CTDOT looking for ways to improve safety and commuter traffic on I-95. Here’s some options
Sean Krofssik
The Connecticut
Department of Transportation is researching ways to make travel through the
Interstate 95 corridor between Fairfield and Bridgeport easier.
At the I-95
Fairfield and Bridgeport Mobility Study open house last month hosted by the
CTDOT, experts discussed options and presented ideas to improve safety,
mobility, operations and multimodal needs. Some concepts discussed include
massive projects, such as a potential tunnel on I-95.
“We wanted to leave really no stone unturned when we’re
developing concepts like this. And that means exploring really transformational
ideas like putting portions of I-95 underground in a tunnel or lowering and
covering sections of the highway,” said JJ
Samus, executive vice president of transportation at GM2, a construction
management company.
“Beyond improving transportation, ideas like this can really
help reconnect communities. It can help strengthen local roadway networks and
also potentially create opportunities for economic development,” Samus added.
“But solving these problems and all the challenges on the corridor don’t always
need to be transformational to make a huge difference.”
Top Videos See What It Takes to Turn a High-School Athlete
Into a Business
Other targeted strategies to provide relief for commuters
and address congestion issues and safety challenges without the investment of a
tunnel include reducing weaving, improving merging in existing operations,
increasing spacing between interchanges and improving safety.
Samus suggested that the use of a “part-time shoulder” to
provide extra capacity during congested times or a collector distributor system
are tools that could be used to keep traffic moving and reduce conflicts of
cars entering and exiting the highway.
Samus said another strategy being explored is “widening in
certain areas to provide a more consistent number of lanes throughout the
entirety of I-95” between Exits 19 and 28 as well as “reducing unnecessary lane
drops and transitions.”
Other examples of strategies to improve traffic flow would
include looking at changes on Route 8 North in Bridgeport, where vehicles
coming from I-95 South could continue on their own lane rather than immediately
merging, causing a conflict point. Also on Route 8 South in Bridgeport, the
study explored the idea of “allowing vehicles entering I-95 to continue in
their own lane rather than merging immediately.”
Samus said that lane would continue to Exit 26 at Wordin
Avenue to reduce weaving conflicts and traffic flow.
In Fairfield between Exits 21 and 22, the experts explored
placing a furnish road system that could create “direct local connections
between Round Hill Road and Mill Plain Road that don’t exist today.”
“This would improve local connectivity while reducing the
need for shorter trips to use I-95, which allows the traffic to move more
efficiently on the interstate,” Samus said.
Samus said experts have “explored larger collector
distributor systems” along I-95 North.
“This approach provides separate lanes for vehicles to enter
and exit the freeway while allowing the through traffic to continue through
with fewer lane changes and less disruption from emerging vehicles,” Samus
said.
Samus said the study also explored ways to improve the
individual interchanges not on the mainline where there is a lot of backup.
Those improvements can include new ramp connections, the reconfiguration of
existing interchanges and adding longer acceleration and deceleration lanes to
improve safety, traffic flow and accessibility between I-95 and the
surrounding roadway network.
Some examples of that include relocating the entrance ramp
between Exits 19 and 20 on I-95 to improve visibility and provide more room for
merging. Also being considered is changing the existing interchange to
improving access to Route 1.
On I-95 at Exit 23, experts have discussed a more
comprehensive approach to simplifying the existing interchange and improve
connections to Route 1.
“By consolidating these ramps, it would really improve
intersection operations, and we could potentially improve traffic flow, safety
and access throughout the area and the surrounding roadway network as well,”
Samus said.
At Exit 24, a single point urban interchange would bring all
entering and exiting traffic together at one central signalized intersection at
Chambers Street in Fairfield.
“This approach could better control how traffic moves
between I-95 and Route 1, which would reduce conflicts on the surrounding
streets and also improve traffic flow on I-95,” Samus said.
Also at Exit 24, another concept discussed was a diamond
exchange, which would “reorganize the ramps and reduce the weaving conflicts
and simplify the access,” Samus said. “This demonstrates the different kinds of
approaches that we’re considering to improve safety and operations.”
Samus also discussed improving surrounding and local roadway
networks along I-95, including signal improvements, additional turning lanes
and intersection modifications to improve local mobility and safety. This is an
effort to keep drivers from using I-95 for a local trip and improve traffic
flow.
Phase 1 of the study and Mobility Analysis
were completed in early 2026. Phase 2 is underway and will continue through
2027.
