U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–565 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 111–158 

A 21st CENTURY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: 

REDUCING GRIDLOCK, TACKLING CLIMATE 

CHANGE, AND GROWING CONNECTICUT’S 

ECONOMY 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

EXAMINING THE REFORM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH 

TO TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND BRINGING NEW FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES TO THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

APRIL 16, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

COLIN MCGINNIS, Acting Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director 

MITCH WARREN, Senior Policy Advisor 

SHANNON HINES, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

DEVIN HARTLEY, Hearing Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 

(II)
C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2009 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Dodd .................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

John DeStefano, Jr., Mayor, New Haven, Connecticut ........................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Joseph F. Marie, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation ... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Howard Permut, President, MTA Metro-North Railroad ..................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Joe McHugh, Vice President, Government Affairs and Corporate 

Communications, Amtrak .................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Ron Kilcoyne, Chief Executive Officer, Greater Bridgeport Transit ................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

James S. Butler, Executive Director, Southeastern Connecticut Council of 

Governments ......................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Karen Burnaska, Coordinator, Transit for Connecticut ....................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Philip Madonna, Jr., Chairman, ATU Connecticut State Legislative 

Conference Board ................................................................................................. 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Eric J. Brown, Associate Counsel, Connecticut Business and Industry 

Association ............................................................................................................ 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 106 

David Kooris, Connecticut Director, Regional Plan Association 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 107 

(III)

(1) 

A 21st CENTURY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: 

REDUCING GRIDLOCK, TACKLING CLIMATE 

CHANGE, AND GROWING CONNECTICUT’S 

ECONOMY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, New Haven, CT. 

The Committee met at 10 a.m., in the Hall of Records, 200 Orange Street, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Chairman of the Committee), presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD 

Chairman DODD. All right. Good evening. Come to order. I want 

to thank all of you for being here today. We will begin by thanking 

our witnesses. We’ll have two panels this morning of witnesses, 

and for all of you who gathered in the room here, we thank you 

as well. I know many of you have a deep and long-standing interest 

on the subject of public transit, and we’re delighted you’re here this 

morning to participate in this formal hearing of the Banking Committee of the U.S. Senate. 

The Banking Committee has jurisdiction over a lot of issues. One 

of them happens to be transit issues, and this year with the what 

we call the authorization, I’m calling the authorization of the Surface Transportation Bill, which expires in September of this year, 

the Congress is charged with responsibility of coming up with a 

new version of that proposal. And so I thought it would be worthwhile to get a good Connecticut perspective on these issues given 

our locale and the importance of these issues questions and the related issues of congestion, environmental, housing issues that are 

all associated with the question of transit. It would be worthwhile 

to hear from folks not only from our State, but those that are involved in our issues that impact our State very directly. 

I want to recognize who is in the audience. He won’t be able to 

stay very long with us, but the Attorney General of Connecticut, 

we thank you very much, Richard Blumenthal is here today. Thank 

you, Richard, for stopping by this morning as well. The title of our 

hearing is ‘‘A 21st Century Transportation System: Reducing Gridlock, Tackling Climate Change, and Growing Connecticut’s Economy’’ and again my thanks to all of you. I want to recognize Mitch 

Warren of my staff who is here someplace. Mitch, where did you 

go? 

Mr. WARREN. Over here. 
2 

Chairman DODD. Mitch, There you go. Shannon Hines is the staff 

director for Senator Shelby, my ranking Republican Member and 

former Chairman of the Banking Committee from Alabama. Richard and I have been great friends for many, many years, and 

served in the House and in the Senate together and, Shannon, we 

thank you very much for joining us as well from Senator Shelby’s 

staff this morning. 

So I’m pleased we are in New Haven this morning to talk with 

so many of Connecticut’s transportation leaders about how we can 

improve America’s productivity and quality of life by reforming the 

way the Federal Government approaches transportation policy and 

bringing new Federal transportation resources to our State. 

