• How does rain service relate to the economy?
  
• More train service in CT!  How about other alternatives to driving alone five days a week?  Kawasaki train or bike?  Speed works? 
  
• Sub-page on CT DOT here;
• INFRASTRUCTURE!  Taking the longer view...gas tax hike?
  
• "It's the parking that is the problem" section...ever try finding a spot in NYC?  Speaking of...how about parking at rail stations?
  
• Congestion pricing from SWRPA-MPO:  for whom the toll tolls...
• Big pow-wow in Hartford - multi-committee public hearing story...
  
• Link HERE to SWRPA long-range transportation plan.
• Memories of Howard Avenue/I-95 bridge disaster revived by Route Seven tanker fire...
• Joseph Conrad-like tales - most recent ferry stories.
• Ferry service from Bridgeport to Stamford and NYC some day?  How about at the Antares site?  Sounds right to us!!!
  

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

• NEWS: 
  
• The new Administration's plan for rail passenger service improvement/expansion;
• Earlier Government pronouncements;
  
• Ferry  matters - anything new (like high-speed ferry)?
• "Big Dig" lesson in MASS.and latest news; our somewhat more modest highway problem;
  
• Link to CTDOT study of highway rest areas: http://www.ctrestareas.org/
  
• What legislative action brings...
• Noise abatement:  airplanes;  watch bills on sound barriers.
• Transportation Strategy Board "T.S.B." (website link to names not always working, but most recent minutes posted online indicate members;)
• AMTRACK.  And related to AMTRACK (i.e. infrastructure, such as bridges).
  
• SWRPA/M.P.O. in the dark on this issue?  (No...SWRPA has historically warned of truck safety threat)  News...
• Metro North;
  
• TRAIN & BUS REPORT IN CT (for previous years);  $4 gas effect;  fuel cell option!
  
• News stories about rail (other than Metro North commuter issue);
• Taxi news;
• Bus transit not-so-new-news;  fuel cells for CT Transit!
  
• I-95...CT DOT "Congestion Pricing" (read modified "E-Z pass") study on the horizon?  So what is New Jersey thinking?
  
• Traffic;
• Parking in CT and elsewhere;
  
• North-South travel:
• Session in 2009 approves sale of right-of-way for New Route 7, despite study;
  
• $10,000 study committee mission:   "...The committee was formed to include a group of government and business people who have made clear their support for an extension of the Route 7 highway (Super 7)," Diesel said. "Members of the committee are eager to find out if the committee's support for that extension is broad in terms of the communities' support."
• Route Seven (including interchange);
• Danbury Branch
• Barge alternative (to trucks);  freight in 2010.
  
• Bicyles play a role in State of CT overall transport planning; as an alternative.
• Merritt Parkway:  Bridges and Trail.
• Boating.
• Bar car.

Panel Suggests Higher Gas Tax
NYTIMES
By KATE GALBRAITH
February 27, 2009

BUT CAN HE DO THE WEATHER?
Can you believe this?  The President uses his teleprompter for everything! 

$26 million approved for work on rail line
By Ed Stannard, New Haven Register Metro Editor
Saturday, January 9, 2010

HARTFORD — The state Bond Commission Friday approved $26 million for work on double-tracking the rail line between New Haven and Springfield, Mass.

The money, which will go toward design, environmental documentation and construction, is a step toward creating a 62-mile commuter line between the two cities, with stops in Hartford and up to 12 other towns, as well as connections to buses and Bradley International Airport.

“This is a crucial step forward for one of the most important transportation improvements we have made in decades,” Gov. M. Jodi Rell said in a statement. “Along with the new M8 passenger cars coming to Metro-North’s New Haven Line and the highway upgrades we have made across Connecticut, this project will truly transform public transit in our state.”

Now, the line carries Amtrak passenger trains and freight trains, and would have to accommodate commuter service, which makes double-tracking necessary.

Both Rell and House Speaker Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden, emphasized the line would enhance development and reduce highway congestion.

“Bookended by Boston and New York, our location is one of Connecticut’s great assets,” Donovan said, also in a statement. “If we remove one of the great impediments to growth — traffic congestion along the corridor — with high-speed rail, our economic future improves exponentially.”

The New Haven-Springfield line would have four or five new stations built to add to the existing eight. Trains would run up to every 30 minutes during peak periods, according to state Department of Transportation plans.

Donovan said he and the state’s congressional delegation have been pushing for the Bond Commission’s approval since last spring. The item was on the agenda of the commission, of which Rell serves as chairwoman, in October, but state Sen. Eileen M. Daily, D-Westbrook, asked that it be postponed because of questions she had.

Rell canceled the Dec. 11 meeting, prompting Donovan to write the governor a letter asking her not to delay further. “I believe we are at a critical point in terms of the availability of federal funding for high speed rail,” he wrote. Design and environmental work must be completed before the state can apply for federal matching funds, he wrote.

Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot said Friday the January meeting was moved up in order to increase the chance of federal financing.

Liegeot said the governor’s office already has applied for $50.4 million in federal stimulus money for the New Haven-Springfield line, as well as for Metro-North’s New Haven Line and Waterbury branch, freight lines and parking at the Branford station.

U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., said in a statement that he is pleased by the bond commission’s decision and would continue to work for federal funding for the rail line.

“Commuter rail linking New Haven and Springfield will not only create jobs for our state, but will alleviate the often-tedious commute on I-91 that so many Connecticut commuters face every day,” Dodd said.

The state’s 2005 study can be found at www.nhhsrail.com.

Anger at Egyptian ferry verdict 26y July 2008 I-BBC

Relatives of the victims reacted with anger and dismay at the verdicts There have been angry scenes at a court in Egypt after a ferry-owner was cleared of all charges over a 2006 sinking in which more than 1,000 died. Relatives of the victims scuffled with security forces while others denounced the judges and defendants. The ferry's owner, a rich businessman close to Egypt's political elite, and four others were acquitted. A captain of another ship was found guilty of failing to help the stricken ferry and was jailed for six months. "We are stunned. There can't be a ruling like this," said Asaad Heikal, a lawyer for several victims' families. "We will not give up and will appeal the ruling," he told reporters outside the Cairo courthouse on Sunday. 'This is awful' Dozens of relatives, many carrying photographs of their dead loved ones, were crammed into the court building, despite a heavy security presence. More than 1,000 people died when the ferry sank in February One man told al-Jazeera TV: "The day of the accident everybody saw that the ship was in bad shape and two years later they say the boat was in good shape. It doesn't make sense. "This is awful. My wife and children died and after two years everyone responsible is found to be innocent." The sinking of the al-Salam was Egypt's worst maritime disaster. A fire broke out in its vehicle bay. Most of the victims were Egyptian workers returning home. A parliamentary inquiry blamed the ferry company for the disaster, saying it had continued to operate the boat despite serious defects. The vessel's owner, Mamdouh Ismail, is a member of parliament's upper house, and his son Amr was a top executive in the ferry company. They fled Egypt after the disaster and reports have claimed that senior Egyptian officials helped them escape.

It was a disaster all too familiar to Art Gruhn.

When a tanker truck carrying thousands of gallons of heating oil overturned on Route 7 in Ridgefield two weeks ago, it ignited a fireball, melted pavement and closed the busy state road.  A year ago, Gruhn, the chief engineer who oversees highway construction for the state Department of Transportation, handled a fiery tanker crash at the Howard Avenue overpass on Interstate 95 in Bridgeport.

"Not again," Gruhn said to himself when he heard about the Ridgefield crash.

"After we finished our work in Bridgeport, I thought that was it, I was done. I had finished taking care of the one disaster I would face in my career," Gruhn said Friday. "To face two of them? I don't think any other engineer in the country has had to deal with two of these within a year of each other."

The March 25, 2004, Bridgeport crash was a dubious landmark in Gruhn's career. At first, state officials predicted the highway could be closed for weeks, snarling traffic on Connecticut's main thoroughfare. The overpass was charred and sagging, and the southbound lanes were destroyed.  But the less-damaged northbound lanes were reopened within days, and a temporary bridge on the southbound side was built within a week.  Gruhn said it was a valuable learning experience for him and the DOT. They just didn't think they would have reason to use what they learned.
Within a few hours of the Route 7 crash, in which the truck driver was killed, state officials wanted to know how long the road would be closed.

"Because we had the experience responding to Bridgeport, in some ways it was easier for us because we had been under fire before," Gruhn said. "When we got to the site, we were not as shocked."  And they knew what to do. A temporary bridge was assembled and Route 7, northbound and southbound lanes, was reopened within days.

There were differences between the Route 7 and I-95 damage, Gruhn said.

The span in Ridgefield was not made with steel, so it did not completely melt like the Howard Avenue overpass. And the damaged road in Ridgefield was 45 feet long, compared with 80 feet in Bridgeport, he said.  As for the traffic volume, the damaged stretch of I-95 carries about four times as many cars each day as the damaged stretch of Route 7. I-95 between Greenwich and Bridgeport carries more than 120,000 cars, according to DOT statistics. Route 7 between Danbury and Norwalk carries about 30,000.

Both closures were crippling for motorists, but that would be true anywhere, Gruhn said.

"Just like other states, the diversionary routes around these main roads are limited," he said. "We know how detours are an inconvenience, but that's why we tried to work quickly so they would only be set up for a short period of time."  A few days after Route 7 reopened, he got calls from other engineers in the region, Gruhn said. He had earned a reputation.

"A lot of them asked me why I'm always burning my bridges behind me," he said. "It was all in good nature. Somehow, I think that's how we were all able to get through this again. In spite of the seriousness of the situation, we all tried to remain good-natured." 

Environmental impact 'minimal'
By NOELLE FRAMPTON Hour Staff Writer
July 25, 2005
RIDGEFIELD -- Emergency responses to a recent tanker truck explosion that damaged a Route 7 bridge over the Norwalk River and spilled gasoline into the water are over, and a more long-term repair and cleanup effort is progressing that involves both rebuilding parts of the bridge and dealing with water and soil contamination.

The truck was filled with 8,800 gallons of gasoline, but it appears that most of its contents were consumed in the fire, and the incident probably didn't cause much long-term environmental harm, said Matthew Fritz, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. "Overall implications, actually, to the environment have been minimal," he said.

"We don't believe that there was a lot of gasoline that fell into the river. This will probably not be a long cleanup. We're not talking decades. Probably no more than a couple of months." Fritz said the department is taking steps to absorb the gasoline in the water, which created a sheen on the river for the first several days, by placing absorbant booms -- made of a foam product -- downstream to clean the water as it travels through them. A system of "recovery wells" -- pumping water out, treating it and returning it to the river -- is also being used to remove pollution from the water table, he said, adding that department officials haven't seen any fish dying or other wildlife adversely affected by the spill, concentrated specifically around the bridge abutments and river bank, where some soil is "saturated."

The department will continue to monitor the area in the long-term, to ensure that everything is done to improve the conditions that can be, Fritz said. Norwalker Diane Lauricella, an environmental consultant and member of the Norwalk River Watershed Association's board of directors, said the association is planning to cooperate with the state to schedule short- and long-range soil and sediment samples, determine the extent of pollution and assess if soil replacement is needed.

Lauricella said the assocation also hopes to work with Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner Carl Bard regarding restoration of the site's landscaping to attract native wildlife. "We would like them to plant as much vegetated buffer as possible," she said. "It's a very special spot. We really do not want to see them just putting a hard rip-rap everywhere along -- extending 20, 30, 100 feet downstream and upstream."

The spill site is very close to a "river study site," where school children have come for 15 to 20 years to study the river and its habitat, Lauricella said. Fritz did not know what the environmental cleanup would cost, saying that immediate concerns come first and the department will address money issues later. Perhaps the more substantial task will be fixing the bridge, which will be restored to its original condition.

The Federal Highway Administration's emergency funding program has pledged to cover the repair costs, estimated at about $3 million. During the reconstruction, drivers can expect lane closures between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and possibly at night too, said District Engineer Daniel Foley of the state Department of Transportation.

"The morning and evening commutes will be left alone," he said, explaining that a northbound one-lane temporary bridge will be constructed, and one southbound lane will remain open on the existing bridge during peak travel hours. Traffic patterns will have to be moved a few times before the project is finished with paving. The project, which will occur almost completely above the water, will include replacing the bridge's concrete deck, railings and pavement, Foley said, adding that the steel rods within the concrete beams that support the deck were probably compromised by the intense heat of the explosion and fire.

"These actually held up quite well, but not well enough to span the entire river," he said, adding that it was not strong enough to hold heavy trucks or oversized loads, either. Foley was optimistic that the project will be completed by winter, while adding that one can never be sure. "We want to get the thing done before the snow flies," he said.

The fiery fatal truck crash that has closed down Route 7 until at least tomorrow is another reminder that Fairfield County's transportation infrastructure is in desperate need of better north-south passageways, elected officials and transportation advocates said yesterday.

