News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

Started by Mergingtraffic, October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PHLBOS

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 08:58:00 AMSaw this little write-up about why tolls can't just come back here.
Such basically confirms, with more detailed reasons, what I've been saying all along.
GPS does NOT equal GOD


RobbieL2415

Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?

PHLBOS

#2602
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cl94

Eh, there are exceptions. See I-65 in Louisville. The Kennedy Bridge was untolled from its opening in 1963 until 2016. I still have no idea how the feds allowed that. Maybe because the new bridge for NB traffic was tolled?
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

SidS1045

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on February 03, 2018, 05:37:30 PM
(Snooty voice:) "Ahem! Biff and Muffy do not want unsightly metal toll readers on our scenic and beautiful motorway! Besides, our ascots could get caught in one of those contraptions! Time to take the Beemer to the golf course!"  :rolleyes:

That snooty voice should be one's best impression of Thurston Howell III.
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

PHLBOS

Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:18:36 PM
Eh, there are exceptions. See I-65 in Louisville. The Kennedy Bridge was untolled from its opening in 1963 until 2016. I still have no idea how the feds allowed that. Maybe because the new bridge for NB traffic was tolled?
That's likely the case.  However, CT isn't KY; they're not planning on building any new bridges under this proposed plan that I'm aware of.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Mergingtraffic

Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

KEVIN_224

Of course, a certain Facebook group couldn't resist making comments about the state's toll saga either!  :D


RobbieL2415

Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an.important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).

Why is MD allowed to use congestion tolling on Interstate HOV lanes but CT can't?

PHLBOS

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).
As I stated in my previous post (#2602) while CT can place tolls on state highways (including bridges) without federal permission; however, if there's a nearby Interstate, guess which route is going to receive the majority of the traffic?

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AMWhy is MD allowed to use congestion tolling on Interstate HOV lanes but CT can't?
If you're referring to I-95 in MD; those lanes in are actually EXPRESS TOLL lanes, not HOV and such were newly constructed.  The outer/local lanes of I-95 don't have tolls.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an.important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).

1. While the Charter Oak Bridge portion is not an interstate, it is, in essence, a glorified exit ramp from I-84 West to I-91 South, and from I-91 North to I-84 East.  Pretty sneaky if they do it as would exploit a major loophole by not officially being on an interstate, but still collecting 90% of its revenue from interstate traffic. I wouldn't put it past Danny Boy to do it, as he never met a tax or revenue stream collected from the people that he didn't like.

2.  Route 2 is a major route from the north to the 2 casinos.  I call it AC Expressway North.  Put tolls on Routes 2, 8, and 9, and you'll have people taking the back roads to get to the beach.  The town of Durham will become gridlock with the cars being taken off Route 9 and taking Route 17 to 79 to get to Hammonasset.  Put them on 95 and the Parkway, and more people will be taking my less traveled alternative of 84 to 684 to get to NYC.

Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

Conn. Roads

Connecticut has overextended its spending. This is just a grasp at any potential source of income. The best plan is to vote the bums out, and get in a fiscally responsible government in power.

Alps

Quote from: Conn. Roads on February 06, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
Connecticut has overextended its spending. This is just a grasp at any potential source of income. The best plan is to vote the bums out, and get in a fiscally responsible government in power.
The problem is that their roads budget is drained to other sources, so they are constrained with how they can raise road money. The solution is to cut off the earmarks and require all gas tax revenue to go back into roads. (Coming from a state that does just that.)

RobbieL2415

Quote from: jp the roadgeek on February 06, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 06, 2018, 01:19:03 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 05, 2018, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 05, 2018, 11:14:51 AM
Why does every highway in the state need to have tolls?  Why not change the HOV lanes on I-84 and I-91 into a pair of tolled, reversible lanes?  Tolling every highway is overkill.  The only highway that I could see getting a barrier toll system is CT 2 and that's only because it isn't over-congested.

What about just going back to tolling bridges?  Put them on the Bissell Bridge, Charter Oak Bridge, the Q Bridge, the Gold Star Bridge?
Again, blanket tolling of exiting Interstates (including ones on bridges; both the Gold Star & Q Bridges are part of I-95) violates current federal law.  See the web-linked article that Kevin_224 posted for the reasons.

While CT can place tolls on state or US highways without permission from the feds, the main issue with that is if there's a parallel toll-free Interstate nearby; guess which road is going to get more local & through traffic?
The Bissell and Charter Oak had tolls before they were refurbished.  Hell, Charter Oak carries a state highway and a US highway so there's no issue there. That's why I'm saying they should only use barrier tolling on CT 2.  It's just a state highway and it serves an.important corridor for the state (Hartford to Norwich/New London).

1. While the Charter Oak Bridge portion is not an interstate, it is, in essence, a glorified exit ramp from I-84 West to I-91 South, and from I-91 North to I-84 East.  Pretty sneaky if they do it as would exploit a major loophole by not officially being on an interstate, but still collecting 90% of its revenue from interstate traffic. I wouldn't put it past Danny Boy to do it, as he never met a tax or revenue stream collected from the people that he didn't like.

