Twenty-Year Strategic Plan for Transportation
in the Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment Area
Submitted to the Connecticut
Transportation Strategy Board
Coastal
Corridor TIA Board Members
Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV)
RPO Representative: Peter Dorpalen, Executive Director, COGCNV
Alternate: Laurel Stegina, Senior Planner, COGCNV
Public Representative: Calvin Vinal, Vice President of Community Development, Webster Bank
Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency (GBRPA)
RPO Representative: Honorable Karen Burnaska (co-chair), Selectman, Town of Monroe
Alternate: James Wang, Executive Director, GBRPA
Public Representative: Jeffrey J. O’Keefe, General Manager, Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority
Alternate: James Wang, Executive Director, GBRPA
Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials (HVCEO)
RPO Representative: Jonathon Chew, Executive Director, HVCEO
Alternate: George Walker, Manager, Office Park
Public Representative: Cheryl Reedy, Newspaper Executive
Alternate: George Walker, Manager, Office Park
South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCRCOG)
RPO Representative: Judy Gott, Executive Director, SCRCOG
Alternate: Honorable William Dickinson, Mayor, Town of Wallingford
Public Representative: Dan Lorimier, Connecticut Fund for the Environment
South Western Regional Planning Agency (SWRPA)
RPO Representative: Honorable Robert F. Harrel, First Selectman, Town of Darien
Alternate: Honorable Diane Farrell, First Selectman, Town of Westport
Public Representative: Franklin Bloomer (co-chair), Greenwich Safe Cycling
Alternate: Vincent DeMarco, Automotive Business
Valley Regional Planning Agency (VRPA)
RPO Representative: Honorable Mark A. Lauretti, Mayor, City of Shelton
Alternate: Honorable Marc J. Garofalo, Mayor, City of Derby
Public Representative: Edward Houghton, Executive, Pitney Bowes
Alternate: William Purcell, President, Greater Valley Chamber of Commerce
At-Large Members
Jim Cameron, Vice Chairman, Metro North Comm. Council
Bruce Heyl, Principal, Fletcher-Thompson
Denis K. Pope, Association of Commuter Rail Employees
Martin Tristine, President, Logistec Conn. Inc.
At-Large Alternates
Richard Carpenter, Retired Executive Director of SWRPA
Joe McGee, Vice President, SACIA
Ex-Officio Members
Congressmen James Maloney representaed by Lewis Wallace
Congressman Christopher Shays represented by Peter Barhydt
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Overview.................................................................................................................... 1
Vision Statement.......................................................................................................... 1
Movement of People................................................................................................... 2
Commitment to Transit..................................................................................... 2
Roads............................................................................................................. 2
Commuter and Intercity Rail............................................................................. 2
Bus Transit...................................................................................................... 2
Waterborne..................................................................................................... 3
Airborne.......................................................................................................... 3
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities....................................................................... 3
Movement of Goods.................................................................................................... 3
Rail................................................................................................................. 3
Trucks............................................................................................................. 3
Waterborne..................................................................................................... 3
Land
Use Issues.......................................................................................................... 3
Funding Issues............................................................................................................. 4
Twenty-Year Strategic Plan for Transportation in the Coastal Corridor TIA
1. Purpose of the Plan.............................................................................................................. 5
2. Development of the Plan ..................................................................................................... 5
3. Maps of the Coastal
Corridor TIA....................................................................................... 6
4. Vision Statement.................................................................................................................. 6
5. General Recommendations................................................................................................... 6
Projects Outside the Scope of
this Project............................................ 6
Travel Forecasting by Mode,
Origin, and Destination............................ 7
Collaboration with Neighboring
States.................................................. 7
Enhance North-South Connectivity...................................................... 7
Improve Access to Airports................................................................. 7
6. Movement of People........................................................................................................... 7
Recommendation............................................................................................. 8
Increase Commitment to Transit........................................................... 8
A. Roads..................................................................................................................... 9
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 9
Recommendations........................................................................................... 9
Roadway Improvements...................................................................... 9
Transportation Systems Management
Strategies................................... 10
B. Transportation Demand Management Strategies....................................................... 11
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 11
Recommendations........................................................................................... 11
C. Commuter and Intercity Rail.................................................................................... 12
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 12
Recommendations........................................................................................... 13
Order New Rail Cars Immediately....................................................... 13
Infrastructure....................................................................................... 13
Stations............................................................................................... 13
Expanded Service................................................................................ 14
Metro North Operating Agreement...................................................... 14
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 14
Recommendations........................................................................................... 15
Consolidation of Bus Services.............................................................. 15
Expanded Service................................................................................ 15
Job Access.......................................................................................... 16
Marketing............................................................................................ 16
Miscellaneous...................................................................................... 16
E. Waterborne ........................................................................................................... 16
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 16
Recommendations........................................................................................... 17
F. Airborne................................................................................................................. 17
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 17
Recommendation............................................................................................. 17
G. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities.............................................................................. 17
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 17
Recommendations........................................................................................... 18
6. Movement of Goods............................................................................................................ 18
Recommendation............................................................................................. 19
A. Rail......................................................................................................................... 19
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 19
Recommendations........................................................................................... 19
B. Trucks.................................................................................................................... 20
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 20
Recommendations........................................................................................... 20
Strategies/Policies................................................................................ 20
Projects/Studies................................................................................... 21
C. Waterborne ........................................................................................................... 21
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 21
Recommendations........................................................................................... 22
7. Land Use Issues.................................................................................................................. 22
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 23
Recommendations........................................................................................... 23
8. Funding Issues..................................................................................................................... 24
Issues/Problems............................................................................................... 25
Recommendations........................................................................................... 25
Endnotes................................................................................................................................. 27
Appendices............................................................................................................................. 29
Map 1: Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment Area............................................. 31
Map 2: Municipalities
and Planning Regions of the Coastal Corridor TIA...................... 33
Map 3: Population
Densities in the Coastal Corridor TIA.............................................. 35
Map 4: Coastal
Corridor Transportation Systems......................................................... 37
Regional Planning Organization Comments/Endorsements............................................. 39
in the
COASTAL CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT AREA
Executive
Summary
This executive summary of the initial twenty-year strategic
plan for transportation in the Coastal Corridor TIA (the Plan) was prepared by
its Board pursuant to House Bill No. 7506/Public Act 01-5, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Transportation Strategy
Board (the Act). The Plan also creates a linkage between the TIA’s strategy
and projects listed in the Act as eligible for a share of the $50 million in
funds appropriated in the FY 2001-2003 budget for projects endorsed by the
Transportation Strategy Board.
Congestion is endemic throughout the Coastal
Corridor TIA. It is acute on the primary highways, Interstate Routes I-95 and
84, and U.S. Route 1 and CT Route 15, and particularly acute on the westerly
portion of Interstate Route 95. Employers increasingly see long commutes on congested
roads as threats to productivity. Congestion also impedes the flow of goods
into, out of, and through Connecticut and contributes to the status of much of
the Coastal Corridor TIA as a “severe non-attainment area” in terms of air
quality.