I want to thank Mayor DeStefano, John DeStefano, for hosting 

today’s hearing and providing this opportunity to use these facilities for this hearing this morning. It’s no coincidence that we are 

holding a transit hearing in New Haven. We are at the heart of 

Connecticut’s transportation system. New Haven is Connecticut’s 

hub city in many ways. It is here where two major interstate highways, I-95 and I-91, converge; where Metro-North and Shoreline 

East commuter rails start and end, start and end; and Amtrak 

trains can take you to Vermont or throughout the Northeast corridor; and all of this comes in addition to the State’s busiest seaport, the port of New Haven, Tweed New Haven Airport, Greater 

New Haven Transit, and future plans for a street car, I might add 

as well. I should also add that this is the home of the world’s finest 

pizzas in the world, for those of you who are not from Connecticut. 

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development was here in the 

State on Monday, and he insisted that he would only come to New 

Haven if he could have a pizza in New Haven. So we took care of 

the Secretary’s demands. 

The people of New Haven, as in cities and communities across 

our Nation, understand the problems we are facing today. Infrastructure is aging, as all of you know, congestion is worsening as 

all of you are painfully aware of, and the threat of climate change, 

of course, is growing as well. When the interstate highway system 

was created in the 1950s by Dwight Eisenhower, its construction 

over the next half century quite literally paved the way for decades 

of growth and prosperity in our country helping to cement our Nation’s place as a global economic powerhouse in transforming the 

economy of the United States. 

Today, however, rather than being a catalyst for economic 

growth, global competitiveness, and a better quality of life, our 

transportation system, I think we would all agree, has become part 

of problem rather than the solution. With the deep recession, another 20,000 layoffs that will occur today before the day ends, and 

every day the people of this State and across the country are insisting on real change. Fortunately, we have an opportunity this year 

to lay the groundwork for an integrative 21st century transportation system that meets these challenges as the Banking Committee helps write the next Surface Transportation Bill. 

As Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Federal transit and housing programs, I intend for the 

Committee to lead the discussion about how we can create a transportation system that doesn’t add to our problems but, as we all 
3 

hope, will help solve them. If anyone can testify to the toll traffic 

congestion takes on productivity and the quality of life, it is certainly the people of Connecticut. 

Connecticut residents spend too many hours, as we all know, as 

many of you know, sitting in traffic. Those hours aren’t spent with 

their families or at work. They are literally, completely wasted 

hours given the congestion that occurs in our highway systems. 

Every year the current Federal Transportation Bill delivers more 

than $600 million in Federal funding to Connecticut. As critical as 

that funding is, the people of Connecticut and the country have a 

right to expect better results from their hard-earned tax dollars. If 

we want to get our economy moving, then we’ve got to make the 

kind of investments that will get us moving, and no investment 

will be more important than those in public transportation. 

Already transit ridership nationally is at record levels. Last year 

Americans took 10.7 billion trips on our Nation’s buses and rail 

lines. Here at home the New Haven Line had the largest number 

of customers in Metro-North operation history in 2008, 38 million 

riders, making it one of the busiest rail lines in the entire country. 

Public transit saves, and these numbers need to be repeated over 

and over again to people who question whether or not we are on 

the right track by pursuing more investment in public transportation. 

The public transportation saves over four billion gallons of gasoline annually, and reduces carbon emissions by some 37 million 

metric tons a year. That’s equivalent to the electricity used by almost 5 million households. Transit reduces congestion on our roads, 

which costs us five times as much as wasted fuel and time as it 

did only 25 years ago. Despite these obvious benefits, too often over 

the past half century transit has taken a backseat to funding of our 

roads and highways. For far too long our Nation’s investments and 

highway capacity were not paired with similar investments in mass 

transit. In my view that must change. 

Public transit is the glue that holds our transportation systems 

together. As Connecticut is showing, it can be the building block of 

economic growth for our region. As Members of the Committee, the 

Banking Committee, know I have been pushing for the development of a new commuter service along the 62 miles of existing rail 

line between New Haven, Hartford, and Springfield. 

As proposed, service along the tri-city corridor would have stops 

at eight smaller cities and towns creating transit villages linking 

and revitalizing local economies, integrating local transit systems 

and commuter rail lines and Amtrak’s inner-city service from the 

seaport. From the seaport of New Haven to the airport in Windsor 

Locks, we could become truly a transit-oriented State. 

