pretty inconsistent. They come and go.

[Beltway]

The problem is that while people accept new roads opening as toll roads, taking a road that is currently free and sticking a toll on it is a non-starter politically. The only case I can think of offhand where it has actually been done is a section of the NYS Thruway near Rochester that was originally opened as a free freeway a couple years prior to the toll road coming through.

Virginia's U.S. 17 Coleman Bridge (over the York River) was once a toll crossing,then was detolled, but tolls were again imposed (northbound only) when the swing spans were replaced.

Did much more than that.  The bridge was a 2-lane bottleneck on a 4-lane arterial highway, and it was rebuilt to 4 lanes, by widening the substructure and replacing the superstructure.  Completed 1996.  Also the toll was kept low by about 50-50 funding between toll revenue bonds and road use tax funding.

[SignBridge]

I agree that breakdown-lane travel is unsafe and should not be permitted anywhere. It goes against the whole idea of having a paved shoulder as a safe refuge for breakdowns, minor accidents, etc. Interestingly the New Jersey Turnpike Authority rejected the concept as unsafe, after studying it to increase capacity. And they are (in my opinion) the premier highway agency re: road safety.

Also interesting is in Germany, the Autobahn allows breakdown-lane travel in some areas during rush-hours. But they have complete camera surveillance to verify the lane is clear before opening it with overhead traffic-light arrows.

Back on topic: If I remember right,  there was public pressure to remove the Conn. Turnpike tolls even before the Stratford accident. The accident was the final straw, the catalyst for what the public already wanted. So their removal was politically justified by the safety issue.

[cpzilliacus]

Back on topic: If I remember right,  there was public pressure to remove the Conn. Turnpike tolls even before the Stratford accident. The accident was the final straw, the catalyst for what the public already wanted. So their removal was politically justified by the safety issue.

But if I recall correctly, wasn't congestion at the Connecticut Turnpike's (many) toll barriers one of the reasons cited for detolling it? 

That would (presumably) not be a problem today with cashless/no-stop toll collection.

[Steve]

Back on topic: If I remember right,  there was public pressure to remove the Conn. Turnpike tolls even before the Stratford accident. The accident was the final straw, the catalyst for what the public already wanted. So their removal was politically justified by the safety issue.

But if I recall correctly, wasn't congestion at the Connecticut Turnpike's (many) toll barriers one of the reasons cited for detolling it? 

That would (presumably) not be a problem today with cashless/no-stop toll collection.

No, the main argument used now would be tolling an already-free road, especially one that was formerly tolled and then set free. Florida just went through this experience on the Snapper Creek / 878, which was free when I was on it but since converted to All Electronic Tolling. Read up on it (I had to research it for work today) - FTA itself cites public reaction, and I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from on newspaper and other local message boards.

ETA: Not to mention the shitshow if the CT Tpk. were tolled and not the parallel Merritt - imagine the traffic. Not to mention, even if both of those are tolled again (which is double the problem of retolling a now-free once-tolled road), imagine the shitshow on US 1 and other parallel "local" roads, diversions to already-stuffed I-84, etc. I don't see this happening ever.

[cpzilliacus]

Back on topic: If I remember right,  there was public pressure to remove the Conn. Turnpike tolls even before the Stratford accident. The accident was the final straw, the catalyst for what the public already wanted. So their removal was politically justified by the safety issue.

But if I recall correctly, wasn't congestion at the Connecticut Turnpike's (many) toll barriers one of the reasons cited for detolling it? 

That would (presumably) not be a problem today with cashless/no-stop toll collection.

No, the main argument used now would be tolling an already-free road, especially one that was formerly tolled and then set free. Florida just went through this experience on the Snapper Creek / 878, which was free when I was on it but since converted to All Electronic Tolling. Read up on it (I had to research it for work today) - FTA itself cites public reaction, and I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from on newspaper and other local message boards.

Though I think the experiences with Ontario's Highway 407 ETR have demonstrated that cashless tolling does work, and works pretty well.  And at this point, 407 has been running cashless since th 1990's - and in spite of some controversies about inadequately staffed customer service centers and so-called "plate denial" (aimed at vehicles with unpaid tolls), I think overall the road is handling plenty of traffic.

ETA: Not to mention the shitshow if the CT Tpk. were tolled and not the parallel Merritt - imagine the traffic. Not to mention, even if both of those are tolled again (which is double the problem of retolling a now-free once-tolled road), imagine the shitshow on US 1 and other parallel "local" roads, diversions to already-stuffed I-84, etc. I don't see this happening ever.

But when there were tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike, there were also tolls on the Merritt Parkway, correct?  While some short trips might divert to U.S. 1, I cannot imagine that there would be that much shunpiking, since U.S. 1 cannot handle the same volumes of traffic that the Turnpike and the Parkway.

[BamaZeus]

I agree that breakdown-lane travel is unsafe and should not be permitted anywhere. It goes against the whole idea of having a paved shoulder as a safe refuge for breakdowns, minor accidents, etc. Interestingly the New Jersey Turnpike Authority rejected the concept as unsafe, after studying it to increase capacity. And they are (in my opinion) the premier highway agency re: road safety.