The opportunity to develop the following alternative
modes of transportation exists in the Coastal Corridor TIA:
·
Rail
lines extend throughout the Coastal Corridor TIA. They are not being utilized
to the extent of their capacity, either for people or freight, although they
are in urgent need of significant capital investment.
·
Based
on return from the farebox, Connecticut’s public bus system is one of the most
productive in the country, suggesting that there is potential for increased
ridership.
·
The
Coastal Corridor TIA has a potential air passenger market that would appear to
support a regional or “secondary” airport.
·
The
proximity of Long Island Sound offers the possibility of the development of
both high speed ferries and increased barge transportation of goods.
·
Particularly
along the coast, the closeness of the origins and destinations of many trips
suggests that there is considerable potential for travel by bicycle and on
foot.
The Plan has established the following vision statement
to describe its goal, i.e., the
transportation system that should be in place in the TIA at the end of twenty
years:
The Coastal Corridor TIA
will have a transportation system that offers people and goods a choice of
safe, convenient and integrated modes of transportation including (a) roads,
(b) waterborne, (c) airborne, (d) rail and other modes of public transit and
(e) facilities that make walking and bicycling viable transportation options so
as:
·
to
stimulate sustainable economic growth by ensuring mobility of people and goods
within the TIA and connectivity of the TIA’s economy to the state, regional,
national and global economies; and
·
to
enhance quality of life by ensuring mobility of all residents of the TIA,
including those unable to drive, while protecting the TIA’s environmental,
cultural and community resources.
Where people can reach their destinations only by road, they are trapped in the congested conditions found there and can only contribute to that congestion when traveling. But where choices exist, some will choose another mode of travel and in so doing will make no contribution to road congestion. Development of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles must be the priority. Nonetheless, the automobile will remain the dominant mode by which people travel in the Coastal Corridor TIA, even as alternative modes are developed.
Commitment to Transit. The Plan recommends that a determination
be made of how best to enhance focus and accountability for, and commitment to,
public transportation in Connecticut, specifically by considering establishment
of a separate authority responsible for transit throughout the state and a
separate funding source for public transportation.
Roads. The Plan makes both general and
specific recommendations regarding roadway improvements. It also recommends a
study of specific Transportation Systems Management strategies and their
implementation (on a permanent or pilot basis) where appropriate, feasible and
not already in place, funding of Conn/DOT’s statewide intelligent
transportation systems initiative and expanded use of Transportation Demand
Management strategies to encourage the use of transit, carpooling, vanpooling,
telecommuting, compressed work schedules, staggered work times, bicycling and
walking. It also recommends evaluation of the institution of a Value Pricing
Pilot Program on one or more limited access highways in the TIA.
Commuter and Intercity Rail. Ridership on the TIA’s railroads has almost doubled
in the last 30 years, but capital investment in rail facilities has not kept
pace. The frequency and reliability of both commuter and intercity rail service
and the destinations served should be improved so as to make train service more
convenient and thus more comparable to use of the automobile. The Plan makes
recommendations regarding the need to order new rail cars immediately, specific
infrastructure improvements, railroad station strategies, expanded service and
Conn/DOT’s agreement with Metro North.
Bus Transit. The Plan notes that a funding “containment” philosophy has limited
development of Connecticut’s bus system. It recommends a study of consolidation
of agencies to enhance efficiencies and makes recommendations for expanded
service including job access services, marketing and cleaner fuels.
Waterborne. Noting the proximity of Long Island Sound, the Plan recommends limited
investment in infrastructure to permit private operators to provide High Speed
Ferry service.
Airborne. The Plan recommends a study of statewide airport resources and needs.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. To make bicycling and walking viable
transportation options, the Plan recommends routine incorporation of bike/ped
facilities in all road projects, as well as other, more specific
recommendations.
Connecticut is heavily
dependent on trucks for the movement of goods into, out of and through the
State. Providing more choices to shippers and receivers would promote the
business climate and mitigate road congestion.
Rail.
The Plan recommends encouragement of high speed off-peak truck-competitive rail
freight usage of the New Haven Line, the Springfield Line and the New Haven to
Boston Northeast Corridor. This can begin immediately through Penn Station for
certain commodities, but the Plan recommends that Connecticut support a new
rail crossing of the Hudson River. It makes other specific infrastructure
recommendations.
Trucks. The Plan acknowledges the efficiency of truck transport, but also its
disproportionate contribution to safety and environmental concerns as compared
to rail and waterborne alternatives. It makes recommendations regarding rest
areas, non-peak movement of goods and specific infrastructure improvements.
Waterborne. The Plan notes the overcrowded facilities at New York/New Jersey port
and the projected increase of container shipments into New England.
Implementation of feasibility studies of development of Bridgeport’s and New
Haven’s port facilities to accommodate barges carrying containers could remove
many trucks from Route I-95. The Plan recommends specific infrastructure and
process changes to help achieve this.
Transportation and land use decisions are usually
made separately, even though each profoundly affects the other, and both have
strong impacts on the local and regional quality of life. As a result of this
disjoined decision-making, the region is consuming much of its land without
improving its mobility. Moreover, affordable housing for the work force of many
employers is not available in proximity to place of employment. Connecticut
must think beyond specific disciplines to create a “multi-modal” approach and
managed land use planning for municipal and regional development.
The Plan recommends
re-establishment of a Statewide Planning Division within the Connecticut Office
of Policy and Management for coordinating and monitoring various short- and
long-range plans. It also makes recommendations to encourage, among other
things, increased land use clustering, mixed-use development, transit
accessibility and pedestrian-oriented development, protection of “Preservation
Areas”, redevelopment of “brownfields” and development of new housing stock in
areas with demonstrated job demand or availability to transit.
Connecticut can no longer rely largely on federal
funding for the vast majority of its transportation capital and operating
needs. Implementing a new transportation strategy will require substantial
financial investment in addition to current sources of support and greater
flexibility in the use of current funding sources.
The Plan makes recommendations both with respect to
new funding sources and allocation of available funding.
TWENTY-YEAR
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION
in the
COASTAL CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT AREA
1. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
Section 3(d) of House Bill No. 7506/Public Act 01-5,
An Act Implementing the Recommendations
of the Transportation Strategy Board (the Act) mandates that the participants
in each Transportation Investment Area (TIA) prepare an initial TIA Corridor
Plan for submission to the Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board by
November 15, 2001. Section 1(5) of the Act defines a TIA Corridor Plan as a
“twenty-year strategic plan for transportation in the TIA.”
This initial plan was developed to provide an
overview of the Coastal Corridor TIA and its primary regional and
inter-regional transportation concerns, and to describe a twenty-year strategy
for enhancing the TIA’s transportation system. This initial plan also creates a
linkage between the TIA’s strategy and transportation projects listed in the
Act as eligible for a share of the $50 million in funds appropriated in the
fiscal year 2001–2003 budget for projects endorsed by the Transportation
Strategy Board.
