Ken Dixon
BRIDGEPORT — “Thank God the train was on time,” Gov. Ned Lamont proclaimed Friday on the Metro-North platform after his New York-bound train arrived in Bridgeport and he joined dozens of people amid the morning commute.
So what if it was actually two minutes late? It’s close enough for government work.
Lamont was on Day 3 of his statewide campaign underscoring the need for more investment in transit infrastructure at an uncertain moment in history, when an embattled president is wallowing in Washington gridlock and the state’s fund for transportation projects is draining.
Cheered on by dozens of construction-trade unionists who want the work, as well as local and state officials, Lamont again pushed for his aspirational “30-30-30” proposal for half-hour rides from Hartford to New Haven, New Haven to Stamford and Stamford to Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan.“I think the people behind me here remind you how important our transportation system — and upgrading how we get around this state — is,” Lamont said, stressing Bridgeport’s role as a regional hub. “If we can get this state moving again, we can get this state growing again.”The governor embarked on the last car of the 8:19 out of Union Station in New Haven, slowly working his way forward, into a middle car during the 28-minute ride, which culminated in a cheerleading news conference led by Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim in the city’s Transportation Center.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said transportation funding has essentially been frozen in Washington.“The federal government is failing you,” Blumenthal he said. “It is failing all of us. It is failing to provide the investment in rail, roads, bridges, airports, VA facilities, schools. It is failing every state, not just Connecticut.”
The T-word
Lamont predicted noticeable improvements in mass transit over the next four years, particularly if Congress and the president can finally get together on a national infrastructure program. During the 15-minute news conference, none of the speakers mentioned the word “tolls” — which Lamont hopes to be a major source of revenue, up to $800 million a year — until a reporter asked the governor.
“How do you pay for 40 years of neglect on our roads and bridges?” he replied. “How do you speed up the rail service and do what needs to be done? I think the idea that you’re going to be able to pay for all of that out of a diminishing gas tax is just not telling the truth. If this is a billion dollars a year, it’s nice that out-of-staters are going to pay $400 million a year of our transportation upgrades.”
State Transportation Commissioner Joseph J. Giulietti, the former president of Metro-North Railroad, admitted that it’s a big challenge to speed up trains, but with the next generation of lighter cars, and the advent of Positive Train Control, it can be done.
“You know that I’ve been involved here in this system since the 1970s, when I started out here as a conductor,” Giulietti said. “We know how bad the infrastructure is, not only the work that needs to be done on the rail system, but the work that has to be done on the highways. It hasn’t been invested into and it needs that investment going forward.”
Ready to work
Connecticut Construction Industries Association President Donald J. Shubert said there is about $3 billion in work on railroad bridges for builders like his union members.
In recent days, with Giulietti, Shubert and local officials in tow, Lamont has highlighted the intersection of Interstates 91 and 84 in Hartford, as well as the so-called mix-master intersection of I-84 and Route 8 in Waterbury, in his campaign to illustrate the need for tolls to generate funding for infrastructure improvements.
Ganim, who led Friday morning’s event and news conference, said that it was no secret that when Lamont took office, infrastructure was going to be one of the major issues he would tackle.
“We need to rebuild this state’s infrastructure with transportation; this train station and train stations like this in the system is a critical part of it,” Ganim said.
Less clear was the status of the now-suspended plan for a new rail stop on the city’s East Side, the so-called Barnum Station.“There’s discussion being held with us and the state, and it’s been a three-way partnership,” Ganim told reporters. “It’s not moving as fast, certainly, as we’d like it to. We’ve got to get clarity on funding sources. The answer is it’s uncertain. I think the case has to got be made, as we’re making it that as this infrastructure builds and grows, as it should be for mass transit, I believe it should be an integral art of it.”
“What’s not uncertain is how important our cities are for major transportation hubs,” Lamont added. “That’s going to be our priority over the next four years. Specifics on this station or that — these guys will give me some recommendations.”
