[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JViello

I agree with both sides. It's not a GPS device...but when you start talking government MANDATED things, they find a way to make it intrusive in your life and wallet I.E. Seat belt laws. Frankly IMO that's not the role of government - to save me from me, but I digress.

Example: How longer before they are measuring time/distance between toll booths via EZ Pass and start mailing you a speeding ticket automatically? Sound crazy? What do you think the average person's reaction would have been to "red light cameras" 20-25 years ago. They probably would have thought you were a conspiracy wacko.

Mandated is the word I think both SCR and myself have a problem with.

Seat belt laws aren't saving "you from you", they're saving a complete stranger from having to deal with the sight of your insides being strewn across the highway. But that's another thread.

Fair enough with the word "mandated", but I still fail to see what the big deal would be. It's not gonna happen anyway.

[Kristin85]

Originally Posted by JViello

I agree with both sides. It's not a GPS device...but when you start talking government MANDATED things, they find a way to make it intrusive in your life and wallet I.E. Seat belt laws. Frankly IMO that's not the role of government - to save me from me, but I digress.

Example: How longer before they are measuring time/distance between toll booths via EZ Pass and start mailing you a speeding ticket automatically? Sound crazy? What do you think the average person's reaction would have been to "red light cameras" 20-25 years ago. They probably would have thought you were a conspiracy wacko.

Mandated is the word I think both SCR and myself have a problem with.

P.S. SCR do NOT purchase a GM vehicle with OnStar. Talk about being able to remotely control your car and track your habits. Now that they are government owned...makes one a bit leary. Well one that actually knows what the next vehicle control system called OBD-III can do (We are currently on OBD-II). Hint: Think satellite linked car computer where the DMV can send you tickets, read check engine lights and send inspection demands, the police can shut it off etc etc.

Edit: Haha...I just read your post 7wishes. I guess I should read the entire thread before replying next time.

I'm with you on this one. EZ Pass can be used by the government way too easily to see when and where you are leaving/entering an area. I was just reminded of EZ Pass being used in court to prove a husband was committing adultery. (E-ZPass records out cheaters in divorce court - Tech and gadgets- msnbc.com) I would put money on the idea that EZ Pass will be used in the next few years to track speeders as well. As Bob Barr says in the MSNBC article: "People are foolish to buy into these systems without thinking, just because they want to save 20 seconds of time going through a toll booth."

[catalinaracer1]

Originally Posted by skel1977

The way the state budget is going I can only assume they will eventually put up tolls.

It would be a nightmare there allready enough traffic and more cars on the road then years ago when tolls were in place.

[yankee.peddler]

Tolls are on ConnDOT's radar screen, and they're not only studying the major expressways in the state (e.g., I-95, I-84 and I-91); they're also studying the secondary expressways like Routes 2 and 9. I would expect to see electronic tolling implemented on some of the state's roads in the future. Frankly, I think a toll on out-of-state vehicles (especially trucks) should be imposed along I-95. Lots of folks pass through the state and contribute to the wear on that road and DON'T stop and fill up their tank in the state, thus paying the gas tax.

A while back I saw a website on which owner suggested having Connecticut toll the one-mile section of I-684 that slices through Greenwich without any exits. What a splendid idea! ;-)

[7 Wishes]

I heard on the radio today that NY City is thinking of experimenting with 100% electronic tolling on the Henry Hudson Bridge where cars without the "pass" (i.e. out of towners) would have their license plate photo taken and be sent a bill. So it could happen....

Originally Posted by yankee.peddler

A while back I saw a website on which owner suggested having Connecticut toll the one-mile section of I-684 that slices through Greenwich without any exits. What a splendid idea! ;-)

Given that NY completely patrols that stretch (due to the lack of exits in CT) I'm not sure it would be legal.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by yankee.peddler

A while back I saw a website on which owner suggested having Connecticut toll the one-mile section of I-684 that slices through Greenwich without any exits. What a splendid idea! ;-)

That's a fantastic idea, though if that were ever proposed, I can't imagine New York would remain quiet on the issue.

That said, it would only be legal if Connecticut maintains that tiny stretch (or even if they pay NY to maintain it). If NY maintains it without any assistance from CT, then it would never happen. I see that being very controversial.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

That's a fantastic idea, though if that were ever proposed, I can't imagine New York would remain quiet on the issue.

That said, it would only be legal if Connecticut maintains that tiny stretch (or even if they pay NY to maintain it). If NY maintains it without any assistance from CT, then it would never happen. I see that being very controversial.

If somehow an exit were built within CT it might be legal.

Ironically, if you look up the history of I-684, it was the original I-87/NY State Thruway (despite the 1 mile in CT.....I'm not sure if that was done deliberately to make it an "Interstate" and get Federal funds or just the easiest terrain to build the road). The idea was to have it go up as it does now in western Westchester County, but at 287 before the Tappen Zee Bridge scoot across to I-684, then up to I-84, then I-84 west to Newburgh would be the Thruway, then it continues from there northward in the manner it does today. This was so that a more significant portion of the Thruway would be east of the Hudson (Rockland County was much smaller then too).

I think around 1970 or so they changed all the route numbering and made the Thruway from NYC to I-84 it's current path.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

If somehow an exit were built within CT it might be legal.

Since it's technically in CT, it would absolutely be legal if CT maintains that 1 mile stretch. If NY maintains it with zero financial assistance from CT, then CT would run into some obstacles.

But all CT has to do is make a fuss about it and the courts would surely rule with them because it's technically the property of CT. If this were to happen, CT, of course, would have to maintain it. Further, if a toll plaza were built there, chances are an entrance/exit would have to be put in for employees at the tolls (similar to the back entrances to the Mobil stations on the Merritt). So there you have it - an exit.

[JayCT]

I think I-684 is a bit more commplicated than that. You would have to see what the agreements were when Connecticut agreed to let NYSDOT build it through a corner of Greenwich. I don't think it is maintained by ConnDOT and am nnot sure if it is even owned by the State. My guess is it is owned by NYSDOT. Will check and let you know. Jay

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I think I-684 is a bit more commplicated than that. You would have to see what the agreements were when Connecticut agreed to let NYSDOT build it through a corner of Greenwich. I don't think it is maintained by ConnDOT and am nnot sure if it is even owned by the State. My guess is it is owned by NYSDOT. Will check and let you know. Jay

There's one other road like that, NY route 120-A (which is in the same area that 684 crosses the state by coincidence). The "Connecticut Roads" website notes this road. Parts of it (such as the section of King Street that bisects the Hutch/Merritt Parkway) have the state line going right through the middle of the road, that is one side is NY and the other CT. A good 20 plus years ago I worked a summer job at what was then an IBM facility on the NY side, and driving up and down the road it was weird as I would see NY plates in the driveways on one side of the road and CT plates in the other.

Anyway, a small stretch of 120A just north of the parkway juts fully into CT, but the road keeps the NY 120A route designation and is fully owned/maintained by NYDOT, which I think is also the case with 684's foray into CT.

I remember many years ago hearing about a case (though I think it's an urban legend) where someone got pulled by NY state troopers for going like 90 mph in the CT zone of 684 and winning the case because he was both intiially chased and pulled over in that zone by "out of state" cops and that after that they more formalized NYDOT's ownership of the area (and put up those "entering/leaving Greenwich" signs, I know they weren't always there I don't remember seeing them until the early 90s) to prevent a case like that from happening again.