[Henry10]

I want CT to really do transportation planning. For example - “I want to revitalize the cities and have businesses move into urban centers. Housing too. Because, I dont want suburban sprawl, ala- North Carolina.

Ok, now I need commuter trains, subways, trolleys 10-15 miles into city centers. In Hartford, Stamford I will put them underground. I also want to discourage driving. So I will lower parking spaces in Cities from 25,000 to 15,000. In the meantime, I will put bike lanes, bike parking, subway stations instead.

To achieve this, I will pay $ 3 billions in subsidies to businesses to move from suburbia to the city. Plus I will raze suburban office bldgs into parks, bike paths, subway lines.”

This is a plan we need to see from CT.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by Henry10

I want CT to really do transportation planning. For example - “I want to revitalize the cities and have businesses move into urban centers. Housing too. Because, I dont want suburban sprawl, ala- North Carolina.

Ok, now I need commuter trains, subways, trolleys 10-15 miles into city centers. In Hartford, Stamford I will put them underground. I also want to discourage driving. So I will lower parking spaces in Cities from 25,000 to 15,000. In the meantime, I will put bike lanes, bike parking, subway stations instead.

To achieve this, I will pay $ 3 billions in subsidies to businesses to move from suburbia to the city. Plus I will raze suburban office bldgs into parks, bike paths, subway lines.”

This is a plan we need to see from CT.

No thanks in the second prong. I’m all for transportation planning but that doesn’t automatically go to CBDs. I’m sure CT would time the trend perfectly given the waning interest in urban areas.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Henry10

I have seen that plan, which more like a budget document. What that Plan is missing is measurable goals, not just useless statements like “make transportation more efficient” BS. Except “expand bus service by 25%” there is nothing else.

No wonder that for 5 years out of 30, Legislature has approved only peanuts $ 2.7B out of $ 100B plan requires. And that’s just money Legislature has committed, not projects completed.

So CT has probably accomplished 1-2% in the 17% of the time (30 Years). It’s a joke.

More importantly, Plan is missing the underlining sociological and economical drivers. What is CT’s business gonna look like in 25-30 years? What about its workforce? You’re supposed to plan differently for example for large factories, or large suburban office complexes, or City-centered workplaces, etc. Education system? Urban housing? Suburban housing development?

These are the drivers for transportation needs, but Plan makes no attempt to even mention.



Nothing is “free.” It’s more like “who is subsidizing who” here.

Sorry but no plan can make any accomplishments without a solid source of funding. Malloy did program a lot of money to begin planning and design of many of the higher priority major projects like I-84 in Hartford, the I-91/I-691 interchange in Meriden, I-84 in Danbury and the I-84/Route 8 interchange in Waterbury. The scope of these projects are massive and will take years to go through their planning, design and approval process. Though these projects have technically begun, there is no money to construct them once they are ready. This is what both the state and federal governments must address. The Feds have approved a pilot program to allow tolls on I-84 west of Hartford and I-95 from New Haven to New York. That means little until the state legislature establishes a way to collect them.

Let’s Go CT is a bold comprehensive plan that tries to identify the state’s transportation needs for the next 30 years. No one knows what the world will be like in 30 years and it is not the job of a transportation plan to do that. It sounds good but it is a total waste of money to even attempt to do that. Jay

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

No thanks in the second prong. I’m all for transportation planning but that doesn’t automatically go to CBDs. I’m sure CT would time the trend perfectly given the waning interest in urban areas.

I agree. Go tell a town like Farmington that they have to demolish all those tax generating office parks and you certainly will have an uprising. It is easy to say things but the reality local zoning in our state is done by each town. The state can5 and should not stick their nose in it. I do not want some bureaucrat in Hartford telling me that a high rise apartment building can be built on that charming horse farm down the street. Despite what people think we have done a good job maintaining our character. Sure we have some sprawl but no where near the scale you see down south. That is because we have strong local zoning to protect it. Jay

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Nothing is “free.” It’s more like “who is subsidizing who” here.

Huh? Out of state drivers don’t pay a dime to use our roads. We are subsidizing their travel effectively. It’s absolutely free for them.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Stylo

Huh? Out of state drivers don’t pay a dime to use our roads. We are subsidizing their travel effectively. It’s absolutely free for them.

Several people have explained it here, Jay especially -- CT entered in an agreement with the Feds, that Feds pay for CT road improvements. That is -- everybody from Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii, all the way to NY and NJ subsidized roadwork in CT.

In exchange CT would not charge tolls. CT got its money, now it should reneg on its side of the bargain?

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

No thanks in the second prong. I’m all for transportation planning but that doesn’t automatically go to CBDs. I’m sure CT would time the trend perfectly given the waning interest in urban areas.

Actually the trend is urbanization, not suburbaniation. The pendulum is swinging the other way. Although CT is lagging behind on these macro trends, urbanization is coming CT's way. These things take decades, just like it took sprawl decades to unfold

Originally Posted by JayCT

I agree. Go tell a town like Farmington that they have to demolish all those tax generating office parks and you certainly will have an uprising. It is easy to say things but the reality local zoning in our state is done by each town. The state can5 and should not stick their nose in it. I do not want some bureaucrat in Hartford telling me that a high rise apartment building can be built on that charming horse farm down the street.

You are talking about dictate, not policy. Absolutely CT's State Govt can spearhead this urban planning. It's not gonna be the first, nor the last.

You accomplish via a few mechanisms, and none involve whacking Glastonbury or Farmington's residents on the back of their head.

Tax incentives for example is very powerful weapon. Security, policing, is another. Slashing welfare (and the ghettos it breeds) is another. And more.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Several people have explained it here, Jay especially -- CT entered in an agreement with the Feds, that Feds pay for CT road improvements. That is -- everybody from Alaska, Idaho, Hawaii, all the way to NY and NJ subsidized roadwork in CT.

In exchange CT would not charge tolls. CT got its money, now it should reneg on its side of the bargain?

States can still get federal funding with tolls under the right conditions:

But the Federal Highway Administration recently notified the state Department of Transportation that while simple border tolls might not pass muster, variable-price tolls — such as so-called congestion tolls that change depending on the time of day — would work.

Save The Roads With Tolls - Hartford Courant

The pennies out of staters are paying into CT’s share of the federal transportation fund pale in comparison to what they would pay in tolls to be nearly inconsequential.

Toll income would also handily exceed current federal funding. The “feds” only pay for a fraction of our highway upkeep and personnel.

[KEVIN_224]

People have ripped me before, saying that I only want tolls in Connecticut because I don't drive. I feel the cost of tolls would eventually be absorbed into the bus fares I'd pay, riding with companies like Greyhound or Peter Pan. Plus, suppliers and vendors could add the cost of tolls into their deliveries of goods to your local supermarket.

[BeyondtheHorizon]

Westchester to Long Island tunnel would cost up to $55B, study shows

Bridge to long island from CT/westchester would be WAY LESS, but a tunnel would be up to 55 billion. They are currently spending a few million to figure it out. If they are going to build a bridge it should go to bridgeport(like the current ferry), not westchester to help divert traffic off the lower part of 95.