Connecticut News

[Pete from Boston]

Border tolls should be illegal.  If CT wants tolls, then they should revive the Turnpike and make it impossible to make a free trip on an interstate or CT 15 anywhere in the state.  Border tolls are nothing more than a way to extort money from out of state motorists.

Would the Hillsdale Pascack Valley Toll Plaza 6-7 miles into New Jersey count as a "border toll"?  You can exit the road prior if you know how to do it.  What about the Port Authority bridges?  Bridge aside, they're still sticking it to folks driving into New York.  It's not some schlub from Rahway's fault there's a river (and a couple of tidal straits) there at the border.  He's just trying to get to Maine. 

My point is, on what grounds can you claim a border toll is different from one a little ways in?  This feels like a very superficial distinction.  Is there a point far enough into a state that you have exempted enough out-of-staters that it's "fair"?  How far?

Don't border tolls equally extort money from in-staters using the road to leave or return to the state anyway?

[lowerdeck]

I've seen big metal sign poles getting installed along the northbound side of 395.  Looks like the mileage based exit signs are coming in the near future.

And speaking of 395, border tolls on that would be pretty dreadful as the only alternates are narrow two lane roads.  But I could see the state slapping the tolls down in Plainfield, to catch those coming from RI off 695 heading to the casinos.

[PHLBOS]

And speaking of 395, border tolls on that would be pretty dreadful as the only alternates are narrow two lane roads.  But I could see the state slapping the tolls down in Plainfield, to catch those coming from RI off 695 heading to the casinos.

If by 695, you're referring to the stretch between I-395 (Exit 90) and US 6 at the RI State line; then, no.  Most of the The entire Gov. John Lodge (aka CT) Tunrpike is part of the Interstate system (95, 395, 695 (silent)) and the Interstate system is a federal system (i.e. their rules/their way).  Any previous grandfathering (aside from service plazas) that existed when the CT Turnpike was still a toll facility ended decades ago.  Since 695 is a silent state route; CT could conceivably get around any Federal requirements/restrictions for at least that stretch of road.  However, someone who's road-savvy along I-395 North could still easily shunpike by using Exit 91 (and making a u-turn someplace and follow US 6 East) or Exit 92 and manuver back onto I-395 South to US 6 East.

As stated earlier:

1.  Tolling of existing free Interstates are subject to federal approval & guidelines for such.

2.  One of the federal Interstate tolling prohibitions is the placement of new tolls at border crossings; water crossings & existing, grandfathered (turnpike) tolls being two known exceptions.

3.  Just because CT approves a particular tolling plan doesn't mean that will receive federal approval for such along its Interstates.

In short, CT's current border tolling plan is not a done deal.

[vdeane]

By "border tolls" I meant a barrier that was there to capture traffic crossing the state line.  My definition does not include bridge/tunnel tolls or roads that are otherwise a toll road (such as the Garden State Parkway).

Also, note that CT has ALREADY been recieved FHWA approval for border tolls: http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-connecticut-approved-for-federal-highway-toll-pilot-project-funds-20150302-story.html

[PHLBOS]

A corrected version of an article previously posted.
(Bold emphasis added):

In a story March 2 about highway tolls, The Associated Press erroneously reported that Connecticut was approved for a pilot program installing an electronic toll system. The Federal Highway Administration has funded a study, not installation of electronic tolls.

A corrected version of the story is below:

HARTFORD - The Federal Highway Administration has approved a study of an electronic toll system in Connecticut.

The pilot program for so-called value-pricing bypasses a federal ban on federal highway tolls by offering an exemption that allows certain types of electronic tolls.

Value-pricing, or congestion pricing as it's sometimes called, assigns values for trips at different times and places for different motorists to encourage driving at different times and places to reduce congestion.

The tolls can be placed on designated express lanes, along borders and sections of highway if the revenue generated finances public works improvements.

Hearst Connecticut Media reports that hundreds of opponents have taken to the website of the legislature's Transportation Committee.

The study began in 2013 and is focused on the New York corridor of Interstate 95 to New Haven and Interstate 84 around Hartford.

[NE2]

If by 695, you're referring to the stretch between I-395 (Exit 90) and US 6 at the RI State line; then, no.  The entire Gov. John Lodge (aka CT) Tunrpike is part of the Interstate system (95, 395, 695 (silent)) and the Interstate system is a federal system (i.e. their rules/their way).

Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route

[PHLBOS]

Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route

Thanks for the correction; my previous post has since been corrected to reflect such.

Nonetheless and as previously mentioned; the Feds have only approved the study of tolling CT Interstates not the actual implementation of such-tolls.  Until the latter actually happens; the discussion/debate of such (at least for CT) is moot at this point.

[AMLNet49]

Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route

While it is a state route number, I highly doubt it is coincidental, it basically acts as another X95 just unsigned.

