Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

That might be temporary, I think those signs are up for replacement during the construction.

The I-91 reconstruction/Exit 29 relocation plans don't show the northbound Exit 85 signs changing.  In fact, not all the signs on CT 15 within the project limits are being changed.  Not sure why that is... I would've taken this opportunity to replace all signs on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split up to East Hartford, but that's not happening this time 'round.

Perhaps the addition was so that when motorists see traffic building, their GPS can direct them to Exit 85, and there will now be more signs than just the exit gore sign saying that.  Exit 85 goes only south from Route 15, but you could take CT 99 South to CT 3 North to get to either I-91 or I-84, the latter via CT 3/2. 

[RobbieL2415]

That might be temporary, I think those signs are up for replacement during the construction.

The I-91 reconstruction/Exit 29 relocation plans don't show the northbound Exit 85 signs changing.  In fact, not all the signs on CT 15 within the project limits are being changed.  Not sure why that is... I would've taken this opportunity to replace all signs on CT 15 from the Berlin Tpke split up to East Hartford, but that's not happening this time 'round.

Perhaps the addition was so that when motorists see traffic building, their GPS can direct them to Exit 85, and there will now be more signs than just the exit gore sign saying that.  Exit 85 goes only south from Route 15, but you could take CT 99 South to CT 3 North to get to either I-91 or I-84, the latter via CT 3/2.

I can only guess that it's cost related. Plus a full sign replacement would have to be done on a separate contract. It would be out of the way on the current one to go down to the Turnpike and replace all the signs.

[MikeTheActuary]

The latest on tolling: https://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Here-s-how-much-CT-highway-tolls-could-cost-13757566.php

The article makes it sound like the US DOT would be on-board with tolling existing interstates under certain circumstances (specifically, congestion-based pricing

I thought it was presumed that once federal funds had been used for "free" interstates, those funds would need to be paid back before highways could be [re-]tolled, barring special circumstances or new construction (e.g. tolling newly-constructed lanes).

Has there been an announced change that I missed?

[PHLBOS]

The article makes it sound like the US DOT would be on-board with tolling existing interstates under certain circumstances

IIRC, the feds did approve three slots of sorts to allow full-tolling of existing free Interstates as part of their TEA-21 program many years ago.  However, no state has presently taken any of those slots (not sure if RI's new federally-approved truck tolls counts as one of those slots).  As a result, such slots are indeed still open for any other state (including CT) to use.  However, those slots I believe are subject to only one road per state as opposed to several. 

If such is still the case, CT will have to twist the fed's arms to get what it wants.  Additionally, the feds can & hopefully still will apply the same condition/caveat it did w/PA over a decade ago when PA (under then-Gov. Rendell) tried to toll I-80.  Such condition/caveat being that the tolls can only be used for the roads being tolled and nothing else.

Towards the end of the article (bold emphasis added):

Lamont said he needs the legislature to approve an electronic tolling bill before he can ask the federal government for approval.

Without going into partisan, tug-of-war talking points of the article; a tolling bill plan on the state level still needs to be approved first.

[jp the roadgeek]

The following is fact and not opinion:  CT is a heavily controlled Democrat state thanks to Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Waterbury controlling the electorate.  Most of the suburbs lean to the right.  The ones most affected would be those in the suburbs, so there is almost a revolt-like movement against these tolls.  The majority of those that vote Democrat are those that will be affected by these tolls the least: the Fairfield County commuters who use Metro-North, and those that don't own a vehicle.  That being said, Lamont will probably get his way despite the outcry of the constituents who will be affected the most.  The original plan was for 82 locations, but that has been scaled back to 50, and would only be on the 3 2di's and CT 15.  Still, it is quite punitive compared to MA, who only tolls the Pike and the Boston area bridges and tunnels; and NY, who only tolls the Thruway system and the Hudson, MTA, and PANYNJ bridges.

[Rothman]

So, those in CT's cities don't use interstates to travel, especially in a city like Hartford, where you can't get anywhere except on one.

