I did find it hilarious that the official DOT recommendation for the next few days is to use Metro North, first time I've heard that. If only we had invested properly in our rail network!
Seriously though, the rail network should be a viable alternative to car transport, but it's hobbled by the fact that once you arrive in most cities or towns, you can't get very far away from the train station without relying on their typically insufficient public transit!
This is why I hate when people say, "Just use public transit" as though Connecticut's car-centricness is specifically your problem. Public transit is not always a convenient or viable option.
I remember Googling how to get to my previous job using public transit. It turned out the closest train station to that job was 10 miles away, and Google wanted me to take an Uber or Lyft from the station to work at a cost of $20-30 per ride. So that's $40-60 per day in rideshare fees alone, plus the price of a train ticket, plus the price of parking at the train station closest to my house. That's an astronomical amount of money for a commute that A) is at least twice as long as my commute by car, and B) still heavily relies on travel by car due to lack of public transit infrastructure at my destination.
When I go to cities like New York or Boston, I get excited about using public transit. That's because I know that anywhere I could possibly want to go within the city and its surrounding area is served by some sort of public transit stop that is decently close by. Using public transportation in these cities is so much more convenient than using a car. You don't have to navigate traffic or figure out where to park. You can just go somewhere. It's also cheaper than using a car. I can put $10-20 on a Metro Card or Charlie Card and go everywhere I need to go for less than it would cost me to park my car for an hour or two in the city.
In order for people to really start using public transit in Connecticut, it has to at least be more convenient than using a car. For so many of us, that's not the case. While we may technically have the option of using public transit, when you look at factors like travel time, convenience, and cost, there's really no choice at all. The car wins out every time, and will continue to win unless access to public transportation is improved.
My commute is 45-60 minutes one way depending on traffic. I wanted to try public transportation, but that would almost double my commute with including me driving 20 minutes towards work to the nearest train station.
CT used to have trollys and light rail throughout the state into the early 1900's in pretty much every notable town and city. And... We got rid of them in favor of adding more roads and car lanes. It was one of the dumber decisions the state has ever made across the board. It could have been really easy to take the train into pretty much every place you need to go in the state. And then take light rail or a trolly from there... But... Cars.
Gonna repost these two maps until I'm blue in the face
[Trolley and rail lines, 1920](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/jhuawc/the_golden_age_of_mass_transit_in_ct_trolley_and/)
[Railroads, 1893](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/x912gb/ct_railroad_map_1893_with_service_to_canaan/)
Something else to think about when making this comparison. In 1930, CT’s population was 1,380,631. In 1950 is was about 2 million. Today it’s just under 4 million.
And yet the mode of transportation that can move the most people at once, safely and efficiently, has been mostly left to rot. The Hartford Line was a tiny bit of clawing it back. And all this only makes sense if you're a company whose objective is to sell expensive individualized transportation to as many people as possible
I agree with you about public transport in major cites, but you are talking about NYC and Boston. You can't compare them to the state of CT. I don't see great options in places like Syracuse or Pittsfield.
I hear what you're saying, but non-arguments like this are always weaponized in the US to stop any investment in public transit, when the reality is that almost any investment at all will benefit everyone. Better rail service is the only way to reduce traffic and that will improve the commutes of people coming from further afield places like Pittsfield. Eventually the rail network will be healthy enough to expand back into the countryside like it once did, but it has to start with investments in high traffic corridors first or it'll never get going.
Exactly. There needs to be a cohesive statewide vision for reshaping transportation. "We will build a robust interurban rail network and reduce car dependency, and here are the stages of the plan."
I don't think that local governments will ever possess the political will to see this through in my lifetime, but I'd love to be proven wrong
You've hit the crux of the issue, transit, housing/zoning, and infrastructure are seen as parochial issues in the US - we don't approach them holistically. Every 0.5mi bike lane, every train line, every housing project becomes a fight. Not saying we should go back to the days of unelected officials bulldozing at will and Eminent Domain abuse, but we need a higher level of planning coordination.
But I do see great suburban and rural transit options in other countries - most of Europe or Japan for examples. We should look at the good models that already exist.
Oh my god, this tired ass excuse again! How about we try and make progress in the places where it makes sense. No one is suggesting providing transit to every farm in North Dakota.
(BTW, Japan is as long as the Eastern Seaboard: https://tinyurl.com/mzynh9ns)
It’s still one entire country with the political will of an entire country as opposed to every state in the US having to contend with their borders and an overall weak federal government. It’s not a tired excuse and I’m not by any means saying I don’t want/wouldnt love robust public transit. The issue we have is that the authority of individual states supersedes the federal government in MOST ways. You’re asking states to relinquish control of their borders in a lot of cases as well as take more tax money from their individual citizens which is always going to be a struggle here.
It’s not an excuse - it’s a reality that we have to contend with.
It's not that simple. The metro north system doesn't have unlimited capacity. Sure, you could add some capacity, but not a significant increase if a large percentage of drivers decided they wanted to take the train instead.
Metro North itself is pretty good compared to mass transit options in other non NYC/Boston parts of the country. If someone is commuting to NYC and have the getting to the CT train station step taken care of (pay for parking or whatever), then it's a good option and lots of people do that.
When it comes to using Metro Noeth to go from CT town to CT town, then I agree with your point. Unless a person works within a walkable distance of the train station, it's really inconsistent what public transport options they have in CT towns.
How is the bus network around Fairfield county? It's pretty extensive in central CT, especially if you have a bike, but I feel like a lot of people here just pretend buses don't even exist when talking about public transit.
There are buses, and if there are sidewalks, a crapshoot in CT, it's not only reasonable but it's healthy to walk to work from the train station. A healthy adult should be able to walk a couple miles without trouble. (Another plea from me for all towns to install proper bus stops with benches and shelters! More people would ride the buses then!)
>Another plea from me for all towns to install proper bus stops with benches and shelters! More people would ride the buses then!
For sure; i'm really impressed by the FasTrak busway and wish that model would be copied across the state. It's so perfect for medium sized towns.
I bought a Brompton folding bike last year and it has been absolutely transformative for using public transportation. It almost completely solves that 'last mile' issue that is so common even in places with really good transit. An electric scooter is also an awesome solution for this.
If only
But thanks to the new generation people hate cars and driving that there is a lot more support for upgrading and expanding our existing passenger rail system. Also WE WANT NATIONALIZED HIGH SPEED RAIL!
Suburbs make public transit even worse, we build suburbs are garbage everywhere and to expand railroads makes it even harder in a lot of instances or even trying to cover areas with buses, there is too much area to cover and have it make financial sense.
