Lamont’s budget doesn’t add up
The governor’s proposed biennial budget for transportation just doesn’t add up.
Thanks to reduced rail ridership, Gov. Ned Lamont’s projecting cost savings in the Connecticut Department of Transportation budget of $82 million over the next two years but promises no further cuts in service beyond those already taken during the pandemic. But how does that jibe with Metro-North parent MTA’s projected $8 billion operating deficit through 2024?
Even pre-pandemic when ridership was at record highs, Metro-North still lost money.
And taxpayers made up the difference. Grumbling commuters packed in rushhour trains paying the highest commuter rail fares in the US still couldn’t cover operating costs, let alone capital expansion.
Now, with ridership down 80 percent those deficits are exploding. And even if relief money comes from Uncle Sam, how long can near-empty trains be kept running?
As I’ve written before, I don’t think commuters will be coming back post-pandemic in anywhere near the old numbers. So if ridership remains low and the MTA sticks to its promise of no layoffs or fare hikes, something’s got to give.
Metro-North President Catherine Rinaldi says I’m wrong. She says post-COVID daily ridership will only drop 10 – 20 percent. But it’s those monthly pass holders who gave the railroad almost half of its revenue pre-COVID and their loss can never be made up by off-peak and weekend day-trippers to New York City’s attractions as she hopes.
Stay tuned for mandatory public hearings on all this, what I’ve called “political theater.” But whatever commuters may say, however they might complain, their testimony won’t make a darn bit of difference. The DOT budget won’t change. The fiscal die has been cast and come up “snake eyes.”
None of this should surprise you when you consider how the governor writes his budget. In fact, the document is not of his creation but the Office of Policy and Management.
OPM doesn’t ask the DOT “how much do you need for roads and rails?”. They tell the agency, “Here’s how much you’ll get. And here’s where to make the cuts.”
But while the Lamont budget sees “savings” through reduced rail and bus operations, it has found money for any number of highway projects while at the same time saying we need to reduce air pollution. More highways, more cars, more pollution. So much for their vaunted Transportation Climate Initiative.
Folks, it just doesn’t add up.
There are no tolls in this proposed budget. But there is a “mileage tax” on heavy trucks passing through our state. That’s fine with me as I’ve always supported user fees. But the $90 million that tax is expected to generate will do little to save the Special Transportation Fund from a deficit this year and insolvency by 2024.
In fact, that $90 million will just be used to fund issuance of more bonds to be paid off by our grandchildren. Never mind the $92 billion — yes, billion — in long term debt coming due in the next 20 years for underfunded teacher pensions and such.
Today, 40% of the DOT budget goes to paying debt service on bonds issued decades back. We can’t even pay for the decrepit transportation we have today, so our short-sighted lawmakers just kick the proverbial can down the road.
The problem is we’ve run out of road.
MILFORD — All 12 residents who spoke at the recent Planning and Zoning Board meeting expressed opposition to a plan to renovate the historic Baldwin House and construct a 36-unit apartment building at the rear of the Prospect Street site.
The board continued the public hearing to its March 2 meeting to give it time get a second review of the drainage plan and also to request a legal opinion regarding its powers.
About 30 residents attended the public hearing. The dozen that spoke expressed concerns about the project’s density in a historic area, the effect of additional traffic, and the impact storm water runoff would make on neighboring properties, particularly the Milford Cemetery. The 1-acre property is at 67 Prospect St.
In advance of the meeting, the board received two letters supporting the house preservation, but neither letter commented on the apartment project. One letter came from the State Historic Preservation Office and was addressed to the Milford Historic Preservation Commission. The other letter was from the preservation commission and outlined the elements the commission wanted to see included in the renovation, including restoration of a bronze stone and plaque, and using wood on the house exterior.
The board also received 17 letters opposed to the project, some of which were written by people who also spoke at the public hearing.
Attorney Thomas Lynch, representing the developer, 67 Prospect Street LLC, said the proposal is a site plan review for a project that is zoning compliant in a zone that allows for mixed used properties.
“This is not an application where the board has the leeway to act in a legislative capacity,” said Lynch, as the board could do when an applicant needed a special exception, special permit, or zone change.
Lynch said the original plan in 2017 called for demolishing the house and constructing a 44-unit apartment building. But the preservation commission, which had jurisdiction over the project due to its location, voted to deny issuing a certificate of appropriateness, prompting the applicant to appeal the decision to the Superior Court.
The two sides eventually reached an agreement where developers agreed to restore the house, including using wood siding, replace the historic plaque that had been on the property, and reduce the number of units. The group also had the state archaeologist survey the rear property in response to “anecdotal comments” that perhaps Milford’s early settlers were buried on the property. He said a study was done that included the use of sonar and the results were negative.
While a traffic study is not required for a site plan, Lynch said one was done in 2017-18 for the 44-unit plan, with Traffic Engineer Kermit Hua concluding there would be “no adverse impact from this project.” Lynch said with 36 units, there would be a lesser impact made by the project.
Lynch also told the board that City Engineer Gregory H. Pidluski had “signed off” on the storm water management plan, which had been of concern to some of the neighbors.
Project engineer Manny Silva further elaborated on the storm water system, saying the original design was for a 25-year storm, and the revised plans are for a 100-year storm, which is 7 inches of rain in a 24hour period. Silva said that Pidluski also asked the applicant to bring back the curb line to widen Prospect Street.
The first person to speak in opposition to the project was Richard Platt of Platt Lane, the retired city historian. Platt said the street is part of the River Park National Register Historic District and that a large project like this “is out of character for this historic district.”
Raymond Oliver of Gulf Street, said he was representing the Milford Cemetery Association as its vice president. Oliver, a local architect who has presented many projects to the board, said he still had concerns about the latest stormwater plan.
“The area has a relatively high water table. If those galleries get full, there is no place for that water to go,” said Oliver. “Containing the water is not the entire solution.”
Oliver said Robert J. Hiza, a professional engineer hired by the cemetery association, reviewed the drainage plans and suggested hooking the drainage system into a catch basin by the railroad bridge. He also said there is a ditch along the entire rear portion of the property that he said, “will be filled with a water a good part of the time.”
In response, Silva said Oliver and Hiza were commenting on current conditions.
“This design will eliminate run off from different types of storms,” he said. Silva also noted that Hiza’s review was for the earlier plans to meet the standards of a 25-year storm. Silva said state regulations require the system to drain out within 72 hours.
Neighbors also expressed concern about the additional traffic from 36 apartments on the street, which has a traffic light at each end.
Board Chairman Jim Quish said the board would seek an opinion from City Attorney Jonathan Berchem regarding the scope of its review powers. Among the provisions of the regulations is language stating that the board shall consider such factors as whether a project is in harmony with the area, if traffic access, circulation and parking are adequate, and if landscaping and screening are suitable.