Will 2019 Legislature Ban Pet Leases? CT Would Be 4th State to Approve Ban

New York became the third state earlier this year, following Nevada and California, to enact a law restricting or prohibiting pet leasing, apparently a growing trend – and concern - across the country.  The law was approved last month and takes effect in December. Connecticut considered a ban on pet leasing during the 2018 legislative session.  A proposal was approved in the Senate, but was not considered by the House of Representatives, according to a report released this month by the state Office of Legislative Research (OLR). 

The Federal Trade Commission explains that “pet leasing is a relatively new industry. It relies on a financial product – a consumer lease – that is commonly associated with cars, furniture, and heavy equipment, not with puppies, parrots, and other pets. As a result, most people considering buying a pet are not expecting to be handed a lease.”

“There can be complications,” the FTC points out. “If the customer misses a monthly payment, the leasing company can repossess Fluffy, Fido, or Cookie the Cockatoo. And, if the animal gets lost, stolen, or dies, or if the customer can no longer keep the pet, the customer can still be required to make payments through the end of the lease period or pay a hefty early termination fee.”

These concerns, and others, are leading an increasing number of states to consider laws to govern – or ban – the practice.  Last month, published reports indicate that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court on behalf of residents of Hopatcong, New Jersey, against a local pet store and another in Virginia. The lawsuit challenges the lease agreement.

Earlier this year, CBS News published a story about the practice, citing a Connecticut pet store’s practice that irked a local resident.

“Here's how it works: pet stores lure customers in with a cute but expensive pet. Then the customers sign what they believe is a loan that will allow them to make low monthly payments for the pet,” the CBS News report explained.  “But it's not really a loan; it's a lease. And customers often don't realize it until it's too late.”

The Connecticut law proposed earlier this year “generally would have voided any pet lease entered into on or after October 1, 2018,” according to OLR.  It stated that “Anyone taking possession of a dog or cat under such a contract would have been (1) deemed to be the animal’s owner and (2) entitled to the return of all amounts paid under the contract.”

Nevada law prohibits a person from offering to lease any living animal or goods intended for personal, family, or household use, including pets, according to the research published by OLR. California law, effective on January 1 this year, applies to dogs and cats and points out that the consumer taking possession of the dog or cat under such a contract is deemed the animal’s owner, voiding any lease agreements.  The New York law prohibits a contract for buying or financing a dog or cat that includes any provisions that authorize using the dog or cat as security and allow the lender or seller to repossess the animal if the buyer fails to make payments under the contract.  The law does not prohibit buying a dog or cat through an unsecured personal loan.

Suicide Numbers Increasing; Efforts Intensify to Respond, Prevent

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report this year that suicide rates nationally jumped by 25 percent since 1999, a finding that “shocked” even experts who believed the rate had been flat. Each year, more than 41,000 individuals die by suicide, leaving behind their friends and family members to navigate the tragedy of loss, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Connecticut's rate, 9.7 deaths per 100,000, rose 20 percent during that time, and 49 states saw an increase, according to the CDC. Connecticut’s suicide rate, is ranked number 46 in the country.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. with one occurring on average every 13.3 minutes. September is National Suicide Prevention Month.

For every suicide, there are 30 people who made the attempt, Dr. James F. O'Dea, vice president of the Behavior Health Network of Hartford Healthcare, recently told the Meriden Record-Journal.  The U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration reports that “approximately 45% of suicide victims had contact with primary care providers within 1 month of suicide.”

“Connecticut suicide rates may have not have increased as much in comparison to other states, but isn’t the real question, ‘Why is it increasing at all?’” Luis Perez, president and CEO of Mental Health Connecticut, told The Hartford Courant earlier this year.

“It’s been well-researched that most people who die by suicide do so because they want the pain to stop — and they don’t see any other way,” Perez said. “Prevention is critical. Knowing the safe and right way to talk to someone who may have thoughts of suicide and letting people know they are not alone, that millions of people struggle with suicide ideation is key.”

