I-84 widening Danbury to Waterbury, CT scrapped

[Mergingtraffic]

CT just couldn't get their act together on this one.  After years and years of not being able to move forward, while other states have planned and completed widenings, CT just threw in the towel.


CT shrinks I-84 expansion plans as federal dollars shrink

By: Ana Radelat | June 5, 2014View as "Clean Read"





Washington -- The Malloy administration has quietly dropped plans to add another lane to I-84 from the New York border to Waterbury.

A few weeks ago, the Connecticut Department of Transportation asked the Federal Highway Administration to drop plans to add a lane to I-84 for 32 miles. They have been in the works since 2005.

"The purposes of the proposed improvements were to improve safety and provide increased capacity to meet future traffic demand,"  the FHA said in a Federal Register notice.

But "due to the re-prioritization of major transportation projects in Connecticut and funding constraints"  the state has scrapped the plan. The proposed I-84 expansion would have cost $3 to $4 billion dollars.




Gov. Dannel P. Malloy offered effusive praise Friday of Col. Danny Stebbins, saying he did not seek or encourage Stebbins' recently announced retirement as the commander of the Connecticut State Police.


Malloy vetos substance abuse treatment bill opposed by insurance industry

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has vetoed a bill opposed by the insurance industry that would have required carriers to report information about the substance abuse treatment they have covered and their networks of mental health and substance abuse treatment providers.


Connecticut and most other states rely on the federal government for the lion's share of its transportation funding. But how to fund construction of the nation's roads and bridges, like most other issues in Washington, is subject to a bitter partisan debate. Because Congress can't agree on how to fund federal road projects, money for the highway trust fund, which is financed by largely by gasoline taxes, will run out in a few weeks.

By July, amid the uncertainty, and right in the middle of summer construction season, thousands of projects and contracts could be put on hold.

Instead of widening more than 30 miles of I-84, the Malloy administration has decided to ease traffic congestion in Waterbury and Danbury in a much more modest, cheaper way.

It proposes to widen a 5-mile section of I-84 near Danbury between exits 3 and 8 at a cost of about $1 billion and add a third lane to about 2.7 miles of I-84 near Waterbury.

"It's not the end of the road that we're going to pull the plug on a 30-mile project,"  said Connecticut Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Nursick.

Other projects, too

But the state may have to delay work on other project that are priorities.

The state transportation budget is nearly $1.5 billion this year, including nearly $648 million from the federal government and about $300 million in funds carried over from last year.

Those federal funds will dry up if Congress does not find a way to replenish the highway trust fund soon.

Nursick said the impact would not be felt right away, but could be devastating if Congress did not replenish the highway trust fund soon.

He said there's money in the pipeline to continue projects that are under construction right now, including the $1 billion Q-Bridge and I-95 / I-91 / Route 34 Interchange project. But the startup of new projects like the proposed I-84 road expansions in Danbury and Waterbury "would be difficult."

Nursick said federal funding for Connecticut — which is determined by formula — has stagnated for years, even as needs have increased. That has put a damper on more ambitious project like the 32-mile widening of I-84.

A total long-term shutoff "would be chaotic and leave transportation infrastructure in the lurch."

House Republicans proposed shoring up the highway fund for a year by allowing the U.S. Postal Service to end Saturday deliveries and putting the savings into infrastructure projects. That planned was derided by Senate Democrats.

The Senate Finance Committee met in private on Wednesday to try to find another solution. When senators left the meeting, several said a number of proposals had been discussed, including raising taxes or fees on oil wholesalers and imposing new tolls on roadways -- which GOP lawmakers have rejected.  But there did not appear to be consensus.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chairman of the Finance Committee said the panel would meet again next week to try to find agreement on a proposal House Republicans could accept. But no one expects a quick solution to the problem and the approval of a short-term emergency bill to fund the highway fund is an option.

The problem is that 90 percent of the fund's revenue comes from the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4-cents-per-gallon tax on diesel, neither of which has been increased since 1993 and have not kept up with costs. But Republicans refuse to raise those taxes.

Raise the tax?

