Connecticut News

[RobbieL2415]

Only thing I've seen on CT 9 (and several other roads, including I-691) is a large amount of light poles lying on the ground, sporadically spread.  This is not part of any replacement project.  On CT 9, I saw one down, then 10+ up, then another one down, etc etc.  Are that many getting hit or are they just failing? 

On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.

Nice. That's all brand new for 691. I-291 is the only interstate without ITMS or cameras. And that's our state's newest complete Interstate.

[shadyjay]

I-384 doesn't have any east of Exit 1.  I-395 north of Norwich doesn't have any either.  No need for it out there.

CT 9 from Middletown to I-84 and CT 72 are supposed to get it in 2021.  There are a few cameras in Middletown and Cromwell but they're spotty.

[abqtraveler]

Only thing I've seen on CT 9 (and several other roads, including I-691) is a large amount of light poles lying on the ground, sporadically spread.  This is not part of any replacement project.  On CT 9, I saw one down, then 10+ up, then another one down, etc etc.  Are that many getting hit or are they just failing? 

On I-691, I saw crews out the past couple days working on the ITMS, putting up high poles with cameras on them.  Crews were working the entire length of the road, from east of I-91 out to I-84.  There's a new VMS on CT 66 WB just before the start of the expressway (ground-mounted), and there will be others.

Nice. That's all brand new for 691. I-291 is the only interstate without ITMS or cameras. And that's our state's newest complete Interstate.

To my knowledge, there are no ITMS or cameras on I-384 as well. Anyone know if there are plans to install ITMS and cameras on 384?

[RobbieL2415]

If it were up to me, I'd put ITMS, cameras and VMS along the entire stretch of US 6 from Bolton to Killingly.

[shadyjay]

Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

[abqtraveler]

Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.

[Alps]

Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.

Do they? Granted, I'm just using the property lines displayed in Google Maps, but from either end of the completed freeway I saw nothing resembling a highway ROW, just normal property lines criss-crossing.

[abqtraveler]

Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.

Do they? Granted, I'm just using the property lines displayed in Google Maps, but from either end of the completed freeway I saw nothing resembling a highway ROW, just normal property lines criss-crossing.

There's an app called On-X which is widely used by hunters. On-X shows all of the property boundaries and who owns each parcel. Interestingly enough, On-X also shows the State of Connecticut owning parcels of land around North Canaan that was to have been a bypass for US-7 around the town that would have connected to the Super-2 section of US-7 from the CT/MA state line to Sheffield, MA.

[sharkyfour]

Now that I'm looking at 'em, there isn't one on I-384.  What I probably saw once was one of the cameras on I-84 near Exit 59 pointed down towards I-384 Exit 1. 

In reality, does I-384 need cameras?  I can see I-291, I-691, and CT 9 as they form a bypass route of sorts for I-84 and I-91, but I-384 doesn't fit that bill and is rarely, if ever, congested.  We all know it was designed/built for greater aspirations than dead-ending in the Notch.  Perhaps one day it will serve a greater purpose, but I'm not holding my breath for that!

The State of Connecticut still owns most of the right-of-way to build a freeway between I-384 and the US-6 bypass around Willimantic in case there comes a time where opposition to the freeway goes away and the money to build it somehow magically appears. Not in my lifetime will that happen though.

Do they? Granted, I'm just using the property lines displayed in Google Maps, but from either end of the completed freeway I saw nothing resembling a highway ROW, just normal property lines criss-crossing.

After a court case a couple years ago, they did start the process of selling some of it off.  I'm not sure they had yet acquired land near Bolton Notch yet.  But they did buy up ROW through Andover and Coventry I think back in the early 1990's.

[Duke87]

When ConnDOT last tried to do something with that corridor the Army Corps of Engineers shot their plans down saying "no, the environmental impacts this will have on Hop River are unacceptable". So even if they were to eventually build something it would likely have to be on a different alignment.


As for the state owned ROW, it's visible on OSM as "Bolton Open Space", "Coventry Open Space", and "Andover Open Space".

[abqtraveler]

When ConnDOT last tried to do something with that corridor the Army Corps of Engineers shot their plans down saying "no, the environmental impacts this will have on Hop River are unacceptable". So even if they were to eventually build something it would likely have to be on a different alignment.


