Stopgap transportation funding fails to advance in Senate
Senate Republicans on Tuesday failed to agree on a
reconciliation budget bill to fund the government until Dec. 11. The bill would
extend transportation programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund at fiscal year
2026 levels but would not continue the advance appropriations provided by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The proposed bill would reduce public transit investment 20%
and passenger rail by 83% from current levels, according to the American Public
Transportation Association.
Leaving out the advance appropriations would “immediately disrupt and delay ongoing planning, engineering, and construction of surface transportation projects across the nation,” APTA President and CEO Paul Skoutelas said in a July 31 letter to House and Senate leaders.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said at a Tuesday
press conference that “we intend to accomplish” funding
the government “between now and the end of this week, or however long
we’re here.” However, it won’t
be easy to pass the reconciliation package, which may include
amendments opposed by some Republican and Democratic senators, according to The
Hill.
Thune said he wants to get a funding package done before the
FY 2026 budget expires on Sept. 30 to avoid another government shutdown, but
the proposed reconciliation bill raised warning flags from some transportation
advocates.
“States, transit agencies, and local communities are already
suffering from instability caused by the White House’s politically motivated
grant cancellations and delays,” Union of Concerned Scientists Clean
Transportation Program Director Steven Higashide said Tuesday in an emailed
statement. “The cuts codified in this bill would further reduce their ability
to plan and build long-term.”
Others favored the short-term funding package for surface
transportation. The American Traffic Safety Services Association said the
extension is “a necessary measure” to keep critical roadway safety programs
going.
“But an extension is a bridge, not a destination,” ATSSA
President and CEO Stacy Tetschner said Monday in an emailed statement. “We hope
the Senate and the House can use this window to finish the job and pass a
robust, long-term reauthorization that sustains and builds on the nation’s
investment in roadway safety.”
If the bill passes the Senate, the House would take it up
when it returns Aug. 31.
Plan for new CT water line would run pipe through four towns and under two rivers. Why it’s needed.
A proposed water pipe would run through four towns and under two rivers and would
provide a critically needed new conduit for a water transmission main.
It would cross under the Connecticut River to supply
drinking water to South Windsor, East Hartford, Glastonbury and Portland and
would be used in the case of a main failure.
The Metropolitan District
Commission is seeking to install a new 30-inch diameter water
transmission main through Windsor, Hartford, South Windsor and East Hartford
and beneath both the Connecticut River and Podunk River. The
Transmission Main Project is not yet in the design stage.
The MDC is in the preliminary stages and is doing initial investigatory work on the project that would provide the redundant water service for customers and infrastructure on the east side of the Connecticut River.
Metropolitan District Commission spokesperson Nick Salemi
said the “completion of this project would provide enhanced safety and
emergency preparedness and vital infrastructure resiliency for service
provision to customers and expanded capacity for emergency water service.”
The Connecticut
State Council on Environmental Quality shared the notice
of scoping of the project in the Environmental
Monitor.
According to the council, scoping is a state-mandated,
fact-gathering to examine a project’s breadth and to determine whether further
environmental study is warranted.
“The MDC has limited water transmission mains crossing the
Connecticut River and cannot meet all demands in the event of a failure of the
northeast transmission main,” said Salemi.
“This project will provide a crossing for the northeast
transmission main in a new location which will be located outside of the city
of Hartford’s flood protection levee,” he said. “By locating the crossing
outside of the flood protection levee area, the MDC would be able to remove the
existing northeast transmission main crossing from service in the event of a
major flood or failure of the aging flood protection system.”
“Completion of this project will provide enhanced safety and
emergency preparedness and vital infrastructure resiliency for service
provision to customers and expanded capacity for emergency water service,”
Salemi said.
The Metropolitan District Commission’s proposal is to
install the new diameter water transmission main from the intersection of
Windsor Avenue and Meadow Road in Windsor through Hartford, beneath the
Connecticut River and Podunk River, and through South Windsor to the
intersection of Ellington Road and King Street in East Hartford.
The MDC maintains transmission mains that sends treated
water east of the Connecticut River to South Windsor, East Hartford and
Glastonbury from the West
Hartford Water Treatment Facility and Reservoir No. 6 Water Treatment
Facility.
According to the report by the council, two alternatives are
being considered for the project. Both options are “trenchless crossing beneath
the Connecticut River.”
The first alternative, Alternative A, which is noted as
preferred in the report “proposes a full trenchless crossing of the Connecticut
River and Podunk River.”
“About 1,100 linear feet of pipeline would be installed by
open-cut trenching from the intersection of Windsor Avenue and Meadow Road in
Windsor, within roadway right-of-way and easements across properties owned
by Riverfront Recapture and
the State of Connecticut,” according to the report.
The trenches would be about 6- to 8-feet wide and in
Alternative A, the pipe installation’s entry point would be “agricultural land
owned by Goodwin
University via Horizontal Directional Drilling, or potentially Direct
Pipe technology, beneath the Rivers and the Amtrak railroad right of way to an
exit pit near 33 Meadow Road, Windsor,” according to the report.
