Connecticut News

[abqtraveler]

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

Yes, voters in Connecticut overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state's constitution in 2018 mandating that all transportation funds be spent only on transportation-related expenditures. If tolls were ever brought back, revenues would go into the state's Special Transportation Fund, not the General Fund.

[jp the roadgeek]

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

It was, but it has a secret trap door that politicians can access at any time, plus there are easy ways to divert monies destined for it.  It's essentially a placebo in road funding.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

See Reply #3732 regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

[RobbieL2415]

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.

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.

See Reply #3732 regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

CT should annex the land occupying I-684 to NY to create the first enclave of a state in the US.

[Alps]

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.

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.

See Reply #3732 regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

CT should annex the land occupying I-684 to NY to create the first enclave of a state in the US.

What is this about the Kentucky Bend now?

[abqtraveler]

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.

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.

See Reply #3732 regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

True, but if Connecticut really wanted to press the issue, residents of Westchester County would have no way to stop Connecticut from placing a toll on its short section of I-684, since Westchester County residents can't vote in Connecticut, and the stretch of highway falls within the boundaries of Connecticut so the State of New York would have no say in the matter. The only thing Westchester County residents could do is go around the toll gantry using Route 22.

[PHLBOS]

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.

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.

See Reply #3732 regarding the latest re-tolling initiative via electronic toll collection.  In short: dead-on arrival when it was discovered that even the little piece of I-684 in CT was slated to have an AET gantry erected.  Westchester County, NY residents weren't having it.

True, but if Connecticut really wanted to press the issue, residents of Westchester County would have no way to stop Connecticut from placing a toll on its short section of I-684, since Westchester County residents can't vote in Connecticut, and the stretch of highway falls within the boundaries of Connecticut so the State of New York would have no say in the matter. The only thing Westchester County residents could do is go around the toll gantry using Route 22.

While the residents of Westchester County would have no say; the Feds do.  One needs to remember that Interstates are federal highways.  Current Federal law prohibits the establishment of tolls on an existing free highway at state borders; a new bridge or tunnel crossing a navigable waterway being the lone exception (example: the new Scudder Falls Bridge/I-295 at NJ-PA). 

The I-684/Byram River crossing at the northern CT-NY border doesn't qualify for such; the Byram River is not considered to be a navigable waterway.

As I stated on my earlier reply; I'll restate it again here.  IMHO, Gov. Lamont jumped the shark when he included the short piece of I-684 in his tolling plans.

[kernals12]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

[abqtraveler]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

What does OPEB stand for?

[kernals12]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

What does OPEB stand for?

It's post retirement benefits I thought it included pensions, but it turns out it doesn't, it's mostly retiree health care.

[abqtraveler]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

[kernals12]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

[jp the roadgeek]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

Anyone see a pattern here?

[Alps]

If Connecticut got its OPEB costs under control, they'd be up to their ears in cash for highways.

You can say that about most states. They made way too many promises they could never keep, and it's bleeding them dry.

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

Please explain in a way that is at all relevant.

[MikeTheActuary]

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

[abqtraveler]

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).

[vdeane]

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).

New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

[abqtraveler]

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).

New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

And if that worked as it should, New York wouldn't be running a $15 billion deficit this fiscal year (not to mention the $50 billion in debt racked up over the past FY), and they're begging for a bailout from the feds. Most other states which are constitutionally required to "Pay as You Go," haven't had such financial problems. In those states, if there's no money to pay for something, then that something doesn't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/budget-cuomo-ny.html
https://wskg.org/news/with-votes-cast-new-york-must-resolve-multibillion-dollar-deficit/

[kernals12]

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).

New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

And if that worked as it should, New York wouldn't be running a $15 billion deficit this fiscal year (not to mention the $50 billion in debt racked up over the past FY), and they're begging for a bailout from the feds. Most other states which are constitutionally required to "Pay as You Go," haven't had such financial problems. In those states, if there's no money to pay for something, then that something doesn't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/budget-cuomo-ny.html
https://wskg.org/news/with-votes-cast-new-york-must-resolve-multibillion-dollar-deficit/

But once this budget crisis is over, New York will be in the clear, unlike in Connecticut and New Jersey which seem to always be teetering on the brink of insolvency even in times of prosperity, due to their massive pension shortfalls.