2.  Route 2 is a major route from the north to the 2 casinos.  I call it AC Expressway North.  Put tolls on Routes 2, 8, and 9, and you'll have people taking the back roads to get to the beach.  The town of Durham will become gridlock with the cars being taken off Route 9 and taking Route 17 to 79 to get to Hammonasset.  Put them on 95 and the Parkway, and more people will be taking my less traveled alternative of 84 to 684 to get to NYC.
But with number 2 you'd be putting a load on the I-684/I-84/NY 22 interchange, and it's already extremely busy there during the week.  And are people really going to use the back roads of Middlesex County to get to the beach? That's just gonna take way too much time and any route you choose will take you far away from the corridor.  Route 9 can technically be bypassed with CT 154 and CT 99, however.

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: Conn. Roads on February 06, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
Connecticut has overextended its spending. This is just a grasp at any potential source of income. The best plan is to vote the bums out, and get in a fiscally responsible government in power.

Thing is: a fiscally responsible government is unlikely to remain in power.

Connecticut's choices are some combination of entering a taxation death-spiral, reneging on pension obligations and other long-term promises, or cutting every other expenditure back to near non-existence (forcing towns to have to face analogous decisions).

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Mergingtraffic

https://lintvwtnh.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/20180222-ctdot-i95-strategies-to-reduce-congestion.pdf

The circle continues....big plans, then oh yeah no money, lets cut the project down, more no money....we can only do an aux lane between exit 1 and 2.
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

Duke87

Quote from: cl94 on February 05, 2018, 02:18:36 PM
Eh, there are exceptions. See I-65 in Louisville. The Kennedy Bridge was untolled from its opening in 1963 until 2016. I still have no idea how the feds allowed that. Maybe because the new bridge for NB traffic was tolled?

Following the statutory trail here, the Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 says the following:
QuoteSEC. 113. TOLL ROADS, BRIDGES, AND TUNNELS.
(a) APPROVAL AS PART OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM.
Upon a finding by the Secretary of Commerce that  such  action  will promote the development of  an integrated  Interstate  System, the Secretary is authorized to  approve as part of  the Interstate  System any toll road, bridge, or tunnel, now or hereafter constructed which meets the standards adopted for  the improvement of projects  located on  the Interstate System, whenever such toll road, bridge, or tunnel is located on a route heretofore or hereafter designated as a part of the Interstate System: Provided That no Federal-aid  highway  funds  shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll road except to the extent hereafter permitted by law: Provided further That no Federal-aid highway funds shall be expended for the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of any such toll  bridge or tunnel except to the extent now or hereafter permitted by law.
(emphasis mine)

So essentially, you cannot toll any interstates that federal-aid highway funds were used to construct or reconstruct, but there's a caveat that this doesn't apply in cases where another law explicitly permits it.

Here is what 23 USC 129 currently says, and has said since ISTEA was passed in 1991:
Quote(a) Basic Program.–
(1)Authorization for federal participation.–Subject to the provisions of this section, Federal participation shall be permitted on the same basis and in the same manner as construction of toll-free highways is permitted under this chapter in the–
(A) initial construction of a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel or approach to the highway, bridge, or tunnel;
(B) initial construction of 1 or more lanes or other improvements that increase capacity of a highway, bridge, or tunnel (other than a highway on the Interstate System) and conversion of that highway, bridge, or tunnel to a tolled facility, if the number of toll-free lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after the construction is not less than the number of toll-free lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before the construction;
(C) initial construction of 1 or more lanes or other improvements that increase the capacity of a highway, bridge, or tunnel on the Interstate System and conversion of that highway, bridge, or tunnel to a tolled facility, if the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after such construction is not less than the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before such construction;
(D) reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement of a toll highway, bridge, or tunnel or approach to the highway, bridge, or tunnel;
(E) reconstruction or replacement of a toll-free bridge or tunnel and conversion of the bridge or tunnel to a toll facility;
(F) reconstruction of a toll-free Federal-aid highway (other than a highway on the Interstate System) and conversion of the highway to a toll facility;
(G) reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of a highway on the Interstate System if the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, after reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation is not less than the number of toll-free non-HOV lanes, excluding auxiliary lanes, before reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation;
(H) conversion of a high occupancy vehicle lane on a highway, bridge, or tunnel to a toll facility; and
(I) preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of a toll facility for which Federal participation is authorized under this paragraph.
(emphasis mine again)

So the prohibition on tolling interstates does not apply to any new bridges on the interstate system (which the NB Kennedy Bridge most certainly is). It also, per item E, is fair game to convert free bridges and tunnels into tolled bridges and tunnels upon rehabbing or rebuilding them.