According to the state Department of Public Health, approximately 31 percent of victims had a history of treatment for mental illness and 42 percent had previously attempted or thought about suicide or disclosed their intent to commit suicide. The CDC offers 5 steps to help someone at risk: 1. Ask. 2. Keep them safe. 3. Be there. 4. Help them connect. 5. Follow up.

The U.S. government’s anti-bullying website, stopbullying.com, points out that “many issues contribute to suicide risk, including depression, problems at home, and trauma history. Additionally, specific groups have an increased risk of suicide, including American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian American, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.”  The site indicates that “this risk can be increased further when these kids are not supported by parents, peers, and schools. Bullying can make an unsupportive situation worse.”

Matt Riley, Chief Operating Officer of the Connecticut-based Jordan Porco Foundation, recently told WTNH-TV that suicide is the second leading cause of death for Americans ages 15 to 24. One in ten college students and one in five high school students consider suicide. Young people considering suicide are most likely to talk to peers, so the Jordan Porco Foundation focuses on peer-to-peer outreach and awareness, with a series of successful program initiatives on college campuses in Connecticut and across the country.

In recent years, a new student-driven primary prevention program was piloted to help high school students develop positive coping skills and enhance protective factors in preparation for life beyond high school. Schools and organizations participating included Manchester High School, Immaculate High School in Danbury, Enfield Public Schools, Capital Preparatory High School in Hartford, Institute of Living in Hartford, Jewish Family Services in West Hartford, Wilton High School, Boys & Girls Club of Bristol, and Guilford Youth & Family Services.

Numerous organizations across Connecticut offer Mental Health First Aid, an 8-hour training to teach participants how to help someone who is developing a mental health problem or experiencing a mental health crisis. The evidence behind the program demonstrates that it helps trainees identify, understand and respond to signs of mental illnesses and substance use disorders.  The course is often offered to participants free of charge.

https://youtu.be/TT_HLG5FkKA

https://youtu.be/jl87bmuCTdM

308 Structurally Deficient Bridges Across CT: Average Age 69 Years

Just last month, it was revealed that more than 1,500 of California’s bridges are structurally deficient, meaning there is significant deterioration of the bridge deck, supports or other major components. More than half – 56 percent – of California’s bridges are at least 50 years old – the eighth highest rate in the nation. Yesterday, it was announced that 59 percent of Connecticut’s more than 4,000 bridges are 50 years or older, the fourth highest rate in the nation. The average age of all Connecticut’s bridges is 53 years, while the average age of the state’s 308 structurally deficient bridges – seven percent of the total - is 69 years.  Structurally deficient bridges in Connecticut are crossed daily by 4.3 million vehicles.

Both reports were done by TRIP, a national transportation research group, based on an analysis of Federal Highway Administration National Bridge Inventory (2017).  The organization did a similar report about Wisconsin, also released this week.  It found that nine percent of Wisconsin’s locally and state-maintained bridges are structurally deficient.

Connecticut has 4,252 bridges (20 feet or longer), compared with 14,253 in Wisconsin and 25,657 in California.

The 20-page Connecticut report indicated that “To retain businesses, accommodate population and economic growth, maintain economic competitiveness, and achieve further economic growth, Connecticut will need to maintain and modernize its bridges by repairing or replacing deficient bridges and providing needed maintenance on other bridges to ensure that they remain in good condition as long as possible.”

The report also noted that “annually, $489 billion in goods are shipped to and from sites in Connecticut, largely by truck,” adding that “approximately 731,000 full-time jobs in Connecticut in key industries like tourism, retail sales, agriculture and manufacturing are completely dependent on the state’s transportation network.”

Hartford, Fairfield and New Haven counties each have 60 or more structurally deficient bridges, with 65, 61 and 60 respectively.  Litchfield County has 39; New London County has 32.  The report listed Middlesex County with 22, Windham County with 17 and Tolland County with 12.