Some fact.

The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

[Mergingtraffic]

Lamont says he would not want to charge out of state drivers more for tolls b/c he wouldn't want states to charge more for CT drivers than they already do.

Hartford Courant article below:

He also said that he was not interested in raising extra money by gouging drivers from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York because those states could then counter-attack by hiking rates on Connecticut drivers.

"I've got to work with Charlie Baker,'' Lamont said, referring to the Massachusetts governor and his colleagues from Rhode Island and New York. "I've got to work with Gina Raimondo. I've got to work with Andrew Cuomo."

UMMMMM Lamont is clueless.

So he's worried about those CT drivers that are driving out of state in MA or NY more so than the CT drivers that drive EVERY DAY in the state,  (b/c if out of state drivers are charged the same as CT drivers, it means we CT drivers will pay MORE to get to the magic number of $800 Million annually) If NY or MA drivers paid a higher toll than CT drivers then the burden on CT drivers wouldn't be as much

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-lamont-transportation-priorities-20190410-ssfn7yruhnaz7hnliv4s7k5vl4-story.html

[Mergingtraffic]

Also the Feds are ok with tolling without having to lose federal funds:

Lamont met recently with Elaine Chao, secretary of transportation, who he said provided that reassurance that Connecticut could collect revenue, and not jeopardize the ability to rely on the federal government to help the state complete projects like rail improvements, highway widening, and bridge replacement.

Connecticut, according to the Department of Transportation in Washington, currently holds one of the spots available through the agency's Value Pricing Pilot Program. That program would allow Connecticut to install tolls on existing roadways, so long as the prices are based on congestion levels and time of day.

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Lamont-Feds-OK-with-Connecticut-Tolls-508339401.html

[jp the roadgeek]

The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 

[Alps]

The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 

Not one? Literally zero? Citation needed.

[Alps]

Lamont says he would not want to charge out of state drivers more for tolls b/c he wouldn't want states to charge more for CT drivers than they already do.

Hartford Courant article below:

He also said that he was not interested in raising extra money by gouging drivers from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York because those states could then counter-attack by hiking rates on Connecticut drivers.

"I've got to work with Charlie Baker,'' Lamont said, referring to the Massachusetts governor and his colleagues from Rhode Island and New York. "I've got to work with Gina Raimondo. I've got to work with Andrew Cuomo."

UMMMMM Lamont is clueless.

So he's worried about those CT drivers that are driving out of state in MA or NY more so than the CT drivers that drive EVERY DAY in the state,  (b/c if out of state drivers are charged the same as CT drivers, it means we CT drivers will pay MORE to get to the magic number of $800 Million annually) If NY or MA drivers paid a higher toll than CT drivers then the burden on CT drivers wouldn't be as much

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-lamont-transportation-priorities-20190410-ssfn7yruhnaz7hnliv4s7k5vl4-story.html

UMMM... that's exactly his point.

[jp the roadgeek]

The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 

Not one? Literally zero? Citation needed.

No Republican voted in favor in the bill that cleared committee.
https://fox61.com/2019/03/20/legislative-committee-votes-to-send-bill-on-tolls-to-the-house-and-senate/

Title of the article says it all (love the erroneous MA 20 sign in the photo)
https://m.ctpost.com/politics/article/Republicans-stand-united-against-tolls-13664878.php

[Alps]

The idea that the tolling plan is purely a partisan issue doesn't seem true to me.

It certainly is.  Not one Republican supports tolls.  The Republican proposal is mostly bonding along with spending cuts.  The swing votes will be the Democrats who represent districts that are mostly commuters, and whether or not they will listen to the voice of their constituents, or pander to party leadership. 

Not one? Literally zero? Citation needed.