Walk Bridge debate focuses on river’s ‘navigable’ designation
Pat Tomlinson
NORWALK — Amid calls to scale back the Walk Bridge Project, Mayor Harry Rilling is doubling down on the state-proposed, 240-foot vertical lift bridge design.
“It might be politically advantageous for me to jump on the bandwagon of the vocal minority and call for a stop to this plan,” Rilling wrote an opinion piece in The Norwalk Hour. “However, I have spent a lot of time learning about this project, its impact on Norwalk, and have concluded that a moveable bridge is the most effective and least disruptive option.”
Since it was unveiled in 2016, the plan to replace the 122-year-old railroad bridge over Norwalk Harbor has been under attack from residents and business owners who argue a fixed, unmovable bridge would be more cost-efficient and practical.
Rilling’s public statements came as opponents launched a new offensive against the project — their target: Norwalk Harbor’s “navigable waterway” designation. The designation, they argue, lies at the heart of the Walk Bridge controversy.
The federal designation is one of the core reasons cited in the state’s justification of a vertical lift design, according to a September 2016 environmental assessment report. The report found that low- and mid-level fixed bridge options would meet nine of the projects’ 10 stated needs, while also costing less to build when compared to a lift bridge.The fixed designs wouldn’t work, the report claims, because they would inhibit the harbor’s navigability. But, as detractors point out, the definition of navigable is broad.
Under federal law, the U.S. Coast Guard is tasked with determining whether a proposed structure would affect a waterway’s navigability. Yet there is no set standard for reaching such a determination, and each project is determined on a case-by-case basis.
To get around this process, some suggest the federal designation be removed all together.
“The waterway designation can easily be removed,” said Robin Penna, a member of Norwalk Harbor Keeper, a local conservation group that has sued state and federal transportation officials in attempt to get them to consider less expensive, less disruptive alternatives to the lift bridge.
The label can only by removed at the federal level, but there is a precedent for such measures. In 2018, U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., sponsored a bill that declassified Bridgeport’s Pequonnock River as a navigable waterway.
Himes said he would be “responsive” to advancing such legislation for Norwalk, but would first need to be asked by the city. But Rilling seems unlikely to do that.
“The latest focus on a navigable waterway designation, which is not as simple as some describe, is just the latest attempt to distract from the real issue we should be discussing: how can this project be completed quickly with the least amount of disruption — which is the current design,” Rilling said.Rilling called the navigable waterway designation “essential” to the city and its harbor.
“Having a fixed bridge, and removing that designation would be shortsighted and restrict a prime area of Norwalk from future opportunities. Knowingly putting a plan in place that would hinder potential growth is wrong,” Rilling said.
Opponents, however, contend that Rilling is trying to meet a need that no longer exists.“The opening/closing bridge was built for the commercial traffic 100 or 200 years ago, and that traffic is just not there anymore,” said Bob Kunkel, another member of Norwalk Harbor Keeper.
Since 2013, the number of bridge openings has declined each year (with the exceptionof 2015), according to DOT data obtained by Norwalk Harbor Keeper. Excluding test openings, the bridge was only opened 68 times in 2017 — 32 times for commercial vessels and 36 times for recreational ships.
John Pinto, the chairman of the Norwalk Harbor Management Commission, acknowledged that commercial use is declining in the upper harbor, but ultimately sided with Rilling.
“Why would you want to do that?” Pinto asked. “It is just a term, as far as I’m concerned, that allows us to be on a federal project and makes federal funds available to us, if necessary, for dredging in that area.”In recent months, Norwalk Harbor Keeper has called upon the state put the project on hold for 90 days to allow an independent consultant to come in and assess the bridge’s needs. This proposal, Rilling claims, could exponentially prolong the project and possibly jeopardize $144 million in federal funding related to Hurricane Sandy.
“Changing the design to a fixed bridge or hitting the ‘pause button’ as some suggest, will increase the duration of the project. Any delay to the Walk Bridge portion itself will not stop other components moving forward. Instead of five years, think about 10 years of disruption in Norwalk because these projects won’t be completed concurrently,” Rilling said.