Billions of dollars must mean new priorities
It’s not as simple as being handed a $5.3 billion check to do with as we please. Still, there’s a good chance a huge amount of money could be headed Connecticut’s way in the near future to rebuild our infrastructure. It’s essential that we’re ready. Gov. Ned Lamont was not able to move tolls through the Legislature early in his term, denying the state a windfall for long-delayed priorities. The election of Joe Biden, though, and a Democratic-led U.S. Congress means there could be help on the way on that front from Washington. Debate continues as progressives and moderates face off, and there remains a chance that nothing is passed. But the most likely outcome is a robust spending package that will include a large chunk of money for Connecticut.
Before we go into the traditional “roads and bridges” routine, where infrastructure money automatically means improving and enhancing means of vehicular traffic, there are a few things to consider.
High on the list is a state law that requires a reduction in emissions, something that, according to a recent report, the state is not abiding by. The state’s annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory came out earlier this month, and it showed that emissions from transportation are at higher levels than they were in 1990, which came in spite of great advances in fuel efficiency.
Under state law, greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors were supposed to be 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2001 levels by 2050. We’re not on target to get there. Something has to change.
Remember, also, that this is Connecticut, where environmentalism is politically popular and we have elected representatives who have enacted tough regulations to keep our air clean. If Connecticut can’t do it, there’s little hope for the rest of the country.
So we have to do better. That means if we’re handed a few billion dollars to spend on infrastructure, we can’t simply widen highways and rebuild bridges to make it easier for everyone to continue driving everywhere as usual. Our climate goals, which are written into state law, don’t allow for such an outcome.
Katie Dykes, state commissioner of the Department
of Energy and Environmental Protection, understands this reality, and touted this week the economic benefits of a transition to a green economy. “That’s going to mean a lot of infrastructure work to build out those charging stations across the state,” the CT Mirror quoted her as saying in reference to electric-vehicle infrastructure.
But there will need to be a statewide effort on rethinking priorities. It would be far too easy to dust off old plans for widening I-95 that would surely provide many construction jobs and maybe even some short-term traffic relief, but would put us in a worse position toward meeting climate goals.
In-fill construction, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and clean energy projects are essential. There is an unmet need for that kind of development in Connecticut, which would not only help the economy but attract a new cohort of state residents who are looking for something different.
That should be the goal on infrastructure spending — think different. Our future depends on it.
Before we go into the traditional “roads and bridges” routine, where infrastructure money automatically means improving and enhancing means of vehicular traffic, there are a few things to consider.