[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Can't compare us to nj. We don't have the width of the gsp to fascilitate tolls at all 95 exits on i95. Nor is that the proposal (borders plus nh?). As for the nj turnpike there are very few exits and no parallal roads a la route 1. Captive audience

Mass pike? That doesn't go through swamp land and it heads right through boston as well.

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

Modern high speed tolls. You can drive through them at highway speed without stopping.

I've seen these high speed tolls in Delaware and Illinois. Still I'm not sure where they could be installed on i-95 in CT. Perhaps only east of New Haven? They are not going to be expanding lanes on i-95 west of New Haven any time soon. Maybe they should try expanding RT 8 or Rt 7 and i-84 west of Hartford to try diverting some traffic off of i-95. As it is now I don't see a solution for the Merritt or i-95 west of New Haven.

Even if they managed to install tolls west of New Haven like Wilton2parkave said people will just drive around them. It would be annoying, but stupidly easy since i-95 has exits about every mile. In comparison, look at the Mass pike east of Springfield the exits are 5 or more miles apart. Not as easy or convenient to drive around that toll road. And if people did, it would just push traffic onto local roads instead, thereby not saving any time, which in the end makes the toll road a better choice.

I think it's too late at this point, but they should have considered installing tolls on the Q-bridge and Putnam bridge in Wethersfield/Glastonbury while they were being rebuild/retrofitted. In the case of the Putnam bridge that carries state RT 3 not an interstate, so I would think there's no interference from the Fed Govt.

I believe Rhode Island did something similar with the new "Newport" bridge which I think carries state RT 1.

P.S. I don't know if the old Newport bridge was tolled.

It will be interesting to see what CT comes up with in the coming years.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by Cambium

She also says the state initially got rid of toll booths after a tractor-trailer accident at a toll both in Stratford in 1985 killed seven people. Boucher says they should remain a thing of the past.

Modern toll gates have full speed lanes where nobody has to slow down.

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

Modern toll gates have full speed lanes where nobody has to slow down.

I agree that it's a ridiculous reason to not have tolls because of some accident 20 years ago at a toll booth. There's accidents all the time regardless on that highway unfortunately. I don't consider a toll booth a safety hazard. I simply don't want to pay more money to drive.

[KEVIN_224]

The ugly year for the Connecticut Turnpike was 1983: The Stratford toll plaza disaster and the Mianus River bridge collapse on I-95 North in Greenwich.

I'm for the tolls, myself.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I've seen these high speed tolls in Delaware and Illinois. Still I'm not sure where they could be installed on i-95 in CT. Perhaps only east of New Haven? They are not going to be expanding lanes on i-95 west of New Haven any time soon. Maybe they should try expanding RT 8 or Rt 7 and i-84 west of Hartford to try diverting some traffic off of i-95. As it is now I don't see a solution for the Merritt or i-95 west of New Haven.

One factor: you need fewer toll lanes when they are the full speed variety.

You don't even necessarily need any toll booths. Some of the toll roads in Texas are transponder-only; you just drive under a structure built over the road itself. (If you go through without a transponder they take a picture of your license and mail you a bill for the toll. It costs more, but not a major amount more.)

In the case of the Putnam bridge that carries state RT 3 not an interstate, so I would think there's no interference from the Fed Govt.

Yes; as far as I know, only the Interstate system has those restrictions.

[MiaMia411]

Originally Posted by HeadedWest

One factor: you need fewer toll lanes when they are the full speed variety.

You don't even necessarily need any toll booths. Some of the toll roads in Texas are transponder-only; you just drive under a structure built over the road itself. (If you go through without a transponder they take a picture of your license and mail you a bill for the toll. It costs more, but not a major amount more.)



Yes; as far as I know, only the Interstate system has those restrictions.

Whats highlighted in BOLD, its very simple, you just drive without any worry or needing to slow/stop. If you dont have the toll transponder they just mail out the fee to you. They do this in Canada as well.

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by EricS39

I am saying replace property tax with toll roads

So this will reduce the tax burden in other places

Exempt busses from tolls so that way if you park and ride CT bus you will see tax drop

Or cut the state income tax rates down

That could never work. If you charge tolls, you forfeit federal funding for highway maintenance for the highway you are charging tolls on. And thus all highway maintenance for that highway must be funded by tolls.

[Mr_250]

Originally Posted by juppiter

That could never work. If you charge tolls, you forfeit federal funding for highway maintenance for the highway you are charging tolls on. And thus all highway maintenance for that highway must be funded by tolls.

Think someone else mentioned this, but I don't know if this is a good thing for CT with the situation (budget wise) we are currently in.

Now knowing this, I would support the use of tolls IF AND ONLY IF there was a law signed that said any revenue generated from tolls will be put towards the engineering, construction and maintenance of highways and nothing else. I want to see a separate fund set up and, like public companies, I want to see income statements on a quarterly basis.

If what stated above is NOT in set in place it (toll revenues) will be swallowed up in the general fund for pensions/raises and corporate welfare. Then we'll be worse off because we have tolls so no FED money and since we keep raiding the toll revenue now we have NO funds to improve highways.

[Lalalally]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

Think someone else mentioned this, but I don't know if this is a good thing for CT with the situation (budget wise) we are currently in.

Now knowing this, I would support the use of tolls IF AND ONLY IF there was a law signed that said any revenue generated from tolls will be put towards the engineering, construction and maintenance of highways and nothing else. I want to see a separate fund set up and, like public companies, I want to see income statements on a quarterly basis.

If what stated above is NOT in set in place it (toll revenues) will be swallowed up in the general fund for pensions/raises and corporate welfare. Then we'll be worse off because we have tolls so no FED money and since we keep raiding the toll revenue now we have NO funds to improve highways.

The second article I posted does touch on this . . . I think it quoted Malloy as saying that he would support a state constitutional amendment to set toll revenue aside in a "lockbox." That better be the case if this thing goes forward . . . no way in hell can you trust a politician on his/her word alone to not use the funds for things other than road improvements.