Busway Opponent Seeks To Slow Project
by Christine Stuart | Jun 15, 2011 3:06pm
(13) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: State Budget, Transportation
(Updated 6:22 p.m.) It’s no secret that Sen. Joseph Markley, R-Southington, doesn’t like the state’s decision to move ahead with a $569 million, 9.4 mile rapid transit bus route from New Britain to Hartford.
“Any bar I can put up in their way to building this, I will,” Markley said Wednesday in a telephone interview. “Eventually I hope to find a hoop they can’t get through.”
That’s why Markley will be in Blue Back Square on Thursday gathering the necessary 25 signatures he needs to get a public hearing on an inland wetland permit.
The dedicated bus route will be built on an abandoned rail right-of-way and buses are expected to operate on three- to six-minute intervals from 5 a.m. until 1 a.m.
“We are very concerned that the waterways in these towns will be destroyed without regard to the environment,” Markley said in press release. “For such a large project, paid for by the taxpayers of Connecticut, a public hearing should be held to make sure we are not throwing the environment under the bus — literally.”
The waterways along the route are Piper Brook, Bass Brook, Kane Brook, Trout Brook, and the Park River. The proposed activity will affect about 2.11 acres of wetlands, 7,108 linear feet of watercourse, and 4,086 cubic yards within the stream channel encroachment lines.
Dennis Schain, spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection, said Wednesday that the staff at the agency already recommended an inland wetland permit be granted for the impacted areas.
But if the public submit’s a petition with 25 signatures before June 29, there will be a public hearing and instead of the staff, a hearing officer will make a recommendation about whether to grant the inland wetland permit. That recommendation will be given to DEP Commissioner Daniel C. Esty, who will have the final say.
Markley said he had initially thought the DEP planned on waiving the “environmental study”, but Schain said it’s just the public hearing for the inland wetland permit that would be waived. DEP staff had already granted the inland wetland permit, but if Markley gathers the 25 signatures the permit will be the topic of a public hearing and a hearing officer will make a recommendation to Esty about whether it should be granted.
Regardless, Markley said this opportunity to have a public hearing presented itself as a way to slow the progress of a project he believes is a waste of taxpayer funds.
Markley maintains that there’s still a lot that hasn’t been explored and the project seems to be moving at a rapid pace.
Proponents of the project feel the opposite.
A draft environmental impact statement was made in March 2001 and final design of the project didn’t even start until 2006 after several public hearings were held to gauge public input on the project. The busway hadn’t even received any substantial state funding until Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and the state Bond Commission approved a plan to borrow $89 million two months ago.
Malloy announced in April that his administration would be moving ahead with the long-stalled busway, which will be mostly funded with federal transportation dollars, after hearing from both opponents and proponents of the project.
Karen Burnaska, coordinator of the Transit for Connecticut Coalition, praised Malloy’s decision to proceed.
It “means there is now an end in sight for those commuters who spend hours a week sitting in traffic on I-84 west of Hartford,” she said. “But more significantly, it means in the next several months there will be a major influx of jobs to the region — labor and transit jobs.”
There’s also an environmental benefit from reduced emissions.
“It’s discouraging that Senator Markley is using an environmental process with the deliberate, expressed intention to delay a project that would, in fact, help the environment greatly,” Rebecca Kaplan, communications director for Connecticut Fund for the Environment, said. “While the DEP must consider legitimate issues raised in this process, we hope they do so efficiently and expeditiously in a way that will keep the New Britain – Hartford Busway on track to bring real benefits to the state, economically and environmentally.”
Click here for a history of the project.
While proponents praised the project as progress toward economic development opportunities, Markley is hardly alone in his opposition to the busway. A Yankee Institute poll Tuesday found that 60 percent of 500 likely voters believe the busway is “bad” use of taxpayer money.
Tags: busway, transportation, Connecticut, environment, wetlands, jobs
(13) Comments
posted by: gutbomb86 | June 15, 2011 5:31pm
A busway will be a huge benefit to people. It’s going to make it possible for people without jobs and without vehicles to reach a much larger area for possible employment. The benefits will outweigh the cost. It’s expensive to own a vehicle (everywhere, not just here) and there are far more folks without access to cars than anyone realizes. It’s the difference between giving up on finding a job and foraging out into a new area with resumes or job apps in hand. I hear young people from the city all the time saying “I can’t find a job here” - but there’s no point in applying for a job in a location they can’t reach on foot from a bus line.
Often the loudest critics of mass transit are people who have cars and jobs and probably won’t use the busway. There are a lot of folks who are simply afraid of public transportation (read: poor people). But then when they try it (or find themselves forced to try it) they find that it’s great. (“Why didn’t I do this sooner?”)
It works. Mass transit isn’t only for the folks who work in NYC but want to live “in the country” here in CT (because let’s face it, it’s an awesome place to live, taxes or no taxes). Mass transit is for everyone and it’s a great investment.
posted by: gutbomb86 | June 15, 2011 5:35pm
No offense to Sen. Markley - he’s motivated and smart and not a typical conservative by any means. I just don’t agree with him on this because I really do think it’s part of the answer to revitalizing both Hartford and New Britain.
posted by: ... | June 16, 2011 1:47am
It isn’t that the idea is a bad one gutbomb86, I just think this could have been saved perhaps. Maybe have the money go to held fund the higher-speed rail project, or perhaps to reduce the deficit.