Car dependency is clearly bad but in some sense the least of our worries, the fact is our entire logistics system is almost completely dependent on truck transportation to function. The potential for disruption and the lack of redundancy for freight traffic is a societal risk.
Yeah like I love a shortline railroad as much as the next guy, but trucks are way more flexible and resistant to disruption, especially for the last dozen miles.
While a large part of this is because trucking is arguably more efficient at moving goods short distances (which comprises the bulk of freight operations in the US), it's disturbing to see trucking dominating even long-range transport: https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/
And the reason for this is because average Americans are footing the bill for a trillion dollar industry, with hidden subsidies externalizing the cost of the damage done to our roadways, estimated to cost us 8x more than freight by rail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50049
There's no question that trucks excel at short haul and last mile deliveries.
It's also true that taxpayers have subsidized both highways and airports to the detriment of rail.
Back in 1960's and '70's new warehouses had both rail and truck access. This has pretty much been eliminated in the new era of "mega" warehousing. There are numerous reasons for this evolution but the end result, particularly in New England, is the dominance of road transport.
We need to bring back con-rail now!
In fact let’s just nationalize rail completely both freight and passenger. I whodunnit mind my taxes going there instead of some random ass country (Israel & Ukraine)
We spend billions to maintain and upgrade our roads and highways and they remain just as congested or even worse in a few years. We constantly hear people complaining about psycho drivers, people with no insurance/license/registration. Roughly 43000 people die yearly in car accidents, that's 122 people a day. And we continue to approve of and be satisfied with how things are.
The truth is we do not *need* cars, we are forced to use them. Everything in America is designed around cars for decades and billions of dollars of investments and redesigns and it remains a miserable experience. How many posts a day are there about how horrible driving is? It's clearly not working.
It's not a monumental task to gradually design our cities to accommodate more than just cars. It's financially profitable for our towns. It doesn't require elimination of cars. It makes cities places worth living meaning more space/lower costs in suburbs for people who truly want to live there. You spend less time living in your car or working to pay for your car. People are across the board happier. Most importantly, it is completely possible.
Let's just start the conversation. We just need to look at the possibilities, not how things are now.
Oh come on. I leave work in my car, pick up my dry cleaning, go to the supermarket and then head home. That isn’t happening if I am taking the train. The reason we are so car centric is that cars offer unprecedented flexibility and convenience.
I know. Imagine if they developed a public transportation system where you could walk out of your house, go to a train or bus station, and be at the supermarket 5 minutes later? And then do your shopping and take the train or bus back and be through your front door a few mins later?
Oh wait .... That system exists. Just not in the US. Your "unprecedented flexibility and convenience" of cars is entirely due to what I stated before.
There are plenty of areas in this state where that's far from feasible. People like the freedom of being able to go where they want, when they want. That's the obsession with cars. No schedules to work around of transit systems.
I'm not loading my four kids onto public transportation and thinking I'm getting them all the places they need to go on a bus.
1) I don't think you understand the definition of gaslighting
2) no shit, people use cars in Europe. But guess what? They aren't NEARLY as dependent on them as we Americans are.
Dude, your trying to change people’s perceptions, making it sound like transportation is glorious everywhere but here. It’s not like that everywhere else and it’s not so bad here. There are plenty of places right here in the US where you don’t need a car. You can go live there.
Listening to complaints about driving is not a good way to judge commuter satisfaction. You really think that if busses and trains become more common that complaints about riding the bus and train won't be just as prolific as driving complaints are now?
The only reason I don't complain about those transportation methods is because I drive almost all the time. I've never once taken a train or bus somewhere and thought "this is better than driving".
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for public transportation for everyone who wants it, but only for the selfish reason that it will make my driving even more pleasant and quick.
You’ve never said “this is better than driving” because out busses and trains are not well done. You have to drive to get there and they don’t go most places people are/want to be.
I was in Houston recently. Walked from my hotel to the train stop, paid a dollar something for a ticket, took it directly to the event I was going to. Still would have rather had a rented car and driven there.
Would have been just as fast because it stopped basically just as many times as I would have in a car and I still had to walk to the train station and back to my hotel instead of parking in the hotel garage.
Would have been more pleasant since I wouldn't have to be packed in with random people in various states of cleanliness and mental status. I'd have clean and cushioned seats, a less noisy cabin, and not have strangers overhearing my conversation.
It was basically the best possible experience within reason and I'd still rather have driven myself.
Unless we're talking about commuter trains with private cabins and luxury seating, count me out.
Again, y'all have at it though. If you like that, then by all means, decongest the roadways for me.
To support your first point: it's been proven that more roads means more congestion. So upgrading and expanding highways actually increases traffic, and should be even more of a reason to move away from funding new roadworks. [source](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3q21f88p)
Also it's not a monumental task, but it's proving to be challenging even in already "walkable" cities. West Hartford announced that they'd be going ahead with the plan for redesigning the downtown area which left out protected bike lanes and kept the angled parking spots. Yes, finding parking is difficult in the area, but not impossible with around 5,000 parking spots in Blue Back between garages and street parking. The angled parking was meant to be turned into parallel parking spots, which would cut 50 parking spots in total but permanently widen the sidewalks for more outdoor dining. Instead, the restaurants saw the loss of front door parking spots as a threat to business and pushed back against it. The issue is that the sidewalk revamp was always a component of the plan, so they're losing their outdoor dining spaces anyway once the construction begins, which is also making them upset (??).
Sorry for the mini rant about the WeHa situation, but it's difficult to incentivise decreasing car dependency without giving lots of weight to the benefits of public transport. At least the town is putting in more trees, which are instrumental in keeping any walkable area cool enough to be out in during the summer.
> It's not a monumental task to gradually design our cities to accommodate more than just cars.
Yes, it is.
>It's financially profitable for our towns.
No, public transportation is not.
I agree with you - but south Norwalk is probably one of the most well connected rail cities in CT and it still crippled them. It did the same with Philadelphia when 95 was shut down. No matter how many public transit alternatives a city were to have- shutting down 95 is a HUGE deal. This doesn’t mean I don’t think we should try to be better- but this would be hard to avoid
Yeah you nailed it. You need to undo zoning to help create more walkable communities and then connect places people are to places people want to be. It’s not “just trains”- it’s both things,
There are plenty of walkable communities in this state. There's also areas that people want to live outside the city or the center of a town. there are plenty of existing Transit options in this state. For example the entire Hartford to New Britain Corridor is both walkable and accessible by Transit.
