Take it for what it's worth, but I remember reading an article in 2005 that said Route 11 would begin construction in 2011.
http://www.theday.com/article/20130620/NWS01/306209579/0/SEARCH
Trying to figure out what they mean by "tolling the interchange," because it's presented separately from "tolling the extension." Are they trying to stick tolls on I-95 and I-395?
From The Day article:
QuoteThe DOT is studying the environmental, engineering and financial effects of adding 8.5 miles to Route 11, which now ends in Salem, and building an interchange with routes 95 and 395 at its proposed terminus. Construction on the route's extension through Salem, Montville, East Lyme and Waterford halted in the 1970s.
Why does this need to be studied again? I mean, come on... this has been going on since the 70s. Build the damn road already and stop wasting money on all these damn studies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Steve on June 27, 2013, 06:46:27 PM
Trying to figure out what they mean by "tolling the interchange," because it's presented separately from "tolling the extension." Are they trying to stick tolls on I-95 and I-395?
Connecticut has been discussing (re)tolling of the old Connecticut Turnpike for quite a few years now. Presumably they would go with all-electronic toll collection.
I never drove the I-95 section of the Connecticut Turnpike between New Haven and East Lyme when it was tolled (and I have never driven the I-395 portion). But I understand it was very much like the section between the New York state line and I-91 with a series of barrier tolls (which I drove when it was tolled, I think it was 25¢ per barrier for cars).
Rather like the Garden State Parkway when all of its toll barriers were two-way and there was no E-ZPass.
Quote from: shadyjay on June 27, 2013, 08:38:45 PM
From The Day article:
QuoteThe DOT is studying the environmental, engineering and financial effects of adding 8.5 miles to Route 11, which now ends in Salem, and building an interchange with routes 95 and 395 at its proposed terminus. Construction on the route's extension through Salem, Montville, East Lyme and Waterford halted in the 1970s.
Why does this need to be studied again? I mean, come on... this has been going on since the 70s. Build the damn road already and stop wasting money on all these damn studies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It took us three environmental impact (NEPA) studies (one in the 1980's, one in the 1990's and finally one in the 2000's) and one federal lawsuit (dismissed by the federal judge that heard the case) before Maryland got approval to build Route 200 (ICC), which is only between 15 and 20 miles long.
Route 11 being built? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! We'll land on Mars before CT finishes that highway. Every 10 years we pay for a new study, everyone agrees the road is needed, congress even "fast tracks" it, and still nothing will be done.
Just build it, or don't. Stop this endless planning.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 27, 2013, 09:10:41 PMConnecticut has been discussing (re)tolling of the old Connecticut Turnpike for quite a few years now. Presumably they would go with all-electronic toll collection.
I never drove the I-95 section of the Connecticut Turnpike between New Haven and East Lyme when it was tolled (and I have never driven the I-395 portion). But I understand it was very much like the section between the New York state line and I-91 with a series of barrier tolls (which I drove when it was tolled, I think it was 25¢ per barrier for cars).
Rather like the Garden State Parkway when all of its toll barriers were two-way and there was no E-ZPass.
Correct, the CT Turnpike toll barrier setup was exactly like what existed along the Garden State Parkway at the time. If memory serves, the barriers long the Turnpike were closer to each other distancewise than those on the Garden State Parkway. Which was one reason why the road was continuously jammed w/traffic and that infamous multi-vehicle pile-up at a toll booth circa 1983 (that triggered CT to ban toll booths for all roads about 2 years later) was an accident just waiting to happen.
As we all know, EZ-Pass & Electornic tolling wouldn't come into existence until decades later.
I wouldn't be surprised if once again this failed to see the light of day! Remember, this is the same state that got lots of road projects around its own capital cancelled decades ago (I-84 to Providence, I-291 West, and I-484 come to mind).
CT11 or Super 7? Which one gets built first? Or better yet, OJ Simpson being freed or either being built?
Quote from: Perfxion on June 28, 2013, 10:21:07 PM
CT11 or Super 7? Which one gets built first? Or better yet, OJ Simpson being freed or either being built?
The Cubs will win a World Series before either is built.
Super 7 is slightly more likely
Quote from: spmkam on June 29, 2013, 12:59:32 AM
Super 7 is slightly more likely
No way. Too many affluent people living in its path which has been the blockade over the years. If they can block CL&P from running power lines to improve the electrical infrastructure (you know the thing those same people complained about with the storms over the past couple years when they were without power for a week), they can stop a highway and will. Super 7 will never be built - the widening project was the compromise. Route 11 could get done, but deep down I don't think the state has the appetite for it. We're done with highway building in the state. More money will be sunk into mass transit than adding lane-miles.