As for the state owned ROW, it's visible on OSM as "Bolton Open Space", "Coventry Open Space", and "Andover Open Space".

It wasn't so much the Corps of Engineers that objected to the alignment north of the Hop River, but moreso the EPA. When it comes to the issuance of Corps of Engineers permits, the EPA can block the Corps from issuing the required permits to get a freeway built. Over the past few decades, the EPA's Region 1 office (that covers New England) has generally been opposed to any new-terrain freeways within its jurisdiction and has blocked the Corps of Engineers from issuing permits for many planned freeways that are now effectively dead (e.g., the Route 11 extension, Super 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, the Circ in Vermont, and the Nashua Circ in New Hampshire to name a few). States abandoned these projects and redirected funds to projects they could complete, mainly repairing and improving existing routes.

[abqtraveler]

I found a couple of Youtube videos showing road trips along I-84 and CT-8 within the past 6 months. The videos show that ConnDOT's District 4 (covers west-central and northwest CT) has been leaning forward in striping exit gores within the district. One video shows exit gores on I-84 from Exit 26 in Cheshire to Exit 3 in Danbury now have striped exit gores (guessing they forgot about Exits 1 and 2). A second video shows exit gores are also striped on Route 8 from the Waterbury Mixmaster to Exit 15 in Derby.

• I-84 WB through Connecticut (December 2020) https://youtu.be/u02M8btrmx8
  
  Route 8 Waterbury to Derby (August 2020) : https://youtu.be/xt1j54YWHZI

A recent look at Google Maps also shows that exit gores on the freeway sections of US-7 through both Norwalk and the Danbury area are also striped.

• US-7 Exit 12 Brookfield GSV: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4753625,-73.4106706,3a,75y,187.84h,64.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbCb6jBXfjxyY6fjFY-9bjg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
  

I visited Connecticut and drove on these stretches of highway in July 2020 and only some of the aforementioned exit gores were striped at the time, so it looks like ConnDOT District 4 completed striping their exit gores during the late summer or fall.

The videos show no striping on older sections of pavement in the other ConnDOT districts, with newer pavement having striped exit gores. From that, I conclude that while District 4 has leaned forward in striping its exit ramp gores, it looks like the other three districts are phasing in exit gore striping as sections of highway are resurfaced.

[RobbieL2415]

New gantry is up at I-84 before Exit 47. HOV and the left exit pull-through for CT 15 are up westbound.

[jp the roadgeek]

New gantry is up at I-84 before Exit 47. HOV and the left exit pull-through for CT 15 are up westbound.

I'm assuming you mean 57.

Also saw the first piers for the CT 72/CT 9 sign replacement project in the ground.  They were for the gantry at the eastern terminus of CT 72 for the CT 9 directional BGS's. 

[RobbieL2415]

New gantry is up at I-84 before Exit 47. HOV and the left exit pull-through for CT 15 are up westbound.

I'm assuming you mean 57.

Also saw the first piers for the CT 72/CT 9 sign replacement project in the ground.  They were for the gantry at the eastern terminus of CT 72 for the CT 9 directional BGS's.

Yes.

[kernals12]

Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut DOT issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ¼ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

[shadyjay]

I recall reading about that.  However, I don't believe there ever was a "Connecticut Turnpike Authority".  I believe the turnpike was just run by the highway department, later the state DOT. 

Perhaps if there was a separate agency running the turnpike, the money collected in tolls would've gone solely for turnpike improvements.  If that was the case, many of the improvements of the 90s/2000s may have happened earlier, and we may have seen a widening east of the New Haven area by now.  Collectively, if tolls were introduced again to I-95, I'd be all for it if they stayed with the road itself, vs going into a general fund.  I'd pay $.50 or $1.00 every time I wanted to travel the shoreline if it meant a 3rd lane was coming. 

[DJStephens]

Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road. 

[kernals12]

Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road.

That was the reason for getting rid of tolls. The Connecticut DOT had little sympathy for the MTA, saying that their turnstyles would accept bottlecaps.

[RobbieL2415]

I recall reading about that.  However, I don't believe there ever was a "Connecticut Turnpike Authority".  I believe the turnpike was just run by the highway department, later the state DOT. 