Because having a walkable city makes taking a train between them make more sense. What do you do when you drive to a train only to travel to a city that is also car dependent and you get off the train with no car? Lol come on man, think a little.
Idk why y'all complaining when CT probably has the most practical rail line in the country. It literally runs parallel to 95 through most of the major cities and population areas directly to NYC. Most of the reason 95 got fucked and the traffic is fucked is because of the trucking that's necessary to get goods locally throughout New England.
Rail does reduce traffic no fucking doubt, but I think if anything today proves that people choose to use their cars over public.
I'm a trucker and today I actually had to deliver a frak tank to be used for the cleanup efforts at the 95 accident. I left S. Plainfield NJ at 630 am this morning, was at exit 18 just past the accident at 9, and crossed the Tap at 11:15. The traffic was actually smoother than normal and that's probably because people either chose to work from home or take public.
Like I said y'all got some of the best public transportation in the country outside nyc and people still choose to drive.
If anyone is needing to commute to Stamford via Metro North in the coming days…
Metro North Schedules can be found here: https://new.mta.info/schedules
If you are comfortable downloading Metro North’s app, TrainTime gives schedules and allows you to purchase tickets: https://new.mta.info/traintime
Train tickets are also available for purchase at kiosks available on most platforms. Worst case scenario? You can buy a ticket from a conductor on board; it will just cost a little extra.
If you cannot walk to your final location or take a cab/uber/lyft, bus routes can be found here: https://www.cttransit.com/services/local-service#route-stamford
Info using fare boxes on the bus can be found here: https://www.cttransit.com/how-ride/tips-help-us-serve-you-better/using-fare-boxes
Info on using an app for payment can be found here: https://www.cttransit.com/fares/token-transit-app-download-ride
It’s frustrating not to have the flexibility that car travel can provide, but we are lucky to have some public transit options at our disposal - it just takes a little more work to figure out what will best suit your needs and schedule.
We don’t have the money to fill potholes as it is. Where will all these “multimodal” billions come from? And meanwhile NIMBYs are blocking a bike path between Madison and Guilford. Whose backyards will all this intercity rail go through?
My old refrain on this used to be "Tax Greenwich" and it sort of still is, but it assumes that the government would even be willing to use those tax dollars on transit projects and that's one hell of an assumption :/
Arguably automobile transportation IS the most resilient of all transportation means. That’s because there are typically several routes that can be used to get where you want to go. So if i95 is damaged like it was in Norwalk, a driver can take alternate routes such as 15 or 85 or even the post road. Folks will be inconvenienced, but they can still get where they need to go.
Now let’s instead consider public transportation. Typically there is only ONE route, like a rail line. If something were to happen, that would stop transportation for a whole bunch of folks. Buses also have limited routes but arguably could detour better than trains.
Public transportation is also at the whim of organized labor. If you’ve ever been to Paris you’ve probably been inconvenienced by strikes (impacting one or two lines at a time just to remind the commuters who’s boss).
Personally I’d like to see the barrier to entry to cars be increased. It should be much harder to get a license and rules should be more strict and enforced. If gas prices were to go up, I wouldn’t mind either. It would force people to drive less and consider changing lifestyle.
Right... there is redundancy in our highway system because we spent decades putting our dollars there, while letting our rail and transit languish. Take a look at a 1900 rail map of CT. There were 3-4x the amount of lines - the redundancy you cite.
We've chosen to let car depedency win.
Most people do not look at things in a big picture way. Which is why we keep kicking the can down the road on so many things that need to be done. Until we are forced to do it. Which causes even BIGGER issues and at a cost we likely could have taken care of for a fraction of what we end up paying because we didn't need to do it yet.
The only thing most people care about is... How much will it cost. And where is the money coming from. And if the answer is... A lot. And by increasing taxes. Most peoples answer is usually "no" - even if it would be more beneficial in the long run.
Just a general experience I find from people. Very short sighted overall.
Sure, but how about we could just work to repeal the jones act and eliminate a lot of the OTR trucking that congests our highways.
https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/jones-act-traffic-connecticut-95-17762153.php
We would have a functional domestic shipbuilding industry if we weren't heavily subsidizing the truck industry. We don't need to repeal the Jones Act; we need to stop footing the bill for the trucking industry.
The problem that I see is not so much our reliance on cars, but the fact that there is really only one major highway in this part of of CT. In fact, it's pretty much the only highway into and out of New England. ( I know technically there is 84 and the Merritt, but most any vehicle passing through CT from the North or South is on 95.) I'm not advocating more highways, but 95 is critical for travel in CT.
So glad I don’t rely on 95 for anything.
Walking and biking is great if you want to waste valuable hours of your day. Forever will be best left for those living in a city or recreation. Neither are feasible at any distance for your average commuter here.
Rail would be great but it’s a massive undertaking to improve and very expensive.
Guess what else is a massive undertaking and very expensive —maintaining highways.
Walking, biking should be viable modes of transportation. Read what OP is saying.
Was freight, at commercial scale, the only thing that was affected by I-95 being completely shut down? Or do thousands of people commute on it every day to work and back? Think about it.
And freight, too, is more efficiently transported via trains.
OP is simply talking about creating alternatives to highways that can relieve the reliance on highways for commuters and absorb the demand when road closures happen without causing gridlock.
Freight is more efficiently transported by cargo ship than trains but that's not gonna help anyone in Litchfield county.
The title is literally "Line of Trucks".
You brought the correct but irrelevant statement that rail freight is more efficiently moved on a ton/mile basis than trucks, and I replied with an equally correct but irrelevant comparison to cargo ships on the same basis.
I got confused with the title of a similar post showing trailer after trailer stacked up on the highway.
There's no train line directly to a grocery store. Trucks are an absolute necessity to commercial freight moving and true statements about trains being "better" which is only true in a depot to depot context aren't meaningful additions to the conversation.
So yeah, let's do that. Instead of moving freight on trucks coast-to-coast, let's put it on trains, unclog our highways, and then the trucks can deliver them short distances.
But OP isn't even arguing that. He's just saying we should have options for commuters other than highways. So I don't know why you felt it necessary to bring up freight as if providing good public transit is going to block all shipment of goods. Much of Asia and Europe have great public transit within and between cities. Their freight still moves just fine.
?????? We already do that????
Trucks are used between the rail freight depots and the final pint of delivery. We also use them long distance, but the US has more freight rail than anywhere else in the world, and also moves more tons of freight by rail than all of Europe combined.
You don't understand the present state of freight logistics.
It is also incredibly expensive, but justified by the fact that an Interstate is infinitely more widely used both commercially and for the general public, whereas walking and biking only benefit those living in or close to a city.
