New Haven Independent

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | June 11, 2009 9:23 AM

Bring back tolls!!!!!

Posted by: anon | June 11, 2009 10:05 AM

Rell's proposal is unacceptable. Why can't our Governor show some vision?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 11, 2009 10:18 AM

THREEFIFTHS I second that!

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 11, 2009 10:29 AM

This is a foolish and short-sighted move by the governor. Fifty cents may not break anyone on a single ride, but $250 a year might be a more substantial burden for the young, the elderly, and those with low incomes--all of whom are more likely to be bus riders.

Better to institute a congestion charge in city centers as has been done in London. With the ongoing traffic craziness on I-84 near Hartford and the I-91/95 merge in New Haven, the state government should be taking more steps to promote the use of mass transit, and discourage the use of single-passenger automobiles in city centers.

Posted by: Adult bus rider in New Haven | June 11, 2009 10:49 AM

"We don't think these modest increases are going to be a big factor in folks' decision-making about their transportation choices," he said. When pressed, he said if the increase is unpalatable, commuters could "walk or make some other arrangement."

Easy for him to say as he DRIVES to work...those of us relying on buses do so largely because we have "no other arrangement" to make. I'm talking about working adults, not just children going to and/or from school.

Walking? Walking 2-plus miles downtown? In rain, or snow? Not possible for a lot of folks due to age, chronic illnesses, etc.

250 dollars may seem "modest" to Beckham, but when you are dependent on Social Security plus a part time minimum wage job for income, this is a major hole in one's finances.

I hope the legislators deep-six this tax on the poor.

Posted by: LMcM | June 11, 2009 10:51 AM

Minor correction:

Connecticut Fund for the Environment's factsheet actually says families could pay a total of $560/year per child for bus passes, not an additional $560. The passes for students currently cost $400/year. Families who qualify for reduced-cost passes currently pay $240; a 40% increase would mean $336 for them. Keep in mind a lot of families need passes for more than one child!

Posted by: Norton Street | June 11, 2009 10:59 AM

What should we expect from a person who only knows sprawl, cheap energy induced quick growth, and suburbia. She's from Norfolk, Virginia. In the 1940's this was a small city on an enormous amount of land. It'd be like Greater New Haven but with only the population of the city spread around that area. Brookfield? That's as clever as Riverfarm. Cities, the New Haven, were/are/should be the historically, culturally, economically and meanignful dwelling, working, and recreation places. This governor is a moron and needs to educate herself on what costs money, because the problems aren't with mass transit, they're with all the commuters who go from one town to another along massively expensive highways then back again at the end of the day (what a waste of a life to 'live' like that).

Posted by: Whatsername | June 11, 2009 11:01 AM

Yeah, that's just crap. Rell needs to walk into New Haven sometime and see and talk to the people this decision would affect. Classic Republican tactic--"The poor should get a job," but then when they do, "Now let's charge them more to get there." Come ON! Those that have can afford $250 increase in taxes. That's less than my monthly car payment. I'm sick of the have-nots suffering for the greed of the haves.

Posted by: Eva Geertz | June 11, 2009 11:32 AM

This is completely appalling. $1.75 is an outrageous fare for New Haven bus service (or, I imagine, the bus service in any other Connecticut town or city).
I second the comment by the above Adult Bus Rider in New Haven. I'd really like to smack this Beckham fellow, who obviously hasn't got a clue...

Posted by: JackNH | June 11, 2009 12:27 PM

Raise the gas tax-- by plenty. It will raise revenue and reduce pollution. Isn't that the way to go? By the way, I DRIVE as well as take the D bus twice a day . . . .

Posted by: A.C. | June 11, 2009 12:34 PM

But those of us who object to the fee -- we just don't understand the economy, now, do we, Governor Rell? Is that it? This is ideological purity at its most illogical; I've never understood why Rell was so popular in this state. She doesn't need to be corrupt to be a disgrace -- just clueless.

Posted by: Walt | June 11, 2009 1:01 PM

The big bucks commuters to NYC should have a heftier increase than Rell has proposed, and their added payments should be used to reduce the fare for the Cities' Joe , "commute to local work", Doakes

Posted by: Will Clark | June 11, 2009 1:01 PM

This recommendation demonstrates how truly out of touch this Governor is with reality. This is a tax on Public Transportation nothing less. We should be encouraging the exact opposite. We need more investment in public transportation and to encourage its broader use. Building more highway lanes and garages is not the answer for our environment or our future. Tjhis is backwards thinking at its worst.

This would also greatly impact education as Adult Eduction students and Community College Students as well as many High School students use the bus. This tax would render that means of trranportation more difficult and thus create yet another hurdle to education opportunity for these students. Hopefully the New Haven Delegation and the General Assembly as a group will oppose this nonsense.

