March 20, 2019

CT Construction Digest Wednsday March 20, 2019

After years of planning, construction to begin this year on $210M transportation center at Bradley

A new $210 million ground transportation center at Bradley International Airport that will consolidate all car rental services in a building opposite the passenger terminal will begin construction later this year, airport officials said.The Connecticut Airport Authority said it expects financing for the project to be in place in the next couple of weeks. Construction is expected to begin by late summer, and is projected to take three years to complete, wrapping up in 2022.The two-building structure — to be located next to the existing parking garage — will allow travelers to pick up and drop off rental cars across the street from baggage claims and avoid a ride on a shuttle to a parking lot outside of the airport“ First and foremost, this is a significant customer service improvement,” said Kevin Dillon, the authority’s executive director. “But as important is the opportunity to enhance ground service transportation as we grow to an airport serving 10 million passengers a year.”.The transportation center is designed to accommodate a growing number of passengers arriving and departing at the airport by bus, including a route between the Windsor Locks station on the Hartford Line and the airport. In the future, a hoped for rail line would connect the Hartford Line directly to the airport.Air travelers at Bradley rose 3.6 percent in 2018 compared with the previous year, reaching nearly 6.7 million. The most recent passenger peak came in 2006 with 7.2 million. Dillon has said he believes Bradley could reach 10 million passengers a year if the number of airlines and routes continue to expand, making for a “very nice, medium hub-sized airport.”The transportation center is the first major component of a $1.4 billion renovation of Bradley that could include a new terminal, more parking and roundabouts to handle growing traffic over the next 20 years.Changes — some temporary, some permanent — have already been made to the airport’s main entrance off Route 20 to prepare for the construction of the transportation center.Along with the 800 parking spaces at the new transportation center, the areas now occupied by rental car companies southeast of the terminal would be converted to overflow parking with space for 2,000 to 4,000 more vehicles. There are currently 7,175 parking spots for the public in one parking garage and nine surface lots.The project took a significant step forward this week as bond rating agencies Fitch and S&P weighed in on the prospects for investors. The project will be financed by the authority issuing bonds, a form of borrowing often used by governments and quasi-public agencies like the authority to pay for projects. The authority’s board previously approved the transportation center project.The borrowing will be repaid by customer facility charges collected on car rentals. In February, the charge at Bradley increased from $6.95 a day to $8.40 a day, according to Fitch. The revenue from the charges depends on the volume of car rentals, the length of rentals and the charge itself.Both Fitch and S&P pegged the risk for investors in the transportation center project as low and gave the authority ratings on the debt in the higher range: Fitch at BBB and S&P at A-.Bradley now has three primary rental car companies: Hertz, Avis and National with a fourth, Sixt, expected to be added soon. The development of the transportation center, Dillon said, is being headed by the rental car companies. Conrac Solutions, of Renton, Wash., a developer that specializes in projects that consolidate rental car operations, already has been selected for the project, he said.

CT highway tolls faces first vote
Christine Stuart
HARTFORD — The rhetoric regarding the installation of highway tolls has intensified over the past few days in anticipation of the first committee vote on the issue.
The General Assembly’s Transportation Committee is scheduled to vote on at least one bill Wednesday that could pave the way for electronic tolling.
Early Monday, Gov. Ned Lamont, who proposed the installation of electronic tolls as part of his first two-year budget, was in Milford near the 114-year-old Devon Bridge. The bridge is an integral component of the Metro-North New Haven Line and is in need of replacement.
After supporting the concept of truck-only tolls on the campaign trail, Lamont decided to offer proposals to toll all vehicles as part of his budget.
Even though it was well-publicized that Connecticut’s transportation fund was on track to become insolvent without a new revenue structure, Lamont didn’t change his mind about tolls on all vehicles until after he was elected.
Since taking office, Lamont has said he does not support raising the gasoline tax, which he believes is already too high, nor the use of “priority bonding” that would borrow to support transportation funding and add to the state’s debt.
Republicans have continued to pitch their plan to prioritize bonding to pay for infrastructure improvement“Under our plan, we could create construction jobs now and immediately start work on the roads and bridges that need attention right away,” Senate Republican Leader Len Fasano and Sen. Henri Martin, R-Bristol, said in a statement. “The governor’s tolls plan will take at least five years to get up and running; and in the meantime, the governor’s budget swipes funding for transportation, stealing infrastructure dollars to use elsewhere.”
The Lamont administration pushed back against the Republican narrative, which points out that Lamont freezes money from the new car sales tax scheduled to go into the special transportation fund. The money would have kept the fund solvent for longer than anticipated under Lamont’s budget proposal.
“The idea that the Republican plan does not take any additional money from taxpayers is laughable. Since when is borrowed money free?” Colleen Flanagan Johnson, Lamont’s senior adviser, said. “Their idea to ‘Prioritize Borrowing’ will result in an income tax increase, doesn’t fix the deficit in the Special Transportation Fund, and saddles Connecticut taxpayers — including our kids and grandkids — with 100 percent of the cost of principal plus interest. And, with that level of borrowing, programs such as municipal aid and school construction will be drastically cut.”
Lamont and toll supporters argue that 40 percent of the toll revenue will come from out-of-state drivers. They argue that borrowing to pay for the improvements relies on only Connecticut taxpayers.
Republicans argue the state could adopt their plan and immediately start making improvements. “Instead, the governor’s plan would allow Connecticut’s infrastructure to deteriorate for another five years or more, worsening the state’s problems so that tolls can be seen as a savior,” Fasano and Martin said.Tolls were removed from Connecticut’s highways in 1985.
Lamont proposed putting tolls on interstates 84, 91 and 95 and Route 15. The proposal calls for installing about 53 overhead tolling gantries on some 330 miles of roadway.