The state needs to improve Metro-North Railroad's little-used Danbury branch line and the time may be right to rekindle talks of the long-stalled, controversial "Super 7" highway between Norwalk and Danbury, some officials said.

"We really don't have a north-south thoroughfare until you get to Route 8," connecting Bridgeport to Waterbury, said Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell, chairwoman of the South Western Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization. "The disabling of Route 7 may be a wake-up call. I hope the state takes a closer look at ways to improve" the transportation infrastructure.

Route 7 was closed Tuesday between Route 102 in Branchville and Route 35 in Ridgefield after a tanker truck overturned and burst into flames, killing the driver and damaging a bridge overlooking the Norwalk River in Ridgefield.

State Department of Transportation officials said the bridge was weakened from the fire and a temporary structure will have to be built. Gov. M. Jodi Rell said yesterday she hopes the road could be reopened by tomorrow.

More than 30,000 people a day use Route 7 between Norwalk and Danbury, according to the DOT. The limited transportation alternatives in a region that is experiencing population growth in the north and business growth in the south could make Fairfield County a cul-de-sac, Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp said.

"We need to be cautious drawing lessons out of a tragic death on this highway, but there is an obvious inadequacy of north-south routes in our region," he said.

Growth means new jobs and new employees, he said. "That's why we've always been supportive of a Norwalk to Danbury 'Super 7' and the electrification of the Danbury branch line."

One of those options may not materialize. The "Super 7," a superhighway that would run from Norwalk to Danbury and link to Interstate 84, has been an idea on the table for nearly 50 years, but some municipalities and environmental groups oppose the plan, keeping it in limbo.

The highway would be between four and six lanes in different sections.

Despite the opposition, the South Western Regional Planning Agency has always proposed a better north-south road as part of its long-term plans, said executive director Robert Wilson.

Route 7 is "clearly inadequate for the volumes it carries," he said. "This is the risk you run when you maintain an inadequate facility."

State Rep. Antoinetta "Toni" Boucher, R-Wilton, one of the "Super 7's" most vocal legislative opponents, who proposed a bill this year to sell the land and invest it in the Danbury branch line, said lamenting the superhighway is not the answer.

"I don't think it changes the issues because (an accident closing the highway) could have happened on a 'Super 7,'" Boucher said. "But it does draw attention to the Danbury branch line."

The single-track Danbury branch line carries about 200 passengers a day between Danbury and South Norwalk and is being reviewed by the DOT for possible improvements.

To encourage commuters to take mass transit during the road closure, Rell said rail commuters would have their fares refunded until the road reopens and bus fares will not be collected on Norwalk Transit's Route 7 link. Additional trains on the branch line also will be put into service.

More has to be done with the branch line in the long-term, Boucher said.

"The Danbury branch line is an underutilized resource and it needs to be upgraded," she said.

But some transportation advocates said rail line expansion can't come at the expense of the proposed highway.

"We've always supported the 'Super 7' and it's ridiculous that it hasn't been done over the years," said Michael Riley, president of the Connecticut Motor Transport Association. "Our highway network is critical. I don't care how many barges (the state) uses or if they use rail traffic. There's going to be more trucks" to contend with.

State Sen. Robert Duff, D-Norwalk, said the state is "past the time to have a debate on whether the Super 7 should be finished," but improving the transportation system should never be simplified as roads vs. rails.

"It should never be either/or because every part is integral to our system," Duff said. "We have to get more people moving north-south, that's why we should be spending more money on transportation in this state." 

Merritt Pkwy
By ROBERT KOCH Hour Staff Writer
June 1, 2005
NORWALK -- The Merritt Parkway Conservancy announced Tuesday that it and four other organizations were filing a complaint in U.S. District Court in Hartford to halt the state-designed overhaul of the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange. "It is a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief," said Peter Malkin, conservancy vice chairman.

The plaintiffs "came together because of their concern over the failure of the Federal Highway Administration and the Connecticut Department of Transportation to comply with several federal laws that restrict projects that damage or interfere with designated historic properties." The conservancy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving the roadway's landscape and historic bridges, considers the estimated $98 million project too costly, too large and too disruptive to the historic roadway.

Named as defendants, he said, are Norman Mineta, secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Mary Peters, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration; and Bradley Keazer, Connecticut Division administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States; The Norwalk Land Trust; Norwalk River Watershed Association Inc.; and The Norwalk Preservation Trust Inc. are co-plaintiffs in the complaint, Malkin said.

The plaintiffs hope that the court will grant a temporary restraining order followed by a permanent injunction against the project, Malkin said. The announced lawsuit comes a month after the state transportation department signed a $34 million contract with O&G Industries of Torrington to start the overhaul, which will fully connect the parkway and Route 7.

Phase I -- reconstruction of the Main Avenue interchange and Glover Avenue bridge -- began last month with the removal of trees. Supporters of the overhaul, including Mayor Alex Knopp and Norwalk legislators, say the project is needed to fully connect the parkway with Route 7 and Interstate 95, take traffic off Main Avenue, and safeguard economic growth. They describe the overhaul as well-planned, thoroughly vetted with the public and long overdue.

Still, Knopp said he is not surprised by the conservancy's action. "The opponents had threatened to go to court, so I'm not surprised at all, especially when (the complaint) is funded by the deep pockets of one of the adjacent landowners," Knopp said.

"It's a transportation project that serves the region and Norwalk well, and I hope that the judge does not hold it up for to long." State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, another supporter of the state-designed overhaul, described the complaint as a post-"11th-hour" attempt to halt work.

"The DOT has made their decision after many years of delays," Duff said. "Those in the community have spoken and said they would like to have this project move forward. What are (the plaintiffs') motivations? Are they looking to scrap the project? Are they looking to make modifications? Obviously, it's way past the 11th-hour, and these concerns should have been brought up over the last five to six years."

William Wrenn, Norwalk Land Trust president, said the group's board of directors voted unanimously to join in the lawsuit. Of concern, among other things, is the removal of trees that recently began along the parkway near Main Avenue. "Beautiful trees are being destroyed for a project that's beyond the scope of what it needs to be to help solve the transportation problem," Wrenn said.

"This project is resulting in a tragic loss of open space for the people of Norwalk. We agree with the conservancy that the alternatives that were presented are better for the environment and the aesthetic beauty of the parkway."

The conservancy, at an informational meeting held by the DOT at Norwalk City Hall in early April, pitched two alternatives. One called for roundabout traffic circles to be built where the parkway meets with the Route 7 Connector.

"We would like to see the FHA and the Connecticut DOT to give serious consideration to alternatives that would not so seriously adversely affect the parkway, and these basically involve the substitution of alternative designs to connect the Merritt Parkway with (Route) 7," Malkin said Tuesday.

Some believe Super 7 may be just down the road
By Mark Ginocchio
Stamford ADVOCATE Staff Writer
April 25, 2005

As the state Department of Transportation announced last week that it will build the Merritt Parkway-Route 7 interchange in Norwalk, some lawmakers and transportation advocates wondered whether it's an indication that the controversial Super 7 highway will happen, too.

One part of the DOT's design for the interchange project was especially scrutinized: the parkway ramp that connects with Route 7 north. Critics say the ramp is a mile-long "road to nowhere" because of opposition to construction of a Super 7 highway to Danbury.

Most agree Super 7 will not be built in their lifetimes but want to know whether the DOT is keeping its options open.

"My sense has been (the DOT) kept this design just in case in the future the debate for a Super 7 starts all over again," said Laurie Heiss, executive director of the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, a nonprofit preservation group that opposed the interchange project. "Just because that project is off the books now doesn't mean it can't come back in 10 years."

DOT officials have said the interchange connection to Route 7 north has nothing to do with the Super 7. Its purpose is to link the parkway to Route 7 in all directions. Super 7, which would run a highway from Norwalk to Danbury and connect with Interstate 84, is not in the state's plans, they have said.

At a recent public meeting, critics of the interchange project reminded the DOT that, when it designed the connectors 10 years ago, Super 7 was in its plans. If that is no longer true, Phase 2 of the $98 million interchange project -- which includes the Route 7 north connection -- should be redesigned, said state Rep. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton.

"I think in some people's heart of hearts, they're hoping for" Super 7, said Boucher, who in February proposed a bill that would sell the highway right of way and use the money for Metro-North Railroad's Danbury line. "But it's not going to happen. There is an overwhelming opposition to it and it's a death knell for any politician who supports it in that corridor."

Others said it's misleading to compare today's interchange project with the Super 7 plans from 10 years ago.

"I think people were just using the Super 7 argument as part of their arsenal against the interchange itself," said Robert Wilson, executive direction of the South Western Regional Planning Association. "It stirs up concerns that this may be a precursor to Super 7 and it throws other people into the mix."

Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell said the interchange and Super 7 are "two separate issues."

Although the South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Business Council of Fairfield County endorse a north-south highway connection between Norwalk and Danbury, Farrell said she doubts the Super 7 debate will be revitalized.

"I don't think the political will ever will be there," Farrell said. "It's an unpopular issue. The idea that (DOT) will breach its agreement is the stuff of urban legend."

Even those who oppose the interchange connection to Route 7 north believe the Super 7 has no future.

The DOT "had the authority and the money to do the project they had designed," said state Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich. "The permits were in place and the money was there, so (DOT) was ready to push the button. But the Super 7 is not going to be built because of the number of legal and financial obstacles. I'm not basing this on speculation, I'm basing it on fact."

One Super 7 advocacy group, however, sees hope.

"It keeps the avenue open," said Barbara Quincy, a Wilton resident and member of the nonprofit Committee for the Extension of Route 7. "I don't anticipate they're going to build the Super 7 any time soon . . . but DOT is not going to let that land go."

The DOT made a telling announcement last week, Quincy said.

"This decision was critical," she said.

One of the biggest proponents of the interchange, Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp, did not return calls last week.

The state Department of Transportation plans to move forward with construction of the Merritt Parkway-Route 7 interchange and will sign a contract today, sources close to the project told The Advocate.

DOT's design will remain unchanged, sources said, despite recent pressure from preservationists and legislators who claimed the interchange will be too costly and disruptive.

The $98 million project will connect the parkway to Route 7 to and from the east in Norwalk. The first phase will widen the parkway interchange at Main Avenue and the Glover Avenue bridge, starting this spring and lasting until 2007. The second phase will begin shortly afterward and connect Route 7 to the parkway, taking another four years.

During construction, one lane of the Merritt will be shut down around peak commuting hours in the morning and evening.  The DOT said designs have been in place for more than 10 years and were properly approved by other state and environmental agencies. Public hearings were held in 1998 and 1999.

Opposition to the project has been led by the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, a nonprofit group that works to preserve the parkway's historic character.  The group said it backed the interchange but questioned DOT's designs. Members are concerned that construction will destroy some parkway bridges and landscape and back up traffic because of lane closures.

They question the cost and the parkway connection to Route 7 north, a road that continues for only a half-mile because of stalled plans for the "Super 7" highway to Danbury.  At a recent news conference, conservancy officials introduced two alternate interchange designs they said could be done with half the time and money, but DOT officials another design could delay the project.

Norwalk legislators, business leaders and Mayor Alex Knopp support the project because they say it will help the city financially and remove traffic from local roads.  The DOT was ready to award the contract in March, but it was blocked by Rell, who, after pressure from the conservancy and legislators, called for one more public meeting earlier this month.

More than 75 people signed up to speak for more than four hours at the meeting at Norwalk City Hall. Many opposed the DOT plan.  The conservancy said it hoped Rell would step in and overrule the DOT, but her spokesmen said it was the DOT's decision.

"On behalf of the Business Council of Fairfield County, I want to express our support for this project. Transportation is a critical issue facing the county," said Tanya Court, Public Policy & Programs director with the Business Council.

"This project is important to the business community, to the county. We need to ensure that the project moves forward, that we do complete the interchange and provide that connectivity." Court, former executive director of the South Western Regional Planning Agency, named completing the interchange as one priority upon which its member communities agree upon.

The Merritt Parkway, built during the Great Depression, is praised for its landscaping, stone bridges and unique design. That same design, however, did not anticipate cars traveling 55 mph -- or faster -- and accelerating and decelerating on tight entrance and exits ramps.

Southbound traffic on the parkway cannot exit onto the Route 7 Connector for lack of ramps. Connector traffic cannot move onto the northbound parkway. Such traffic now uses Exit 40, clogging Main Avenue. Some individuals and organizations, however, believe the fix is worse than the problem. They have stepped forward in recent weeks and asked the state to re-examine the project after more public input.

The Merritt Parkway Conservancy says the project, as designed, will unnecessarily disrupt traffic. Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp said the state made a terrible mistake by not completing the exchange decades ago. Doing so now, he said, will safen travel on Main Avenue; modernize Exit 40 and protect economic growth.