2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN
This initial plan has been developed with reference
to the transportation needs, strategies and objectives stated in the following
regional plans:
·
2001–2021
HVCEO Regional Transportation Plan, prepared by the Housatonic Valley Council
of Elected Officials, April 2001.
·
Long-Range
Regional Transportation Plan 2000, prepared by staff and endorsed by board
members of the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley, January
10, 2001.
·
Mobility:
A Transportation Plan for the Year 2020, prepared by the South Central Regional
Council of Governments, January 2001.
·
Regional
Transportation Plan for the Greater Bridgeport Planning Region, prepared by the
Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency with the endorsement of the Greater
Bridgeport and the Valley Regional Planning Agency, February 2001.
·
South
Western Region Long Range Transportation Plan, 2001–2025, prepared by the South
Western Regional Planning Agency, June 22, 2001.
·
Regional
Transportation Plan for the Valley Planning Region, prepared and endorsed by
the Valley Regional Planning Agency, February 2001, endorsed by the Greater
Bridgeport and Valley Regional Planning Agency.
3.
MAPS OF THE COASTAL CORRIDOR
TIA
Thematic maps of the Coastal Corridor TIA are
attached as Appendices (Maps 1–4) beginning on page 29.
4.
VISION STATEMENT
A strategic plan is essentially a method or
technique for achieving some end. This initial plan has established a vision statement
describing the end it seeks to achieve, i.e.,
the transportation system that should be in place in the TIA at the end of
twenty years. Section 4(c) of the Act describes in broad terms what the
strategy should achieve, and the balance of Section 4 provides further
guidance. The vision statement is drawn from Section 4 and is not intended to
replace it but rather to provide the focus necessary to develop a strategy. The
vision statement constitutes a template against which specific proposals are measured.
The following is the vision statement:
The Coastal Corridor TIA will have a transportation
system that offers people and goods a choice of safe, convenient and integrated
modes of transportation including (a) roads, (b) waterborne, (c) airborne, (d)
rail and other modes of public transit and (e) facilities that make walking and
bicycling viable transportation options so as:
·
to
stimulate sustainable economic growth by ensuring mobility of people and goods
within the TIA and connectivity of the TIA’s economy to the state, regional,
national and global economies; and
·
to
enhance quality of life by ensuring mobility of all residents of the TIA,
including those unable to drive, while protecting the TIA’s environmental,
cultural and community resources.
5.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are general recommendations applicable
to the entire strategic plan:
Projects Outside the Scope
of This Plan
·
Projects
currently in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that are
already in design, right-of-way acquisition or construction should go forward
and should not be de-funded in order to fund priorities identified in this
plan.
Travel Forecasting By Mode,
Origin and Destination
·
While the
Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) has a statewide computer
forecasting model for its own needs, most groups, such as the TIA, and its
constituent regional planning organizations, have no such resources. Planning
questions involving the examination of traffic flows to view the degree of
common origins and destinations are unanswerable. Upgrading the forecasting
system statewide would help insure that optimal decisions are made as to
transportation investments. ConnDOT's model should be refined to provide time-of-day projections,
new origins and destination studies, and upgraded municipal and zone-level
population and employment projections.
Collaboration
with Neighboring States
·
Connecticut
state agencies should reinforce collaboration both within the state and with appropriate
agencies in neighboring states to ensure coordinated and compatible development
of transportation and other infrastructure.
Enhance
North-South Connectivity
·
North-south
connectivity in the Coastal Corridor TIA should be enhanced to alleviate congestion
along east-west routes and to improve quality of life.
6.
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE
In its report to the Connecticut Regional Institute
for the 21st Century (or the “Gallis Report”), Michael Gallis &
Associates summarizes the situation of the Coastal Corridor TIA in the
following terms:
Connecticut’s access to the
global marketplace is principally through the I-95 corridor. This corridor,
with interstate and transit lines, provides access to the very dynamic New York
metro region and access to the continental grid.… While the Connecticut to New
York commute is largely transit-oriented, there is very little inter-city
transit within Connecticut. As congestion increases in this corridor and the
major global connections move west of the Hudson [River], this corridor will
not offer the level of access to the economic activities and hubs necessary to
support Connecticut’s institutions, businesses and people. Congestion
effectively blocks economic activity from extending farther than Stamford in
the [Coastal Corridor TIA].
Congestion is endemic throughout the Coastal
Corridor TIA. It is acute on the primary highways, Interstate Routes I-95 and
84, and U.S. Route 1 and CT Route 15, and particularly acute on the westerly
portion of Interstate Route 95. The increased congestion in the Coastal
Corridor TIA is mirrored throughout the country. Employers increasingly see
long commutes on congested roads as threats to productivity. Congestion also
contributes to the status of much of the Coastal Corridor TIA as a “severe
non-attainment area” in terms of air quality.
Significant increase in road capacity in the Coastal
Corridor TIA would be expensive, would have negative environmental impacts and
could encounter strong public opposition. Moreover, adding capacity to highways
induces additional traffic, as people take additional car trips and new
development creates even more demand.
By contrast, public transportation (rail, bus,
airborne and waterborne) not only provides relief from congested roads, it lessens
the negative impact on air quality and the safety hazards of traffic
(especially congested traffic). Moreover, it contributes to the economy; public
transportation has been found to create savings to business operations and to
increase business sales, household incomes and tax revenues.[1]
If safe, convenient and integrated alternative modes
of transportation were in place, there would be considerable potential to
switch trips from the automobile. The opportunity to develop the following alternative
modes of transportation exists in the Coastal Corridor TIA:
·
Rail
lines extend throughout the Coastal Corridor TIA. They are not being utilized
to the extent of their capacity, although they are in urgent need of
significant capital investment.
·
Based
on return from the farebox, Connecticut’s public bus system is one of the most
productive in the country, suggesting that there is potential for increased
ridership.
·
The
Coastal Corridor TIA has a potential air passenger market that would appear to
support a secondary airport if it had an airport with a runway sufficient for
small, narrow-bodied jets.
·
The
proximity of Long Island Sound offers the possibility of the development of
high speed ferries.
·
Particularly
along the coast, the closeness of the origins and destinations of many trips
suggests that there is considerable potential for travel by bicycle and on
foot.
Recommendations
Increase Commitment to
Transit
·
Determine
how best to enhance focus on accountability for, and commitment to, public
transportation in Connecticut. Consider establishment of a separate authority
responsible for transit throughout the state and a separate funding source for
public transportation, such as a dedicated mass transit operating account in
the state budget. Study the best practices in managing public transit,
including the success of neighboring authorities, New York’s Metropolitan
Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, in
advancing public transportation in their respective regions.
Improve Access to Airports
·
Improve
access to metropolitan area airports by means other than single-occupancy
vehicles.