Last week, at an event at A. Anastasio & Sons Trucking Co. across from the 1-91 bridge in New Haven, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., advocated an increase in the federal gasoline tax.

He said that for every dollar Connecticut pays in federal gas taxes, the state has historically received $1.68 in federal transportation spending, "making these programs a great investment for the state's economy."

Murphy said there are 406 bridges in Connecticut alone, including the I-91 bridge, that are deemed "structurally deficient" – meaning that such bridges, while safe, will require repairs or wholesale replacement in the future.

Last week, a bridge malfunction in Norwalk caused hour long train delays for hundreds of commuters.

Murphy proposed a 6-cent-per-gallon increase in the federal gas tax for two years.

"For 20 years, Congress has had its head in the sand, pretending that money is going to fall off trees for infrastructure,"  he said. "It's time to stop pretending."

But Murphy's proposal will be a tough sell among Republicans in the House who have taken a pledge not to raise taxes.

[southshore720]

If they don't have the $ to widen I-84, then they are definitely not going to have money to finish Route 11.  I wonder if the I-84 Hartford viaduct project will be on the endangered list as well... 

Also, gas in CT is so expensive as it is.  Taxing it even more will be a pain point for many families out there.

[PHLBOS]

Does the money collected from CT's gas tax actually go into a transportation fund or does it go into a general fund?  IIRC, back in the 80s (even after tolls were eliminated), it still went towards the latter. 

If such still holds true today; there's part of the problem right there.  How about directing all of the gas tax revenue where it's supposed to go?  While such won't completely cover any funding shortfalls; it'll at least be a good faith effort to spend the existing funds more wisely.

[DrSmith]

My understanding has been some goes to transportation but plenty gets dumped into the general trough. Especially, you have to remember CT has 2 gas taxes. A 25 cent/gallon flat tax plus a gross receipts tax at 7% currently I believe. The gross receipts tax started somewhere back around 2003 or so and kept gradually increasing.  However, the plan that was developed assumed gas prices would remain around the $1.50/gal prices with some normal inflation over time.  All this money was to go to a series of transportation needs seen for years ahead. Well back then we enjoyed much lower gas prices and no on was expecting the jumps we would soon start seeing.  Prices jumped and the state pulled in a pile of cash, but instead of putting it all to transportation, they only put aside what the plan called for (and may have even cheated on that too), the excess went to the general trough to be spent on everything else.  In fact in the 2008 area or so when prices did drop down significantly for a bit, the state started crying poor because they were addicted to these extra gross receipts taxes that they could blithely spend them how they wanted. Unfortunately they have spent a lot of money that could have been used to take care of some of the big projects that need work.

As far as the I-84 widening from Waterbury to Danbury, that is needed but I would think a much lower need than the I-84 Aetna viaduct replacement through Hartford and the Mixmaster replacement in Waterbury (I-84 and Route 8), both of which could be in the couple billion dollar range each and the DOT has no idea where the money will come from  but is becoming more serious.  And there are probably some other couple of huge projects needed as well as other smaller unfunded projects.  Easily in the summer, you can spend a lot of time in the evening sitting in delays on I-84 as a result of significant lane closures for road work to keep the viaduct in one piece for now. So I don't know that the I-84 viaduct project can be scrapped.

[vdeane]

The widening was cancelled because CT couldn't figure out how to add sidewalks, crosswalks, speed bumps, and other traffic calming measures to I-84. 

[froggie]

Congressional inaction on the Highway Trust Fund strikes again...

Personally, I don't think I-84 needs to be widened all the way from Danbury and Waterbury.  There are adequate truck climbing lanes on the hills and aside from the occasional crash, traffic isn't horrid.  Instead, they should focus on more targeted widenings, like west of Danville to I-684 (coordinating with NYSDOT on this) and finishing the gap east of Waterbury.  Easier to fund in light of the shrinking Federal transportation trough.

[Duke87]

It is interesting how a state with one of the highest gas taxes has some of the worst trouble finding money to spend on transportation, eh?