No Republican voted in favor in the bill that cleared committee.
https://fox61.com/2019/03/20/legislative-committee-votes-to-send-bill-on-tolls-to-the-house-and-senate/

Title of the article says it all (love the erroneous MA 20 sign in the photo)
https://m.ctpost.com/politics/article/Republicans-stand-united-against-tolls-13664878.php

Oh, legislators, not the people.

[PHLBOS]

Lamont says he would not want to charge out of state drivers more for tolls b/c he wouldn't want states to charge more for CT drivers than they already do.

Such seems to contradict what was mentioned in this WTNH, News 8 story.

Tolls for out of state cars with out of state transponders would pay about double that price.

Okay, so which is it?

Interestingly, the tolling plan appears somewhat scaled back from what was proposed just a few months ago.  I.e. 50 AET gantries instead of 82 and not every single highway in CT will be tolled.

Oh, legislators, not the people.

Given that a legislative vote is all that's needed to approve whatever tolling plan is decided upon prior to going to the feds; such is all that matters at this particular point.  The only thing that the people/constituents can do on this matter is notify their state rep. & senator their views on the plan prior to the above coming to a vote.

[Verlanka]

So, those in CT's cities don't use interstates to travel, especially in a city like Hartford, where you can't get anywhere except on one.

You got me confused on that one

[RobbieL2415]

Never trust a politician with traffic engineering. Let the professionals take care of it.

That having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.

[Mergingtraffic]

Part of the new signage cropping up on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury.


Interesting of note in this new signing project will be a change of wording for the SB Exit 25 signs:

On CT-8 Exit 26 is for CT-63 and Exit 25 south of there is for Cross St. 

A lot of NB drivers on CT-8 use Exit 25 as a cut thru to CT-63.  SB CT-8 drivers do not as it's out of the way and you'd have to back track like a "V."  Look at the map in the link.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4769401,-73.052122,15.79z

What I find dumb is that the NEW Exit 25 signage calls for "Cross St / TO CT-63" for the southbound direction only. It makes no sense as you're already passing CT-63 and going down to Cross St and back again makes no sense. It's not even more direct, you're making a "V."  Northbound Exit 25 signs remain with just "Cross St" and no CT-63 mention.  Shouldn't the NB Exit 25 signs have the "TO CT-63" in addition to "Cross St?"  Thoughts?

[PHLBOS]

That having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.

Two reasons why tolling non-Interstates in CT are non-starters:

1.  Not one of CT's non-Interstates freeways are continuous from state line to state line whereas I-84, 91 & 95 are.

2.  The Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT 15) are in close proximity to I-91 & 95.  As previously mentioned up-thread; tolling one but not the other is an automatic no-go due to shunpiking reasons.

[abqtraveler]

That having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.

Two reasons why tolling non-Interstates in CT are non-starters:

1.  Not one of CT's non-Interstates freeways are continuous from state line to state line whereas I-84, 91 & 95 are.

2.  The Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT 15) are in close proximity to I-91 & 95.  As previously mentioned up-thread; tolling one but not the other is an automatic no-go due to shunpiking reasons.

And Routes 8 and 9 don't carry as much traffic as 84, 91, 95 and Route 15, so there is the question of whether tolling those routes would generate a return on investment, factoring in the up-front cost of installing toll gantries on Routes 8 and 9.

[Alps]

That having been said, why not just toll SRs and not Interstates? They can do that at any time.

Two reasons why tolling non-Interstates in CT are non-starters:

1.  Not one of CT's non-Interstates freeways are continuous from state line to state line whereas I-84, 91 & 95 are.

2.  The Merritt/Wilbur Cross Parkways (CT 15) are in close proximity to I-91 & 95.  As previously mentioned up-thread; tolling one but not the other is an automatic no-go due to shunpiking reasons.

And Routes 8 and 9 don't carry as much traffic as 84, 91, 95 and Route 15, so there is the question of whether tolling those routes would generate a return on investment, factoring in the up-front cost of installing toll gantries on Routes 8 and 9.

