To the surprise of many naysayers, rail travel is once again on the upswing in Connecticut. New Haven, for example, is now the 15th busiest station on the Amtrak national system. The steady increase in rail ridership over the past 15 years is good news for those arguing for transit as an option to reducing sprawl, urban decay and environmental degradation.

However, this increase in rail use is also exposing some bottlenecks in the system. For example, many folks are finding that there is no space for them when they try to park in New Haven or other stations along the shoreline. In response, the first call is for more and more station area parking. This solution might on first blush seem like the right move, but is it?

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

I would like to suggest that we step back a bit and ask whether providing more parking is a viable long-term solution for getting the increasing number of new riders to the train station.

Consider the situation now: The area around most rail stations in Connecticut is a wasteland - huge parking garages or acres of surface parking with little or no semblance of urban life. In other words, we are sacrificing our urban centers to the expediency of access to the rail system. This is not a good trade-off - even in service of getting more bodies on the trains.

Providing more in-town parking might allow the rail system to grow, in the short run, but it will never allow it to truly flourish, because it will not have the nourishment of being part of an integrated, multifaceted transportation system, with walking, biking and buses all feeding the trains.

Instead of more parking, we need to nurture vibrant centers around the train stations in places such as Meriden, Ansonia and Bridgeport, which in time will mean that walking, biking and transit can all serve as viable and attractive alternatives to car travel. We are beginning to see signs of this in south Norwalk, but the state needs more such transit villages where urban living can thrive.

And consider the fact that with more parking comes more traffic choking the town centers and adding pressure to widen the streets, making them even less pedestrian-friendly. No wonder so many towns are resisting the call to put more parking at their stations. Is this really what we have in mind as we increase our investment in rail in this state? A fancy rail network yes, but where the main access to the system is still by car?

If we are to optimize our investment in rail, we need to provide access to it that does not compromise the character of those urban centers that still remain intact, and we need to use this investment in rail as a tool to bring life back to the dozens of town centers that have been decimated over the years by auto-first planning.

We can start by recognizing that the demand for so much parking at the station is a symptom of a more serious underlying illness - the lack of an integrated transportation and land-use system that gives people real choices. There are lots of options for providing access to the rail system and many of them do not involve driving into town centers such as New Haven or Westport. We should be considering all of the options: improved connections to the stations by foot and bike, shuttle-bus service from commuter lots already owned by the state, better integration of the train and the bus systems, better integration of the main line rail with the branch lines, expansion of the rail system designed to take the pressure off parking at the main stations, designated park and ride stations outside of the town centers, and more intense land use around the stations.

Some of these solutions, such as a shuttle bus system, would offer short-term relief to the system and can be implemented immediately for relatively little cost. Others are more medium range and will require some deliberation and coordination between different agencies.

However, the biggest bang for the buck likely can be had by changing the land-use pattern around the stations. Take the situation at the Westport station. This station is emblematic of the wastefulness and inefficiency of our current modus operandi. This station area, located in one of the richest towns in the country, is a true urban wasteland given over solely to parking. What a travesty! This is potentially the most valuable land in this affluent town because of the degree of accessibility that it offers, yet it is used for storage of vehicles.

This location could easily be converted to a mixed-use urban center at least the equal of south Norwalk - adding housing for people who could live car-free, if they chose to do so. Bringing more of what is needed in Fairfield County - housing - and avoiding what we could do without - more cars on I-95. This is an example of the potential for smart growth that exists up and down the Metro North system and along the other potential rail corridors in the state, including the New Haven to Springfield corridor.

Of course, even with huge new investments in rail service, smart growth does not just happen. It requires policies and funding at the state and local levels that stitch together the disparate transportation and land-use issues that are essential for good place making. It is clear that awareness is building in the state of the importance of multimodal transportation and smart growth. What is lacking is the mechanism needed to tie all the threads together to create a coherent whole.

Perhaps the governor's new Office of Responsible Growth and the new DOT deputy commissioner's Office of Transit Oriented Development will be the sparks that can forge a new approach to transportation and land-use planning in Connecticut. The new approach should be based not on always trying to maximize the flow and storage of cars, but rather on providing people with access to the things that they need and value - which, when you think about it, should be the ultimate goal of transportation.

Norman W. Garrick is an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Connecticut and director of the new Center for Smart Transportation.