DOT outlines first phase of $330M highway interchange project in Meriden
Mary Ellen Godin, Record-Journal staff
State Department of Transportation officials outlined a
construction timeline for the first of three phases of work
to improve a convoluted interchange of major highways that
converge in Meriden.
Officials fielded questions about a project to improve
safety and reduce congestion on interstates 91 and 691, and routes 66 and 15
during a hearing Thursday night. The design phase and noise study are underway,
requests for qualifications will go out in the fall, and requests for proposals
at the end of the year. The design/build contract will be awarded next summer
and construction is expected to begin in fall 2022. Work is slated to be
completed in the spring of 2025.
“This project is designed to improve safety and congestion,”
said DOT project manager Sebastian Cannemela.
Over the course of three years, the DOT has recorded 90
crashes along I-91 northbound near the junction, with 17 injuries. Of those, 26
were rear end crashes indicative of congestion, 21 were sideswipe crashes,
indicative of weaving, and 31 were fixed object collisions indicating
a vehicle went off the road.
The first phase of the project is estimated to cost $57
million and the overall cost of all three phases is estimated at around $330
million. Roughly 120,000 vehicles travel I-91 north daily, and 80,000 travel
eastbound I-691, according to project engineers.
The first phase includes making a two-lane connection
eastbound from I-691 to I-91 north. The project involves widening the existing
ramp from I-691 east to I-91 north to two lanes and widening I-91 north to
accommodate an auxiliary lane from this interchange to the Middletown rest
area.
Construction will be at off peak times, project
officials said. Work consists of redesigning exit 11 on I-691 to add a lane and
rebuild a two lane bridge at the merge to I-91 north. The Preston Avenue exit
will also be reconfigured with two lanes and the existing bridge replaced.
Engineers don’t expect any lane closures during peak hours
but commuters can expect the same construction disruptions as with other large
highway projects.
Members of the public who attended the virtual hearing
Thursday questioned project managers on noise, traffic and how the timeline of
the three phases was decided.
Funding has a lot to do with setting priorities, Cannemela
said. As a federal infrastructure bill moves forward in Congress, more funding
could be available.
“At this time, this project is state funded,” Cannemela
said. “The department has an opportunity to federalize the project at
specific points. It’s going to be state funds until there are other funds
available. The other two projects are expected to be state and federally
funded.”
Exit 11 at the I-691/91 junction will expand from one lane
to two lanes. Once the work is completed, the single-lane bridge will be
demolished. Exit 12 of I-691 east at Preston Avenue will be widened to two
lanes and the bridge also rebuilt.
“At least we’ve started with this section,” said City
Economic Development Director Joseph Feest. “And we’ve got a project number for
the other two sections. That’s a positive sign that it’s going to keep
going. We really still have problems with 91 north onto 691, but that’s in the
plans. They’re not saying this project is fixing the area, it’s improving the
area.”
Members of the public raised concerns about noise impact and
the installation of sound barriers.
“We are conducting the noise study,” said Sajjad Alam,
project manager for Parsons design firm. “As part of the study we are developing
a detailed noise model and part of that is the anticipated increased traffic.
We anticipate the noise study will be completed by the end of 2021.”
The DOT is accepting comments on the project until Aug. 20.
Comments may be directed to project officials by calling 860-944-1111.
More details about the project are available at https://portal.ct.gov/DOT.meriden79-245.
The southbound second phase of the project is estimated
to cost $145 million and begin in 2025. It involves widening I-91 south to
provide an auxiliary lane from the vicinity of the Middletown rest area to the
I-691 west exit, widening the I-91 southbound off-ramp to I-691 west to two
lanes, and widening the I-691 eastbound off-ramp to Route 15 south to two
lanes.
The third phase is estimated to cost $110
million. Plans call for replacing the existing ramp connection from I-91
north to Route 15 north (Exit 17) with a new two-lane off-ramp from the
existing off-ramp to East Main Street (exit 16). It also includes relocating
the connection from Route 15 north to I-91 north approximately three quarters
of a mile south of its present location and widening the existing off-ramp from
Route 15 north to I-691 westbound to two lanes.