I have spoken with Commissioner Marie who is here with us. I 

want to commend you as well for the tremendous job he’s doing. 

I want to thank Governor Rell as well for having the wisdom to ask 

you to do this job. He is a strong supporter of this corridor as well, 

as I think we’ll hear this morning. He and Transportation Secretary LaHood, we have talked about the New Haven/Hartford/ 

Springfield line, and my staff has been working closely with 

ConnDOT, Amtrak, and the U.S. Department of Transportation to 

make sure that each of these key players is on the same page, and 
4 

working closely to create commuter rail service and enhance innercity service to New York and Boston along this corridor. I know 

that this is also a priority for Commissioner Marie, as I said a moment ago, and I look forward to working closely with him and his 

staff on this issue as well. 

For many communities a critical part of the transportation puzzle is how to creatively put historic structures to use, redevelop 

land, and spur economic development. We are seeing these types 

of sustainable developments pop-up throughout Connecticut. In 

Hartford, plans to develop the historic Colt factory for residential 

and commercial use is moving forward. The Harbor Point Project 

in Stamford’s south end is a model of transit-oriented development. 

Another is in the Town of Redding, Connecticut, where the innovative Georgetown Redevelopment Project is currently in the pipeline 

to create a transit-oriented neighborhood development. 

The key is an intermodal transit facility connected to the Danbury branch of the New Haven line within walking distance of 400 

residential units, 330,000 square feet of commercial space for restaurants, banks, and retail businesses that are the staples of any 

vibrant community. In all the project is expected to employ 800 

construction workers, and create some 1,500 permanent jobs. 

Thankfully, we have a strong partner in the Obama Administration, I might add. 

Secretary Ray LaHood, the new Secretary of Transportation, is 

talking about livable communities, and he and HUD Secretary 

Donovan and myself are closely in sync on these issues. We are 

closely coordinating with HUD and U.S. DOT on national policy, 

and I never hesitate to remind them of our needs here in Connecticut as well. I’m confident that our close working relationship 

on these issues will payoff with the Nation as well and especially, 

of course, for people here in our home State by reforming transportation policy to create national goals and measure performance by 

insisting on transparency and accountability; by better coordinating 

transportation, housing, land use, energy, and environmental policies; and by investing in public transportation. 

I firmly believe that we can transform our economy. Instead of 

being part of that problem, I mentioned at the outset of these remarks our transportation systems literally, not figuratively but literally, can and will be a central part of the solution. The moment 

has arrived to bring transportation policy into the 21st century, 

getting our economy moving again, and addressing the challenges 

we are going to face for decades to come. 

Seizing the moment has already begun. As I mentioned, my efforts occurring in cities like New Haven under the leadership of 

John DeStefano, and other communities in our State. It has started 

here in New Haven and other communities and I welcome, again, 

for those of you here this morning, those who will testify, for sharing with us your ideas and thoughts on how can we move forward 

aggressively to see to it these ideas become actualities in the very 

near future. 

Let me begin by introducing our first panel. I want to thank 

John DeStefano again for hosting our gathering here. I think all of 

you in the room know the mayor, elected the first time in 1993, 

elected seven times to be the mayor of this city, and has done a 
5 

remarkable job in instigating a number of bike path policies as well 

as the trolley car system and ways of making greening technology 

in the city and we shared yesterday a couple of hours in the morning with the new housing project here in New Haven, which was 

great news for the people of this city as well. So, Mayor, we thank 

you immensely for what you’ve done and what you’re doing. 

Sitting next to the mayor is Joe Marie, who is the Commissioner 

of Connecticut’s Department of Transportation who I referred to already. Recently named the chair of the Standing Committee on 

Public Transportation for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. He has worked on transit agencies in Arizona, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Welcome home, by the way, because I know your roots are here in Connecticut and I meant it earlier when I said we have already met 

a number of times and chatted, and I am very, very impressed, Joe, 

in what your commitments are to these issues and so we’re very 

fortunate indeed to have you head up this effort in this State and 

look forward to continuing our working with you. 