[cl94]

Uh no. 695 is a coincidental state road number.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/connecticut/ct_connecticut.pdf
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/ctx600.html#d_695_route

While it is a state route number, I highly doubt it is coincidental, it basically acts as another X95 just unsigned.

It was assigned well before I-95 or I-395 was designated

[yakra]

695 was assigned in 1964, before 395 in 1983.
I-95 does predate that; it's shown on 1959 Topos.

[NE2]

695 was assigned in 1964, before 395 in 1983.
I-95 does predate that; it's shown on 1959 Topos.

Looking at http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/secretlist.html it's possible that the number 995 was deliberately chosen for the entire turnpike north of I-95. Several shorter turnpike connectors were also assigned 99x numbers, with a weak pattern: 999-997 were already assigned to the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, 996 was a new number for the Milford Parkway, 995 was the longest turnpike spur, and 994-991 were the other turnpike spurs from south to north.

[KEVIN_224]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

[jp the roadgeek]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

Looks like I'll be doing a lot of CT 68 to CT 63 to get around it.  This is when you wish they had extended the CT 72 Expressway to CT 8

[Zeffy]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

Good for them, it's about time they started improving the mess in that area. Another project (Which will take 5 YEARS after this is done...) mentions improvements to the I-84 and CT 8 interchange ("the mix master", although if you ask me it's just a slightly more complex Y) after all of the work widening I-84 is done.

[Pete from Boston]

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/I-84-Widening-Set-to-Begin-297609571.html

It sounds like they're gearing up to start a widening project for I-84 in parts of Waterbury and Cheshire. I just hope they don't f--- up the sewer placements like they did east of here with the Southington/Cheshire project a few years ago!

Good for them, it's about time they started improving the mess in that area. Another project (Which will take 5 YEARS after this is done...) mentions improvements to the I-84 and CT 8 interchange ("the mix master", although if you ask me it's just a slightly more complex Y) after all of the work widening I-84 is done.

My understanding is that 8/84 project is a full rebuild.  Five years is about right. 

[yakra]

Am I right in thinking the 8/84 interchange is already in its second configuration?

[Pete from Boston]

Am I right in thinking the 8/84 interchange is already in its second configuration?

It's as it was at least as far back as the 1970s.

[yakra]

Hm. Guess not.
http://www.kurumi.com/roads/ct/8-84.html

[jp the roadgeek]

The sign replacement project on I-84 west of Hartford has begun.  New ground mounted aligned tab BGS's were put up for Exit 37 (Fienemann Rd) westbound.  The 1/2 mi. overhead gantry is now empty.

[shadyjay]

The sign replacement project on I-84 west of Hartford has begun.  New ground mounted aligned tab BGS's were put up for Exit 37 (Fienemann Rd) westbound.  The 1/2 mi. overhead gantry is now empty.

That's just the latest round of "spot replacements".  A full contract for Exits 30-39A (was to be to Exit 52) is set for sometime later this year. 

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Does anyone know if the Wilbur Cross is going to get it's signs replaced anytime soon?

[shadyjay]

Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).

[Mergingtraffic]

Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).

Funny, I noticed on in Derby on CT-8 SB the Exit 17 exit now sign and the Exit 15 CT-34 1/2 mile signs have been replaced and are now side mounted rather than on the overpass.  Those literally went up overnight.  They were not there Thursday. and I never saw any foundation work.

I was surprised b/c I have been following recent signing projects and didn't see those signs anywhere in them.  Even the "sign replacements at 20 locations" projects too.  Somehow I missed it.

But these non-reflective beauties and others are still there:

[JakeFromNewEngland]

Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).

I definitely agree. The Hartford area has some of the oldest signs in the state.

[Mergingtraffic]

Doubtful.  They were replaced c 2000 and replaced ones that were a hodgepodge mix of Phase I/III/III (non-reflective button copy, direct-applied, reflective button copy).  Only signs that weren't replaced were Exits 54-55.  Many of us thought the Sikorsky Bridge project would take care of 54-55 but to this date, they remain the only button copy on the (non-commercial vehicle-portion) parkway system.  Well, there's one for Exit 67-1 Mile NB and one mileage sign SB across from the Exit 67 sign.

WAY more signs deserving of replacement than those on the WCP.  Take I-84 from East Hartford to Vernon, for instance.  Or CT 25 (coming soon).  Plus there's plenty of reflective button copy still kicking around that needs to go... I-91 north of Hartford, I-95 east of New London, not to mention most of CT 2 and 9 and CT 8 (south of W'by).

I definitely agree. The Hartford area has some of the oldest signs in the state.

I think the Hartford signs are from 1982 or so, when CT first did demountable copy.  The CT-25 signage is from the same era. 

The SB CT-8 sign below is from 1980 or so but the signage on CT-8 NB is from 1989.  So it seems the NB signage was only up for 10 years before it was replaced!?! CT-8 in this area opened up around 1980 SB and NB a couple of years later.