[KEVIN_224]

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.

This traffic cam (?) was installed recently on I-91 at the CT Route 372 overpass in Cromwell:


I saw a street light pole lying on the ground in Berlin. At the corner of Worthington Ridge (portions CT Route 372) and Frontage Road, close to Exit 22 NB of CT Route 9. I can't tell if it was knocked over or not.

[vdeane]

But Connecticut, along with Illinois and New Jersey, has made the most false promises.

False promises weren't made so much as money wasn't set aside for future needs.

I would respectfully disagree. When a government promises something it will never be able to afford, it's a promise that can't be kept. But... in the realm of modern American politics, he who promises the most handouts to the voters...wins (and never mind about how we're actually going to pay for that).

New York is constitutionally obligated to set aside for future needs (meaning that we could not do what many state did and just stop contributing in the years the stock market was doing well, only to have the bottom fall out when stocks stopped doing well; we can't steal from the fund to pay for other things, either), and we (at the state level anyways) don't have a problem in that area.  The promise is being kept here.

And if that worked as it should, New York wouldn't be running a $15 billion deficit this fiscal year (not to mention the $50 billion in debt racked up over the past FY), and they're begging for a bailout from the feds. Most other states which are constitutionally required to "Pay as You Go," haven't had such financial problems. In those states, if there's no money to pay for something, then that something doesn't happen.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/nyregion/budget-cuomo-ny.html
https://wskg.org/news/with-votes-cast-new-york-must-resolve-multibillion-dollar-deficit/

That's not due to public employees, though.  That's COIVID-related.  All states have been hit by the increased costs and decreased revenues of the pandemic.  I was reading an article about Wyoming talking about how they're looking at cuts so steep that they're practically disbanding the government.  NY's pension fund is solvent (unlike many other places, I'll admit).

[mariethefoxy]

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.

This traffic cam (?) was installed recently on I-91 at the CT Route 372 overpass in Cromwell:


I saw a street light pole lying on the ground in Berlin. At the corner of Worthington Ridge (portions CT Route 372) and Frontage Road, close to Exit 22 NB of CT Route 9. I can't tell if it was knocked over or not.

off topic but is that horrid Red Lion hotel still there? that place was a health hazard

[RyanB06]

Last I heard it was shut down because the owners of the property owed a ton to the state in back taxes.

Re: the lamp pole; more than likely someone crashed into it. Happens a lot this time of year.

Finally, I recall someone posting about a few lengths of new gantry in the open area near the Roberts St. exit on I-84 East; the good news is that it isn't there anymore and now supports new signage for the Route 15 exit on I-84 West. Sadly that pretty new gantry hosts a ugly new sign for said exit. I don't have a picture of it as I was driving, but it looked like the sign shop put the 15 and I-91 route markers too close together and realized they had to slap a TO in what little space they left in between them. Kinda like this:

[15]TO(91)

I expect they'll probably be changing it at some point if they haven't already. Next time I'm out in East Hartford I'll have to look.

(Source: me, who drove it a couple weeks back on a trip home from one of Vernon's Polish bakeries)

[KEVIN_224]

Last I heard it was shut down because the owners of the property owed a ton to the state in back taxes.

Yes, the Red Lion is still closed. Nothing has changed. CT Route 372 at the I-91 North on ramp.

[Mergingtraffic]

CT-8 Bridgeport to Shelton sign updates:

Some new BGS signs have sprouted up NB.  None SB yet.  An ATTRACTIONS sign is up for Exit 5.

"To CT-108 1 Mile" sign is up on the side of the road with no exit tab yet.  The button copy overheads are still up. Interestingly enough the old "To Ct 108" sign says 1/2 mile.  Since the new sign is not an overhead IDK where the Exit 9 Merritt Pkwy advance sign will go.

There's also a "Shelton Exits 11-14" BGS and a Park & Ride sign up too for Exit 8.