Connecticut News

[PHLBOS]

Since this has little to do with the topic at hand here, we should probably move the discussion to the Mid-Atlantic forum if you want to continue to discuss this (which I am happy to do).

No worries, I was just asking a couple questions and you answered them.

As far as reeling this thread back on topic is concerned; hopefully, these CT toll proposals will go nowhere.  If memory serves, not all the tax revenues collected from the gas tax goes to transportation-related projects (at least it didn't circa 1990) but goes to a general fund instead; maybe it's time to firm that up first (gas tax for transportation projects only) and see what happens.

[cpzilliacus]

As far as reeling this thread back on topic is concerned; hopefully, these CT toll proposals will go nowhere.  If memory serves, not all the tax revenues collected from the gas tax goes to transportation-related projects (at least it didn't circa 1990) but goes to a general fund instead; maybe it's time to firm that up first (gas tax for transportation projects only) and see what happens.

If the tolls are used to fund Connecticut's highways (including expansion where appropriate) and maintenance, then what's not to like?

Does the Connecticut legislature or its staff keep track of (and report on) transportation tax dollars that are consumed by non-transportation uses?

[PHLBOS]

If the tolls are used to fund Connecticut's highways (including expansion where appropriate) and maintenance, then what's not to like?

In principle, I agree with you.  However, when I went for a job interview at ConnDOT circa early 1990; it was briefly mentioned to me (in a roundabout manner) that not all gas tax revenue indeed goes towards transportation projects.  Due to a hiring freeze that took place back then; I wasn't hired for the job.

Does the Connecticut legislature or its staff keep track of (and report on) transportation tax dollars that are consumed by non-transportation uses?

That, I do not know.  I do know that neighboring Rhode Island's State Gas Tax goes to a General Fund (as opposed to a transporation fund); at least it did during the mid-1980s (when I was attending college there).  Not sure if that's still true today.

[cpzilliacus]

If the tolls are used to fund Connecticut's highways (including expansion where appropriate) and maintenance, then what's not to like?

In principle, I agree with you.  However, when I went for a job interview at ConnDOT circa early 1990; it was briefly mentioned to me (in a roundabout manner) that not all gas tax revenue indeed goes towards transportation projects.  Due to a hiring freeze that took place back then; I wasn't hired for the job.

And then the other elephant in  the room is transit  funding.  How much of Connecticut's motor fuel tax revenue gets diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?

Does the Connecticut legislature or its staff keep track of (and report on) transportation tax dollars that are consumed by non-transportation uses?

That, I do not know.  I do know that neighboring Rhode Island's State Gas Tax goes to a General Fund (as opposed to a transporation fund); at least it did during the mid-1980s (when I was attending college there).  Not sure if that's still true today.

Most of the fuel tax money in my part of the world gets deposited into a transportation trust fund, though transit consumes a huge share of those dollars (way out of proportion to the number of trips taken on transit).

In  bad budget years, there has been  "borrowing" from the transportation trust fund to prop up the general fund, but in some cases, that money does get refunded when the budgets improve.

[PHLBOS]

And then the other elephant in  the room is transit  funding.  How much of Connecticut's motor fuel tax revenue gets diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?

There was a reason why I mentioned in my previous post transportation funding as opposed to just highway funding.  It was intended to be a catch-all, if you would.  Outside of busses & Amtrak, what other forms of mass transit exist in CT?  Hartford, certainly doesn't have the same transit infrastructure as Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, etc.

That said, any state that has large transit infrastructure in key counties could allow said-counties to charge a slightly higher gas tax for transit-related projects.  That way a rural county isn't subsidizing a transit system that doesn't serve them and they're never going to use.

[Duke87]

And then the other elephant in  the room is transit  funding.  How much of Connecticut's motor fuel tax revenue gets diverted to transit operating and capital subsidies?

