The Connecticut Department of
Transportation and latest
news, too
This
page begun as a result of
Hartford
Courant series and 2007 proposed legislation re:
- IN THE NEWS;
It's the infrastructure,
stupid!!!
- Latest on
new Commissioner;
- FAA airspace plan
story and why we
think it doesn't work for us or the
rest of CT;
- Intermodal news;
- Bike-ped
use/issue a part of CT
Long-Term Transportation Plan - more here!
- Congestion
Pricing: gasoline price accomplishing the same thing in
N.Y.C.; who's doing
it; new application of the term; sell
off toll roads?
- Legislature wants change - first, a study;
link to study website here;
some other ideas from the 2007 Long Session below.










The Mianus Bridge and state DOT
Stamford ADVOCATE
Article
Launched: 06/26/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT
With the anniversary of the Mianus River Bridge collapse 25 years ago
this week, it is important to respectfully remember the individuals who
were killed, and how people from all sectors responded to the tragedy
and its aftermath. Three people died and three were injured, while
Greenwich and the region traumatized when the Interstate 95 bridge's
design and lack of maintenance caused a 100-foot section of the
northbound lane to fall away on June 28, 1983.
A package of stories in The Advocate last Sunday effectively recounted
the shocking scene, the resulting traffic detours that choked surface
roads in area municipalities and the changes in bridge maintenance
programs shortly thereafter.
But in remembering that time, we cannot avoid hearing echoes from the
disaster in some of the problems the state Department of Transportation
still has to this day.
Following the Mianus collapse, it emerged that the DOT's bridge
oversight program was not properly staffed, leading to brief,
hit-and-miss inspections, as well as some that were reported done even
though they weren't. Also at some points prior to the event, lack of
money was officially used as the excuse for the fact that repairs
recommended for the Mianus span were not being undertaken.
Compare that with the situation just last year, when it was revealed
that the DOT had "quietly cut back on bridge inspections across the
state" as a way to save money. Inspections had gone from every two
years to every four, though the governor quickly countermanded that
change after knowledge of it became public.
To be sure, a federal official said that Connecticut qualified for an
exemption to inspection guidelines because its bridges met certain
criteria. One expert said in most cases there would be little change in
the condition of a bridge over four years, as opposed to two. But other
experts maintained that the new schedule could have long-term
consequences, and that it could allow deterioration to take place
unnoticed. There are sound reasons for the federal standards, they
maintained.
Then there was the debacle with widening done by contractors on a
stretch of Interstate 84.
According to news reports, an independent audit last year found faulty
catchbasins and drainage pipes, defective light poles, an improperly
installed bridge and other problems in a project being supervised by
the DOT for a 3.5-mile stretch from Waterbury to Cheshire. Inspections
that should have caught at least some of the flaws either were not
performed, or failed to point out inadequacies, the auditors said.
After a storm knocked the arm off a light pole, defective brackets were
found on 70 poles, which the DOT was told posed a risk to motorists.
Among other DOT shortcomings recounted in hearings, an agency worker
said she was not given authorization to work some extra hours on one
problem she discovered.
Yet the effort to overhaul this dysfunctional agency continues to
sputter.
As reported by Staff Writer Brian Lockhart, the state Legislature
"adjourned May 7 without funding new positions or budgeting money to
study Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell's proposal to split the DOT into two
agencies."
There's that money issue again.
There can be no doubt that the state has to respond to financial
realities. Its revenue stream continues to slow because of energy costs
and economic troubles nationwide. The prospect of substantial deficits
has impelled even Gov. Rell to agree on putting off major DOT reform
efforts for now, as well as order significant spending cuts across the
board.
Additionally, it must be noted there is no indication that Connecticut
is in immediate danger on the order of the Mianus Bridge tragedy -
though that event was not expected either.
But while contemplating what occurred 25 years ago and why, we think it
would be a lot better for public safety and peace of mind in
Connecticut if the DOT didn't in some ways seem still stuck in 1983.
Bridge Construction Draws Crowds in Minneapolis
NYTIMES
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: June 8, 2008
MINNEAPOLIS — On a sunny Saturday, more than 300 people stood in
clusters squinting out at the gurgling Mississippi River and the spot
where one of the state’s most-traveled bridges fell down one evening
last August, killing 13 people and injuring many more.
Concrete forms for the Interstate 35W bridge await assembly.
Near the front of this morning’s crowd, which included tourists with
cameras and water bottles, a Boy Scout troop all in navy and a local
man celebrating his 75th birthday, stood Peter Sanderson, the project
manager for a new $234 million bridge that is rising fast above the
waters here.
Trailed by workers in hard hats lugging loudspeakers, Mr. Sanderson
used a microphone to answer seemingly endless questions. How strong
will the metal be in the new concrete bridge? How peculiar is its
design? Has it been used before in this country? What is that puff of
smoke over there? What exactly are those construction workers there
doing? What are those tubes for?
On and on the quizzing went, as it does most weekends now, part of an
unusual series of public meetings the Minnesota Department of
Transportation calls the Sidewalk Superintendent tours.
Hundreds of people gather to stare out at the emerging Interstate 35W
bridge, the gargantuan cranes, the dump trucks and excavators, the
crushed train cars nearby (the last vestige of the collapse) and to
make a million disparate inquiries, most of which, in the end, seem to
come back to a single, never-uttered question: Will this bridge really
stay up?
If it seems odd that people would choose to spend 90 minutes of a
spring weekend staring out at construction crews and listening
(blankly, at times) to Mr. Sanderson, of Flatiron Constructors, as he
speaks of “longitudinal post tensioning” and “cantilevered sections,”
Minnesotans come for every reason.
The engineers, like the retired transportation department workers
(including one former bridge designer, Donald A. Heinrich, who has
turned up here nearly every weekend, even through the winter), say they
want to see the technological elements of the new bridge. Tourists say
they are awed at the sheer size and scope of the construction and the
enormous puzzle of putting together a bridge that will carry five lanes
in each direction. Locals say only that this is their bridge; they need
a look.
But just any new bridge, many here agreed, would not lure so many. The
images of cars plunging into water, of twisted metal and concrete, of
dazed, dripping survivors are gone. But it is still hard to look away.
“The fact that the bridge fell down, that it was such a terrible
experience for all of us, I guess you just want to know as much as you
can,” said Nita Lussenhop, 82, who gazed out at the new structure meant
to last 100 years, recalling how she, like most people in this region,
had crossed the old bridge again and again and again over the years.
“It’s amazing to see what it takes to build a bridge. Just look at it.
To see it is different. Really, you just want to see that it’s going to
stand.”
There are those who find the cheerful weekly tours here mildly unseemly
— some slightly ghoulish cousin of the New Orleans bus tours of damage
left behind by Hurricane Katrina.
Chris Messerly, one in a group of lawyers who are handling, pro bono,
scores of the legal cases for bridge collapse victims (and are now
focused on a $38 million state compensation fund created for them),
said victims had varied reactions to the emergence of the new bridge.
One injured woman has insisted that she wants to be the first to drive
over the new bridge, Mr. Messerly said, while other families have
criticized Minnesota officials as setting aside the human loss too
swiftly and racing ahead to erect a replacement.
Mr. Messerly said he had questions about the notion of the tours. “I
find it a bit morbid to have a celebration of a structural engineering
feat which seems to ignore in all respects what happened there before,”
he said. “It almost is a gravesite, a memorial site. It should be a
solemn place.”
But those working on the bridge say the talks are about rebuilding
public confidence. The federal authorities are still searching for the
cause of the Aug. 1 bridge collapse here, and preliminary indications
suggest a design flaw, but the event stirred an outcry of fears over
how the authorities have maintained Minnesota’s bridges and where else
a problem may be looming.
“We’re trying to be accessible here,” said Jon Chiglo, the project
manager for the Transportation Department, which, as part of the bridge
contract, is paying more than $500,000 to a public relations firm to
promote the story of the new bridge with these tours and with open
houses in local neighborhoods.
“I have to tell you something I get asked all the time,” Mr. Chiglo
said. “People ask me, am I willing to be the first one to drive across
this bridge? That is why we’re out here.”
Adding to the concerns of some Minnesotans is the remarkable speed with
which this bridge is being built. On 12-hour shifts, the hundreds of
employees work night and day and most holidays. Officials say their
rush recognizes the importance of this bridge — the previous one
carried 140,000 cars a day — and the many costs of its closing.
By contract, the bridge is to be finished by Dec. 24, but many expect
it will open far sooner. A provision offers the contractors as much as
$27 million in incentives if they finish by Sept. 15. (Some suspect it
will open by Sept. 1, when Gov. Tim Pawlenty is to be host of the
Republican convention in St. Paul, though Mr. Sanderson said to a
reporter after a recent tour that he had received no pressure to finish
in time for the convention.)
Along the tour, Mr. Sanderson emphasized how sturdy the new bridge
would be, and how many redundant support elements it would have. He
said the project had received more scrutiny and more inspections from
state officials (“like making our way through a swamp full of
molasses”) than any he had seen.
Then he passed around thick segments of steel cable that help to hold
together the design, and members of the crowd weighed them in their
hands, tugging and pulling at them as if to try the bridge itself.
Rail cars to get more bike space
New Haven REGISTER
By Mary E. O’Leary
Posted on Wed, Jun 11, 2008
NEW HAVEN — Ask and you shall receive.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell, at the request of New Haven Mayor John DeStefano
Jr., has ordered that the 380 M-8 rail cars on order for use on Metro
North be modified to allow for increased bicycle storage.
After viewing a mock-up of the rail cars in late May, the mayor asked
for the revision to the cars, as well as a change in Metro-North policy
which currently does not allow bikes on rush-hour trains.
Rell, in a letter to the mayor, said she had similar concerns about
limiting bicycles on trains, which commuters now use to ride to a train
station and use again to make the last leg of their commuting journeys.
Advertisement
Rell told the mayor that since the first of the new cars are not
scheduled for delivery until 2009, “there is sufficient time to modify
the design without delaying the scheduled delivery.” The proposed
changes will be made by the state Department of Transportation.
Rell said new bike racks also have been installed at stations and the
state DOT will review its policies on bicycle access.
But the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council feels that until there are
enough train cars to allow all paying passengers to sit, bicycles
should not be allowed to take up space.
“Everyone is tired of standing. How can you accommodate a bike without
blocking the aisle?” asked James Cameron, council chairman.
He said the council does support more bike racks at train stations as a
low-cost solution to help commuters, who now have a four-year wait for
parking permits.
On the other side of the issue, cycling advocates point to successful
programs in other states, particularly California.
Richard Stowe, of the New Canaan Environmental Group, has taken on
Cameron in his blog, pointing particularly to price of oil as a reason
to act.