CT upping stake in fuel cell industry with new energy-purchase mandate
By Zachary Vasile
As Connecticut looks to strengthen its power grid and wean
itself off fossil fuels, lawmakers and industry leaders have tended to focus on
large-scale solar and wind-power projects, including the potentially
revolutionary off-shore wind farms now set to be built in the Northeast by
Eversource Energy and Danish power giant Orsted.
Somewhat less publicized has been the steady march of fuel
cell technology, an electrochemical energy source that promises the reliability
of conventional fuels alongside the minimal environmental impact of renewables.
Once beset by prohibitively high costs, improving technology and rising
production levels are making fuel cells more competitive than ever before.
And the industry has found a strong foothold in Connecticut,
which is home to two major manufacturers, FuelCell Energy of Danbury and Doosan
Fuel Cell America Inc. of South Windsor.
Together, those companies directly employ hundreds of
people.
Now, the state is upping its investment in the sector with
hopes of improving energy reliability and supporting the industry’s growth.
Last month, Gov. Ned Lamont signed into law a bill requiring electric
distribution companies — including Eversource and Avangrid — to purchase up to
30 megawatts of fuel cell generation projects by Jan. 1, 2022.
Experts predict the move will open new doors for fuel cell
technology, increasing hydrogen power’s share of Connecticut’s energy mix while
making standalone fuel cell projects more feasible.
In-state manufacturers will likely reap the most immediate
benefits, opening up avenues for new growth as Connecticut works to rebound
from the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jason Few, president and CEO of FuelCell Energy, said every
project his firm wins under the new law will be developed at the company’s
manufacturing facility in Torrington, supporting local manufacturing,
construction, engineering, scientific and administrative jobs. Few also pointed
to the roughly 600 supply chain companies in Connecticut tied to the emerging
hydrogen energy market.
“This will drive jobs and an economic resurgence while
meaningfully addressing the very real challenge of climate change,” he said.
“There is no reason the state of Connecticut can’t become the global
headquarters for the hydrogen economy.”
Better reliability
Fuel cells convert the chemical energy of a fuel source into
electricity through a series of reactions. Hydrogen, or fuels that can be
converted into hydrogen, are most often used.
In contrast to traditional power plants, fuel cell reactions
emit water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, very small amounts of other
compounds.
The adaptability of the technology has proven to be its
greatest selling point; today, fuel cells are used to power or partially power
commercial buildings, homes, automobiles, buses, forklifts, boats and portable
power systems, among numerous other applications.
A growing number of states are plugging fuel cells directly
into their power grids, aiming to create reserves that can continue to produce
and distribute electricity even when severe storms bring down electrical wires.
Fuel cells are also more environmentally friendly than
traditional fossil fuels, making them understandably appealing to states like
Connecticut, which, under a plan laid out by Lamont, will attempt to build a
zero-carbon electric supply by 2040.
“Within the context of our energy landscape, we’ve typically
been forced to choose between clean energy and baseload — historically things
like coal,” Few said. “Fuel cells are something of a paradigm shift. Fuel cells
mean we can deliver reliable baseload power without burning any fuel. Fuel
cells can reliably power a city or factory, while outputting virtually zero
[nitrogen oxides] or [sulfur oxides].”
Beyond the most recent energy procurement bill, industry
experts see opportunities for even broader deployment of fuel cell technology.
Joel Rinebold, director of energy at the Connecticut Center
for Advanced Technology, said fuel cells will likely one day be used to
overcome the challenges inherent in intermittent solar and wind power assets,
which can only produce electricity when the sun is shining or wind is blowing.
“They could be synced up,” Rinebold said. “Those facilities
can be used to make hydrogen, and then the hydrogen would power the fuel cells.
It’s a very nice complement to provide clean, reliable energy.”