"This is the most important improvement to mobility in the Southwestern region that is likely come along in our lifetime," Knopp said. "This is not about expanding capacity. This is connecting up existing highways so that there will be better traffic mobility in our region."

Joining Knopp in an eighth-floor conference room at Hewitt Associates was company location Manager Tim Roof; Albert D. Phelps Inc. General Counsel Steve Warren; Business Council Public Policy & Programs Vice President Joseph McGee; state Reps. Joseph Mann, D-140, and John Ryan, R-141; and Edward J. Musante Jr., president of the Greater Norwalk Chamber of Commerce. Three decades ago, transportation and completing Route 7 to Danbury topped the priorities of the Chamber, according to Musante Jr.

"We at the Greater Chamber and business community of Norwalk strongly support moving forward with this project immediately," Musante Jr. said. Hewitt Associates, a human-resources consulting firm, relocated from Rowayton to the Merritt Corporate Park four years ago, based on the state's commitment to replace the two-lane bridge on Glover Avenue with a four-lane bridge.

The replacement is part of the interchange upgrade. "The state of Connecticut has not backed away from its commitment," said Thomas A. Flaherty, the Norwalk attorney representing Hewitt Associates. "We hope that the state will go ahead and sign this contract and move the project along."

The first phase of the project will cost $30 million and improve the ramps at Exit 40 and Main Avenue. Vertical clearance would be increased to allow more truck and emergency-vehicle traffic. At $45 million, the second phase would complete the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange to allow travel in all directions.

Deputy Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-142, acknowledged that opposition to the project exists. But he described support for the project as broad based and bipartisan. And Cafero Jr. indicated that protocol has been followed.

"This project has been well designed and well thought out. It's had input from the public. It's had input from people who are very concerned about keeping the integrity and the historical significance of the Merritt Parkway," Cafero Jr. said.

Knopp described the project as permitted and ready to go. He pointed to the Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact permits issued by the Federal Highway Administration in December 2000.

DARIEN -- The state Department of Transportation is plowing ahead with plans to complete the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange despite opposition from preservationists.  Delaying construction could set the $75 million project back years, DOT Deputy Commissioner Carl Bard said yesterday at a quarterly meeting of the Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee.

The state-appointed group that consists of DOT and federal highway officials, and other historians and preservationists.

The Merritt Parkway Conservancy -- a nonprofit group formed to maintain the character of the historic roadway -- is trying to block the project, saying it is too expensive, disruptive and damaging to the highway's aesthetics.

"If we were to revisit the questions that were brought up today, that would cause another five-year delay," Bard said to conservancy members at a meeting in Darien Town Hall. "Our decisions were not made in a void. . . . These plans are very definitive."

Plans for the interchange have been in place for nearly 10 years and public hearings were held in 1998 and 1999, DOT officials said yesterday.
But conservancy chairman Peter Malkin said much has changed in five years and no contract should be awarded until the public has another chance to review the project.

"All of the planning and appeals were made at a time when the 'Super 7' (expressway plan) was still going to Danbury," Malkin said. "People are going about this plan backwards."  Malkin's New York real estate firm owns the 250,000-square-foot MerrittView office building on Main Avenue in Norwalk, which lies next to the interchange.

DOT officials expects it will award the interchange work contract to O&G Industries as soon as next week. A public information hearing couldn't be scheduled until next month, Bard said.

Phase one of the project will focus on the Main Avenue approach to the interchange and should take until 2007. Phase two would start soon after and take an additional three to four years, said DOT project manager Thomas Harley. During construction, lanes would be closed in the afternoon and at night, after rush-hour.

If the DOT reduced the scope of its plan, the project could be done quicker and cost less, said Laurie Heiss, co-chairwoman of the conservancy. She suggested removing proposed ramps that would run to Super 7 north, because the Route 7 superhighway has been stalled for decades.

Some forest land should be preserved, real stone facing should be used while restoring the parkway's bridges and the DOT should find an attractive alternative to the 40-foot, high-powered lights they want to use, Heiss said.

"We just want you to take a pause," she said. "We know we're not being illogical."

Once the contract is awarded, DOT is open to working out some of these differences, Bard said. Issues with landscaping and other aesthetics could be negotiated, but the general scope of the project must remain in tact, he added.  When Malkin pressed why a public hearing couldn't be held before a contract is signed, Bard threw his hands in the air.

Malkin questioned if federal funds for the second phase had been accounted for. When Bard said it had not, Malkin suggested it would be dangerous to start a major construction project and then stop halfway because of funding issues.  There shouldn't be any major delays securing federal funds, Bard responded.

Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp, a proponent of the interchange project and Super 7, said he can't justify delaying construction any longer and he applauded Bard for being frank with the conservancy.

"The process has been open," Knopp said. "If we have another five-year delay, we'll just watch other cities raid our funds."

Others in attendance were still concerned about the impact the project will have on Merritt Parkway traffic.  State Rep. Jim Shapiro, D-Stamford, said after the meeting that construction could have such an impact on traffic, a public hearing must be held before a contract is signed.

"We have to be extremely careful of lane closures on the Merritt," Shapiro said. "Lane closures on the Merritt at any time of day always cause problems." 

Transit workers in Hartford, New Haven, Stamford authorize strike

By DIANE SCARPONI
Associated Press Writer

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) -- Transit workers in Hartford, New Haven and Stamford have authorized a strike if a new contract is not reached for about 700 bus drivers, mechanics and maintenance workers.

No strike date was set. The Amalgamated Transit Union and Connecticut Transit, the state agency that runs the bus lines, said Monday they would work hard to reach a deal before their latest contract extension expires Aug. 31.

Members of the three local unions said they did not want to vote for a strike, but they felt the company's offer left them no choice.

"We're going to cool off for about a week and then start talking again," said Alvin B. Douglas, business agent for Local 425 in Hartford...

While Congress remains conflicted over whether to allow tolls on existing highways, the state Transportation Strategy Board will discuss today technology that can be used to put tolls on Connecticut roads.

The TSB, a panel appointed by the state's legislative leadership and former Gov. John G. Rowland, will discuss technologies that might be used to help control traffic while raising money. The meeting will be at 8 a.m. in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford.

Mike Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut, pledged to be there to discuss the issue. Riley's group, along with national trucking organizations, lobbied Congress to prevent states from tolling existing highways. The House of Representatives recently passed a transportation bill that allows state tolls but the Senate's version of the bill does not. That will have to be reconciled, Riley said, so the TSB's conversation may be in vain.

Under current law, if a state places tolls on an existing highway it could lose federal funds.

Riley said truckers aren't necessarily opposed to tolls but that they won't support them unless Connecticut uses the money to expand highways.

Supporters of tolls, particularly a TSB advisory group called the Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment Area from Fairfield and New Haven counties, prefer the term "value-pricing," because they say the goal is to charge motorists more money during peak travel times to discourage people from using roads during those periods. They also support using the money from tolls to pay for train and bus service in the state.

The CCTIA and the TSB have expressed interest in using an EZ Pass-type system similar to that in Massachusetts. Drivers would not have to stop and pay at tollbooths under the envisioned system. Instead, drivers would have transponders in their cars that are tracked electronically when they use the highways. The state then bills the person through a credit card or from bank accounts. For motorists without transponders, the state would take photos of cars' license plates and send bills to their owners.

  While the TSB is meeting to discuss innovation, the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council will meet Wednesday in Stamford to discuss new trains for the Metro-North Railroad New Haven Line.

The state is considering a $1 billion investment in the New Haven Line, including the purchase of 342 new cars. The railroad recently hired a consultant to design the new cars, but the Legislature has not acted on the bill to authorize their purchase.

The council will meet with Metro-North President Peter   Cannito at 7 p.m. at 1 Landmark Square, Stamford.

WASHINGTON — Congress nudged the door ajar for "gateway tolls" on Connecticut's borders.
Tucked into the 1,075-page transportation bill that recently cleared the House of Representatives are provisions that remove, under some circumstances, federal financial roadblocks that have stopped states like Connecticut from imposing new highway tolls.

"It is highway robbery," Michael Riley, a lobbyist for the state's trucking industry, said of the prospect of tolls.

Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell has proposed an ambitious transportation agenda that would be funded by an increase in the gas tax — currently the only viable funding option on the table because of restrictions on tolls along federally subsidized highways.

Rell had not envisioned using tolls as a revenue source because gaining federal approval would have likely delayed the construction program.

"She has proposed a method of financing this plan, and we are ready to move forward," said Dennis Schain, a spokesman for the governor.

But the House bill would authorize a "congestion pricing pilot program" for 25 projects, and six more pilot programs — three for highway "reconstruction and rehabilitation" projects and three for new construction projects.

The Business Council of Fairfield County (SACIA), which led the fight 20 years ago to rid Connecticut of highway tolls following a tragic accident at the Stratford toll plaza on Interstate 95, now sees them as a possible option.

"We think the issue of tolling needs to be looked at," said Joseph McGee, vice president of public policy at SACIA.

A bill seeking such a study is before the General Assembly's transportation committee. McGee said it should be approved so that the issue can be examined in depth.

"We've been talking about gateway tolls as an option but we are not endorsing them yet," he said.

The gateway tolls, which would be installed on the New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island borders, could net about $150 million a year, McGee said based on a cursory analysis.

Before the state jumps in, it would also have to consider the broader impact tolls would have on traffic congestion and safety.

In January 1983, a tractor-trailer   collided with three cars at the Stratford toll plaza, killing seven people. The eight toll plazas along I-95 were removed in October 1985. Four years later, tolls were abolished statewide.

McGee said that "EZPass" technology could be used to keep traffic moving through the automated tolls and allow for variable pricing to encourage travel at off-peak hours.

Connecticut's 20-year strategic plan for coastal-corridor transportation recommended a "value-pricing pilot program" on one or more of the limited-access highways in southwestern Connecticut.

"Connecticut can no longer rely largely on federal funding for the vast majority of its transportation capital and operating needs," the 2001 report said. "Implementing a new transportation strategy will require substantial financial investment in addition to current sources of support and greater flexibility in the use of current funding sources..."

NORWALK -- The state Department of Transportation is giving a plan to expand on and off ramps on Interstate 95 from Greenwich to Bridgeport top priority.  The so-called operational lanes are being looked at to reduce congestion and improve safety.

The lanes would extend the distance from one on-ramp to the next, giving motorists hundreds more feet to merge into traffic, thereby reducing congestion, said Jim Mora, a DOT engineer, at the South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization's monthly meeting yesterday at the Norwalk Transit district.

The four-phase project would construct operational lanes from exit 2 in Greenwich to exit 24 in Bridgeport, Mora said.  Currently, an operational lane is in use on the southbound side of I-95 between exits 10 and 8 in Stamford, he said.

"We want to give other lanes a similar type of treatment," Mora said. "We want to build one continuous lane that runs into the next exit ramp."

A DOT study found that accidents in the Stamford operational lane were down nearly 20 percent compared with other interchanges on the highway. Expansion of these lanes could equal about 160 fewer accidents a year, Mora said.

Mora said the operational lanes would be used as an alternative to opening the shoulder lanes on I-95. Four years ago, former Gov. John Rowland recommended the state study using the shoulders during rush hour. The DOT issued its final report on that study in September and said using the shoulders would be unsafe and would only cause more accidents. In the conclusion of the report, the DOT recommended looking into operational lanes.

The new study is a DOT priority and so far, about $1.5 million has been allocated for designing and planning, Mora said. Construction on phase one, which would span from exits 10 to 15, could be finished in 2006 and cost the state about $10 million he added.

"This could all help control congestion on the highway for another 15 years," Mora said. "Right now at many on-ramps motorists have to slow down 5 to 10 miles per hour because space is closing. This would give people more time to merge."

Phase two, which includes work on exits 16 to 18, would be more difficult because it would extend an on-ramp lane for almost a mile and a half, Mora said. Because of the complexity of the work, the state didn't know how much the project would cost.

Additional operational lanes in Greenwich and Stamford would be part of phases three and four, Mora said. It was unknown when that work would start and how much it would cost.

MPO chairwoman, and Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell said she was pleased with the progress made so far.

"This should be on every agenda and my request is that someone from (the DOT) be here to give us an update every month," Farrell said. "I am delighted to hear that this is on the fast track and that there are members of the DOT willing to roll up their sleeves and get down to the nitty gritty."

Wilton First Selectman Paul Hannah warned the state about getting residents too excited about the project.

"There were some people who told us that work on Route 7 was supposed to be done years ago, so it's a tremendous frustration when people just throw out dates and don't follow through," Hannah said.

A 15-page report would be prepared and reviewed in January, and the state would start designing the project early next year, Mora countered.  Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp said no matter the timeline, the MPO has to keep pushing the state to pursue the project.

"We have been very supportive of this approach because primarily this is a safety issue," Knopp said. "We have to work on reducing the congestion." 

