The state budget will consume much of the CT General Assembly’s time in the coming weeks, as state legislators and Gov. Malloy work out how to close a budget deficit of $3 billion. But there’s plenty Connecticut can do outside the budget to support safer roads and foster a more transit-oriented future.
To start, the General Assembly can finish the business it failed to complete last year by adopting legislation that would create stiffer penalties for motorists who drive carelessly and injure or kill vulnerable users of the road like pedestrians and cyclists. This year’s vulnerable user bill is sponsored by State Sen. Beth Bye of West Hartford and is nearly identical to last year’s bill, although advocates plan to include first responders like police officers, firefighters and EMTs, as vulnerable users as well.
Another safe streets bill making its annual trip to Hartford is legislation to establish a red light camera program. The bill would allow municipalities “to use camera equipment for purposes of enforcing traffic laws and to receive a portion of revenue generated by such equipment,” and is headed up by freshman State Rep. Roland Lemar from New Haven. Rep. Lemar was a proven advocate for safer streets as an Alderman in New Haven and is now taking that passion to Hartford. With new data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showing that cameras improved safety in cities across the country, advocates are hoping that this is the year for an “opt-in” red light camera program.
With both legislators and Gov. Malloy recognizing that the state needs to find ways to pay for transportation, the prospect of implementing tolls along Connecticut’s borders has been raised once again. Tolling can generate revenue and mitigate congestion, but restricting it to the borders is an inequitable way to generate revenue, and a state study has shown it would not mitigate congestion. This bill should be rewritten to enact tolling on all limited access highways and congestion pricing in the I-95 corridor. In addition, the bill should pursue converting the HOV lanes on I-81 and I-84 to high-occupancy toll lanes, which would allow solo drivers to use the lane by paying a toll.
One misguided bill being considered this year would effectively kill the Hartford-New Britain Bus Rapid Transit project, transferring state funding for the project to a nonexistent plan to reestablish commuter rail service between Waterbury and Hartford. The bill, introduced by freshman State Sen. Jason Welch, would scuttle the project right as it is on the cusp of receiving a “Full Funding Grant Agreement” from the Federal Transit Administration. The project, after years of study, has been found to be the best mode to reduce congestion, spur economic and transit-oriented development and provide high-quality transit service in Central Connecticut. On Friday, environmental, planning, business, and labor groups called on the governor to support the project.
Photo: LA Times.
The bill for red light cameras should be amended to state that red light cameras can only be used at intersections where the traffic lights are compliant with the manual for uniform traffic control devices (MUTCD). Among other things, the yellow light interval MUST be consistent with the speed on the road (long enough so that someone at the safe stopping distance can in fact stop.
I applaud the Jason Welch effort to kill the busway boodoggle. Paving what is a rail right of way is a waste. Pavement costs as much as track. Given the poor record of busways in Pittsburgh and Los Angeles in terms of meeting predicted patronage (Harbor Freeway is less than 50 percent as is the Pittsburgh West Busway at the lower end while the Pittsburgh South and East Busways also are well below predictions), the precluding of good rail service is a waste of federal and state dollars.
“The project, after years of study, has been found to be the best mode to reduce congestion, spur economic and transit-oriented development and provide high-quality transit service in Central Connecticut.”
That’s not true. Only one study was ever conducted (in the late 90s), and all it asked was ‘how can we mitigate congestion on I-84 west of Hartford most cost-effectively?’
The study did NOT ask:
– how can we spur economic development most effectively?
– how can we promote transit-oriented development most effectively?
– how can we provide the most useful and efficient transit service?
The busway is a highway project, primarily designed to reduce congestion on I-84. It is NOT designed to improve the transit system or grow the economy.
I checked the website for the busway. Only the executive study and not the full Environmental Impact Statement with alternatives is online. The pointer to the Major Investment Study is not working. Thus there is no easy way to see what rail alternatives were considered, if any.
There will be grade crossings on the line. Based on the Orange Line in Los Angeles and the South Miami (Florida) busway, buses will be slowed to 10 miles an hour at the crossings. Hopefully the Hartford – New Britain busway will do better than the Los Angeles Harbor Freeway and Pittsburgh West and South Busways in meeting expectations but I wouldn’t bet on it.
