Bridge to Long Island? Connecticut lawmakers asked to study 14-mile Sound crossing
A Connecticut developer is urging state lawmakers to take a
closer look at building
a bridge across Long Island Sound, an ambitious proposal gaining
support from some state and local officials.
A bill before
the General Assembly's Commerce Committee would direct the state Department of
Economic and Community Development to study creating a Connecticut Bridge
Authority to oversee funding and construction of a bridge
connecting Connecticut to Long Island. The working group would need to
share its findings with the legislature by Jan. 1, 2027.
The idea resurfaced last September when Easton developer
Stephen Shapiro unveiled
his vision for a 14-mile span linking Bridgeport to Suffolk
County, Long Island. Plans for a Long Island Sound crossing date
back nearly a century.
Shapiro testified on the bill and fielded questions from
members of the legislature's Commerce Committee during a public hearing Tuesday
afternoon. Several lawmakers said they appreciated his out-of-the-box thinking
but wanted more details – including the potential cost of the study – before
moving forward.
The study bill drew support from several Fairfield County
officials, along with Republican
gubernatorial candidate Erin Stewart, who cited the bridge's potential
economic and traffic benefits and said the idea was at least worth exploring.
State Rep. Tony Scott, R-Monroe, said a bridge could attract
new businesses, expand access to labor markets and strengthen tourism. A
direct link across the Sound, he said, could also ease chronic congestion on
the Merritt Parkway and Interstate 95.
"While a new bridge might not solve all transit
challenges along the shoreline, exploring alternatives is a good step
forward," Scott said in written testimony.
Anthony Afriyie, chair of the Stratford Town Council,
testified that a cross-Sound connection – if paired with other transit- and
eco-friendly measures – could reduce stop-and-go traffic along I-95 and
cut carbon emissions that affect the air quality of nearby communities.
Still, the proposal has received a lukewarm reception from
state officials.
In written testimony, DECD commissioner Daniel O'Keefe, said
the agency is willing to work with lawmakers on efforts to boost economic
competitiveness but noted that the bridge project "was not built into
(Governor Lamont's) budget, so funding would have to be identified for
such a study."
Lamont also expressed skepticism. Asked about the idea last
fall, he made clear the state wouldn't
be pitching in funds.
During Tuesday's public hearing, Commerce Committee member
Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, pointed out that Connecticut already has a
"very active ferry system" connecting New London and Bridgeport to
Long Island. She also questioned the environmental impacts, long-term
maintenance and total cost of a new span.
"I happen to represent a town that has a very large
bridge, the Gold Star (Memorial) Bridge, that goes across the Thames River and
we can’t seem to even maintain that let alone a 14-mile long
bridge," Somers said.
Efforts to build
a bridge, tunnel or hybrid crossing over the Sound have
repeatedly come up over the past century. Several studies have been done, including
one in 2017 commissioned by then-New York Governor Andrew Cuomo,
but none advanced to the point of construction amid concerns over cost,
environmental impacts and a lack of political support. The 2017 study pegged
the bridge's cost at about $50 billion.
Somers said she wasn't interested in funding “another super
expensive study that’s going to be put on a shelf,” adding that the failure of
past efforts “leads me to believe this may be very cost prohibitive.”
The latest push, however, does have backing from a
candidate who will be on the ballot
for Connecticut's highest office in November.
Stewart called the proposal ambitious but potentially
transformative for lower Fairfield County. She said a cross-Sound bridge could
ease pressure on the "already overburdened" New York metropolitan
area, generate new toll revenue and make Connecticut more attractive to
prospective businesses.
Stewart acknowledged the project would require a major
financial commitment and careful environmental review, but said those
things are precisely why lawmakers should pursue the feasibility study.
"Bold ideas deserve rigorous examination, not reflexive dismissal,"
she said.
Forum held on controversial solar farm planned for Stonington
Sofia Acosta Silva
Stonington — When Linda Talerico began hearing last fall
that a large solar installation could be built across from her Pequot Trail
home, she said the lack of clear information was what concerned her most.
"I think sometimes people don't understand the
process," Talerico said Sunday after hosting a public forum at the
Stonington police station. "So at least now we have some
information."
The town's Planning and Zoning Department received a notice
that a California-affiliated solar developer was pursuing a 4.2-megawatt solar
array at 580 Pequot Trail. Talerico organized the meeting after learning that
TRITEC Energy Development LLC had notified the town on Oct. 6, 2025, of the
solar project proposal at that location, as part of a Connecticut Department of
Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) request for proposals for
zero-carbon energy.
According to a letter sent by Attorney Paul R. Michaud on
behalf of TRITEC, the project remains in the early development stages. If
selected by DEEP, the project would then require review and approval from the
Connecticut Siting Council.
Residents at Sunday's meeting said the proposed installation
could span roughly 25 to 30 acres and include thousands of panels. Materials
prepared by Talerico estimate that utility-scale projects typically involve
about 2,000 panels per 4 to 7 acres, suggesting the Pequot Trail site could
contain significant visual infrastructure, including fencing.