The report also sounded an alarm for Connecticut, a state seeking to attract and retain businesses to bolster a sluggish economy:  “Increasingly, companies are looking at the quality of a region’s transportation system when deciding where to re-locate or expand. Regions with congested or poorly maintained roads may see businesses relocate to areas with a smoother, more efficient and more modern transportation system.”

Highway accessibility, the report pointed out, was ranked the number one site selection factor in a 2017 survey of corporate executives by Area Development Magazine.

“Without a substantial boost in federal, state and local funding, numerous projects to improve and preserve Connecticut’s bridges will not be able to proceed, hampering the state’s ability to improve the condition of its transportation system and to support economic development opportunities in the state,” the report concluded.

This summer,  CT by the Numbers reported on a ranking developed by CNBC, found that 73 percent of Connecticut roads are in bad shape, giving the state a grade of D, while noting that nearly 8 percent of Connecticut’s bridges are deficient.

Transportation Infrastructure in CT Among Nation's Worst; Including Structurally Deficient Highway Bridges

When the Mianus River Bridge on Interstate 95 in Greenwich collapsed 35 years ago, killing three motorists and putting an unprecedented focus on road and bridge infrastructure in Connecticut, it was apparently not preceded by public warnings about the poor condition of the state’s roads and bridges. Today, the warnings are abundant, in Connecticut and elsewhere, including a new ranking which underscores that New England and the Northeast are the epicenter for transportation infrastructure in need of improvement.

The latest comes from a ranking developed by CNBC, which found that 73 percent of Connecticut roads are in bad shape, giving the state a grade of D, while noting that nearly 8 percent of Connecticut's bridges are deficient.  Data from the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)  earlier this year indicated that 332 of the state’s 4,238 bridges were deemed deficient, six fewer than the previous year.    

Connecticut is not the only state in the region with acute infrastructure problems in need of costly solutions.  From the bottom up, the states ranking lowest in the analysis are Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Maryland and West Virginia (tie), New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Mississippi.

The CNBC report said of Connecticut:  “The infrastructure situation in the Nutmeg State is so bad, you could say Connecticut is moving backward. With the state facing a fiscal crisis, Gov. Dannel Malloy had to cancel $4.5 billion in transportation projects last year, proposing instead to restore tolls to the state’s highways for the first time in more than 30 years. That idea, so far, has gone nowhere. As politicians continue to debate, Connecticut roads continue to deteriorate.”

According to data published by ARTBA, Connecticut’s most traveled structurally deficient bridge – and the 60^th most traveled structurally deficient bridge in the nation – is on I-95 in Norwalk, over the Norwalk River at Hendricks Avenue, between exits 15 and 16.  Additionally, highway bridges in New Haven, Fairfield and Hartford are also among the 110 most highly travelled and structurally deficient in the United States, the ARTBA indicates. 

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association has noted that the state's Special Transportation Fund faces insolvency by 2020—despite Connecticut having the seventh highest gas taxes in the nation, adding that this fall, voters will consider a constitutional amendment creating a lock box to protect dedicated transportation funding from being diverted to other uses.

According to Ballotpedia, the measure would require that all revenue placed in the state's Special Transportation Fund (STF) be used for transportation purposes, including the payment of transportation-related debts. The state legislature would be prohibited from spending the fund on non-transportation purposes.

The STF is funded by the motor fuels tax, motor carrier road tax, petroleum products gross earnings tax, certain motor vehicle receipts and fees, motor vehicle-related fines, and a portion of state sales tax.