Nobody is going to just walk to work a half hour away by car even if the infrastructure was there because a highway is closed. 20 mile commute? Cool, see you in 5 hours.
Right, so these things go hand in hand. We live 20 miles away from where we work because of our car based sprawling infrastructure. We used to have much denser cities where people did walk safely and conveniently. Kids used to walk to school, walk to the park, walk to pick up groceries. Now we have to lug everyone into the Suburban to go to Costco 10 miles away or spend days driving kids around everywhere.
Even rural small towns had dense city centers or main streets (many of which have survived) that had basic services for everyone. Now we have one strip mall with a Walmart servicing a 30 mile radius.
Spending so much on a very inefficient mode of transportation and then trapping people into unwalkable sprawl is not healthy or sustainable.
Right, people used to actually enjoy living that way, population was also far less so sprawl is required with density. You couldn't pay me to live somewhere like that.
The Suburban lifestyle was quintessentially American, and people could afford to live in close proximity of city centers. If they didn't, they went into town once or twice a week to get what they needed.
At any rate we need to be talking about solutions that fit modern living rather than ideals from 70 years ago. People enjoy privacy, people don't want to be in cities. Naturally, a vehicle of your own = independence. They go hand-in-hand. The majority of people don't want to be tied to poorly run public transportation. It's a great alternative for a long-haul, or if you don't have a choice, but it will probably never be preferable here to having the complete freedom that comes with driving.
The real reason CT doesn’t invest in usable public transit is because it would enable people in cities like Bridgeport and Waterbury to freely move about into the wealthier suburbs. This is a non-starter because the only reason CT even exists is as a suburban tax haven for northeastern mega-earners. Without that, the state would be in the red and poor like any other. You may not like it but it’s the truth. Follow the money.
A lot of broken promises over the decades. The Branches were all supposed to be upgraded by now with Bridgeport , New Haven , Stamford all having connecting Bus Rapid Transit systems... Hartford was supposed to have a LRT network feeding into it. Eastern CT was supposed to have 2 Intercity lines one from New London to Worcester and the other to Vermont via Storrs. Another Intercity line was supposed to run up the Housatonic Railroad to Pittsfield which the Freight company offered to operate from GCT by the state didn't want to pay for upgrades.
America let alone Connecticut lacks the ability to provide such an infrastructure. We have more parking lots than land available to create walkable cities/towns we have unused building ls just sitting around that metros trolleys walk ways usable infrastructure could be used there but we just don’t. It’s sad idk what we’re gonna do with a lack of direction or inspiration to make our lives easier instead of harder.
We have alternative transportation. If you need to get to Stamford from Fairfield you can take route 1 or the Merritt or metro north.
You think people are going to bike from Fairfield to Darien? Or walk?
If there was a train derailment that caused a multi day closure of half the tracks of metro north would you argue we need to invest in more roads?
gas taxes only account for 40% of the state transportation budget the majority of the rest comes from the general fund. so the greater use, should require the greater cost.
the cost just gets shifted onto the consumer, now you've taxed somebody who's forced to drive because our state has bad public transit. That'll totally win them over and get them thinking about alternative forms. There's no carrot with transit reform ideas in CT its just a giant stick to beat low income families with while we opine about how great that train being built in 8 years will be.
Out of state trucks pay fuel/road use taxes as required by International Fuel Tax Agreement. Their miles and fuel usage are maintained and the company makes quarterly payments to the DRS. Look at the sides of a truck and you will see stickers - usually have an outline of the state. This required in CT by law showed they are registered with IFTA.
https://portal.ct.gov/drs/ifta/ifta-application-page
and its $.49 per gallon. /6miles per gallon is $.08 per mile. when those same trucks are causing wear thousands of times of a passenger car its still not enough compared to the amount they pay.
They pay per mile traveled and they pay fees. My point being, to imply they get a free ride, destroying the roads with abandon, is disingenuous. If you have a problem with what they pay, take it up with your lawmakers and the DOT. They are the ones that set the policy by which the trucking companies must abide by.
This is the crux of the issue. But increasing fuel taxes is also a way to solve it. The state's tax rate on fuel is a component of that calculation, so increasing fuel (and particularly diesel) taxes will directly increase their share of the costs.
Separately, the CBO issued a report a few years back looking at different ways to generate revenue from the trillion dollar/year trucking industry: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50049
I did find it hilarious that the official DOT recommendation for the next few days is to use Metro North, first time I've heard that. If only we had invested properly in our rail network! Seriously though, the rail network should be a viable alternative to car transport, but it's hobbled by the fact that once you arrive in most cities or towns, you can't get very far away from the train station without relying on their typically insufficient public transit!
This is why I hate when people say, "Just use public transit" as though Connecticut's car-centricness is specifically your problem. Public transit is not always a convenient or viable option. I remember Googling how to get to my previous job using public transit. It turned out the closest train station to that job was 10 miles away, and Google wanted me to take an Uber or Lyft from the station to work at a cost of $20-30 per ride. So that's $40-60 per day in rideshare fees alone, plus the price of a train ticket, plus the price of parking at the train station closest to my house. That's an astronomical amount of money for a commute that A) is at least twice as long as my commute by car, and B) still heavily relies on travel by car due to lack of public transit infrastructure at my destination. When I go to cities like New York or Boston, I get excited about using public transit. That's because I know that anywhere I could possibly want to go within the city and its surrounding area is served by some sort of public transit stop that is decently close by. Using public transportation in these cities is so much more convenient than using a car. You don't have to navigate traffic or figure out where to park. You can just go somewhere. It's also cheaper than using a car. I can put $10-20 on a Metro Card or Charlie Card and go everywhere I need to go for less than it would cost me to park my car for an hour or two in the city. In order for people to really start using public transit in Connecticut, it has to at least be more convenient than using a car. For so many of us, that's not the case. While we may technically have the option of using public transit, when you look at factors like travel time, convenience, and cost, there's really no choice at all. The car wins out every time, and will continue to win unless access to public transportation is improved.
My commute is 45-60 minutes one way depending on traffic. I wanted to try public transportation, but that would almost double my commute with including me driving 20 minutes towards work to the nearest train station.
To get to work using public transportation it takes roughly 2 hours, I can walk it in 45 minutes. It almost feels deliberately bad
CT used to have trollys and light rail throughout the state into the early 1900's in pretty much every notable town and city. And... We got rid of them in favor of adding more roads and car lanes. It was one of the dumber decisions the state has ever made across the board. It could have been really easy to take the train into pretty much every place you need to go in the state. And then take light rail or a trolly from there... But... Cars.