Interstate 95's effect on lower Fairfield County business was the topic at a breakout session of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association's all-day conference at the Westin Stamford hotel.  Panelists told about 30 business leaders that the state is aware of what needs to be done to fix the congested highways and aging trains, but things will remain at a standstill until more funding is found.

"It's all about money, money and money," said R. Nelson "Oz" Griebel, president and chief executive officer of the MetroHartford Alliance and chairman of the state Transportation Strategy Board.

The TSB has suggested ways to generate more transportation funds by raising the state sales and gas taxes, and instituting tolls on highways, but Griebel said not enough has been done to push those initiatives ahead.

"We continue to fight with where our dollars should go," he said. "We have not been able to execute on our study. Things are actually gaining momentum in this area, but I don't see anything meaningful happening" this year.  The funding issues go beyond the state. Arthur Gruhn, chief for
the state Department of Transportation's Bureau of Engineering and Highways, said because of issues with federal funds, the state will only be able to "keep the highways in good repair," and won't be able to improve them significantly.

"There's basically no funding for any of these issues we've been talking about," Gruhn said.  Suggested solutions for I-95 include widening the highway and adding more operational lanes at entrance ramps such as the one between southbound exits 10 and 8 in Stamford.

"But the money we might get from the federal government is the same amount we got six years ago," Gruhn said. "And with inflation and other costs increasing, that means, in essence, we're getting less."

Congested highways could scare people away from working in lower Fairfield County, said Mark Bridges, executive director of UBS Investment Bank.  Bridges said UBS hopes to expand its facility to house another 4,000 employees, but as commute times increase and the Metro-North Railroad fleet keeps getting older, those numbers may not be achieved.

"Traffic is starting to have an impact on morale and productivity," Bridges said. "We have people who are here at 7:30 in the morning and stay until 6 or 7 at night because they don't want to face the rush-hour traffic."  For solving the congestion, "I haven't heard an original idea yet," Bridges added.

To get funding initiatives pushed forward, the business leaders need to be more aggressive with their demands, said Michael DeVine, president of DeVine Brothers Inc. in Norwalk.  "It's not for business leaders to analyze these solutions and not leave things in the hands of agencies and legislators," DeVine said.  Every option should be on the table, but there should be an emphasis on highway improvements, he added.
Commuters who opt to take their cars instead of trains should not be fiscally penalized, he said.  There also needs to be a closer look at increasing barge traffic to get more trucks off the road, DeVine said.

Business leaders in attendance reacted strongly to the panel's pessimistic outlook on transportation improvements.

"As a user of the highway, I ask you to find a way to do all these things sooner," said Randy Soloman, an account executive from Village Office Supply in Norwalk who commutes from New Rochelle, N.Y. "If you want tolls, I'll give you tolls. I don't care. I just want things to get done soon."

Robert Karp, president of Business Environments in Stamford and a member of the Stamford Chamber of Commerce's Transportation Committee said the state is lacking a "sincere look" as to how to fix I-95 and that all debate has been exhausted.

"Just looking at rails won't get us out of it," Karp said. "We need to start looking at the highways. It's almost too late to do it as it is. We need to find those solutions, and the money will come later." 

BRIDGEPORT

Interstate 95 travel lanes in both directions on the reconstructed Howard Avenue overpass heavily damaged in a March oil tanker explosion
are to re-open after the weekend holiday.

"Traffic is going to find marked improvement after Labor Day," said Paul Breen, an assistant district engineer with the state Department of Transportation.  "The contractor beat the [DOT's] deadline by a week," Breen said. "They've done an admirable job out there. They've worked a lot of hours."

He said an estimate of the total costs to repair the crippled span is being tabulated. But $13 million in federal funds helped pay for overtime for police and construction crews.  Traffic will switch back to the rebuilt southbound lanes destroyed by the fireball and replaced by a temporary span
on Tuesday, according to the DOT.

The temporary bridge was installed six days after the crash.

Also, the exit 26 southbound off-ramp to Wordin Avenue will be closed from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. that day. The interchange's on-ramp for southbound I-95 will close Tuesday and remained closed indefinitely.  In case of inclement weather, this switch will take effect Wednesday, the DOT said.

On Thursday, northbound I-95 traffic will switch to the newly constructed roadway. The northbound exit 26 off-ramp to Wordin Avenue will be closed until December. The rain date for this northbound traffic switch is Sept. 13.  The ramp closures are due to continuing reconstruction of portions of the highway, according to the DOT.

The repairs are expected to end early next year with realignment of the highway's lanes in both directions, Breen said.  Motorists are urged to obey the 45-mph speed limit in effect for the highway construction zone between exits 24 and 30 on both sides of the highway.  The March 25 highway fire started when a truck carrying 9,000 gallons of heating oil was struck by a 1987 Toyota Corolla near the exit 26 off-ramp on southbound I-95.

The accident forced the tanker into the highway's Jersey barrier and it burst into flames.  The car's driver, Sarah Waddle, 18, of Bank Street in Derby, was charged with failure to drive in the established lane, and faced a $128 fine.  Art Gruhn, chief engineer at the DOT, has said the state will try to recoup damages from Waddle's insurance company.

“Nobody has yet made the decision (that) we need to absolutely, positively build a third lane,” said John Markowicz of Groton, the only southeastern Connecticut member of the board. But if the state does not embark on any interim solutions to I-95 traffic, such as public transit, Markowicz said widening will have to be seriously considered.

“We're going to have to do something with 95,” he said. “But you really can't seriously discuss widening if you don't know if it's feasible.”  The board set aside $1.5 million for the study, projected earlier this year to cost $3 million. The funding comes from the pot of state surplus the General Assembly earmarked for immediate
transportation improvement projects, hoping to alleviate traffic on Connecticut's clogged roads.  The state Department of Transportation will spend the next four to six months hiring consultants to perform the feasibility and environmental study. The actual analysis could take 18 to 20 months, said Markowicz.

Although the I-95 study has consistently appeared on a list of projects to receive the immediate funding, it wasn't official until Friday. It is uncertain whether another southeastern Connecticut project, which calls for an “intermodal tourism service” that provides transportation to visitors in the region, will be funded right away. The $50 million approved by the legislature will likely be pared to $35 million, as lawmakers look to cut programs to balance the state budget.

On Friday, the board doled out only $13.5 million of the first $15 million.  Markowicz said he is still hopeful that the tourism service, once referred to as the Uni-Ticket system, could receive about $100,000 to study whether such a transportation project is feasible. The project, proposed by the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments and the South East Area Transit Authority, would expand local and regional bus services and coordinate with rail and ferry schedules.

Visitors would be able to purchase one ticket for all transportation needs, linking them to everything from the Mystic Seaport Museum to the casinos and local hotels.  The statewide transportation board meets again in December. At that time, funding for the tourism transportation system might be released, Markowicz said.

NORWALK -- Elected officials and residents said last night that upgrades to Metro-North Railroad's Danbury branch are vital to combat traffic congestion.  "I've been wanting this for years," said Republican state Rep. Antonietta "Toni" Boucher, who represents parts of Wilton and Norwalk and attended a forum about the Danbury branch at Norwalk City Hall last night.

Boucher said the state turned its back on the Danbury branch and, as a result, "it's a constant struggle" for branch riders to get needed trains.     A state consultant, Washington Group International, is studying projects to enhance Danbury branch service. Possibilities include track changes, longer passing lanes and replacing diesel engines with electric-powered trains.  The study started recently and the forum was to get public comment. The first phase is expected to be finished in the spring.

Those who attended last night said the state is right to consider infrastructure upgrades, but riders' needs and demographic changes demand a closer look.  "I don't believe that simply improving the travel times with existing service is going to increase ridership," said Martin Overton, Norwalk's assistant director of public works. "What will increase ridership is meeting the needs of those who are not currently on the train."

Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp said the Danbury branch is particularly important, given population and job growth projections.  The Stamford-Norwalk area expects to have job growth while the Danbury area should get population growth, he said, which will increase demand on the Danbury branch.  Washington Group's study will examine the cost of the upgrades. Engineers last night said "electrification" projects for other train lines have cost $1 million a mile or more.  After the cost is clear, the state will have to decide whether increased ridership is worth the money.

"For the people we are going to get, are we willing to make the investment?"  asked Len Lapsis, a supervising planner for the state Department of Transportation.  The Danbury branch stretches from Norwalk into Wilton, Ridgefield, Redding,  Bethel and Danbury on a curvy route that keeps trains at a top speed of 50 mph.  Usual travel time is 47 minutes from Norwalk to Danbury.

Projects are being considered by the Washington Group that could cut the time by five to 15 minutes.  By improving time or frequency, state officials want to attract riders who now take Metro-North's Harlem Line trains.  In a 1992 study, for example, more than 15 percent of the cars parked at the surveyed Harlem Line stations had Connecticut license plates. The largest  percentage of Connecticut license plates were found at stations in Dover Plains,  Harlem Valley-Wingdale, Brewster, Purdy's and Brewster North.

Electric-power train service ended on the Danbury branch in 1961 during a time of decline for passenger rail service in the state and nationally. When it was electrified in 1925, travel time from Danbury to South Norwalk fell from 55 minutes to 42 minutes. 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- If getting stuck in traffic makes you want to roll down your car window and scream, look no further than another of those studies to find the bad news: Gridlock is getting worse. Congestion delayed travelers 79 million more hours and wasted 69 million more gallons of fuel in 2003 than in 2002, the Texas Transportation Institute's 2005 Urban Mobility Report found.

Overall in 2003, there were 3.7 billion hours of travel delay and 2.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel for a total cost of more than $63 billion.

"Urban areas are not adding enough capacity, improving operations or managing demand well enough to keep congestion from growing," the report concluded.

Honolulu became the 51st city in which rush-hour traffic delayed the average motorist at least 20 hours a year. The Hawaiian capital joins such congested areas as Washington, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago - and Virginia Beach, Va., Omaha, Neb., and Colorado Springs, Colo.  The report was released Monday, the same day the Senate resumes debate on a bill that would spend $284 billion on highways over the next six years.

But that's not enough money to solve traffic problems, according to highway and transit advocates.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimated it would take as much as $400 billion in federal spending over the next six years to solve traffic problems, based on a 2002 study.  Roads aren't being built fast enough to carry all the people who now drive on them, according to the Transportation Development Foundation, a group that advocates transportation construction.

The number of vehicle miles traveled has increased 74 percent since 1982, but road lane mileage only increased 6 percent, the foundation said.

Tim Lomax, a co-author of the Urban Mobility Report, said the soft economy and slow job growth in 2003 meant that congestion got worse more slowly than it would have during better times.

"The upside of a slowdown in the economy is the congestion didn't get worse very quickly," Lomax said.

In seven of the 13 major cities, the annual delay per rush-hour traveler actually went down slightly: Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, New York, Houston and Philadelphia.  Lomax said that didn't mean congestion improved throughout each area. It probably just spread out to the suburbs.

"In most of those places, delay actually went up, it just didn't go up as fast as the number of people moving in went up," Lomax said.  Only job loss or major commitments to expand capacity will decrease congestion dramatically, he said.  Refusing to build more roads and transit systems won't discourage population growth, Lomax said.

Take fast-growing Austin, Texas, for example. In 1982, the average peak-hour traveler was delayed by 11 hours a year. That delay increased to 51 hours in 2003, the report said.

"Austin didn't add transportation capacity in the '80s or '90s," Lomax said. "The 'If you don't build it, they won't come' philosophy didn't work."

Congestion can also be reduced by managing traffic better. The report said such techniques as coordinating traffic signals, smoothing traffic flow on major roads and creating teams to respond quickly to accidents reduced delay by 336 million hours in 2003.

Robert Dunphy, senior resident fellow for transportation at the Urban Land Institute, said that half of all traffic delays are caused by car crashes.

"There are huge benefits to getting in there and clearing accidents quickly," Dunphy said.

Commuters also adapt, said Alan Pisarski, author of "Commuting in America" and a transportation consultant.

"People give up and go somewhere else," he said. "Or else they're leaving home at 6 a.m. or 9 a.m."

Traffic is a big problem -- Stamford, Greenwich and Norwalk residents have differing opinions, but they agree on one thing--and it's only getting worse.

Of all of the topics discussed in The Advocate/Greenwich Time How's Life? Poll, nothing brought the three communities together more than the aggravation they experience on the roads.

"The public has been conditioned to believe that congestion is the worst in Fairfield County," said Joe McGee, vice president of public policy for the Business Council of Fairfield County.

"But the truth is, the whole tri-state area has a congestion problem," he added.  According to the survey, which polled 167 people by telephone in each community, 68 percent said transportation was a major problem.

While it's true that traffic problems extend beyond lower Fairfield County, perhaps many residents think there's no light at the end of the tunnel. When asked whether they anticipate traffic getting better or worse in the next five years, 72 percent said it would get worse and 17 percent thought it would stay the same.

