News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Connecticut News

Started by Mergingtraffic, October 28, 2009, 08:39:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 20, 2013, 07:20:51 PM
I'd be fine with it, as long as it were open road tolling. I'm near the center of Connecticut, but having the tolls at the state lines would seem to be the most likely choice. What the article didn't say if if these tolls would be limited to just the interstates. I know the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways, along with the Charter Oak Bridge (all parts of CT Route 15) had them.

In my opinion, just putting tolls at the  state border (I-95 Delaware Turnpike-style) should be forbidden by Congress as unreasonable discrimination against interstate commerce. 
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.


cpzilliacus

Quote from: doofy103 on January 20, 2013, 02:44:20 PM
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/General-Assembly-to-mull-tolls-on-Conn-highways-4208622.php

Article about tolls, for some reason the media loves to hype the Stratford toll accident.  Also look at the old pics and the classic button copy signage.
I also hate the fact that other articles (not this one) usually blend the idea of toll BOOTHS into it.  When, with today's technology you wouldn't really have a toll booth.

In my opinion, there is no need for cash toll collection, given the presumably high rate of E-ZPass penetration in Connecticut already (since every state that borders it has E-ZPass toll roads or toll crossings or both).

But even if Connecticut wanted to erect cash toll booths, putting open road tolling down the middle of the plaza (as the New Jersey Turnpike Authority did some years ago at the south end of the Turnpike at Exit 1); the New York State Thruway has at the Woodbury plaza (Exit 16); and Delaware has done at its (infamous) I-95 plaza (and has long had at the two mainline plazas on the Delaware 1 (Relief Route) toll road), that would presumably prevent  the kind of epic backups for which the old Connecticut Turnpike mainline barriers were once known.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Duke87

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 07:37:07 PM
given the presumably high rate of E-ZPass penetration in Connecticut already (since every state that borders it has E-ZPass toll roads or toll crossings or both).

Not so much as you might think. Most people I know who live in Connecticut do not have EZPass. Most people I know who live in Connecticut, because the state lacks tolls, rarely pass through one and do not consider it worth it to sign up. Especially since you need to pay a monthly fee to have a NY EZPass if you live out of state. My parents (who make a lot of car trips into New York and New Jersey) are the exception, not the rule.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

spmkam

I don't have an EZPASS for instance. Also Duke-87 I assume you are from Stamford originally?

iwishiwascanadian

I'm originally from Hartford, and most of my family and friends have EZ-Pass (either through Mass Pike, MTA or NJTA).  But, most of my family and friends have relatives outside of CT along the 95 corridor which therefore makes having EZ-Pass a whole lot more convenient.

vdeane

Quote from: doofy103 on January 24, 2013, 06:50:06 PM
New epoxy project for some interstates in CT.  Aren't they going over board with the lane "dots."  I like the lane "dots" if they're done right and properly show the main lane or where most traffic goes, but it seems kinda nuts here.

http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Why on earth do these people not allow people to view the PDF without Adobe Reader?  Other readers are just as good and are in fact better; ironically, Adobe Reader is the worst PDF reader on the planet, and Adobe created PDF!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

spmkam


NE2

Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 24, 2013, 06:50:06 PM
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Why on earth do these people not allow people to view the PDF without Adobe Reader?  Other readers are just as good and are in fact better; ironically, Adobe Reader is the worst PDF reader on the planet, and Adobe created PDF!
Works for me in Foxit, actually. But it's still annoying.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

OracleUsr

Foxit is pretty good, and, IIRC, they have a .NET Framework.
Anti-center-tabbing, anti-sequential-numbering, anti-Clearview BGS FAN

Mergingtraffic

Quote from: NE2 on January 25, 2013, 05:10:46 PM
Quote from: deanej on January 25, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
Quote from: doofy103 on January 24, 2013, 06:50:06 PM
http://www.biznet.ct.gov/SCP_Documents/Bids/27395/171-361_Plan_Portfolio.pdf
Why on earth do these people not allow people to view the PDF without Adobe Reader?  Other readers are just as good and are in fact better; ironically, Adobe Reader is the worst PDF reader on the planet, and Adobe created PDF!
Works for me in Foxit, actually. But it's still annoying.

