In a post yesterday, I speculated on potential NIMBYism from Connecticut’s attorney general if there were any thought of moving the northern portal into Connecticut, to avoid complaints from Westchester County powers-that-be.
It seems that Nutmegger Nimbyism is in force even with the tunnel proposal currently being internal to New York. An op-ed piece at the Courant opines:
Arguing that another highway will cut air pollution is a little like saying that a drink is the answer to an alcoholic’s craving. Even if it’s true for the short term, the long-term consequences are likely to be a disaster.
If the last half-century of highway building has taught us anything, it’s that new highways mean more traffic — and pollution.
That’s written like someone who hasn’t had to spend time sitting in traffic trying to get around the Sound (or through New York City).
Yes, there is something to be said for public transportation, as the op-ed advocates. However, they’re slamming a major feat of civil engineering which taxpayers apparently won’t be asked to fund, and which would ease the strain on a malfunctioning infrastructure.
If anything, doesn’t that arguably free resources to at least maintain, if not expand, existing transit systems in the face of worsening energy costs?