“With the price of oil cresting 120 dollars per barrel never has there
been a better time for Metro-North to accommodate bicycles during peak
hours,” Stowe wrote. He also criticized Cameron’s defense of keeping
bar cars, but not accommodating bikes.
DOT appointee brings mass transit expertise
Stamford ADVOCATE
Brian Lockhart
Article Launched: 04/24/2008 02:44:20 AM EDT
HARTFORD - Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele did not suggest that his boss, Gov.
M. Jodi Rell, pick Joseph Marie of Arizona to run Connecticut's
Department of Transportation.
But Fedele's glad she did.
Fedele spearheaded the national search for a new DOT chief after Ralph
Carpenter retired in December.
Fedele helped whittle down the list of candidates from 30 to two -
Marie and "another gentleman from down South." The names were submitted
to Rell a few weeks ago.
Fedele said he wanted Marie to get the job but shared his opinion with
Rell only after she made up her mind.
"He not only had public service experience but also comes from private
industry, so he brings the best practices of both those areas," said
Fedele, a Stamford resident.
Lawmakers are expected to hold a confirmation hearing Monday.
A Massachusetts native, Marie, 45, is director of operations and
maintenance for the Phoenix regional public transit system. He has held
senior transit positions in Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts
and worked for rail equipment manufacturers.
Fedele said Marie's background fits the administration's goal to focus
on mass transit.
"We want to maintain our roads and bridges but also create an
environment that promotes mass transit," Fedele said.
Marie has a lot of energy and looks forward to taking over an agency at
a crossroads, Fedele said.
Earlier this year, Rell said the DOT was "broken" and suggested it be
split to focus more on mass transit.
Lawmakers likely will vote to create a committee to study the proposal.
Marie and all finalists had ideas about splitting the department and
about simply reorganizing it, Fedele said.
"He brings some very good managerial skills, and I think he's very
open-minded and is a people person," he said. "He's not afraid to roll
up his sleeves and get the job done."
Marie has worked in different states, which should make it easy for him
to interact with the administration and General Assembly in
Connecticut, Fedele said.
Many lawmakers have praised Rell for breaking a tradition of hiring
commissioners from within the DOT or other departments.
Two DOT employees were in the running, including acting Commissioner H.
James Boice, according to department sources.
"When you have an outsider and insider, there's pluses and minuses,"
Fedele said. "What we were looking for is who could do the best job
with the organization that is there today, and work with the governor
and legislature to move the transportation agenda forward."
Fedele said Marie will move his family back to the Northeast and hopes
to start in June.
Asked whether Marie plans to remain at the job for any length of time,
Fedele said the appointment is secure only until the next gubernatorial
election in 2010.
The DOT has had significant turnover in management in recent years.
Train
cars stay on track despite rail yard delays
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart
Article Launched: 05/30/2008 01:00:00 AM EDT
BRIDGEPORT - State transportation officials assured the Connecticut
Rail Commuter Council on Wednesday night that problems with the upgrade
of the New Haven Rail Yard will not delay arrival of 300 new M8 train
cars or interfere with their maintenance.
"We have confidence that, working with Metro-North, the cars will be
maintained to the appropriate standards," Eugene Colonese, the state
Department of Transportation's rail administrator, told the council
during a meeting at the Bridgeport railroad station.
Colonese and other DOT officials briefed the council on the rail yard
project, which came under fire in April, when state lawmakers learned
the $300 million budget approved in 2005 had ballooned to $1.2
billion. Gov. M. Jodi Rell is reviewing bids from three
contractors for an
independent cost analysis of the design. The rail yard upgrade
and the $1 billion purchase of the train cars are
hallmarks of Rell's 2005 transportation bill.
Lawmakers on the General Assembly's finance and transportation
committees last month grilled the DOT on the higher costs. They are
trying to schedule another meeting with Metro-North Railroad. The
commuter council questioned the DOT on Wednesday about the cost
overruns.
Asked why the project was under-budgeted, Al Martin, a deputy DOT
commissioner, said, "Keep in mind that initial estimate was a concept
without an awful lot of the necessary engineering being done."
Council member Jeffrey Maron of Stamford asked why commuters should
have confidence in the DOT's $1.2 billion estimate.
"You can rest assured we're very close to being right on," Martin said.
But council Chairman Jim Cameron had doubts.
"I think all bets are off," he said after the meeting.
The project has been divided into three phases, with construction
scheduled to begin in April 2009 and lasting through 2020.
"How can you possibly plan out 10 years from now, given the
inflationary and unpredictable environment we're in?" Cameron said.
The Rell administration determined that the rail yard had to be
upgraded to maintain the high-tech rail cars, which are being designed
in Japan. The DOT is shopping around a mockup of the rail car
interior to
commuters. It was on display yesterday in Stamford, and there are plans
to bring it to Grand Central Terminal in New York City. The cars
will begin arriving in mid-2009. The rest of the fleet will be
built in Nebraska and shipped from there at the rate of about 10 cars
per month. It is more expensive to split the project into phases
but it had to be
done because rail yard operations must continue during construction,
Martin said.
The DOT is seeking funds to complete the first phase, which includes
new tracks to store the M8s, a facility to maintain the wheels, a
multilevel maintenance shop that can handle 13 cars and office
space. The initial phase costs $432,000. The DOT is expected to
ask Rell and
the General Assembly to come up with the extra money when the 2009
legislative session begins in January. The state plans a gradual
fare increase to pay for the new cars.
"We believe we will have the dollars to complete (phase one) on
schedule," Martin said. "We understand the riding public and taxpayers
in general are very much concerned about how we're going to do this."
The second phase includes a central parts warehouse and car washer. A
paint shop, parking garage and pedestrian bridge for workers is planned
for the final phase.
"Know we are going to do it in a fashion that does not put a burden on
the taxpayers," Martin said.
Cameron and Andrew Todd, a council member from Norwalk, asked DOT
officials to forward details about the warrantee on the M8s.
Cameron said he is concerned that if the upgrades fall behind, the
state will not be able to maintain the new cars, invalidating the
warrantee. But Colonese said that is not a concern.
"We feel pretty confident we have a plan that will accommodate the
existing and new fleet," he said. "It's like a new car. You buy a new
car you're not going into the shop that often."
Terri Cronin, a council member from Norwalk, said she was not satisfied
with the answers about how the rail yard will be funded.
"I'm just so concerned they're going to raise ticket prices," Cronin
said.
But Cameron was optimistic.
"I don't think they're going to stick it to the commuter."
Lawmakers decry
additional $250M for rail yard
Norwalk HOUR
April 16, 2008
State lawmakers were bent out of shape Wednesday after questioning the
state Department of Transportation on its cost estimates for a new rail
yard in New Haven.
The project is necessary to maintain a fleet of new rail cars for
Metro-North Railroad's New Haven line that will arrive in late 2009.
Lawmakers approved $300 million for the rail yard in 2005, but the cost
has ballooned to $1.12 billion because of inflation and additional
design aspects.
To keep the project on schedule, the legislature must appropriate an
additional $252 million for the project's first of three phases by next
March, according Office of Policy and Management secretary Robert
Genuario.
The revelation didn't sit well with the legislature's finance and
transportation committees, which pressed the agencies for an
explanation Wednesday in Hartford.
"I feel like I'm going through the three stages of grief here," state
Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-27, said. "I've been through shock and anger,
and I'm still wallowing in despair, and I haven't gotten to acceptance."
McDonald primarily wanted to know why he and his colleagues hadn't been
informed sooner.
Genuario said he first found out in 2006 that the rail yard would cost
more than expected, and at that point, he didn't entirely believe it.
He ordered the DOT to re-evaluate their estimates during 2007, but
didn't get the information to lawmakers until a week ago.
Repeatedly, he said the late notice was an error on his part.
"If I had to do it all over again, I would have brought you into the
loop earlier, and I take responsibility in that regard," he said.
State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, majority whip, laughingly calls the issue
"Traingate."
"We've heard rumblings about the overruns since about four months ago,
but we were never getting straight answers," Duff said after
Wednesday's meeting.
Scott Hill, the DOT's project manager, said the department's original
request for $300 million was based on a preliminary estimate. When DOT
engineers actually began designing the project, they added a parking
garage, a pedestrian bridge for workers, a storage yard and several
other new features.
They also realized the city of New Haven wanted the surrounding
property for economic development, meaning the new yard needs to be
built on the existing yard's 70-acre plot. Builders, then, have to work
around existing operations there, adding time -- and greater inflation
costs -- to the project, Hill said.
Transportation Commissioner H. James Boice said it's typical for DOT
projects to vary in cost from original estimates, and sometimes they
even cost less, but lawmakers were still taken aback by how much more
money taxpayers will have to pony up.
"While the department's tried to keep everything up to date, it is
clear a better job could have been done," Boice said.
State Rep. Toni Boucher, R-143, said Wednesday's forum underscores the
need to split the DOT into two entities -- one for highways and one for
mass transit -- because it shows the agency's inability to plan major
rail projects.
"This is more than just about this project," she said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell has also shown concern.
On Monday, she ordered a review of all DOT capital projects either
under construction or planned to break ground in the next five years.
"Especially now, money is tight -- but even if the financial picture
were brighter, we have a responsibility as stewards of taxpayer dollars
to ensure that every penny is spent in the most efficient and effective
way possible," Rell said in a statement.
She also called for the Office of Policy and Management to hire an
independent analyst to study the rail yard design and see if any money
can be salvaged.
The DOT hasn't made a request for more funding yet, which is necessary
before lawmakers can consider an appropriation. Genuario said there
will be more conversations over the next few weeks, but did not say
whether he would advise the legislature to appropriate more funds this
session or hold a special session before March 2009, when construction
is supposed to begin.
Either way, Genuario said the 300 new rail cars will arrive on time.
"This issue is not in any way, shape or form impacting the incoming
fleet," Genuario said.
Transportation
Key Component of
State Spending Plan
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 2/7/2008
Hartford — Under Gov. M. Jodi Rell's proposed midterm budget, the state
would reorganize the Department of Transportation, nab highway speeders
through the use of radar cameras installed in the East Lyme area, and
hire additional inspectors for bridge repair and maintenance.
Rell would also like people to clean their cars of snow on stormy days
to spare others from the “ice missiles” they launch.
The proposed 2009 fiscal year budget includes an increase of $5 million
for transportation, considered one of the year's “major initiatives.”
“To those who use this congested highway as their personal speedway,
we're going to see you and we're going to stop you,” Rell said during
her State of the State address.
“And it will cost you.”