Really?!  4 new posts (now 5 including mine) and it's about a PDF reader!?!
I only take pics of good looking signs. Long live non-reflective button copy!
MergingTraffic https://www.flickr.com/photos/98731835@N05/

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Duke87 on January 24, 2013, 09:06:18 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 24, 2013, 07:37:07 PM
given the presumably high rate of E-ZPass penetration in Connecticut already (since every state that borders it has E-ZPass toll roads or toll crossings or both).

Not so much as you might think. Most people I know who live in Connecticut do not have EZPass. Most people I know who live in Connecticut, because the state lacks tolls, rarely pass through one and do not consider it worth it to sign up. Especially since you need to pay a monthly fee to have a NY EZPass if you live out of state. My parents (who make a lot of car trips into New York and New Jersey) are the exception, not the rule.

You obviously have better local knowledge than I, and I defer to it.   
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

TOLLROADSnews: Bill in Connecticut House to toll state's highways

QuoteA sweeping bill to put tolls on Connecticut highways has been filed in the Connecticut state house. HB5125 is elegant in its simplicity. Titled "An Act Establishing Tolls on Connecticut Highways" it provides "That the general statutes be amended to establish tolls on Connecticut's highways."

QuoteIts Statement of Purpose: "To raise revenue through tolls." The bill is sponsored by Representative Patricia Dillion (Dem, New Haven) who says a new source of revenue for roads and transit is urgently needed and that states all around Connecticut use tolls for financing roads.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

KEVIN_224

States all around Connecticut...despite Rhode Island only having one toll bridge. Hmmmmm! :)

PHLBOS

Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2013, 02:36:48 PM
States all around Connecticut...despite Rhode Island only having one toll bridge. Hmmmmm! :)
LOL, Don't let the facts get in the way, Rep. Dillion.

Love this little excerpt:

Present federal restrictions would force the toll money from interstates  to be spent on improvements in the corridors in which the revenues were raised, CS points out. But such restrictions can be removed if Connecticut's US delegation chooses to work for that in the US Congress and with the Obama administration.

I guess she didn't read the memo regarding what happened to one key provision in PA's Act 44 3 times within the last 8 years.  Tolls on I-80 for transit systems elsewhere in the state = Robbing Peter To Pay Paul = Feds shooting it down every time.

If memory serves, tolls were still being collected along the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) when the Mianus River Bridge (now called the Michael L. Morano Bridge) collapsed on June 28, 1983.  As a matter of fact, until the I-35W bridge collapse in MN a few years back; most of the non-earthquake-related road/bridge/tunnel collapses all occurred on toll facilities.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on January 29, 2013, 02:36:48 PM
States all around Connecticut...despite Rhode Island only having one toll bridge. Hmmmmm! :)
LOL, Don't let the facts get in the way, Rep. Dillion.

Love this little excerpt:

Present federal restrictions would force the toll money from interstates  to be spent on improvements in the corridors in which the revenues were raised, CS points out. But such restrictions can be removed if Connecticut's US delegation chooses to work for that in the US Congress and with the Obama administration.

Why not just use the dollars that are collected to benefit the drivers paying those tolls?  What a concept!

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
I guess she didn't read the memo regarding what happened to one key provision in PA's Act 44 3 times within the last 8 years.  Tolls on I-80 for transit systems elsewhere in the state = Robbing Peter To Pay Paul = Feds shooting it down every time.

Because the wording in the federal law that allowed states to apply for "slots" in the tolling program was very clear that Pennsylvania could not collect tolls on I-80 and then ship the dollars to the pay packages of transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which was apparently the intent of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the architect of Act 44 (now serving time in federal prison on a corruption conviction).

