Robert Hale

If finalized, these purchases would be two of the most wasteful that The Connecticut Department of Transportation has ever made

A well-run rail company buys rail cars that are safe, efficient, and fit demand at the best possible price. For Connecticut local train service, the state needs off-the-shelf trains to keep costs down. Quick acceleration is also crucial, particularly for the steep, curvy rail lines that connect Connecticut’s inland communities with the New Haven Line. As it stands, the state plans to acquire an inappropriate rail car.

Connecticut’s citizens deserve fast, reliable, and practical rail service along the state’s rail lines. The Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) has made strong public statements committing to improve rail service not just on the main line, but also on the diesel branch lines serving Danbury, Waterbury, and the I-91 corridor. Delivering on its promises will require purchasing new trains designed to modern standards.

At an August 13 press conference on Union Station retail, the only specific transportation item discussed by Richard Andreski of Connecticut DOT was his agency’s plans for a second parking garage. This was supposedly a conference on transit-oriented development! These latest comments add to a long line of episodes showcasing a stubborn bias toward automobiles and a disregard for competent delivery of mass transit service or construction projects.

Connecticut officials claimed last month that the Hartford Line has been a “resounding success.” Examination of the facts on the ground, however, shows that the service, while a welcome addition to the lacking repertoire of “Knowledge Corridor” mobility options, leaves much to be desired. It’s time we change that by learning from others.

As much attention as I and others have lavished on trains, buses are the overlooked transportation workhorse of greater New Haven. Buses already supply over 40,000 trips a day in the area and could supply a lot more if the state implements its own years-old plan.

For too long, state policy has treated traffic as a liquid: there is a fixed number of drivers and a fixed number of transit users. We know, however, that traffic behaves more like a gas; investment in highways and parking induces more driving. Conversely, full-throated investment in transit combined with frequent, high-quality operations spurs people to use it. Our transportation decisions need to start reflecting that.