Report Finds State Transportation System Seriously Underfunded

By Susan Haigh Associated Press

HARTFORD — The state has set aside $1.3 billion over ten years to improve Connecticut’s transportation infrastructure, but a new report says that is not nearly enough to cover key projects and maintain existing roads and bridges.

The paper, released Tuesday by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, indicates that $3 billion more is needed for important projects and another $1.74 billion is necessary for routine maintenance.

The report also suggests that state policy makers consider new revenue sources such as tolls, privatizing some infrastructure, or different taxing schemes.

“Connecticut faces the need for substantial transportation investments to catch up and keep up in transportation infrastructure,” according to the report, prepared by CCM, Central Connecticut State University, and two regional planning groups.

The report was the basis for a transportation finance summit held this week at CCSU.

It comes several months after Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell signed her ten-year, $1.3 billion transportation initiative into law. Her plan includes money to buy 342 new passenger rail cars for Metro-North, a rail car maintenance facility in New Haven, various highway improvements, and 25 new Connecticut Transit buses.

Rell’s initiative was the largest single investment in more than two decades. It will be financed by special tax obligation bonds, a $1 surcharge on the New Haven line from January 1, 2008, through June 2015 and an increased gross receipts tax on petroleum products.

“There are people who are already saying it’s not enough,” Rell said. “But in all candor, trying to fund even that was an effort that required the cooperation of many within the General Assembly and my administration. And we were successful in getting that passed.”

Yet Rell said she is willing to go back to the legislature in the next session and try to find funding for high priority projects identified by the state’s Transportation Strategy Board.

According to the report, the bulk of the $1.3 billion investment focused on traffic congestion problems in Fairfield County. It points out how other parts of the state, such as southeastern Connecticut, greater Hartford, and Waterbury have been overrun by traffic as well.

That means commuters throughout Connecticut are feeling the pinch of high travel costs. The report cites a recent study by Texas A&M University that found rush-hour delays in the Bridgeport-Stamford area cost each traveler $566 per year. In New Haven, the figure is $390. In Hartford it’s $309.

“Connecticut’s transportation system is in good physical condition but congestion on highways and the commuter rail system is growing,” the report reads. “The volume of traffic is increasing and the daily peak hours of travel are expanding.”

The report said the challenge is to maintain a system without further disrupting the flow of traffic.

It recommends that Connecticut explore new ways to fund transportation improvement projects. It is very important, the report said, that the public feel confident the revenues will be used only for transportation purposes.

The Transportation Strategy Board, created to help oversee transportation policy in Connecticut, has also suggested that state officials consider alternative revenue sources such as high-tech tolls like EZ Pass. One highway in Toronto, for example, is completely automated and toll booth-free.

The report recommends varying the toll amounts by the time of day and level of traffic congestion.

Increased privatization of transportation infrastructure is also suggested. There are many types of these financial arrangements where a private company might lease or operate a bridge or a highway.

The report also suggests that policy makers consider new types of taxation to raise money for transportation projects. One idea is to create mobility fees, or additional sales taxes and fees paid by corporations that benefit from a particular project.

But authors of the report said they recognize such a surcharge could be “politically problematic” in Connecticut.