It should be noted that ConnDOT is blanketly responsible not only for maintenance of state roads, but also for the operation of buses and trains within the state (and maintenance of relevant infrastructure). Fares are collected but like all public transit the cost is subsidized.

And yes, a good chunk of gas tax revenue is diverted to general funds.


I would modestly propose that Connecticut could stand to undertake a downloading program where some state highways of lesser importance (there are A LOT of them) are removed from ConnDOT jurisdiction and dumped back on the municipalities they pass through to take care of. This would free up money to spend on more important roads.

[Arkansastravelguy]

It is interesting how a state with one of the highest gas taxes has some of the worst trouble finding money to spend on transportation, eh?

It should be noted that ConnDOT is blanketly responsible not only for maintenance of state roads, but also for the operation of buses and trains within the state (and maintenance of relevant infrastructure). Fares are collected but like all public transit the cost is subsidized.

And yes, a good chunk of gas tax revenue is diverted to general funds.


I would modestly propose that Connecticut could stand to undertake a downloading program where some state highways of lesser importance (there are A LOT of them) are removed from ConnDOT jurisdiction and dumped back on the municipalities they pass through to take care of. This would free up money to spend on more important roads.

I second that motion. One of the smallest states damn near has more numbered state highways than most states have (excluding secondary routes like Virginia)


iPhone

[roadman]

The widening was cancelled because CT couldn't figure out how to add sidewalks, crosswalks, speed bumps, and other traffic calming measures to I-84. 

You forgot the bike lanes.

[spooky]

The widening was cancelled because CT couldn't figure out how to add sidewalks, crosswalks, speed bumps, and other traffic calming measures to I-84. 

You forgot the bike lanes.

Complete Highways?

[jp the roadgeek]

Aren't you glad we built the Hartford/New Britain busway instead at $1000 per inch for the 10 people who will ride it?

[Pete from Boston]

Aren't you glad we built the Hartford/New Britain busway instead at $1000 per inch for the 10 people who will ride it?

Aren't you glad there isn't a complete system of maintenance-unfunded peripheral highways around Hartford?

[Gnutella]

The widening was cancelled because CT couldn't figure out how to add sidewalks, crosswalks, speed bumps, and other traffic calming measures to I-84. 

Yeah, let's make I-84 a safe road where I can walk my dog and my kids can ride their bikes.

[Mergingtraffic]

If they piss off 1000 people they don't care as long as the minority bike/ped people are happy.


For an example of how CT caters to the mass transit/bike/ped people....Check out this site:

http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com/presentations.html

Click on the I-95 forum presentation and look at page 12.


They actually have a page reassuring the special interest mass-transit/bike/ped groups that the DOT is still committed to transit-non-highway initiatives.  I'm getting tired of seeing needed road projects pushed out in favor of light-rail, bike-lanes etc where it really won't do any good. 

by the way: I do think CT is smart to look at HOT lanes ot express-lanes for I-95 and I-84 that this website talks about. 
http://www.ct-congestion-relief.com

Also, the DOT is spending 4-million on trees for the Merritt Pkwy.
http://www.merrittparkwaystamfordreconstruction.com/FAQ.html

Q: Will there be planting install to replace the trees that have been removed?

A: Yes, The Department is spending almost 4 million dollars in landscaping In accordance with the Master Design Plan.

[cpzilliacus]

They actually have a page reassuring the special interest mass-transit/bike/ped groups that the DOT is still committed to transit-non-highway initiatives.  I'm getting tired of seeing needed road projects pushed out in favor of light-rail, bike-lanes etc where it really won't do any good.

Then the elected officials that vote that way need to be voted out of office, and replaced by those that understand that in most places in the U.S., travel by the private automobile beats the other modes of transportation hands-down.

Consider this - persons and groups opposed to use of the private automobile and especially opposed to new highways, usually have unlimited time to attend meetings and voice their opposition to  those highways and to promote non-highway alternative modes of transport.  Even when those alternative modes really do not attract many users.

[connroadgeek]

HOT lanes on I-95? How? The highway can't be widened.