Perhaps if there was a separate agency running the turnpike, the money collected in tolls would've gone solely for turnpike improvements.  If that was the case, many of the improvements of the 90s/2000s may have happened earlier, and we may have seen a widening east of the New Haven area by now.  Collectively, if tolls were introduced again to I-95, I'd be all for it if they stayed with the road itself, vs going into a general fund.  I'd pay $.50 or $1.00 every time I wanted to travel the shoreline if it meant a 3rd lane was coming.

There was a Greater Hartford Bridge Authority.

[abqtraveler]

Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road.

That was the reason for getting rid of tolls. The Connecticut DOT had little sympathy for the MTA, saying that their turnstyles would accept bottlecaps.

The Stratford toll plaza crash was only part of the reason why Connecticut got rid of tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike in 1985. Connecticut was required to de-toll the Connecticut Turnpike following the Mianus River Bridge collapse because federal funds were used to repair the bridge. Per Section 113(c) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, Connecticut was required to remove tolls from the Turnpike once its construction bonds were paid off, which happened in 1985.

As for legislation to abolish tolls statewide in Connecticut, that was more attributed to the Stratford toll plaza crash, and allowing tolls on Connecticut's highways I would say is the third rail of state politics. Toll opponents always bring up that crash when lawmakers debate bringing back tolls. Almost 40 years later, the Stratford toll plaza crash is a memory that will not soon fade away.

As far as who managed the Connecticut Turnpike during its toll road days, it was the Connecticut Department of Transportation. There was never a turnpike authority to oversee operations of the Turnpike. Toll revenues went into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures, which also explains the lack of proper maintenance in the years running up to the Mianus River Bridge collapse.

[kernals12]

Here's a fun story: back in 1982, when the state still had tolls, the Connecticut Turnpike Authority issued a new set of tokens that just happened to be almost exactly the same size as New York City subway tokens, but cost less than ⅓ as much so, inevitably, they started showing up in fareboxes. For 3 years the problem went unsolved but when tolls were abolished in 1985, the MTA was compensated 17.5 cents for each token that they had received.

Believe there was a fiery pileup, early-mid eighties at one of the I-95 barrier toll booths that may have also hastened the end of tolls on that road.

That was the reason for getting rid of tolls. The Connecticut DOT had little sympathy for the MTA, saying that their turnstyles would accept bottlecaps.

The Stratford toll plaza crash was only part of the reason why Connecticut got rid of tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike in 1985. Connecticut was required to de-toll the Connecticut Turnpike following the Mianus River Bridge collapse because federal funds were used to repair the bridge. Per Section 113(c) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, Connecticut was required to remove tolls from the Turnpike once its construction bonds were paid off, which happened in 1985.

As for legislation to abolish tolls statewide in Connecticut, that was more attributed to the Stratford toll plaza crash, and allowing tolls on Connecticut's highways I would say is the third rail of state politics. Toll opponents always bring up that crash when lawmakers debate bringing back tolls. Almost 40 years later, the Stratford toll plaza crash is a memory that will not soon fade away.

As far as who managed the Connecticut Turnpike during its toll road days, it was the Connecticut Department of Transportation. There was never a turnpike authority to oversee operations of the Turnpike. Toll revenues went into the state's general fund and used for highway and non-highway expenditures, which also explains the lack of proper maintenance in the years running up to the Mianus River Bridge collapse.

Today, we have pay-by-plate so there's no need for toll plazas and hence no risk of crashes. The bigger issue is that people don't like tax increases. And given Connecticut's history, if they brought back tolls, I'm sure they'd find another way to squander it and then come back asking for another tax increase.

[kernals12]

The whole token debacle though is Gresham's Law in action; bad money drives out good.

[Mergingtraffic]

Wasn't there a lockbox that was passed? I remember hearing about it but now it seems nobody mentions it.

[The Ghostbuster]

If Connecticut were to ever bring back tolls (not likely IMHO, but then, I'm from Wisconsin), I am sure they would all be charged electronically. As I have said before, toll booths and toll plazas from the 20th century are obsolete, and should remain in the 20th century.