Are Connecticut officials going to miss out on almost $300 million in federal transit funds because of a dispute over the New Britain-Hartford Busway?
Earlier this month, Connecticut learned it would receive $45 million in federal New Starts funds for the busway, strongly suggesting that an additional $230 million will be on the way. But some Connecticut elected officials threatened that there “may be a fight” in the Legislature over the project. At the heart of the fight is a hypothetical rail plan, backed by some state legislators and business leaders, to rehab the run-down Pan Am freight rail line and link Hartford and New York via Waterbury.
It’s hard to completely blame those who take that stance, given the media coverage of this issue. While editorial support for the busway has been consistent, particularly in the Hartford Courant, reporters have often framed the debate as “bus vs. rail,” when it is actually a choice between a real project and a speculative idea. The busway project will provide better and quicker service for 16,000 passengers and generate 4,000 jobs over the next three years while reducing congestion along one of the most congested corridors in the state. The rail concept has no ridership projections, no formal design or environmental study, and only speculative cost estimates.
This comparison would be more pertinent if it hadn’t already been addressed in studies over the past two decades. A 1997 comparison of the busway to light and commuter rail in the same corridor found that the busway would provide the highest level of service for the most number of riders at the greatest cost-benefit ratio, all while reducing the amount of vehicle miles traveled.
Couldn’t you just as easily say that the BRT mirage has been blocking restoration of passenger service on this line for the past twelve years?
Giving rail infrastructure to buses is a really bad idea. There is plenty of room for a busway on I-84.
I have to agree with Cap’N transit.
The tracks between New Britain and Hartford see trains daily.The entire ROW (with the exception of 1/4 mile strip) could be easily doubled or tripled tracked.With 300 million you could easily restore a basic rail service.
Buses are worthy of investment too, and bus riders aren’t worth less than rail passengers. This busway enables frequent and fast service to Hartford, the primary job center in the region, and enables it for more people than a rail service would. We need to get out of our own way and let this project proceed so that we can have high-quality transit to Hartford this decade.
Cap’n Transit, you should change your name to Cap’n Rail!
It’s hard to assert that the BRT project is somehow blocking a rail project that doesn’t even exist.
If the argument were that the fed funds were fungible (which they are not), that the other transportation projects in the state wouldn’t be held up for a rail discussion (which they would be), and that the state had an option for creating equally beneficial services in the same-ish timeframe, fine. That is not even close to the case here. Not following through on a project that is 90% planned is just shortsighted when there is no viable second option.
The commuters lose, the economy loses, and we end up with nothing. Again. That is a public policy direction that has to change.
So you’re all saying we can’t criticize the busway because the planning is nearly complete?
To suggest that because the planning for this busway project is largely complete, we should not criticize it is a very weak argument. There are lots of problematic issues about the busway. Does it makes sense to spend huge amounts of money to pave an existing railbed for a bus only expressway? How much value does that right of way have for the citizens of Connecticut for rail service in the future? Suppose this is a failure, how much will it cost to rip out the reinforced concrete to restore rail in the future? There is much to go after conceptually, but the practical design issues are very problematic too: look at the massive expressway style elevated structure for a mere bus stop in Elmwood, complete with its vast shaded areas and ruined business environment, totally unfriendly to walking and biking. Have we not finally learned how wrongheaded it was to devastate city neighborhoods with expressways for vehicles to pass through on their way to someplace else? So why in Connecticut must we make the same mistakes all over again? Places like Portland OR seem to have much better ideas.
Maybe the Courant and the Connecticut DOT and other busway promoters are wrong about all this; there surely has not been enough discussion about the long term future. Rail is not hypothetical, it has simply been ignored by planners in favor of cars and more cars. Any simple analysis of economic growth patterns all around the world shows that heavy and light rail systems are engines for more sustainable growth. And imagine a light rail system running down a tree lined New Park Avenue, as opposed to a busway with elevated concrete plazas for bus stops. And then that money already spent: it will seem like nothing compared with the gigantic cost of fixing a disaster later. Stop and think.
If we keep up this squabling long enough, it is possible the region will get neither transportation improvement.
BRT is the mirage in most cases. The infrastructure for grade separated BRT is at least as costly as for rail. To be truly safe at decent speeds, 2 lanes capable of handling 10 – 20 ton axle loads (transit buses concentrate the weight on the rear axle and hybrid buses are heavier than standard buses) plus 10 foot shoulders are needed. Single lanes would be tricky at best while single track mainline and transit rail lines have a long history of successful application. People are willing to transfer to rail for the long trip and use buses or streetcars for the feeders. Rail has much lower operating costs. Since this busway is being proposed for a rail right of way, we know that it can handle rail.
BRT in this corridor may be moderately successful but the Harbor Freeway BRT and Pittsburgh West Busway BRT should give the planners of this one reason to reconsider. Nothing may be better than something in this case.
I really don’t get it. Who commutes by bus between Hartford and New Britain? Both virtually “dead” towns? The insurance companies of Hartford and the factories of New Britain don’t have one commuter willing to give up the convenience of their polluting personal vehicles. That’s why we have traffic snarls on I-84 and I-91 during commuter rush hours. Lazy selfish people who don’t care to board a bus to save the planet. Maybe a light rail public transit system might be better than a bus. Why? Something elegant and nostalgic about train travel I guess. I’d think the only passenger-ship on this new CT Busway will be low income inner-city people who normally take the CT Transit bus system. People who can’t afford a car.
[…] paid media campaign from opponents who have argued that the busway should be scrapped in favor of a rail concept which lacks realistic estimates for ridership, environmental impacts, cost, or funding. By […]
Anonymous:If there’s ANY quantifiable data that sporputs the rail project over the busway project, many of us would be glad to see it. All we’ve heard so far is anecdotes about ESPN employees wanting to get to NYC (which has NOTHING to do with the busway), how freight can’t move due to the busway )even though all the trackage you need is already in place), etc. When the argument gets stronger, we can actually start to compare benefits.
[…] the “busway boondoggle” and the “busway to nowhere,” while others have wondered why the State didn’t build a light rail line on the corridor […]