Connecticut News

[shadyjay]

So let me do a quick count:

I-84:  18  (7,20,34,37,39,43,46,56-EB;  HOV,57,55,54,45,42,35,29,19,3-WB)
I-91:  9  (6,14,29A,32,HOV entr-NB, HOV entr, 30, 22S-SB
I-95:  3  (NB:  76,86;  SB:  87)
I-384: 1 (HOV entrance-WB)
I-291: 0
I-691: 2 (Exit 10-WB, Exit 11-EB).  Exit 1 not counted.
I-395: 2 (Exit 49-NB, Exit 7-SB)
CT 2:  0
CT 8:  5 (NB:  8/25 split, 84WB, CT 73;  SB:  84EB, Riverside St)
CT 9:  7 (15,16,20S,24,28 NB, 26 SB)
CT 15: 1 (SB:  67W)
I-84 HOV:  5 (EB:  384EB, Buckland St, CT 30/83, WB:  Silver Ln, Downtown Hartford)
I-91 HOV:  4 (NB:  218, 305, 78;  SB:  Leibert Rd)

Yup, that's 56.  That's if you include the HOV lanes and the start of the HOV lane.  I did not include the start of the I-84 EB HOV lane, as that actually occurs on the right, then flys over I-84 EB at Exit 57/58.

I did not include any exit signed that's at a highway's terminus.  Such as I-691 WB Exit 1.  Or CT 9 NB Exit 32. 

I think it's relatively possible to eliminate many of them, especially most of the ones on I-84.  Such as the exit to Slater Road.  Or the Trout Brook Drive exit.  Getting rid of the ones on I-395 should be easy.  That lone exit in the middle of nowhere (Grosvenordale) can just go.  For the I-395 SB to CT 32 ramp, move I-395 SB into the median and fly over with a ramp. 

Then you have the exits which are more of a thru route than an exit themselves.  Such as I-84 WB Exit 57.  Or the 8/25 split in Bridgeport. 

And then you have those that will fall by the wayside (at some point, hopefully).... CT 9 Exits 15-16, I-84/CT 8 in Waterbury (pending a future reconstruction). 

And... if nothing's done... the count goes up to 57.... with I-91 NB Exit 29. 

I'll tackle actual number of exits another time.

[kurumi]

I would add 5/15 at CT 314 NB*, and CT 17 SB at New London Turnpike, and CT 3 NB/SB at I-91, for 4 more left exits

* you could debate this one, because the freeway starts at this split

[shadyjay]

I would add 5/15 at CT 314 NB*, and CT 17 SB at New London Turnpike, and CT 3 NB/SB at I-91, for 4 more left exits

* you could debate this one, because the freeway starts at this split

I thought about 5/15/314 but voted against it as, #1, it's technically not an exit, and #2, the mainline (Berlin Tpke) goes straight and 5/15 "exit" right.
The CT 17 SB/New London Tpke exit is being eliminated IIRC.  So I didn't count that, but actually I did forget about it.
CT 3 at I-91 I did forget about. 

[jp the roadgeek]

I know the two left exits in RI: I-95 North to I-295 North, and I-95 South to RI 4 South.  although one could make an argument for the I-95 south connection from I-195 west, as well as the US 6 West connection to I-295 South. In NH, the 5 are: I-93 North to I-293 North/NH 101 West, I-93 South to NH 101 East, I-95 North to the Spaulding Turnpike,  I-89 Exit 5 northbound, and Everett Turnpike Exit 3 southbound.  Technically, you can argue for a 6th or 7th if you were add a number for I-293 South at the 93 split from the Everett Turnpike in Hooksett, and if you were to add an Exit 0 for NH 3A at the southern terminus of I-89.


Here's what I got for CT:

I-84: Exit 3 (WB), Exit 7 (EB), Exit 19 (WB), Exit 20 (EB), Exit 29 (WB), Exit 33 (WB), Exit 35 (both), Exit 36 (EB),Exit 39 (EB), Exit 42 (WB), Exit 43 (EB), Exit 45 (WB), Exit 46 (EB), Exit 54 (WB), Exit 55 (WB), Exit 56 (EB), Exit 57 (WB).  HOV Exits to I-384, Buckland St, and CT 30/83 EB, HOV Exit to Silver Lane WB.