There was a reason why I mentioned in my previous post transportation funding as opposed to just highway funding.  It was intended to be a catch-all, if you would.  Outside of busses & Amtrak, what other forms of mass transit exist in CT?  Hartford, certainly doesn't have the same transit infrastructure as Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, etc.

Connecticut pays the MTA a lot of money to operate Metro-North within the state, and ConnDOT also operates Shore Line East rail.

ConnDOT is generally in some way responsible for all modes of transportation in the state.

[cpzilliacus]

That said, any state that has large transit infrastructure in key counties could allow said-counties to charge a slightly higher gas tax for transit-related projects.  That way a rural county isn't subsidizing a transit system that doesn't serve them and they're never going to use.

Virginia allows its local governments to set-up transportation districts, which are effectively about bus and sometimes rail transit (and sometimes both).

The Northern Virginia counties and cities that belong to the WMATA (Metro) interstate compact are allowed to collect a 2% tax on motor fuel sold within the district.  All of that revenue helps to defray some of the operating subsidies that would otherwise come from the general funds of those jurisdictions.  Further south and west along the I-95 and I-66 corridors, a different agency provides express bus service to D.C., and partners with the Northern Virginia WMATA compact members to fund and oversee the Virginia Railway Express commuter rail lines.

Maryland does not generally do special districts for the money collected for transit subsidies.  The money is collected from statewide motorists, and a large percentage of it goes to transit, with no regard for where the dollars originated.

[Mergingtraffic]

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27617/170-3065_Portfolio_Plans.pdf

More waste of CT DOT dollars.  They plan to modify the 3-lane pull through BGS on I-84 EB in Waterbury:

    84    East
\/       \/        \/

They plan to cover up the right arrow with a "this lane ends 1/2mile ahead" over it.
However the third lane does drop about a half mile ahead, but it's not signed until 1500 feet ahead.
My question is, this sign has been here for years and NOW they change it!?!?  The widening project that will eliminate this lane drop will start next year.  Why change it now!?!?!  It seems to be a waste. 

Meanwhile on I-84 WB, the Route 8 SB left exit isn't properly signed.  You don't really know it until about a 1/2 mile before it.  I just don't get their reasoning.

[shadyjay]

Hopefully they don't follow those plans TOO closely, as the one for the replacement of the assembly on CT 72 EB in Plainville has NEW BRITAIN as a control city for both CT 72/I-84 East and for Exit 4/I-84 West.  Obviously, the I-84 West one should be Waterbury. 

What confuses me is why some locations get a "lattice-style" old school gantry, while others get a pipe gantry.  And also strange to see the move from bridge-mounted to ground-mounted signs. 

[PHLBOS]

And also strange to see the move from bridge-mounted to ground-mounted signs.

For some unknown reason, several states (MA & PA come to mind) have been shying away from bridge/overpass mounted BGS' in favor of either ground-mounts or a separate gantry for about a decade.  I checked the latest MUTCD, and there's no mention of bridge/overpass mounted signs being discouraged or not allowed.  It sounds like CT is doing similar.

[jp the roadgeek]

Just found this in this morning's Courant.  The legislature might consider raising the speed limit in CT to 75.

http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-transportation-speeding-texting-20130204,0,6159327.story

[agentsteel53]

Just found this in this morning's Courant.  The legislature might consider raising the speed limit in CT to 75.

http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-transportation-speeding-texting-20130204,0,6159327.story

that would be nice.  though I am leery of a reckless driving threshold only 15 above the limit. 

reckless driving should always be cited at an officer's discretion - I can think of a thousand ways to drive recklessly at 74mph in a posted 75, even in good weather and low traffic.

[southshore720]

75 mph would especially be helpful in the Guilford-Old Saybrook stretch of I-95, which is NOTORIOUSLY policed.  I'm always checking my speedometer in this stretch, and I have the previous speeding ticket to prove that!

[BamaZeus]

I can see 75 in certain areas, like on 91 and on 95 east of New Haven.  But, I could never see it on a road like the Merritt Parkway. 

