August 1987: Public Highway Authority Law passed, allowing cities and counties to collaborate to form tollway authorities.
November 1999: The TRANs ballot measure passes, allowing CDOT to float bonds and speed up many construction projects. The vote is also de facto approval of I-25's Southeast Corridor project.
May 2002: Legislature passes law allowing CDOT to form a state toll authority and put tolls on new highway facilities. source: Colorado Highways: History
Connecticut, during the same time period, has largely only managed to create plans and studies and somehow missed out in fostering the type of high tech industries that create jobs.
Today's Connecticut Post, Citizens seek halt to growth in Milford, Zone change sought to protect small business provides a sampling of the difficulty in creating a job friendly growth strategy in Connecticut. Towns are competing against each other for economic development while trying to preserve the character of their residential communities. For Connecticut to compete in the 21st century, regional planning must become a priority.
11 comments:
This is an excellent post, except that it omits probably the biggest factor contributing to the increase in population in Colorado. It was not investment in infrastructure that drove people (mostly from "blue" states) to Colorado. It was tax policy. Just as Connecticut was passing its first income tax in 1991, Colorado was reducing or maintaining its low tax policy. Today, an upper middle class family in Colorado can expect to pay about 35% less in state income tax, as much as 87% (!) less in property taxes, and (as a result) about 35% less in federal income tax.
There's one really big difference between Colorado and Connecticut and that's land. CO is the 8th largest state; CT is 48th. Certainly regional planning is the way to go for CT but efforts must incorporate maintaining or bettering quality of life in the face of an aging infrastructure, population, economic demographic, etc. These are not the same set of circumstances facing Colorado and strategies will be markedly different.
While road infrastructure matters, it's not all that matters. So do taxes, as CC pointed out. So do land prices. So do Electric rates. CT pays 11.31 cents per kwh, while CO pays 8.14. That's a big difference if your business uses a lot of electricity.
Liberals take note--only one thing made the difference here.
TAXES!
Colorodo adopted a spending cap equal to the population increase plus inflation. Unlike Connecticut, they actually stuck with it.
Talk all you want about other issues (land, infrastructure, etc.), they are all secondary to taxes.
The Democrats in the legislature are slowly killing this state through their high teax policy, and John DeStefanos' proposals (e.g., universal health care) are going ot be the final nail in the coffin.
Only people left in CT in twenty years are the rich who can afford the taxes and the poor who can't afford to move elsewhere. Middle class is squeezed out by Democrats tax policy.
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes. People forget that spending is the problem, not taxes. The spending cap proposal has a lot to do with this issue. So does the size of the state. However, the post is concerned with transportation.
Toll roads are a perfect idea, when they are used to make something self-sufficient and not as another tax to increase general spending. Toll roads free up (no pun intended) the roads that cost nothing to drive. They allow the people that need it, and can afford it, to take a faster route. This lessens the traffic on the free route and thus lowers the cost of upkeep. Toll roads also force carpooling, in order to split the cost.
Toll roads will also create a commuter tax on the people and businesses that constantly drive through, but never in our state. We are the perfect route from Boston/Providence/shore points to NYC. It takes less than two hours to drive through our state, so we see minimal economic benefit from this. Making a toll road, will generate income that can be used to maintain our roads.
Self-sufficient tolls, reducing the cost of energy, cutting spending and reducing taxes are what the viable republicans in this state stand for. Sam Caligiuri, Jodi Rell, Nancy Johnson all seem to be supporting ideas like this and it is what makes them successful candidates in such a blue state.
Bluecoat--
Good point in the 1:51 post.
Rowland and Rell are as guilty as the Democrats for allowing run-away spending.
But you better believe it will be worse if JDS is Governor.
Turgrrl: It sounds as if you are (wisely) questioning the concept of home rule?
I can't speak for any particular candidate on their position on tolls, but I can say that being a fiscal conservative is a requirement of being a Republican in CT. Self-sufficient toll road system would fall into that.
Turffgurl...I suspect this intiative was a bit more influential in getting Colorado's economy moving forward than a toll road or two....
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/comment-new110402.asp
Think the Democrats in CT would ever support this....they insist on making a mockery of the spending cap we already tried to enact ...
Toll roads are a perfect idea, when they are used to make something self-sufficient and not as another tax to increase general spending. Toll roads free up (no pun intended) the roads that cost nothing to drive. They allow the people that need it, and can afford it, to take a faster route. This lessens the traffic on the free route and thus lowers the cost of upkeep. Toll roads also force carpooling, in order to split the cost.
I would definitely favor tolls on 95 and other highways provided 1) I don't have to spend 20 minutes to pay the toll, and 2) the toll rate changed during the day based on the average traffic volume for that hour. So 4:00 am could be free or minimal, while 4:00 pm would be more expensive. This would encourage people to shift their commute times if possible: ask for flex time, or switch to jobs that did, or work from home, or whatever.
Post a Comment