In 2007, after a troubled widening of I-84, a reform commission reported that the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) “badly needs fundamental change.”

TSTC analyses indicate that ConnDOT has been slowly improving since then, and we sat down with Commissioner Jim Redeker, who has headed the agency since last [...]]]>

ConnDOT Commissioner Jim Redeker

In 2007, after a troubled widening of I-84, a reform commission reported that the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) “badly needs fundamental change.”

TSTC analyses indicate that ConnDOT has been slowly improving since then, and we sat down with Commissioner Jim Redeker, who has headed the agency since last March, to talk about his work. He will be speaking at tomorrow’s transportation financing forum in Hartford.

TSTC: How did your work at NJ Transit prepare you for the commissioner job?

Commissioner Jim Redeker: I think that Connecticut is much like New Jersey was 30 years ago: there’s not a lot of transportation-oriented development happening, there’s still opportunity for new investment in transit and opportunity to improve branch lines. And I really came to try to make a difference there.

TSTC: What are some of the other priorities that you see moving forward?

JR: Connecticut has, as do all northeastern states, an extensive transportation network, be that highway or transit.  It is old. So my goals really start with state of good repair and they have to come first. The rail system has not had the benefit of Amtrak’s funding mechanism to help pay for infrastructure, and with a hundred-year-old infrastructure of movable bridges, catenary signals, and track, it could be a risk.

Beyond that, I think there are opportunities to make the system work better. And that can be in speeding up transit services, investing in new equipment, adding capacity through parking and new vehicles, bringing new technologies in, and making our highway systems function better. Branch lines offer opportunities as well. Just small incremental improvements, from a dollar point of view, can make major changes in service.

TSTC: How are you bringing change into your agency?

JR: I’m not. It’s sort of happening on its own. And that’s the great part of it. For example, I didn’t say we should put a bike path on the Putnam Bridge. My engineering group came to me and said, “we’re doing it, is that okay?” And I said, “Okay?! What are you talking about? Sure!”

I also think that having a full-time bicycle coordinator is beginning to make a change, but it’s not just because Kate Rattan [Connecticut’s bicycle coordinator] does a great job. It’s because the design group, the financial group, engineering, and planning are working together. My goal is to set some aggressive dates to get things done. I’m just patching together what have heretofore been independent ideas, and if I can set a goal, independent ideas become a strategy, and we’ll get them done. I’m trying to be the cheerleader that makes that happen.

TSTC: TSTC advocated for the transit-oriented development grants that came out this year. Who’s taking the lead to make sure that they are successful on a local level?

JR: We’re working on it together. You will hear over and over again that the three amigos [Jim Redeker of ConnDOT, Dan Esty of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and Catherine Smith of Department of Economic and Community Development] meet regularly, and that’s true. We meet on a monthly basis, and it really is about smart growth. We’re identifying what resources can come to bear; what priorities should be set. And then we select those  priorities and make sure that our agencies individually and  collectively get things done. What we’ve got is a complete administration and set of commissioners that get it.

TSTC: Over ½ of Connecticut transit riders take the bus. What can they expect as a result of the January 1^st fare increase?

JR: Let me dislink the fares from the service for the moment—I don’t think it’s in our interest to say that each dollar in a fare increase goes to a dollar in service. Frankly, it was 5 years without a fare increase, Connecticut bus fares are some of the lowest anywhere, and this increase is a nickel. I think that we’ve been very sensitive to the needs and income of users in shaping what we did.

But we are constantly looking at service. We will be replacing almost all of our buses with the greenest fleet east of California. We’re also putting in some high capacity articulated hybrid buses—the first of their kind—that give us high capacity capabilities and could potentially add service without increased cost.

We’re also trying to push very hard on integrating our system design. One of the hardest things in Connecticut for me was to figure out 24 different operators with different systems, logos, information systems, and websites. With Google Transit, we’ve got the beginnings of a system of information, but there’s a lot more integration to go.

