Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As someone who knows several close family members and friends that worked at Carpenter Steel in Bridgeport, even before Carpenter bought it in 1957 (it was Northeastern Steel and Stanley Works before that), I know the history of that plant well. The strike was not just Bridgeport workers. Part of the reason Carpenter closed Bridgeport was the value of its waterfront property. The company felt the land was too valuable to use for a steel mill. They stopped using the port facilities and some corporate hotshot sold them on how much the company could make by selling the property. Of course it was not worth nearly what they thought or expected which why it never reached its full potential. And all the jobs did not move to Reading, just some. Reading already had capacity to use. Still it all went back to the changes in the overall steel industry. Jay
As for the illegal immigrants, this has been a problem long time building. Why can’t we find a way to solve it where the thousands of good illegals can find a way to citizenship without them having to give up everything they have just to get an extremely slim to no chance of returning? There could and should be a way to fix this. Jay
I disagree on illegals, as they should go to back of the line, enter legally, and for that, the cost should be high.
We should join a large % of nations around globe and not allow dual citizenship. Want to come here? Fine, do it legally, and give up your allegiance to the nation you are leaving. Assimilate here. Become solely an American.
Few reasons can't vote for Stefanowski is plans to reduce State staff numbers but doesn't say where or how many
Then his plan to do away with the income tax.
Then also Markley stance on abortion.
I can't vote for Lamont due to Dems position on civilian liberties and wanting to increase regulation on bussiness.
Connecticut is the only state on the east coast that does not have tolls. Every state adjoining us have tolls. As much as 30% of the traffic on our major highways is out of state drivers. Why should we keep paying for those drivers to use our roads for free? Shouldn’t they be paying like we pay when we drive in their states?
Which means that 70-75% of toll will be collected from in-state residents. Vermont does not have tolls, unless you count the Charlestown toll bridge between VT and NH, and RI only has one toll bridge. The issue here is that no state has ever added new tolls to existing roads. Any new tolls in FL have been on newly constructed highways. Some new tolls were added in Maryland, but they were added to the long-planned Inter-County Connector and newly constructed HOT lanes northeast of Baltimore on I-95. So there would be no repercussions if tolls were added to the Route 11 extension if it were ever dug out of its grave.
The Mass Pike and NY Thruway were originally built as toll facilities, as were the NJ and PA Turnpikes, and all of the toll bridges across the Hudson, East, and Delaware Rivers. MA did stop collecting tolls on the Pike west of Exit 6, but the tolls were never officially eliminated. So when they were collected once again, it was simply a matter of adding a rate rather than a total re-implementation. When CT eliminated tolls on I-95, the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, and several bridges, they were eliminated, not just simply saying the toll is $0.00. If the tolls are implemented on existing roads, CT stands to lose federal funding.
And the number of tolling locations is absolutely ridiculous. If border tolls were allowed, then there would be much less of a burden on the CT resident. But to have 70+ proposed tolling locations even on less significant roads like I-691 and route 72 is a little punitive to CT residents. It's essentially akin to micromanaging your driving. Tolls are a form of triple taxation; we are paying with after-tax income that has been taxed at the federal and state level already. Consider someone who lives in Southington and commutes to Hartford daily, with a 50 cent toll at each tolling location. A proposal had 4 such locations on I-84 in that stretch. That's $2 driving in, and $2 driving home, so $4 a day. Multiply that by 5 days a week, and that's $20. Multiply that by 48 weeks a year, and that amounts to $960, which is essentially a 2% pay cut to those that clear $50k a year. If you use congestion pricing and the tolls double to $1, that's almost a $2000 or 4% pay cut. Even if the tolls are trucks only, the cost of the tolls will be passed along to the consumer in the price of goods. A $3 gallon of milk will cost $4.50.
Which means that 70-75% of toll will be collected from in-state residents. Vermont does not have tolls, unless you count the Charlestown toll bridge between VT and NH, and RI only has one toll bridge. The issue here is that no state has ever added new tolls to existing roads. Any new tolls in FL have been on newly constructed highways. Some new tolls were added in Maryland, but they were added to the long-planned Inter-County Connector and newly constructed HOT lanes northeast of Baltimore on I-95. So there would be no repercussions if tolls were added to the Route 11 extension if it were ever dug out of its grave.
The Mass Pike and NY Thruway were originally built as toll facilities, as were the NJ and PA Turnpikes, and all of the toll bridges across the Hudson, East, and Delaware Rivers. MA did stop collecting tolls on the Pike west of Exit 6, but the tolls were never officially eliminated. So when they were collected once again, it was simply a matter of adding a rate rather than a total re-implementation. When CT eliminated tolls on I-95, the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, and several bridges, they were eliminated, not just simply saying the toll is $0.00. If the tolls are implemented on existing roads, CT stands to lose federal funding.
And the number of tolling locations is absolutely ridiculous. If border tolls were allowed, then there would be much less of a burden on the CT resident. But to have 70+ proposed tolling locations even on less significant roads like I-691 and route 72 is a little punitive to CT residents. It's essentially akin to micromanaging your driving. Tolls are a form of triple taxation; we are paying with after-tax income that has been taxed at the federal and state level already. Consider someone who lives in Southington and commutes to Hartford daily, with a 50 cent toll at each tolling location. A proposal had 4 such locations on I-84 in that stretch. That's $2 driving in, and $2 driving home, so $4 a day. Multiply that by 5 days a week, and that's $20. Multiply that by 48 weeks a year, and that amounts to $960, which is essentially a 2% pay cut to those that clear $50k a year. If you use congestion pricing and the tolls double to $1, that's almost a $2000 or 4% pay cut. Even if the tolls are trucks only, the cost of the tolls will be passed along to the consumer in the price of goods. A $3 gallon of milk will cost $4.50.