The top five states with the best transportation infrastructure, according to the CNBC analysis, are Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Toll Technology, Revenue Considered in Indiana, Minnesota and (Possibly) Connecticut

“Toll technology advancements significantly altered the tolling landscape, expanded the types of toll facilities being operated and improved customer experience,” a report on tolling feasibility developed for the Minnesota Department of Transportation explained.  “New toll facilities using all-electronic tolling are being implemented in several places across the country to add new roadway capacity, manage congestion and provide a sustainable revenue source for asset lifecycle costs.” The 106-page report, issued in January, concluded that more study is needed — if that’s the direction the state wants to take, the Minneapolis StarTribune reported.  The StarTribune noted that “Minnesota doesn’t have the kind of toll-road system that is common on the East Coast and other regions of the country. The E-ZPass electronic toll system, for example, was first deployed in New York 25 years ago and now serves 17 states, stretching from Maine to Illinois to North Carolina.”

The MnDOT study, initiated at the legislature’s behest, cost $175,000 and recommended a follow-on in-depth study, anticipated to have a considerably larger price tag.  The report stated that “results of the feasibility analysis are a high-level revenue assessment based on numerous assumptions and a more detailed study would be required before any decision is made to implement a specific toll project.” The report was prepared by four consultants – the Minneapolis offices of WSB and HNTV Corporation, and Prime Strategies, Inc. and Lock Lord LLP, both of Austin.

Indiana is also giving tolls a careful look, with the type of in-depth study recommended in Minnesota, and proposed by Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, who signed an Executive Order authorizing a $10 million study.  Malloy’s proposal is to be considered by the State Bond Commission later this week.  “Without transforming the way the state funds its highways,” Malloy said recently, “we will be unable to pay for the large-scale construction and rehabilitation projects that our state needs to ensure continued safe travel while attracting businesses and growing our economy.”

In Indiana, a strategic plan that could clear the way for that state to add tolls to its interstate highways, including inside the I-465 loop in Indianapolis, is currently being developed by one of the companies utilized by Minnesota.

The Indianapolis Star reported earlier this summer that the state signed a $9.6 million contract with HNTB Indiana Inc. to study the impact of tolling and provide project planning if the state chooses to move forward with tolling.  The administration of Gov. Eric Holcomb is required to study tolling under a road-funding plan lawmakers passed in 2017, but a decision has not been made on whether the state will go forward with authorizing a tolling plan, according to published reports.

Under the law, Indiana’s Governor is permitted to draft a strategic plan "if the governor determines that tolling is the best means of achieving major interstate system improvements in Indiana."   That decision has yet to be made.

"He wanted more information to make an informed decision and will use the strategic plan due Dec. 1 as a basis for that," a spokesman for the Governor told the Star. "If after reviewing the plan the governor determines that tolling is not the best option, the state won’t move forward with the remainder of the contract."

The contract with HNTB lays out specific requirements for the consultant if the state chooses to add tolling. For example, the Star reported, HNTB would be required to assist with project start-up for tolls in the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Area, which includes Indianapolis and portions of nearly all of the bordering counties.

In Iowa earlier this year, a state DOT report on tolls was received by political leaders with distain.  In an editorial, The Gazette noted the possibility of tolls “is worthy of much more careful consideration than the political class is willing to grant.”  The publication added “Political fecklessness will not solve Iowa’s mounting transportation funding problems. Iowans love driving, we have a lot of roads and somebody has to pay for them.”

“Many Iowans have noticed a pattern in state government, a repetitive cycle of studies, recommendations and inaction. That may serve politicians fixated on their next election, but it does little to solve the very real problems Iowans face.”

https://youtu.be/kQxCVcMUq1s

Video: Connecticut House Democrats

Graphics:  2018 Minnesota DOT Toll Study Report

Struggles Continue for Thousands Who Relocated from Puerto Rico to Connecticut in Storm Aftermath

About 13,000 residents of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands who arrived in Connecticut in the aftermath of the hurricanes Maria and Irma continue to struggle with obtaining basic needs including adequate housing, food, medical care and jobs, according to a survey commissioned by the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving. The vast majority of those who have come to Connecticut, over 70 percent, have extremely low incomes (under $30,000), adding a heavy responsibility on an already over-extended and resource-limited Puerto Rican community in Connecticut, given the extreme levels of need that are present in the community, even before the storms, the Foundation pointed out.