I-91 I-95 North (unofficial); Exit 6 (NB), Exit 13 (NB), Exit 22S (SB), Future Exit 29 ramp (NB), Exit 29A (NB), Exit 30 (SB), Exit 32 A-B (NB). HOV Exits to CT 218, CT 305, and CT 75 NB, HOV Exit to Leibert Rd SB

I-95: Exit 76 (NB), Exit 86 (NB), Exit 87 (SB)

I-384: None, unless you were to give the mainline an exit number as CTDOT did to the west end of I-691

I-291: Exit 2A (WB). Connection to I-84 East (unofficial)

I-691/CT 66: Exit 1 (WB), Exit 10 (WB), Exit 11 (EB), Exit 13 (WB)

I-395: Exit 5 (SB), Exit 49 (NB)

CT 2: Exit 7 (EB)

CT 2A: Connection to I-395 South westbound (unofficial, though it could technically be Exit 4)

CT 3: I-91 north (NB), I-91 (SB)

CT 8: CT 25 split NB (unofficial, though a # is proposed), Exit 30 (SB), Exit 31 (NB), Exit 32 (SB), Exit 35 (NB)

CT 9: Exit 15 (NB), Exit 16 (NB), Exit 20S (NB), Exit 24 (NB), Exit 27 (SB), Exit 28 (NB), Exit 32 (NB)

CT 15: Exit 67S (SB).  I don't count CT 314 split NB.

CT 17: New London Tpke (SB; for now)

CT 20: No official, although you could argue for I-91 North connection EB, and SSR 401 at the TOTSO WB

CT 40:  No official, although I-91 North connection SB could be argued

CT 72: None official, although CT 9 north connection eastbound could count, and there is a LEFT tab on the 84 West BGS westbound

So that would be 56 if you count the numbered exits, plus the exits from the HOV lane.  I am not counting Downtown Hartford at the end of the 84 West HOV, as that is already included as Exit 54.  I am also not counting any entrances from the conventional lanes of a highway (i.e. the I-84 EB connection past the CT 15 entrance or the I-384 WB approach).

Some MA ones: Mass Pike Exits 18 and 24B EB; I-91 Exit 27 (SB); I-93 Exits 1B, 4 and 7 SB, and Exit 27 Northbound;  I-95 Exit 12 SB and Exit 45 NB; I-195 Exit 8B EB, I-290 Exit 26 EB; MA 2 Exit 43 (WB); MA 3 Exits 1B and 4, and there is a LEFT tab for US 3 Exit 30C NB, although it is on the right hand Exit 30 A-B-C ramp; US 6 Exit 1A (WB), MA 24 Exit 3 (NB), Exit 4 (SB), and Exit 21B (NB), MA 140 Exit 3 (SB), Exit 12A (SB), Exit 12B (NB); MA 1A South to Mass Pike West (no #); MA 213 Exit 1B (WB), and 5B (EB); Lowell Connector Exit 1A (SB).

[ipeters61]

My first few times driving along I-84 in the Hartford area (where most of the left exits are along that westbound stretch) nearly 30 years ago took a tad getting used to.  Just when I would move into the left lane to pass a slower driver; I would have to quickly move back to the right or risk unintentionally exiting off the main road.

The funny thing is when I moved from Connecticut to Delaware, I realized how many drivers in other states had difficulty with left exits.  I feel like CT drivers just are so used to them that it doesn't really matter...granted I also learned how to drive in Manchester CT, so I also tend to be used to them.

For some reason, I feel like Maryland has an unusually high number of left exits too, but I'm probably just imagining things.

[jp the roadgeek]

For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

[Roadsguy]

For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

Wait, what? They're putting electronic tolls everywhere?

[Alps]

I'm pretty sure I would never drive in the state again.

[jp the roadgeek]

I'm pretty sure I would never drive in the state again.

Roads like the Berlin Turnpike, CT 10, CT 83, US 1, and US 6 are going to become gridlock with the shunpikers. 

[vdeane]

For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

What's the context?  I read something recently about them looking to impose truck tolls like RI did... is this part of that, or something else?

[seicer]

The sample toll rates seem pretty reasonable. To drive all of I-95, 112 miles, would be $4.93/$6.16 (non-peak/peak), and all of I-84 would be $2.77/$3.47.

Absent of raising fuel taxes, which would be political suicide, and in a state that's got a population that's plateaued, and in a state that has billions of unfunded obligations, what else would you expect? This isn't my favorite option, but with the advent of open road tolling, it's become a favorable solution. I'm still not sure how these tolls can be applied on existing interstates unless that's somehow being waivered.