There’s also the opportunity for larger buildings such as
schools or hospitals to acquire their own fuel cells to keep the lights on in
the event of a powerful storm or other emergency.
“The advantage is that they can be sited within the
community without the emissions or pollution associated with other fuel
sources,” Rinebold said.
Challenges, opportunities
Still, fuel cells remain somewhat constrained by cost, and
the fact that hydrogen itself is often produced using fossil fuels, which
weighs against its green credentials. Connecticut has also set far more
ambitious goals for other kinds of energy technology.
“We have a law that calls for 1,000 megawatts of battery
power,” said Lee Hoffman, an attorney at Pullman & Comley who specializes
in energy law. “Compare that to 30 megawatts for fuel cells. It’s a relatively
low figure.”
According to Hoffman, fuel cells often lose out to solar and
wind on a price-per-kilowatt basis, and they only tend to get built when there
are specific government-mandated procurements. On the other hand, fuel cells,
unlike solar panels and wind turbines, can provide continuous power, 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. They also don’t take up as much space as traditional
renewable projects and can be built where solar and wind farms can’t be.
“There are advantages, but you end up paying for those
advantages,” he said.
The best application for fuel cells at this point, Hoffman
said, might be in the construction of microgrids, small pockets of generation
sources capable of breaking off from the main electric grid. In the event the
main grid goes down, microgrids can continue to provide power for essential
services, such as an emergency shelter or fire station, he said.
Senators on left, right hold together to push infrastructure
LISA MASCARO, AP
WASHINGTON (AP) — Often elusive,
the political center is holding steady in the Senate as a coalition of
Democratic and Republican senators brushes off critics to push the $1 trillion infrastructure package toward final passage.
On the left, the Democrats have withstood the complaints of
liberals who say the proposal falls short of what’s needed to provide a down
payment on one of President Joe Biden’s top priorities.
From the right, the Republicans are largely ignoring the
criticism from their most conservative and far-flung voices, including a
barrage of name-calling from former President Donald Trump as he tries to
derail the package.
All told, some 70 senators appear poised to carry the
bipartisan infrastructure bill to passage, a potentially robust tally of
lawmakers eager to tap the billions in new spending it will unleash for public
works projects back home.
“This is something that brings this country together,” said
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a lead negotiator. “We need the investment, let’s be
honest.”
Senators hoisted the package over another hurdle late
Sunday, easily clearing a remaining 60-vote threshold on a vote of 68-29, despite
a few holdouts trying to run out the clock on debate and drag final passage to
Tuesday. The measure would then go to the House.
“A very handsome, overwhelming vote,” said Senate Majority
Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
The rare bipartisan momentum reflects a political power
center that has sprung from the middle of the aisle in the narrowly split
Congress. For weeks, senators have negotiated and shaped the package,
overcoming partisan gridlock for a compromise with the Biden White House. A
bipartisan group of House lawmakers has pledged its own support.
Backed by Biden and a sizable coalition of business, farm,
labor and public interest groups, the package is one of the biggest investments
of its kind in years. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act seeks to
inject nearly $550 billion in new spending on roads, bridges, broadband
internet, water pipes and other public works systems undergirding the nation.
Some 20 Republican senators are poised to join Democrats in
supporting support it.
Look at the players,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. “These
are not the fringes of both parties.”
Once voting wraps up, senators immediately will turn to the
budget outline for a $3.5 trillion package of child care, elder care and
other programs that is a much more partisan undertaking and expected to draw only Democratic support.
Despite the momentum, action ground to a halt over the
weekend when Sen. Bill Hagerty, a Tennessee Republican allied with Trump,
refused to speed up the process.
Hagerty, who had been Trump's ambassador to Japan, argued
for taking as much time as needed for debate and amendments, in part because he
wants to slow the march toward Biden's $3.5 trillion bill aimed at so-called
soft infrastructure
Trump called Hagerty on Sunday morning, said a person
familiar with the call who requested anonymity to discuss it. Hagerty said
later Sunday he was trying to prevent a “socialist debt bomb” of new government
spending.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has so
far allowed the bill to progress, calling the bill “a
compromise.”
