The Connecticut Department of Transportation is planning to build — with federal aid — a “Bus Rapid Transit” system on a 9.4-mile corridor between New Britain and Hartford.
For $567 million.
The busway will use the right-of-way of a 4.4-mile abandoned railroad that extends from New Britain to Newington. For the remaining five miles, it will run alongside an Amtrak railroad through Newington, West Hartford, and Hartford. By reserving the newly paved lanes for buses and giving them preference at traffic lights, the department hopes to offer a faster, cheaper commute for the over 50,000 people who travel among those cities daily. Buses from surrounding towns will also be able to use the lanes, relieving congestion on the car-choked Interstate 84.
Advertisement
All of which sounds perfectly reasonable — except the price. And that $567 million figure is only the latest estimate. When the department proposed the project in 1999, it forecast a cost of $75 million. By 2003, the forecast was $160 million. Then $337 million. Then $458 million. And now, $567 million.
New Starts, a Federal Transit Administration program that funds transportation projects across the country, has pledged $275 million for the project. The busway’s advocates argue that the feds made the department plan for all sorts of contingencies, which pushed up the price, but made the estimate more trustworthy. The project has been in the pipeline for twelve years, they add, so you can’t discount inflation.
But you can. Even if you revise the initial estimate to, say, $200 million, inflation brings the total in 2011 dollars to about $260 million. In other words, the original estimate wasn’t even in the ballpark.
And this project is pricier than its counterparts elsewhere. For instance, Pittsburgh spent $183 million between 1983 and 2003 on a 9.1-mile busway. That amounts to $20 million per mile. This project is three times as expensive: $60 million per mile.
As the costs have escalated, the projected benefits have dwindled. Currently, there are 11,000 daily boardings on the existing bus service between New Britain and Hartford. With the busway, the department hopes to increase that number to 16,000. Because a commuter usually boards a bus twice — once to go to work, a second time to return home — those 5,000 extra boardings translate roughly into 2,500 more people taking the bus. In 1999, however, the department predicted the busway would attract 8,800 new riders by 2020.
Even the imagined stations were spiffier back then. The original report envisaged that “the station itself must be enclosed, all weather, and secure, providing a comfortable waiting area. Rider conveniences such as coffee shops, news stands, cleaners, etc. will enhance the desirability of the transit service.” Now, a department fact sheet says the stations will consist of “shelters, benches, information displays and other amenities for passenger comfort and safety.” (One prediction that has held up is the travel-time difference. If the department goes ahead with the busway, it predicts the commute time from New Britain to Hartford will drop from 40 to 20 minutes.)
Still, the project’s advocates counsel Connecticut to plow forward. Over half the cost, or $342 million, relates to construction — 16 new or rehabilitated bridges, eleven stations, six parking lots — and 80 percent of the project’s funding will come from the federal government. Why should Nutmeggers give up that money?
True, the state will lose the $275 million provided by New Starts if it doesn’t build the busway. But the state is also planning to use over $113 million in federal transportation money it would have gotten anyway. And if the project has cost overruns — which isn’t out of the realm of possibility — the state will be stuck with the tab.
State senator Joe Markley, a Republican who opposes the busway, says the federal transportation money could be used on other projects. “We have an old rail line from Hartford to Waterbury that could be restored for $100 million,” Markley tells NRO. “I don’t know that I would spend that, but I sure would rather spend $100 million on that than $600 million on this busway.”
The opposition to the project reaches across party lines. In a June poll commissioned by the Yankee Institute, a libertarian think tank, 60 percent of Nutmeggers said they were against the proposal. “This isn’t about Republicans and Democrats,” says Mike Nicastro, CEO of the Central Connecticut Chambers of Commerce. “This is about what’s smart and what’s stupid.”
Every project faces obstacles, and state and federal bureaucrats have worked hard to get this one moving. But the New Britain–Hartford busway illustrates one of the problems with federal funding of local transportation projects: For accountability’s sake, the feds impose all kinds of regulations that slow down the project — sometimes so much that it outlives its need.
The more fundamental question is: Even if a bus-rapid-transit system from New Britain to Hartford is a good idea, why should people in Provo be paying for it?
— Brian Bolduc is a reporter forNational Review Online.
The problem with federalizing goes back to the 1950's and the Interstate Highway system where a Federal gasoline tax was imposed. In an attempt to provide a level playing field for transportation we now have federal funding of mass transit. Why should people in Conn pay for roads in Provo? We should be funding all transportation at the local or regional level.
