Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

Went hunting for a Christmas tree with my Dad, so I convinced him to take the Wilbur Cross so I could get some pics.  The afternoon sun glare contributed some unnecessary effects, but was able to get most signs from Meriden down to the Yale Bridge (CT 34), then returning back to the homestead via I-95.  It's amazing how many of the signs are deteriorating already... they were installed around the 2001 time frame.  So they're about 18 years old, give or take, and a lot of them seem to be falling apart. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadyjay/

Next, weather and work schedule permitting, I plan to check on the I-84 sign replacement project in Southington-Farmington and the substantial completion of the widening in Waterbury.

[KEVIN_224]

I find it odd how CT Route 34 traffic is now directed via Exit 44 at the West Haven town line. Why all the effort to make the big flyover ramp at Exit 47 in New Haven, only to downgrade the state highway it leads to?

[jp the roadgeek]

Don't think they have officially, but is CTDOT considering truncating CT 34 back to CT 10?  You would think the move would be in the cards with the signage mentioned above.

[Duke87]

I find it odd how CT Route 34 traffic is now directed via Exit 44 at the West Haven town line. Why all the effort to make the big flyover ramp at Exit 47 in New Haven, only to downgrade the state highway it leads to?

Well for one thing, ConnDOT had no intention of removing the Oak Street Connector until the project that included upgrading that flyover was already under construction.

Even without the full connector though, downtown itself is enough of a destination to warrant a decently powerful ramp. The old configuration was a left exit for 95 NB traffic, which there are safety reasons for fixing... and with the 95/91 interchange getting (justifiably) rebuilt, something had to happen there.

Even if the interchange rebuild were planned with an Oak Street Connector removal in mind, the exit 47 ramps probably would have had basically the same thing done to them

[AMLNet49]

I find it odd how CT Route 34 traffic is now directed via Exit 44 at the West Haven town line. Why all the effort to make the big flyover ramp at Exit 47 in New Haven, only to downgrade the state highway it leads to?

Well for one thing, ConnDOT had no intention of removing the Oak Street Connector until the project that included upgrading that flyover was already under construction.

Even without the full connector though, downtown itself is enough of a destination to warrant a decently powerful ramp. The old configuration was a left exit for 95 NB traffic, which there are safety reasons for fixing... and with the 95/91 interchange getting (justifiably) rebuilt, something had to happen there.

Even if the interchange rebuild were planned with an Oak Street Connector removal in mind, the exit 47 ramps probably would have had basically the same thing done to them

It's being put on the overpowered interchanged watch list

[PHLBOS]

Looks like there's some potential bait & switch action taking place regarding proposed tolls with respect to the incoming Lamont Administration.

Lamont Transition Committee Recommends Gas Tax hike and Tolls on Cars and Trucks

Tolls for all trucks and cars must be on the table as the new Lamont Administration takes over next month.  That's the conclusion of his transition transportation policy committee today.   It comes despite the fact that Lamont has said he only supports tolls on trucks.

[jp the roadgeek]

Shocking......NOT    Did you really think CT drivers wouldn't get screwed any which way they could? No blood on my hands.

In other news, drove by the storage area for the I-84 Southington-Farmington signing project today between the bridges off Woodford Ave in Plainville on the 72 curve, and whole bunch of new signage lay on the ground, so we might finally see some movement after 6 months of absolutely nothing, including the removal of the 2 Slater Rd EB BGS's that still stand near the new signage already installed.

[PHLBOS]

Shocking......NOT    Did you really think CT drivers wouldn't get screwed any which way they could?

Two things:

1.  I'm assuming that above-question was rhetorical & not directed towards me per se.
2.  Since CT is a pass-through state; all drivers are getting screwed not just ones w/CT plates.

If one looks/scrolls through past pages on this thread; I have been one of the more outspoken critics of any plan that places tolls on CT highways.  The simple reason being that if they couldn't be trusted to utilize toll revenue effectively when they had such (1983 Mianus River Bridge Collapse along the CT Turnpike/I-95); what would be different today?

Additionally, I have also stated that if the gas tax revenue didn't get placed into a general fund where it would be subject to raiding for other non-road/transportation uses; more transportation revenue would be available without placing/charging tolls.  Given that a recent referendum that prohibits such raiding was recently passed (coincidentally if not ironically depending on one's point of view) on the same ballot that elected Lamont as governor; this proposed gas tax increase is likely a sneaky way to restore money to the so-called raiders of the gas-tax fueled general fund.  Lamont's transition team may have found a loophole in that referendum in that the current gas tax is subject to the "lock-box" restriction but not additional gas taxes placed on top of such.  Is such indeed true?

[MikeTheActuary]

Additionally, I have also stated that if the gas tax revenue didn't get placed into a general fund where it would be subject to raiding for other non-road/transportation uses; more transportation revenue would be available without placing/charging tolls.  Given that a recent referendum that prohibits such raiding was recently passed (coincidentally if not ironically depending on one's point of view) on the same ballot that elected Lamont as governor; this proposed gas tax increase is likely a sneaky way to restore money to the so-called raiders of the gas-tax fueled general fund.  Lamont's transition team may have found a loophole in that referendum in that the current gas tax is subject to the "lock-box" restriction but not additional gas taxes placed on top of such.  Is such indeed true?

The amendment actually specifies that the Special Transportation Fund shall only be used for transportation purposes.  The amendment doesn't specify what revenues are supposed to go into the STF.

Funds that are supposed to go to the STF are leislatively described here:  https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_243.htm#sec_13b-61   There's also a CGA Research document on the subject here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0088.pdf

The second document suggests that all motor vehicle fuel taxes AND the gross earnings tax on fuel sales are supposed to go to the STF, so Lamont's folks would have to fabricate some kind of new tax (or change the existing law) to get that done.