[Pete from Boston]

They actually have a page reassuring the special interest mass-transit/bike/ped groups that the DOT is still committed to transit-non-highway initiatives.  I'm getting tired of seeing needed road projects pushed out in favor of light-rail, bike-lanes etc where it really won't do any good.

Then the elected officials that vote that way need to be voted out of office, and replaced by those that understand that in most places in the U.S., travel by the private automobile beats the other modes of transportation hands-down.

Consider this - persons and groups opposed to use of the private automobile and especially opposed to new highways, usually have unlimited time to attend meetings and voice their opposition to  those highways and to promote non-highway alternative modes of transport.  Even when those alternative modes really do not attract many users.

Because you know, the only reason someone would ride a bike or use public transportation because they don't have a job and thus can't afford a car, and therefore have unlimited time to attend meetings.

(?!?)

[hotdogPi]

Because you know, the only reason someone would ride a bike or use public transportation because they don't have a job and thus can't afford a car, and therefore have unlimited time to attend meetings.

(?!?)

Another reason to use a bike is if the destination is less than 2 miles away.

[Arkansastravelguy]

I will be spending 10 days in the northeast with my amazing girlfriend who wholly accepts my roodgeekiness. I will be spending my couple thousand dollars of tourist money in all the states...except Connecticut. I'm taking the Long Island ferry around the clusterf*ck that is known as Connecticut because of its horrible highway system. If the state wants tourist money, it better figure out visitors want to do other things than sit in traffic.


iPhone

[D-Dey65]

I will be spending 10 days in the northeast with my amazing girlfriend who wholly accepts my roodgeekiness. I will be spending my couple thousand dollars of tourist money in all the states...except Connecticut. I'm taking the Long Island ferry around the clusterf*ck that is known as Connecticut because of its horrible highway system. If the state wants tourist money, it better figure out visitors want to do other things than sit in traffic.
iPhone

I had no idea there was a Long Island Ferry that bypassed Connecticut... certainly not a car ferry.

[Arkansastravelguy]

I will be spending 10 days in the northeast with my amazing girlfriend who wholly accepts my roodgeekiness. I will be spending my couple thousand dollars of tourist money in all the states...except Connecticut. I'm taking the Long Island ferry around the clusterf*ck that is known as Connecticut because of its horrible highway system. If the state wants tourist money, it better figure out visitors want to do other things than sit in traffic.
iPhone

I had no idea there was a Long Island Ferry that bypassed Connecticut... certainly not a car ferry.

Not completely but to New London, which is close enough


iPhone

[D-Dey65]

Not completely but to New London, which is close enough
iPhone

Well, that I knew about most of my life. I never actually used that ferry, but I have been to the parking lot at the end of NY 25 a few times.

[KEVIN_224]

Well there's also the ferry between Port Jefferson, NY and Bridgeport, CT. I can ask a former coworker about it, since he's taken it a couple of times. I can't say I blame you about I-95. Greenwich to New Haven is a bitch to say the least!

[Pete from Boston]

I will be spending 10 days in the northeast with my amazing girlfriend who wholly accepts my roodgeekiness. I will be spending my couple thousand dollars of tourist money in all the states...except Connecticut. I'm taking the Long Island ferry around the clusterf*ck that is known as Connecticut because of its horrible highway system. If the state wants tourist money, it better figure out visitors want to do other things than sit in traffic.

The Taconic is a scenic and much easier way to make the small businesses of Connecticut feel the hurt of your non-crossing wrath.

Of course, you could also enter Connecticut far enough to give this piece of your mind to the people st a tourist info center.  They love this kind of feedback, particularly with colorful invective thrown in.

[Tom958]

Instead of widening more than 30 miles of I-84, the Malloy administration has decided to ease traffic congestion in Waterbury and Danbury in a much more modest, cheaper way.

It proposes to widen a 5-mile section of I-84 near Danbury between exits 3 and 8 at a cost of about $1 billion and add a third lane to about 2.7 miles of I-84 near Waterbury.

$200m per mile. That's pretty expensive. Costs like that ought to give anybody pause, not to mention $4 billion for the whole 27 mile project.