THE REVOLT OVER SPEED CAMERAS

Few transportation issues have divided Connecticut residents more quickly than automated speed cameras.

Warning signs in Greenwich

Supporters say the cameras slow drivers down and protect children near schools. Critics argue they represent government surveillance, outsourced enforcement, and a “money grab”.

The controversy has played out most visibly in Greenwich, Fairfield and Milford.

In Greenwich, the debate became so heated that town officials suspended the speed camera program in April after determining that mandatory public hearings required before launching the program had somehow been missed.  Oops.

That decision followed months of complaints from residents who questioned everything from privacy protections to vendor involvement and the town's vendor selection process.

By mid-December 2025 Greenwich had issued 12,006 warnings and 2,294 citations, and later reported 7,225 citations in January 2026 alone.

Coverage by my colleagues at Greenwich Free Press documented the outrage.  A citizen petition gathered more than 700 signatures calling for the cameras to be removed.

May 14th Hearing in Greenwich    

At a long-overdue public hearing in mid-May, residents raised concerns about the selection process of vendor Blue Line Solutions, its data collection and privacy policy, and whether the system was designed more to generate revenue than improve safety.  

Town officials and police strongly disagreed.  Greenwich Police Chief Jim Heavey recently argued the cameras were "working exactly as intended" and reported reductions in speeding around schools since they were turned on.   Greenwich First Selectman Fred Camillo repeatedly rejected claims that the program was a "cash grab," emphasizing that the goal was protecting children.  

The Greenwich RTM takes up the issue June 8.  My guess is voters' representatives will reject it, adding another chapter to the town's remarkably clumsy handling of this program.

The same tensions are now emerging in Fairfield.

Fairfield's cameras issued more than 114,000 warning tickets in their first 17 days, with officials projecting roughly 190,000 violations during the initial warning period.   The numbers immediately fueled skepticism.

In Fairfield the violations kick in when you go more than 10 mph over the speed limit.  The first fine is $50, with additional processing fees possible depending on how the citation is paid.

Residents questioned why cameras operate 24 hours a day rather than only during school arrival and dismissal times.  Others worried about revenues projected to reach approximately $3.2 million during the first month of enforcement.

State Sen. Tony Hwang publicly acknowledged the backlash and urged town leaders to create a dedicated roadway-safety account so residents would not see the program as a "revenue grab."

Fairfield First Selectperson Christine Vitale pushed back, saying the program is "fully about children's safety" and adding that zero revenue would actually be the best outcome, meaning drivers obeyed the law.

So far fifteen Connecticut municipalities have received CDOT approval to install the cameras.  At least one town, Kent, has voted (by a four to one margin) not to install the speed cams.

Still, many crucial questions about the program remain unanswered at the local level:  how are vendors properly vetted, what happens when the three-year test period expires, how do citizens know ticket revenue will be properly spent and even a more basic question… are our speed limits too low?

Supporters insist these cameras are not about revenue.  Fair enough.  If every driver obeyed the speed limit, the towns would collect nothing.  But when local governments begin projecting millions of dollars in future ticket revenue (and dreaming of how it might be spent), they shouldn't be surprised when taxpayers become suspicious.

The challenge for Connecticut isn't proving that speeding is dangerous.  Most of us already agree that’s a real issue.  The real challenge is convincing drivers that speed cameras are truly about safety and not simply the latest government innovation in “contactless fundraising”.

 

 

TAKING YOUR BIKE ON THE TRAIN OR BUS

Now that summer is unofficially underway, let’s revisit a recent column of interest to bikers…

Taking mass transit is great.  But when you step off your train or bus, what do you do to get to your final destination?  Increasingly, that means BYO wheels:  a bike, e-bike or scooter.

The problem is, the rules for bringing your “wheels” can be very different depending on your carrier.

METRO-NORTH:

You can bring your non-electric-powered bike on the train anytime… except rush-hour and certain holidays.  Some train cars include wall-mounted racks; check the TrainTime app for bike-friendly trains and car markings.  If you have a folding bike that can get stowed in the overhead rack, you can bring it anytime.

But if your bike or scooter is powered, the rules are quite different.