In decreasing order of probability:
* Whalers return
* CT 11 completed
* Rihanna records a song in 5/4
* US 6 from Bolton to Columbia
* Sox - Yankees merger
* US 7 from Norwalk to Danbury
Wonder if it would make more sense at this point, if it doesn't get built, to abandon Route 11 and send "NEW LONDON" bound traffic further east along Route 2 to Norwich, then down the turnpike to Route 32. Actually, I'm quite surprised that ConnDOT hasn't replaced the "NEW LONDON" control point for Route 11 with a "SALEM" overlay.
Of course part of the problem is that Route 2->Route 11 is the advertised way to New London all the way up in Hartford.
Quote from: Beeper1 on June 27, 2013, 10:14:25 PM
Route 11 being built? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! We'll land on Mars before CT finishes that highway. Every 10 years we pay for a new study, everyone agrees the road is needed, congress even "fast tracks" it, and still nothing will be done.
Just build it, or don't. Stop this endless planning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFpWEEqgijY
It's too bad there wasn't a wealthy benefactor that could pay for the whole thing in exchange for naming rights to the highway. I don't think anyone would mind riding down the Bill Gates Expressway if it meant an easier way to get from Hartford to New London!
Quote from: southshore720 on July 02, 2013, 03:59:01 PM
It's too bad there wasn't a wealthy benefactor that could pay for the whole thing in exchange for naming rights to the highway. I don't think anyone would mind riding down the Bill Gates Expressway if it meant an easier way to get from Hartford to New London!
I would like to claim the Steve Alpert Mile Post 11.7 (NB).
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2013, 11:58:52 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on June 28, 2013, 10:21:07 PM
CT11 or Super 7? Which one gets built first? Or better yet, OJ Simpson being freed or either being built?
The Cubs will win a World Series before either is built.
You got that one spot on.
Quote from: edwaleni on September 01, 2018, 06:21:59 PM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on June 28, 2013, 11:58:52 PM
Quote from: Perfxion on June 28, 2013, 10:21:07 PM
CT11 or Super 7? Which one gets built first? Or better yet, OJ Simpson being freed or either being built?
The Cubs will win a World Series before either is built.
And OJ is free too. I'll change OJ to Mark David Chapman, and he'll still get paroled before CT 11 is completed.
You got that one spot on.
There's a better chance of that stretch south of 82 being built as a bicycle trail to 85.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 01, 2018, 09:32:38 PM
There's a better chance of that stretch south of 82 being built as a bicycle trail to 85.
It's pretty safe to say that extending Route 11 to I-95 will not happen. Ironically, a lot of folks along the 82/85 corridor support Route 11, but there's no money to build it. Even if there was money to extend Route 11, the EPA has made it clear that it will do whatever it can to block the extension from ever getting through the environmental clearance and permitting process.
What environmental issues? OpenStreetMap and Apple Maps don't show the path going through any protected areas. Google Maps shows one, but the ROW is already cleared along it, as it's the part that is adjacent to the current end of CT 11.
Quote from: 1 on September 02, 2018, 10:03:19 PM
What environmental issues? OpenStreetMap and Apple Maps don't show the path going through any protected areas. Google Maps shows one, but the ROW is already cleared along it, as it's the part that is adjacent to the current end of CT 11.
The EPA's New England Office has been universally opposed to any new-terrain highway construction for as long as I can remember. Since the EPA can block the issuance of necessary permits to begin construction, the EPA's arbitrary opposition is enough to completely derail a major highway project. History speaks to this quite well: the cancelled Route 6 bypass through Andover, Bolton and Coventry; the Nashua (New Hampshire) Circumferential Highway; Super-7; just to name a few highway projects that fell victim to EPA objections.
Seriously, I could go up there right now armed with a pickaxe and a shovel and build it myself, and it still wouldn't take as long.
Quote from: abqtraveler on September 02, 2018, 09:47:35 PM
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 01, 2018, 09:32:38 PM
There's a better chance of that stretch south of 82 being built as a bicycle trail to 85.
It's pretty safe to say that extending Route 11 to I-95 will not happen. Ironically, a lot of folks along the 82/85 corridor support Route 11, but there's no money to build it. Even if there was money to extend Route 11, the EPA has made it clear that it will do whatever it can to block the extension from ever getting through the environmental clearance and permitting process.