In addition to the highway cameras, the budget also includes a
recommendation to hire 100 state troopers over the next five years who
would focus solely on highway enforcement, and to increase penalties
for certain violations by teen drivers.
The camera pilot program would cost about $250,000 and begin by Oct. 1.
Chris Cooper, a spokesman for the governor's office, said the violation
would be treated as an infraction and the presumption would be that the
car's registered owner is driving, though that can be challenged.
The law would require that a summons be mailed no later than 14 days
after the violation and include a photo. The law only pertains to
speeders and is not affiliated with red-light cameras, which spot
violations at traffic signals, Cooper said.
State Rep. Steve Mikutel, D-Griswold, vice chairman of the
legislature's Transportation Committee, said after the address that he
has “mixed feelings” about the cameras.
“I'm not jumping on board that,” he said. “It may be that there are
other ways we can deal with aggressive drivers without (them) being
photographed. ... I'm concerned about personal privacy. I'm just
concerned about Big Brotherism.”
State Sen. Andrea Stillman, D-Waterford, said she likes the pilot
program.
“I've been a proponent of that kind of oversight of the highways for a
while because I know they do it in other states and it is rather
effective,” said Stillman, chairman of the Public Safety and Security
Committee. “I think it's a good idea to do it. ... I applaud (Gov.
Rell) proposing some things that I believe the delegation had requested
— not just the cameras, but certainly more patrol on the highways.”
State Rep. Ed Jutila, D-East Lyme, said he is leaning toward supporting
the idea.
“The feeling always is that public opinion doesn't support it, that
people don't want cameras taking pictures of them, and they don't feel
comfortable with that,” said Jutila, a member of the Transportation
Committee. “I think right now people are upset enough with the carnage
out there on the highways that they might be ready for it, and I might
be.”
Jutila said he drafted a letter, signed by the local delegation, that
asks the Transportation Committee for a public hearing on a variety of
highway safety initiatives, from reduced speed limits to highway
cameras and restricting truck traffic to the right lane. Jutila said
the delegation is not yet advocating for the ideas but “we all agreed
they should be on the table.”
The governor's proposal surprised many in its $2 million recommendation
to split the state DOT into two separate agencies: the Department of
Highways and the Department of Public Transportation, Aviation, and
Ports.
The reorganization would take effect Jan. 1, 2010, and would create a
position of chief operating officer, who would report to the DOT
commissioner. Rell's budget chief, Robert L. Genuario, said the
division into two agencies was not intended as a cost-saving move but
to provide focus.
Genuario said that, aside from the new chief operating officer
position, he doesn't believe the split would result in more employees.
It was unclear Wednesday how the proposed move could affect the search
for a new DOT commissioner. Acting commissioner Emil Frankel said he
expects to serve until the middle of March, a term he understood to be
set by statute.
In a phone interview, Frankel demurred when asked whether he thinks the
idea to split the DOT into two agencies is a good one.
“She's a lot closer to this, and I respect her judgment about this,” he
said of Rell, “and we're going to do everything we can to make this
successful. We'll come up with some models and kind of analyze what the
best way is to do it. ... There are a lot of institutional patterns
that can be followed, and we're going to try to analyze and come up
with (ideas), and as long as I'm there, I'll be of whatever assistance
I can.”
Rell's proposal to divide the DOT came a couple of weeks after she
received a report on proposed reforms for the department. Her
recommendation to divide the department surprised many, however,
because that was not a conclusion reached in the report but the
governor's own suggestion.
Other recommendations in the proposed budget include:
•A law requiring people to clean their car roofs after snow storms to
prevent “ice missiles.”
•$700,000 to add 10 commercial-vehicle inspectors within the Department
of Motor Vehicles as part of a “crackdown” on unsafe trucks and
trucking companies.
•42 inspectors and maintainers for bridge repair and maintenance to
ensure bridge inspections occur every two years.
•An additional 50 DOT engineers for more “in-house design and oversight
of transportation projects”; there was no budget adjustment, according
to the proposal, because the positions “are funded 80 percent federal
projects and 20 percent capital projects.”
•The creation of a “Responsible Growth” Cabinet to advise on
responsible growth policies and initiatives and to coordinate funding
and permitting for “developments of regional significance.”
•$500,000 in the capital budget to finance a master plan for the
state's deep-water ports.
State searches for new DOT chief
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Mark Ginocchio
Published January 13 2008
The state is moving aggressively in its nationwide search for the next
commissioner of the state Department of Transportation and will stop
accepting applications for the post before the end of the month.
Commissioner Ralph Carpenter stepped down last month after a little
more than a year with the agency. Applications will be accepted until
Jan. 25, about six weeks after the job was first advertised, said Chris
Cooper, a spokesman in Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office.
From there, the state Department of Administration will begin
conducting interviews and narrowing the list of candidates.
Former DOT Commissioner Emil Frankel of Westport is expected to start
serving as interim commissioner before the end of the month, according
to state officials.
The Department of Administration posted an advertisement in newspapers,
job sites and transportation trade and industry groups such as the
American Association of Highway & Transportation Officials, the
American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Council of
Engineering Companies.
Qualified applicants are expected to have at least eight years of
top-level management experience.
The ad describes the state's long-term transportation strategy as
focused on smart growth and transit-oriented development.
It also mentions the DOT reform group, a committee created by Rell last
year to change the culture and structure of the agency after it was
revealed that the department had mismanaged a $52 million drainage
installation project on Interstate 84 in Waterbury.
The state is still awaiting the committee's report, which was
originally slated for release last month.
It has been delayed as the group, led by Michael Critelli of Pitney
Bowes in Stamford, continues to comb through its research and input
from transportation advocates, residents and DOT employees.
Some lawmakers said they are disappointed that the nationwide search is
being conducted primarily through state government instead of hiring an
outside firm or consultant to find top-level talent.
It's appropriate to hire a consultant or a committee to help with a
national search," said state Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk. "There are a
number of stakeholders" in the state who would be interested in getting
involved with the search process, he said.
The state's current method of promoting the position "isn't exactly the
way to beat the bushes for a national expert on transportation," said
state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, a member of the legislature's
Transportation Committee. "It's just one element of what's needed to be
done."
Other lawmakers said they are less concerned by the process and are
instead pleased to hear the state is pushing ahead with its search in a
timely fashion.
"I'm waiting for the resolution and relying on the governor's national
search to find someone who is equipped to handle a major transition"
for transportation policy in Connecticut, said state Sen. William
Nickerson, R-Greenwich. "We need to find someone who brings stability,
leadership and imagination."
Time
For A Transit Chief
Hartford Courant editorial
December 13, 2007
The retirement of state Department of Transportation Commissioner Ralph
J. Carpenter presents an opportunity the state must embrace. Gov. M.
Jodi Rell must appoint a transit advocate, a transportation
professional committed to using all appropriate modes of transportation
to improve the state's commerce and quality of life, to head the
department.
For decades, the department's heavy emphasis has been on highways. Mr.
Carpenter, an exemplary public servant, had begun the process of
broadening the department's vision. A former state police lieutenant
colonel and Department of Motor Vehicles commissioner, Mr. Carpenter
came to the DOT in 2005. The department was then beset with scandals
and lack of focus.
Mr. Carpenter, other state administrators and members of a reform
commission appointed earlier this year by Gov. Rell have together made
substantial improvements. They're reorganized redundant and failing
administrative processes, established stronger oversight of
construction projects and improved bridge inspections.
The DOT reform commission, headed by Pitney-Bowes Chairman Michael
Critelli, is scheduled to report Monday on how to reform the
3,200-employee department. A big part of providing the state with the
transportation it needs must be leadership.
Gov. Rell said the state has embarked on a national search to find a
new commissioner, and has enlisted the capable Emil Frankel, DOT
commissioner under Gov. Lowell Weicker from 1991 to 1995, to serve as
interim commissioner while the search is in progress.
National search or not, history suggests there will be strong pressure
to promote a highway engineer from inside the department, as so often
in the past. This time, we must find someone with a technical
background, to be sure, but also a broad view. We need someone who will
put the T in DOT, who is as committed to trains, buses, bikes and
ferries as to highways, someone who will encourage development around
transit stations. There are such people out there, such as former New
Hampshire transportation commissioner Carol Murray and former New
Jersey transportation commissioner Jack Lettiere.
Gov. Rell has committed the state to a plan of responsible growth and
transit-oriented development. The right appointment at DOT can bring
the state a lot closer to these worthy goals.
Proposed Train Station Is No Sure Thing
NYTIMES
May 6, 2008
THE Web site for Eastside Commons, an apartment building under
construction along East Main Street here, stresses its proximity to a
proposed Metro-North station on the corner of Myrtle and East Main.
The outlines of large apartment buildings have begun to rise amid the
auto body shops and car dealerships. According to local officials and
property owners, they are the first signs of a plan to create an “urban
village” where residents will live above retail stores, walk the
streets for fun and use public transportation to get around.
But the Metro-North station will not be built for years, if it is built
at all, according to the Connecticut Department of Transportation.
“It’s transit-oriented development without the transit yet in place,”
said Robin Stein, Stamford’s director of planning.
The idea of encouraging residential development near future commuter
train stops has gained momentum among policymakers looking for
alternatives to suburban sprawl. In several places, including
Connecticut, financial incentives have been created to encourage
developers to build near existing public transportation. There are no
such incentives in the East Main Street area, but property owners are
building anyway.
Seth G. Weinstein, the developer for Eastside Commons, said the train
station would be a boon to his plans, though not a requirement. He said
the new residential and retail developments would create their own
momentum and draw people to the area.
He was quick to say, however, that he was not trying to mislead
potential buyers at Eastside Commons about the status of the train
station.
Stamford officials have been planning changes in this area for years.
The idea of an East Main Station served by the New Canaan branch of
Metro-North’s New Haven line was first introduced in the city’s 2002
master plan. In 2005, the city hired a consultant to study the East
Main area specifically. The resulting report detailed a plan to
“recapture the corridor and transform it into an urban village.” To
that end, it recommended that the city campaign for another Metro-North
station.
But the decision to build a new station rests with the Department of
Transportation, which recently began a feasibility study looking at the
potential ridership and environmental impact of building one. The study
will not be completed for 20 months, said Al Martin, the department’s
deputy commissioner. Though he said he was optimistic that the station
would be approved, he said the earliest it could be built was 2011 or
2012.
But business plans wait for no train. At least two other property
owners are pursuing plans for residential projects of their own. The
East Side Partnership, an organization made up of local property
owners, is attempting to create a business improvement district, which
would collect fees from its members to make physical improvements to
the neighborhood. Many of these changes would be made with the
intention of making East Main Street a more comfortable area for
pedestrians, said Jim Grunberger, the head of the group.