Posted by: jawbone | June 11, 2009 1:16 PM

Has Gov. Rell ever BEEN to New Haven?

Posted by: Jeffrey Beckham | June 11, 2009 1:49 PM

Giving the reporter the benefit of the doubt, let me take issue with the following passage:"When pressed, he said if the increase is unpalatable, commuters could "walk or make some other arrangement."

My recollection of our exchange was that the reporter was asking if we considered whether people would now not take the bus and instead get in cars and get onto the already crowded roads and pollute the environment and I responded that it was not clear that they would do that; rather they may, in fact, decide to "walk or make some other arrangement". I guess I should have dodged the question but, rather than being callous, I was simply taking issue with her premise that this bus fare increase would necessarily cause an increase in cars on the road. Context is everything.

Bottom line: This system is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers and we are simply asking the users of the system to share a bit more in the ever-increasing cost of providing the service.

Jeffrey Beckham,OPM

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | June 11, 2009 1:56 PM

Public buses? How about private individuals using their vans to take riders for a fare? (Liberals laugh.) That looks like a job for someone. If someone can deliver newspapers at 4 am, surely there are hard-working people who can drive a.m. and p.m. for extra cash and profit off of it.

BUT YOU HAVE TO WANT TO WORK.

Posted by: Polaron | June 11, 2009 3:46 PM

Re: "This system is heavily subsidized by the taxpayers and we are simply asking the users of the system to share a bit more in the ever-increasing cost of providing the service."

Roads are heavily subsidized too and people who use cars should also share a bit more in cost of subsidzing roads. Increase the gas tax by even a little bit and use the revenue to subsidize transit.

Posted by: Eva Geertz | June 11, 2009 4:07 PM

I would like to invite Mr. Beckham and Gov. Rell to come meet me in New Haven to see how people use the buses in New Haven. I would offer to meet them in Hartford, but there's no good way to get from New Haven to Hartford using public transportation.

Funny, huh?

Posted by: Whatsername | June 11, 2009 4:23 PM

Honestly, with gas going up the way it is, I don't think a higher gas tax is the answer, either. I have a car and I try to use it as little as possible, but my job (serving the people of New Haven through non-profit work) requires me to have the ability to get around town faster than the public transit system allows.

And, Alphonse, there are liabilities and other legal issues with just popping people into your van for a fare. This means the vehicle has to have higher insurance, since it essentially becomes a taxi. If you have revenue coming in, you must pay taxes on that income. It's a whole business plan and management system that is not as easy as it sounds.

And I'm a liberal and I do WANT to work and DO work, but I also had support to get to a point where I could support myself. Honestly, you can be just straight up insulting sometimes.

Posted by: Josh Smith | June 11, 2009 4:51 PM

The problem we have here is that everyone lives too far apart. Businesses also are located in far-flung areas. In order for transit to work properly, we need to move the businesses and homes much closer together. I certainly don't propose that we kick people out of their homes and make them move closer to the cities, but maybe there's a way that we can ensure that, for example, someone who's living in Hartford gets a job in (or very close to) Hartford, and someone living in Milford gets a job in (or very close to) Milford.

Maybe we can tally up all the jobs in an town/city and all the workers in a town/city, and somehow make it so that workers have to work near their home. It may seem a bit draconian, but it would REALLY help with the congestion on our highways, and help with peoples' stress levels, since they'd have much shorter commutes. Heck, they might even be able to take transit and leave their cars at home or in a park-and-ride lot, instead of the situation where you work in, say, Plainville and live in Glastonbury. Transit doesn't work with a commute between those two towns, but with a few buses circulating around town, someone who lives in Glastonbury and works in Glastonbury could take the bus to work. Does anyone else see the value in this kind of "worker registration system", where you have to register as a worker for that town and have to work near where you live? This way, we could create buses that just go to and from our town centers, business centers, and neighborhoods. People would wind up moving closer to their jobs, because certain jobs would only be available in abundance in certain towns or cities. People would be able to realistically take transit without transferring, and wouldn't have to drive halfway across the state in the morning and the evening. What's more, it could be very easily implemented. All it would take is a few databases and putting a few more morning/evening commuter buses out in each suburban town. Does this idea make sense to anyone?

Posted by: Josh Smith | June 11, 2009 5:14 PM

Oh, and regarding the bus fare hike, that's ridiculous. I'd be more than willing to pay 1 cent extra for each gallon of gas if that would stop the poor people in the area from having to pay an extra 50 cents each time they get on the bus. Drivers can afford an extra one cent per gallon, whereas working-class people in the lower class to lower-middle class really can't.