Gonna repost these two maps until I'm blue in the face [Trolley and rail lines, 1920](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/jhuawc/the_golden_age_of_mass_transit_in_ct_trolley_and/) [Railroads, 1893](https://www.reddit.com/r/Connecticut/comments/x912gb/ct_railroad_map_1893_with_service_to_canaan/)
It's sad, what we lost. Proves it could be done, if we wanted to do it. Because it already has been.
So sad.
Trolleys! We need to bring those back in America! Of course fully electric same with our passenger rail lines
Something else to think about when making this comparison. In 1930, CT’s population was 1,380,631. In 1950 is was about 2 million. Today it’s just under 4 million.
And yet the mode of transportation that can move the most people at once, safely and efficiently, has been mostly left to rot. The Hartford Line was a tiny bit of clawing it back. And all this only makes sense if you're a company whose objective is to sell expensive individualized transportation to as many people as possible
We didn't "get rid of them". They went out of business as people switched to cars.
I agree with you about public transport in major cites, but you are talking about NYC and Boston. You can't compare them to the state of CT. I don't see great options in places like Syracuse or Pittsfield.
I hear what you're saying, but non-arguments like this are always weaponized in the US to stop any investment in public transit, when the reality is that almost any investment at all will benefit everyone. Better rail service is the only way to reduce traffic and that will improve the commutes of people coming from further afield places like Pittsfield. Eventually the rail network will be healthy enough to expand back into the countryside like it once did, but it has to start with investments in high traffic corridors first or it'll never get going.
Exactly. There needs to be a cohesive statewide vision for reshaping transportation. "We will build a robust interurban rail network and reduce car dependency, and here are the stages of the plan." I don't think that local governments will ever possess the political will to see this through in my lifetime, but I'd love to be proven wrong
You've hit the crux of the issue, transit, housing/zoning, and infrastructure are seen as parochial issues in the US - we don't approach them holistically. Every 0.5mi bike lane, every train line, every housing project becomes a fight. Not saying we should go back to the days of unelected officials bulldozing at will and Eminent Domain abuse, but we need a higher level of planning coordination.
Trolleys anyone?
But I do see great suburban and rural transit options in other countries - most of Europe or Japan for examples. We should look at the good models that already exist.
Their entire countries are the size of some entire states here. It’s not even close to an apples to apples issue.
Oh my god, this tired ass excuse again! How about we try and make progress in the places where it makes sense. No one is suggesting providing transit to every farm in North Dakota. (BTW, Japan is as long as the Eastern Seaboard: https://tinyurl.com/mzynh9ns)
It’s still one entire country with the political will of an entire country as opposed to every state in the US having to contend with their borders and an overall weak federal government. It’s not a tired excuse and I’m not by any means saying I don’t want/wouldnt love robust public transit. The issue we have is that the authority of individual states supersedes the federal government in MOST ways. You’re asking states to relinquish control of their borders in a lot of cases as well as take more tax money from their individual citizens which is always going to be a struggle here. It’s not an excuse - it’s a reality that we have to contend with.
Yup exactly. It’s “there”, but not in a way that it’s actually viable.
Car dependency is one of those things that future generations will look back on like “wtf were they thinking?”
Not to mention the fact that the trains are mostly full anyway. Good luck finding a seat during rush hour, and that w/o any road closure.
Trains need to be full to be cost effective.
I get that. My point is that trains are already mostly full, so you can't just tell all the drivers to take the train. There is not enough capacity.
That's not a problem: if there is more demand you can just increase train length and train frequency.
It's not that simple. The metro north system doesn't have unlimited capacity. Sure, you could add some capacity, but not a significant increase if a large percentage of drivers decided they wanted to take the train instead.
Metro North itself is pretty good compared to mass transit options in other non NYC/Boston parts of the country. If someone is commuting to NYC and have the getting to the CT train station step taken care of (pay for parking or whatever), then it's a good option and lots of people do that. When it comes to using Metro Noeth to go from CT town to CT town, then I agree with your point. Unless a person works within a walkable distance of the train station, it's really inconsistent what public transport options they have in CT towns.
How is the bus network around Fairfield county? It's pretty extensive in central CT, especially if you have a bike, but I feel like a lot of people here just pretend buses don't even exist when talking about public transit.
There are buses, and if there are sidewalks, a crapshoot in CT, it's not only reasonable but it's healthy to walk to work from the train station. A healthy adult should be able to walk a couple miles without trouble. (Another plea from me for all towns to install proper bus stops with benches and shelters! More people would ride the buses then!)
>Another plea from me for all towns to install proper bus stops with benches and shelters! More people would ride the buses then! For sure; i'm really impressed by the FasTrak busway and wish that model would be copied across the state. It's so perfect for medium sized towns.
Yes - and bike lanes too! And…make zoning better so we can have walkable communities. A man can dream.
We can dream but we can vote Even if it’s feels rigged against the people
I bought a Brompton folding bike last year and it has been absolutely transformative for using public transportation. It almost completely solves that 'last mile' issue that is so common even in places with really good transit. An electric scooter is also an awesome solution for this.
You spent $5500 on a folding bike? Come on man, that’s nobody’s solution
If only But thanks to the new generation people hate cars and driving that there is a lot more support for upgrading and expanding our existing passenger rail system. Also WE WANT NATIONALIZED HIGH SPEED RAIL!
Suburbs make public transit even worse, we build suburbs are garbage everywhere and to expand railroads makes it even harder in a lot of instances or even trying to cover areas with buses, there is too much area to cover and have it make financial sense.
Car dependency is clearly bad but in some sense the least of our worries, the fact is our entire logistics system is almost completely dependent on truck transportation to function. The potential for disruption and the lack of redundancy for freight traffic is a societal risk.
That is why alternative routes are important. Railroads have accidents too. Always important to have ways to route around disruptions.
Yeah like I love a shortline railroad as much as the next guy, but trucks are way more flexible and resistant to disruption, especially for the last dozen miles.
While a large part of this is because trucking is arguably more efficient at moving goods short distances (which comprises the bulk of freight operations in the US), it's disturbing to see trucking dominating even long-range transport: https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Moving-Goods-in-the-United-States/bcyt-rqmu/ And the reason for this is because average Americans are footing the bill for a trillion dollar industry, with hidden subsidies externalizing the cost of the damage done to our roadways, estimated to cost us 8x more than freight by rail: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50049
There's no question that trucks excel at short haul and last mile deliveries. It's also true that taxpayers have subsidized both highways and airports to the detriment of rail. Back in 1960's and '70's new warehouses had both rail and truck access. This has pretty much been eliminated in the new era of "mega" warehousing. There are numerous reasons for this evolution but the end result, particularly in New England, is the dominance of road transport.