But what has always escaped me regarding Act 44 is this - even if the federal government was not going to allow the use of I-80 to subsidize PennDOT projects and transit systems having nothing to do with I-80, they (PennDOT and PTC) should have taken the deal anyway, under which the PTC would have maintained and operated I-80, freeing up the dollars that PennDOT had been spending (and still spends) on I-80 for other things even if the flow of money might not have been as large as Fumo and the transit unions had anticipated.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 29, 2013, 04:23:02 PM
If memory serves, tolls were still being collected along the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) when the Mianus River Bridge (now called the Michael L. Morano Bridge) collapsed on June 28, 1983.  As a matter of fact, until the I-35W bridge collapse in MN a few years back; most of the non-earthquake-related road/bridge/tunnel collapses all occurred on toll facilities.

The tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike were indeed being collected when the Mianus River Bridge failed. 

Every few miles, you had to stop and pay (if memory serves me correctly) either 25¢ or 50¢.  And it sucked.  Rather like the days of the Garden State Parkway before E-ZPass and the conversion to (mostly) one-way tolling was made.

I also got the distinct impression that the barrier tolls  on the  Connecticut Turnpike were located so that short intrastate trips went untolled (I don't recall there being any ramp tolls, but I may be wrong about that).
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Duke87

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 PM
I also got the distinct impression that the barrier tolls  on the  Connecticut Turnpike were located so that short intrastate trips went untolled (I don't recall there being any ramp tolls, but I may be wrong about that).

There were never any ramp tolls. Just 8 barrier tolls:
- between exits 2 and 3 (Greenwich, where the weigh station now is)
- between exits 16 and 17 (Westport)
- between exits 32 and 33 (Stratford)
- between exits 43 and 44 (West Haven)
- between exits 52 and 53 (East haven)
- between exits 59 and 60 (Madison)
- between exits 69 and 70 (Old Saybrook)
- between exits 79 and 79A (Montville, on what's now I-395)

So yes, most short trips were not tolled.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Beeper1

Quote from: Duke87 on January 29, 2013, 09:13:32 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 PM
I also got the distinct impression that the barrier tolls  on the  Connecticut Turnpike were located so that short intrastate trips went untolled (I don't recall there being any ramp tolls, but I may be wrong about that).



There were never any ramp tolls. Just 8 barrier tolls:
- between exits 2 and 3 (Greenwich, where the weigh station now is)
- between exits 16 and 17 (Westport)
- between exits 32 and 33 (Stratford)
- between exits 43 and 44 (West Haven)
- between exits 52 and 53 (East haven)
- between exits 59 and 60 (Madison)
- between exits 69 and 70 (Old Saybrook)
- between exits 79 and 79A (Montville, on what's now I-395)

So yes, most short trips were not tolled.

There was another toll between exits 89 and 90 in Plainfield on the I-395 section.

Also, I think the tolls at Old Saybrook (on the Baldwin Br over the Conn River) were actually removed in the late 60s, long before the rest of the turnpike tolls were.

jp the roadgeek

The Baldwin Bridge tolls had to be long gone before my time because I can remember going to Misquamicut as a kid and I don't remember ever having to stop at a toll plaza on the stretch of I-95 between CT 9 and I-395 (then CT 52).  I do remember the I-95 tolls west of New Haven, the ones on CT 15 (between exit 27 + 28, at the Sikorsky Bridge, and at exit 65 in Wallingford), as well as the Putnam, Charter Oak, and Bissell Bridges.  Never had a reason to cross the Mohegan-Pequot Bridge (also a former toll bridge) until the casinos were built.
Interstates I've clinched: 97, 290 (MA), 291 (CT), 291 (MA), 293, 295 (DE-NJ-PA), 295 (RI-MA), 384, 391, 395 (CT-MA), 395 (MD), 495 (DE), 610 (LA), 684, 691, 695 (MD), 695 (NY), 795 (MD)

kurumi

The Baldwin Bridge tolls were removed in 1968 ("Toll Revenue Jumps 46.5% in 10 Years", Hartford Courant, Sept. 13, 1973)
My first SF/horror short story collection is available: "Young Man, Open Your Winter Eye"

PHLBOS

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 PM
Because the wording in the federal law that allowed states to apply for "slots" in the tolling program was very clear that Pennsylvania could not collect tolls on I-80 and then ship the dollars to the pay packages of transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which was apparently the intent of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the architect of Act 44 (now serving time in federal prison on a corruption conviction).