The Hartford – Waterbury rail study was fatally flawed in many ways. It assumed locomotive operation when Diesel Multiple Unit is better suited for the operation. While there is no good North American version, there are a number of good European versions. In addition, if established as a diesel or electric light rail line on separate tracks with the same spacing from the Amtrak main line as the proposed busway, existing units such as the Stadler GT series could be used. Where the right of way supports it 70 – 79 mile an hour operation combined with the better acceleration of the Stadler or comparable units probably would result in few units needed for rush hour service. All day half-hourly service would be feasible and when the Federal Railroad Administration comes to its senses, the Stadler and comparable units are considered main line rail and are compliant with the latest UIC regulations thus could share track with Amtrak AND freight. This would give far better value for the money since people prefer rail to bus and most of the right-of-way that the busway will use is better suited to rail.
The New Britain Hartford Busway MUST be killed. It is a $600 million (ConnDOT estimate and they are ALWAYS low balls) boondoggle that will forever kill the opportunity to restore the Waterbury Hartford rail line. The Busway will pave over part of the rail line. Since the rail right of way is in place and much of the line is active for freight, restoring it for passenger service would cost a fraction of the Busway and would serve thousands more riders. Waterbury, Terryville, Bristol, Plainville, New Britain, West Hartford, Newington, and Hartford would all be connected by rail not only to each other but south to the Northeast Corridor and north to Massachusetts, Vermont and Canada.
The busway plan is a good one. Ms McKay is dead wrong that it would prevent commuter rail. Once ridership is proven it would be very easy to use the right-of-way for light or heavy rail.
The busway in Ottawa Ontario is a perfect example of such re-purposing.
The LA Orange line met their 2020 ridership numbers in 2007. It is wildly successful and is being doubled in size. See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2007/04/orange_line_sle.html Busways have been very successful worldwide.
It is very hard to replace a busway with rail or vice versa because you have to disrupt existing service. The busway will only prove that people aren’t that fond of taking buses. Look at the Harbor Freeway busway in Los Angeles. Busways don’t do grade crossings well. Go ride the Orange Line in Los Angeles or the South Miami Busway along US 1 south of Dadeland in Miami, Florida. Germany by and large revives rail and does it at lower cost than bus. The platforms cost the same for either mode. The grade crossings are handled better and single tracking is possible where needed. Rail done decently provides a better ride. Go ride the HBLRT in Jersey City and then ride the buses there. Go ride the Silver Lines in Boston and then ride the Green Lines.
The busway was chosen as the most cost effective option when it was projected to cost something like $120 million. Now it is projected to cost close to $600 million, more than Charlotte’s Lynx light rail.
The LA Orange Line is not getting as much ridership as it could, in part because it is limited by the bus capacity and the inability to schedule more buses. The pavement has required major repairs. The buses are slowed at crossings where light rail wouldn’t be. Labor costs are higher than light rail because the bus carries fewer people and you can’t couple buses together. The article quoted by Lyle Wray says nothing about plans to double capacity of the Los Angeles Orange Line and extensions won’t increase the capacity on the current corridor. Because they didn’t set up the corridor for level boarding like the Cleveland Health Line was, Wheel chair boarding can slow service. Indeed that retrofit may be the only way to increase capacity.
Light rail would be faster in the same corridor. Go ride the Orange Line in LA, the Silver Lines in Boston and then ride the Blue or Gold Line in LA or the Green Lines in Boston.
[…] in CT Legislature by Ryan Lynch As the Connecticut legislative session continues, MTR is still watching bills that could help improve Connecticut’s pedestrian and cycling safety, foster a more […]
[…] a Connecticut legislative event continues, MTR is still watching bills that could assistance urge Connecticut’s walking and cycling safety, encourage a some-more […]
[…] has been the topic of much conversation in Connecticut over the last few years, with more than its fair share of detractors. CTfastrak has been known to some as the “busway boondoggle” and the […]