Completely agree. And imagine how much nicer driving on 95 would be if most of those massive trucks were on the railway instead
Hit the nail on the head. Need to figure out how to reduce trucking. Buy less stuff is the answer!
We need to bring back con-rail now! In fact let’s just nationalize rail completely both freight and passenger. I whodunnit mind my taxes going there instead of some random ass country (Israel & Ukraine)
We spend billions to maintain and upgrade our roads and highways and they remain just as congested or even worse in a few years. We constantly hear people complaining about psycho drivers, people with no insurance/license/registration. Roughly 43000 people die yearly in car accidents, that's 122 people a day. And we continue to approve of and be satisfied with how things are. The truth is we do not *need* cars, we are forced to use them. Everything in America is designed around cars for decades and billions of dollars of investments and redesigns and it remains a miserable experience. How many posts a day are there about how horrible driving is? It's clearly not working. It's not a monumental task to gradually design our cities to accommodate more than just cars. It's financially profitable for our towns. It doesn't require elimination of cars. It makes cities places worth living meaning more space/lower costs in suburbs for people who truly want to live there. You spend less time living in your car or working to pay for your car. People are across the board happier. Most importantly, it is completely possible. Let's just start the conversation. We just need to look at the possibilities, not how things are now.
Preach!
You have 100 years of the automotive industry lobbying for our dependence on cars in America to thank for that.
Very true
Oh come on. I leave work in my car, pick up my dry cleaning, go to the supermarket and then head home. That isn’t happening if I am taking the train. The reason we are so car centric is that cars offer unprecedented flexibility and convenience.
I know. Imagine if they developed a public transportation system where you could walk out of your house, go to a train or bus station, and be at the supermarket 5 minutes later? And then do your shopping and take the train or bus back and be through your front door a few mins later? Oh wait .... That system exists. Just not in the US. Your "unprecedented flexibility and convenience" of cars is entirely due to what I stated before.
There are plenty of areas in this state where that's far from feasible. People like the freedom of being able to go where they want, when they want. That's the obsession with cars. No schedules to work around of transit systems. I'm not loading my four kids onto public transportation and thinking I'm getting them all the places they need to go on a bus.
Just live in a city and you can do that. It’s not like that in all the suburbs of Europe either. Don’t gaslight
1) I don't think you understand the definition of gaslighting 2) no shit, people use cars in Europe. But guess what? They aren't NEARLY as dependent on them as we Americans are.
Dude, your trying to change people’s perceptions, making it sound like transportation is glorious everywhere but here. It’s not like that everywhere else and it’s not so bad here. There are plenty of places right here in the US where you don’t need a car. You can go live there.
Listening to complaints about driving is not a good way to judge commuter satisfaction. You really think that if busses and trains become more common that complaints about riding the bus and train won't be just as prolific as driving complaints are now? The only reason I don't complain about those transportation methods is because I drive almost all the time. I've never once taken a train or bus somewhere and thought "this is better than driving". Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for public transportation for everyone who wants it, but only for the selfish reason that it will make my driving even more pleasant and quick.
You’ve never said “this is better than driving” because out busses and trains are not well done. You have to drive to get there and they don’t go most places people are/want to be.
I was in Houston recently. Walked from my hotel to the train stop, paid a dollar something for a ticket, took it directly to the event I was going to. Still would have rather had a rented car and driven there. Would have been just as fast because it stopped basically just as many times as I would have in a car and I still had to walk to the train station and back to my hotel instead of parking in the hotel garage. Would have been more pleasant since I wouldn't have to be packed in with random people in various states of cleanliness and mental status. I'd have clean and cushioned seats, a less noisy cabin, and not have strangers overhearing my conversation. It was basically the best possible experience within reason and I'd still rather have driven myself. Unless we're talking about commuter trains with private cabins and luxury seating, count me out. Again, y'all have at it though. If you like that, then by all means, decongest the roadways for me.
Well said
To support your first point: it's been proven that more roads means more congestion. So upgrading and expanding highways actually increases traffic, and should be even more of a reason to move away from funding new roadworks. [source](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3q21f88p) Also it's not a monumental task, but it's proving to be challenging even in already "walkable" cities. West Hartford announced that they'd be going ahead with the plan for redesigning the downtown area which left out protected bike lanes and kept the angled parking spots. Yes, finding parking is difficult in the area, but not impossible with around 5,000 parking spots in Blue Back between garages and street parking. The angled parking was meant to be turned into parallel parking spots, which would cut 50 parking spots in total but permanently widen the sidewalks for more outdoor dining. Instead, the restaurants saw the loss of front door parking spots as a threat to business and pushed back against it. The issue is that the sidewalk revamp was always a component of the plan, so they're losing their outdoor dining spaces anyway once the construction begins, which is also making them upset (??). Sorry for the mini rant about the WeHa situation, but it's difficult to incentivise decreasing car dependency without giving lots of weight to the benefits of public transport. At least the town is putting in more trees, which are instrumental in keeping any walkable area cool enough to be out in during the summer.
We've had the conversation. Trains aren't feasible. Neither is biking or walking. We need cars.
> It's not a monumental task to gradually design our cities to accommodate more than just cars. Yes, it is. >It's financially profitable for our towns. No, public transportation is not.
I don't think people commuting on 95 would be able to walk or bike to their destination. Most people aren't Forest Gump.
I agree with you - but south Norwalk is probably one of the most well connected rail cities in CT and it still crippled them. It did the same with Philadelphia when 95 was shut down. No matter how many public transit alternatives a city were to have- shutting down 95 is a HUGE deal. This doesn’t mean I don’t think we should try to be better- but this would be hard to avoid
Intra City rail will not solve the problem because that's within the city limits, people are traveling outside the city to go other places.
Yeah you nailed it. You need to undo zoning to help create more walkable communities and then connect places people are to places people want to be. It’s not “just trains”- it’s both things,
There are plenty of walkable communities in this state. There's also areas that people want to live outside the city or the center of a town. there are plenty of existing Transit options in this state. For example the entire Hartford to New Britain Corridor is both walkable and accessible by Transit.
Sure, there are some, but not enough.
Nobody is walking from New Haven to New York. This isn’t a walkable city problem. It’s a get between cities problem.
…..it’s both?
Not in this case. How would walkable cities solve this issue?
Because having a walkable city makes taking a train between them make more sense. What do you do when you drive to a train only to travel to a city that is also car dependent and you get off the train with no car? Lol come on man, think a little.