But what has always escaped me regarding Act 44 is this - even if the federal government was not going to allow the use of I-80 to subsidize PennDOT projects and transit systems having nothing to do with I-80, they (PennDOT and PTC) should have taken the deal anyway, under which the PTC would have maintained and operated I-80, freeing up the dollars that PennDOT had been spending (and still spends) on I-80 for other things even if the flow of money might not have been as large as Fumo and the transit unions had anticipated.
If memory serves, responsibility of an existing free interstate maintained by the state's DOT can't be transferred over to a toll authority unless there's a major improvement project for said-interstate taking place and the feds approve of such measure.

Example: Boston's old Central Artery was maintained by MassDPW/MassHighway but its O'Neill Tunnel successor is the responsibility of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

Those along the I-80 corridor knew a PONSI scheme when they saw it w/Act 44.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Mr_Northside

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

I think the PTC claimed they would improve the highway the long term, including some widenings - possibly straight up 6 lanes in spots, and truck climbing lanes in others, along with other from-the-ground-up rebuildings.  I'm also pretty sure I read they would have completed the two freeway-freeway I-99 interchanges, and the short section north from I-80 to the (current) US-220 freeway section (possibly worded as extended "ramps" or an "I-80 connector").

I also agree that PA should have wised up and just limited the scope of I-80 tolling to I-80 expenses.  It should have been obvious to those who voted for Act 44 that it wasn't going to work out like they planned.
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 29, 2013, 08:07:59 PM
Because the wording in the federal law that allowed states to apply for "slots" in the tolling program was very clear that Pennsylvania could not collect tolls on I-80 and then ship the dollars to the pay packages of transit workers in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which was apparently the intent of then-Pennsylvania State Sen. Vincent Fumo, the architect of Act 44 (now serving time in federal prison on a corruption conviction).

But what has always escaped me regarding Act 44 is this - even if the federal government was not going to allow the use of I-80 to subsidize PennDOT projects and transit systems having nothing to do with I-80, they (PennDOT and PTC) should have taken the deal anyway, under which the PTC would have maintained and operated I-80, freeing up the dollars that PennDOT had been spending (and still spends) on I-80 for other things even if the flow of money might not have been as large as Fumo and the transit unions had anticipated.

If memory serves, responsibility of an existing free interstate maintained by the state's DOT can't be transferred over to a toll authority unless there's a major improvement project for said-interstate taking place and the feds approve of such measure.

Example: Boston's old Central Artery was maintained by MassDPW/MassHighway but its O'Neill Tunnel successor is the responsibility of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority.

The "free" sections of I-95 in Baltimore City were transferred from city maintenance to MdTA maintenance.

The "free" section of I-95 between I-895 and Md. 43 was transferred from SHA maintenance to MdTA maintenance.

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

As I understand it, there are sections of I-80 (especially the eastern parts) that badly need to be  widened to 6 lanes, though that was not part of the Act 44 plan to transfer it to PTC maintenance (though it should have been). And there are numerous bridges that need replacement or re-decking. There is also a need for new and extended climbing lanes at various places (note that this is secondhand - I have not driven most of I-80 in Pennsylvania).

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Those along the I-80 corridor knew a PONSI scheme when they saw it w/Act 44.

I agree that it was a scam to extract money from drivers (and especially from commercial vehicle traffic) and transfer it to transit subsidies and projects on "free" PennDOT roads having nothing to do with I-80. 