[bob7374]

For those of you wondering about tolls, here is the map of 82 different tolling locations in CT

What's the context?  I read something recently about them looking to impose truck tolls like RI did... is this part of that, or something else?

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-toll-study-takeaways-20181115-story.html

[ipeters61]

I hate to be the person who plays devil's advocate here, but Connecticut is the only state in the northeast megalopolis which does NOT have tolls currently.  I get that the state has been toying around with doing everything to avoid killing off all of their idiotic corporate welfare (admittedly, it would be political suicide - I studied this extensively in undergrad but I won't get into it), but in a state with such high traffic volumes in such a highly populated area, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet (and yes I am aware of the incident in 1983).

[jp the roadgeek]

The problem with adding tolls in CT is that CT would stand to lose the federal funding it receives as a result of abolishing tolls in the 1980's.  Furthermore, other than the (currently legally contested) truck tolls on I-95 in RI, no state in the northeast has added tolls to an existing roadway.  The Mass Pike, NY Thruway, NJTP, PATP, all the Hudson, East, and Delaware River Bridges, and roads like the GSP were built as toll facilities from the start.  Yes, MA did eliminate tolls for a while west of Exit 6 on the Pike, but they were never fully abolished like they were in CT; you still received and surrendered a ticket as you entered and exited, so there was always a chance a toll could once again be charged.  Sure, new tolls have been implemented such as on the ICC, many new FL highways, and HOT lanes in the Baltimore, DC, and Miami areas, but those were new construction, and not existing roads.  CT would become the first state to add tolls to existing facilities.  And on EVERY limited access road in CT?!?  One or two roads would be reasonable, but roads like I-291, I-691, CT 9, and CT 8 is a little overkill.  That toll on route 8 between Torrington and Winsted is one of the most sparsely traveled pieces of highway in the state, yet they want to toll it.  It's the result of years and years of the legislature spending funds on porkbarrel programs, making pension obligations to the state employees union that they can't meet,  and sinking more money into a busway that 10 people use than has been spent to maintain existing roadways.  And the DOT administrative costs per mile of roadway in the state are RIDICULOUS.  Malloy giving his friends $200,000 a year pencil pushing jobs and then they  get a full pension after a few years, or people working triple OT their last 6 quarters before retirement to beef up their pension.  Or 5 people traveling together in one car on a business trip, but all 5 claim the mileage instead of the one person that is actually paying the expenses.  I'll end the rant here, but the people of Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, and Waterbury that control the other 165 cities and towns in the state voted to continue this nightmare, and it's leaving many people no other choice but to pack up the moving van and head for greener pastures.  And if you think any sustained gas tax cut is coming, I have a nice 100 acre piece of prime oceanfront property in downtown Boise to sell you. 

[seicer]

Regarding the analogy of the business trip: when is that ever an issue? I rented a vehicle when I was in Texas recently, used TxTag, and had three co-workers in the vehicle. On our individual expense report, we listed out transportation outlays. Because the car was in my name, the car expenses were listed on my report. That simple.

As for the busway: 504,085 (october 2018). Not 10 riders. I can't take your entire statement to be anywhere near factual if you have never submitted an expense report or have actually used the Busway.

[jp the roadgeek]

Regarding the analogy of the business trip: when is that ever an issue? I rented a vehicle when I was in Texas recently, used TxTag, and had three co-workers in the vehicle. On our individual expense report, we listed out transportation outlays. Because the car was in my name, the car expenses were listed on my report. That simple.

As for the busway: 504,085 (october 2018). Not 10 riders. I can't take your entire statement to be anywhere near factual if you have never submitted an expense report or have actually used the Busway.

Not everybody plays by the rules like you do.  And some people at DAS who process the reports are so inept that they will either let the fraudulent actions slip by, or they'll just be too incompetent to sniff it out.  It's not like they're going to get fired if they do something like that because the union will make sure they keep their job unless they commit a Class A felony.

And for the cost of the busway (the cost to build it was about $1000 per inch), plus with empty buses running every 10 minutes even during off-peak hours, it's a boondoggle.  And I'm sure that figure does not account for repeat riders, and for commuters it probably counts round trips as two separate trips.  Personally, I'd scale the service back, and even float the idea of opening up the roadway to private passenger vehicles whose owners are willing to pay a monthly fee to use it to avoid rush hour traffic. 