And I'd happily pay a DOLLAR extra in taxes per gallon of gas if that money all went to building and maintaining a world-class transit system that included all of CT's cities and suburbs. God, I hate driving everywhere. :(

Posted by: City Hall Watch | June 11, 2009 9:17 PM

Raising the price of a bus or train ride is not a tax. It's the price of a ride, a user fee and past time for those who access it, to pay for it. Both of these services have been heavily subsidized by taxpayers and by the double taxation on gasoline. Why do you think the rest of the state should pay for something you enjoy or that meets your needs and that you shouldn't pay for it yourself? This is what leads to gross over taxation in this state. Various vocal minorities demand a good or service and then don't want to pay for it. Taxpayers at large are not your momma or your nanny. Quit looking to us to pay for your transportation.

Posted by: Norton Street | June 11, 2009 11:24 PM

city hall watch,
everything you just said applies to road repairs, suburban home construction, highway construction/repairs, road widening, parking lots, parking garages, traffic lights, and everything else that comes with excessive living arrangements, suburbia, casual energy consumption, individual automobiles, greed, sprawl, commuting and an abundance of cheap energy.
you dont even want to begin the discussion on the cost of suburbia compared to urban city bus commuters, because you will get embarassed to the fullest.
and i pay for all the things i listed above and yet i ride my bike, not by choice (i have a really crappy hand-me-down bike) but because i cant afford the bus. yet, i have no problem subsidizing mass transit because of its necessity in a future defined by a rise of an energy controlling china. the more people using mass transit and the fewer people using individual automobiles is a choice than can be made now or a requirement in the very short future. but to continue to subsidize people who are enormously more wealthy than i, is something that needs to stop. getting serious about future economic security is important and to ensure this means to become a denser, less populated country that is not dependent on energy that comes from a source other than our country. people can do their part by living close to where they work (within walking distance preferably). that means returning 'the urban center' to its rightful place in this country.
wake up buddy, because you're getting left behind.

Posted by: Donna | June 11, 2009 11:34 PM

I am tired of funding for everyone else, my health care is high due to regulations that I have to pay for smokers to quit, or for AMTRAK trains or gas tax to subsidies other stuff not connected with roads or pay high taxes for schools which I don't use. Let the users for the services they use. donna

Posted by: anon | June 12, 2009 12:29 AM

Our road system is far more heavily subsidized than our buses.

I'd be happy to see the bus fares raised by 50 cents if you also charged drivers the true price of maintaining and operating our network of highways and gasoline supplies, which has been estimated to be about $20 per gallon.

Until then, the buses should be free. The social benefits of mass transit far outweigh the costs. Maybe not every able bodied, suburban voter realizes this, but the vast majority of our city's residents, for various reasons, do not get in a car and drive to an office building every day. You have many grandmothers who would love to visit their kids or shop downtown if they had proper transportation.

Incidentally, the state could also raise more revenue for its bus system if it invested in things that would make people want to use the buses: safe pedestrian connections to the stops, bus platforms that weren't flooded with giant mud pits along the side of Route 34, more frequent and reliable service, screens giving you ETA times at each stop. These things are done elsewhere throughout the world and are not rocket science.

If you hear that ridership doesn't justify such investment, take it with a grain of salt. The CT Transit bus stops along Route 34 in the suburbs don't even have sidewalks going to them; I regularly see people walking right along the painted shoulder line of the 55MPH roadway just to get to them.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | June 12, 2009 1:16 PM

"And, Alphonse, there are liabilities and other legal issues with just popping people into your van for a fare. This means the vehicle has to have higher insurance, since it essentially becomes a taxi. If you have revenue coming in, you must pay taxes on that income. It's a whole business plan and management system that is not as easy as it sounds."

Sure, it's easier to let government do it!!

Posted by: Will Clark | June 12, 2009 7:28 PM

Anon:

Here here.

Public investment should be for the public good. Transportation and Health care are areas where every dollar committed will save tenfold of the cost we are currenlty all subsidizing for uninsured health care and environmental damage caused by individual (as opposed to mass) transit.

Posted by: anon | June 14, 2009 1:55 AM

Exactly, Will Clark. I would add early childhood education to that list as well. We ignore difficult problems, if only to see them become infinitely more expensive problems to deal with later on.

Posted by: jack | June 15, 2009 11:45 AM

I got rid of my car about four years ago.I bike most of the time,but take the bus when it snows,ect.ect.At 1.25,CT. has the cheapest fare in the Tri-state area.In RI.the fare is 1.75 plus an extra .10 for a transfer.How are we ever going to make the transformation from our auto-centric lunacy to safe,dependable public transportation,if we allow what we already have to continue in it's deficit ridden,run down state? If .50 more could mean expanded routes and greener buses,I will gladly pay it.It's an investment in a better future.

Posted by: jack | June 15, 2009 9:53 PM

And bye the way, watching local politicians speak out of both sides of their mouth is getting very old. If Rell was a Dem, these two guys would have held a Save CT. Transit rally,and be proposing a 60% fare increase.