First, you can’t ride your e-whatever at the station, on the platform or in the train. You can only bring your wheels on the train if it folds up, weighs less than 100 pounds and is your property, i.e. not a CitiBike, VEO etc.

Hanging bike rack on Metro-North

You cannot charge your e-bike on the train.  It must have UL-certified batteries and be stored in an area so it doesn’t block other passengers.  Whatever the rules may be, the train conductor or railroad staffer always has the final say and can stop you and your bike from being on the train.  If the train’s too crowded, you may be denied boarding. 

Remember… if your final destination is Grand Central Terminal there are any number of Citi Bike stations just outside on the street.  At New Haven there are bike-shares available through Ride New Haven.

SHORE LINE EAST & HARTFORD LINE:       The e-bike rules here are quite similar.  Unlike on Metro-North, regular (non-electric) bicycles are welcome anytime.  On the Hartford Line, CT Rail trains welcome bikes anytime for free.  But Amtrak’s Hartford Line trains accept bikes only with a reservation and a charge of $20.  You should call Amtrak at 800-872-7245 to purchase your ticket and secure a bike spot, as space is limited.

Confused yet?  Best if you check your railroad’s rules carefully, as e-bike policies differ between CT Rail and Amtrak-operated trains. 

At Hartford’s Union Station you can rent a scooter (but no bikes) through VEO.  Bikes may be added in the future.

CT TRANSIT BUSES:

Connecticut’s buses were pioneers in allowing bikes… not in the bus, but on racks mounted on the outside front of the bus.  The racks only hold two bikes, and its first-come, first-carried.

Only standard non-motorized bikes are allowed on racks; e-bikes, scooters, and motorized vehicles are not permitted, regardless of weight.

OTHER BUSES IN CONNECTICUT:

All GBTA (Greater Bridgeport) buses are equipped to carry your bicycle… two-bike maximum, first-come first-served.  Norwalk Transit rules aren’t crystal clear.  You might want to consult your carrier’s website or ask the driver before trying to transport your device.

PORT JEFFERSON FERRY:

The Port Jefferson Ferry allows bicycles and e-bikes onboard, but according to company policy, they are considered luggage and must be kept with the rider at all times.  Cyclists are required to carry their bikes as well as any baggage up and down staircases to the passenger decks.  If there’s room you can use the elevator.

Whatever your destination, always BYO (and wear) a helmet when operating on two wheels.  And remember:  E-bikes and scooters should use UL-certified batteries and never be charged aboard any vehicle or station.

 

NO GAS LINES... YET

Got vacation plans this summer?  Better stay flexible as the war with Iran is going to make travel this summer more expensive and unpredictable.

Even when the war is declared “over” there is such a backlog of shipping in the Mideast that supply chains will be disrupted for many months.  We’re not just talking about gasoline but dozens of other chemicals the world’s manufacturers are dependent on.  The impact of this will affect us all.

Roughly 2,000 ships are reportedly delayed, anchored or awaiting clearance across the Persian Gulf region. Their cargoes are going to face months of delays heading for China, India and Japan when they can resume travel.  Not only will prices for their cargoes soar, but so too will the cost of the products those cargoes are used to manufacture… plastics, electronics, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals.

The Oil Crisis of 1973

So far oil supplies are at a deficit (lower than they should be) but are not seeing real shortages:  no “gas lines”…. Yet.

If you’re planning a European vacation this summer, double check.  Because jet fuel prices have nearly doubled since the war began Lufthansa has already cancelled 20,000 flights this summer.

Flights are being consolidated even as fares are hit with fuel surcharges.  Older, less fuel-efficient aircraft like the Boeing 767 are increasingly being replaced by newer jets such as the Airbus A350.  Some analysts have warned that Europe could face critically tight jet fuel supplies within a few weeks if disruptions continue.

Trans-Atlantic flights out of New York City will continue, albeit it at higher costs for travelers.

And remember;  summer tourism affects more than just the passengers.  If they can’t travel, tourism dollars they would spend on both sides of the Atlantic will plummet.  European tourism officials were counting on free-spending American visitors this summer.  Instead they may get cancellations and angry customers staring at airfare apps. 

Even if you’re not flying to Europe, domestic road trips will be affected.