The problem with CT is the waste of money in so many different places.  Do we really need as many DMV offices as there are considering 90% of transactions can now be performed online, while license renewals can be performed at places like AAA offices?  And when you go to DMV, there is usually one person working the window, while 6 people are there supervising.  This state needs a full audit to find where spending and expenses could be cut, and where it could be better (or at least more properly) spent.  Unfortunately, we won't see it in the next 4 years.  Instead, Joe Q. Taxpayer will be asked by The Sheriff of Nottingham state government to give till it hurts every time he breathes.


But to answer iPeter's question, don't think there are that many left hand exits in MD. A few of them were eliminated with the I-95/Beltway interchange project north of Baltimore City. There is the MD 43 exit on the Inner Loop, and the I-97 exit on the Outer Loop.   I know DE has a few on DE 1 with the US 13 exits in both directions north of the canal, plus the new flyover at the I-95 junction.  I know there's a few embedded in the whole I-95/I-295/I-495/DE 141 junction.  NJ doesn't have many; I can only think of maybe 3 or 4, a couple of which will probably be eliminated by the I-295/I-76/NJ 42 interchange project.  The ones that come to mind are I-95 Exit 69 NB to I-80 West, and Exits 153 (NJ 3), and 163 (NJ 17) SB.  The ones in NY that come to mind are the Thruway southbound to I-287 East, the I-90 TOTSO from the Thruway eastbound, the Hutch NB to I-684, a couple on I-678, and a few on NYC/LI/Westchester parkways.

[ipeters61]

I REALLY don't want to be dealing with the endless commentary on Connecticut's spending issues since anybody who is remotely familiar with the state is well aware of them.  But I will say that around when CTfastrak first became a thing, I was riding the new bus between Manchester and Hartford (121 which is an express, 83C was the previous route which is local) on a Saturday morning and I was the only rider.  However, I really don't view encouraging the use of public transportation as negative policy.  That's my own personal perspective.

Likewise, I think Connecticut is definitely more inefficient with some allocations than Delaware, in my experience from working in both states.  When I worked at ECSU as a student, I remember being told that faculty got the full per diem for their meals when traveling.  In Delaware, you only get what you spend, up to the per diem for travel (I don't know if college professors get special treatment though).

Connecticut has about as many DMVs per capita as Delaware, I believe.  Delaware has four (population 950k, 1 DMV per 238k) and Connecticut has fourteen (population 3.5m, 1 DMV per 250k).  The issue is really that Delaware completely revamped their DMV in the 2000s (I think) and is extremely efficient.  It took me 45 minutes to transfer all my files over from CT.  That would have taken an entire day in CT (I think they had a PC running Windows 3.1 when I was doing my permit in Enfield in 2010!).

Anyway, on the discussion about CT roads having the tolls added after the fact, (1) Wasn't the Connecticut Turnpike tolled until the 1980s?  Same for the Merritt? (2) The upgraded Scudder Falls Bridge (I-295 between PA/NJ) is going to have a toll added. (3) I think part of the issue is the older mentality of how Connecticut worked.  When Connecticut was lush with the wealthy, from what I had researched (bear in mind I read these papers/articles several years ago so I cannot remember the sources), Connecticut really had a mentality of having the wealthy help sustain the poor, meaning that the state provided a lot more services than most others do.  For example, here in Delaware, if I want to go to a state park I have to pay $4 for entry; in CT, outside of the beaches and I think Wolf's Den, you don't have to pay to enter.

[MikeTheActuary]

For whatever it's worth, if it weren't for the federal funding implications, I wouldn't hate seeing tolls on CT highways IF fuel taxes were reduced and IF the state could be efficient at billing non-transponder users.  The idea of getting some revenue from long-distance truckers who don't stop in the state (thank-you fuel taxes) has some appeal, as does the potential for reducing congestion / increasing demand for mass transit.

However, I'm not so naïve as to believe that those "ifs" would be satisfied. 

I'll decline comment on the inefficiencies in CT government.  They're arguably beyond the scope of this forum, and they're certainly well-known to most folks familiar with the state.  Hell, this is a state that prefers to have 169 local governments rather than 8-10, despite the potential efficiencies to be gained from regionalization.

[Mergingtraffic]

Idk why CT has to roll EVERY limited access highway?! No other state does that.

This study took a couple years to complete. This is separate from Ned Lamont and his truck tolls.

Truck tolls could be a fiasco as RI is being sued so why would CT do it then? Then I can see CT being sued over it, then they saying oh sorry to make it legal we have to roll everyone.