[agentsteel53]

I can see 75 in certain areas, like on 91 and on 95 east of New Haven.  But, I could never see it on a road like the Merritt Parkway.

the better parts of 84 as well.  from east (north) of Hartford to the MA state line.  I believe some parts in the west of the state are comparable.

[southshore720]

75mph would also be great on the entirety of I-395...another heavily policed route.  It also does not have a lot of bends and curves, which would make it a great candidate!

[jp the roadgeek]

Stretches I could see should have at least 6 lanes (3 in each direction) unless it's really desolate.  Where I could see it: 

I-84 from east of Exit 64-65 to the MA line (too much traffic through E. Hartford and Manchester, where it will stay 65).  Western zone of 65 MPH (exit 8-17) is mostly 4 lanes, so keep it 65 there, but add exits 25A-33 as 65 MPH.
I-91 from Exit 8-16, and north of 35.  Keep exit 19-25 as 65.
I-95 from Exit 87 to the RI line.  Once 95 is widened from East Haven to East Lyme, then up it to 75.
I-395 north of CT 2 to the MA line.  Keep as 65 from I-95 to CT 2.
CT 2 from Exit 10-Route 32
US 6 Willimantic Bypass
US 7 from Federal Rd. to end of expressway
CT 8 north of Exit 36. 
CT 9 From Exit 2-10.  Keep as 65 north of Middletown.
All of CT 11

[roadman]

And also strange to see the move from bridge-mounted to ground-mounted signs.

For some unknown reason, several states (MA & PA come to mind) have been shying away from bridge/overpass mounted BGS' in favor of either ground-mounts or a separate gantry for about a decade.  I checked the latest MUTCD, and there's no mention of bridge/overpass mounted signs being discouraged or not allowed.  It sounds like CT is doing similar.

I've been told by reliable sources that MassDOT has been moving away from bridge-mounted signs because a series of recent bridge inspections (done after the 2007 I-35W collapse in Minneapolis) revealed that BGS installations on bridges were causing damage to the bridge parapets and, in some cases, the outside bridge beams themselves.  This damage is apparently due to the torsinal effects from having wind gusts striking the exposed sign panel, which normally protudes much higher than the bridge structure itself.

[Duke87]

Before we worry about raising the speed limit on CT freeways which, honestly, are rarely rural and open enough that a speed limit higher than 65 is fathomable, how about we raise the limit on all the state highways posted at 35 and 40 which could easily be 45 and 50? (and the state highways posted at 45 and 50 which could be 55...)

[Mergingtraffic]

CT was the LAST state to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 in 1998.  That right there speaks volumes.  The land of steady habits is always last to change especially with road design.  Think of how many outdated techniques we still use here or how many new designs or ways of doing things that are not done here but are done in nearly every other state.

[deathtopumpkins]

CT was the LAST state to raise the speed limit from 55 to 65 in 1998.

Actually Hawaii holds that distinction, having only raised the speed limits on H-1 and H-3 from 55 to 60 in 2002.
Source: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2002/04/18/news/story5.html

[spmkam]

Am I the only person who is curious why the increase to 75 from 65? why not stop at 70?

[kurumi]

Am I the only person who is curious why the increase to 75 from 65? why not stop at 70?

According to Wikipedia, only one other state east of the Mississippi* goes up to 75: Maine. Connecticut would stand out on the high end.

* Louisiana is also 75, but lies mostly west of the river

[Ian]

Am I the only person who is curious why the increase to 75 from 65? why not stop at 70?

While I am not complaining, I am wondering the same thing. Connecticut is the last state in the Northeast that I would've expected to get a 75 speed limit.

[jp the roadgeek]

Just saw this before snowmageddon hit:  The Exit 30 LGS on CT 9 1/2 mi. before the CT 71 exit has been replaced with a side mounted BGS.  The BGS (side mounted) at the exit is now in Clearview.