TSTC: We strongly support the complete streets bill in Connecticut. How are you implementing it?

JR: That’s an easy answer—we have adopted a complete streets philosophy into our design process from the beginning. It’s fully embraced and you’ll see it as part of everything that we do.

TSTC: You’re speaking at our transportation financing forum. Could you give a preview of how you see Connecticut financing its transportation priorities and addressing the issues that you’ve raised today?

JR: No previews—that wouldn’t be fair to everyone else. But I will say that I’m sitting at a time in Connecticut that couldn’t be better, with a governor that added a billion dollars into highways and transit.

TSTC: Especially when you look at the surrounding states.

JR: Yeah, exactly, all of the other commissioners want to move to Connecticut and take my job. But, to get back to the question, there also are other opportunities here—we are studying tolling, we’ve got two pilot programs. The governor has also passed legislation that you might think is about project delivery, but it’s also about a type of financing called public-private partnership. These are all mechanisms that, to me, when you put them on the table, show that there are new ways of looking at how we fund projects.

TSTC: Thanks for speaking with us.

Last year, MTR wrote that Connecticut was “poised for success” after the state began to embrace progressive transportation policy reform in 2007. Though a [...]]]>

(Clockwise from left): New Haven after a boulevard conversion of Route 34, new ConnDOT Commissioner Joe Marie, Hartford-New Britain Busway, a station on the New Haven-Springfield Commuter Rail line.

Last year, MTR wrote that Connecticut was “poised for success” after the state began to embrace progressive transportation policy reform in 2007. Though a broad overhaul of Connecticut’s transportation policy did not occur in 2008, ConnDOT is clearly more focused on transit and transit-oriented development than in 2007. New Haven also embraced livable streets policy, becoming a hotbed of civic and political advocacy.

Jan.-May: ConnDOT Reform and Legislation

2008 began with the release of a much anticipated report from the Governor’s Commission on the Reform of ConnDOT. The report set the stage for effective planning reform throughout ConnDOT, emphasizing the prioritization of road and bridge maintenance over expansion (“fix-it-first”) and policies that would support smart growth initiatives and reduce driving. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on these thoughtful ideas, Governor Rell introduced a bill to split ConnDOT into a Department of Public Transportation, Ports and Aviation and a Department of Highways, which would have forced the agency to spend much energy on structural rather than policy reform.  Thankfully, the legislation was not enacted.

In addition to the proposal to split ConnDOT, the General Assembly session started off with some bold transportation initiatives.   However, by the end of the session, bills that would have improved access for bikes and pedestrians, and increased funding for bus operations were dramatically watered down.

The Connecticut Bond Commission also dedicated $75 million to a bridge and road repair program. While the program was billed as “fix-it-first,” it did not represent a fundamental shift in the way the State allocates funding to transportation projects.  ConnDOT spends the majority of the road and bridge money in its capital budget on expansion rather than maintenance and repair.

New ConnDOT Commissioner

The biggest coup of the year in Connecticut transportation news, however, was the appointment of Joseph Marie as the new ConnDOT Commissioner in late April.  A self-proclaimed “transit guy,” Commissioner Marie has spent the latter part of the year getting to know the lay of the land in Connecticut.  But by all accounts, his appointment looks like a boon for progressive transportation policy reform in Connecticut.  Eight months into his new job the Commissioner is already discussing the link between transportation and land use, has publicly supported transit-oriented development and corridor planning efforts, and is looking into how the Department can fast-track projects like the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter rail line and the Hartford-New Britain Busway.  All are vast improvements over previous commissioners’ efforts.

June-Dec.: Transportation Funding and Transit

No less significant was the Transportation Strategy Board’s announcement this past July that it had chosen a consultant for the long delayed study on congestion pricing in Connecticut.  The study began in September and the analysis is to include a broad view of the issues surrounding implementing congestion pricing in Connecticut.  The results are due in early 2009, in time for the General Assembly to act upon the findings.