We do have a different environment (no pun intended) at the EPA right now that may have a looser approach to new freeway construction.
^ Nevermind that it hasn't affected ALL new-location projects in New England. We've had both the Morrisville and (a segment of) Bennington bypasses built in Vermont in the past 10 years. I-93 in the vicinity of NH 111/Windham was effectively a relocation as well.
I was about to say that I think the statement that whatever EPA office is opposed to all new construction just seems false to me. So, citation needed that it was the Region 1 EPA that killed those projects, because I highly doubt it and believe need and other fiscal priorities are more at stake (especially with Nashua's bypass).
At least here in NY, permits can be obtained if the bureaucratic processes are followed (EIS and what not). The idea that the EPA in New England is unilaterally denying permits just doesn't ring true.
Quote from: Rothman on September 03, 2018, 09:09:13 AM
I was about to say that I think the statement that whatever EPA office is opposed to all new construction just seems false to me. So, citation needed that it was the Region 1 EPA that killed those projects, because I highly doubt it and believe need and other fiscal priorities are more at stake (especially with Nashua's bypass).
At least here in NY, permits can be obtained if the bureaucratic processes are followed (EIS and what not). The idea that the EPA in New England is unilaterally denying permits just doesn't ring true.
You ask locals, they seem convinced it's the EPA (https://www.theday.com/article/20161018/NWS01/161019218) blocking the projects.
Funny thing about that is that it's not the EPA that issues wetlands permits...it's the Army Corps of Engineers...
The Federal Register specifically notes that it wasn't just environmental concerns but also a "lack of financial resources" why the project was killed.
The article and thread are 5 years old. As the post has suddenly been resurrected.... Has there been any indication anywhere in the interim that this proposal has moved any closer to fruition than it was in 2013? Details please. I've seen no indication that any current plans are on track for an actual start of work being imminent. 2020 is 15 months away.
Quote from: froggie on September 03, 2018, 12:29:34 PM
Funny thing about that is that it's not the EPA that issues wetlands permits...it's the Army Corps of Engineers...
The Federal Register specifically notes that it wasn't just environmental concerns but also a "lack of financial resources" why the project was killed.
True, the Corps of Engineers does issue permits, but only with EPA concurrence. If the EPA does not concur on the permit application, the COE cannot issue the permit until issues raised by the EPA have been addressed to their satisfaction.
Yeah I'm not seeing the broad conspiracy that the EPA is just saying no to new freeways in New England. The Bennington bypass is a good recent example of a freeway (albeit super 2) in New England being built. Even within Connecticut, the US 7 bypass of Brookfield has not had its 10th birthday yet.
As for the other projects named as supposed examples:
- US 6 between 384 and Willimantic does run parallel to the Hop River the whole way, so any freeway (or a widening of the existing road) in that corridor would inevitably have significant wetlands impacts. What killed that project though was not that the EPA flat out said no to the entire concept - it was that the state was unable to come up with an alternative which was satisfactory both to the Army Corps of Engineers (minimizing wetlands impacts) and to locals along the corridor (minimizing impacts on existing development).
- Super 7 is dead because of NIMBY opposition, not because of environmental concerns
- The Circumferential Highway in Nashua had significant wetlands impacts which resulted in the prior version of the proposal being killed. As with US 6, though, this does not mean an alternative with less impacts would not pass muster. It just hasn't been enough of a priority to figure that out.
And CT 11, of course, is dead because Connecticut is broke and can't afford to spend money on it. Because it's Connecticut, every so often they will commission a study in order to look like they're trying to do something, but nothing will ever come of it and there is never any intent for anything to come of it.
The fact of the matter is CT 85 between Salem and Waterford is not that bad and ConnDOT has far more significant problems elsewhere to address with their limited financial resources.
Yep, the state can't even maintain their current roads properly, why would they begin to think about building more roads.
Quote from: Roadgeek Adam on September 03, 2018, 11:51:53 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 03, 2018, 09:09:13 AM
I was about to say that I think the statement that whatever EPA office is opposed to all new construction just seems false to me. So, citation needed that it was the Region 1 EPA that killed those projects, because I highly doubt it and believe need and other fiscal priorities are more at stake (especially with Nashua's bypass).
At least here in NY, permits can be obtained if the bureaucratic processes are followed (EIS and what not). The idea that the EPA in New England is unilaterally denying permits just doesn't ring true.