A. ROADS
Issues/Problems
Congestion in the Costal
Corridor TIA affects the movement of people. Where they can reach their destinations
only by road, people are trapped in the congested conditions found there and
can only contribute to that congestion when traveling. But where choices exist,
some will choose another mode of travel and in so doing will make no
contribution to congestion on our roads. Development of alternatives to
single-occupancy vehicles must be our priority. Nonetheless, the automobile
will remain the dominant mode by which people travel in the Coastal Corridor
TIA, even as alternative modes are developed. This will require further
investment in our road system.
Most importantly, the road system, including local
roads, must be maintained in a state of good repair.
Poor or outdated engineering contributes to the inefficient movement of vehicles and gives rise to public safety concerns. Many of the Coastal Corridor TIA’s roadways were built neither to handle the volume of traffic that currently exists nor to accommodate the types of travel common today. Engineering designed to improve system efficiency such as intersection improvements, coordinated signalization, turning lanes and emergency shoulders are important elements to facilitating traffic flow through a given spot and enhancing safety.
Facilitating economic growth is a major goal of this plan, but growth that is dependent on motor vehicles could be counter-productive to that goal. Moreover, added volume on local roads, which are already congested, contributes to a degradation of quality of life. Added traffic volume would also contribute to the region’s air quality problems.
Recommendations
Roadway Improvements
·
Undertake
road capacity expansion projects only after a comprehensive review that takes
into consideration, at a minimum, the following factors: environmental impact;
all reasonable alternatives and options; impact on community character; impact
on roadways in adjacent regions, even if those adjacent regions are located
outside Connecticut; and impact of the proposed project on the transportation
system as a whole.
·
Evaluate
operational and construction improvements to I-95 and Route 15 to relieve
congestion and improve access in the corridor.
·
With
the Interstate 84 and Route 8 interchange as its priority, fund a safety and
capacity study of Route 8 from Seymour to Waterbury, as proposed in Section
16.(a)(19) of the Act. Extend the study area from Waterbury to Bridgeport. This
study should include an examination of gateways to provide access to downtown
areas and the feasibility of designating Route 8 as an interstate highway.
·
Fund
the expansion of commuter parking lots in the Coastal Corridor TIA, as proposed
in Section 16.(a)(2) of the Act.
·
Fund
the recommendations of ConnDOT’s two most recent improvement studies for
Interstate I-84 which together assessed congestion and safety on the 32 miles
from Waterbury to the New York state line, following the investment priorities
recommended in these studies, including funding for the safety and operational
improvements at Interstate I-84 interchanges from Danbury to Newtown, as proposed
in Section 16.(a)(18) of the Act.
·
Study
the capacity and feasibility of widening Route I-95 east from New Haven to the
Rhode Island state line, with consideration of environmental and sprawl impact
of any large highway project and with reference to the study proposed in
Section 16.(a)(14) of the Act.
·
Fund
ConnDOT's statewide intelligent transportation systems initiative.
Transportation
Systems Management Strategies
Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) is a strategy designed to maximize the efficiency of existing
highway capacity through various operational and administrative mechanisms. A
variety of TSM strategies have been implemented within the Coastal Corridor TIA
including incident management teams, construction management programs and highway
advisory radio. Few of these strategies, however, have been implemented
consistently throughout the Coastal Corridor and, as a result, the benefits are
fragmented.
Following a study of existing regional systems, the
following TSM strategies should be implemented (on a permanent or pilot basis) where appropriate, feasible and not already
in place, and appropriate benchmark data should be established:
·
Entrance
closures to discourage local travel on limited access highways, but only in
conjunction with action to alleviate the added burden on local roads. Fund the
analysis of the appropriateness of peak hour on-ramp closures on Interstate
I-95, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(8) of the Act.
·
Signalization
improvements.
·
Incident
management programs to clear accidents quickly from roadways. Fund the
improvement and further development of an Accident Clearance Policy to minimize
the impact of accidents on Interstate I-95 and the Merritt Parkway and the
enhancement of hours of truck safety stations, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(7)
of the Act.
·
Construction
management practices that minimize the impact on traffic flow, e.g., by coordinating overlapping road
improvement projects, shortening the duration of construction periods, scheduling
construction during off-peak periods and providing incentives to contractors
that complete work ahead of schedule
·
Ramp
metering to regulate the entry of vehicles into the traffic stream on limited
access highways.
·
Enhanced
traffic enforcement.
·
Highway
informational radio to alert motorists to problems in time for them to alter
their routes.
·
Dedicated
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.
Issues/Problems
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
are designed to encourage commuters to modify their travel patterns and
behavior in such a way as to reduce single-occupant vehicle traffic and, by
extension, traffic congestion. TDM strategies support and encourage the use of
transit, carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, compressed work schedules,
staggered work times, and bicycling and walking, all of which are currently in
place to one degree or another in the Coastal Corridor TIA. Another potentially
effective TDM measure that is not currently in place in the Coastal Corridor
TIA is value pricing.
Recommendations
·
Evaluate
the institution of a Value Pricing Pilot Program on one or more limited access
highways in the Coastal Corridor TIA.
·
Continue
and expand support of existing commuter incentive programs.
·
Fund
marketing of the Deduct-a-Ride
program, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(3) of the Act.
·
Develop
“commuter connections” with guaranteed rides between transportation hubs,
residential areas and employment centers.
·
Continue
promoting and supporting employer-based TDM programs at major employment
centers in the Coastal Corridor TIA, and continue to expand TDM programs to
smaller employers where appropriate.
·
Increase
availability of commuter information and services (e.g., parking availability, transit ticket purchases) on the
Internet through consolidation and coordination of existing transportation web
sites and improved user utility.
·
Increase
funding for marketing of all transportation alternatives and coordinate
marketing under a single brand identity (while allowing for local customization
by transportation organizations).
·
Consider
expansion of existing employer trip reduction tax credit and other incentives.
C. COMMUTER AND INTERCITY RAIL
Issues/Problems
There are 575
route miles of railroad track in Connecticut owned by eleven separate entities.
Passenger service over this patchwork of rail ownership is provided by three
entities. Pursuant to a contract among ConnDOT, New York State’s Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Metro North Commuter Railroad, Metro
North provides service on the New Haven main line from New York City to New
Haven and over the three branch lines: New Canaan branch, Danbury branch, and
Waterbury branch. Under contract with ConnDOT, Amtrak operates the Shore Line
East service east of New Haven over the trackage it owns. In addition, Amtrak
provides intercity service from New York to Boston via New London and from New
York to Hartford and Springfield, using ConnDOT trackage west of New Haven and
its own trackage north and east of New Haven.