Senators have spent the past week processing nearly two
dozen amendments to the 2,700-page package, but so far none has substantially
changed its framework.
More amendments have been offered on cryptocurrency,
defense-related infrastructure and to allow states to repurpose a portion of
their untapped federal COVID-19 relief aid for infrastructure. But it's unclear
if they will be considered for votes.
Senators have found much to like in the bill, even though it
does not fully satisfy liberals, who view it as too small, or conservatives, who
find it too large.
An analysis of the bill from the Congressional Budget Office
drew concerns, particularly from Republicans after concluding the legislation would increase deficits by about $256 billion over
the next decade.
Unlike Biden's bigger $3.5 trillion package, which would be
paid for by higher tax rates for corporations and the wealthy, the bipartisan
package is funded by repurposing other money, and other spending cuts and
revenue streams. The bill’s backers argued that the budget office was unable to
take into account certain revenue streams — including from future economic
growth.
The House is expected to consider both Biden infrastructure
packages when it returns from recess in September.
Utility work to replace mile-long water main in Ridgefield starting soon
Alyssa Seidman
RIDGEFIELD — Aquarion will begin work Monday to replace more
than a mile of water main on West Mountain Road and Peaceable Ridge Road on the
west side of town. The project is aimed at improving system reliability and is
expected to be completed by June 2022.
Since the water main on Peaceable Ridge is at least 75 years
old, it’s “very limited” at providing adequate service to that area of town,
First Selectman Rudy Marconi said. The current line is too small to handle the
capacity of newer homes on the street, he explained, noting that some
homeowners there rely on well water.
“This will give those homes an opportunity to tie into
public water, which is good,” he said.
Recent development on adjoining Eleven Levels Road has also
caused insufficient water pressure, Marconi said. Aquarion installed two
standpipes in the area several years ago, which, in tandem with the new water
main, will enhance water pressure and overall quality.
Peter Fazekas, Aquarion’s director of Corporate
Communications, said the project would also standardize the system by replacing
existing service lines that run through various yards in the neighborhood. The
company currently services 40 homes in that area, and could potentially service
another 40 homes with the new infrastructure in place.
Aquarion plans to meet with each impacted homeowner ahead of
time to determine if they are interested in tapping into the upgraded system.
The project will replace approximately 6,000 feet of
underground pipes. Workers will score the road one section at a time to
excavate the existing infrastructure, install the new one and then seal the
section with a temporary patch, Fazekas said.
“Peaceable Ridge is ... all rock, so they’re going to have
to blast down through there because a water line needs to be approximately six
feet deep,” Marconi said. “If you’re doing 6,000 feet, figure at least 15
weeks.”
Fazekas said the work would occur in sections to “limit the
disruption for the customers.” Construction will take place between 7 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday, so residents should expect traffic delays and
detours.
Marconi said West Mountain Road would be open for
alternating one-way traffic for the duration of the project, and anticipates
that drivers will have to wait.
“There are gonna be inconveniences but it’s an improvement
that we want,” he added. “It will be providing badly needed service to that
area of town that’s been long overdue.”
If Aquarion is able to work through the winter, Fazekas
said, the project will be completed sooner than June 2022.
Customers can sign up to receive notifications about the
utility work at www.aquarionwater.com/alerts.
Project updates such as construction status, weekly schedules, changes in
traffic patterns and detours will be posted to the town’s Facebook page.
Customers with project-related questions can contact Project
Manager Bill Dwinells at (203) 337-5906. For service or water-related issues,
call Aquarion Customer Service at 1-800-732-9678.
CT’s budget picture is rosy now. Did Lamont create it — or did he inherit it?
Keith M. Paneuf
Since he took office 2 1/2 years ago, Gov. Ned Lamont has
watched the cash pour into Connecticut’s coffers. Even a coronavirus-induced
recession couldn’t stop analysts from forecasting big surpluses for the next
two years.