We are then going to hear from Henry Permut, Howard Permut, 

rather, who is the President of MTA Metro-North Railroad; next to 

him is Joe McHugh, who is the Vice President of Government Affairs for Amtrak who is with us; and finally, we’re going to hear 

from Ron Kilcoyne, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority and, Ron, we thank you for joining 

us as well. 

With that, Mayor, we’ll begin with you this morning, and by the 

way, all of your testimony and supporting documents and information I’ll make a part of the record, the permanent record of the 

Banking Committee, so we welcome your thoughts and ideas. Welcome, Mayor. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DeSTEFANO, JR., MAYOR, NEW HAVEN, 

CONNECTICUT 

Mr. DESTEFANO. Chairman Dodd, thank you for holding this here 

in New Haven. It’s good to be up here with my colleagues on the 

panel and this audience in front of you, and I look forward now to 

the opportunity to share our experience here in New Haven and to 

make the case for national support for an integrated and sustainable transportation framework. You know, in so many ways Connecticut land use mirrors the rest of the Nation. 

We grew dramatically in our cities with the Industrial Revolution, and over time we settled further and further from the central 

core, first to the suburbs then to the edge cities. Today over 80 percent of Connecticut workers now drive alone to work, and overall 

vehicle miles traveled on Connecticut’s heavily congested local 

roads have increased nearly 50 percent from 1986 to 1995. 

From a climate change perspective, the cumulative effect of our 

land use decisions is truly staggering. Transportation accounts for 

40 percent of Connecticut’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

In New Haven I’m pleased to report a far more positive story. 

Over the past decade New Haven has made terrific strides with 

dramatic improvements in the health of the people who live here. 

Community indicators ranging from public safety to education and 
6 

from economic growth to quality of life indicate positive change and 

long term sustainability. 

The downtown remains strong as evidenced by the 500-unit transit-oriented residential development now under construction at 360 

State Street across from Commissioner Marie’s State Street rail 

station. Sustainable transportation systems are one of the many 

factors contributing to New Haven’s success in recent years. In 

fact, more people live in downtown New Haven than in the downtowns of many larger cities including Denver, Detroit, and Charlotte. 

Nearly half of the city’s population does not drive alone to work, 

and by percentage, more people walk to work here in New Haven 

than in any other New England city including Boston. We do have 

two passenger rail systems and a major bus system, and many in 

New Haven simply do not need or want to own a car. Rather on 

any given day like today you’ll see cyclists and motorists and pedestrians all sharing the city streets in a real balance of how 

streets should be used. 

Two of our leading institutions and employers are Yale University and Yale-New Haven Hospital. They are global leaders and 

this elevates New Haven’s measure on itself. Our competitive advantages are in three basic economic sectors here in the city, advanced fabrication, research and development, and higher education. Since these economic sectors are concentrated in the central 

business district and medical district areas, the city recently released Downtown Crossing, a 20-year development framework for 

the city. 

A focus of that, a central focus of that effort is to reconnect the 

city and build a critical mass of transit-oriented land use by converting route 34 from a traditional highway to an at-grade boulevard, and from there, to initiate a fixed street railcar system, which 

will extend pedestrian mobility from the Yale campus to the medical district, and weave together the city seamlessly in a more organic-pedestrian friendly environment. 

I would say something about each of the next two things. First, 

the Oak Street connector, Route 34, was conceived in the 1950s as 

a link from commuters in the city to the Naugatuck Valley, and 

was intended to increase traffic volumes. This section of Route 34 

between the Air Rights garage and interstate 95 was opened in 

1959. Additional right-of-way was acquired to the west, but this 

section was improved only with a pair of frontage roads. 

During the period from project inception in the 1950s to its closure, the Oak Street/Route 34 effort displaced over 880 families 

and cleared 350 buildings and fractured three neighborhoods. The 

new concept plan restores these neighborhoods by converting route 

34 to a community scale urban boulevard, and by converting excess 

right-of-way for new homes and businesses. Likewise, the project 

encourages sustainable transportation systems through a balance 

of bicycle and pedestrian improvements and public enhancements. 