Mr. Grunberger said his goal was to create something resembling
Manhattan’s Greenwich Village. This would require transforming a
district whose primary economic activity now appears to be serving
people whose cars have broken down. In Mr. Grunberger’s view, the
days of the brake centers and body shops
are numbered. As he walks down the street he refers to many existing
businesses simply as “development sites.”
Panel
is in the driver's seat of transit reform
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Mark Ginocchio, Staff Writer
Published November 24 2007
Reforming the state Department of Transportation has been eye-opening
for Michael Critelli.
As the head of Gov. M. Jodi Rell's 11-member commission to reorganize
the DOT, the executive chairman of Pitney Bowes in Stamford has had to
sift through information from four public hearings and dozens of
comments submitted through the group's Web site.
When the commission submits its recommendations to the governor next
month, they may not be perfect, but they should reflect the vast amount
of data gathered by the group charged with developing a better DOT,
Critelli said.
"We have to zero in on fundamental issues here," said Critelli, a
former member of the state Transportation Strategy Board. "We can't
come at it with a laundry list of recommendations. We don't want to
spend a lot of time trying to find the silver bullet solution, because
there isn't one."
The commission was formed in April after revelations that an Interstate
84 widening project in Waterbury was riddled with flaws. By
interviewing DOT employees, the commission got an insider's look at
what is causing some of the problems, Critelli said. Public
hearings
have helped commission members learn about the amount of interaction
DOT must have with towns, other states and other Connecticut agencies.
Consider the commuter who drives to a train station, parks in a garage
there and rides the train into New York, then takes a subway, Critelli
said.
He learned the DOT is not overstaffed, he said. It was downsized under
former Gov. John Rowland and has yet to rebuild, despite an increase in
projects and demands, Critelli said.
"It was so severely downsized, it has not come back to the level it
needs to manage the ambitious agenda Governor Rell and the legislature
agreed upon," Critelli said.
Since 2005, more than $3.5 billion in state money has been allocated to
transportation, including the purchase of new rail cars for the New
Haven Line and road improvements on Interstate 95, Interstate 91 and
I-84. Some of the problems plaguing the DOT are nationwide,
Critelli
said.
Revenue generated by the state gasoline tax is decreasing because high
pump prices are forcing people to drive less or buy more fuel-efficient
cars. Inflation costs for construction materials and other
commodities
are skyrocketing as projects remain in design phase or under public
review.
With these problems, the commission must find ways to "mitigate the
impacts," Critelli said. "There needs to be different strategies . . .
and we need to create a culture of collaboration" with other agencies
and states.
Transportation advocates have criticized the commission, particularly
its public hearing schedule. It's good the group had four
hearings and
hosts a Web site where comments can be submitted, but the timing and
promotion have not always been convenient, said Karen Burnaska, who
represents coastal Fairfield County on the Transportation Strategy
Board.
"The meetings have not been well publicized, but they are doing a
thorough job," Burnaska said. "They wanted an extension (to submit
their report) because there's more work to do. That's a plus."
The commission was criticized earlier this year when a hearing in
Stamford was publicly announced only two days in advance. The
commission added a second hearing in Fairfield County in
Bridgeport.
Jim Cameron, chairman of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, said
public hearings sometimes were frustrating because speakers repeated
the same ideas from forums held years ago.
"I was coming away saying we're right back at square one again," said
Cameron, who met with Critelli earlier this year to discuss the
commission. "I was very pleased he reached out to me and others and
listened to our arguments."
Critelli said he hopes residents are able to communicate with the
commission and DOT after a report is submitted.
"The process of getting public input doesn't stop with the publication
of this report," he said.
One of the commission's goals is to find more ways for residents to be
heard, though they must be careful not to contribute to a "culture of
fear" at the agency, he said.
"DOT employees were afraid to make decisions because, if something went
wrong, there would be a public investigation," Critelli said. "You need
transparency because you're spending public money . . . but we need to
figure out a process without the public hanging issue."
Stop
the presses! Silvermine residents may say otherwise (June 2008)!!!
Route 7 dispute settled
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Chris Gosier, Staff Writer
Published March 17 2008
The state and the Merritt Parkway Conservancy have reached an agreement
in their long-running dispute over how to redesign a busy interchange
in Norwalk.
The state Department of Transportation has settled on a "cloverleaf"
design for the interchange of Route 7 and the Merritt Parkway, the plan
favored by the conservancy.
The conservancy, in turn, has accepted state proposals to replace the
historic bridge over Main Avenue near the interchange, as long as its
character is maintained.
Those are the elements of one proposal that will be aired at a public
hearing at 7:30 p.m. tomorrow at Norwalk City Hall, preceded by a
one-hour open house.
Five proposals for rebuilding the interchange will be offered. The DOT
will present the cloverleaf design as the preferred option but will get
public input before deciding, said Thomas Harley, manager of consultant
design with DOT.
It has been about two years since a federal judge blocked the DOT's
plans after a lawsuit by the conservancy. Since then, the two sides
have been meeting, with Gov. M. Jodi Rell urging them to reach an
agreement.
"This really is a collaborative effort," Harley said. "Both sides have
conceded issues in this process. We are going to this meeting with an
alternative that both parties can feel comfortable with."
More than 10 years ago, the state proposed reconfiguring the
congestion-prone interchange. The DOT is trying to finish the
interchange so it's accessible to traffic from all directions, Harley
said. The redesign will let Route 7 traffic travel north on the Merritt
Parkway, and drivers heading south on the Merritt will be able to exit
at Route 7.
The state also wants to replace the Main Avenue Bridge to expand Main
Avenue from two lanes to six lanes. The conservancy agreed to that
because of assurances from state officials that they will replicate the
bridge's stone construction and historic character.
"We really want to see historic character of the parkway be
maintained," said Jill Smyth, director of the conservancy.
The state backed off its earlier proposal to build elevated on- and
off-ramps that would loom 20 feet to 30 feet above the Merritt,
although that option will be displayed tomorrow night, Harley said.
Another option is to bring the ramps down to the level of the Merritt
Parkway, but they still would be imposing, Harley said.
"As you drive along the highway, you'll have more ramp on either side
of you," he said.
The cloverleaf - named for its appearance from above - has one lane
northbound and southbound where drivers merge on and off the parkway.
The DOT generally tries to steer clear of cloverleafs because the
interweaving traffic makes them harder to manage, Harley said.
Construction would not start for about four years, after permitting and
environmental studies are complete, Harley said.
Norwalk firm to get $671K for Merritt,
Route 7 projects
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Mark Ginocchio, Staff Writer
Published November 20 2007
NORWALK - The state Department of Transportation has reached an
agreement with a contractor to remove rubble on the Merritt Parkway
exit ramp at Main Avenue in Norwalk and the rock wall at the end of the
Route 7 connector.
M. Rondano Inc. of Norwalk was the low bidder and was awarded the
contract for $671,550, DOT officials said. Work will begin
shortly and is expected to continue during the winter, said Kevin
Nursick, a DOT spokesman. Construction should be complete at both sites
by the spring, he said. Norwalk officials have been clamoring for
the projects for years.
The Merritt rock pile was left behind after a federal judge halted
construction at the parkway and Route 7 interchange last year.
Initially, the DOT left the pile and other construction materials with
the hope that an agreement could be reached with parkway
preservationists and work would resume. But the project remains stalled.
The Route 7 wall, which dead-ends the highway connector at Grist Mill
Road, has been the scene of many automobile accidents since the road
opened in 1992. The wall was left intact because the state
believed the spot would be a temporary terminus for the connector,
which was to extend to Danbury as part of the controversial Super 7
highway. A lack of state funding - and strong opposition from
Wilton, Ridgefield and Redding - has prevented completion.
The DOT agreed about four years ago to drill and blast the rock ledge
and build a 100-foot-wide slope stretching 40 to 50 feet back from the
road. At least six fatal crashes have occurred at the Grist Mill
Road wall since 1992. Most recently in March, a 19-year-old North
Stamford man crashed into the wall in what was believed to be a suicide.
The DOT decided to bid the projects together to save money.
State's Highway Cameras See But Don't Tell
DAY
By Julie Wernau
Published on 11/11/2007
As the investigation continues into a multi-car crash on Interstate 95
in East Lyme that killed three people Nov. 2, police will be using
measurements, eyewitnesses, photographs and other tools to find out how
a tanker truck drove through the center barrier and into oncoming
traffic, striking a southbound tractor-trailer and four cars.
The one tool they won't be using is video footage.
“Unfortunately, statute doesn't allow us to use cameras for
enforcement,” said Lt. J. Paul Vance, spokesman for the state police.
The state highway system is equipped with more than 300 cameras — a
fiber-optic network of teardrop-shaped eyes that can turn 360 degrees,
zoom out and zoom in (close enough to read a license plate in some
cases) — but the Connecticut Department of Transportation cameras do
not record, said DOT spokesman Kevin Nursick.
“We do get a lot of (Freedom of Information) requests,” Nursick said,
“folks asking for the 'quote -unquote' recordings. But there aren't any
recordings.”
Nursick said there would be dozens of obstacles to having the cameras
record and making the footage available to law enforcement, not the
least of which is a statute that disallows such use.
“Certainly there are members of the public who would have a problem
with Big Brother looking down on us,” Nursick said.
•••••
At the DOT operations center in Newington, Rick DeMatties, highway
operations crew leader, maneuvered a joystick on his keyboard Thursday
to turn and zoom in on a stranded motorist.
In front of him, 20 small TV monitors surrounded a large screen —
covering the length and height of a wall. One monitor displayed the
news, while the others showed cars and trucks on interstates 91 and
84. It was about 2 p.m., and, so far, the roads looked
clear. From his chair, DeMatties has direct access to about 130
cameras, a radar system that indicates congested traffic areas using a
color-coded speed tracking system, weather conditions and other highway
management tools.
DeMatties said, for the most part, the DOT is clued in to major
incidents from their eyes and ears on the ground, including state and
local police and the DOT crews that roam the highways. Alerted by their
reports, said DeMatties, he can bring up the camera assigned to that
area, if there is one, and conduct “incident management.”
Switching the large screen to view Exit 28 on I-91 — the entrance to
the Berlin Turnpike — he explained that if an accident were to occur in
that area, he could turn on highway message signs to detour motorists
onto the turnpike, all from his office chair.
“We're part of what we call an incident management team,” he said.
“...We're not just called in for sand anymore.”
The operations center can dispatch a team to handle anything from a
dead raccoon to a major traffic accident to a tree down on the roadway,
he said. But just two operators are watching the screens at any given
time, and it is impossible, he said, to watch all the cameras at once.