Most commutes last 10 to 15 minutes, the survey said, but 54 percent of all respondents said they get caught in traffic several times a week.

Even in Greenwich, where responses to questions about public safety, aesthetics, education and housing were overwhelmingly positive, transportation was identified as a serious problem.

"It's the one bugaboo," said Tom Ragland, Greenwich first selectman from 1995 to 1999.

However, far fewer Greenwich residents cited traffic as "a crisis" than in Norwalk and Stamford. Eleven percent of Greenwich respondents said traffic was a crisis compared with 27 percent in Norwalk and 23 percent in Stamford.  The poll also showed more Greenwich residents take public transportation and work out of their homes. Eighty-one percent of Norwalk residents said they drive to work compared with 78 percent in Stamford and 62 percent in Greenwich.

That also may explain why more than a quarter of Norwalk residents said they get stuck in traffic every day. Twenty-one percent of Greenwich respondents and 16 percent of Stamford residents said they got stuck every day.  The lack of progress in addressing transportation problems may explain why the issue draws universal negativity from all three communities, critics said.

"We don't need anymore studies," outgoing House Speaker Moira Lyons, D-Stamford, said at a recent Transportation Strategy Board meeting "We know what work needs to be done."

First, there's the highways. More than 130,000 cars a day travel on Interstate 95 between Greenwich and Westport -- and that number is projected to increase by 30 percent over the next 25 years. When I-95 was built more than 50 years ago, it was meant to accommodate 90,000 cars a day.

Several ideas have been considered regarding how to fix the congestion. Former Gov. John Rowland commissioned a study to see how driving in the highway's shoulder would help, but that was deemed hazardous by the state Department of Transportation. There's also been discussion of widening the highway, but the expense and the negative environmental impact has created some skeptics.

Then there's public transportation. Metro-North Railroad's New Haven Line carries about 75,000 passengers a day on a 30-year-old antiquated rail fleet that's about 10 years past its life expectancy.  Last winter, rail cars were breaking down faster than they could be repaired, exposing the vulnerability of the system. The state is trying to finance new rail cars for $1.3 billion. The plan is expected to be debated in the upcoming session of the state General Assembly.

"We have people here who are not dealing with this issue effectively," McGee said. "If you deal with it effectively, then some of these things are not impossible."

It's not that the DOT is not trying to come up with solutions, said Jim Boice, interim bureau chief for the Bureau of Public Transportation.

"We're looking to address many of these issues," Boice said. "And we should see some improvements."

To help with I-95, the DOT is moving ahead on adding more auxiliary lanes, which are extensions of on-ramps, to help reduce congestion. One is now in use between exits 10 and 8 on the southbound side of I-95, and a DOT report said accidents have been reduced there by 30 percent.

For the rails, the state recently purchased 26 used rail cars from Virginia Railway Express for $14 million. Those 26 cars will be placed on the Shore Line East Railroad and Shore Line cars will be transferred to the New Haven Line, adding 2,000 more seats.

But transit advocates say these are only short-term solutions.

"It's unrealistic to think there will ever be a complete elimination of traffic," said Robert Wilson, executive director of the South Western Regional Planning Agency. "We have to keep working on identifying where there are deficiencies."

The biggest problem seems to be funding. All of the long-term improvements costs billions of dollars the state doesn't have. The TSB outlined a range of options, including raising the gas tax or sales tax and a more controversial plan to reinstate tolls, but nothing is eminent.

There is also a divide on prioritizing transportation improvements. While Wilson said, "the biggest need must be utilizing the railroad," others, such as members of the Greenwich, Stamford and Greater Norwalk Chambers of Commerce, are pushing for widening I-95 because more people use it.

According to the poll, 75 percent of all respondents drive to work while only 11 percent use public transportation.  Rail advocates defended the reasons for sending more funds to the smaller group.

"It's a relatively small percentage, but those are the bread winners of the state," said Jim Cameron, vice chairman of the Connecticut Commuter Rail Council. "They have the most taxable income."  At a TSB meeting held this month in Stamford, about 70 politicians, commuters and business leaders showed up to make the case for better transportation.

Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp, who also serves on the South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, said this kind of outcry could be a sign for the days ahead in Hartford.

"If this issues doesn't get resolved soon, it may become the single biggest issue of the 2006 gubernatorial election," he said.

WASHINGTON -- The nation's traffic problems are getting worse faster than they can be fixed even in small cities, according to a new study that calls Connecticut's traffic problems comparable to those of the rest of the United States.

In the 85 biggest U.S. cities, snarled traffic is costing travelers 3.5 billion hours a year, up from 700 million two decades ago, according to the Texas Transportation Institute's annual Urban Mobility Report released Tuesday.

In Connecticut, the traffic tie-ups around Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven were considered of "average" length by the study. Motorists in the Bridgeport-Stamford area experienced about 31 hours annually in delays, in New Haven it was about 22 hours and in the Hartford area it was 17 hours.

A solution to ever-growing traffic jams isn't likely to come soon, transit and highway advocates say...

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates it would take federal spending as great as $400 billion over the next six years to solve traffic problems, according to a 2002 study.

"We just aren't keeping pace," said John Horsley, AASHTO's executive director. "Our capacity improvements - new highways or transit - are growing at 10 percent the rate needed."

Congress, though, is likely to approve billions less than what highway and transit advocates say is required.

The House has agreed to $299 billion over the next six years. The Senate approved $318 billion, but Senate sponsors say President Bush probably will approve a more recent proposal of $301 billion.

While lawmakers wrangle, federal spending remains stuck at the rate it has been for the past six years - $218 billion.

"We need action now," said William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association. "Congestion is only getting worse."

Using data from 1982 to 2002, the Texas Transportation Institute, part of Texas A&M University, measured just how much worse it is getting.

Over that period, the study recorded the greatest leap in congestion in Dallas, from 13 hours annually in 1982 for the average peak-period traveler to 61 hours annually in 2002, and in Riverside, Calif., from nine hours annually per rush-hour traveler in 1982 to 57 hours on average in 2002.

The average urban commuter was stuck in traffic 46 hours a year in 2002, a 187 percent increase over the 16 hours lost in 1982.

In 54 cities, traffic jams increased 30 percent faster than roads could be built to alleviate them.

Federal Highway Administration chief Mary Peters said part of the problem is that the main source of road money - the federal gasoline tax - was designed to create the interstate highway system in the 1950s. Under that system, every state gets part of the federal dollars collected.

"We're not necessarily applying money where we need to relieve congestion," Peters said. "We can't say to the Montanas and the Wyomings of the world, You're not important.'"

Peters said new ways of paying for roads and transit systems need to be found. The Bush administration is promoting user fees, such as those that would charge motorists to drive in less-congested lanes during rush hours.

Another proposal to solve traffic problems in the short-term is to manage traffic flow better, Peters said.

Tim Lomax, the report's author, said Tampa, Fla., is a good example of a city that has eased traffic in ways other than building roads. Like many cities, it has coordinated its traffic signals, smoothed traffic flow on major roads and created teams to respond quickly to accidents. Such programs have reduced traffic delays in Tampa by 7 percent.

The report is based on data from the states and the Transportation Department.

Westport First Selectman Diane Farrell last week made a presentation to the South Western Regional Planning Agency, explaining what she believes are the positive aspects of consolidating the agency with another and having the chief elected officials run the
combined body. It could be organized as a council of governments or elected officials.

The idea has been discussed for several months.  Farrell said her presentation was meant to "get the ball rolling." The topic will come up again at the end of this month at a meeting of the Southwestern Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, the other
agency involved, said Farrell, chairwoman of that group.  A decision is several months away, she said. Most municipalities would have to pass ordinances to make the change possible.

SWRPA, which covers eight towns in lower Fairfield County, is one of 15 regional planning organizations in Connecticut that draws up plans of conservation and development and can be consulted on local land-use applications. Of the 15, five are organized as agencies such as SWRPA. The others are councils of government or elected officials, the two other forms of regional planning
organizations permitted by state law.

The state also has 15 Metropolitan Planning Organizations that work with the regional planning groups. The MPOs comprise the top elected official in each municipality, work as separate bodies and act only on transportation issues.  Farrell is spearheading the effort to merge the MPO and SWRPA, replacing the appointed SWRPA board with the top elected officials that comprise the MPO.  The southwestern MPO covers the same eight towns as SWRPA -- Greenwich, Stamford, Norwalk, Darien, New Canaan, Westport, Weston and Wilton.

If the groups consolidate, one agency would decide transportation and land-use planning issues. One advantage is that chief elected officials who act as a group carry more clout at the state Capitol, using other councils as an example.  "We already face adversity because we're outside of the Hartford beltway, and we really need every best advantage to make sure we have a presence in Hartford," Farrell said.

Communities in lower Fairfield County must coordinate land-use planning to tackle such common problems as traffic congestion and lack of affordable housing, she said.  The plan has opponents, including outgoing New Canaan First Selectman Richard Bond, who has said it flies in the face of the "Connecticut Yankee" tradition of home rule.

Discussion at a SWRPA meeting last week raised concerns, including whether local officials might have goals that don't make the sense for the region. For example, Farrell said, local officials like to see grand list growth, especially in the commercial sector, to increase property tax revenues.  "They might compromise by putting a big-box retail store in an area that really can't support it," she said, but said such decisions could be checked by other elected officials.

SWRPA Executive Director Robert Wilson said some decisions likely would take a political bent, but with little negative impact.  "I don't think there's any doubt that politics could ultimately play some role in these decisions," Wilson said. "But that's just the fact of life with elected officials.  I don't think it's something they can be faulted for. There still would be eight members making those decisions."

Having the top elected officials work together on land-use planning could strengthen the region's master plan of conservation and development, Wilson said.  "You can't look at transportation and land use separately," he said. "Having a unified policy board looking at land use and transportation would probably be a benefit. It would also to a large degree be more efficient."

The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, which covers 20 municipalities including Groton and New London, changed from a regional planning group such as SWRPA to a council of governments about 10 years ago.  Executive Director James Butler worked as a staff planner in the predecessor organization and returned several years ago as director of the new council. He said the change has increased the group's effectiveness.

"It has broadened the scope of what we're looking at," Butler said. "We're no longer just dealing with local land-use issues. Now, we have the chief elected officials coming together, and they look at a whole lot more than just preparing and adopting a plan of development."  For example, the Southeastern Council of Governments is considering a joint purchasing plan, offering professional training for municipalities and forming a citizen's council to train people to respond to emergencies and terrorist attacks, Butler said.

The state's Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Initiatives released a report last month encouraging the regional planning agencies to move to the council of government model.

HARTFORD -- The state Department of Transportation yesterday ended the $2 surcharge on cab rides at the Stamford train station and set an Aug. 30 public hearing to help come up with a new way to pay for organizing taxis.

The DOT began the surcharge in March to pay for a "starter" to direct cabs and riders at the train station.  But riders complained the charge was too high and cabbies said they lost tips because of it. Officials said the system created too many problems and made little sense, considering the DOT's mission to encourage mass transit.

The state will lose about $150,000 maintaining the system this fiscal year, a DOT official has said.

Last week, Gov. M. Jodi Rell issued an order to end the surcharge, but starters continued to collect it this week, angering commuters. Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and Speaker of the House Moira Lyons, D-Stamford, said they received complaints.

Yesterday, Malloy sent an intern to the train station to verify that the fee was being collected. The DOT did not tell him anything about when it would be lifted, Malloy said.

Rell said yesterday she thought her July 26 order ended the surcharge. She also gave the DOT 15 days to come up with a new system.

It was not clear yesterday why the $2 fee was being charged.

But late yesterday afternoon, DOT Commissioner Stephen Korta announced that it would end last night and will not be re-instated until further notice.

The Aug. 30 hearing will give taxi riders a chance to offer suggestions for a new system, Korta said.

"We want to make sure the new system is supported by our commuters as well as the taxi operators," he said.

Lyons said she doesn't think there will be a replacement system because the Legislature won't put up with it. The DOT has not demonstrated that it needs to pay for a starter to coordinate cabs and customers plus an off-duty Stamford police officer to direct traffic. The surcharge pays for both.

"Do we need a starter? Of course we do, but I don't know why we have to have a police officer," Lyons said. "If there's a problem, fine, then you can bring in enforcement. But I don't think we have a problem."

The state Transportation Fund should pay for the starter because DOT and state Transportation Strategy Board policies are to boost mass transit, she said.

"That's part of encouraging people to take the train," Lyons said.

She spoke with DOT Public Transportation Bureau Chief Harry Harris on Wednesday to relay complaints of commuters who thought the surcharge was supposed to end with Rell's order, Lyons said.

DOT spokesman Chris Cooper said the surcharge is ending within the 15-day window Rell allowed for a new system to begin.

Some Metro-North Railroad riders said they will show up at the hearing with plenty to say.