As in much of the country, high gas prices led to soaring ridership on existing transit service throughout Connecticut.  However, the response from Connecticut’s elected officials was mixed.  Shore Line East service was expanded to weekends and holidays, but increased bus funding, approved during the “short” legislative session, was nixed in the face of Connecticut’s budget crisis later in the year.  In addition, state elected officials canceled a scheduled gas tax increase in June that may prove to be detrimental to the State’s ability to fund future transportation projects.

Despite these funding setbacks, Connecticut’s two major transit projects took tangible steps towards completion after having barely progressed in 2007.  In December, ConnDOT began scoping hearings for the Environmental Assessment on the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line  project.  In addition, the Department held public hearings on design and scheduling issues concerning the Hartford-New Britain Busway.

Making Streets Livable in New Haven

The deaths of Yale medical student Mila Rainof and 11 year old Gabrielle Lee, in separate traffic incidents in the spring and summer, set off a groundswell of civic anger and support for increased pedestrian and bicycling safety measures throughout New Haven.  After advocacy by the New Haven Safe Streets Coalition, created in the wake of the tragedies, the New Haven Board of Alders passed “complete streets” legislation and the City launched a “Street Smarts” traffic safety campaign aimed at motorists, cyclists and pedestrians in the fall. Alderwoman Erin Sturgis-Pascale was at the forefront of many of these efforts and emerged as, arguably, the preeminent “livable streets” elected official in Connecticut.

In April, Tri-State teamed with the Urban Design League and the City of New Haven to hold a symposium on urban highway removal, promoting the City’s plan to remove the Route 34 Connector and replace it with a boulevard lined with retail, housing and commercial development.  The event was key-noted by Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) President and CEO John Norquist, and CNU named the Route 34 Connector one of the top ten highway removal projects in the country in September.  The City is currently studying the project and anticipates completion of the analysis by March 2009. Design New Haven reports that nine firms have submitted proposals to redevelop Route 34. However, funding still needs to be lined up and the project is expected to cost approximately $100 million.

Connecticut’s Overall Trend in 2008: Up.

Poised for Success in 2009?

ConnDOT reform won’t happen without leadership from the governor, who should make it clear that the state is prioritizing transit, maintenance of existing roads and bridges, and projects that build communities rather than roads. ConnDOT must streamline the proposed 2-year timeline for the New Haven-Springfield Commuter Rail study and act with a greater sense of urgency if these projects will take advantage of an anticipated federal stimulus package.

ConnDOT must also take a cue from the great work being done in New Haven and begin to adequately fund pedestrian and cycling projects throughout the state. (The state spends just $0.94 per resident annually on bike and pedestrian projects, compared to a $1.34 national average and $7.31 in Rhode Island; virtually all of its bike/ped funding comes from federal sources.)

Legislators will have plenty of say when it comes to transportation. During the next General Assembly session, expect debates over congestion pricing, the need to increase funding for bus transit, and the Hartford-New Britain Busway and New Haven-Springfield Commuter Rail Line.

The pace of reform, however, will largely depend on ConnDOT Commissioner Marie, and whether Gov. Rell supports the innovations he brings to the agency. Given the enormity of the task before him, they should prepare for a sprint.

In a [...]]]> On March 28, the Connecticut State Bond Commission released $75 million dedicated to a new “Fix-it-First” program. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign welcomed the Bond Commission’s release of these monies, but noted that ‘Fix-it-First’ should be the underlying strategy behind all of ConnDOT’s transportation policy and investment decisions, not a separately funded program.

In a statement, Tri-State said, “a true fix-it-first program will seek to reverse ConnDOT’s current emphasis on road and bridge expansion projects and address the state’s crumbling infrastructure by targeting dollars to maintenance and repair.”

Prioritizing this “Fix-it-First” policy is the first step to creating sustainable transportation policy that will effectively serve the current and future citizens of Connecticut. MTR has advocated for the General Assembly to amend SB 285, which directs ConnDOT to prioritize its programs and activities, to include a cap on highway expansion and to incorporate “Fix-it-First” language into this bill.