Approximately 1,300 people participated in the survey, which utilized online and in-person questionnaires in English and Spanish and field research.  It was conducted by the University of Connecticut’s El Instituto: Institute for Latina/o Caribbean and Latin American Studies and the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College. The objective was to understand the long-term impact of displacement on Puerto Rican households in the Greater Hartford region.

“The Hartford region has one of the highest concentrations of people of Puerto Rican origin outside Puerto Rico and last year’s hurricanes brought thousands more to the region, many of whom will likely stay,” said Scott Gaul, the Hartford Foundation’s director of Research and Evaluation. “The hurricanes were an unprecedented event, but we can anticipate similar crises will happen again. The survey is one tool to help the Hartford region understand the needs of evacuees and the potential long-term impacts of displacement.”

The survey found that while some households surveyed had initially relied on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for funding basic needs, the majority of those affected relied on Greater Hartford’s nonprofit organizations, school districts and family members for support.

During the 2018 Legislative Session, the Connecticut General Assembly  approved $4.4 million in education and housing assistance for displace residents, including $1.5 million in aid to the departments of education, housing and social services.

More than half of respondents (56%) mentioned that it was very likely (36%) or somewhat likely (22%) that kin would relocate from the Caribbean to Connecticut, with most of those relatives and friends staying with respondents.  Those living in Hartford’s outer ring suburbs were relatively less likely (72%) to have kin in the Caribbean than those living in Hartford or its immediate suburbs. And they expect nearly 1,500 additional people to arrive from Puerto Rico in the wake of the hurricane.

In addition, those responding to the survey indicated that they expected displaced kin to remain in Connecticut into the medium and long terms. Nearly a third of respondents (32%) reported that kin would stay in Connecticut for a few months, and a quarter (26%) would remain for a few years.

The survey also found:

• The most pressing need for respondents hosting displaced Puerto Ricans is lodging, with fully one-third indicating that housing was one the biggest needs they face.
• Nearly three-fifths of respondents indicated housing was displaced person’s first order need, followed by 16 percent who mentioned it in second order.
• Food was a first order need for one-fifth of survey respondents’ displaced friends and relatives and second order need for 35 percent.

Survey respondents identified housing issues and insufficient food as the most critical needs they are facing in Connecticut, along with healthcare, in the after aftermath of the crisis. These are needs not only of those who are in the state already, but of those who are very likely to arrive in the short term,” wrote Professors Charles R. Venator-Santiago, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and El Instituto and Carlos Vargas Ramos, Center for Puerto Rican Studies.

"These needs are adding a heavy responsibility on an already over-extended and resource-limited Puerto Rican community in Connecticut, given the extreme levels of need that are present in the community and pre-dated the crisis created by hurricanes Irma and Maria," the report stated.

Results from the survey are aimed at helping to inform long-term planning and action by funders, nonprofits, municipalities and schools.  The Foundation intends to work with community organizations and leaders in the region to disseminate and act on survey results.

The report indicated that preliminary estimates by the government of Puerto Rico indicate that approximately 70,000 residential properties were totally destroyed, with an additional 300,000 partially damaged residences. As of February 2018, 1.1 million households had applied for disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Bridgeport, New Haven Among Nation's 50 Most Stressful Cities, Analysis Says

Stress?  Look no further than Bridgeport and New Haven.  Both cities were ranked in the top 50 Most Stressed Cities in America, a new ranking produced by the financial website WalletHub. Bridgeport ranked 33^rd and New Haven 41^st, based on analysis that considered stress in four areas:  the workplace, finances, family, and health and safety as contributing factors.