One, Carmine Passero, said he usually avoided the taxi surcharge.

"I walk down to Washington Boulevard and flag one down," Passero said. "I refuse to pay. But what about those day laborers who come to clean someone's home? For them, $2 is a lot of money...For those who don't have a choice, it's awful."

He will bring a sign to the hearing that reads "The public wants this to end," Passero said.

The hearing will be held at 7 p.m. Monday, Aug. 30, in the first-floor conference room of the University of Connecticut Stamford campus at Washington Boulevard and Broad Street.

It's about time for the state to act, said McDonald, who months ago lobbied to stop the surcharge.

"The system was inherently flawed and hopelessly confused from the outset, and it's just regrettable that it took the state so long to acknowledge that fact and discontinue its use," he said.

"I'm sorry they say Virginia on the front," she said. "But the fact is, they're in Connecticut now."

At Union Station in New Haven yesterday, the state unveiled three of the 26 used rail cars purchased last month from Virginia Railway Express. Those cars allow the state to meet its goal of adding 2,000 more seats to its rail systems.
After taking a guided tour, Rell had glowing praise for the new $14 million acquisition.

"They look great," she said while passing by the rows of red and blue seats. "These things are in tip-top shape."

The most noticeable difference is the "Virginia Railway Express" logo tattooed along the top and sides of cars. Inside the train car, the seats are brighter, the floors are cleaner and the overall conditions appear newer than what Connecticut commuters are used to with Metro-North Railroad.

But Metro-North will not benefit directly from these cars. After being reconfigured to run on the state's rail systems, the cars will be placed on Shore Line East Railroad, and 26 Shore Line cars will be switched to Metro-North. The cars from Virginia are 12 years old; the Shore Line cars are a decade old.  Because the Virginia rail cars are diesel engines, they are not compatible with Metro-North.

The state Department of Transportation initially wanted to refurbish all the Virginia cars and remove the logos, but when the governor found out that process could last until February, she demanded the cars be ready to go by the end of this month -- Virginia logos and all.

"We couldn't wait for next year," Rell said. "I told them they had to move it up."

DOT Commissioner Stephen Korta said the cars were only going to be delayed for the refurbishing, and they will be safe to use once they are put into use.  About 15 cars should be ready by the end of the month and the other nine will be here by the end of the year, said DOT spokesman Chris Cooper. The cars are being stored at the New Haven rail yard for routine maintenance.

Rail advocates and legislators praised the governor for aggressively pursuing the Virginia cars, but wanted to remind commuters the new acquisition is not going to solve all of Metro-North's problems.

"It's encouraging that the governor is fulfilling her promise . . . but at the same time my level of joy is tempered," said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford. "We're still going inherit old cars from the Shore Line East and I hope what we inherit isn't as decrepit as what we already got."

Last winter, almost one-third of the Metro-North fleet was knocked out of commission because of the cold weather. Many of the cars are 30 years old -- 10 years past their life expectancy.  McDonald said he hopes Rell makes the proposed $1 billion long-term plan to buy new rail cars for Metro-North her top priority when the legislature meets in January.

"People will now have a place to sit because of these cars, but they need to understand that this is nothing more than a stop-gap," McDonald said.

Jim Cameron, vice chairman of the Connecticut Commuter Rail Council said commuters should expect a repeat of last winter if the weather gets bad.  "I'm just warning commuters," Cameron said. Until the state gets new cars, "it's no one's faults but the legislators. Not Metro-North. Not DOT. But (Rell) can turn that around."

Poll proposed to take pulse on transit issues
By Mark Ginocchio, Stamford ADVOCATE
September 27, 2004
HARTFORD -- State residents soon could be participating in a new kind of poll asking how willing they are to pay for transportation improvements.
Instead of conducting a phone survey or asking residents to fill out a questionnaire, officials at last week's Transportation Strategy Board meeting proposed a "deliberate poll."

It would ask randomly selected residents to spend a day learning about revenue-generating methods such as a higher gas tax or additional tolls on state highways.  At the end of the session, which could take place in the spring, residents would be broken up into groups and their feedback recorded. The results would be used in the board's funding recommendations to the state Department of Transportation.

Such a poll has never been used for policy making but should be reliable, said board Chairman R. Nelson "Oz" Griebel.  "It gets right down to the level of time and substance," Griebel said. "It will get the opposition to understand the problem and help them propose a solution."

The board is shying away from a traditional poll because the issues are too complicated for "yes" and "no" questions, Griebel said. The goal is to get residents to understand that if they want better roads and mass transit systems, there has to be a trade-off.

"The polling process does not allow you to get into what a 'yes' means and what a 'no' means," he said. "People can hear the word 'tolls' and think, 'Over my dead body" . . . but this will make them think about it."

Past studies show a significant shift in how people think about the issues after they meet, said board member Michael Meotti, president of the Connecticut Policy and Economic Council.  Critics questioned whether public opinion is being manipulated.  "If the survey shifts people's opinions and makes them more moderate, I'm still skeptical how you can take that information to the Legislature," said board member George Giguere, president of Giguere Associates.

There was debate about the selection of participants. Meotti said as many as 400 participants could be paid a small stipend, but one board member questioned whether that would elicit an unbiased response.  "It's not a random sample because you're selecting people who are willing to sell their Saturday," said board member Carl Stephani, executive director of the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency.  Stephani wanted to know what the survey would cost. Griebel said the state would have to hire a consultant to conduct the poll.

"If this costs more than a standard survey, I will not support this motion," Stephani said.

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, did not attend the meeting but said he is skeptical.

"I hope the survey is done in a way that is sensitive to the geographic disparities that exist in our transportation problems," McDonald said. "Hartford and New Haven pale in comparison to the kind of problems we have."

While state officials may "find out what's palatable to citizens," they still haven't "defined what they want to achieve," he said.

At their next meeting in October, board members will discuss how much they would be willing to spend on the study and which firms to contact, Griebel said. If the plan is approved, they could start planning the survey by the end of the year.

U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen wrangled $200,000 into the federal spending bill to help Oak Harbor fund a project to move a pair of waterlines near Deception Pass.  Mary Owens, assistant to Mayor Patty Cohen, said the mayor keeps in close contact with state and national legislators, and discussed the waterline project with Larsen.

“The city is very appreciative of the funding received through Rep. Rick Larsen’s office,” Cohen said. “This will have a direct benefit for Oak Harbor citizens and the Navy. Without funding assistance on this highway safety project, the city would have to rely on bonding for the cost difference and passing those costs onto the rate payers.”

Still, Oak Harbor engineer Eric Johnston said the city must come up with a lot of money on its own to fund the entire $1.2 million project. Luckily, the state Public Works Board has recommended that Oak Harbor receive an $850,000 loan at a interest rate of 0.5 percent over 20 years...

Two years ago former Gov. John G. Rowland killed all discussion of resurrecting tolls on Interstate 95, but now a state transportation advisory board wants to study the viability of just such a plan.

The Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment Area, an advisory board made up of Fairfield and New Haven county representatives, endorsed a study of how tolls on I-95 would affect congestion.

The toll idea isn't just a revenue-raising venture, according to Franklin Bloomer, the CCTIA co-chairman. The system envisioned would include an adjustable rate for traveling I-95 depending on the time of day. The idea, Bloomer said, is to raise the cost of tolls during rush hour.

This is called value- or congestion-pricing and is designed to encourage people to stay off the roads unless it's absolutely necessary, he said. "When you have a scarce commodity, you price it appropriately," he said.  Bloomer said the TIA's goal is to get people to take the idea seriously more than two years after it was first suggested.

Back then, the South Western Regional Planning Agency suggested a multi-year study of tolls under a new federal program aimed at reducing congestion.  But Rowland and the state Department of Transportation would not sign a letter of support for the project, which killed it, Bloomer said.  At the time, the study was expected to cost about $300,000, with the state paying $50,000 and the federal government paying for the remainder.

Bloomer said because Rowland resigned and there has been a shakeup at the DOT, the CCTIA felt it was time to move forward with the study.  The CCTIA is one of five advisory boards to the Transportation Strategy Board, which is charged with directing transportation policies for Connecticut.

Melissa Leigh, assistant director of SWRPA, said the original study would have gauged public support for the proposal, explored what kind of technology could be used, how to implement the system and how long it would take before the system paid for itself.

Supporters of tolls have said that the state could set up a purely electronic system that would not require people to stop at tollbooths and pay with cash. These systems use a transponder in the car to communicate with equipment at tolling stations. Most of these types of systems require people to have a credit card that is billed when they travel through tollbooths, but not everyone has a credit card, which could present a problem. Another problem is how to charge out-of-state travelers who are just passing through and don't have the Connecticut transponders.

Leigh said there are a number of new technologies that might allow people without credit cards to receive bills via mail. She also said the system would have to be compatible with surrounding states' systems to allow for easy travel in the region.  Leigh, however, said a lot has changed since 2002. She said Congress still has not passed a new six-year transportation authorization act, which presumably could create funding for the study.

There also are questions about how congestion pricing will be overseen at the federal level, she said.  Ultimately, even if the state embarks on a study, the review process would take at least two years and Bloomer admits that it would probably be several more years before tolls could be on the highways.

The Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment Area, a sub-group of the Transportation Strategy Board, is looking for state funding to study ways to create a statewide tolling system to help subsidize transportation initiatives.

The study, which is similar to a project endorsed by the South Western Regional Planning Agency two years ago but rejected by former Gov. John Rowland, would examine the feasibility of different types of tolls from the New York state border to the interchange of Interstates 95 and 91 in New Haven.

One possible toll system would charge trucks and passenger vehicles increased rates during peak hours; another option is "gateway tolls," which would charge motorists entering the state in Greenwich and at the 95/91 interchange.

Both systems would use an EZ Pass-type automated system that won't affect traffic flow, TIA members said.

Revenues would go directly into a state transportation fund and be used to purchase new rail cars and for highway improvements.

TIA members would not endorse any specific kind of tolls, but said they hoped the state would provide funding to study possible solutions.

"This is an option that has always needed to be considered," TIA co-chairman Franklin Bloomer said. "Governor Rowland refused to allow DOT to fund this a few years ago but our feeling is now, at this time, without his opposition, the state would be more open to different solutions."

The study could cost as much as $250,000, Bloomer said. Instating tolls to raise money for a transportation fund has long been championed by the Transportation Strategy Board, which has also suggested raising the state's gas and sales tax to generate more revenue.

The TIA will pitch its resolution to the full Transportation Strategy Board when the board meets next month.

In addition to raising more funds, tolls also could deter motorists from cramming the state's over-congested roads, Bloomer said. The state also could pursue lowering fares on Metro-North Railroad during peak hours to offset tolls to serve as an added incentive for commuters to use mass transit, he added.

"That way there will be a real economic difference of one over another," Bloomer said.

TIA members are divided as to what kind of tolls should be used. While Bloomer said gateway tolls are probably not an option, Joseph McGee, vice president of The Business Council of Fairfield County, supports them.

McGee envisions a gateway toll that would charge about $2 for cars and $4 for trucks. With the latest technology, there shouldn't be backups at toll plazas, he said, noting that states such as New Jersey and Delaware have used this system successfully.

"The highway is only getting worse and it's turning into a national embarrassment," McGee said.

He also said The Business Council's support of this initiative proves how critical the traffic problem is: The council was one of the main opponents of tolls 20 years ago.

Legislators said a toll study may not useful because the funding needed for new rail cars has to be found immediately.

"The governor will be introducing her budget in the next two months and the administration said there's going to be a prepared funding mechanism in place" for new rail cars, state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said. "With that in mind, I'm not sure what's the relative worth of studying how to generate revenue this way."

State Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, said the study is a "distraction," and bonds should be issued to get the rail cars on the tracks as quickly as possible.

TIA members admitted that because a tolling system would probably not go into effect until a few years from now, the money collected wouldn't necessarily go to the next generation of rail cars.

But TIA Co-chairwoman Karen Burnaska said the tolls could still be a vital part of the state's future.

"These other ideas are only looking in the short-term and it's critical that we keep thinking about the long-term transportation plans in this state," she said. "This is all part of a 20-year plan for the transportation in this state. We need to keep that in mind."

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has approved the changes the beleaguered Department of Transportation is offering as it attempts to clean up its contracting process.

Rell told the Connecticut Post Monday that the DOT will phase in a slew of changes that will centralize the awarding of contracts for department work to create safeguards against fraud and abuse.

New procedures will include:

 
Establishing a committee to review and approve the specifications used for commodities and contractual services;

Developing a manual of uniform contract and bidding processes for all divisions and provide training to staff to oversee these processes;

And creating an internal audit process for contract awards and bids among several other procedures.