It depends on the toll rate. MassPike put in 17 gantries for $250 million, which included an overhaul of their existing toll infrastructure. CDM Smith estimated $372 million for the entire system in CT*, which is clearly a lowball. Since CT would be putting in the infrastructure new, the added costs for 8 and 9 would be minimal. So let's say it's around $10 million per gantry. CT 8 would have roughly 30 gantries, CT 9 would have... let's say 30 gantries if we include CT 72. So 60 gantries, $600 million to install. CDM Smith had operating costs around $100 million/year. I'm again assuming that's a lowball, but I figured around $500k/gantry plus the overall operations (revenue processing etc.), so maybe it's ballpark. So let's say $500k * 60 = $30 million yearly cost to maintain the CT 8/9 system. Amortizing $600 million over 30 years gives me roughly $33.4 million/year at a 4% discount rate. Let's say $35 million yearly cost to build spread out over 30 years. (That's just a value. Bonds could be 25 or 50 or 40 years.) So roughly $65 million annually total. I will even round that up to $100 million for you.
From the Traffic Log**, I see a wide range of AADT (20K to 60K with plenty of outliers), so let's say 40,000 at each gantry seems reasonable. Let's say each gantry charges 15 cents, so a full trip on either road would cost you $4.50. That means every day, each gantry is pulling in $6,000, or a total of $360,000 for all 60 gantries. Multiply by 365 days and: $131,400,000. So even when I rounded way up, I'm still making $31,400,000 per year.
Conclusion: Tolling CT 8 and 9 would be profitable.

*https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/ctdot_tolling_report_11142018.pdf
**https://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/traflog/TRAFFICLOG2015.pdf

[vdeane]

CT also seems to be looking to make out of state drivers pay, and I imagine CT 8 and CT 9 have significantly less out of state traffic than the interstates.  That may well be a factor.

[roadman]

Part of the new signage cropping up on CT-8 between Derby and Waterbury.

Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

[shadyjay]

Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

In my opinion, yes.  And up until a few contracts ago, it was (I-95 east of Madison, the Merritt & WCP, I-84 from Southbury to Waterbury), but then, with the I-395 resigning project, it was changed to the primary color of the sign (in most cases blue, but there is a case of the symbols being mounted on a brown background on I-395 in Norwich, as they're on the same sign as one for Dodd Stadium). 

[jp the roadgeek]

Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

In my opinion, yes.  And up until a few contracts ago, it was (I-95 east of Madison, the Merritt & WCP, I-84 from Southbury to Waterbury), but then, with the I-395 resigning project, it was changed to the primary color of the sign (in most cases blue, but there is a case of the symbols being mounted on a brown background on I-395 in Norwich, as they're on the same sign as one for Dodd Stadium).

They are blue on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign project.  I'm starting to think that it  varies by DOT district.  No black borders on the state shields either for the Route 8 project, but there are on I-395 and on the Groton-RI project on I-95.

[Mergingtraffic]

Shouldn't the backer panel for the service pictographs be blue instead of green?

They are blue on the I-84 Southington-Farmington sign project.  I'm starting to think that it  varies by DOT district.  No black borders on the state shields either for the Route 8 project, but there are on I-395 and on the Groton-RI project on I-95.

Are they? The Exit 31 signs I thought had green background with the blue symbol signs.

Drove down the Merritt and thought where are the new BGSs?  Well, I think some have been up for awhile and I never noticed.
I noticed the back of some of the BGSs NB are now extruded (I was going SB), before they weren't, which leaves me to believe some signs are new but they look exactly the same and have the same crappy font.  NO Highway gothic.  It also seems they are using the same poles as before....no new foundations.  I only saw new foundations for the old US-7 button copy signage at Exit 39-40.

I have noticed the town line signs (Westport Town Line) and exit gore signs also have the crappy font...so I guess no highway gothic for the new signs even though the plans I have show the signs with it.

I-84 Hartford area signing contract up for bid:
https://biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Search/BidDetail.aspx?CID=49509