I’ve used Park & Ride often and really enjoy (especially for the winter!), so I am a fan of increasing public transit, especially to Hartford. I see the Veterans Memorial Center getting a lot more people in to see games (AHL, NCAA, etc) and events there through this project in the long run and would decrease congestion on the road.
But I (and I believe the state) could have survived putting this off for a year. It would be understandable though if this was a project that would have died if not done now. However, I’m under the impression this is not an example of that tactic.
posted by: sharewhut | June 16, 2011 4:33am
But Gutbomb,
Aren’t there already CT Transit routes for most if not all of this area? Granted, without the fancy stations and dedicated roadway.
NOBODY RIDES THEM! Make ‘em big and fancy and ‘special’ all you want, there’s no way ridership will increase enough to justify the cost, made obvious by the fact that a state subsidy of $10-12 million+ per year will be required to keep it running.
posted by: oliviahuxtable | June 16, 2011 7:29am
It’s a huge waste of money. Do they honestly think people who are currently accustomed to driving into work, and parking a car in either a garage or a lot adjacent to their workplace, will wish to 1)drive to, say, New Britain 2)park their car in the busway lot in the rain, snow 3)take the bus to Hartford 4)be dropped off blocks away from their building and shlepp, purse, lunchbox, other belongings in hand, sometimes in the rain or snow, to their building?? Will it take significantly fewer minutes to do all of that, as opposed to sitting in I-84 east traffic for 20 minutes or so every morning? I doubt it. So then this is being built NOT to ease highway congestion, but rather to allow vehicle-less eople to commute in either distance because ostensibly, there are job opportunities they need to embrace…This bloated waste of taxpayer money should never happen—thanks, Rep. Markley, for living in reality and not being afraid to say what is, is.
posted by: hawkeye | June 16, 2011 10:59am
oliviahuxtable: Kudos to you, for recognizing that it’s a HUGE WASTE OF MONEY.
There are some Gov. Dannel Patrick Malloy driven “blind sheep”—writing on this subject—that unfortunately support this wasteful spending in our state budget—when we haven’t cleared up our huge budget deficit—and Malloy is still “playing games” with the unions, AFTER HE FAILED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY BUDGET CUTS!”
Thank you for your common sense, which is not reflected by other writer’s on Malloy’s wipe-out of the middle class in Connecticut—through sheer stupidity! (Obviously the same people who voted of Malloy—and still refuse—“TO SEE THE LIGHT!”
posted by: meridenite | June 16, 2011 11:07am
The repubs are finally waking up and using tactics the libs/enviros have used for years to delay, delay, delay.
posted by: Disgruntled | June 16, 2011 1:00pm
The Nutmeg King spends again! YOUR money,that is. You won’t see Dan pulling out his own cash.
I love public transportation,wisely implemented.
Dan can’t be trusted in this area. Example: He spent a MILLION DOLLARS on a “study” for light rail in Stamford! It was generally opposed but he jammed it through because,as you all are learning,Dan knows best.
posted by: hawkeye | June 16, 2011 3:54pm
meridanite: Please spell our you empty politically slanted, attack comment, with some facts.
posted by: wmwallace | June 17, 2011 2:14am
This is a waste of money that could be used for many other projects that need to be done in the state. And yet we have a governor who believes that spending almost a billion dollars on a busway from New Britian to Hartford is a winner.
posted by: gutbomb86 | June 19, 2011 11:25am
@sharewhut - actually there aren’t any direct routes that I know of that take less than an hour, so this would serve a real purpose and be a lot more attractive to people who are driving already. But really you’re completely off base when you suggest “nobody rides them.”
@jonesAC - agreed. We certainly could wait a year, but like I said, this route would open doors to employment for a lot of people and that might actually have a positive impact.
@oliviahuxtable - you’re not alone among folks who think that the only people who live in CT are those who own a car and commute. That is not the case, however. See my first comment: “there are far more folks without access to cars than anyone realizes. It’s the difference between giving up on finding a job and foraging out into a new area with resumes or job apps in hand. I hear young people from the city all the time saying “I can’t find a job here” - but there’s no point in applying for a job in a location they can’t reach on foot from a bus line.”
Once again, people with a great deal to be thankful for are assuming everyone else has as much as they do.
posted by: SoFAresident | June 22, 2011 10:42am
there seems to be a continuing misconception that killing the Busway project will somehow free its funding to be used elsewhere. that’s not the case at all. In fact, it’s the complete opposite. The minute the Busway gets cancelled, the $270 million the federal government has commited goes away, as in “no longer exists”. The bonding funds the state was adding go away. Any new or other project will have to find its own source of funding, and the Federal government has already said it will be incredibly unlikely to support any projects in CT in the future if the Busway project is killed.
posted by: SoFAresident | June 22, 2011 10:51am
Markley and Betts are clearly still sucking on the sour grapes of not winning over Malloy when they were given the chance. Three straight governors, Republican and Democrat, have supported the Busway project. Anyone “blaming” Malloy for approving it has a very short memory. Markley’s comment that “there’s still a lot that hasn’t been explored and the project seems to be moving at a rapid pace.” is laughable - this project has been around for 13 years and debated under three governors. What could possibly be left to explore?