The city intends to complement that effort, second, in cooperation 

with Yale University, we are proposing a new fixed rail street car 

line generally along the College Street corridor of the University’s 

central campus. The entire line is four miles connecting the central 
7 

campus with Yale University and Yale-New Haven Hospital medical district on the other side of the existing Route 34. 

The street car project would fill a gap in the local public transportation system. There is no public transportation system currently serving a heavy pedestrian corridor running between the 

central campus and the medical district. As in Portland, Seattle, 

and other cities, the street car works from the national model of 

fixed rail transit in support of high-density mixed use development. 

In New Haven, new growth is concentrated at the edges of the corridor and at the northern end where Yale is planning to construct 

two new residential colleges which, when complete, will expand the 

undergraduate enrollment at the University by about 15 percent. 

It is also next door to Science Park, where over one million square 

feet are planned or under construction on the site of the abandoned 

Winchester Repeating Arms factory. 

In summary, I would just point out that here in Connecticut and 

in the Nation we’re faced with decisions on how to reduce congestion and how to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emission. New 

Haven argues for a sustainable transportation system that accomplishes both objectives. The Committee is encouraged to focus on 

the goals to compete effectively in the global economy and reduce 

sustainability of the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, investing 

in sustainable transportation systems, particularly ones that link 

residential neighborhoods with the region’s basic economic centers. 

This is a pathway to reach both those goals. 

With that in mind, I want to thank the Chairman for his support 

of transit-oriented projects, for the opportunity to speak, and for 

joining us here today in New Haven. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thanks, Mayor, very, very much and, again, I 

thank you for the leadership in the city and demonstrating how 

this will work. Just having examples where this can happen, I 

think, becomes contagious; that other communities see what works, 

and you see them duplicating the efforts that you’ve made here as 

well, so I commend you for that effort. Commissioner, thank you 

for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. MARIE, COMMISSIONER, 

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. MARIE. Good morning, Senator Dodd. Thank you very much 

for convening this hearing. I’m pleased also to be joined with my 

fellow panelists this morning who we work with very closely on a 

daily and weekly basis. The reason why we’re here is because we 

have great transportation challenges, but far more importantly, the 

connection between transportation and the larger economic challenges that confront us all. 

Overcoming or transportation challenges is a key to overcoming 

our economic problems and integral to the well-being of our citizens. What are our challenges? We are a multi-modal Connecticut 

DOT so let me start a little bit first with our preservation challenges. I know we’re here to talk about public transportation, but 

I wanted to put it in some context for Connecticut and our regional 

friends. 

In Connecticut the average age of our bridges is 50 years old, 

and many of them are beyond functional obsolescence and some 
8 

have indeed approached structural deficiency. The density and congestion on the I-95 corridor is considerable. In reality, we cannot 

expand or grow the capacity on the I-95 corridor, maybe on a marginal basis. This is not just true for Connecticut, but also for our 

colleagues here in New York. 

One bridge program can eat up our State budgets and our State 

share on major projects. Or many, many years. We have a big 

project here, the Q Bridge, the Moses Wheeler Bridge that are 

sucking hundreds of millions of dollars of State money that are integral to the regional success of this great part of country. On the 

public transportation side, our rail network, we have tremendous 

ridership gains in recent years. That’s not so much a problem but 

a challenge and an opportunity at the same time to actually continue to grow that ridership. On our Shoreline East lines, ridership 

is up over 18 percent. On our Metro-North lines we are seeing 

riderships—we have ridership levels we haven’t seen in 50 years 

and this is a National issues as well. According to APTA, ridership 

is up to its highest levels in over five decades. 

The age of our infrastructure continues to be a challenge, not 

only our roads and bridges but also for our system’s infrastructure. 

I am talking about the rail track itself, the signal system, the catenary system much of which is here on the corridor is old and 

reaching that time where it has to be more modernized or replaced. 