In Bridgeport, the state's other operations center controls about 200
cameras that monitor I-95 and I-395, including 23 cameras viewing I-95
between Old Saybrook and Stonington and I-395 through Montville and
Norwich. Operators of each center can view what the other is
seeing on their big screens, said Nursick. At Troop G in
Bridgeport, state troopers are able to view the cameras, said Lt. Louis
J. Fusaro Jr., commanding officer at Troop E in Montville. Fusaro said
he has spoken to the DOT about hooking Troop E into the cameras as well.
State troopers cannot control the cameras; they can only view what the
DOT is seeing. Fusaro said Troop G does not record the footage
and neither would Troop E.
“We can certainly do our investigations without it. Would it be a
useful tool? It might be,” he said.
•••••
Fusaro said the cameras are not a part of an investigation into the
Nov. 2 I-95 crash. To his knowledge, no one was watching a camera near
the exit where the crash occurred at the time of the incident.
“It's going to be a long investigation. I know people want to see it.
But it's going to take a long time. It's going to take months,” he said.
Nursick said the department's position on using the cameras for law
enforcement is “neutral.”
Some of the cameras, because of their placement, cannot zoom in to the
license plate level, he said. And at any given time, he said, there is
no telling where a camera will be pointed, meaning that even if a
camera could have recorded the Nov. 2 crash, it might have been facing
the wrong direction at the key moment.
The system, which started with just two cameras in 1995, is still
dozens of cameras away from fully covering every stretch of the highway
system, said Nursick, and the cameras cannot see in the dark.
Recorded footage would also require extra time and money for DOT.
The department would have to save and store the footage and answer what
Nursick said would be a “flood” of FOI requests from attorneys and
others to view the footage. The employees at DOT's two operations
centers are not trained in law enforcement and if law enforcement
personnel were allowed to operate the cameras, the two agencies could
have conflicting interests.
“We would want to make sure that from an incident management
perspective we remain as effective as possible,” he said.
Additionally, the federal government, which paid for the cameras,
allotted the funds to be used for incident management only, meaning if
the cameras were going to be used for law enforcement purposes, the
agreement would need to be renegotiated, Nursick said.
“In Connecticut, you couldn't just take a snapshot of a driver's
license plate and mail them a ticket. The statute would need to be
changed to do that,” he said.
Advocates say DOT scheduled Stamford
hearing hastily
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Mark Ginocchio, Staff Writer
Published September 5 2007
The public has not been given enough notice to attend a hearing in
Stamford about the reorganization of the state Department of
Transportation, advocates said yesterday.
Details about the hearing - which will be at 2 p.m. tomorrow at Pitney
Bowes' Elmcroft Road headquarters - were posted on the DOT's Web site
yesterday afternoon, about 48 hours before the meeting.
"If they are trying to not get public input or involvement, they're
doing a great job," said Jim Cameron, chairman of the Connecticut Rail
Commuter Council who will attend the hearing.
"This is extraordinarily short notice," said state Sen. Andrew
McDonald, D-Stamford, who will not be able to reschedule a previous
commitment and attend. "This is emblematic of the problems that have
plagued the DOT historically and even today."
It was unclear yesterday who was responsible for communicating the
commission's meeting schedule with the public. The Commission on
the Reorganization of the DOT, led by Pitney Bowes Executive Chairman
Michael Critelli, first mentioned the possibility of a Sept. 6 meeting
in Stamford at its meeting last month in Hartford.
But the date was never finalized and posted on DOT's Web site until
yesterday afternoon, and legislators were not formally notified before
then, McDonald said.
In a statement last month, Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced that DOT's Web
site would be used to gather public comments and to keep state
residents informed about future meetings. Rell's press office did
not return calls seeking comment yesterday afternoon.
During the meeting, the 11-member panel, which must give
recommendations to Rell by December on ways to improve the culture and
efficiency of the DOT, will hear presentations from the agency's
bureaus of Public Transportation, Engineering and Highway, and Aviation
and Ports. The commission will then open the floor to public
comment.
Rell initiated the panel earlier this year after revelations that an
Interstate 84 widening project in Waterbury was riddled with flaws and
inadequacies.
"This is too bad," said Stamford Chamber of Commerce president Jack
Condlin, who was unaware of the meeting. "It's one of their first
meetings and (the commission) is already not doing what they said
they're going to do" and keep the public involved and notified.
State Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, who was aware of the meeting
but will not be able to attend, said there will still be plenty of time
for lower Fairfield County residents and transportation advocates to
give feedback to the panel.
"It's in the preliminary stages," Nickerson said. "But they are headed
in the right direction."
Others said it would have been better to give more than two days notice
of a public hearing.
"Good etiquette is an important part of public policy," said Joseph
McGee, vice president of public policy for the Business Council of
Fairfield County. "If you're going to have a public process, you got to
give me more than two days notice."
Rell Begins Changes To DOT; Units Will
Issue Audits And Enforce
Compliance
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 8/18/2007
Gov. M. Jodi Rell won't be waiting for the findings of
her own task force to make changes in the structure of the state
Department of Transportation.
In a press release issued Friday afternoon, the Republican governor
announced the formation of a new Office of Project Oversight and
Quality Assurance within the department, which will conduct annual
audits and enforce compliance with agency regulations on major
transportation projects.
The announcement is Rell's latest in response to calls for change at
the DOT, which have stemmed largely from revelations of major flaws in
a reconstruction and improvement project on Interstate 84 near
Waterbury.
The flaws were discovered in 2006 when a large sinkhole opened up on
the highway, which inspectors later determined was the result of
improperly installed or simply nonexistent drainage systems. A
subsequent audit revealed the project to be rife with errors, including
improperly installed bridge bearings, “defective” street light poles,
and payments for work never completed by contractors. The audit also
found that the flaws were not detected by the firms hired by the state
to oversee the $65 million project.
“Obviously we saw some of that neglect, if you will, on the I-84 work
that was done,” Rell said, in an audio clip recorded in her office and
sent to reporters Friday afternoon. “So now we want to make sure that
all inspection requirements are being complied with at all times, and
auditing the major projects at least once a year, so that we know that
the money that is being invested in this project is not only being
well-spent, but spent in the way that it was originally intended to be.”
Earlier this week, Rell announced new internal paperwork requirements
in the department, including daily inspection reports for in-progress
projects, and “certificates of compliance” to be signed by consultants
and designers affirming that their work complies with the terms of
state contracts.
In announcing the DOT policy changes, however, Rell seemingly pre-empts
the work of a state task force she appointed to consider the potential
reorganization of the department. The task force, led by the chairman
and former CEO of Pitney-Bowes Corp., Michael J. Critelli, began
hearings just last week, and isn't scheduled to issue its findings
until Dec. 1.
“Governor Rell looks forward to reviewing all of the reform panel's
recommendations, but the governor has made it clear that on an ongoing
basis she would be implementing helpful and useful recommendations
contained in the J.R. Knowles/Hill International report she received in
May,” said Adam Liegeot, a spokesman for the governor, referring to the
audit conducted into the I-84 drainage problems, in an e-mail message.
“The governor's goal is clear: she wants a more responsive and more
responsible DOT. The governor has approved an investment of billions of
dollars in our transportation system, and the governor believes that
the agency — and taxpayers — will immediately benefit from additional
quality control and fiscal review staff.”
The newly created office will focus primarily on overseeing the
department's financial controls on major projects, and on “quality
assurance,” Rell's statement said.
The new office will contain two divisions, the Quality Assurance unit
and the Project Oversight/Constructability unit, and will be located
within the department's existing Bureau of Engineering and Highway
Operation. Among the responsibilities of the new office:
• Reviewing designs and plans for projects costing $10 million or more,
and reviewing cost estimates, plans and other specifications.
• Making annual quality-control inspections of a sample of
smaller-budget projects.
• Reviewing any engineering cost estimates that increase by 10 percent
or more during the design phase.
• Maintaining a database of cost overruns on DOT projects.
Rell's statement said staffing for the office would be provided from
within the 150 new DOT positions included in the new state budget, and
that “planning for the hiring process has already begun.” The
department currently employs about 3,200 people.
The reform task force, formally known as the Governor's Commission on
the Reform of the Department of Transportation, is also accepting
public input as it begins its deliberations. The commission can be
reached through the department's Web site: www.ct.gov/dot.
Governor's panel begins studying possible
DOT reorganization
DAY
By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer
Posted on Aug 9, 3:42 PM EDT
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- A panel reorganizing the state's transportation
department was warned Thursday that a "culture of fear" exists among
employees who worry about making decisions that might put them in
prison. That fear is slowing down the decision-making process on
state road construction projects, according to Donald Shubert,
executive secretary of the Connecticut Road Builders Association.
"Over the past several years there has been a culture of fear that has
basically challenged the confidence of even the best employees at the
Department of Transportation," Shubert told members of Gov. M. Jodi
Rell's new commission on reorganizing DOT.
He said it's not unusual for DOT workers to avoid making decisions in
the field.
"They say, 'I'm not going to jail for this. You're going to have to
wait for a decision up top,'" Shubert said. "That sort of stuff costs
the state a tremendous amount of money."
DOT employees, in recent years, have been snagged by
scandals ranging from corrupt bid-rigging to accepting illegal gifts
from contractors during former Gov. John G. Rowland's administration.
Federal and state investigators are now looking into the botched I-84
widening project, where hundreds of storm drains were installed
incorrectly, to see if there was any wrongdoing.
Rell's commission was formed in the wake of the I-84 problems. The
panel, which held a public hearing at the Legislative Office Building,
expects to present its recommendations to the governor by the end of
the year.
Jay Doody, a DOT engineer and a union member, said he believes DOT
employees were more fearful about losing their jobs if they spoke out
during the era of the Rowland administration. At that time, he said,
the agency's in-house bridge design unit was decimated and replaced by
more expensive, hired contractors.
Doody said the attitude of the Rowland administration was, "we can't
have people in-house designing bridges when consultants need work."
Rowland resigned in July 2004 amid a corruption scandal.
Michael J. Critelli, the commission chairman, said the state's reliance
on outside consultants and contractors will be examined in the coming
months. The panel will also look at whether portions of the agency are
understaffed, as union members claim, because of state employee layoffs
and early retirements. They also plan to examine ways the state
can better attract young, qualified engineers to work for the
department.
Critelli said it is too soon to determine how extensively DOT should be
reorganized.
"We need to understand all of what DOT is asked to do," he said, adding
that the agency must abide by numerous state and federal mandates.
"Let's look at everything it's asked to do and whether it has the
resources and the structure to do that."
Two more victims
found in bridge collapse
9 August 2007
MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Two bodies were found on Thursday in the
wreckage of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, raising the total death
toll so far to seven, police said.
The unidentified victims were removed and taken to the Hennepin County
Medical Examiner, police said.