The most stressed cities in America, according to the analysis, were Detroit, Newark, Cleveland, Birmingham, Toledo, Baltimore, Wilmington, Milwaukee Gulfport and St. Louis.  Among New England cities, Bridgeport led the list, followed by Worcester (37), New Haven, Boston (52), and Providence (57). 

Bridgeport ranked 17^th in the workplace stress category and 23^rd in financial stress; 103^rd in family-related stress. Bridgeport also had among the lowest average weekly work hours, tied for 176^th among the 182 cities included in the rankings.  New Haven ranked 168th in that category.

New Haven was 37^th in health and safety related stress; in the mid-50’s in the other categories.

WalletHub evaluated the 150 most populated U.S. cities, plus at least two of the most populated cities in each state, using the four dimensions including 37 relevant metrics.  Those metrics included job security, traffic congestion, unemployment rate, average commute time and income growth in the work stress category.  Financial stress included evaluation of annual household income, foreclosure rate, food insecurity, housing affordability and debt per median earnings.

The family stress category included the separation and divorce rate, number of single parent households, child care costs and other factors.  The ten factors considered as part of the Health & Safety stress category included mental health, smoking, obesity, inadequate sleep, crime rate and hate-crime incidents.

Greensboro, North Carolina, residents spend the fewest annual hours in traffic congestion per auto commuter, 4, which is 25.5 times fewer than in Los Angeles, the city where residents spend the most at 102, according to the data.  Bridgeport and New Haven tied for 36th in the traffic congestion rankings.

Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, INRIX, Chmura Economics & Analytics, Indeed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Renwood RealtyTrac, County Health Ranking, Zillow, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, TransUnion, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Council for Community and Economic Research, Gallup-Healthways, Numbeo, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Sharecare.

Nuclear Attack on NYC Could Impact CT, Report Suggests

The illustration in a recent edition of New York magazine has drawn some attention in Connecticut.  Accompanying an article describing the anticipated aftermath in the tri-state region of a nuclear attack on New York City, the potential path of nuclear fall-out was shown to extend through Connecticut towns including Greenwich, Stamford, Wilton and others, reaching as far north as the town of Monroe. Within two hours of an attack on Times Square, the article described, a plume of radioactive fallout would “unfurl 60 miles beyond the city, lingering for weeks, contaminating food and water supplies.”

The article explains that “In the hours and days after a nuclear blast, a massive plume of fallout would unfurl past the city’s borders and up the Eastern Seaboard, scattering radioactive dust on everything in its path: people, homes, farms, animals, forests, rivers. The most radioactive region of the plume would reach its full length of 20 miles an hour after the explosion, exposing every unsheltered person in the area to toxic levels of radiation; if it were to spread north from Times Square, it would reach as far as New Rochelle. Within a day, this danger zone would shrink to about a mile in length. Within a week, it would have dissipated completely.

A much bigger but less radioactive region of the plume, called the hot zone, would reach its maximum length of 60 miles — extending, say, as far north as Monroe, Connecticut — two hours after the explosion. A week later, the hot zone would still extend 20 miles from the city, and it would take many more weeks for it to disappear altogether. Although radioactivity in the hot zone would likely be too weak to cause any acute symptoms of radiation sickness, it could still subtly damage the human body and increase the chance of cancer.

How far and in what direction a plume of fallout travels depends on the altitude of the mushroom cloud, as well as temperature, wind, and other meteorological variables. Within an hour of an explosion, FEMA’s Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center would begin to track the plume’s movement, providing updates and projections to federal, state, and local authorities. They would use the information to evacuate people in the opposite direction of the plume and warn people in the plume’s path to seek shelter and avoid consuming any exposed water or food.”

Nearly a decade ago, a New York Times story on the subject included this:  Suppose the unthinkable happened…Do not flee. Get inside any stable building and don’t come out till officials say it’s safe.”  That advice, the Times indicated, was “based on recent scientific analyses showing that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far.”

“We have to get past the mental block that says it’s too terrible to think about,” W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency at the time, told the Times. “We have to be ready to deal with it” and help people learn how to “best protect themselves.”