At yesterday’s State of the MTA speech, MTA CEO Elliot Sander said his agency must “be a catalyst for environmentally sound land-use, smart growth and [...]]]> Though ConnDOT and the MTA have been sluggish to catch on to the potential of transit-oriented development (TOD), both agencies recently made clear their intent to embrace TOD principles.

At yesterday’s State of the MTA speech, MTA CEO Elliot Sander said his agency must “be a catalyst for environmentally sound land-use, smart growth and transit-oriented development.” The statement comes after the MTA announced the creation of a sustainability cabinet which is examining TOD, and issued a “request for expressions of interest” in transit-oriented development around the Beacon Metro-North station last year.

Last month, acting ConnDOT commissioner Emil Frankel called transit-oriented development “an integral component of [ConnDOT’s] comprehensive transportation policy, plan and strategy.” ConnDOT began to move towards a TOD strategy last year, when the agency hired Deputy Commissioner Albert Martin to focus on linking transportation and responsible growth; state legislators also set aside $5 million for ConnDOT to undertake a TOD pilot study in the October 2007 bonding bill.

As a next step, both ConnDOT and the MTA should create formal programs to promote TOD. A recent Council of State Governments review found six states with “proactive” state-level TOD policies. Of these states, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey stood out. Here’s what each one can offer the agencies.

California
The Transit Villages Act of 1994 created a formal TOD program to be run by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The Act encouraged cities and counties to prepare plans for “transit villages,” which the legislation defined as dense, mixed-use areas within 1/4 mile of a rail transit station. By doing so they would become eligible for transportation funding and receive help expediting permits from the Office of Permit Assistance. Unfortunately, Caltrans’ ability to promote TOD was limited by the fact that the promised transportation funding never materialized. Nevertheless, instituting a statewide policy of encouraging Transit Villages has motivated numerous municipalities to apply for the designation. According to Caltrans, “at every major transit agency… there are at least one or more new TOD projects currently underway at its bus and/or rail stations.”

Caltrans is also experimenting with tax increment financing (TIF), which allows some of the expenses of TOD, such as enhanced stations, to be paid for by bonding against anticipated increases in tax revenue resulting from the TOD’s influence on the value of nearby property. While there are obvious questions regarding this funding mechanism (for example, it must be established who pays for the bonds if tax revenues fail to rise as much as projected), it is one interesting way to fund transit improvements linked to development.

New Jersey
New Jersey has been a leader in transit-friendly development policies since the mid-1990s; NJ Transit’s 1994 “Planning for Transit-Friendly Land Use: A Handbook for New Jersey Communities” is a resource that is still relevant today. Since the establishment of NJ Transit and NJDOT’s Transit Village Program in 1999, 19 municipalities have become designated “Transit Villages,” and more are in the process of doing so, as MTR wrote about earlier this month. To gain designation, municipalities must demonstrate a commitment to revitalizing and redeveloping the area around transit into a compact, mixed-use neighborhood with a strong residential component. Once designated, the localities benefit from technical support and priority funding from state agencies, and the ability to apply for grants from the $3 million a year NJDOT sets aside to promote TOD. A recent New York Times article highlighted how New Jersey’s intensive efforts to promote TOD have led to dramatic neighborhood revitalizations in Hoboken, Jersey City, Cranford, and New Brunswick.

Massachusetts
Massachusetts has set up an online tool-kit to encourage localities to zone for transit-oriented development and lower the challenges they face in doing so. The state also promotes TOD with district improvement financing, tax increment financing, and location efficient mortgages (a product of Fannie Mae that allows people taking out mortgages in walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods to qualify for better terms). These measures have spurred development projects across Massachusetts in localities like Somerville, Canton, Concord, and throughout Boston.