Eight people had been listed as missing from the August 1 collapse of
the Interstate 35W bridge into the Mississippi River. Another eight
injured people remain in hospitals.
Meanwhile, President George W. Bush at a White House news conference
commented on the federal investigation into the cause of the collapse.
"The American people need to know that we're working hard to find out
why the bridge did what it did so that we can assure people that the
bridges over which they'll be traveling will be safe," Bush said.
Rell, DOT differ on problem bridges
New Haven REGISTER
Gregory B. Hladky, Capitol Bureau Chief
08/04/2007
-HARTFORD — Depending on which experts you talk to and which
definitions they use, the number of problem bridges in Connecticut is
either as high as 34 percent or less than 10 percent of the total
number of spans.
State Department of Transportation officials say the most accurate
estimate is based on the federal government’s National Bridge
Inventory, which only counts bridges of 20 feet or more in length.
Connecticut has 4,256 bridges that are counted in this year’s federal
inventory and DOT officials say 341 of those are rated as "structurally
deficient," which is just more than 8 percent.
The federal definition of a structurally deficient bridge is one that
has at least one major structural component (like the deck or
superstructure) rated as poor or worse, or that the span isn’t able to
carry all legal loads.
Bridges in the structurally deficient category, such as the highway
bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed last week, are in need of some
kind of substantial rehabilitation, repair or maintenance work or even
replacement.
Federal officials say such bridges "may be able to provide several
years of safe service" before the defects become dangerous.
But some transportation watchdog groups, such as the Tri-State
Transportation Campaign or the Reason Foundation, claim Connecticut’s
total of problem bridges is far higher. Tri-State officials cited
a 2005 federal survey in warning that 33 percent of bridges in this
state were deficient, a significantly higher rate than the national
average of 26 percent.
The Reason Foundation’s Annual Highway Performance Report used the same
2005 data to rate Connecticut as having 34.2 percent of its bridges
with deficiencies.
But both of those groups appear to be including in their statistics a
second category of bridges designated in by federal officials as
"functionally obsolete."
A functionally obsolete bridge isn’t necessarily unsafe, say DOT
officials. Bridges are placed in this category if traffic flows
are more than it was originally designed to handle, the roadway
approach to the bridge is poor, or that it’s too narrow by modern
highway standards, or is too low over the body of water the span
crosses to allow for modern boats to pass.
According to Connecticut’s DOT, this state has another 1,026 bridges of
more than 20 feet in length that fit in this category.
To make things even more confusing, DOT records list another 109
bridges that are shorter than 20 feet that are considered structurally
deficient, and an additional 153 functionally obsolete bridges of less
than 20 feet.
To top the confusion off, it appears the DOT and Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s
office can’t seem to agree whether there are 5,354 bridges in
Connecticut (Rell’s figure) or 5,532 as the DOT claims.
"We do get conflicting totals on the numbers of bridges depending on
how bridges are counted," said DOT spokesman Judd Everhart.
411 Conn. Bridges Carry "Poor" Rating
The
bridge over the West River in New Haven is rated in 'poor' condition.
By MATTHEW KAUFFMAN | And THOMAS KAPLAN Courant Staff Writers
August 3, 2007
More than 100,000 motorists a day rumble across the Housatonic River
bridge on I-95 in Stratford, making it one of the busiest spans in the
state.
It is also one of the spans most seriously in disrepair, with a deck
deemed to be in "poor" condition and a bridge structure in even worse
shape.
The I-95 bridge is one of more than 400 in the state that inspectors
have rated as poor or worse in at least one of three critical areas,
according to state bridge-inspection records. And in each of those
three areas, the Stratford bridge is rated in worse condition than the
I-35W span in Minnesota that collapsed Wednesday, sending dozens of
motorists plummeting into the Mississippi River.
The 411 bridges with at least one poor rating account for nearly 10
percent of all active roadway bridges in Connecticut. Despite that
number, Connecticut officials are confident that the state's bridges
are safe.
Even a bridge with one or more ratings of poor "by no means poses an
imminent danger to the public," said Judd Everhart, a spokesman for the
state Department of Transportation.
"If we thought for a moment that any bridge was unsafe, we'd close it
immediately," he said.
Connecticut bridges also compare favorably with those in other states.
A 2006 federal survey reported that 8.2 percent of Connecticut's
bridges were structurally deficient - a third less than the national
average of 12.8. Overall, Connecticut ranked 12th lowest out of the 50
states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia in the percentage of
structurally deficient bridges.
The Minnesota tragedy provided a reminder of the 1983 collapse of the
Mianus River bridge in Greenwich that killed three. It also put a fresh
spotlight on bridge safety nationwide, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell Thursday
directed the state Department of Transportation to report on recent
inspections of the small number of bridges in the state - 10 or fewer,
officials believe - with a design similar to the Minnesota bridge.
State bridges with that "steel arch deck truss" design include the
Commodore Hull Bridge over the Housatonic River in Shelton and the Gold
Star Bridge spanning the Thames River between New London and Groton.
Those two bridges are currently being inspected, the governor said.
"The safety of the public is our top priority," Rell said. "The people
of Connecticut can be assured that we are making every effort to
regularly inspect all of our bridges and keep them safe and
well-maintained."
But even before Wednesday's collapse in Minnesota, Rell had called for
increased inspections of Connecticut bridges after The Courant revealed
that the Department of Transportation had cut down on inspections of
more than 1,000 bridges in "fair" condition or better. In order to save
money, the DOT had shifted inspections of those bridges from every two
years, which the federal government and bridge safety experts
recommend, to every four years.
But Rell ordered the agency to resume biennial inspections, and
officials said Thursday that inspectors had visited about a third of
the bridges that were overdue for review. The remainder will be
inspected by Sept. 30, Rell said.
Inspectors who examine bridges assign a grade to three key areas of the
bridge: the deck, the superstructure under the road surface, and the
supporting substructure that includes piers and footings. Thirty
bridges in Connecticut received ratings of "poor" or worse in all three
areas. A rating of poor indicates "advanced section loss,
deterioration, spalling or scour," according to federal inspection
guidelines. Spalling is flaking and cracking often caused by
temperature extremes. Scour refers to erosion caused by flowing water.
Of the 411 bridges with at least one poor rating, many are smaller
spans, some with as few as 100 cars a day passing over them. But others
are among the state's most heavily traveled bridges, and two dozen of
the spans carry portions of interstate highways, primarily I-95.
The I-95 bridge over the West River in New Haven, for example, carries
135,000 cars a day, each passing over a span with a deck rated in poor
condition. The bridge's superstructure received an even lower rating of
"serious," indicating that damage to the bridge has "seriously affected
primary structural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue
cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present."
The I-95 bridge over Route 33 in Westport also has a deck rated poor,
as does the I-95 bridge over Stiles Street in New Haven.
More than a dozen smaller bridges around the state have a
superstructure or substructure rated in "critical condition,"
indicating advanced deterioration. "Unless closely monitored it may be
necessary to close [bridges in critical condition] until corrective
action is taken," according to federal guidelines.
Many bridges in Connecticut are in bad shape because the state does not
invest nearly enough money in its infrastructure, said Kate Slevin,
executive director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a regional
watchdog group.
Although Connecticut has spent more money in recent years on new
roadway construction, there has not been a similar focus on making sure
existing highways and bridges are kept in good working order, she said.
Instead of focusing on new construction, Connecticut should implement a
"fix it first" policy and invest in repairing and maintaining the
existing infrastructure, Slevin said.
"You don't like to use a tragedy like this, but it does make a case
[for more maintenance]," she said.
Even with the biennial bridge checks reinstated after Rell's order,
Connecticut's bridge inspection program is less stringent than the one
in Minnesota, which has among the highest bridge inspection standards
in the nation.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation inspects all its bridges at
least once every 24 months, and nearly a third of its bridges are
inspected more often than that, many as often as once a year, according
to statistics compiled by the Federal Highway Administration.
Connecticut, on the other hand, inspects only a handful of its bridges
more often than once every two years, according to the statistics.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said the I-35W bridge was inspected by the
Minnesota DOT in 2005 and 2006 and that no severe structural problems
were noted.
The same could have been said for the Mianus River Bridge in Greenwich,
which had been inspected nine months before a 100-foot section
collapsed. That bridge failure ultimately spurred the state DOT to
revamp its bridge inspection practices.
STATE
ORDERS REVIEW OF BRIDGE RECORDS
Gold Star, Nine Others Singled Out in Wake Of Disaster In Minneapolis
DAY
By Karin Crompton
Published on 8/3/2007
The commissioner of the state Department of Transportation has ordered
a review of 10 years' worth of safety records for the Gold Star
Memorial Bridge, which connects New London and Groton, and the Route
169 bridge in Norwich, plus eight other bridges in the state that are
“of a generally similar design” to the one that collapsed Wednesday in
Minneapolis.
Commissioner Ralph J. Carpenter, in a statement issued Thursday,
directed the state's bridge-safety division staff to pull and review
records of the 10 “arch deck truss” bridges in the state. Carpenter
wants to know what deficiencies were found, what remedial steps were
taken, and when the next inspections are scheduled.
“Once that review is done, decisions will be made to determine any
immediate steps that might be necessary,” a DOT spokesman said Thursday.
Federal officials alerted all states to immediately inspect all bridges
similar to the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, which buckled and
fell while under repair, sending dozens of cars into the Mississippi
River.
However, a spokesman for the state DOT cautioned against making
comparisons between the Connecticut bridges and the one that collapsed.
“Keep in mind, (the similar design is) not a need for anyone to panic,”
said DOT spokesman Kevin Nursick. “The same general design is one
thing, an identical bridge is a whole different thing. Each bridge is
kind of like an individual. It has its own individual characteristics.
“Each bridge has to be taken and considered in its own light. While it
may have some of the same general design features, it is very much a
different bridge.”
The Gold Star, which carries Interstate 95 between Groton and New
London, is currently undergoing a state inspection due to end as soon
as today. The span is in fact two bridges, each one carrying traffic in
a single direction. The inspection is a 2- to 21/2-month process.
All bridge inspections, Nursick said, take weeks or months to conduct.
The Norwich bridge crosses the Shetucket River as part of Route 169,
also known as Newent Street. Its last inspection was in June 2006,
according to the state DOT.
There are 5,354 state and municipal bridges in Connecticut, all of
which are supposed to be inspected at least once every two years. Of
those, 156 bridges are on more frequent inspection cycles, according to
the state DOT.
While the state conducts inspections, it does not perform maintenance
on all the bridges, some of which are the responsibility of
municipalities. The state does inspections in conjunction with private
consultants.