Connecticut's state website focuses on nuclear preparedness related to an emergency at a nuclear power plant in the state.  The Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security site indicates "While the Dominion Energy- Millstone Station in Waterford is the main focus of emergency planning in Connecticut, the fuel storage site at the former Connecticut Yankee site in Haddam, CT and the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York, are also included in Connecticut's radiological emergency preparedness and response program."

Communities near those sites are linked, and a calendar of upcoming training is provided.  The United Way also provides information related to evacuation and taking shelter on the agency's website. New Haven conducted an exercise of their host community reception center to prepare for the unlikely event of a nuclear release at the Millstone power plant in 2015; video here:  https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/videos/109671

(New York magazine illustration)

New Haven is Among Safest Cities in U.S. for Cycling, Analysis Shows

New Haven is one of the nation’s ten safest cities for cyclists, according to a new analysis.  In a ranking dominated by communities in California, with six of the top ten, New Haven was not only the lone Connecticut city to earn a spot among the top ten, it was the only city in the Northeast to do so.  The ranking saw Davis and Berkeley California named the safest cities for bicyclists, followed by Boulder, Colorado; Eugene, Oregon; Palo Alto, Chico, and Mountain View, California; Fort Collins, Colorado; Santa Barbara, California, and New Haven.  Minneapolis ranked number 12.

Five other Connecticut cities made their way into the top 100 nationally:  Hartford at number 55; Norwalk at number 82; Bridgeport at number 85; New Britain at number 91 and Waterbury, which was ranked at number 92.  Lower down the list were Stamford, ranked number 221 and Danbury,  which came in at number 229.

New Haven debuted Connecticut’s first protected bike lanes a year ago, according to published reports, from City Hall to Long Wharf, and city officials have said  “New Haven encourages alternative transportation options in the city so there is a variety of existing supported infrastructure available, including off-street shared use paths, on-street bicycle lanes, a contra-flow bike lane, bike boxes at intersections, on-street bike corrals, bike racks on sidewalks, bike racks on parking meters and bike racks on buses.”

"New Haven likely fared well due to their bike laws, a high percentage of spending per capita on bike lanes and their low percentage of fatal crashes," said Laura Schmitz, Safety Writer with Your Local Security. "The city of New Haven should be proud of their efforts to make their city safer for cyclists!"

The city also launched a bike sharing program this year, in February, and celebrated National Bike to Work Day in May with a program encouraging bike riding.  In addition, Yale University is a Gold-level Bicycle Friendly University, as awarded by the League of American Bicyclists, and the city has developed on-line bike route maps.

The safest city in Massachusetts, Somerville, ranked number 58.  Providence was the safest in Rhode Island, but ranked number 482 on the national list.  Syracuse was determined to be the safest in New York State, ranking number 537.

The rankings were issued by yourlocalsecurity.com, an ADT Authorized Premier Provider.  To determine the safest and least safe US cities for bikers, metrics and data were used from Census.gov, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, People for Bikes, and The League of American Bicyclists to find the percentage of bike commuters, number of fatal crashes, amount of bike lanes, and what bike laws are in place or in the works in each city.

At the bottom of the list, the ten most dangerous cities included Los Angeles, New York, Houston, and five cities in Iowa.  Cities were included if these sources had data for them. Cities included had populations of 20,000 or more.

CT Pilot Program Testing Fully Autonomous Vehicles Begins Accepting Municipal Applications

Driverless cars may be coming to a Connecticut town near you. The state Office of Policy and Management, pursuant to Public Act 17-69, has begun accepting applications from municipalities to participate in a Fully Autonomous Vehicle Testing Pilot Program (FAVTPP). The state agency can select up to four municipalities to participate in the pilot program.