Federal court dismisses truckers’ lawsuit against R.I. tolls
Patrick Anderson                      
PROVIDENCE — A federal judge dismissed the trucking industry’s lawsuit against Rhode Island’s truck toll program Tuesday, saying the case needs to be brought in state court.
In a 17-page ruling, Rhode Island’s U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Smith wrote that the tolls on tractor-trailers are really a state tax to fund highway work, and the federal Tax Injunction Act prohibits his court from hindering states from levying taxes. He said the plaintiffs needed to bring their case in state court.
“Here, the facts are clear that the fees, while dubbed ‘tolls,’ are really a highly targeted and sophisticated tax designed to fund infrastructure maintenance and improvements that would otherwise need to be paid for by other forms of tax-generated revenue,” Smith wrote. “As such, the Court is without jurisdiction under the [Tax Injunction Act]; the federal case must be dismissed and ultimately heard in the courts of Rhode Island.”
The state Department of Transportation launched the first two tolls in a planned 14-toll network last summer after lawmakers authorized it in February 2016. When fully operational, the toll network is expected to generate $45 million a year in state revenue.
The American Trucking Associations and three other plaintiffs, including convenience-store chain Cumberland Farms, brought the lawsuit against the state last July, arguing that Rhode Island’s truck toll system violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and discriminates against out-of-state trucking companies.
Smith said state courts offer a “plain, speedy and efficient remedy for Plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause claims.”
Asked whether the American Trucking Associations planned to file suit in state court, Rich Pianka, the organization’s deputy general counsel, offered this email response:
“ATA is disappointed by today’s decision, in which the U.S. district court ruled that it was without power to hear ATA’s constitutional challenge to the discriminatory RhodeWorks truck-only tolls, and that the challenge must instead be brought in state court. ATA is reviewing the decision and considering next steps, but looks forward to vindicating its underlying claims on the merits, whatever the venue.”
Josh Block, spokesman for Gov. Gina Raimondo, said the court made the right decision.
“Truck tolls are a key way to ensure that the vehicles causing the most damage to our roads help contribute to their repairs, and the court made the right decision in dismissing this suit,” Block wrote in an email. “We’re making record investments to repair Rhode Island’s infrastructure — investing millions in our roads and bridges and putting thousands of construction workers back on the job.”

CT transportation crisis remains stuck in neutral: Getting There
Jim Cameron
When are we finally going to do something about our transportation crisis?
That question has been asked for decades, but never answered, or more importantly, acted upon.
I remember in 2001 when Moira Lyons, who at the time was the Connecticut Speaker of the House, held a news conference about our state’s transportation mess. The six-term Stamford Democrat, who was long on power but short in stature, stood next to a stack of consultant studies and reports almost as tall as she was. Enough with the studies, she said. Let’s fix it!
One of the best things to come out of that call to action was the creation of the Transportation Strategy Board. It had representatives from business, labor, commuters, academics and planners. They had a one-year deadline to establish a 20-year plan for Connecticut’s transportation future and how to pay for it. And they did.Chairman of the TSB was Oz Griebel. Yes, the same Oz Griebel who ran unsuccessfully for governor last fall.One of the TSB’s top recommendations was ordering new railcars for Metro-North, which finally happened under Gov. M. Jodi Rell. But they also recommended highly unpopular funding mechanisms: a gasoline tax increase, sales tax surcharge and, yes, tolls.
What have we done since? More studies making consultants rich but never persuading lawmakers to do something. When our elected officials have no political will, they just suggest another study, board or commission.
Former Gov. Dannel Malloy had ideas. His $100 billion, 30-year “Let’s Go CT” plan had something for everyone in every corner of the state. It was ambitious, but it wasn’t really a plan, just a laundry list of projects without priorities or funding.
Politicians love to take credit for the ideas but never want their fingerprints on the nasty business of paying for them. That’s why Malloy created — you guessed it — a blue-ribbon committee: The Transportation Finance Panel. Among its members: Griebel.
“It was like that movie ‘Groundhog Day,’” Griebel recently told me. “It was the same people we saw at the TSB debating the same issues” 10 years laterAnd what did Malloy’s Transportation Finance Panel recommend to pay for his $100 billion “plan?” A gasoline tax increase, a sales tax surcharge, fare hikes and, you guessed it, highway tolls.
Of course, none of those moved forward. It was an election year and who wants to run for a job in Hartford explaining to constituents that they have to pay more, especially when the Republicans mischaracterized such funding as “taxes” instead of user fees.
Along the way, Malloy abolished the TSB, ‘lest it should suggest one project had priority over another. He wanted it all, but got none, because he couldn’t sell the plan to pay for it.
But now we have the Special Transportation Fund Lockbox, right? Any money that goes in can only be spent on transportation. Or so we were told. But as one sage observer of the transportation scene for decades recently told me, “The lockbox has more backdoors than a hot-sheets motel on the Berlin Turnpike.” We’ll see.Will the new Legislature have the guts to finally raise the funding we need to fix our roads and rails? Or will I be re-writing this column again in another decade, like déjà vu all over again?
Jim Cameron is a longtime Connecticut commuter advocate. Contact him at CommuterAction Group@gmail.com