But much of that good fortune is due to a tax system and
other policies Lamont inherited.
Now, as another gubernatorial election cycle nears, the
question looms: Who is responsible for Connecticut’s recent, relative budget
prosperity?
“I didn’t expect that,” Lamont said of the billions of extra
tax receipts that have poured in since he became governor. “I just knew that
economic growth was the key.”
According to the Department of Labor, Connecticut is still
down about 100,000 jobs from pre-pandemic levels, but state tax receipts have
boomed regardless for two other reasons:
First, the stock market has largely defied the pandemic. The
Dow Jones Industrial Average opened this week 35% higher than it stood on March
4, 2020, just before COVID-19 struck Connecticut.
Second, massive supplemental federal unemployment benefits
left many jobless residents with more money over the past year than when they
were working. And since much of those benefits are taxable, state income tax
receipts remained strong as well.
That’s not to say Lamont has played no role in keeping
finances in line. Pushing legislators to adhere to spending and borrowing caps,
he has refused to tap state reserves during his first 30 months on the job. The
rainy day fund has more than doubled and now exceeds $3 billion under Lamont,
who also has channeled more than $1.4 billion in surpluses into the
cash-starved pension funds.
And he’s frequently reminded lawmakers that the stock
market, which has contributed greatly to the recent budget success, can turn on
a dime.
“Bull markets, I guarantee you, always come to an end,” he
said. “And this has been a long one.”
Malloy’s budgetary luck was the opposite of Lamont’s
But his good fortune — as far as state government finances
are concerned — is undisputed, and pretty much the opposite of his predecessor,
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.
A Fairfield County Democrat like Lamont, Malloy came into
office in 2011 with a state budget on pace for an unprecedented 18% deficit.
Put another way, a General Fund of about $18 billion —
without adjustments — was projected to run more than $3.6 billion in the red.
And while Lamont started with $1.2 billion in the rainy day
fund, Malloy began with an empty reserve, $1 billion in operating debt (left by
Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the 2010 legislature ) and 9% unemployment — courtesy of
the Great Recession.
Malloy took massive heat when he and the legislature
enacted more than $1.8 billion in annual tax increases in his
first year, one of the single-largest revenue bumps in state history.
This was compounded by the fact that actual tax receipts
didn’t meet nonpartisan analysts’ projections during five of Malloy’s first six
years in office as Connecticut muddled through one of the slowest recoveries in
state history, according to records from
the state comptroller’s office.
“It became somewhat of a shock to all of us,” said Hamden
Democrat J. Brendan Sharkey, who was House majority leader and later speaker
between 2011 and 2016. “There was a slow-moving realization that the Great
Recession was like no other.”
The state’s unemployment rate wouldn’t dip below 5% until
2016 — a problem Malloy’s critics blamed on the taxes. But Connecticut hadn’t
experienced any net new job gains since the 1980s, having failed for decades
before to invest heavily in transportation, information technology
infrastructure or cutting-edge industries.
“Complacency was the name of the game from 1990 until 2008”
and the Great Recession, said University of Connecticut economist Fred V.
Carstensen. “We were coming off this period when we were fat and lazy and
didn’t need to do anything. … We were The Land of Steady Habits, but a lot of
them were bad habits.”
“I understood how bad things were,” Malloy said. “It was not
a normal recovery. But did I expect it to take six years? No.” (After losing
120,000 jobs in the Great Recession, Connecticut had regained only about 90,000
by the time the pandemic struck in March 2020.)
A second round of major tax hikes was ordered in 2015 —
despite campaign pledges from Malloy and from his GOP challenger Tom Foley that
the budget could be balanced without more revenue from households and
businesses.
Income tax hikes of 2011, 2015 pay big dividends now
“Who wouldn’t want an easy solution? But the reality is our
problems are too big for easy solutions,” Malloy said. “I knew people weren’t
happy. I didn’t run for office to make people happy.”