Commuter service over the former New York, New Haven
and Hartford (NYNH&H) line has long been a vital transportation amenity in
the Coastal Corridor TIA. Traditionally this link has primarily provided access
by Connecticut residents to jobs in New York City, but increasingly it is being
used by so-called reverse commuters, New York City residents who work in
Connecticut, and intra-state Connecticut commuters. Overall, ridership has
increased by 41 percent since 1984 and by nearly 100 percent since 1970, and
reverse and intra-state commutes were up 47 percent between 1995 and 2000.[2]
Unfortunately, this increase in ridership has resulted in a shortage of seats,
but no new rail cars have been added to the fleet used to service the New Haven
line in almost a decade. The bulk of the passenger cars owned by ConnDOT and
used on the New Haven line are M-2 type electrical multiple unit rail cars and
are nearly 30 years old, which is past their anticipated useful life.
More
frequent service to more destinations will make the railroad a more attractive
alternative to the automobile. During off-peak hours, existing stops between
New Haven and Stamford is hourly and between Stamford and New York is
half-hourly. A “subway/shuttle” service, offering customers trains every 15 or
20 minutes would make train service more convenient and thus more comparable to
use of the automobile.
Recommendations
Order New Rail Cars Immediately
·
Ordering
the new equipment necessary to maintain the existing level and maintain
reliability of service must be our first priority, given the lengthy time
required for specification, manufacture and delivery. ConnDOT and MTA/Metro
North have identified an immediate need for 10 locomotives and 60 push/pull
coaches to maintain the existing level and reliability of service, and to
increase intrastate service. In addition, they estimate that by 2030 well over
500 passenger cars may be required to replace the existing fleet and provide
for future growth in ridership.[3]
·
To
properly maintain and store the new equipment and overhaul the existing M-2
fleet, the site selection and acquisition and the design of the needed new
storage and maintenance facility should begin as soon as possible, as this
facility must be completed before delivery of new equipment. Fund the site
selection study for the expansion of the New Haven Line rail maintenance
facilities’ capacity and purchase land for a new rail service maintenance
facility, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(5) of the Act.
·
Both
to ensure service reliability and to permit Amtrak’s Acela trains to operate at
higher speed, the replacement of the obsolete catenaries should be accelerated.
·
Either
change the electrical current used east of New Haven to the same current used
west of New Haven or modify Metro North electrical rail cars to use the current
east of New Haven. This will permit Metro North electrical rail cars to operate
east of New Haven.
·
Any
construction of limited-access busways should include provision for their
conversion to rail or light-rail as future demand warrants.
Stations
·
Following a
review of commutation and residency patterns, a fair distribution of additional
parking and other access facilities at rail stations needed to meet demand,
both existing and anticipated, should be determined. On the basis of this
review, a strategy should be devised to construct the additional facilities
needed, and to offer consistent access and pricing to all motorists using
parking facilities. Station access facilities should include strategies other
than vehicular, including bus, jitney, walking and bicycling.
·
A strategy
should be devised to ensure the availability of shuttles or taxis at the
arrival and departure times of trains throughout the day (not just at peak
commuter hours) at the principal railroad station in each town served by Metro
North and Shore Line East.
Expanded
Service
·
Increase
service on Metro North by offering more frequent, “subway/shuttle” service.
·
Integrate
the services offered by Metro North and Shore Line East into a single, seamless
service. This integration should not be structured as only a two-year trial, as
proposed in Section 16.(a)(9) of the Act.
·
Implement
the improvements in the Danbury Branch Line from Norwalk to New Milford
proposed by the Route 7 Travel Options Implementation Plan.
·
Update
the study of expansion of service on the Waterbury Branch Line.
·
Operate
more trains from and to east of Stamford to and from Greenwich without
requiring a change in Stamford.
·
Expand
destinations served by Metro North to include Penn Station in New York City,
Hartford, Springfield, MA, Providence, RI, and intermediate destinations. This
action would permit rail customers to choose between Metro North and Amtrak to
many destinations.
·
Fund
the design study for an Orange/West Haven rail station, as proposed in Section
16.(a)(4) of the Act.
·
Support
an alternative stop by Amtrak’s Acela train at Bridgeport.
·
Fund
the study of the infrastructure cost and operating characteristics of rail
commuter services from New Haven to Springfield, including Bradley Airport, as
proposed in Section 16.(a)(17) of the Act.
·
Funding
of the proposal to partner with Amtrak to provide an additional peak period
train from Connecticut to Penn Station, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(10) of
the Act, is not recommended.
Metro North
Operating Agreement
·
Use
all available means under the existing service agreement among ConnDOT, the MTA
and Metro North to improve Connecticut rail transit including, if possible,
obtaining a seat on the MTA board.
Issues/Problems
Connecticut’s local bus system is one of the most
productive systems in the country, with an average return from the farebox of
36 percent and with some districts returning over 40 percent. This compares
with an industry average of 35 percent.[4]
This high productivity suggests that there is potential for increased ridership.
While buses are nonetheless a major provider of
public transit in Connecticut, investment in bus transit in Connecticut has
remained relatively flat. This funding “containment” philosophy has limited
Connecticut’s bus system from enjoying a much larger market share and prevented
it from contributing to its fullest extent to the reduction of congestion and
air pollution. Connecticut must move from an incremental or “containment”
funding philosophy and invest new dollars in both operating and capital for bus
operations.
Connecticut’s bus system is faced with a $2.5
million projected operating deficit this year alone.[5]
To address this deficit, several thousand hours of revenue bus service will
have to be cut, and some transit districts will have to raise fares just to
make ends meet. As with our rail service, we are failing to provide our bus
system with the funding it needs.
Recommendations
Consolidation
of Bus Services
·
Study
whether consolidation of agencies that operate buses in the state and/or the
Coastal Corridor TIA would enhance operating and planning efficiency.
Expanded
Service
·
Implement
recommendations for more bus service contained in the “Connecticut DOT’s
Statewide Bus System Study” (July 2000).
·
Expand
Fairfield County inter-regional service by purchasing ten new buses (including
articulated buses for the coastal link) and provide funding for additional
local bus service, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(11) of the Act.
·
Where
the demand exists, provide for more inter-district, inter-town, inter-regional
bus routes like the Coastal Link, including routes linking rural communities.
·
Improve
bus services for the elderly and the
disabled.
·
Consider
extension of the Hartford to New Britain Busway, to and from Waterbury.
·
Develop
(a) operational and fiscal plans for the expansion of local and regional bus
services to coordinate with rail and ferry schedules for service to area
attractions, and (b) a single ticket fare and fare media structure for rail,
bus and ferry services, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(13) of the Act. The fare
structure should be integrated with a statewide Deduct-A-Ride program.
·
Fund
expansion of bus services connecting with rail services in the Coastal Corridor
TIA, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(6) of the Act.
·
Fund
expansion of bus services for existing and new western Connecticut commuters to
utilize Metro-North's Upper Harlem Line for commuting to New York City and
White Plains, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(12) of the Act.
·
Consider
the introduction of Bus Rapid Transit projects in the Coastal Corridor TIA
similar to the Hartford Bus Rapid Transit project, including the feasibility of
using state or interstate routes for Bus Rapid Transit Demonstration projects.