DOT Route 25 roadwork in Trumbull expected to reduce multiple lanes of traffic
TRUMBULL — The state’s transportation agency is working on a
project that would, in part, reduce one lane in both directions of travel on
Route 25 in Trumbull.
The work will take place between the intersection of Route
111 and the Twin Brooks Pequonnock Trail overpass, according to the state Department
of Transportation, which says the project spans about 3.7 miles along Route
25.
Construction will also include pavement improvement, the DOT
said, and full-depth roadway reconstruction on Route 25, as well as milling and
overlaying on all ramps at Exit 6. The goal is to improve roadside safety,
according to the DOT.
Short-term off-peak detour routes will be implemented should
ramps need to be closed for construction activities, according to the DOT.
The schedule estimates design will be complete in summer
2030, with construction anticipated to start that fall. Progress depends on the
project being accepted, availability of funding, and receipt of any required
right-of-way and environmental permits, the DOT said.
The public may share concerns or feedback by contacting
principal engineer Sebastian Cannamela at 860-594-2698 or
sebastian.cannamela@ct.gov. Project 0144-0202 should be referenced.
Connecticut once charged drivers to use its highways. Why the tolls ended
A group of residents charged with studying the property tax
system in Connecticut recently revived the idea of bringing tolls back to
highways within the state.
The Connecticut Citizens’ Assembly recommended
the return of tolls, arguing that the money could be used to fund certain
transportation expenses, which would then allow the state to direct other
revenue toward property tax relief. But the group acknowledged that the
proposal has hurdles
on both the state and federal level.
Tolls were once a common sight on some of the state’s
highways.
Here’s what happened.
The long and winding toll road
Dozens of private corporations built
hundreds of miles of toll roads in Connecticut in the late 1700s and early
1800s, according to ConnecticutHistory.org. The state’s highway department took
over the roads in the early 1900s.
During the 20th century, tolls operated on the Connecticut
Turnpike, the Merritt Parkway and the Wilbur Cross Parkway as well as on
highway bridges in the Hartford
area and southeastern Connecticut, according to a 2009 report by the Office of
Legislative Research.
The Merritt and Wilbur Cross parkways, which are part of
Route 15 and stretch from Greenwich to Meriden, were built
in the 1930s and 1940s.
The Connecticut Turnpike, extending from Greenwich to East Lyme to
Killingly, was built in the 1950s. Sections of the highway were later
designated as parts of Interstate
95 and Interstate 395.
All roads lead away from tolls
In the 1980s, the state legislature increasingly heard calls
to eliminate tolls, including from a grassroots group called Banish All Tolls,
which was largely made up of Fairfield County residents, according to the
Office of Legislative Research’s report.
Residents said tolls disproportionately burdened commuters
in some parts of the state and added to congestion; that forcing vehicles to
stop at toll plazas resulted in wasted fuel, noise and pollution; and that the
toll plazas themselves created safety hazards.
Plus, the state couldn’t use federal funding to pay for
improvements on its tolled roads.
On Jan. 19, 1983, a tractor-trailer crashed into several
vehicles at a toll plaza in Stratford,
killing seven people. The deadly crash “is considered by many to have been the
event that tipped the balance toward toll removal,” according to the OLR
report.
The end of a toll era
By the early 1980s, tolls on multiple highway bridges had
already closed, the OLR report says. In 1983, state lawmakers mandated the
closure of the tolls on the Connecticut Turnpike and the bridges in the
Hartford area.
Because Connecticut made an agreement with the federal
government to remove tolls on the turnpike, federal funds began to flow to
reconstruction projects on the highway, and the state received emergency
funding to replace the Mianus
River Bridge after it collapsed on June 28, 1983, according to the report.
In 1986, the state legislature ordered the tolls to be
closed on the Merritt and Wilbur Cross parkways. The last time a highway toll
was paid in Connecticut was on April 28, 1989, at the Charter Oak Bridge.
All tolled out
State officials have studied and debated the idea of reintroducing tolls multiple times over the years.
When Gov. Ned
Lamont first ran successfully for governor in 2018, he said he supported
tolls for only trucks. After he entered office, he made
a push to toll all vehicles on major highways, saying it would generate
significantly more revenue for transportation improvements, before eventually falling
back to a truck-only plan that included certain bridges.
But he was unable to secure enough votes from fellow
Democrats in the state legislature to enact any of those proposals. Like in the
1980s, a grassroots group, No
Tolls CT, played a role in the debate.
There hasn’t been any momentum for a toll proposal since.