The purpose of the pilot program, according to OPM, is to encourage and allow for the testing of fully autonomous vehicles (FAV) on local highways in Connecticut. The goal for the pilot program is to allow a variety of FAV testing to occur in four municipalities throughout the state, bringing Connecticut to the forefront of the innovative and burgeoning autonomous vehicle industry.

Thus far, state and local officials indicate that two municipal application have been filed, from Stamford and Windsor Locks, three additional communities have expressed interest (Bridgeport, Manchester, and New Haven) and at least one additional application is anticipated.  A handful of other communities have expressed some degree of interest, but are uncertain if they will be applying to participate in the pilot program.  OPM expects to begin its review process of the filed applications shortly.

In order to apply, interested municipalities must complete and submit the formal application now on the agency’s website, along with a copy of the City/Town Council’s resolution approving the application.The law stipulates that OPM consult with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) and the Connecticut Insurance Department (CID).

Connecticut municipalities provide a wide range of challenges and opportunities for testing the limits of FAV technologies and services, according to the program description. Examples cited include operation in communities with varying climate and weather conditions, urban and rural geographies, access or lack thereof to adequate transportation and/or workforce opportunities, new and aging infrastructure, varying levels of traffic volumes and congestion and users of multiple modes of transportation including car, pedestrian, bicycle, bus, rail, freight, etc.

Prior to completing an application, interested municipalities are encouraged to search for and partner with interested autonomous vehicle testers.  The application must include “Specific Location(s) and Route Where FAV Testing is Expected to Occur.”  Municipalities are asked to attach a map “with the anticipated location(s) and route highlighted” and to “identify all public roads, all private roads, and any important entities or buildings (i.e. critical infrastructure, schools, hospitals, fire stations, etc.) within/near the testing area.”

OPM also is asking the applying municipalities to describe what it hopes to achieve by participating in the pilot program, why specific locations were selected, and “the municipality’s ability to safely oversee fully autonomous vehicle testing.”

The program requirements include that while operating a FAV, the autonomous vehicle operator shall at all times:

1. Obey all traffic laws, provisions of the general statutes and ordinances of the applicable municipality concerning the operation of motor vehicles.
2. Be seated in the driver's seat of the FAV.
3. Be monitoring the operation of the FAV.
4. Be capable of taking immediate manual control of the FAV.

In addition, municipalities are required to conduct a public outreach campaign to notify local officials, first responders, the general public and local media outlets about their participation in the FAVTPP prior to testing.  At a minimum, as part of the public outreach campaign, the municipality must outline an education program for police and residents regarding FAVs and the municipality’s participation in the FAVTPP; and share the finalized specifications on where and when such FAV(s) will be tested within the municipality as part of the FAVTPP.

The posting of electronic or printed signs at various testing area entry and exit points may be required by the municipality to inform the public and emergency responders when and where testing of FAVs is taking place. The signage must be approved by the municipality’s Traffic Authority, and that with respect to State highways and bridges and State railroad rights-of-way, the planned signage must be approved by the state DOT.

The state law outlines a framework of the minimum requirements to be included in agreements between municipalities and autonomous vehicle testers approved for participating in the Fully Autonomous Vehicle Testing Pilot Program (FAVTPP). The Connecticut law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), specifies the requirements for testing, including having an operator seated in the driver’s seat and providing proof of insurance of at least $5 million. It also establishes a task force to study fully autonomous vehicles. The study must include an evaluation of NHTSA’s standards regarding state responsibility for regulating FAVs, an evaluation of laws, legislation and regulations in other states, recommendations on how Connecticut should legislate and regulate AVs, and an evaluation of the pilot program.

In the event that a FAV experiences a crash during the FAVTPP in which a death, physical injury or property damage occurs the autonomous vehicle tester and applicable municipality must comply with specific notification and investigation procedures outlined by OPM.  A recent testing death in Arizona continues to receive scrutiny.

According to NCSL, 29 states including Connecticut have enacted legislation related to autonomous vehicles, and the Governors of seven additional states have issued executive orders on the subject.