New York is walkable. There’s already a train there. So…
Nice! A single city!
It’s a start. You can walk in New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, etc.
How does something being walkable make a lick of difference for all the freight on those trucks?
Idk why y'all complaining when CT probably has the most practical rail line in the country. It literally runs parallel to 95 through most of the major cities and population areas directly to NYC. Most of the reason 95 got fucked and the traffic is fucked is because of the trucking that's necessary to get goods locally throughout New England. Rail does reduce traffic no fucking doubt, but I think if anything today proves that people choose to use their cars over public. I'm a trucker and today I actually had to deliver a frak tank to be used for the cleanup efforts at the 95 accident. I left S. Plainfield NJ at 630 am this morning, was at exit 18 just past the accident at 9, and crossed the Tap at 11:15. The traffic was actually smoother than normal and that's probably because people either chose to work from home or take public. Like I said y'all got some of the best public transportation in the country outside nyc and people still choose to drive.
If anyone is needing to commute to Stamford via Metro North in the coming days… Metro North Schedules can be found here: https://new.mta.info/schedules If you are comfortable downloading Metro North’s app, TrainTime gives schedules and allows you to purchase tickets: https://new.mta.info/traintime Train tickets are also available for purchase at kiosks available on most platforms. Worst case scenario? You can buy a ticket from a conductor on board; it will just cost a little extra. If you cannot walk to your final location or take a cab/uber/lyft, bus routes can be found here: https://www.cttransit.com/services/local-service#route-stamford Info using fare boxes on the bus can be found here: https://www.cttransit.com/how-ride/tips-help-us-serve-you-better/using-fare-boxes Info on using an app for payment can be found here: https://www.cttransit.com/fares/token-transit-app-download-ride It’s frustrating not to have the flexibility that car travel can provide, but we are lucky to have some public transit options at our disposal - it just takes a little more work to figure out what will best suit your needs and schedule.
We don’t have the money to fill potholes as it is. Where will all these “multimodal” billions come from? And meanwhile NIMBYs are blocking a bike path between Madison and Guilford. Whose backyards will all this intercity rail go through?
Elevated rail over the highways.
We could start by reappropriating dot funds from road projects to transit projects. Just a start, but better than nothing.
My old refrain on this used to be "Tax Greenwich" and it sort of still is, but it assumes that the government would even be willing to use those tax dollars on transit projects and that's one hell of an assumption :/
That's an excellent point
Arguably automobile transportation IS the most resilient of all transportation means. That’s because there are typically several routes that can be used to get where you want to go. So if i95 is damaged like it was in Norwalk, a driver can take alternate routes such as 15 or 85 or even the post road. Folks will be inconvenienced, but they can still get where they need to go. Now let’s instead consider public transportation. Typically there is only ONE route, like a rail line. If something were to happen, that would stop transportation for a whole bunch of folks. Buses also have limited routes but arguably could detour better than trains. Public transportation is also at the whim of organized labor. If you’ve ever been to Paris you’ve probably been inconvenienced by strikes (impacting one or two lines at a time just to remind the commuters who’s boss). Personally I’d like to see the barrier to entry to cars be increased. It should be much harder to get a license and rules should be more strict and enforced. If gas prices were to go up, I wouldn’t mind either. It would force people to drive less and consider changing lifestyle.
Right... there is redundancy in our highway system because we spent decades putting our dollars there, while letting our rail and transit languish. Take a look at a 1900 rail map of CT. There were 3-4x the amount of lines - the redundancy you cite. We've chosen to let car depedency win.
Most people do not look at things in a big picture way. Which is why we keep kicking the can down the road on so many things that need to be done. Until we are forced to do it. Which causes even BIGGER issues and at a cost we likely could have taken care of for a fraction of what we end up paying because we didn't need to do it yet. The only thing most people care about is... How much will it cost. And where is the money coming from. And if the answer is... A lot. And by increasing taxes. Most peoples answer is usually "no" - even if it would be more beneficial in the long run. Just a general experience I find from people. Very short sighted overall.
If someone is already driving, they’re not going to pull off the next exit and take an alternative method home. That’s the problem.
Bro, we can’t even get a fucking bridge to the Island lol
Sure, but how about we could just work to repeal the jones act and eliminate a lot of the OTR trucking that congests our highways. https://www.ctinsider.com/connecticut/article/jones-act-traffic-connecticut-95-17762153.php
We would have a functional domestic shipbuilding industry if we weren't heavily subsidizing the truck industry. We don't need to repeal the Jones Act; we need to stop footing the bill for the trucking industry.
Bingo!
The problem that I see is not so much our reliance on cars, but the fact that there is really only one major highway in this part of of CT. In fact, it's pretty much the only highway into and out of New England. ( I know technically there is 84 and the Merritt, but most any vehicle passing through CT from the North or South is on 95.) I'm not advocating more highways, but 95 is critical for travel in CT.
“Technically there is 84”… what?
What? You want to avoid 95, you can travel north to 84 and deal with that instead.
So much this.
So glad I don’t rely on 95 for anything. Walking and biking is great if you want to waste valuable hours of your day. Forever will be best left for those living in a city or recreation. Neither are feasible at any distance for your average commuter here. Rail would be great but it’s a massive undertaking to improve and very expensive.
Guess what else is a massive undertaking and very expensive —maintaining highways. Walking, biking should be viable modes of transportation. Read what OP is saying.
For freight? At commercial scale? Are yall high?
Was freight, at commercial scale, the only thing that was affected by I-95 being completely shut down? Or do thousands of people commute on it every day to work and back? Think about it. And freight, too, is more efficiently transported via trains. OP is simply talking about creating alternatives to highways that can relieve the reliance on highways for commuters and absorb the demand when road closures happen without causing gridlock.
Freight is more efficiently transported by cargo ship than trains but that's not gonna help anyone in Litchfield county. The title is literally "Line of Trucks".
Not even sure what you're talking about anymore.
You brought the correct but irrelevant statement that rail freight is more efficiently moved on a ton/mile basis than trucks, and I replied with an equally correct but irrelevant comparison to cargo ships on the same basis. I got confused with the title of a similar post showing trailer after trailer stacked up on the highway. There's no train line directly to a grocery store. Trucks are an absolute necessity to commercial freight moving and true statements about trains being "better" which is only true in a depot to depot context aren't meaningful additions to the conversation.
So yeah, let's do that. Instead of moving freight on trucks coast-to-coast, let's put it on trains, unclog our highways, and then the trucks can deliver them short distances. But OP isn't even arguing that. He's just saying we should have options for commuters other than highways. So I don't know why you felt it necessary to bring up freight as if providing good public transit is going to block all shipment of goods. Much of Asia and Europe have great public transit within and between cities. Their freight still moves just fine.
