Plan or no plan, traffic here to stay
Contrary to public perception, Connecticut is creating plenty of businesses. The problem is each business apparently employs one person each.
According to a study by the state Department of Labor, Connecticut is not at the bottom of the pack when it comes to economic growth. In a look at what are called State Economic Indexes in 2018, Connecticut came in 38th nationally, which is less than great but maybe belies the impression that the state brings up the rear on every economic measure.
Looking further into the numbers, there are some positive signs, but most verify that the state is continually stuck in neutral. Connecticut has the lowest rating in New England and its economy has grown at a far slower rate in the past decade than the national average.
Most surprising is a seeming anomaly about job growth. The state ranked 19th nationally in growth rate of business establishments — which is very good, all things considered — yet 49th in job growth, which is by any measure terrible.
The implication is that plenty of people are starting new businesses here, which is not true everywhere. Michigan and Illinois, for example, had fewer businesses in 2018 than they did in 2010. (And it’s not some kind of coldweather issue, since Minnesota is near the top of the rankings in this category.)
But whatever the nature of the new businesses that are starting in Connecticut, they are not hiring anyone. This state outranked only Alaska in that category.
The question then becomes what state government is doing about it. To hear critics, laws enacted in the last legislative session such as a higher minimum wage and paid family leave have only made matters worse, but the evidence there is mixed. Many places with workerfriendly policies attract jobs at a healthy clip — California, for example, came in No. 4 in the Labor Department survey.
In Hartford, nearly every argument is made on the basis of job creation. Environmental activists seek cleaner water and clearer skies, but they do so in the language of job growth because they know that’s how it can be sold. Investing in offshore wind energy could bring a meaningful cut in emissions and reduce fossilfuel dependence, but an announcement of its arrival would highlight however many thousands of jobs such an endeavor would create.
That’s also the primary argument behind the ongoing transportation debate. “Every dollar we invest in our infrastructure is a dollar we invest in our future,” Gov. Ned Lamont said earlier this month. “The state’s largest employers agree that these investments can transform Connecticut.”
But given the plan in question, which mostly widens and straightens roads, it’s doubtful anyone believes that. There would be job gains in construction and maintenance, but that’s mostly temporary. Longterm growth is based on the idea of eventual easier commuting, but traffic is a problem now, and it would be when CT2030 is finished, if that day ever comes.
And, economically speaking, so what? California has bad traffic, and, as mentioned, it has an OK economy. New York City and Boston, two cities to which Connecticut jobs and workers are constantly flowing, are not known for stressfree driving conditions. Traffic can be seen as a sign that people want and need to be in your area. A lack of traffic would be a real problem.
As such, a transportation plan shouldn’t be based on cutting congestion. It should be based on improving quality of life. Connecticut is not going to become radically more appealing to new businesses if the New Havento-Stamford commute time on I95 is cut by five minutes, even assuming that were the plan’s likely outcome.
Transforming our way of life so we didn’t have to make that commute in a car every day actually would change people’s lives, and be worth the investment for residents and future employers. That means spending money on livable cities, mass transit and other highway alternatives. Despite our constant rhetoric about job growth, it’s exactly that kind of investment that state government appears uninterested in making.