Parking along our rail line continues to be a considerable constraint and chokepoint. The truth of the matter is we are going to 

add 300 new railcars on our Metro-North system very soon with 

our friends at Metro-North in partnership with them in New York, 

but the choking point on the system now appears to be parking, 

and we are doing as much as we can to deal with that. 

We also have a very outdated rail yard here in New Haven that 

serves not only our commuter rail services to the New York Grand 

Central terminals, but also serves Shoreline East operations up 

north to New London and Old Saybrook. On our bus network the 

average age of our bus fleet is now approaching mid-life crises. We 

are using some stimulus monies as a down payment to try to bring 

that average age down, but over the next six to 7 years we’ll have 

to replace 600 buses in the State of Connecticut. 

In order to improve and expand our service and connectivity of 

the modes, we’ll need to modernize our bus fleet and also improve 

the fare collection system on our buses, which is rather old and antiquated. We need to move to a more regionally based smart car 

type of system in partnership with Metro-North and Amtrak so 

that we have a truly integrated fair collection system in the Northeast region. 

All of these represent not only challenges to the State of Connecticut but this region and also the country. What are we doing 

about it? First and foremost, we need to make sure that we maintain our systems in good repair. As Senator Shelby at our Senate 

testimony hearing last March pointed out to us, we must maintain 

what we have before we can build new, and I think he hits the 

mark head-on. We need to make sure we maintain our infrastructure in good working order. In Connecticut we’ve invested $150 million with the State’s Fix 

It First Program to repair our roads and bridges. We’re going to in-
9 

vest hundreds of millions of dollars in the Q Bridge and Moses 

Wheeler Bridge over the next six to eight, but these represent 

major drains for us. So for our State in Connecticut where we already have the highest per capita investment in public transportation in the Nation, according to APTA, Governor Jodi Rell and 

our legislature have led a major public transportation initiative. 

We are investing $660 million of State money on new train 

equipment, which will start arriving later this year from our railcar manufacturer. We’ll be investing upwards of a billion dollars on 

the New Haven rail yard to be able to improve the overall appearance of our fleet and the reliability of our network. We’re going to 

expand service to New London on shoreline running our existing 

trains that end in Old Saybrook up further north to, east rather, 

to New London. 

We also have ongoing signal and catenary replacement programs. 

These are not $1 million or $2 million jobs, but the work that we’re 

doing now to replace catenary are $10, $100 million jobs. The job 

to replace our signaling system not only on our main line but also 

on our branch lines will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in 

order to get the system to the point where we can actually expand 

capacity and increase ridership. 

We’re also increasing parking opportunities in Fairfield, West 

Haven, and Branford, and we work closely now with new Haven 

and Stamford to create transit-oriented development opportunities 

in New Haven and Stamford. We also have a program in the New 

Starts Program right now, the New Britain/Hartford busway, 

which will do well to relieve congestion on I-84. What more can did 

we do? Let’s talk about our preservation challenge. 

Last month, when we testified before the Senate, we talked 

about the state of the big seven rail systems in the country and the 

infrastructure and capital costs associated with modernizing those 

systems. It’s rather exorbitant. It’s going to cost lots of money to 

get them back into the type of shape we need to have them; and 

for Connecticut establishing New Haven/Springfield rail services is 

an absolute priority. 

I had a great breakfast with Joe McHugh this morning and 2 

weeks ago with Joe Boardman, the new president of Amtrak, to 

talk about our partnership on that, and I’m very optimistic as we 

move forward. We have ongoing branch line service and studies 

where we’re seeing great ridership increase on the Danbury, Waterbury, and New Canaan services, but they are fundamentally single-track operations that really require investment in signalization 

and electrification in order for us to grow ridership on those lines. 

The role of the Federal Government, as we go forward particularly as it relates to authorization, you can read my testimony but 

the numbers are significant. Growing the pot for all of our modes 

of transportation is critical. Streamlining processes for new starts, 

no easy answers there, but I think as you heard secretary LaHood 

testify, the FTA is looking at their procedures, and we’re all encouraged by what we are seeing at the FTA level now. 