Other Programs

Though most of the above policies are designed to incentivize TOD, it is also important to define what makes a good transit-oriented development. One promising set of design standards is the pilot LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) certification program for “green neighborhoods.” LEED-ND certified developments must be compact, intelligently located (in existing urban cores, for example), reduce automobile dependence, be convenient for pedestrians and bicyclists, and should include green building technologies. One developer working on transit-oriented developments and seeking LEED-ND certification is Jonathan Rose Companies, which has projects in Stamford and New York City.

A good transit-oriented development incorporates affordable housing. TOD sites are natural locations for affordable housing because they reduce residents’ car-related expenses. Both California and New Jersey identify affordable housing as a TOD benefit, and New Jersey is now actively working to encourage affordable housing as a component in Transit Village applications. Furthermore, many localities and redevelopment agencies have inclusionary zoning policies (which reward developers for building affordable housing) or mandatory affordable housing requirements. A state TOD program could condition state assistance on local support for affordable housing.

Lessons for Connecticut and New York

There is much that ConnDOT and the MTA can take from the above examples. First, it is vital that the agencies provide financial and technical assistance to interested municipalities, as they often don’t have the resources to invest in exploring TOD. Any program should be highly visible and transparent so that localities are encouraged to apply for funding and assistance. Cost-effective measures like online tool-kits and hosting charettes can be extremely useful. The agencies should ensure that developments around transit include affordable housing and are designed in a way that reduces automobile dependence and encourages sustainability. Both New York and Connecticut allow the use of tax increment financing (in fact, NYC is partially funding the No. 7 extension this way) and should consider promoting more use of TIF or other innovative financing as a way to fund TOD projects. In Connecticut, Gov. Rell should release the $5 million set aside in the October bonding bill to encourage TOD.

After years of being behind the curve, it is heartening to see that ConnDOT and the MTA are considering transit-oriented development as a way to capitalize on transit infrastructure and increase ridership. Connecticut’s transportation problems will not be solved by TOD alone, but TOD promises to bring together transportation and land use in a state which historically hasn’t connected the two. In New York, an MTA-led TOD program could help the state attract economic development and escape the costs of congestion.

Image: Transit-oriented development in Andover, Mass. From Massachusetts Smart Growth online tool-kit.

The Governor also proposed a [...]]]> Governor Rell presented her 2008 State of the State address to the General Assembly on Wednesday, focusing on issues ranging from crime reform to economic development. Her biggest transportation proposal was to split ConnDOT into a Department of Highways and a separate Department of Public Transporation, Aviation and Ports.

The Governor also proposed a speed camera pilot program along I-95 in the Old Lyme/East Lyme area. This stretch of road is notoriously dangerous, and was the scene of a fatal accident late last year. She also called for hiring more truck inspectors and increasing weekend shifts at the Greenwich weigh station, a direct result of the terrific advocacy work of Jill Kelly and Carol Leighton, from Connecticut Citizens’ Transportation Lobby, to increase truck safety measures. All are smart ideas.

The Governor also proposed many other changes, mainly taken from her appointed Reform Commission’s recent draft recommendations. Some highlights include:

• Hiring 42 additional inspectors for bridge maintenance.
• A new ’511′ system to allow the public to have greater access to accurate travel information.
• A new Citizens Response Ombudsman.

While her call to divide ConnDOT into two separate departments is intriguing, Governor Rell should keep in mind that ConnDOT, no matter what its institutional structure, must take a leadership role in connecting transportation and land use to truly address congestion problems in the state. The Governor has highlighted how transit can support responsible growth, but needs to emphasize that ConnDOT or the proposed Department of Highways also must incorporate land use planning into the development and implementation of road projects. “Responsible growth” does not need to be limited to places around transit, and could also occur in existing downtowns and suburban villages that do not have transit stations. What should not happen is the building of new and bigger roads that foster a sprawling development pattern, which has been the modus operandi of the existing Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations in ConnDOT for years.