Job Access
·
Fund
the Jobs Access Program that provides later evening bus service route
extensions and customized paratransit services for residents in the cities of
Bridgeport, New Haven and Waterbury, as proposed in Section 16.(a)(1) of the
Act.
·
Incorporate all effective Job Access Program
services now funded from grants in the operating budgets of transit districts.
·
Where demand exists, provide service to all major
job centers, including retail centers on Saturdays and Sundays.
Marketing
·
Develop
a comprehensive, regional bus marketing campaign for the Coastal Corridor TIA,
taking advantage of the national efforts to enhance poor public perception of
public transportation.
·
Improve
buses’ image by making buses more attractive and user-friendly, for example, by
discontinuing the practice of darkening bus windows with advertising or other
materials that restrict visual contact between passengers and the surrounding
streetscape.
Miscellaneous
·
Provide
both funding and incentives to transit operations to use cleaner fuels like
compressed natural gas.
Issues/Problems
The state has funded a comprehensive study to explore utilizing Connecticut’s waterway system further to expand the potential for movement of people within the Coastal Corridor TIA. The infrastructure (Long Island Sound) has been in place for thousands of years, and its capacity for ferry service is infinitely expandable. There is an existing ferry service between Bridgeport and Port Jefferson. Several private ferry operators have indicated an interest in providing service on high speed ferries, so that the service may require no operating subsidy from the state. While there are land access and parking issues, such an operation would require minimal capital investment from the state.
Recommendations
·
Fund
infrastructure improvements (e.g.,
dredging, bulkheading, and passenger facilities) to insure that a ferry
operation interfaces with the Bridgeport Intermodal Facility. The funding of a
high speed ferry from Bridgeport to Stamford to New York, as proposed by
Section 16.(a)(20) of the Act, should be limited to such infrastructure
improvements.
Issues/Problems
Six airports — Danbury Municipal Airport, Waterbury-Oxford
Airport, Sikorsky Airport, Tweed-New Haven Airport, Meriden Markham Airport and
the Griswold Airport — are located in the Coastal Corridor TIA, but only
Tweed-New Haven provides commercial air service. However, commercial service is
available from Westchester County Airport which is located immediately adjacent
to the southwestern border of the Coastal Corridor TIA.
A significant percentage of the persons who live and
work in the Coastal Corridor TIA rely on New York airports to meet their
commercial air travel needs, thereby contributing to road congestion. However,
a significant market exists for expanded commercial air travel in Connecticut
and the economic impacts of expanded commercial air travel opportunities would
boost Connecticut’s economy.
Recommendation
·
Conduct
a study of statewide airport resources and needs, including airports owned by
the state, municipalities and private interests, which among other things
should determine the need for one or more regional or “secondary” airport within
the Coastal Corridor TIA attractive to commercial air carriers capable of
flying to destinations of up to 1,000 miles.
G. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Issues/Problems
With the adoption of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Congress recognized that bicycling and walking should
be integral parts of a multi-modal approach to transportation and made funding
available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This support continues in the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st
Century (TEA-21).
Despite the availability of this funding, little has
been done in the Coastal Corridor TIA to improve conditions for cyclists and
pedestrians. However, ConnDOT acknowledges that bicycle and pedestrian trips in
Connecticut have been below the national average and that a significant number
of trips could be switched from the automobile.[6]
The close proximity within the Coastal Corridor TIA of many residential areas,
businesses and shopping areas and recreational facilities makes bicycling and
walking viable travel options. Although both are short-range transportation
choices, when used in conjunction with public transit or rideshare lots the
range can be much greater.
Recommendations
·
The
cost of developing bicycle and pedestrian facilities is low as compared with
the cost of development of road or rail facilities. A cost-efficient way to
integrate bicycling and walking into the transportation infrastructure would be
for ConnDOT, in respect of state roads, and MPOs, in respect of county and
local roads that are part of regional Transportation Improvement Projects,
routinely to include bike/ped improvements in all projects involving such
roads. The U.S. Department of Transportation has adopted a policy statement to
this effect which is designed for adoption at the state and local levels, and
this policy statement should be both adopted and followed by ConnDOT and the
MPOs in the Coastal Corridor TIA.
·
Each
regional planning agency of the Coastal Corridor TIA should adopt a Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan for its region.
·
Greater
funding should be provided for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, particularly
greenway projects incorporating multi-use paths where such greenways extend
through well-traveled transportation corridors.
·
Establish
a pedestrian set-aside in ConnDOT's local aid program that would provide
municipalities with moneys to construct sidewalks and implement traffic-calming
projects.
·
Equip
buses and commuter trains for the carriage of bicycles.
7. MOVEMENT OF GOODS
Generating more transportation alternatives such as
waterborne and rail intermodal should be an objective of the State of
Connecticut. More choices for shippers and receivers would promote
Connecticut’s business climate. Increasing and improving transportation options
would assist in improving the flow of goods into, out of, and through
Connecticut while improving highway safety and air quality.
Seventy-four percent of the volume of commodities
that travel into, out of, and through Connecticut travel by trucks that enter
the state, including 38 percent of the traffic destined for Connecticut and 44
percent of the traffic passing through the state. This mode of transport
carries with it a disproportionate level of safety and environmental concerns
as compared to rail and waterborne alternatives.[7]
Commodities carried cover the range of all the products necessary for human
life and economic well being.
Recommendation
·
Create
shipper alternatives such as improved rail, efficient rail intermodal and
waterborne routes. Shippers must be convinced there are cost-effective,
efficient alternatives to our highways.
Connecticut shares heavy
truck traffic on I-95 with other interstates from Virginia to Maine. Connecticut
needs to develop the alternative choice of truck-competitive, intermodal rail
freight.
Connecticut’s existing
“cul-de-sac” or dead ended rail freight system must be promptly and effectively
transformed so as to provide a rail freight option with intermodal connections.
This new rail freight service must operate on the fastest, most direct rail
lines along the I-95 corridor.
Operating track capacity on
the New Haven Line was dramatically increased in the 1980s as the result of
signal improvements and even with an increase in commuter rail service there
will be hours in the 24-hour “day” when rail freight trains could operate.
·
As soon as
possible, start directing rail freight operations through Penn Station tunnels during
off-peak hours for perishable shipments (such as an extension northward to New
England of the CSX “Orange Blossom Special”), RoadRailer, mail and express and
high priority container-on-flat-car trains.
·
Actively
advocate and support a new, direct, rail freight connection across the Hudson
River and/or New York Harbor at New York City. The feasibility of the New York
Cross Harbor rail tunnel has been proven, and environmental and planning
studies are well under way. Connecticut should support and encourage this bold
and timely capital investment in our national rail freight network.
·
In
addition, added cross-Hudson rail capacity is needed at Penn Station.