Legislative committee moves forward on East Windsor, Bridgeport casino bills

In an ongoing battle over gambling expansion, a key legislative committee pushed forward two competing bills Tuesday to approve new casinos in East Windsor and Bridgeport that would bring thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in economic development.
Lawmakers have essentially split into two groups on the issue: those favoring a satellite casino in East Windsor that would be operated jointly by the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes, and those calling for a new casino and hotel complex on the waterfront in Bridgeport being proposed by MGM Resorts International under an open bidding process.
At stake is hundreds of millions of dollars the state receives from slot machines that the two tribes currently operate at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos. The tribes have repeatedly said that allowing a commercial casino operator, such as MGM, into the state would violate decades-old compacts for gambling exclusivity and mean they would no longer have to pay the state the slot revenue, which is projected at about $250 million in the current fiscal year.
The “yes” votes far outweighed the "no” votes on the two casino bills, but the votes will remain open until 5 p.m. Tuesday.
The high-stakes battle comes as casino operators fight over dwindling revenue amid increasing competition from neighboring states.
Rep. Patrick Boyd, a conservative Democrat from Pomfret, said many of his constituents in northeastern Connecticut have worked or are currently working for the tribes. He said he was concerned about potentially having too many casinos in a relatively small state. With reservations, he said he was voting in favor of both casino bills Tuesday but reserved his right to study the future versions of the bills.
“I have a lot of personal conflicting issues with gaming as a whole,” said Boyd, who voted against the East Windsor casino in the past. “We’re in chapter two of a pretty long book. This legislature needs to think long and hard about what we’re doing long term. ... I’m very concerned that the market just won’t bear it.”
Sen. Tony Hwang, one of the legislature’s strongest opponents of increased gambling, said a Bridgeport casino would jeopardize the compacts with the tribes.
“We need the executive branch to offer guidance as well,” said Hwang, a Fairfield Republican.
Lawmakers also voted to establish a new state agency known as "a commission on gaming'' that would oversee the widespread gambling throughout the state. The employees would be transferred from the state Department of Consumer Protection, which currently oversees and regulates various aspects of gambling. Other states have similar commissions that have the authority to regulate gambling.
"Today’s committee action advances legislation that puts Connecticut’s interests front and center - creation of an independent state gaming commission, a transparent competitive process for a valuable commercial casino license, and a competitive sports betting marketplace that will benefit consumers and the state,'' said Bernard Kavaler, a spokesman for MGM. "We will continue to work with legislators and the administration to achieve what’s best for Connecticut - maximizing jobs, economic development and revenue.''The tribes had pledged to open the East Windsor casino ahead of the MGM casino that opened in Springfield last fall. But the issue has gotten held up by federal regulators who need to approve an amendment to the compact between the state and the Mashantucket Pequot tribe. When state lawmakers initially approved the East Windsor casino in 2017, they required the tribes to obtain approval from the U.S. Department of the Interior.Some lawmakers say the delay in the East Windsor project is hurting economic development and preventing job growth. The bill the committee approved Tuesday would remove the requirement for federal approval. A federal judge ruled in September that the state and the tribes cannot force federal regulators to approve the changes to the compacts.The committee began its work with a moment of silence for Rep. Ezekiel Santiago, a Bridgeport Democrat who died suddenly last week and had been involved in the casino debate through the years.

Airport Authority IDs funding source for $210M ground transportation project
Joe Cooper
Bradley International Airport has identified a funding source for its long-planned $210 million ground transportation project.
The Connecticut Airport Authority plans to use revenue bonds to finance the project, which will include a new consolidated rental car and ground transportation facility with 830 parking spaces. The project will put all rental car companies in one space on-site and eliminate shuttling to rental sites.
The revenue bonds will be repaid by customer facility charges, which will apply to customers who rent cars at the new facility, according to Fitch Ratings, which recently reviewed the Airport Authority's financing scheme.
The Airport Authority recently increased the customer facility charges in February to $8.40 per transaction day, which follows earlier upward rate adjustments over the past few years, Fitch said.
Although passenger traffic is on the rise at Bradley, the amount of car rental transactions have remained steady since 2012, Fitch said.