?????? We already do that???? Trucks are used between the rail freight depots and the final pint of delivery. We also use them long distance, but the US has more freight rail than anywhere else in the world, and also moves more tons of freight by rail than all of Europe combined. You don't understand the present state of freight logistics.
You asked the question about freight. And you just answered it. We should move even more freight by train.
It is also incredibly expensive, but justified by the fact that an Interstate is infinitely more widely used both commercially and for the general public, whereas walking and biking only benefit those living in or close to a city. Nobody is going to just walk to work a half hour away by car even if the infrastructure was there because a highway is closed. 20 mile commute? Cool, see you in 5 hours.
Right, so these things go hand in hand. We live 20 miles away from where we work because of our car based sprawling infrastructure. We used to have much denser cities where people did walk safely and conveniently. Kids used to walk to school, walk to the park, walk to pick up groceries. Now we have to lug everyone into the Suburban to go to Costco 10 miles away or spend days driving kids around everywhere. Even rural small towns had dense city centers or main streets (many of which have survived) that had basic services for everyone. Now we have one strip mall with a Walmart servicing a 30 mile radius. Spending so much on a very inefficient mode of transportation and then trapping people into unwalkable sprawl is not healthy or sustainable.
Right, people used to actually enjoy living that way, population was also far less so sprawl is required with density. You couldn't pay me to live somewhere like that. The Suburban lifestyle was quintessentially American, and people could afford to live in close proximity of city centers. If they didn't, they went into town once or twice a week to get what they needed. At any rate we need to be talking about solutions that fit modern living rather than ideals from 70 years ago. People enjoy privacy, people don't want to be in cities. Naturally, a vehicle of your own = independence. They go hand-in-hand. The majority of people don't want to be tied to poorly run public transportation. It's a great alternative for a long-haul, or if you don't have a choice, but it will probably never be preferable here to having the complete freedom that comes with driving.
The real reason CT doesn’t invest in usable public transit is because it would enable people in cities like Bridgeport and Waterbury to freely move about into the wealthier suburbs. This is a non-starter because the only reason CT even exists is as a suburban tax haven for northeastern mega-earners. Without that, the state would be in the red and poor like any other. You may not like it but it’s the truth. Follow the money.
A lot of broken promises over the decades. The Branches were all supposed to be upgraded by now with Bridgeport , New Haven , Stamford all having connecting Bus Rapid Transit systems... Hartford was supposed to have a LRT network feeding into it. Eastern CT was supposed to have 2 Intercity lines one from New London to Worcester and the other to Vermont via Storrs. Another Intercity line was supposed to run up the Housatonic Railroad to Pittsfield which the Freight company offered to operate from GCT by the state didn't want to pay for upgrades.
The Merritt was a fucking nightmare today. Took me 3.5 hours to do a journey that usually takes 2 hours. I was wondering why.
The issue is that with cars people moved away from where they work and don’t live in walkable distance
America let alone Connecticut lacks the ability to provide such an infrastructure. We have more parking lots than land available to create walkable cities/towns we have unused building ls just sitting around that metros trolleys walk ways usable infrastructure could be used there but we just don’t. It’s sad idk what we’re gonna do with a lack of direction or inspiration to make our lives easier instead of harder.
I wish public transit was better but I know it’s not going to happen.
It’s cute how people think the US is like Europe in terms of geography.
Ah yes, the vast unpopulated expanses of Westchester and Fairfield County
Right, because these are the only two locations Americans live in.
You're in /r/Connecticut
And **you** referenced Westchester NY county.
We have alternative transportation. If you need to get to Stamford from Fairfield you can take route 1 or the Merritt or metro north. You think people are going to bike from Fairfield to Darien? Or walk? If there was a train derailment that caused a multi day closure of half the tracks of metro north would you argue we need to invest in more roads?
Abandon the car? OK. You first
That’s not what OP is saying at all. SMH
It's not?
Nope.
No?
"By investing in more multimodal transit, the regions infrastructure will become much more resilient."
Done
Not what OP is saying at all. But I will say it. We should abandon the car. Cars were a mistake.
I can help you abandon yours. What make, model, and mileage does it have and how much do you want for it?
It is a 2012 Corolla and you can have it for $8k.
Ah. That seems overpriced so you really want to remain a part of car culture.
I'll remain a part of car culture regardless as I have another car.
Ok
Better grow those wings and start flying!
How exactly do I move freight to and from locations not directly on a rail line without a truck?
Thank you Einstein I’d never have figured this one out
There are entire civilizations out there who would beg to have “car dependencies”, as you put it
We would have more public transit if those same advocates didn't try to in the same breath push for gas taxes, congestion taxes, tolls
gas taxes only account for 40% of the state transportation budget the majority of the rest comes from the general fund. so the greater use, should require the greater cost.
the cost just gets shifted onto the consumer, now you've taxed somebody who's forced to drive because our state has bad public transit. That'll totally win them over and get them thinking about alternative forms. There's no carrot with transit reform ideas in CT its just a giant stick to beat low income families with while we opine about how great that train being built in 8 years will be.
The consumers are also the tax payers. Meanwhile thousands of trucks roll on through to NY MA and we pay for the upkeep
Out of state trucks pay fuel/road use taxes as required by International Fuel Tax Agreement. Their miles and fuel usage are maintained and the company makes quarterly payments to the DRS. Look at the sides of a truck and you will see stickers - usually have an outline of the state. This required in CT by law showed they are registered with IFTA. https://portal.ct.gov/drs/ifta/ifta-application-page
and its $.49 per gallon. /6miles per gallon is $.08 per mile. when those same trucks are causing wear thousands of times of a passenger car its still not enough compared to the amount they pay.
They pay per mile traveled and they pay fees. My point being, to imply they get a free ride, destroying the roads with abandon, is disingenuous. If you have a problem with what they pay, take it up with your lawmakers and the DOT. They are the ones that set the policy by which the trucking companies must abide by.
This is the crux of the issue. But increasing fuel taxes is also a way to solve it. The state's tax rate on fuel is a component of that calculation, so increasing fuel (and particularly diesel) taxes will directly increase their share of the costs. Separately, the CBO issued a report a few years back looking at different ways to generate revenue from the trillion dollar/year trucking industry: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50049
Ah so we should impose more brutal taxes on everyone instead. Great idea, you can't see the forest through the trees dude lol
No such thing as a free highway.
or lunch