Policies aimed at reducing VMT are important. Policies aimed at 

performance measures and accountability. We want to be accountable for the monies we spend, particularly taxpayer money. If we 

are going to invest in the infrastructure, then we need to show a 
10 

rate of return. Greater balance and equity between the modes of 

transportation, more investment in public transportation is clearly 

needed. Public programs aimed at capital improvement and modernization for us and our regional partners would help, and absolutely support of intercity rail programs. Amtrak particularly on 

the corridor is absolutely vital. We need to assure a strong national 

carrier and continue our investment with our partner, Amtrak. 

Last, before I close, I would like to say that Connecticut is really 

working hard to spend stimulus monies wisely. We have already 

obligated much of our money. We continue open bids and as I 

walked down Constitution Avenue with my family on Monday 

doing a little visit, we saw the President’s motorcade go by, and the 

President was visiting Secretary LaHood and DOT, and mentioned 

one of our projects in Connecticut, and we’re really proud to see 

that, and the good news is that bids are coming in lower than we 

expected, so we’re hopeful to be able to do a little bit more with 

those stimulus monies that we all need. So thank you for having 

me here today. 

Chairman DODD. Did he stop the car and say hello to you? 

Mr. MARIE. I think there were many others he was probably interested in seeing him. 

Chairman DODD. I’m sure you waved at—— 

Mr. MARIE. We did, we did. 

Chairman DODD. Howard, thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD PERMUT, PRESIDENT, MTA METRONORTH RAILROAD 

Mr. PERMUT. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Dodd. I’m 

Howard Permut, President of Metro-North Railroad, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. I’ve submitted a full 

written version of my testimony for the record, and I would like to 

share with you some of the highlights of that statement. 

I was appointed President of Metro-North in July of 2008, but 

I’m by no means a newcomer to Metro-North. In fact, I was part 

of the original Metro-North management team, and have seen firsthand what is necessary to create a viable transportation system 

and how that system, in turn, can help create a vibrant regional 

economy. Metro-North service has made it possible for this region 

to remain strong. We have developed a reverse and intermediate 

commutation market that allows expansion into both sections of 

New York and Connecticut that once were considered bedroom 

communities only. More than 50 percent of our customers every 

year are traveling either to work locations outside the city limits 

or taking discretionary trips to theater, museums, and summer 

homes, trips that help fuel the rest of the region’s economy. 

The railed is also a lifeline to control mobility while reducing reliance on the automobile. Every day almost 4,000 people travel to 

New Haven from points, I’m sorry, to Stamford from points east. 

Without Metro-North service to carry these people, you would need 

to have one lane in each direction on I-95 to handle the additional 

cars on the road. 

Chairman DODD. Why don’t you repeat that line? We talked 

about this before the hearing started and that’s a stunning statistic. Why don’t you say that again? 
11 

Mr. PERMUT. Right, OK. That Metro-North every day carries 

4,000 people who travel to Stamford from points east, and without 

those people on the trains, we would have to add one extra lane 

in I-95 in each direction to carry that volume of people. Investing 

in a safe, reliable and efficient railroad to do this work and reduce 

traffic seems like a better bet. 

Before I go further, however, let me put Metro-North’s role here 

into some context. Metro-North is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 

MTA New York. We operate the New Haven line under a comprehensive and complex service agreement with the Connecticut 

Department of Transportation, and it’s one I would like to say that 

is one that’s been fair and very workable to the parties over the 

years as we worked on this, and this agreement in varying forms 

has been in place about 40 years. 

In 1983, when Metro-North was created to operate the three 

commuter lines in the area, service on the Hudson, Harlem, and 

New Haven lines looked and performed like they were on the brink 

of disaster. Today we would all agree there are still improvements 

to be made to Metro-North and the New Haven line. Our infrastructure is undeniably in better shape than we’ve ever seen. Last 

year’s record setting ridership and customer satisfaction levels and 

consistently high on-time performance are a testament to that. 

Metro-North has become an important part of the community it 

serves. However, it would be dangerous to take our contribution to 

the region’s economy and mobility for granted. In my experience 

you need certain ingredients to become and remain successful. 