In late June, Gov. M. Jodi Rell ordered the transportation department
to reverse its decision to increase the time between bridge inspections
after a story in The Hartford Courant revealed that the department
planned to inspect certain bridges every four years instead of every
other year.
The Courant story reported that the DOT had begun cutting back on some
bridge inspections nine years ago. The department began inspecting
bridges in “fair” condition or better every four years, the newspaper
reported.
On Thursday, Rell announced that the DOT has recently completed
inspections on 180 bridges that had been on a four-year inspection
rotation. According to a press release from her office, 1,144 bridges
classified as being in “fair” condition or better were on a four-year
inspection schedule. Of those, 561 were identified as needing an
inspection before Sept. 30. Her office said the rest would be finished
by that deadline.
Rell also wrote a letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty to offer the
expertise, equipment and personnel of Connecticut's DOT.
The Mohegan Pequot Bridge, which crosses the Thames River between
Montville and Ledyard, undergoes a special inspection every year, with
the last one conducted in February. Nursick said the bridge has an
“identifying factor” that means the state needs to inspect the bridge
annually. He had no further details Thursday.
The Gold Star's two nearly identical spans rise 135 feet over the
Thames River. The northbound, original bridge is 5,931 feet long and
was built in 1943. Its southbound counterpart is 6,362 feet long and
was built in 1973. The spans are owned by the state.
The Baldwin, which opened in 1993, is a 2,558-foot span across the
Connecticut River on I-95 between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme. It has a
vertical clearance of 81 feet. Also owned by the state, it replaced a
2,448-foot span with the same clearance built in 1948.
Bridge Monitor: Connecticut 'Staying On
Top' Of Conditions; Expert Says State's Spans are Mostly In Good Shape
DAY
By M. Matthew Clark
Published on 8/3/2007
John DeWolf, a professor of structural engineering in the civil and
environmental engineering department of the University of Connecticut,
said Thursday the state's bridges are generally in good condition
compared to those in other states.
“I think Connecticut is doing a pretty good job of staying on top of
their bridges,” said DeWolf, who has been monitoring approximately 30
bridges throughout the state over the past two decades in conjunction
with the research division of the state Department of Transportation.
“We do a little more in Connecticut because we have the ability to go
out and actually measure these bridges and obtain real data,” he said.
Part of DeWolf's research is to find cost-effective monitoring systems
that will provide continuous information on Connecticut bridges between
regularly scheduled inspections.
Two of the bridges DeWolf is monitoring as part of a long-term project
are the Raymond E. Baldwin Bridge that carries Interstate 95 traffic
over the Connecticut River at Old Saybrook, and the Gold Star Memorial
Bridge that spans the Thames River between New London and Groton.
DeWolf said the data being collected on the Baldwin Bridge, which
opened in 1993, is measuring the effects of temperature on structural
behavior.
The project on the Gold Star is testing a newly designed, wireless,
solar-powered monitoring system. DeWolf said neither the Baldwin nor
the Gold Star was being monitored for specific safety issues.
The Gold Star is “not a bridge that needs to be monitored, in my view,
other than the biannual review,” he said.
A bridge's lifespan depends on a variety of factors, including the
material of the decking surface, the regular maintenance performed on
the bridge, and the frequency of use, DeWolf said.
“If you have a bridge with concern, you should go more often,” he said.
The Federal Highway Administration uses two categories for bridges in
poor condition. The bridge that collapsed in Minnesota on Wednesday was
labeled “structurally deficient,” according to a 2005 federal study,
although under federal standards that classification does not
necessarily mean a bridge is unsafe.
Connecticut has 351 bridges deemed structurally deficient, which
accounts for roughly 9 percent of all the state's bridges, according to
data on the FHA Web site.
A bridge can also be classified as “functionally obsolete,” which means
the traffic volume exceeds its planned capacity or the bridge's lane
and shoulder widths are insufficient for its current use.
DeWolf said a bridge can fall under the structurally deficient category
for a variety of reasons, such as corrosion, wear and tear, and fatigue
cracks, which are caused by areas of a bridge being stretched through
tension over a course of time.
“You don't necessarily have a collapse coming, but you have something
to follow,” DeWolf said. “If (a collapse) were imminent, the state
would close the bridge or reinforce it, anyway.”
Before
the tragedy in Minnesota...
Courant's ideas for
focus noted
in this series:
• Transit and
transit-oriented development
• A high-speed rail connection from Hartford to New York, and
eventually Boston
• Keeping existing highways and bridges in good repair, a policy known
as "fix it first"
• Embracing context-sensitive planning
• Taking bicycle travel seriously
• Letting directors run Bradley International Airport
* Railyard
improvement project in New Haven - not in this series, but related
(need the yard to repair trains).
The Right
Road
State
DOT - Beleaguered By Scandal, Layoffs And Loss Of Vision - Needs A
Whole New Direction
Hartford Courant
July 15, 2007
The state
Department of Transportation, a powerful
agency that can trace its origins to the 19th century, has lost its
way. For a variety of reasons - the loss of hundreds of workers, a
diminished sense of mission, political interference, weak leadership,
poor state planning and a departmental culture still mired in the
interstate highway era - the DOT has become a sluggish, uncertain and
often inept bureaucracy.
Two corruption investigations have led to arrests of DOT employees. The
New Britain-Hartford busway is years behind schedule. Someone botched
the paperwork needed to overhaul rail cars. A massive snafu came to
light last winter involving a $60 million reconstruction project on
I-84 in the Waterbury area in which hundreds of defective storm drains
were installed and two bridges and an exit ramp were improperly built.
The most recent revelation was a cutback in bridge inspections, an
unsettling surprise to the many residents who remember the 1983 Mianus
River bridge collapse.
This bureaucratic meltdown has come at a time when the state's
highway-oriented transportation system is increasingly challenged by
traffic congestion, fuel costs, pollution concerns and a backlash
against land-gobbling sprawl development. In a 1999 report, consultant
Michael Gallis said increasing congestion in the vital I-95 corridor
toward New York threatened the state's economic dynamism, putting the
state in danger of becoming "a giant cul-de-sac, or dead zone" in the
global economic network. Since then, traffic has gotten worse.
But crisis is
often a prerequisite for change, and there have been
stirrings of change in the past two years. Gov. M. Jodi Rell and
legislative leaders pushed for $3.6 billion in transportation funding,
the largest financial commitment to transportation in two decades. Mrs.
Rell named a new DOT commissioner, Ralph J. Carpenter, last year.
After more revelations about the I-84 fiasco, she announced in late
April that a task force headed by Pitney Bowes Chairman Michael
Critelli would lead a "top-to-bottom reorganization" of the DOT. The
group is charged with "examining and redesigning the DOT, its mission,
direction, business practices and organizational structure."
Thus there is a rare chance to break out of the cul-de-sac, to create a
new vision and mission for the DOT that will provide the mobility the
state needs for 21st-century prosperity.
"Connecticut has a huge opportunity right now," said Jonathan Orcutt,
former executive director of the nonprofit Tri-State Transportation
Campaign, which did a study of the DOT in 2004. But change won't come
easily to a department that has done things its own way for a long time.
The Highwaymen
The DOT began as the State Highway Commission in 1895, a time when
privately owned railroads dominated intercity transportation and the
advocates for paved roads were bicyclists.
The commission, later called the Department of Highways, moved ahead,
paving the old turnpikes and post roads that crisscrossed the state.
Traffic congestion started becoming a problem in the 1920s, as cheap
cars and cheap gas foretold a revolution in transportation. The
department began what has been an eight-decade response to congestion -
it widened the roads. It also built elegant new roads. The first
section of the Merritt Parkway was completed in 1938, and people rode
out on Sundays to picnic alongside the park-like thoroughfare.
After the restrictions attendant to World War II were lifted in the
mid-1940s, road-building began in earnest. With the passage of the
Federal Aid Highway Act in 1956, building the interstate highway system
became the state and national transportation mission. With the highways
came the unprecedented era of postwar suburbanization, a force that
took thousands of middle-class people out of the state's large cities
to new ranch or split-level houses in the suburbs.
In 1969, the highway department merged with the Department of
Aeronautics, the Connecticut Transportation Authority and the
Commission of Steamship Terminals into a new Department of
Transportation, one of the first comprehensive transportation
departments in the country.
The DOT would almost by happenstance pick up oversight of commuter rail
and bus operations, as increasing use of cars made both services
unprofitable. But it remained overwhelmingly a highway agency. In 1975,
DOT commissioner Samuel Kanell told an interviewer, "I don't think
you'll ever get Americans out of their cars." Other commissioners would
echo his sentiment and its underlying philosophy.
What developed in the department was what planning consultant Toni Gold
of Hartford calls a "highway engineer culture." The leaders, and often
the commissioners, were civil engineers who specialized in building
highways.
Although road-building demands engineering expertise, the danger of
having the engineers in charge was that the entire focus would be on
highway efficiency.
"There was a mentality that we design roads to move people from
point A to point B and all else is nonsense," said state Rep. David
McCluskey, a member of the legislature's transportation committee.
This thinking led to the disastrous decision - here and across the
country - to run interstate highways through cities. That continued
until "highway fighters" pushed back. Had activists not stopped them in
the 1970s, there would have been highways built through the West
Hartford reservoirs and Hartford's Bushnell Park.
Over the years, the DOT developed a symbiotic relationship with highway
engineering and construction companies, often locally owned entities
that solidified their positions with substantial political
contributions to gubernatorial candidates. Though its downside has
become apparent in recent years, this was the system that got the roads
built.
The mania for cars and highways all but killed train, trolley and bus
service. It is said the last time the late and lamented New Haven
Railroad made money was hauling fill for I-95.
For a time, it didn't matter. The interstate highway system transformed
the state, connecting it to national markets and providing a previously
unimagined level of mobility. The roads could handle the load.
But eventually the loss of public transit did matter. This is a lesson
from the state's bold and innovative but ultimately inadequate response
to the Mianus tragedy.
Collapse
On June 28, 1983, a section of I-95 highway bridge over the Mianus
River in Greenwich collapsed, killing three people and seriously
injuring three more. The tangle of bodies and mangled vehicles that
fell 70 feet to the peaceful little river sent a horrific message that
Connecticut's transportation system was in dire need of repair.
The collapse was followed by another embarrassment, a series of Courant
stories about the ineffectiveness of the state's bridge inspection
program. Gov. William A. O'Neill vowed that would change.
Transportation had suffered in the lean fiscal years of the mid-1970s
because it competed for funds from the general budget. Mr. O'Neill
understood that the state needed a reliable and sustainable means of
paying for its transportation infrastructure.
At the governor's direction, Anthony V. Milano, secretary of the Office
of Policy and Management, DOT Commissioner J. William Burns and others
prepared a plan.
