Connecticut House Bill HB05184

Connecticut 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/10/13
• Refer: 1/10/13

Caption

An Act Prohibiting Certain Rail And Bus Fare Increases During Time Periods In Which Personal Income Has Not Increased.

Impact

If passed, this legislation would amend existing statutes governing fare increases for public transportation, specifically targeting commuter rail and bus services. The implication of this bill is substantial, as it directly connects fare policies to personal income growth, creating a mechanism that could potentially stabilize public transport costs during economically challenging times. This aligns with broader concerns about affordability and access to necessary services for working-class individuals who depend on these forms of transit.

Summary

House Bill 5184 aims to prohibit rail and bus fare increases during periods when personal income levels have not experienced any increase over the preceding six months. The bill is designed to protect commuters from fare hikes that could create additional financial burdens in times of economic stagnation or decline. By implementing this restriction, the bill seeks to ensure that transportation costs remain manageable and predictable for individuals reliant on public transit for their daily commute.

Conclusion

Overall, HB 5184 seeks to introduce a measure of economic fairness within public transportation fare structures by linking fare increases to the financial reality faced by commuters. As discussions progress, the debate may focus on balancing the needs of public transit systems with the economic realities of the communities they serve.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 5184 may include concerns from transportation authorities and budgetary committees regarding the potential financial implications of limiting fare increases. Opponents may argue that restraining fare hikes could hinder the ability of transportation services to maintain and improve their infrastructure or operations, especially in cases where operational costs continue to rise. Proponents of the bill, however, would emphasize the necessity of protecting low-income commuters from further financial strain during periods of stagnant wages or income.