Governor Rell also missed an opportunity to build upon momentum for a broad shift away from an expansion and widening mentality to a ‘Fix-it-First’ policy, or the prioritization of transportation dollars to maintaining and repairing existing road and bridge infrastructure. The Campaign hopes to see legislation mandating this policy introduced in the current General Assembly session, and Governor Rell could have highlighted this critical policy in her address.

The pace of transportation reform in Connecticut over the past year has been unprecedented in the state. Governor Rell and some members of the Assembly have proven to be strong transportation reformers and should be lauded for their efforts. The Campaign simply hopes that the broad policy changes omitted from yesterday’s State of the State have not been omitted from the governor’s agenda, especially as the ConnDOT commissioner hiring process moves forward (it is expected to finish by mid-March).

Connecticut began 2007 having made some recovery from the backwards policies of former Gov. John Rowland. Earlier in her term, which began in 2004, Gov. Jodi Rell worked with the legislature to pass more than $3 billion of investment in the state’s transportation infrastructure. She also took steps on smart growth, creating an [...]]]>

Connecticut began 2007 having made some recovery from the backwards policies of former Gov. John Rowland. Earlier in her term, which began in 2004, Gov. Jodi Rell worked with the legislature to pass more than $3 billion of investment in the state’s transportation infrastructure. She also took steps on smart growth, creating an Office of Responsible Growth by executive order in late 2006. Both efforts continued in 2007, and were reinforced by a push for a change in the way ConnDOT does business.

Transportation Policy Reform

After winning election in 2006, Gov. Rell continued moving on smart growth in the spring. In March, ConnDOT completed its search for a deputy commissioner to handle transit-oriented development, hiring Al Martin.

In April, growing anger over an I-84 contracting scandal and the generally corrupt culture at ConnDOT helped fuel a broader discourse over the agency’s mission. Gov. Rell announced the creation of the ConnDOT Reform Commission charged with “broaden[ing the agency's] focus beyond highways,” which will release its recommendations this month. In July the ConnDOT Reform Commission held its first meeting and the Hartford Courant, informed by discussions with Tri-State, released a scathing multi-page opinion piece titled “The Right Road” which called on the agency to incorporate smart growth and fix-it-first principles into its mission.

An omnibus bonding bill, passed in October after months of delay, included funding for a transit-oriented development program. However, the legislation was worded in such a way that the program could potentially fund non-TOD projects.

In December, ConnDOT Commissioner Ralph Carpenter announced his retirement from the public sector, and Rell said the department would conduct a national search for a new commissioner, “an opportunity for a fresh start all the way around.” Former commissioner Emil Frankel took the interim job. The changes bode well for smart-growth-oriented reform within the agency, but Rell must choose a new ConnDOT Commissioner who is a strong leader and understands the transportation-land use connection.

Just before Christmas, the state Transportation Strategy Board announced it would study congestion pricing in 2008. Earlier in the year, ConnDOT and the South Western Regional Planning Agency had jointly applied for a federal congestion pricing study grant, but did not hear back from USDOT.

Transit and Highways

Early in the year, advocates asked for increased rail and bus investment. In January, the Connecticut Citizens Transportation Lobby held a rally in Hartford for increased transit funding (see MTR # 548). In the spring, Transit for Connecticut issued a bus needs analysis identifying large gaps in service and calling for a $63 million increase in bus operating funds over five years, as well as $215 million for capital needs (see MTR # 553).

As a result, the state budget passed in July provided an immediate $2.5 million increase in bus operating funds, a $5 million increase in 2009, and did away with a proposed bus fare hike, though it fell short of what advocates had hoped for (see MTR # 560). In the October bonding bill, the legislature authorized funding for additional train cars and bus maintenance and storage facilities, and also eliminated a planned $1 surcharge on New Haven Line tickets; fares will instead rise gradually over several years beginning in 2010.