At least in part, Act 44 was intended to be a replacement for something that many Pennsylvania legislators are terrified of - a motor fuel tax increase.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 30, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
In the case of I-80 in PA; what improvements were being planned for I-80 that would have required the necessity of tolls & transfer of ownership over to the PTC?

I think the PTC claimed they would improve the highway the long term, including some widenings - possibly straight up 6 lanes in spots, and truck climbing lanes in others, along with other from-the-ground-up rebuildings.

But did the PTC actually promise to do any of the above as part of the  Act 44 proposal - or were those just things that the PTC would "think about for later?" 

Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
I'm also pretty sure I read they would have completed the two freeway-freeway I-99 interchanges, and the short section north from I-80 to the (current) US-220 freeway section (possibly worded as extended "ramps" or an "I-80 connector").

Those are actually related to I-80.  What a concept!

Quote from: Mr_Northside on January 30, 2013, 01:21:07 PM
I also agree that PA should have wised up and just limited the scope of I-80 tolling to I-80 expenses.  It should have been obvious to those who voted for Act 44 that it wasn't going to work out like they planned.

Agreed.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

PHLBOS

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PMThe "free" sections of I-95 in Baltimore City were transferred from city maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
I'm assuming that's the stretch of I-95 south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel to the city border.  Why would the city maintenance be involved with it in the first place?  IMHO, that should've been run by SHA or MdTA from the get-go.  Is there an improvement project taking place that particular stretch?  If so, toll revenue from Fort Mchenry Tunnel might be helping to subsidizing such. 

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PM
The "free" section of I-95 between I-895 and Md. 43 was transferred from SHA maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
Actually, that stretch of I-95 is still considered part of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway; which is considered to be in MdTA's road jurisdiction.  I wonder if that transfer was due to or the result of the I-95 Express Toll Lane Project; it certainly would make sense.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

cpzilliacus

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PMThe "free" sections of I-95 in Baltimore City were transferred from city maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
I'm assuming that's the stretch of I-95 south of the Fort McHenry Tunnel to the city border.  Why would the city maintenance be involved with it in the first place?  IMHO, that should've been run by SHA or MdTA from the get-go.  Is there an improvement project taking place that particular stretch?  If so, toll revenue from Fort Mchenry Tunnel might be helping to subsidizing such.

It was all of I-95 in Baltimore City that was not in the  Fort McHenry Tunnel or close to the toll plaza or the south portals (I don't recall exactly where the hand-off between MdTA maintenance and Baltimore City maintenance happened).

By long-standing agreement/tradition, the State Highway Administration maintains nothing within the corporate limits of Baltimore.  Even now, the city maintains I-83 within its corporate limits.

For reasons not entirely clear to me, Baltimore decided to turn-over maintenance of all of I-95 and I-395 to MdTA, and the city makes an annual payment to MdTA in exchange for MdTA having maintenance and law enforcement jurisdiction over those sections of freeway. 

Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2013, 04:05:09 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 30, 2013, 03:27:14 PM
The "free" section of I-95 between I-895 and Md. 43 was transferred from SHA maintenance to MdTA maintenance.
Actually, that stretch of I-95 is still considered part of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway; which is considered to be in MdTA's road jurisdiction.  I wonder if that transfer was due to or the result of the I-95 Express Toll Lane Project; it certainly would make sense.

It has indeed been the JFK Highway (and before that, the Northeast Expressway) dating back to 1963.

However, from 1963 up to the early 1980's,  the segment between  I-895 (the northern corporate limits of Baltimore) and Md. 43 (White Marsh) was maintained by the State Highway Administration as a "free" road.  From Md. 43 to the Delaware border, I-95 was a real toll road (complete with its own unique set of exit numbers) - if you did not pass through the main barrier at Perryville, you had to pay at a coin-drop (never-staffed) toll barrier on the ramps.

[Since this has little to do with the topic at hand here, we should probably move the discussion to the Mid-Atlantic forum if you want to continue to discuss this (which I am happy to do).]
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.