Its principal innovation was a 10-year, $5.6 billion Special
Transportation Fund, to be supported by an increase in the gas tax,
motor vehicle fees and other revenue sources.
The Special Transportation Fund worked, and worked well. By 1993, the
10-year anniversary of the Mianus collapse, the state's reconstruction
program had become a national model. Connecticut had gone from 35th to
fifth in the nation in transportation capital expenditures. Road
capacity and safety were improved and many major highway projects were
completed. Bridges were repaired or replaced, and bridge inspections
were brought up to national standards.
The fund grew to $10 billion and beyond as more projects were added. By
moving ahead of most other states, Connecticut captured a
disproportionate amount of federal money for the work. Connecticut was
on the move again.
Yet by 1999, just six years later, consultant Gallis was saying - in a
report written for the nonprofit Connecticut Regional Institute for the
21st Century - that the state's transportation system was choked and
becoming a major drag on the economy. What happened?
Former state senator and transportation committee co-chairman Michael
P. Meotti, who now heads the United Way of Connecticut, said the
post-Mianus effort fixed a specific problem - the deterioration of
roads and bridges - but not the whole problem. It was not a
comprehensive statewide mobility strategy. There was no plan to reduce
the use of roads and highways. Investment in mass transit in this
period, as would soon enough become apparent, was woefully inadequate.
Traffic got worse.
Congestion was particularly severe on I-95 in Fairfield County. As
Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy put it, "I-95 is a parking lot and the
Merritt Parkway is a museum." So bad was the situation that officials
considered letting drivers use breakdown lanes or even the
prohibitively expensive option of adding another deck to the highway.
House Speaker Moira Lyons of Stamford badgered Gov. John G. Rowland to
do something. In 2000, he called a transportation summit, which led to
the creation of the Transportation Strategy Board the following year.
The board reported back in 2003 with a $6 billion list of projects for
highways as well as transit. Mr. Orcutt, now senior policy adviser to
New York City transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, said that
although the Transportation Strategy Board had some good ideas, it was
advisory and thus reliant on the governor, the DOT and the legislature:
"the very actors whose inaction or lack of innovation led to the
strategy board's creation."
Breakdown
Meanwhile, the DOT was almost literally going off the rails. In what
was soon called the "winter of woe," in 2003-04, about 35 percent of
the rail cars on the Metro-North New Haven line broke down, leaving
commuters stranded in the cold. Some of the well-worn rolling stock was
30 years old.
As a stopgap measure, the state bought 33 used rail cars from Virginia.
These needed to be overhauled before they could be used. The DOT put
out a flawed request for proposals to get the work done. There was no
response. The department then failed to issue another RFP. The cars sat
idle for months, until Mrs. Rell learned of the oversight by
happenstance and went ballistic on DOT Commissioner Stephen Korta II.
The rail car bungle was not an isolated incident.
Increasing congestion in the I-84 corridor west of Hartford in the late
1990s had led to plans for a 9.6-mile bus-only route from New Britain
to Hartford. Studies showed a busway would be the least expensive way
to ease highway traffic and would lure the most riders.
Part of the appeal of busways is that they can be built relatively
quickly, but that hasn't happened here. In 2005, the Federal Transit
Administration lost confidence in the state's ability to deliver the
$335 million project and downgraded it from "recommended" to "not
recommended" for federal funding.
Mrs. Rell, DOT officials and Capitol Region Council of Governments
planners scrambled to get federal funding approved again. Construction
of the project is now scheduled to begin in 2009 - three years after
the busway was initially supposed to open.
Also, the risk inherent in the close relationship between DOT workers
and contractors was becoming apparent. In 2004, a department inspector,
James Murray, pleaded no contest to three counts of taking bribes from
contractors in exchange for overlooking shoddy work.
In 2004, federal authorities uncovered irregularities in how the DOT's
rail operations unit awarded contracts. Last year, a high-ranking
official, Raymond Cox, pleaded guilty to theft and obstruction of
justice. Three senior officials resigned or retired because of the
contract scandal.
In early 2006, five employees of the highway agency, as well as a
Massachusetts contractor, were arrested in connection with a
bid-rigging scheme. The charges allege that the contractor bribed the
employees to win a road-sealant contract. Perjury charges against one
DOT employee have been dropped; the other cases are pending.
These may not be the only arrests. Mrs. Rell's promise earlier this
year to overhaul the department followed the fouled-up rebuilding of
I-84 in Waterbury and Cheshire, one of the worst highway construction
failures in state history. Incredibly, some 300 defective storm drains
were installed as part of a badly flawed underground drainage system.
Also, two bridges and an exit ramp were improperly built. And 70 light
poles with faulty brackets were put up, among other problems.
The I-84 job had been given in 2002 to a contracting firm, L.G.
DeFelice Inc. of North Haven. The firm, apparently beset with financial
problems, went out of business in 2006 with the project unfinished.
DeFelice had gotten into trouble in 2004 for installing concrete
curbing for free at the home of a DOT regional engineer.
The engineering firm paid to inspect DeFelice's work on I-84, the
Maguire Group, failed to do so, state officials say. The DOT violated
its own policy by assigning a project engineer to the job who was
simultaneously heading two other construction jobs. Project engineers
are supposed to oversee one job at a time to prevent construction
errors.
"There were serious mistakes at all levels," said Office of Policy and
Management Secretary Robert L. Genuario at a legislative hearing
Wednesday. "The people of Connecticut did not get what they paid for."
The state has sued the contractors. State and federal criminal
authorities are digging into the $60 million fiasco.
DeFelice has regrouped as Hallberg Contracting Corp. and been hired by
a bonding company to work on two state jobs.
The I-84 debacle made it clear that it was time to overhaul the DOT.
Highway construction was what the department was supposed to be good at.
What Went Wrong
In its postwar heyday, the DOT was a powerful and semi-autonomous
fiefdom that could make big things happen. But in recent years, forces
inside and outside the department have challenged it as never before.
These include:
MISSION. In the decades
following World War II, the state and federal transportation mission
had a clear focus - to build the interstate highway system, with its
related network of state highways. The system is all but finished. Now
what?
The loss of a clear mission may explain the pointless, pork-laden
bridge-to-nowhere projects in the most recent federal transportation
bill. Lack of direction in any organization can lead to inertia and
incompetence.
While federal authorities search for a new mission - the National
Surface Transportation Study Commission is holding hearings around the
country on this issue - some states have aggressively defined their own
missions involving transit and transit-oriented development.
Connecticut is still building highways.
When the Tri-State Transportation Campaign examined 2005 DOT figures,
it found that 76 percent of the state transportation improvement money
and 84 percent of its "flexible funds" go to highways. With the
authorization in the past two years of $3.6 billion toward highway and
mass transit projects, the percentage of spending shifts somewhat to
transit, but still favors highways.
BUREAUCRACY. Reductions
spearheaded by Mr. Rowland early in this decade took more than 900
employees from the DOT. The workforce dropped from 4,058 in 1999 to
3,151 in 2004. First came layoffs, which took younger workers. Then, in
2003, came an early retirement buyout aimed at senior people. In
2003-2004 alone, the department lost 436 employees. Out the door went
experience, institutional knowledge and management talent.
The cuts were not spread evenly; some DOT departments were harmed more
than others. For example, three layers of management were pared off the
top of the DOT's finance and administration bureau. There and
elsewhere, inexperienced people had to step into jobs for which they
were not yet prepared, often with no support structure or mentors.
Also, budget cuts led to the elimination of some leadership training
programs, meaning the department wasn't developing the mid- and
upper-level managers at the rate it needed them.
"It made for a very difficult time for everybody," said Gale Mattison,
a finance and administration expert who has been lent to the DOT by the
Office of Policy and Management to help rebuild the department.
In any event, the DOT became a bureaucracy that is sometimes
overwhelmed, sluggish and - although the I-84 mess might suggest
otherwise - cautious to a fault.
"The Rowland years created a bureaucracy that is totally risk-averse,"
said Robert W. Santy, head of the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.
"We have government by regulatory compliance. There is no reward for
trying something different, and there are thousands of reports mandated
by the legislature to cover any eventuality,"
Those who do business with the DOT complain that layers of review,
inside and outside the agency, add months to the process of awarding
bids and executing contracts. Planning and design contracts that took
three to six months to process just five years ago now typically take
six to 12 months. These delays can have serious impacts on project
schedules and cost. Yet for all of this, oversight of the I-84 project
was stunningly inadequate.
The department has also endured its share of patronage appointments.
Under Mr. Rowland, for example, one of the DOT's deputy commissioners
was James A. Adams, brother-in-law of powerful lobbyist and Rowland
confidant Jay Malcynsky. Another deputy was former Waterbury state
senator and lobbyist Louis S. Cutillo, an early Democratic backer of
Mr. Rowland's. Neither appointee had a compelling background in
transportation.
INNOVATION. The creation of the
Special Transportation Fund in 1985 was an inventive, cutting-edge
response to a major problem, and applauded as such around the country.
There's been very little innovation at the DOT since. The department
resisted new ventures such as the Griffin Line light-rail project from
Hartford to Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks and instead
continued to focus on highways.
But projects such as the Q Bridge in New Haven point to the need for
innovation. The department plans to spend $1.5 billion to rebuild and
expand the elevated bridge on I-95 that crosses New Haven Harbor, even
though, by the department's own estimates, the new bridge will have the
same level of congestion the old one does in just three years.
PLANNING. The Transportation
Strategy Board was created in 2001 to develop a long-term
transportation plan for the state. The board's 2007 report, "Moving
Forward," promotes a progressive, multimodal transportation system tied
to land-use policy.
Ideally these recommendations would inform the DOT's long-range and
master plans, which would ultimately generate the projects that would
realize the vision.
But the planning process is subject to political caprice and gets
whipsawed from all sides.
The governor, the State Bond Commission and the legislature all have a
say in funding for DOT projects, and often call the tune. The
department, for example, planned to replace aging rail cars several
times in the past decade, but Mr. Rowland chose not to pay for them. He
considered opening the shoulders of I-95 to rush hour traffic,
something not in any DOT plan.
The federal government also interferes with DOT plans via congressional
earmarks - funds for special projects - a bridge, road, deck or study -
that can interrupt the flow of work. "Earmarks just kill us," said
former deputy commissioner Carl Bard, a civil engineer who retired last
year.
Then there is town planning. Sometimes, the DOT will come in and fix an
intersection to resolve traffic congestion, then the town will allow a
mall to be built, creating a new traffic problem.
Conversely, local officials and residents have ended up battling the
department over the design of road projects, in some cases regretting
the day they asked the department for help. "Many to