TSTC’s May report on ConnDOT’s spending patterns found good and bad news for the state’s transportation policy. On the good side, ConnDOT allocated a higher percentage of its capital budget to transit in its 2007-2010 State Transportation Improvement Program than in the past (36.6%, compared to 26.5% in the ’00-’02 STIP). The bad news is ConnDOT will still spend most of its capital budget on roads over the next three years, and most of that money will be spent on expansion projects like widenings of I-84 and the Q Bridge (see MTR # 557); a smaller percentage will be spent on road maintenance and repair. More unwise road projects could be on the way. The project to extend Route 11 to I-95 completed the final environmental impact statement stage in July, though the $900 million project may not make it past the EPA’s skepticism or the budgetary fact that there is no money for it.

How ConnDOT allocates its funds became an even bigger issue after the August collapse of a I-35W highway bridge in Minnesota. For Connecticuters, the tragedy recalled the 1983 collapse of the Mianus River I-95 bridge. TSTC’s analysis found that Connecticut bridge and major roadway conditions were worse than the national average (see MTR # 554). In response, Gov. Rell and the legislature ultimately passed a $150 million allocation for infrastructure maintenance as part of the October bonding bill. Though this was billed as a “fix-it-first” investment, as an outside appropriation it obviously doesn’t change ConnDOT’s overall funding policies and priorities.

Connecticut’s two major transit projects – the Hartford-New Britain Busway and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail line – made little progress in 2007. The busway received about $26 million in state and federal grants for right-of-way acquisition and final design. Though the legislature authorized a New Haven-Hartford-Springfield commuter rail line in the fiscal year 2007 budget (passed in 2006), little has been heard since.

In September, an out-of-control truck on Avon Mountain crashed into a furniture store, leading to a Route 44 truck ban, which will be lifted this month, and a statewide truck inspection blitz. Pressure from the Connecticut Citizens Transportation Lobby also led to passage of a bill requiring detailed record-keeping at weigh stations.

Connecticut’s Overall Trend in 2007: Upward

Poised For Success?

Increasingly, it appears that Connecticut’s elected leaders are committed to the goal of more livable planning. The ConnDOT Reform Commission will release its recommendations this month, and many advocates are hopeful that smart-growth-oriented transportation planning, prioritizing highway maintenance over expansion, and speeding implementation of important transit projects will be included.

However, even if the Commission does listen to advocates, actually achieving these goals will require leadership from the new ConnDOT commissioner and Gov. Rell.

A good place to start is for Connecticut to match its increased transit capital funding with investments in transit operations and bike/pedestrian projects. The legislature passed a $12 million bikeway grant program, but this will be administered by the Dept. of Environmental Protection, not ConnDOT, which spends less than 1% of its capital budget on bike and pedestrian projects. The agency took a promising step by agreeing to study the addition of a bike/pedestrian pathway to the William H. Putnam Route 3 bridge, reversing an earlier decision. In 2008, ConnDOT should also rethink the design of and the justification for several of its worst road projects, and work with local towns to find solutions to congestion that reduce the future growth in car trips.

In many ways, the conversation in Connecticut recalls a similar one in New Jersey in the late 1990s and early ’00s. Faced with the realization that sprawl was threatening much of the state’s character, the Whitman and McGreevey administrations made environmental policy and smarter planning a priority. Under their watch NJDOT took a leadership role in incorporating land use into transportation projects, and began operating under a “fix it first” mandate. During the same time, NJ Transit made several expansions and its transit-oriented-development program flourished. Gov. Rell has a high approval rating, an interest in sustainability, clear transportation problems to deal with, and a chance to appoint a reform-minded DOT chief. She has the ability and the opportunity, if she has the desire, to make sustainable transportation planning a signature issue for Connecticut.

Images: Clockwise from top left: Hartford Courant‘s “The Right Road,” TSTC’s “Reform: The Road not Taken,” Urbitran for Transit for Connecticut‘s 2007 Bus Needs Analysis, Wethersfield main street from TSTC’s “It’s the Sprawl, Stupid!”