However, if I follow that particularly ugly bit of legislative language...I'm not sure that the CGA Research folks are correct.   243-13b-61(a)(1) seems to say that only one cent of the fuel tax goes to the STF; the balance would go to the General Fund.  If that is the case, any increase to the fuel tax would go to the General Fund.

[RobbieL2415]

Over the years, I've become of the opinion that everyone should just "get over it" when it comes to tolls.  The arguments for and against are tiresome. Let's see some actual highway and public transit improvements, please.

[roadman]

Over the years, I've become of the opinion that everyone should just "get over it" when it comes to tolls.  The arguments for and against are tiresome. Let's see some actual highway and public transit improvements, please.

I agree.  The focus of discussion should be on where the money is going, not how it is raised.

[MikeCL]

The ongoing bridge replacement in Stamford I-95 NB they took down the highway advisory transmitter so if you happen to listen at 1670 AM it's static now.

Also the state border 95 NB they put a VMS up on a concrete block looks to be fixed in place I'm not sure if it's temporary until they replace the gantry for the larger VMS.

[kurumi]

I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground

[vdeane]

Knowing CT, I'm guessing it will end up being modernize in-place, if anything happens at all.

[southshore720]

My stack of poker chips is going to "No Build (Leave As Is)," because it's Connecticut... I need not say any more.

[Alps]

I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground

Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

[RobbieL2415]

I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground

Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.

[ipeters61]

I-84 Hartford Project published a few alternatives for 84/91 interchange construction:
http://i84hartford.com/documents/newsletters/I-84%20Newsletter_Print_FINAL_English_ADA_121918.pdf

1. No-build (leave as is)
2. Modernize in-place: no left exits; additional ramps and widened Bulkeley Bridge
3. Southern tunnel across Hartford; 84 uses COB across river; CT 2 shifted eastward
4. I-84 realigned to the north; Bulkeley Bridge reverts to US 6/44 boulevard
5. I-91 uses COB to hop across river. New interchanges at 84/91 and 91/2/15.
6. John Larson's $50 billion double tunnel with new 84/91 interchange underground

Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

Would this mean that there would be a new bridge over the Connecticut River?

[MikeTheActuary]

Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

The financing element is why I would expect Concept 1 or Concept 2 to be what's actually chosen.  They'll continue to maintain the existing facilities until it becomes blatantly too expensive to do so...and then they'll do the minimum to address that problem.

I think they're probably on the right track with Concept 4, but I wonder about the price tag and I wonder about the wisdom of adding more curves to I-84.

[kefkafloyd]

You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.

The old route and the Bulkeley bridge would be converted to a local access boulevard in that scenario, not a 3DI.

[MikeTheActuary]

You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.

The old route and the Bulkeley bridge would be converted to a local access boulevard in that scenario, not a 3DI.

So, perhaps it's time for sone of these in downtown Hartford?

[RobbieL2415]

You get a new 3DIs out of it also. Old I-84 could become I-484.

The old route and the Bulkeley bridge would be converted to a local access boulevard in that scenario, not a 3DI.

I honestly don't think it should.  I'd rather them cap out the rest of the section between I-91 and High St. and get some extra volume out of the bypass.  An urban park in that space would be cool to have.  The northbound flyover ramp and the I-91 S to I-84 E ramp could be taken down and Chapel St. could be two lanes eastbound over the Bulkley instead of one.

[Duke87]

Concept 4 has been favored internally for awhile (not to mention has the most plaudits in the writeup), so if they have the money for it, that's the one that I expect to happen.

The financing element is why I would expect Concept 1 or Concept 2 to be what's actually chosen.  They'll continue to maintain the existing facilities until it becomes blatantly too expensive to do so...and then they'll do the minimum to address that problem.

I think they're probably on the right track with Concept 4, but I wonder about the price tag and I wonder about the wisdom of adding more curves to I-84.

I dunno, I don't see the appeal of Concept 4. You're not only adding curves to I-84, you're making it longer, so even if traffic continues flowing at the same speeds you're increasing travel times.

Meanwhile this allows a few blocks' worth of I-84 immediately adjacent to downtown to be removed, but at the expense of creating new neighborhood disruption to the north... and part of the section which could be removed already has a cap on it.

Seems to me the degree to which this concept is actually a net improvement is overstated.


Concept 5 looks more worthwhile in terms of improving downtown Hartford while also keeping traffic flowing along smooth paths. The report claims "impacts to East Hartford would be considerable" but the realigned I-91 in this concept would involve less new ROW than the realigned I-84 in Concept 4...

[RobbieL2415]

Why isn't building I's 284 and 484 in the cards?

Do that and also build a Jennings Rd. bridge over the river and send US 44 over that. Beef up Prospect St. to connect to it

[shadyjay]

How about my option #7:  Construct I-291 from Farmington to Windsor for all thru traffic.  Existing I-84 would be downgraded to a surface route/boulevard from Sisson Ave to East Hartford.  As part of the plan, the existing I-91/I-291 interchange would be rebuilt to include all movements between the two interstates.  The Bissel Bridge would be widened and existing I-291 from I-91 to I-84 would be widened.  Straight-line the east end of I-291 to enter existing I-84 at Buckland Street.  Potential straight-line I-84 at present CT 4/Exit 38. 

Odds of happening:  1 in 1 billion (or so).  But still, too bad it wasn't an option.  If I-291 had been built when it was intended, it could have served as a good alternate route to thru traffic, and also to mitigate traffic delays during construction of a new route, the replacing of the Aetna viaduct, etc.