[seicer]

Regarding the analogy of the business trip: when is that ever an issue? I rented a vehicle when I was in Texas recently, used TxTag, and had three co-workers in the vehicle. On our individual expense report, we listed out transportation outlays. Because the car was in my name, the car expenses were listed on my report. That simple.

As for the busway: 504,085 (october 2018). Not 10 riders. I can't take your entire statement to be anywhere near factual if you have never submitted an expense report or have actually used the Busway.

Not everybody plays by the rules like you do.  And some people at DAS who process the reports are so inept that they will either let the fraudulent actions slip by, or they'll just be too incompetent to sniff it out.  It's not like they're going to get fired if they do something like that because the union will make sure they keep their job unless they commit a Class A felony.

And for the cost of the busway (the cost to build it was about $1000 per inch), plus with empty buses running every 10 minutes even during off-peak hours, it's a boondoggle.  And I'm sure that figure does not account for repeat riders, and for commuters it probably counts round trips as two separate trips.  Personally, I'd scale the service back, and even float the idea of opening up the roadway to private passenger vehicles whose owners are willing to pay a monthly fee to use it to avoid rush hour traffic.

I dunno. I was on it on a Friday morning/evening and on a Saturday and had plenty of other riders. And I surmise 504,085 would amount to other riders on those "empty" busses.

And as for expense reports, yes, you do play by the rules. Most good employees and employers do. It's just standard practice. I'm not sure where you worked at where 5 employees sharing 1 car all filled out 5 separate expense reports for the automobile/tolls - because that doesn't happen unless you work for a pretty suspect company. If that's true, you might want to reconsider your employer.

[jp the roadgeek]

I'll drop it after this, but it's stuff like this why our state is in the shape it's in.

https://www.courant.com/politics/government-watch/hc-pol-lender-legislators-mileage-payments-20181025-story.html

[Duke87]

For what it's worth, whether someone drives themselves or carpools with someone else is a very difficult thing to audit. Was probably an impossible thing to audit in the days this policy was made, before there were CCTV cameras on the highways and videos on YouTube of everything and so forth. Meanwhile you also have the possibility of one of these legislators taking a taxi or a limo or a bus or a train to get home or whatever, all of which have differing costs than driving your own vehicle does. If you try to go for actual costs, this opens up the can of worms of it being a waste of taxpayer money to reimburse people for the full cost of more expensive modes. It also makes the accounting more complicated and, therefore, more costly because it consumes more of people's time.

So, there is a certain aspect of KISS principle application to "you get reimbursed per mile between your home and the State Capitol, and we don't care how you actually make the journey". This is the same reason why flat per diem reimbursements for meals and incidentals exist.



As for the toll proposal, the map certainly implies there is some intention of making this fairly comprehensive - you won't be able to use I-84, 91, 95, 291, 395, or 691; or the freeway portions of routes 2, 8, 9, and 15, without paying a toll except for some brief local trips. In a sense, it's a rather elegant plan - the toll collection points will be numerous but the toll collected at each will be low, making it not really worthwhile to try and shunpike for the most part.

Meanwhile it should also be noted that Lamont only wants to toll trucks - something which could well make this proposal stick, as that will be a lot more politically palatable than something that will directly hit the wallets of the majority of voters. Classic "tax them, not us" type policy.

[jp the roadgeek]

One small problem with the truck only tolls:  they can't use Route 15.  This proposal has them on there.   So if this is the plan, it's for all vehicles.

[seicer]

It's not a gimmick or some underhand by the state. The answers were posted above. From one article:

- "The DOT study – separate from a planned $10 million one backed by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and lambasted by Republicans – modeled a system that tolls all vehicles: cars and trucks, in-state and out-of-state."
- "Governor-elect Ned Lamont campaigned on limited tolling, which he said would extend only to tractor-trailers."

While the original study called for tolls for all classes, the new governor campaigned on tolling for tractor-trailers. And while he campaigned on that, it does not preclude him to imposing tolls on all classes.

[jp the roadgeek]

People have to realize that tolls on tractor-trailers only will eventually be subsidized by the people of CT (and even beyond) in the form of higher market prices for goods.  The trucking industry is not just going to absorb the increase in transportation costs to get goods to market.  So it's a Catch-22 for the taxpayers: either pay the tolls on the roads, or pay them in retail establishments, or both . Basically like asking whether you'd prefer a sharp stick in the eye, or under your fingernails.