The property is zoned RR-80, designated as rural
residential, and is located in an area characterized by historic homes and
agricultural land. Talerico's materials note the presence of a historic
cemetery and proximity to homes dating to the late 18th and early 19th
centuries, including the Alden Palmer House, listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Residents argue that while solar development may be
appropriate in industrial zones, this location is incompatible with the area's
character.
"There's nothing you can put around that property
that's going to stop you from looking at acres of panels," one neighbor
said during the forum.
Talerico's materials emphasized that the town already has a
solar array north of Interstate 95, off Taugwonk Road, in an LI-130
light-industrial zone.
"We do not oppose solar in industrial and commercial
areas," one of her handouts states. "These solar array farms should
not be placed in historic residential areas."
Her materials question why additional capacity, if needed,
could not be added to the existing industrially zoned site rather than
establishing a new location south of I-95.
The documents also raise concerns about state-level
incentives for solar developers, including tax credits and property tax
considerations, and whether large-scale projects primarily benefit corporate
entities rather than local residents.
State Sen. Heather Somers (R-18th District) attended
Sunday's forum at Talerico's invitation and explained that large-scale solar
installations fall under the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Siting Council,
not local zoning authorities.
That's the laws that we have in the state of
Connecticut," Somers told residents, noting that renewable energy targets
established by state policy drive many of these projects.
Once a petition is filed with the Siting Council, there is a
formal public comment period and hearing process. Somers encouraged residents
to submit individual letters if the application proceeds.
"There's something about having a big stack of
letters," she said. "It does make a difference."
However, she acknowledged frustration among communities that
feel the siting process offers limited local leverage.
Residents raised several concerns during the meeting, such
as potential groundwater impacts near South Anguilla Brook, soil erosion and
stormwater runoff, visual impact on a historic corridor, noise from the panels
or vents, and fire safety and emergency response capabilities.
One attendee questioned who would be responsible for
environmental cleanup if panels are damaged by storms, citing severe weather
events in recent years.
Others asked whether Eversource currently has the
infrastructure to interconnect a project of this scale on Pequot Trail.
Talerico's materials state that transmission upgrades may be necessary. Somers
said infrastructure costs can sometimes stall projects if upgrades are too
expensive.
Not all were opposed.
One Pequot Trail resident urged neighbors to weigh climate
goals.
"In my world, solar is a step in the right direction
toward energy independence," he said, asking whether aesthetic concerns
alone should block renewable energy infrastructure.
Somers responded that solar developments can sometimes be
modified during the siting process to include buffers or site adjustments, but
emphasized that early engagement is critical.
As of Sunday, no formal petition has yet been filed with the
Connecticut Siting Council, according to Somers and residents. TRITEC’s October
letter indicates that if its proposal is selected by DEEP, the company would
then submit to the Siting Council for approval and notify abutting property
owners.
Talerico said her goal is not to halt renewable energy
outright but to ensure transparency and appropriate siting.
"We just want to understand what's happening and make
sure it makes sense for this neighborhood," she said.
UConn plans $581M bond sale to fund capital projects, refinance debt
The University of Connecticut is preparing to bring nearly
$581 million in bonds and notes to market next week to fund campus construction
projects and refinance older debt under its long-running UConn 2000 capital
program.
In a preliminary official statement dated March 2, the
university outlined plans to issue $432.3 million of general obligation bonds
and $148.5 million of taxable bond anticipation notes. The bonds are expected
to be offered by negotiated sale the week of March 9.
Most of the borrowing will finance capital improvements to
various university facilities under the UConn 2000 Infrastructure Improvement
Program, a multidecade initiative to modernize, rehabilitate and expand
campuses statewide, including UConn
Health. Proceeds from the new-money portion of the bonds and the notes will
be deposited into the program’s construction account to fund Phase III
projects.
Part of the borrowing will be used to refinance some of
UConn’s 2015 and 2016 general obligation bonds.
The bonds are secured by UConn’s full faith and credit and
are additionally backed by the state’s debt service commitment, which provides
for annual payments from Connecticut’s General Fund to cover principal and
interest. The securities, however, do not constitute a debt of the state.
The UConn 2000 program, first authorized in 1995 and
expanded multiple times by the General Assembly, has an estimated total cost of
more than $5.6 billion. It is funded primarily through university general
obligation bonds backed by the state commitment, along with special obligation
bonds and other sources.
As of the date of issuance, the university expects to have
approximately $1.39 billion in outstanding general obligation bonds secured by
the state commitment, excluding the new 2026 bonds and notes.
Last week, Fitch Ratings assigned a ‘AA’ rating to the bonds
and affirmed a stable outlook. Fitch said the rating reflects strong legal
protections tied to the state’s debt service commitment and Connecticut’s
wealthy and diverse economy, while noting the state continues to carry elevated
long-term liabilities.