"This plan lays out uniform steps for every contract, so red flags ought to go up whenever an inconsistency is noted, Rell said.  The governor said that she also wants to ensure that projects will not be slowed down and "every dollar is spent appropriately and for its intended purpose.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said on Friday that he had reviewed the DOT's changes and agreed that they made sense and would help create a better system.  A rail advocacy group heralded the changes.

James Cameron, vice chairman of the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council, said because DOT projects are so costly, "anything [the state government] can do to prevent waste is a great idea.  Cameron said he is hopeful that the new system won't slow projects, especially plans to buy new railcars.

Rell has publicly committed to trying to purchase $1 billion worth of railcars to replace the state's aging, breakdown-prone fleet.  But after a decade of putting off the purchase in favor of other transportation projects, the state may now find it hard to come up with the money because it's swamped in debt, according to the Office of Policy and Management.

The genesis for these changes at the DOT actually comes from its commissioner.

Stephen Korta II took over as DOT commissioner in April and his investigation of procedures uncovered several problems. He referred them to Rell while starting to draw up plans to revamp the DOT's operations, according to the DOT and Rell's office.  Rell ordered the state Auditors of Public Accounts to investigate the DOT and has also recommended that the U.S. District Attorney and the State's Chief Attorney investigate the department.

In an October report, the auditors uncovered several cases of contracts being awarded without bids and questioned the DOT's oversight of parking revenues at the Bridgeport and Stamford train stations.  In November, the DOT's highway office was also rocked by allegations of unfair bidding practices and possible corruption.

Investigations into the incidents are ongoing.

HARTFORD -- Four longtime state Department of Transportation supervisors, including a bureau chief, were placed on paid administrative leave after an audit found serious irregularities with the handling of state contracts, bank accounts, invoices and bidding procedures, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said yesterday.

In addition, state officials said they asked the U.S. attorney's office last month to conduct a full investigation of activities in the Bureau of Public Transportation, which oversees rail and bus operation, because it receives state and federal funding.

Harry Harris, bureau chief; Raymond Cox, public transit assistant administrator; Carl Rosa, director of concessions operations and revenue; and Robert Sereno, supervising rail officer, all face disciplinary actions.

All have the right to appeal their suspensions, Rell said.

"Findings of the audit indicate a pattern of deception and repeated circumvention of the state's contracting procedures," she said at a news conference in Hartford. "These actions did not occur on my watch, but I will tell you, they will not continue on my watch," she added.

None of the four men could be reached for comment last night. Auditors identified 10 matters of concern from 2000 to this year, including falsified invoices and an unexplained drop in parking revenues at the Stamford train station from October 2002 to February 2003.

The bureau used Bridgeport company Unicco Services Co. on an emergency basis to act as a property manager at the Bridgeport Transportation Center and later at the Stamford station.

The company was later used to manage capital projects at those facilities and at New Haven's Union Station, even though it did not have the expertise in managing capital projects, the audit said.

The audit uncovered falsified invoices for work charged at the Stamford station that was done at the New Haven station, where Harris' office is located. During the period when parking revenues dropped at the station, there was also a significant increase in "no charge" tickets.

The state took over control of the Stamford station from the city in 2000 and made $79 million worth of renovations and security upgrades that were finished earlier this year. The state also expanded the station's parking garage to 2,000 spaces to eliminate waiting lists. That project was finished in February.

A review of 13 projects administered by Unicco, each exceeding $100,000, found a documented bid process was evident in only two instances. For capital projects related to office renovations at the New Haven station, the property manager did not advertise for proposals, the audit said.

Unicco officials said in a statement last night they had cooperated with the Bureau of Public Transportation's audit, including voluntarily providing officials with information. But because the state and the U.S. attorney are investigating, they would not comment further.

The audit also revealed that the bureau did not set lease rates according to the established guidelines. The bureau leases certain DOT-owned properties, such as retail space within its facilities. According to the audit, 19 of 23 leases did not have sufficient support to justify the lease amounts that were determined.

The bureau has an annual operating budget of about $120 million and a $100 million capital budget.

Because the investigation is ongoing, DOT Commissioner Stephen Korta would not say if any of the four employees had financially gained anything during the period examined.

It was revealed earlier this year that a company given $546,000 last year to renovate the New Haven station installed a $20,000 bathroom in Harris' Fairfield home. Harris has said he fully paid for the work.

Sereno is the longest tenured employee, starting in 1966.

James Boice, bureau chief of policy and planning at the DOT, has been named interim bureau chief for public transportation, Korta said.

Local legislators praised Rell yesterday for her actions and said they support her as the investigation continues.

"I think this is a critical interim step, pending the conclusion of these administrative inquiries," state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said in a phone interview yesterday.

McDonald said he was particularly stung by the allegations that revenues were missing from the Stamford parking garage, especially because the state initially refused to shoulder costs of a taxi starter system at the train station.

"We were consistently told that a taxi starter system would be a financial drain on the state. . . . Meanwhile, the money was allegedly being sent backdoored for unauthorized purchases," McDonald said.

State Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, said he was concerned that the allegations would further damage commuter confidence in the railroad.

"It's particularly ironic that the faked invoices, bid rigging and missing funds all seem to involve rail parking, which is precisely the area which needs expansion," Nickerson said. "Their confidence is shaken, but I'm sure their confidence will be restored."

Nickerson, a member of the Legislature's Transportation Committee, said the audit shows the committee needs to extend its oversight of the Department of Transportation and impose its policies, "rather than have the DOT dole out its policy to the committee."

Christopher Bruhl, president and chief executive officer of SACIA, The Business Council of Southwestern Connecticut, applauded the governor's actions. But Bruhl, a longtime friend of Harris -- who was a SACIA member for 20 years before joining the DOT in 1995 -- remained supportive of his former colleague.

"Harry is a good man and has a reputation for his generosity," Bruhl said. "This is a troubling and sad day. If any errors were made, they were errors of judgment and not for personal gain."

Rell, a Republican, called for the audit of the DOT this summer just after she took over from Gov. John G. Rowland, who resigned July 1 amid a legislative impeachment inquiry and a federal corruption investigation into his administration. Rell said she was troubled by the findings of an internal review conducted by Korta that came after allegations of misconduct involving DOT employees.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been requested to conduct a civil investigation court action if necessary, Rell said.

New London — The financial burdens and operational challenges of running the privately owned Union Station threaten its future as a regional transportation center, say the building's owners.  Co-owner Todd O'Donnell outlined the problems he and co-owner Barbara Timken face in a four-page letter to the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments dated April 17.

The letter was discussed at a Council of Governments meeting Monday.

The owners are seeking regional and state partnerships in an effort to maintain Union Station and surrounding property as a transportation hub used by Amtrak, Greyhound Bus Line, Southeast Area Transit, shuttle buses and taxis. The building is also positioned near ferry services.

Most of the concerns detailed by O'Donnell are financial. Unlike other rail stations and transportation centers in the state, Union Station “is not a public entity or quasi-public agency that can raise revenues through taxes or federal transportation grants,” O'Donnell wrote in the letter.

That leaves rent from tenants as the only source of income generated by the 27,000-square-foot building. But leasing to transportation-related tenants has been costly, according to O'Donnell's letter.

Amtrak and Greyhound lease a total of 4,500 square feet in Union Station. But cash-strapped Amtrak failed to pay rent for 10 months in 2004, O'Donnell said. When Amtrak considered moving into a waiting-room trailer along South Water Street, its rent was reduced. Amtrak is now on a month-to-month lease and may downsize in New London, O'Donnell said, calling the rail service provider “a high-risk, high-cost tenant.”

“We cannot underwrite Amtrak's presence anymore. There is a strong likelihood Amtrak will move out of the station lobby,” O'Donnell said.

Greyhound leases less than 1,500 square feet, but its buses use more than 7,000 square feet of space outside that generates no rent, space that could otherwise be used for parking to accommodate other tenants, O'Donnell said.

The Union Station owners want the Council of Governments' help in preserving the building as a transportation center, he wrote in the letter. A public-private partnership could “create an effective, safe and vibrant transportation center that simultaneously accommodates public transportation users and rent-paying tenants.”

“I'm going to do some investigating and see if we can't resolve some of these issues,” said Council of Governments Chairman Keith J. Robbins.  City Manager Richard M. Brown, New London's representative on the Council of Governments, said Tuesday, “I understand some of the concerns that Mr. O'Donnell has raised. As a representative of COG and New London, I'm willing to work with him and anybody else who has concerns about the cost of doing business.”

Local and regional officials emphasized the building's importance to regional transportation.

“I can't imagine that the regional transportation center could exist without Union Station,” said Mayor Beth A. Sabilia, who called O'Donnell's letter to the Council of Governments “the right approach.”

“Union Station has historically served as the region's multimodal station,” said James Butler, COG executive director, who declined to comment on the specifics of the letter. “We've got high-speed ferries, conventional ferries, Amtrak, buses — they're all coming together in New London.”

“Amtrak is reviewing the matter,” Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black said of the letter.

Other transportation entities use Union Station property without paying rent, and their presence costs money, O'Donnell said. SEAT stops on Union Station property and has a kiosk and benches there. “We receive no compensation, yet we pay property taxes on the land that provides a public service and our liability insurance must cover claims for SEAT incidents. We are currently being sued by a SEAT passenger,” O'Donnell stated in the letter.

The cost of insurance for Union Station has risen 350 percent since 2001, O'Donnell said. Most companies don't insure train stations, he said, and the previous insurance carrier for the building canceled the policy last year after train-station bombings in London.

Bathroom security, maintenance and repair constitute “one of our biggest operating expenses,” O'Donnell said. Meant for Amtrak passengers, the bathrooms are also used by SEAT passengers and employees, ferry passengers, taxi drivers and members of the public.

An ongoing, three-year lawsuit the Union Station owners fought against the City of New London as a result of an eminent domain taking in May 2003 in anticipation of a since-abandoned project to build a pedestrian bridge “has been, and continues to be, extraordinarily expensive,” O'Donnell said in the letter.

O'Donnell also has safety concerns, he said in the letter. “As an urban center, New London supports more than its share of the region's indigent population. And Union Station supports more than its share of New London's indigent population. It is an expensive and unsafe situation that calls for a more sophisticated response than hiring a security guard or calling the police, which is all we can do,” O'Donnell said.

He stops short in the letter of listing specific alternatives to operating Union Station as a transportation center, though, “On a net revenue basis retail, office, or commercial tenants are more valuable than transportation tenants to a landlord,” he said.

O'Donnell did not say in the letter how such a partnership might be structured. He asked for assistance with coordination and location of the taxis and buses that use the Union Station property; accessing public-sector funds for maintaining the portion of the building used by the public; developing a business relationship with SEAT; and planning and accessing federal funds for long-term maintenance and improvements.

The Council of Governments could also oversee proposals that could affect Union Station, such as ideas for Thames River shuttle boats, cruise ships, increased Shoreline East traffic or passenger rail service to Norwich, O'Donnell said. “While we welcome all transportation ideas that increase economic activity we cannot be expected to subsidize them,” he said.

“Our primary objective is to work with COG and the state to hopefully keep this 120-year-old train station as a train station and transportation center,” O'Donnell said Tuesday.

Union Station was commissioned in 1885, designed by famed American architect Henry Hobson Richardson and completed in 1888 after his death.  Preservationists saved the historic building in the early 1970s from a popular plan by the New London Redevelopment Agency to raze it.

Union Station has been under private ownership since October 1975, when architectural firm Anderson Notter Associates bought it with the help of nonprofit Union Railroad Station Trust.

Washington — The national passenger rail service risks a “major point of failure” if infrastructure needs remain unaddressed, the U.S. Department of Transportation warned in a scathing report made public today.

Infrastructure throughout Amtrak's rail system has reached “critical levels,” the report concluded, and “no one knows when such a failure will occur.”

Inspector General Kenneth Mead, who drafted the report, said Amtrak must focus its limited resources on addressing pressing problems rather than spreading dollars across its nationwide network. He chastised Amtrak management for spending millions of dollars to improve its sleeper cars while neglecting deteriorating bridges and tunnels.

Mead urged Amtrak to consider the “unsustainably large operating losses and poor on-time performance” as a “clarion call” for immediate attention.

The report was released shortly after Congress finished work on a major catchall appropriations bill that included $1.22 billion for Amtrak for fiscal 2005. The federal government provided slightly more than that for fiscal 2004.

The IG's report noted Amtrak's success in increasing ridership and addressing costs. For the past two years, Amtrak has postponed improvements along the tracks with the expectation of increased revenue and funding. But time has run out, according to the report, and Amtrak must maximize its current revenue.

The report also calls on Congress to provide Amtrak with clear direction in crafting a strategy that might include reducing service, investing in heavily traveled routes or increasing overall funding. He proposed that federal funding be tied to Amtrak's restructuring of its operations. Amtrak relies on a combination of passenger fees and state and federal subsidies to finance operating costs.

Without an increase in funding, Amtrak will continue to postpone capital projects to stay within its budget, Amtrak President David Gunn said in a written response to the IG's report.

