Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

NASA’s Orion Spacecraft Completes Successful Unmanned First Mission
Dec 5, 2014 11:30 am
An unmanned test flight of NASA’s new Orion spacecraft was successful this morning, flying higher than any human-rated...more »
2014 Connecticut International Auto Show to Feature Electric Vehicles And More
Nov 20, 2014 9:00 am
State automobile retailers are hoping to educate consumers about the benefits of electric vehicles at the Connecticut...more »

Our Partners

˜

Transportation Advocates Lay Out Their Agenda For Gubernatorial Candidates

by Christine Stuart | Aug 19, 2014 2:04pm
(6) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2014, Transportation, Hartford

Christine Stuart photo

Lyle Wray, executive director of the Capitol Region Council of Governments

A broad coalition of advocates gathered Tuesday at Union Station in Hartford and called on the gubernatorial candidates to adopt a set of guidelines for approaching transportation policy.

“We all agree that the public deserves safe and efficient travel and a transportation system that provides transportation options for all the residents,” Karen Burnska, coordinator of the Transit for Connecticut coalition, said. “Transportation here in Connecticut affects the lives of every person, every day.”

The coalition is asking gubernatorial candidates for a debate focused on transportation issues. They are also asking the candidates to protect the current level of funding in the Special Transportation Fund, expedite projects that have already received funding, plan for a future reduction in the Federal Highway Fund, and invest wisely in highway and transit system improvements.

Roger Reynolds of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment said he believes people are willing to make an investment in transportation if they’re guaranteed that money will be spent on transportation improvements.

He cited a Quinnipiac University poll that found support for tolls went from 39 percent to 57 percent if people were told the money would be spent on transportation.

Christine Stuart photo

Roger Reynolds of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment

“People get this,” Reynolds said. “People understand that we need to invest in our crumbling infrastructure.”

Connecticut currently doesn’t have tolls, but it did increase one of the state’s two gas taxes in 2005 in order to replenish the Special Transportation Fund.

Reynolds advocated for protecting the money in the Special Transportation Fund but admitted that it will likely take a constitutional amendment to guarantee that lawmakers are not allowed to raid it and use it for general operating funds.

Don Shubert, president of the Connecticut Construction Industries Association, said the state can throw all the money it wants at transportation improvements, but unless it has the capacity to get the right projects out at the right time, then it’s all for nothing.

“To meet Connecticut’s transportation needs, the next governor is going to need to make sure every cent of Connecticut’s available funding is put to the best possible use,” Shubert said. “The sooner we get the projects going, the sooner we create jobs.”

But both major party candidates, Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Republican Tom Foley, have said they won’t increase taxes, so how would the coalition propose paying for the transportation improvements?

Lyle Wray, executive director of the Capitol Region Council of Governments, said as long as the money goes into projects people can see, then he thinks the public would support a tax increase.

“The issue for us in terms of dealing with an uncertain future, is having a broader conversation on tolls, I hate to say it, but sales and other taxes as long as the money goes directly to projects people can see we can have a conversation.” Wray said. “If it wanders off and goes to other places, the public is lost.”

But there are already more than $10 billion in projects on the Transportation Department’s Unfundable list.

Can the candidates make the promise of improving transportation with an expiration of federal highway funding scheduled to happen in May if Congress fails to act and without increasing any state taxes?

Shubert said Connecticut does have legislation, which allows for public-private partnerships in improving infrastructure, but beyond that there’s few options aside from raising taxes or implementing tolls.

“I don’t think there are any other options out there right now that are viable,” Shubert said.

He said the governor has three choices when it comes to funding transportation. He can pursue private funding, wait and see what Congress does next year, stop transportation projects, or find money to fund the projects.

At the moment the Connecticut Transportation Department has billions of dollars of unfunded projects.

However, Burnska pointed out that the first item on the coalition’s agenda was to use all the money the state currently has earmarked for transportation, which wouldn’t require an increase in taxes. The second item on the coalition’s agenda was to expedite how projects are completed.

“That’s not asking for more money. That’s being more efficient in how projects are delivered, so maybe those are the first two things to get going as the next governor faces reviewing how we will deal with the projected funding shortfall from the feds,” Burnska said.

The coalition said they plan to call the candidates shortly to try and schedule a debate on transportation.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(6) Comments

posted by: cttruck | August 19, 2014  3:07pm

The people of Connecticut do not trust their government to use highway user fees for transportation projects.  Giving the Government more money will not make them trust more.  Before we even start to talk about tolls, this state needs to join the 27 or more other states that protect, in their Constitutions, their transportation funds from governors and legislators who can’t keep their sticky fingers off of those funds

posted by: Sarah Darer Littman | August 19, 2014  3:39pm

I had to get my daughter to a doctor’s appt in New Haven yesterday afternoon. Left well over an hour to get there, and we were still late. Both Merritt and I-95 were cluster*cks. As a freelancer, I turn down work in upper Fairfield County unless it’s really well paid because the traffic makes it not worth it otherwise. I don’t go to events I’d otherwise consider attending in the evening because I can’t face sitting in traffic for two hours just get get there.

posted by: Fisherman | August 19, 2014  8:31pm

“the public quickly reached what would become known as the O’Neill Point, and their alternatives included protesting for the removal of all tolls, and driving the secondary roads which paralleled the highways. In particular, traffic along Route 1 came to a standstill; as it quickly filled to capacity with drivers who refused to pay the new price. Connecticut wisely pronounced last-rites for its highway tolls in 1985, when all were removed”.

Did we learn NOTHING?

Reynolds, Burnska and Wray are either way too young, or way too naïve thinking that: a) the legislature won’t re-purpose the money if it’s needed for other purposes and, b) tolls are not taxes.

posted by: dano860 | August 20, 2014  6:32am

This is nothing but a subtle play at keeping life long road jobs going for the unions. The 84 mess through Waterbury alone is testament to that.
The taxes collected today from gas alone would serve the needs.
Tolls will change the Fed reimbursement and create another beauricatic agency. They will expouse the ” fast” drive through electronic collection but if you travel to N.H. you will see that they have a large number of booths too. Not everyone will have the transponders.
Tolls will significantly alter the traffic on local roads also. The people that work just over the borders will do the drive around instead of paying daily.
There would be no guarantee that the funds would be dedicated to the highways and roads. In 10 or 15 years things will get caught up and the money will continue to pile up. They won’t keep their hands off of it.
Tolls would need a sunset date applied but our legislators are great at skirting those too.
Remember this, the income tax was a ‘temporary’ tax….thank the original flip flopper for that one…Loser Lowell!

posted by: art vandelay | August 20, 2014  6:40am

art vandelay

The “Transit for Connecticut” coalition would be a nonentity had the ten cent per gallon tax imposted by Governor O’Neill had not been transferred into the general fund.  Two special taxes were instituted after the Stratford Toll & Mianis River Bridge disasters occurred.  Had those funds not been raided, Connecticut would have the funds necessary to build & maintain our highways.  There is NOTHING to prevent the legislature from raiding proposed tolls and more taxes to fund future projects.  These advocates have pipe dreams.  The unions are behind this only because it creates more “TEMPORARY” jobs.  The only logical way to resolve this issue is to re-direct all gas & gross receipts taxes from the general fund back into the transportation fund.  It’s the only way.  NO TOLLS PLEASE!

posted by: dano860 | August 20, 2014  9:13am

NEWSFLASH!!
1947, Public Act 148 raised the gas tax from .03 per gallon to .04. These funds are to be dedicated to funding highway construction in the State.
It has been raided numerous times since then.
Didn’t believe it would stay dedicated then and don’t believe it now!