Tolls on I-95 in Connecticut again soon?

Started by KEVIN_224, March 29, 2012, 07:18:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Steve on May 08, 2012, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 08, 2012, 07:33:08 PM
I have not been on I-95 in Connecticut for many years, but I presume that the land does not exist to double to width of the Turnpike, especially in Fairfield County.
Correct, the only way they were going to double capacity was a second deck, and that won't fly for aesthetic and cost reasons. Though cost may be less of an issue if you imagine the decked lanes as a free-flow toll express road.

I've not seen it myself, but I believe something like that was built above the existing Lee Roy Selmon Expressway (Fla. 618), though those lanes are one way (reversible).
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

#26
Quote from: Steve on May 08, 2012, 07:47:55 PM
But neither of your quotes addresses my points. Yes, cashless tolling works well, but re-tolling a now-free road does not. 407 ETR was always tolled, as a bypass of the free but congested 401. New lanes: people love tolls.

Agreed.

QuoteOld lanes: leave them free.

In a perfect world (and one where the motor fuel tax rate(s) to maintain and improve those "free" lanes was indexed to inflation), I agree with you.

But given that elected officials at the state and federal level do not want to increase those taxes (or impose some sort of VMT tax), I think we will see conversion of "free" lanes to toll lanes in the future.  Or maybe they will just fall apart from lack of maintenance?

QuoteAs for your second quote, volumes are a lot heavier now than even 20 years ago, and while there won't be that much volume diverting, it takes just a very little bit to break the back of already highly congested traffic.

Agreed that a small amount of additional traffic (especially on a road that is operating at level-of-service "E") will tip its performance to level-of-service "F."

Now in a theoretical sense, as was pointed out upthread, the Connecticut Turnpike carries a lot of short, local trips (in part because the interchanges are so close together).  Discouraging those short trips from using I-95 does not seem like such a bad idea.

Does anyone know if there is any truth to the story that I've heard several times - that the old Connecticut Turnpike toll barriers having were placed where they were to allow many short trips to use the road without paying toll?
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.

BamaZeus

Quote from: PHLBOS on May 08, 2012, 06:58:37 PM
Quote from: BamaZeus on May 08, 2012, 12:03:45 PMYes, both roads had tolls through 88 I think.  They were tearing them down for good right as I was moving south.  But, there was plenty of shunpiking happening before then, especially through Norwalk/Westport.
I believe the tolls were gone from all CT roads & bridges by 1985.

You're probably right.  I moved away from CT in 1988 and the tolls were gone by then on the Parkways and Turnpike.  85 sounds more legit than 88 does in my fading memory.

shadyjay

The last toll was on the Charter Oak Bridge, removed in 1989. 






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.