Item E is very important, actually, because it's worth noting that the statute does not define any minimum bridge size for this to apply to, and there is plenty of precedent that even a small overpass is a bridge (bridge inspection requirements apply to them, for example). This creates a substantial loophole - if Connecticut were so inclined, they could place a toll at any interstate overpass that needed rehab or replacement and use the toll funds to pay for said rehab or replacement.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

cl94

And that's the loophole ConnDOT can exploit.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

vdeane

If the Trump infrastructure bill goes through, they won't need a loophole.  And the plan appears to be for every mile of interstate in the state.
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/02/will-connecticut-be-the-most-heavily-tolled-state-in-the-nation/
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

zzyzx

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 08:56:34 PM
https://lintvwtnh.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/20180222-ctdot-i95-strategies-to-reduce-congestion.pdf

The circle continues....big plans, then oh yeah no money, lets cut the project down, more no money....we can only do an aux lane between exit 1 and 2.

After reading through the document, I can say this accurately represents the impression I got from ConnDOT when I attended the planning meeting back in April for the Exit 74 interchange redesign. With limited transportation funds, their main focus seems to be on rebuilding overpasses to accommodate an auxiliary lane between exits, and maybe adding a lane on the most congested sections rather than doing a full scale widening. I think the only reason why they were looking to redesign Exit 74 was because they were supposed to build a Costco near there..but those plans got scrapped. The plan here mentions "Exit 70 to Exit 74 widening" but doesn't include the Exit 74 interchange. At the very least, I-95 needs 3 lanes + 1 auxiliary lane in each direction through Eastern CT but now that seems unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

I moved from the area last year to Austin, TX and while Austin has its own traffic congestion issues, at least there are auxiliary lanes here so people don't have to make last second merges onto the highway.

If/when CT decides to install tolls, I can tell you now that express toll lanes will create even more problems based on what I see along MoPac (Loop 1) in Austin. It's 1 lane in each direction with a narrow shoulder, and there were a few instances where people were passing on the shoulder and even driving across the flexible delineators when traffic backs up on the non-tolled portion. So during rush hour, people in the express lane slow down anticipating a last second cut in. Drivers get impatient here when cars travel slower than 70-80 in the express lane, and city buses, which are allowed to travel on the express lanes, only travel 55-60. When there's an accident, they just close the express lane because there's no room for cars to maneuver. Now imagine the typical drivers in the northeast and multiply the traffic scenarios/accidents by 10. I bet someone driving their minivan at 60mph is going to get rear-ended by some driver traveling 90mph (one driver here was caught going 105, and didn't even receive a speeding ticket).

BTW...the image they used for the "I-95 West" section on page 2, doesn't even look like it was taken in CT. The gantry doesn't look like anything CT uses.

PHLBOS

Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2018, 07:06:43 PMIf the Trump infrastructure bill goes through, they won't need a loophole.
Such would be dependent upon what the actual contents of the bill are.  I don't believe anyone knows of such just yet. 
Quote from: vdeane on February 23, 2018, 07:06:43 PMAnd the plan appears to be for every mile of interstate in the state.
http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/02/will-connecticut-be-the-most-heavily-tolled-state-in-the-nation/
While the article mentions the federal prohibition of instituting border tolls; the proposal completely ignores the current Federal prohibition of blanket placing of tolls along existing free Interstates without any major expansion (i.e. additional lanes).  I.e., such is dead on arrival unless the federal rules change beforehand.

Whether the federal prohibition either gets partially relaxed or completely thrown out is not yet known.  Current rumors of the proposed federal plan point to either a 25-cent-a-gallon hike in the federal gas tax and/or tax on miles driven.  Such wouldn't necessarily involve a complete rewrite of the Interstate Highway Act or policies.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jp the roadgeek

Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 22, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on February 05, 2018, 03:53:18 PM
Anybody notice the new signing contract on I-84 between Exits 29-39 that some of the extruded aluminum signs are very close to the road.  I can see trucks that pull over on the shoulder clipping them.

Also an Exit 39 (left exit) BGS on I-84 east has a left exit tab that is alligned to the RIGHT.

Also noticed a WHITE "WEST" banner over an I-84 shield on I-84 west just past CT-4.

Saw it yesterday just west of the Fienemann Rd exit.  Wanted to take a picture but it was raining to beat the band.  Not quite as egregious as when they put the wrong exit number signs up for CT 10 (they've also since replaced that brown exit tab for Exit 31 WB).  As far as the sign replacement project, seems all the ground mounts are in, and existing old signage has been removed up to exit 32.  There is now no reflective button copy signage left on I-84 from the NY border to Exit 39.   
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

RobbieL2415

How about building a toll road under a public-private partnership?  Have it run 10-15 miles north parallel to I-95.

Rothman

Quote from: RobbieL2415 on February 25, 2018, 10:33:20 PM
How about building a toll road under a public-private partnership?  Have it run 10-15 miles north parallel to I-95.
Re-toll the Merritt and Wilbur Cross?  No.


Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.