As of last Friday, AAA says the average price for gas in Connecticut was as high as $4.66 and diesel was $5.84.  Experts say that an end to the war may see an immediate price dip at the pump for gas but not for diesel.  High diesel costs mean higher prices for everything we buy.  And it may be 2027 before prices return to pre-war levels. 

Remember the supply chain disruptions after COVID?  They may be the new normal.  Take pharmaceuticals, for example.

America is hugely dependent on India and China for the pills we take.  Certain cancer drugs and vaccines, may be especially vulnerable to shipping disruptions.  Pain killers, antibiotics and anesthetics could be in short supply.  Even generic drugs (which make up 90% of those sold in the US) will be affected.

The world economy now runs on floating warehouses, fragile supply chains and optimistic assumptions.  One conflict half a world away can raise the price of gasoline in Connecticut, disrupt vacations in Europe and threaten the supply of medicines in your local pharmacy.  

We built a global economy based on speed, low cost and “just in time” delivery.  But “just in time” just isn’t anymore.

 

RAIL CATHEDRALS... BUT NO TRAINS?

In Connecticut, when it comes to transportation we don’t seem to have a transportation strategy… we just have a construction strategy.

Sure, the plans for redevelopment of the New Haven Union Station are certainly impressive… the new European-style roof and canopy over the tracks, the redone passenger tunnel, etc.  All of it serving as a beautiful gateway to The Elm City and a new TOD (transit oriented development) project on adjacent state land.

But why are we spending $402 million on this while we can’t find a paltry $3 million to restore some train service on Shore Line East?  We seem to be able to afford a cathedral for trains, just not the trains themselves.

I get it that infrastructure spending is important, much of it paid for with OPM (Other Peoples’ Money, i.e. the Feds).  But shouldn’t we be providing actual transportation, not just architectural marvels?  I guess it’s easier to ribbon-cut a station than run a schedule.

Consider just two other projects, small and large, as examples:

The $33 million installation of electrically-heated station platforms at the Darien RR station (already 15 months behind schedule)… or the seven year-long, billion dollar rebuild of the Walk rail bridge in Norwalk.  There seems to be plenty of money (and jobs) for construction but not for the trains and buses that will then use what’s built.

Why is the legislature looking at potential cuts affecting up to 30% of the bus service in Bridgeport while keeping the future of nine different Microtransit projects in some jeopardy?

Greater Bridgeport Transit carries as many as 15,000 passengers daily.  And there are 17 towns and cities served by nine Microtransit pilot programs, serving up more than 100,000 trips annually with Uber-like door-to-door service.  Norwalk’s Wheels2U has proven the concept’s success with 200+ riders per day. 

And guess what one of the bigger destinations of these bus and Microtransit riders:  that’s right, the train station.  This is how CDOT hopes to increase ridership on the rails, by cutting bus service?  With the price of gasoline these days, is this any way to encourage commuters to leave their car at home and try transit?

Why has CDOT plans for another 5% fare hike this July on Metro-North with no expansion of service and no increase in speed?  And the Governor’s campaign of super-fast express trains to New York City… just that, a campaign promise never fulfilled.

Why is Amtrak suing the MTA (parent of Metro-North) instead of cooperating to provide better train service?  MTA claims that Amtrak is slowing development of their new commuter service to the East Bronx while Amtrak says the railroad is denying it the right to run non-revenue and test trains on the New Haven line.

Why does Amtrak bicker with CDOT over The Hartford Line, limiting U-pass (student) riders’ access to its too-short, always-crowded, trains between Springfield and New Haven?

Why have high access and power costs charged by Amtrak made running the shiny, new M8 electric trains on Shore Line East uneconomical, persuading CDOT to pull out old passenger cars and run diesel locos just to save money?  Another nail in the coffin of Shore Line East.

It seems that we’re not investing in transportation.  We’re investing in transportation projects… real estate, not real people.  And riders (voters) can tell the difference.

WILL HIGHER GAS PRICES HELP MASS TRANSIT?

 Who’s not upset about higher gas prices?  Proponents of mass transit.

Transit advocates might be accused of a little schadenfreude, taking satisfaction in drivers’ pain at the pump.  Or maybe they’re renewing their long term dream: Maybe this will finally push people out of their cars and onto the train and bus! 