You ask locals, they seem convinced it's the EPA (https://www.theday.com/article/20161018/NWS01/161019218) blocking the projects.
Then they need to read the link. ConnDOT got the authorization for the EIS and when FHWA followed the process by requesting needed information, ConnDOT dropped out. This was not a matter that involved the EPA, but purely ConnDOT letting it wilt.
One bonehead selectman aside, the reality for CT 11 was lack of funding and political willpower, like the link states up front.
Quote from: Duke87 on September 03, 2018, 07:55:23 PM
The fact of the matter is CT 85 between Salem and Waterford is not that bad and ConnDOT has far more significant problems elsewhere to address with their limited financial resources.
Concur. Back when this thread was born, I was making that commute and it wasn't bad. There's a rotary in Salem Then there's a traffic light in the Chesterfield section of Montville and a few once you're between 395 and 95 in Waterford. I don't think that an extension would've saved much time on that commute.
Quote from: WR of USA on September 03, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Yep, the state can't even maintain their current roads properly, why would they begin to think about building more roads.
No offense but where, currently, is the state not properly maintaining roads?
I'd be very surprised if anything road-related is built in Connecticut ever again.
A dumb-down solution:
Extend CT 11 south just enough to avoid CT 82 and the Salem Four Corners roundabout. Have it transition right into Route 85. Granted, its not perfect, but its a partial solution to a full-build. And come to think of it, this "extension" did show up on some maps for a while in the 70s/80s.
Or, as I have suggested in the past, just remove the whole damn highway, from Route 2 to Route 85. Pretend like it never even existed. New London is already being phased out for a CT 2 EB control point in East Hartford and I bet it won't be featured on I-91 SB Exit 30 when those signs get replaced.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 05, 2018, 04:11:04 PM
I'd be very surprised if anything road-related is built in Connecticut ever again.
Agreed. Highly doubt Connecticut will ever build another new-terrain highway. The Route 7 Brookfield Bypass and the Route 72 expressway through Bristol are perhaps the last new-terrain projects that will be done in Connecticut. The state is having enough trouble maintaing what it currently has.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2018, 09:40:37 PM
Quote from: WR of USA on September 03, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Yep, the state can't even maintain their current roads properly, why would they begin to think about building more roads.
No offense but where, currently, is the state not properly maintaining roads?
From the driver's seat, it seems like they're better maintained in CT than RI. RI is doing a lot of bridgework (way overdue, from what I hear, and some of it seems more cosmetic than anything else) but surface roads such as US-6 and its Bypass in the Foster area could use some TLC.
Quote from: jon daly on September 05, 2018, 09:17:31 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 04, 2018, 09:40:37 PM
Quote from: WR of USA on September 03, 2018, 08:46:53 PM
Yep, the state can't even maintain their current roads properly, why would they begin to think about building more roads.
No offense but where, currently, is the state not properly maintaining roads?
From the driver's seat, it seems like they're better maintained in CT than RI. RI is doing a lot of bridgework (way overdue, from what I hear, and some of it seems more cosmetic than anything else) but surface roads such as US-6 and its Bypass in the Foster area could use some TLC.
Also the difference when you cross into CT from NY is like night and day. CT much better.
And also don't forget that if federal issues get in the way of building something, if there is enough local and regional interest in the project Congress can certainly step in and order it built anyway.
For example, see: MN 36/WI 64 Saint Croix River bridge on the Minnesota-Wisconsin state line.
Mike
(edit - WOOHOO! My 3000th posting in AARoads! :cheers: )
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 03, 2018, 01:33:49 AM
Seriously, I could go up there right now armed with a pickaxe and a shovel and build it myself, and it still wouldn't take as long.
While we're at it, I'll rent a grader, paver, dump truck, excavator, bulldozer and boom lift to get the ball rolling. If there's any engineers that want to help bypsss the environmental review, let us know.
We will be done by 2030. Otherwise it will never be built.
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 21, 2018, 11:06:49 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on September 03, 2018, 01:33:49 AM
Seriously, I could go up there right now armed with a pickaxe and a shovel and build it myself, and it still wouldn't take as long.
While we're at it, I'll rent a grader, paver, dump truck, excavator, bulldozer and boom lift to get the ball rolling. If there's any engineers that want to help bypsss the environmental review, let us know.
We will be done by 2030. Otherwise it will never be built.
I'll draw up some plans, but I can't sign them.
I can stand there and laugh at you guys when you're arrested for vandalism.