Also interesting is in Germany, the Autobahn allows breakdown-lane travel in some areas during rush-hours. But they have complete camera surveillance to verify the lane is clear before opening it with overhead traffic-light arrows.

Back on topic: If I remember right,  there was public pressure to remove the Conn. Turnpike tolls even before the Stratford accident. The accident was the final straw, the catalyst for what the public already wanted. So their removal was politically justified by the safety issue.

As I remember it, and keep in mind I was a child then, the way it was presented was that the tolls were being used to finance the building of the highway.  By 1983, those bonds had been paid off many times over, so there was no real need for the tolls for that purpose.  Of course the Mianus River Bridge had collapsed just 5 months before the toll booth wreck, so "highway safety" was a definite concern at that moment.

[BamaZeus]

But when there were tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike, there were also tolls on the Merritt Parkway, correct?  While some short trips might divert to U.S. 1, I cannot imagine that there would be that much shunpiking, since U.S. 1 cannot handle the same volumes of traffic that the Turnpike and the Parkway.

Yes, both roads had tolls through 88 I think.  They were tearing them down for good right as I was moving south.  But, there was plenty of shunpiking happening before then, especially through Norwalk/Westport.

[PHLBOS]

Yes, both roads had tolls through 88 I think.  They were tearing them down for good right as I was moving south.  But, there was plenty of shunpiking happening before then, especially through Norwalk/Westport.

I believe the tolls were gone from all CT roads & bridges by 1985.

[Duke87]

One solution to the shunpiking issue would be to simply make it impossible by putting an AET point after every interchange.

As for traffic on local roads, personally one of the major reasons I-95 suffers from such traffic problems is that it has too many interchanges, thus encouraging many fairly local trips which have no business using a freeway to hop on for an exit or two, and creating too many merge points. The highway could stand to have its ramp count reduced. Exits 7 and 8 could be combined. Exits 10 and 11 could be combined. Exits 12, 20, 22, 26, 35, and 37 could all be removed.

[cpzilliacus]

One solution to the shunpiking issue would be to simply make it impossible by putting an AET point after every interchange.

Though if I recall correctly the old (cash) barrier tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were placed so that many local (short) trips could be made without paying a toll.  I do not recall seeing any GSP-style ramp tolls on the Connecticut Pike (though I could be wrong about that).

As for traffic on local roads, personally one of the major reasons I-95 suffers from such traffic problems is that it has too many interchanges, thus encouraging many fairly local trips which have no business using a freeway to hop on for an exit or two, and creating too many merge points. The highway could stand to have its ramp count reduced. Exits 7 and 8 could be combined. Exits 10 and 11 could be combined. Exits 12, 20, 22, 26, 35, and 37 could all be removed.

Sounds like a good reason to build "thru" and "local" lanes!  Separate the long trip lengths from the short!

I have not been on I-95 in Connecticut for many years, but I presume that the land does not exist to double to width of the Turnpike, especially in Fairfield County.

[Steve]

I have not been on I-95 in Connecticut for many years, but I presume that the land does not exist to double to width of the Turnpike, especially in Fairfield County.

Correct, the only way they were going to double capacity was a second deck, and that won't fly for aesthetic and cost reasons. Though cost may be less of an issue if you imagine the decked lanes as a free-flow toll express road.

[Steve]

No, the main argument used now would be tolling an already-free road, especially one that was formerly tolled and then set free. Florida just went through this experience on the Snapper Creek / 878, which was free when I was on it but since converted to All Electronic Tolling. Read up on it (I had to research it for work today) - FTA itself cites public reaction, and I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from on newspaper and other local message boards.

Though I think the experiences with Ontario's Highway 407 ETR have demonstrated that cashless tolling does work, and works pretty well.  And at this point, 407 has been running cashless since th 1990's - and in spite of some controversies about inadequately staffed customer service centers and so-called "plate denial" (aimed at vehicles with unpaid tolls), I think overall the road is handling plenty of traffic.

ETA: Not to mention the shitshow if the CT Tpk. were tolled and not the parallel Merritt - imagine the traffic. Not to mention, even if both of those are tolled again (which is double the problem of retolling a now-free once-tolled road), imagine the shitshow on US 1 and other parallel "local" roads, diversions to already-stuffed I-84, etc. I don't see this happening ever.

But when there were tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike, there were also tolls on the Merritt Parkway, correct?  While some short trips might divert to U.S. 1, I cannot imagine that there would be that much shunpiking, since U.S. 1 cannot handle the same volumes of traffic that the Turnpike and the Parkway.

But neither of your quotes addresses my points. Yes, cashless tolling works well, but re-tolling a now-free road does not. 407 ETR was always tolled, as a bypass of the free but congested 401. New lanes: people love tolls. Old lanes: leave them free. As for your second quote, volumes are a lot heavier now than even 20 years ago, and while there won't be that much volume diverting, it takes just a very little bit to break the back of already highly congested traffic.

[NE2]

I believe the tolls were gone from all CT roads & bridges by 1985.

But not all ferries.