If the budget remains stable, “we will be able to continue to operate the current system, but we have to make cuts in the capital program,” Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black said.

Cutting service will not produce the payoff to fund capital projects, he said, “because of shutdown costs, labor protection and continuing overhead.” Service cuts also would jeopardize overall congressional support of Amtrak, he said, because lawmakers would object to service being discontinued in their regions.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and a longtime critic of Amtrak, said the passenger railroad must make tough choices and focus rail service on short-route corridors and restructure or eliminate long-distance routes.

“If Amtrak won't follow this strategy,” he said in a written statement, “then it is the responsibility of Amtrak's Board of Directors, the secretary of transportation, and Congress to make it happen.”

Mead, however, applauded Amtrak's recent focus on infrastructure on the Thames River bridge in Connecticut and its success in reducing losses.

Amtrak's ridership last year exceeded expectations by nearly 500,000 passengers. Still, revenue decreased by 6.8 percent, and Amtrak has reported losses of $630 million annually for the past three years.

“The bridges are creaking,” said Ross Capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, an advocacy group. “Every day that passes increases the odds that it will take a catastrophic failure to get this problem fixed.”

Hartford — Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Tuesday tapped a Fairfield County executive to oversee the board that handles statewide transportation policy.

Kevin Kelleher, president and CEO of Cendant Mobility Services Corp. in Danbury, will replace Nelson “Oz” Griebel as head of the state's Transportation Strategy Board when Griebel's five-year term ends on June 30.  Kelleher's appointment comes as the General Assembly prepares to meet in special session this month to take up some unfinished business, including Rell's $1.3 billion, 10-year transportation improvement package. The bill includes money for 340 new Metro-North commuter rail cars and various highway improvements designed to ease the congestion on Connecticut's highways.

But both Kelleher and Griebel said that $1.3 billion is just a first step toward tackling Connecticut's gridlock problem.

“Our needs as a state continue to grow,” said Kelleher, who lives in Rell's hometown of Brookfield. “I think this is a never-ending journey. I think it's really about the vision, the acceptance of the vision, what people need to recognize with respect to the needs for both today and tomorrow.”

The Transportation Strategy Board was created in 2000 to help come up with a comprehensive transportation plan for the state. In 2003, the group recommended about nearly $5 billion worth of projects, but the state legislature has not approved most of that spending.  The sticking point has been how to raise the necessary revenue.

Rell initially called for increasing the state gas tax to pay for her $1.3 billion initiative. The Democrat-controlled legislature, however, instead proposed a 5 percent tax on the earnings of petroleum companies to 7.8 percent by 2014.The tax is expected to raise about $900 million, roughly the same amount as Rell's plan.

The board has suggested raising the gas tax by 3 cents per gallon over five years to pay for its initiatives. Board members also have asked the legislature to study the feasibility of a toll system to collect more revenue for transportation projects. “Without it, without some new source of funding, all the other things this board has worked on and identified in this 2003 report are not going to become a reality,” Griebel said.

Griebel said he understands why Rell wanted to appoint her own person to chair the strategy board. He said he plans to remain active in transportation issues and hopes to encourage the legislature to study tolls.  New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, whose city sits at the congested intersection of several highways, said the state's transportation strategy is failing.

“It doesn't matter to me who's in charge of the Transportation Strategy Board. It's really irrelevant. The job's not getting done,” DeStefano said.

“I have a port that needs rail and an airport that needs to grow. The highway infrastructure is broken and it's stopping job growth in the city and the region.”

Rell thanked Griebel for his years of service and said the board has made strides since 2000 in identifying key transportation projects that have helped the lives of motorists.  For example, the board has brought highway ramp improvements and lane improvements to the attention of the state Department of Transportation, she said.

“Those are the things that matter, and that's what's happening,” said Rell. “You don't see the little improvements, but they are very, very important to the municipalities.”

Members present, June 20, 2006: Chairman Kevin J. Kelleher, John Markowicz, Karen Burnaska, Commissioner Korta, Jeffery Klaus, George Giguere, Secretary Genuario, Joseph Maco, and Sean Moore.

Members Absent: Commissioner Abromaitis (represented by Larry Lusardi), Commissioner Boyle (represented by Lt. David Aflalo), Commissioner Gina McCarthy (represented by Deputy Secretary Amey Marrella), Stephen Cassano and John Filchak.

Business Members

Chairman - R. Nelson Griebel, President/CEO, MetroHartford Regional Economic Alliance
John A. Klein, CEO/Chairman, People's Bank
Joseph P. Maco, Vice-President, Sound Pilots
Michael P. Meotti, President, Connecticut Policy and Economic Council
George L. Giguere, President, Giguere Associates

State Agency Members

Hon. James F. Abromaitis, Commissioner, Department of Economic and Community Development
Hon. Arthur J. Rocque, Jr., Commissioner, Department of Environmental Protection
Hon. Marc S. Ryan, Secretary, Office of Policy and Management
Hon. Leonard C. Boyle, Acting Commissioner, Department of Public Safety
Hon. Stephen E. Korta, II, Commissioner, Department of Transportation

Transportation Investment Area (TIA) Members

Hon. Stephen T. Cassano - I-91 Corridor TIA
Carl Stephani -  I-84 Corridor TIA
Karen L. Burnaska - Coastal Corridor TIA
John Sarantopoulos - I-395 Corridor TIA
John Markowicz - Southeast Corridor TIA

One the most important matters of business before the legislature didn't quite make it out of the regular session but is near the top of the agenda for the special session later this month: Gov. M. Jodi Rell's transportation initiative, which will modernize the Metro North commuter line and begin to address other transportation needs in the state.

The governor had some harsh words for the legislature for failing to finish work on the plan, but there's no reason to believe the plan won't emerge intact in the special session. Leaders have agreed to the broad outline of the proposal, including an alternative method to what the governor had proposed for financing it.

The governor had wanted to employ the gas tax. The Democrats have chosen instead to use a gross receipts tax on petroleum products, which would be imposed on retailers.

This is one of several weaknesses in the proposal. Retailers likely will pass along the gross receipts tax to customers anyway. In addition, the tax will be tied to the price of gas and other petroleum products, which fluctuate so it could fall short of raising the money the state needs for the projects.

Another weakness is that the plan doesn't address many needs outside of Fairfield County, including southeastern Connecticut. The theory is that that is where the needs are most pressing, and that additional money can be invested when plans are further developed in other parts of the state. For example, the widening of Interstate 95 west of New Haven is in the very early planning stage.

But that points to another weakness. The state Transportation Strategy Board, in a detailed study of the state's transportation needs, pointed to more than $5 billion in projects that will be necessary, but the governor's plan only includes about $1 billion in work. The plan that is taking shape in the legislature provides funds for only those immediate projects, which include replacing much of the rolling stock of Metro North. The fear on the strategy board is that it won't be easy to raise additional funds for future projects, and the board has recommended looking into additional sources of funds, including tolls.

This would be a stronger plan if the legislature included a study into the use of tolls. Transportation experts point out that the fuel-related taxes will become less reliable sources of transportation funds as automobile manufacturers shift away from petroleum fuels and public transportation assumes a larger role.

But the strengths of this plan greatly outweigh the weaknesses. This is the first major thrust in transportation investment in two decades, and one that is long overdue. It is to the credit of the governor and the legislature that they are on the verge of carrying this initiative forward.

HARTFORD -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell's $1.2 billion proposal to buy new rail cars and improve highways gained overwhelming approval yesterday from the Legislature's Transportation Committee.  The panel approved 10 transportation bills in a three-hour session focused primarily on Rell's proposal.

Three committee members voted against the governor's plan: state Sen. Thomas Colapietro, D-Bristol; state Rep. Brian O'Connor, D-Clinton; and state Rep. Claire Janowski, D-Vernon. Twenty-six members voted in favor of the bill.  The three dissenting legislators were concerned Rell's proposal didn't provide enough transportation funding for parts of the state.

Rell's plan focuses heavily on lower Fairfield County, with $667 million slated for 343 new rail cars, $187 million for Interstate 95 improvements and
$300 million for a rail maintenance facility. The state's other highways would receive $150 million collectively.  Committee members took issue with Rell's proposal to raise the gasoline tax 6 cents over the next eight years to fund the transportation improvements. Legislators feared areas that would not benefit directly from the transportation improvements may not be in favor of a higher gas tax.

Despite the dissenting votes, Rell was encouraged by the committee's actions.

"I appreciate the Transportation Committee's overwhelming support," she said in a statement yesterday. "We have talked about transportation long enough. It is now time to deliver for the passengers and drivers of Connecticut."  Transportation Committee co-chairman state Sen. Biagio "Billy" Ciotto, D-Wethersfield, also credited the overall cooperation and bipartisanship of the committee for the bill's passage.

The bill must pass through the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee before it goes to the full House and Senate for a vote.

Other bills approved by the committee yesterday dealt with restricting the operation of mini-motorcylces, banning hand-held cell phones while operating a motor vehicle and increasing fines for trucks that travel illegally on the Merritt Parkway.  With Rell's proposal out of the committee's hands, members said more legislators will need convincing and said the bill may be revised.

"We just have to let other parts of the state know they won't be left behind," said state Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the Transportation Committee. "In some shape or form, someone is going to have to pay for this."

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said, "lifting a billion-dollar balloon off the ground is a hard job" and the bill's supporters have a challenge.

"There is a perception that there is a geographical bias," he said. "While this bill does focus first on southwestern Connecticut, it is in no way exclusive."  Though most committee members preached about the bill's equity, some from lower Fairfield County were not ashamed about where a majority of the money was headed.

"We have proven that this is the place of greatest need," said state Rep. Antoinetta "Toni" Boucher, R-Wilton. "We have the volume and the demand."  Some lawmakers believe the debate about the bill's equity could be a benefit for the entire state.

"The only concern in the Transportation Committee was that it was a fine bill, but does not go far enough," said state Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, also the ranking Republican senator on the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee.

"This is a good problem to deal with," he added. "Yes, there are a number of members who want projects in their districts included. We can certainly have that conversation, but that puts us in a far better posture than we've been in previous years where we've had no bill."

Fairfield County legislators say they hope their increased presence on the state's Transportation Committee will have a major impact on alleviating the problems on the roads and rails that have plagued commuters.

Of the committee's 31 members, 15 legislators are from Fairfield County, one of the largest contingents from the region in many years, said state Sen. Biagio "Billy" Ciotto, D-Wethersfield. During last year's session, eight members hailed from Fairfield County.

"What we have is a lot of new legislators who are concerned about transportation. What better place to address those concerns than on this committee," said Ciotto, who has co-chaired the committee for the past eight years.

Between the aging New Haven Line that has some rail cars that are 30 years old -- 10 years past their life expectancy -- and a congested Interstate 95, there are plenty of reasons county legislators are clamoring to get on the committee, said state Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich.

"It's the arterial sclerosis of this region," said Nickerson, who has served on the committee since 1986. "We all recognize that one of the main arteries of this state is I-95, from the shore line to the Rhode Island border."

Several legislators said they pushed to get on the committee this year because the transportation issue is critical to Fairfield County.

"I definitely fought to be on this committee and to get on this issue," said State Rep. Gerald Fox, D-Stamford, a first-time member. "We all listened to our constituents and we know what their complaints are."

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said the rush of Fairfield County legislators to the committee wasn't "any kind of organized effort," but simply an effort by legislators to keep their campaign promises.

"All of us campaigned on transportation," said McDonald, another first-timer to the committee. "It would be disingenuous of us if we didn't try to fulfill it."

Though the numbers are in Fairfield County's favor, the goals of the committee are to serve the entire state's needs, Ciotto said. Topics of discussion during the current session have included banning open alcohol containers in motor vehicles, extending hours at the Greenwich truck weigh station, and requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. Once the bills leave the committee, Fairfield County's influence may dissipate as they move to votes in the full Assembly, Ciotto added.

"Everyone votes the same once it gets out of committee," he said.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has made Fairfield County's transportation problems a statewide issue, said state Rep. Chris Perone, D-Norwalk. Rell's budget proposal released last week includes a $1.3 billion transportation plan that would make multi-million dollar improvements to the state's highways and replace the New Haven Line rail fleet.

"The governor's leadership is helpful," Perone said. "She has made it a statewide priority."

Officials from transportation organizations supporting Fairfield County's interests said they are optimistic Rell's proposal and the large presence on the transportation committee will result in overdue changes in the region.

"It's very significant because they are the key committee in controlling" transportation legislation, said Franklin Bloomer, co-chairman of the Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment Area.

"I think this is a tremendous benefit for all of Fairfield County," said Robert Wilson, executive director of the South Western Regional Planning Agency. "South Western Connecticut has really been underrepresented in the past. Legislators from Fairfield County understand the economy here so this is very encouraging."