Maybe not.

In 2008, when gasoline spiked, ridership on Metro-North surged.  Connecticut commuters did the math and decided the train beat sitting on I-95 burning $4 gas.

But these days gasoline is not the main cost of driving. 

Sure, the price of gas is just the most visible expense … the one glowing at you on every street corner.  But for most drivers, that’s only a fraction of what they’re already paying. The real costs are “sunk”: car payments, insurance, maintenance, depreciation.  Whether gas is $3 or $5, you’re still writing those checks every month.

Your car doesn’t get cheaper just because you leave it in the driveway.  It just sits there like a very expensive lawn ornament, depreciating.

So when gas rises by a dollar a gallon (as it has in a month), the typical commuter might spend an extra $30 or $40 a month.  Painful, yes.  But not exactly life-changing when you’re already paying hundreds monthly for the car itself.

Gas prices are the classic example of an inelastic market.  Prices go up… and people grumble, but they keep driving, in many Connecticut locales because it’s the only option.

Of course, the transportation equation depends on what alternatives to driving you might have.  Is there a bus?  When’s the train?  How frequent and reliable is the service?  And what’s the fare?  

Assuming there are mass transit alternatives to the daily drive, some commuters may become part-time transit riders. They’ll drive some days, take the train others, especially when traffic or the weather are brutal.  Or maybe when gas spikes even higher.  Or when parking in Stamford or New Haven feel like highway robbery.

Early signs are already there.  Commuter ridership on Metro-North Railroad was ticking up even before the Iran war. That may continue.

Ironically, the railroad is now running a social media campaign encouraging riders to avoid standing in the aisles and vestibules on crowded trains, instead sitting in that dreaded middle seat on the three-seat side.  They say this will “avoid crowding”.  That’s putting the mass back into mass transit.

So the real “trigger price” for behavior change in commuting isn’t just a number on the gas pump.  It’s a combination of factors: sustained high prices, lousy traffic, expensive parking, and most of all, whether you actually need to make the trip at all.

Work from home seems a lot more attractive these days, something we didn’t have as an option in previous oil “shocks”.  Thank you COVID, the ultimate commute-killer.

Let’s be honest: you can’t argue with the convenience of driving.  But to save money, people will adjust: combine trips, carpool, skip errands, shop online.  Or even rethink that low-mileage SUV.

PS: Just as gas prices rise, there’s another 5% fare increase coming this summer for commuter rail in Connecticut … and a potential 30% cut in Bridgeport bus service. Timing is everything.

COULD YOUR MAIL REALLY STOP?

 

You may not get any Christmas cards this year. Or bills. Or junk mail. The U.S. Postal Service is once again warning it’s in real trouble, and this time, they’re not whispering. 

You want to see someone speaking truth to power, check out Postmaster General David Steiner testifying to a House Oversight Subcommittee. “Without action,” he told the pols, “the Postal Service will run out of cash.”

Without Congress doing something the USPS won’t stop your home deliveries, at least not every day.  But we may lose Saturday mail.  And see smaller post offices close.  And first class rates could zoom up to about $1 per letter.

The problem is simple: first-class mail is dying. Not sick. Not struggling. Dead… replaced by email, autopay, and whatever app you’re using to read this.

Think of it.  How much “real” mail do you get each day?  I mean letters from people, not just companies trying to sell you something.  How many letters do you send and how many stamps do you buy?  Compare your volume of paper mail to your email and you’ll understand the problem.

Not that the USPS hasn’t innovated on technology.  I love their “Informed Delivery” option telling me (ironically, by email) what will be delivered to my real mailbox later in the day.

There’s been a 50% drop in first class mail since the early 2000s.  And it’s first class where the USPS has historically made its real profits, not with marketing mail or packages.  In 2019 a stamp was 55 cents.  Today it’s 73 cents.  And despite that jump the Postal Service is losing about ten cents per letter in delivery cost vs revenue. 

That’s what we call a death spiral: raising prices to cover losses, only to drive away the customers you needed to survive… just like on our commuter rail lines.

The problem is worsened because the Postal Service has to deliver to every address in the US.  In Connecticut that means everywhere from Hartford to Union (population 785, so small it doesn’t even have its own zip code).