And while that second tax increase pushed Malloy’s limited
popularity to a new low, it also completed the budgetary foundation that had
been laid in 2010.
Since its inception in 1991, Connecticut’s income tax had
largely been flat, taxing most earnings at 4.5% and then later at 5%. The
legislature and Rell would tax earnings above $500,000 for singles and $1
million for couples at 6.5% starting in 2009 — but only for income above that
threshold.
In other words, a couple earning $2 million per year only
would pay 6.5% on the second million. The first million would still be taxed at
lower rates.
Under Malloy, the income tax would become significantly more
progressive.
It was expanded to include seven marginal rates, topping out
at 6.99%.
More importantly, it included a “recapture” provision that
ensures the wealthiest households pay the top income tax rate on all of their
earnings — not on just a portion.
And when Wall Street began to finally rebound in a big way
in 2018, the new rate structure pushed income tax receipts up quickly — even
with sluggish job growth. That’s because nearly one-third of Connecticut’s
income tax revenues come not from paycheck withholding but from quarterly
returns — which are dominated by capital gains and other investment earnings.
The state income tax and pass-through entity levy — an
income tax on small business owners — generated $11.7 billion last fiscal year, 30% more than they did just
four years ago.
That’s enabled Lamont to amass the maximum-allowed rainy day
fund — a little more than $3 billion or 15% of annual operating expenses — and
generally avoid major tax hikes during his first three budgets.
Did the GOP create CT’s current budgetary success?
But Republicans say those who focus closely on Malloy or
Lamont to explain the currently flush budget situation are wrong.
“The [good] fortune has nothing to do with either one of the
them,” said Liz Kurantowicz, a Republican political strategist.
Simply voting for tax increases or generating big tax
receipts does not translate into budget success, she and other Republicans
argue.
In fact, Connecticut’s history throughout the 1990s and
2000s is littered with fiscal problems despite many years of robust tax
receipts.
State government ran up $6.1 billion in budget surpluses between 2000 and
2014, according to nonpartisan analysts. Only one-third of it, $2.1 billion,
was placed in the budget reserve. The rest was spent — and none of those
expenditures involved deposits into the pension funds to reduce debt in this
area.
Why haven’t the recent surpluses been spent on new programs
and on pet projects in lawmakers’ home districts? Republicans say the answer
can be found four years ago.
And as liberal and moderate Democrats struggled for months —
unsuccessfully — to reach a budget deal with Malloy, or amongst themselves, in
2017, the Republicans were brought in to craft a bipartisan package.
The GOP agreed, but also insisted that Malloy — whose
popularity was waning — be excluded from the negotiations.
The longest-running budget debate in modern state history
would wrap in late October with both parties backing a new budget — and a
provision that’s become known as the “volatility adjustment.”
This mechanism forces the state to save a significant
portion of income tax receipts tied to investments earnings, which can
fluctuate greatly from year to year. Since its enactment, that volatility
adjustment has taken $4.1 billion in potential spending out of the
legislature’s hands.
“We were taking the good times for granted,” said House
Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford. “Very frankly, Gov.
Lamont has been the beneficiary of that bipartisan budget.”
Sen. John Fonfara, a Hartford Democrat, spearheaded the push
for the volatility adjustment.
But North Haven Republican Len Fasano, who was Senate
Minority Leader in 2017, said it was the GOP that used its leverage to ensure
not only the savings provision, but newer-and-tougher caps on spending and
borrowing were enacted.
“It’s amazing what it has done for the state,” Fasano said.
“It’s very satisfying to see that, because it shows, with a bipartisan deal,
what can happen.”
New Britain Democrat Joe Aresimowicz, who was House speaker
from 2017 through 2020, said Republican recollections are skewed, and many from
both parties fought for the fiscal reforms that made a big difference in 2017.
“We [all] made the tough choices and it was always while
hoping we would come out on the better side,” he said. “It was the most
challenging, frustrating but rewarding and satisfying thing I’ve ever done in
my entire life.”