Connecticut is a wonderful place to live, but if you don't own a car, if you're a bicycle commuter or even just a recreational cyclist the state leaves a lot to be desired.
Connecticut ranks 40th in the League of American Bicyclists's most recent ranking of "bicycle-friendly" states (up from 44th in 2009), by far the worst ranking of New England states, and below much poorer and less ecologically conscious places like Mississippi and South Carolina. The LAB gave Connecticut a "C" in terms of biking policies, and a "D" for infrastructure and "F" for enforcement. Connecticut spends a mere 0.8 percent of its transportation funds on bike or pedestrian projects and is ranked 37th in the nation in per capita spending on these projects.
Would the plan to promote bicycling in the Nutmeg State released last month by Lieutenant Governor candidate Mary Glassman do anything to improve this dismal situation? Insisting that "not only will a comprehensive transportation network encourage retention of students and benefit everyone in Connecticut, but it will also retain businesses and attract new ones, make our communities more livable and enjoyable, reduce traffic congestion, and keep Connecticut's residents fit and healthy," Glassman vows to work with the state legislature to help secure federal dollars from the Safe Routes to School and other 'safe streets' programs, to ensure that the Connecticut Bond Commission includes bicycling initiatives on its agenda, and to ensure that funds set aside for bicycle infrastructure are properly invested.
These would all be positive steps, and Glassman's work in making Simsbury (where she serves as First Selectwoman) a LAB-designated "Bike-friendly community" -- the only such designation awarded in Connecticut -- gives her plan added credibility.
But ultimately the plan suffers from a lack of specifics and leaves many questions unanswered. Does the Lamont/Glassman team support a state version of the federal bicycle commuter tax credit? Do they support a multi-use trail along the Merritt Parkway right-of-way, which would fill in a key section of the East Coast Greenway? Would they support replacing the widely opposed idea of a "Super 7" limited-access multi-lane highway connecting Norwalk and Danbury with a Norwalk River Valley Trail greenway? Do they support a "vulnerable user" law along the lines of the bill introduced by Rep. Tom Kehoe (D-Glastonbury, the "dean" of bicycle advocacy among Connecticut politicians) in the 2010 legislative session? Do they support allowing bikes full access on Metro-North in order to enhance inter-modality for commuters? Glassman's plan fails to address any of these issues.
Nor does the plan offer much guidance on the most important single factor in promoting bicycling in the state -- namely, choosing leadership at DOT that believes in "complete streets." Last month the controversial departure of DOT Commissioner Joe Marie, highly regarded by the cycling and alternative transportation advocacy community, was an obvious set-back. Would Lamont and Glassman consider bringing Marie back to ConnDOT? Would they appoint members of the state's new Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board -- which came into being as part of the landmark 2009 'Complete Streets' law -- as part of a search committee for a new DOT Commissioner?
While the Glassman plan is not about to turn the asphalt jungle of exurban Connecticut into Portland or Berkeley, it is refreshing to see a candidate draw such a strong connection between livable streets and economic development: "in order to retain one of our state's most important resources, the young people that we educate, Connecticut must develop a sound transportation policy that includes cycling and pedestrian activities." Glassman is to be commended for trying to broaden the dialogue about the state's transportation future.
MLN is powered by