Whenever the federal government subsidizes a good or service, the cost will radically increase because the beast must feed all it's tentacles wherever it goes. If the people of Connecticut want a fancy bus tram, they should be able to cover the tabs themselves or let innovation conserve resources. Federal involvement in any State project breeds selfishness and then carelessness because the favored State du jour is empowered to confiscate wealth from the others without restraint. Each State is then motivated to steal from the others in retribution and to obtain it's share of the spoils. Meanwhile, the federal leviathan becomes increasingly powerful as it uses this authority for political ends.
Since much of this cost is for 16 new or rehabilitated bridges, eleven stations and six parking lots, the overall cost of the project doesn't seem unreasonable. And there's no doubt that it will spur local economic activity. However, since it is long term infrastructure, I would have preferred that they use the dedicated right-of-way for light-rail or trolleys rather than gas powered buses.
The people in Provo should help pay for this project from New Britain to Hartford for the same reason that people in New Britain and Hartford pay for projects in Provo: construction of transportation infrastructure is a government function.
The important point here is that this boondoggle is almost sure to be approved by the Connecticut State legislature. We nutmeggers have absolutely the worst state government in the country. The Soviet Socialist Republics of Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven hold the rest of us hostage, and make every labor-left fantasy come true. Woe unto us - here comes the bus.
You both will have to stand in line behind those of us who suffer mightily in Massachusetts. From "Cadillac" Deval and "Mumbles" Menino, to three indicted/convicted Speakers of the House, it's Democrat hacks, crooks and nitwits....all the way down.
If conservatives ever come to power in Washington, the Federal Transit Administration should be one of the first agencies to be abolished. The Connecticut BRT is not even the most egregious example of the waste this agency causes. Look at the Dulles Metro extension in northern VA. Abolishing this agency would pull the plug on a host of grossly overpriced transit schemes around the country.
They try to hide it, but if you tally how much goes to actual working and direct supoervisory labor and materials, this project wouldn't cost $100 million. All the rest is paper pushing. And those paperpushers get paid...lots!The worst part is that a substantial majority of those paperpushers are only there to audit the work of the remaining few, who actually do the design and engineering.
It's the blind leading the stupid, and has been for many years. Give me the 100 mill and get the state and feds off my back, and we'll be under budget, on time, and the work will be magnificent and last forever. But it would make them all look like idiots, so that ain't happenin'. It hasn't been about us for decades. It's all about them, and their ricebowls.
16-bridges in 9-miles? Why should the bus riders have priority on traffic signals? I pay for my car, my insurance, my fuel and the road I am on through my fuel taxes. The bus rider is heavily subsidized. Let the welfare case sit while those of us that are "paying the freight" go through the lights. It isn't like they are going to a fire.
Another question, will the buses run all day or just for the workday commute? They are pitching this to reduce congestion at rush hour. If they run all day we will have huge buses running empty all day long. What will that do to our carbon footprint? This will end up with a bunch of empty buses, being driven by union-member municipal employees and end up costing the locals a lot more than they bargained for.
Not quite. A report from the Texas DOT showed that that no road in Texas paid for itself through fuel taxes. It is a myth that cars are unsubsidized. This is especially true when you consider the tax breaks given to roads (as government property the land is tax free) and the cost of policing them (Amtrak, for example, has its own security while highways have the highway patrol). Currently gas taxes only cover about half of the construction and maintenance costs of highways. (External Link)
You can take issue with this project, which is quite wasteful, but don' delude yourself into thinking that your commute is unsubsidized.
One item that inflates gov't transportation projects is affirmative action. The Hiawatha light rail line in Minneapolis had at least $5 million dollars added to its budget to hire peoples of color and contract with business owned by protected classes. Often these are smaller firms and less efficient than the larger more established contractors.
Just a few weeks ago, Michael Barone had a great column here at NRO about the several competing "Chinatown" buses between the East coast cities.
In response to market forces, entrepreneurs spontaneously created a cheap transportation solution at no taxpayer costs.
Brian's article, which is otherwise a great summary, neglects to mention that "car-choked" I84 already has a little-used HOV lane over the relevant stretch and we already have a regional bus service (CT Transit).
The article states that the express bus will save 5000 riders 20 minutes twice per day, at a cost of $567,000,000. Given a modest interest rate of 5%, that's $100 million to save 40 minutes for 5000 people on 250 days out of the year.
Do the math. Spend $100m to save 800 thousand hours, or about $120 per hour saved.
Christie had the sense to kill a tunnel partly funded by the Feds because NJ couldn't afford. We can't afford this even with the Feds money. It should be cancelled.
Follow