Connecticut should get involved and work for freight as well as passenger use
of any additions to track and tunnel capacity at this vital point.
·
Encourage
consideration of additional Hudson River rail crossings.
·
Encourage,
rather than discourage, high speed off-peak truck-competitive rail freight
usage of the New Haven Line, the Springfield Line and the New Haven to Boston
Northeast Corridor.
·
Resume the
past policy of improving rather than disinvesting in rail overhead and side
clearances. Actively consider the cost benefit of improving such clearances as
well as the economic and environmental penalty for failing to do so.
· Act now to preserve valuable and difficult to replace rail freight yard and terminal space, especially at New Haven (Cedar Hill Yard), at Hartford (North Meadows) and, working with Rhode Island, at Providence (Northrup Avenue Yard).
· The issues relating to rail freight in Connecticut are poorly understood. This is especially true in terms of the geographic relationships between freight haulers and potential changes to East Coast service routes as may affect Connecticut. A clearly written inventory report, to serve as a base for all freight planning and possible public investment, is immediately needed.
B. TRUCKS
Issues/Problems
·
The
U.S. has an extremely comprehensive and efficient highway system which has reached
capacity. In order for Connecticut to deal with the current level of traffic
congestion, the state must find ways to get more out of its existing assets by
making it more efficient. This is, in fact, a goal of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
·
ConnDOT
has determined that truck-only routes are more cost effective than other
transportation modes for shipments less than 500 to 1,000 miles.[8]
·
ConnDOT
has found that trucks make up only 8 to 15 percent of peak hour traffic at the
New York/Connecticut border and, while trucks are equivalent to as many as four
passenger vehicles, they also are more likely to be traveling longer distances
than the passenger cars.[9]
·
Diesel
trucks account for a disproportionate amount of the state’s greatest non-point
source of air pollution — traffic — thereby contributing to the region’s status
as a “severe non-attainment area” in terms of air quality.[10]
Recommendations
Strategies/Policies
·
Address the
severe shortage of areas where tired truckers can rest along state highways.
Explore a public-private partnership with commercial truck stop owners to
operate facilities to provide safe and secure areas for truckers to rest.
·
Work
with local interests to encourage non-peak movement of goods where it does not
conflict with quality of life issues.
·
Encourage
establishment of warehousing, distribution and cargo transportation facilities
in the New Haven/Hartford/Springfield corridor, perhaps a “cluster” like
effort.
·
Become
an active participant in the discussions and decision-making concerning any new
east coast port development or expansions, in order to affect decisions as to
cargo routing options.
·
Re-invest
in staff and facilities to strengthen Connecticut’s safety and diesel truck
emissions testing.
Projects/Studies
·
Conduct
detailed origin and destination studies on all freight moving into, out of, and
through Connecticut, on all transportation modes. Include surveys of all
businesses in the state to determine flexibility of shipping and receiving
activities, types of products or supplies transported, schedule requirements
and proximity to intermodal facilities.
C. WATERBORNE
Issues/Problems
·
The
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has established a Port Inland
Distribution Network (PIDN) system due to overcrowded port facilities and
capacity.
·
Projected
container shipments into New England has been estimated at 386,000 by 2010 and
609,000 by 2020. Clearly road congestion will get much worse if freight
activities continue.[11]
·
Two
feasibility studies were conducted by Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning
Agency (GBRPA) and South Central Regional Council of Governments (SCRCOG) in
2000 for implementing shipping containers by barge over the 70 miles of water to
and from Bridgeport port/New Haven port and the New York/New Jersey port. If
implemented, that container service would be able to reduce trailer trucks in
the highly congested 33-mile stretch of I-95 from Greenwich to Bridgeport or
the 53-mile stretch to New Haven.
·
The
creation of a Bridgeport/New Haven container facility would eliminate up to
80,000 tractor trailer trucks from this section of I-95.[12]
With a diminished number of trucks on the road, air quality and highway safety
are destined to improve.
Recommendations
·
Support
Section 16(a)(21) of the Act, to create container barge feeder port and service
in Bridgeport and New Haven.
·
Create
“port zones” around our deep water ports to restrict non-water dependent uses
and to make our port areas more efficient and more secure.
·
Establish
more efficient dredge permit procedures and seek affordable dredge disposal
alternatives to insure the smooth functioning of our maritime commerce and
which results in the least damaging environmental impact or a net positive
environmental gain.
·
Accelerate
restoration of rail service to the Port of New Haven.
8. LAND USE ISSUES
When the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad
Company built the New Haven line in the 1840s, it was built to serve commercial
and industrial uses as well as passenger needs in the urban centers of six
regions of the Coastal Corridor TIA. The post-World War II development of
interstate highways and increased use of private automobiles, as well as a
shift in commercial uses away from central cities, allowed people to reach
farther out into the suburbs to find places to live and work. There is
considerable consensus that the resulting separation of home and work has led
to greater congestion on local and regional road networks, declining air
quality, and creation of a “placeless” landscape that have affected all of the
municipalities in the TIA and the state.
Transportation and land use planning should have
similar end-goals in mind: efficient use of a limited resource (land) that
allows for efficient movement of goods and people and creation of strong
communities. However, in Connecticut, transportation and land use decisions are
usually made separately, even though each profoundly affects the other, and
both have strong impacts on the local and regional quality of life. As a result
of this disjoined decision making, the TIA is consuming much of its land
without improving its mobility.
Another key issue for transportation, of severe proportions
in much of Connecticut, is the fact that affordable housing for the local work
force is not available in proximity to places of employment. Municipal policy
supports this mismatch by encouraging fiscally positive (business and industry)
and discouraging fiscally negative (moderate income housing) land uses in order
to enhance the local property tax. Thus, the journey to work becomes longer and
longer as affordable housing recedes over the miles to the next region. There
needs to be a stronger link between affordable housing and transit services.
The challenge
facing the Coastal Corridor TIA today is to think beyond specific disciplines
to create a “multi-modal” approach and managed land use planning for municipal
and regional development. A starting point may be found in discussion of the
following general questions:
·
What
incentives exist to create synergistic transportation and land use plans?
·
What
incentives exist to develop inter-municipal, or inter-regional, or whole-state
plans?
· What common assets do the suburban communities share with central cities and how can transportation and land use linkages make the highest and best use of those assets at the local, regional, and state levels?
Issues/Problems
·
Strong
“home rule” sentiments are counter-current to regional transportation/land use
planning efforts in southwest Connecticut.
·
The
Connecticut Conservation and Development Policy Plan has little effect on the
realities of municipal planning processes.
·
ConnDOT
relies on traditional planning models rather than integrating transportation
strategies with goal-oriented plans of conservation and development.
·
As the
Transportation Strategy Board seeks to promote inter-regional efforts to
improve Connecticut’s transportation services delivery system, ConnDOT proposes
to shift responsibility for the acquisition of rights-of-way and land for
transportation projects from the state to municipalities. This policy change
may result in barriers to the development of inter-municipal transportation
projects such as increased legal costs, increased cost of land and project
delays.