“This trenchless segment would be approximately 5,200 linear
feet and would utilize a 48-inch diameter steel casing with a 30-inch diameter
carrier pipe. From the trenchless crossing on the east side of the Podunk
River, the pipeline would continue via open-cut trenching for approximately
6,000 linear feet through agricultural fields and a private gravel access road
in South Windsor, and along sections of roadways in East Hartford, including
Main Street, Gilman Street, and King Street, to a proposed eastern tie-in at
the intersection of King Street and Ellington Road, East Hartford,” according
to the report.
Alternative B is similar to Alternative A, with the
exception of the Podunk River crossing, “where an alternative construction
approach is proposed to address the Horizontal Directional Drilling bore
length.”
Under this option, Connecticut River Horizontal Directional
Drilling would be closer to the bank of the Connecticut River, then pipe
installation would be used to the western edge of the Podunk River.
“The Podunk River crossing would then be constructed using
either open-cut trenching or a short-length trenchless method such as micro
tunneling or jack and bore. Under this alternative, approximately 1,050 LF of
additional open-cut trenching would be required on the east side of the
Connecticut River, including areas in proximity to wetlands and agricultural
land,” according to the proposal.
Salemi said the scoping notice recently published in the
Environmental Monitor is in regard to preliminary site investigation work
planned by MDC,specifically, geotechnical borings on each side of the
Connecticut River with some borings taking place in the river itself.
“These borings are critical to advance the design as they
will assist in defining the best possible alignment for the pipe to cross under
the Connecticut River. Until these borings are performed, we have no way of
knowing the final pipe alignment or the preferred method of trenchless
installation,” Salemi said.
“The plan is to dig a sending and receiving pit on either
side of the river and use a trenchless method to install the pipe to the east
side of the river. From there we can tie into the existing water distribution
system and provide for future redundancy should some of the aging mains become
unusable or need repair. We are advancing to 30% design, and the borings are
critical to produce a cost estimate for the project,” he said.
Salemi said if the project moves forward, construction will
begin in 2029 or 2030.
The Metropolitan District Commission would be seeking
financial support and applying to the Department of Public Health Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the project
may need review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Amazon partner sues CT town as residents organize against plan for mega-warehouse
In another case of eastern Connecticut residents pushing
back against mega-developments, dozens of taxpayers in Killingly are
organizing to fight Amazon’s proposal for a
1.3 million-square-foot warehouse.
Warning that it would bring unwanted traffic, destroy scores
of acres of woodlands and further commercialize the community, homeowners have filed
letters of protest with the town and are promoting several online
petition drives.
“The representatives who ought to protect our interests are
deliberately ignoring our pleas, blinded by promises of economic gain,” Vanessa
Lamothe wrote in a change.org petition. “The community of Killingly must stand
united against this development. This is our home — a place of natural beauty,
tranquility, and history. Are we to stand by as it’s appropriated for corporate
gain?”
Ryan Companies, Amazon’s construction partner, applied for zoning and wetlands permits on July 16, just four days before the town’s new moratorium against warehouses took effect. Many residents are balking at that timing and at Ryan’s lawsuit against Killingly’s wetlands board for rejecting the first version of the plan on July 6.
Ryan is eying 556 acres of mostly wooded property just east
of I-395 and the town’s Danielson section. It is offering to set aside 76 acres
as a conservation area and give 216 to the town for conservation and open
space.
“In addition to preserving some of the highest quality
wetland and aquatic resources in this region of Killingly, this land donation
to the town will greatly increase the distance separating the proposed building
and the nearest residential uses,” Ryan wrote in a letter to town planners.
But opponents counter that donating wetlands isn’t
necessarily generous since that land usually can’t be developed anyway. Other
residents put forward additional objections.
“A land donation does not offset contaminated drinking
water, diesel exhaust from hundreds of trucks daily, or the irreversible
transformation of a community that took generations to build,” reads another
online petition that generated nearly 2,000 signatures against Amazon’s
recently abandoned first proposal.
The warehouse would have 60 loading bays, parking for 430
truck trailers and 930 cars. Truck traffic is estimated at 400 to 800 a day,
with operations around the clock. Like most new Amazon facilities, the
Killingly warehouse is expected to make heavy use of robotics.
The planning and zoning commission is scheduled to discuss
the project on Aug. 17, followed by the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses
Commission on Sept. 14.
On Monday, attorneys
with Robinson & Cole filed suit on Ryan’s behalf against the
wetlands commission claiming it wrongly rejected the initial application.
“The commission was illegally constituted with some members
who had undisclosed and improper conflicts of interest,” depriving Ryan of a
fair hearing, according to the suit.
Ryan would assemble the 556-acre property by acquiring and
merging a series of smaller tracts. More than a dozen of those property owners
joined in the suit against the wetlands board.
Other residents support the plan, saying it would bring jobs
and badly needed tax revenue. But at least one of the two major political
parties has come out against it.
“Ryan Cos is both appealing IWWC denial and submitting new
proposal. Stand strong Killingly commissioners. The majority of residents do
not want this,” the Killingly Democratic Town Committee posted on Facebook.
Opponents are urging other residents to sign petitions and
write letters to the zoning and wetlands commissions, and to attend their
hearings to speak against the project.