To do its job the USPS maintains a fleet of 257,000 vehicles, from trucks to delivery vans, serving 168 million delivery addresses.  They have over 530,000 employees making the USPS one of the largest employers in the country.

And those employees, while they presumably enjoy the jobs, are also promised nice pensions.  Long time workers (hired before 1984) can retire with pensions of 60%+ of their final salary. 

Despite staffing reductions of 25% between 2008 and 2015, the Service is looking at $10 - $15 billion in annual pension and retiree health benefits in the next few years, long-subject to pre-funding requirements.

The USPS also supports more than 33,000 physical post offices nationwide, making it the largest retail network in the US, roughly the same as Starbucks and McDonalds combined but with a lot fewer customers. That’s a lot of overhead. 

How will the Congress respond to the Postmaster General’s dire warnings last week?  Probably by letting USPS borrow even more money beyond its current $15 billion cap, because nothing says “long-term solution” like more short-term debt.

So pick your poison:  higher prices for stamps, fewer post offices, reduced deliveries, all of the above… or just “kick the can down the road”?  Which do you think Congress will choose in this election year?

 

 

 

 

A GIFT AT THE PUMP IN AN ELECTION YEAR

Do you want a “gas tax holiday” to help buffer the rising cost of fuel?  Your first reaction is probably a loud and enthusiastic “Yes!”

But before we all start planning what to do with those extra quarters’ savings per gallon, it’s worth asking a couple of uncomfortable questions:  who really benefits and who’s really paying for it later?

Governor Lamont says suspending the gas tax would help your already-squeezed wallet as global oil prices climb during the Iran war. Fair enough.

But let’s not forget one small detail.  It’s also an election year.

And if that sounds familiar, it should. The last gas tax “holiday” came in 2022 — another election year.  Funny how that works.

Still, as one seasoned Connecticut legislator once told me: “Sometimes good politics is also good policy.”  Translation: even a political stunt can occasionally help people.

Gas taxes fund the state’s Special Transportation Fund (STF) which spends about $2.3-billion-a-year for highways, buses, rail service and the endless maintenance required to keep Connecticut moving.

Right now the STF looks healthy enough.  But the state’s own forecasts show trouble ahead as costs rise and revenue from gasoline taxes slowly declines.

A gas tax holiday would drain about $40 million a month from the fund… money that normally pays for things like fixing potholes, maintaining bridges and subsidizing Metro-North.

So yes, a gas tax holiday would save you a little money at the pump.  But remember: the state’s transportation system still needs to be paid for somehow.

Until recently, transportation planners worried that electric vehicles would slowly starve the STF because EV drivers don’t buy gasoline and therefore don’t pay gas taxes.  But now federal policy toward EVs has been, shall we say, less enthusiastic.  Which means that deficit problem may arrive later than expected.

Of course, with gasoline pushing toward painful levels again, an electric car is suddenly looking pretty attractive, assuming you can afford one.

Remember the last “holiday” in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine and fuel prices surged?  The state suspended the 25-cent-per-gallon tax for nine months, then slowly restored it over five months so drivers wouldn’t feel the shock all at once.  Average savings worked out to roughly $100 to $120 per driver.  Nice, but not exactly life-changing.

In other transportation news this week…  the Connecticut Department of Transportation seems to be going after truckers again.

During February’s blizzard, CDOT did an admirable job clearing the highways.  Unfortunately, their work was repeatedly slowed by tractor-trailers ignoring the statewide truck ban and jackknifing across the interstates.

Currently the fine for violating a truck ban is just $90.  That’s barely more than a parking ticket.  CDOT wants to raise the penalty to $250, which might finally get some drivers’ attention as a deterrent to risking travel in a blizzard.

But where exactly are trucks supposed to go?  If they pull off the highway during a storm, where exactly can they park?  Connecticut has only 363 truck parking spaces statewide at rest areas.  But CDOT estimates that more than 10,000 trucks a day travel I-95 alone.

Truckers get paid for delivering freight on time, not for sitting in a parking lot waiting for the snow to stop.

So if the state wants stricter compliance with truck bans, it might help to provide drivers with two things:  more notice … and somewhere safe to park.