Recommendations
·
Re-establish
a Statewide Planning Division within the Connecticut Office of Policy
Management for the comprehensive coordination and monitoring of various short- and
long-range plans including but not limited to the Conservation and Development
Policies Plan for Connecticut, the Master Transportation Plan, the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), various regional plans of
conservation and development, various regional long-range transportation plans,
and town and city plans of conservation and development.
·
Strengthen
adherence to the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut.
·
Evaluate,
formulate and implement state subsidized incentives to encourage increased land
use clustering, mixed-use development, transit accessibility and
pedestrian-oriented development.
·
Establish
state recognized “Transportation Zone Areas of Development” with associated
incentives to encourage their development and use.
·
Avoid
highway and road expansion projects in areas that the Conservation and
Development Policies Plan for Connecticut classifies as “Preservation Areas”
wherever possible.
·
Evaluate,
formulate and implement incentives to encourage “Transit-Oriented Development.”
·
Evaluate,
formulate and implement incentives to encourage “infill” development in urban
areas and existing transportation corridors.
·
Evaluate,
formulate and implement changes in eligibility requirements for various
“brownfield” programs and implement new incentive programs specifically
encouraging “brownfield” redevelopment in urban areas and existing
transportation corridors.
·
Evaluate,
formulate and implement incentives to encourage the development of new housing
stock in areas with demonstrated job demand as well as adjacent to newly
established “Transportation Zones.”
·
Evaluate,
formulate and implement incentives to encourage the re-drafting of local and
municipal zoning regulations to allow for more intensive “mixed-use” development.
·
Institute
a program by which ConnDOT will develop the requisite skills and capacity to
consider and model the impacts different transportation policies will have on
environmental, land use and “quality of life” issues.
·
Streamline
existing environmental review and approvals processes to eliminate duplication
of efforts and enhance coordination among local, state and federal agencies.
·
Develop
and implement a project-ratings scale that prioritizes state funding for projects
located in transportation corridors and transportation zones.
·
Require
that all municipalities (a) include a bus circulation element in their plan of
conservation and development and (b) include specific congestion mitigation
plans (including funding sources) to mitigate the increased burden of
congestion from any new or proposed development project.
·
Upgrade
planning coordination between Connecticut and the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council, which is the planning agency for metropolitan New York
City.
9. FUNDING ISSUES
It is clear to our TIA that Connecticut can no
longer rely largely on federal funding for the vast majority of its
transportation capital and operating needs. Additional state funding for
transportation is needed, or the Connecticut economy will stagnate. The current
tax structure does little to encourage the movement of people or freight in the
most cost-effective and efficient manner.
Issues/Problems
· Connecticut’s transportation planning and systems need significant modernization in order to support the state’s economic development and quality of life.
· Implementing a new transportation strategy will require substantial financial investment in addition to continuing existing levels of federal, state and local support.
· New sources of transportation revenue, increasing the levels of current funding and gaining more flexibility in the use of current funding will be necessary to meet future needs.
· The active participation of the business community is critical in order to gain the support of public policymakers and the general public for a new strategic plan for transportation and the necessary funding.
· Although the state spending cap does a good job in ensuring that state government does not spend above the means of the growth of our economy, the cap on operational spending substantially limits growth potential in transportation spending. Transportation spending must vie each year with other state spending needs.
· Revenue projections indicate motor fuel tax revenue will not increase and the Special Transportation Fund will incur a deficit.
Recommendations
· Examine procurement policies and practices to ensure that competitive bidding, based on the highest and best value criteria, is used as a tool for containing costs and maximizing level and quality of service, particularly with long-term service contracts.
·
Connecticut’s federal, state and local elected and
community delegations must create a unified approach to obtaining more funding
from the federal government as reauthorization of TEA-21 approaches. In
addition, Connecticut needs to work with other northeastern states to obtain
additional funding and funding flexibility. A comprehensive strategy to communicate
this unified message should be developed.
· Evaluate value pricing and/or congestion pricing programs as recommended in the “Movement of People” section of this plan.
· Create enabling legislation allowing municipalities or regions to develop transportation related tax incentives and impose impact fees.13
· Create Benefit Assessment Districts.
· Explore the use of Tax Increment Financing.
· Explore innovative financing options:
a) State Infrastructure Banks
b) Turnkey Procurement
c) Advance Construction Authority
d) Leasing Rights of Way
· Study the feasibility of converting Connecticut Transit bus contracts from “management” contracts to “service” contracts, thus creating a “shared risk” in bus transit financial performance.
· Maintain transit fares at levels which encourage use of mass transit modes, and adjust subsidies to cover operational and maintenance deficits.
· Develop a formula-based allocation of operating funding for all transit districts. The formula may be driven by such variables as vehicle miles traveled (VMT), revenue generation/units, local community contributions, ridership, service to elderly and handicapped populations, demographics, population, revenue per passenger, cost per hour, population density (etc.).
· Create an incentive program that would encourage local communities to contribute more to public transportation programs in their regions.
· Reward companies with policies and programs that help limit traffic congestion.
· Increase mass transit funding with a dedicated funding source.
· Encourage revenue bonding at the state and local levels for capital infrastructure improvements.
· Increase funding levels for Town Aid to Roads.
· Consider establishment of a separate authority for transit, as recommended in the “Movement of People” section of this plan.
· Provide separate funding of the Connecticut Port Authority.
ENDNOTES
[1] Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Public
Transportation and the Nation’s Economy (October 1999).
[2] ConnDOT, Analysis of the Amended and
Restated Service Agreement for the Operation and Subsidization of the New Haven
Rail Line (May 2001).
[3] Ibid., pp. 25–6.
[4] APTA Transit Fact Book (1999); ConnDOT,
Connecticut Statewide Bus System Study (July 2000), Executive Summary.
[5] Connecticut Transit 2001–02 budget; Greater
Bridgeport Transit District 2001–02 budget; Greater Waterbury Transit District
2001–02 budget.
[6] ConnDOT, Master Transportation Plan, p.
III-113.
[7] ConnDOT, Southwest Corridor Commodity Study
(May 2000)
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Hall and Gordon, Greening Freight:
Preliminary Research on Heavy Duty Trucks in Southwestern Connecticut (October
1998), p. 6.
[11] Port of New London: Can New London be a
Transit Container Port? Management & Transportation Associates (January
2001), p. 12.
[12] Frederic R. Harris, Inc., Coastal Barge
Feeder Study, South Central Connecticut (February 2001), p. 63.
13 This recommendation is not supported by
the South Central Regional Council of Governments.
To
learn more about the Transportation Strategy Board: http://www.opm.state.ct.us/igp/TSB/tsbinfo.htm#TOP
To
read other TIA Reports: http://www.opm.state.ct.us/igp/TSB/tsbinfo.htm#Documents