Almost 50% of plates are NY drivers from Greenwich to New Haven and 25% in Hartford area is MA, RI, NH so the state will make money from out of state drivers
As someone who knows several close family members and friends that worked at Carpenter Steel in Bridgeport, even before Carpenter bought it in 1957 (it was Northeastern Steel and Stanley Works before that), I know the history of that plant well. The strike was not just Bridgeport workers. Part of the reason Carpenter closed Bridgeport was the value of its waterfront property. The company felt the land was too valuable to use for a steel mill. They stopped using the port facilities and some corporate hotshot sold them on how much the company could make by selling the property. Of course it was not worth nearly what they thought or expected which why it never reached its full potential. And all the jobs did not move to Reading, just some. Reading already had capacity to use. Still it all went back to the changes in the overall steel industry. Jay
It couldn't sell due to environmental issues, which is why the casino moguls backed away from that site.
Why are you guys crying about manufacturing jobs leaving CT ? Manufacturing jobs have been leaving the entire country since at least 1990. IF you want to see devastation go to Flint, MI Gary, IN or Youngstown, OH. Nothing like that exists in CT.
Undocumented immigrants are a red herring so forget about them. No one in state or national Govt cares about them.
Which means that 70-75% of toll will be collected from in-state residents. Vermont does not have tolls, unless you count the Charlestown toll bridge between VT and NH, and RI only has one toll bridge. The issue here is that no state has ever added new tolls to existing roads. Any new tolls in FL have been on newly constructed highways. Some new tolls were added in Maryland, but they were added to the long-planned Inter-County Connector and newly constructed HOT lanes northeast of Baltimore on I-95. So there would be no repercussions if tolls were added to the Route 11 extension if it were ever dug out of its grave.
The Mass Pike and NY Thruway were originally built as toll facilities, as were the NJ and PA Turnpikes, and all of the toll bridges across the Hudson, East, and Delaware Rivers. MA did stop collecting tolls on the Pike west of Exit 6, but the tolls were never officially eliminated. So when they were collected once again, it was simply a matter of adding a rate rather than a total re-implementation. When CT eliminated tolls on I-95, the Merritt/Wilbur Cross, and several bridges, they were eliminated, not just simply saying the toll is $0.00. If the tolls are implemented on existing roads, CT stands to lose federal funding.
And the number of tolling locations is absolutely ridiculous. If border tolls were allowed, then there would be much less of a burden on the CT resident. But to have 70+ proposed tolling locations even on less significant roads like I-691 and route 72 is a little punitive to CT residents. It's essentially akin to micromanaging your driving. Tolls are a form of triple taxation; we are paying with after-tax income that has been taxed at the federal and state level already. Consider someone who lives in Southington and commutes to Hartford daily, with a 50 cent toll at each tolling location. A proposal had 4 such locations on I-84 in that stretch. That's $2 driving in, and $2 driving home, so $4 a day. Multiply that by 5 days a week, and that's $20. Multiply that by 48 weeks a year, and that amounts to $960, which is essentially a 2% pay cut to those that clear $50k a year. If you use congestion pricing and the tolls double to $1, that's almost a $2000 or 4% pay cut. Even if the tolls are trucks only, the cost of the tolls will be passed along to the consumer in the price of goods. A $3 gallon of milk will cost $4.50.
You seem to have a lot of outdated information. First Vermont is not on the east coast. It is inland. That said MANY inland states also have tolls.
Rhode Island had tolls on other bridges for many years before they were stopped in recent years when they realized many were not paying for themselves. The Mount Hope Bridge had tolls until 1998. The Jamestown Bridge had tolls until 1969 when the Newport Bridge (now called the Pell Bridge) was opened and started tolling drivers. Tolls were also collected on the Sakonet River Bridge and on several highways around the state. Most importantly, Rhode Island has now started collecting tolls on trucks using their highways across the state so, yes Rhode Island highways have tolls.
The Federal Highway Administration has already said they would allow tolls on Connecticut highways without significant impacts to federal money. They recognize the need for additional funding and that the gas tax is no longer a sustainable source of revenue. This is now their policy across the country. Several years ago they specifically approved tolls on I-95 from New Haven to New York and on I-84 west of Hartford so federal funding loss is pretty much a non-issue. FHWA has however said they would not allow border tolls. They would only support a uniform tolling system across the state. That is why CTDOT is not proposing them.
The point is that if Connecticut wants to make serious improvements to their roads and transportation system, more money is going to be needed. Where that money comes from is the question. Many other states (27 to be exact) have raised their gas taxes to increase revenue. If tolls are implemented, Connecticut residents could pay a reduced rate and/or a reduction could be made to the gas tax or the vehicle tax. This is what would have to be worked out. That can't happen until a decision is made that tolls are a viable option. Without more money our roads will continue to deteriorate and congestion only get worse. Jay
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
