Can Rail Save Connecticut’s Cities?
by Kimberly Primicerio | February 20, 2009 3:12 PM
Posted to Transportation
Transportation experts tried to answer this question and many others Friday afternoon at the University of Connecticut Law School in Hartford.
Inviting a rail system into the state would save on energy costs, pollution, and would revive the cities, said Tom Condon, moderator for the event and columnist for The Hartford Courant. Condon has written extensively about planning and transit issues.
“We live in a completely auto dominated society, and it is deteriorating our cities,” Condon said.
Department of Transportation Commissioner Joseph Marie used a Power Point presentation to explain the different types of rail systems that have benefited cities across the nation. He said that light rail uses street cars that are applicable to dense urban centers and which make stops about every 90 seconds. Heavy rail, as seen in Boston and New York, are subways and tend to travel longer distances between stops.
Since 1984 there have been 18 light rail systems developed across North America, he said. Cities like Dallas, Denver, Portland, and Salt Lake City have all established light rail systems and have seen them grow over the years.
Transit development can offer new business and job opportunities, he said.
Marie doesn’t think rail can save Connecticut, but he said “it can sure help a lot.”
Norman Garrick, director at the center for transportation and urban planning at the University of Connecticut, put more pressure on the state’s cities, asking whether the state’s metropolitan areas can “save Connecticut.”
Garrick said the state needs to restore form and function to its rail system. Garrick said that the state has allowed tracks to decay, but that at they can be refurbished.
“Rail can restore the centrality of cities,” Garrick said. “But — and it’s a big ‘but,’ — in too many places rail is treated as an appendage to highway systems. Rail is just an extension to cars.”
Garrick explained that the state lives in a car-based environment and asked what good is transit if everyone drives to get on the train?
“We need to create a train station that is part of the city,” Garrick said.
State Rep. David McCluskey, D-West Hartford, said rail can save Connecticut but people in the freight rail industry need to make proposals to revitalize lines.
McCluskey said he was happy to see support for transportation and a rail system gaining momentum at the legislature. He added that he would like to see a more easily accessible rail line connect Hartford to New York and Boston, but he said the transformation to rail can not be something done town by town.
“We need to work collaboratively to build transportation,” McCluskey said.
Comments (4)
Posted by: Dazodiak | February 21, 2009 1:25 PM
I really think that's a fine idea. Hartford seems to be so disconnected from Boston and NY. This issue has been talked about for many years, but nothing ever happens.
Posted by: CT Libertarian | February 22, 2009 5:58 AM
There are many problems with light rail. The large amount of sunk costs is one - Creating the infrastructure is very expensive. And once in place, the system is relatively inflexible. What if it turns out that demand for routes is growing in an unexpected area? You don't get a do-over. And, do we want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating a spoke and wheel rail system to a city which both people and businesses have been fleeing for decades?
Further, several studies have shown the light rail fails Cost Benefit Analysis tests (see www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/rs9f/pe/2007/seattle_light_rail.ppt or http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-4Raju.pdf).
Mass transit may have its merits, but light rail is a dubious proposition.
Posted by: smogwagon | February 23, 2009 2:01 PM
CT Libertarian,
Just curious -
how is a six lane highway "flexible"? I haven't seen any Connecticut highways relocated lately - some of them have become bigger and uglier, but the state hasn't moved any of them... How does enriching middle eastern despots (the House of Saud) pass the "cost-benefit" test? Does rail transit cause tens of thousands of deaths and cause massive air and noise pollution? Do suburban commuters pay for the use of roads or the environmental damage that they cause in Hartford or New Haven? In addition, New York, Boston and San Francisco have the highest property values in the entire country and they are all mass transit dependent. Even the "gold coast" towns of CT, Greenwich, Darien, etc. would not have anywhere near their value without the rail link to Manhattan.
Posted by: Ron DeGray | February 23, 2009 10:26 PM
Consider the following reference:
PBS NOW program on "Stimulus Roadblock?" which talked about Charlotte, NC mass transit on Feb. 13th; http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/507/index.html
for further discussion.