First, you need good partners like the one we enjoy with the Connecticut Department of Transportation who share our same goals. 

Second, you need a committed workforce. We have 5,800 employees 

in Metro-North. Over 1,500 Connecticut State residents. Almost 

1,400 work within the State borders. Couple that with a high performance, and I would say we show an interest in doing our best. 

Third, you need a plan that’s strategic, comprehensive, and moves 

your organization toward achieving what’s important; and when 

you prepare to execute your plans, you better have the money to 

make it happen. 

A stable, sufficient, multi-year funding stream makes everything 

possible. Our experience in Metro-North is the example. Since 1983 

we committed ourselves to identifying and executing investments 

that allow us to reduce the maintenance needs, operate as efficiently as possible, and reduce reliance on taxpayer subsidies. Our 

fair operating ratio has gone from 38 percent to 55 percent, which 

means that more than half of our expenses are now covered from 

fares, one of the highest ratios in the entire United States. 

We are also fortunate to have benefited from visionary leadership 

in New York that created a dedicated stable means of funding infrastructure investment in 5-year increments. In all, we’ve invested 

$6.3 billion in all aspects of our system, but we can’t be fooled into 

believing that we are finished. We are far from it. In an unconstrained world, we just recently estimated that we will need to invest approximately $12 billion in the next 20 years to meet the 

basic needs of the railroads. Let me repeat that again. That’s $12 

billion just to meet the basic needs of the railroad before we talk 

about expanding the system. 
12 

In the 10 to 20-year timeframe alone, we are looking to fund 

projects totaling approximately $1.9 billion. Of that, almost 90 percent of that amount is required either to bring us to a state of good 

repair or to replace equipment and infrastructure that is at the end 

of its useful life. So approximately of the remainder, about 7 percent has been identified for projects that will help us increase ridership and add capacity to carry additional riders, and at this point 

I want to emphasize here, as Joe mentioned and you mentioned so 

eloquently in your testimony, that Metro-North ridership is at historic highs. It’s the highest that’s ever ridden on any of these lines 

in the history of these lines, which go back 160 years or so; that 

our needs are so great just to maintain what we have, we can’t 

dedicate much of our resources to expanding upon that. 

Further, these numbers don’t include the billions of dollars required to expand our region and further improve mobility in the region providing service from here to Penn Station, New York, building its public transit system across the Tappanzee Bridge, and the 

I-287 corridor or adding service to Stewart Airport are examples of 

additional needs. 

When we turn to Connecticut, we see the potential for further rebirth of commuter rail service. Metro-North has just completed a 

study of our communications and signal systems to determine how 

to meet the New Haven line service requirements including Amtrak service route 2030. The design and construction of in-system 

east of Greenwich requires additional funds. Metro-North and 

ConnDOT will also have to secure funding for the federally legislated mandate to install, to design and install positive train control 

to our signal system by 2015. Additional estimates put the cost of 

this system in the half a billion dollar range. Frankly, we will be 

looking at sources at the Federal level to help us meet this mandate. 

Other essential projects that are underway and require additional funding are the catenary replacement for the Connecticut 

portion of the New Haven line, the option to buy additional cars 

beyond the 300 on order, to expand service, and investing in modern repair and storage facilities in New Haven and in Bridgeport. 

A full funding strategy and project limitation plan are being formulated by ConnDOT for all these improvements. Similarly, we await 

legislative movement in New York on the funding of our next 5- 

year infrastructure investment. 

I’m optimistic these plans will be approved and funded soon. I’m 

convinced that our elected officials and business leaders understand how important public transportation is to the region’s economy. Likewise, many of your residents, our customers, consider it 

a lifeline. It’s a lot of money to invest, but by doing so we are also 

investing the region’s economic health and quality of life that it 

provides. Metro-North’s history is illustrative of that fact. In this 

case history must repeat itself or we will all be poorer for it. We 

look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, your staff, and 

other partners in Congress to address some of the issues in the upcoming Surface Transportation Reauthorization Bill later this year, 

and on behalf of the Metro-North and our MTA family, I want to 

thank you for your interest and your support. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you very much. 
13 

Mr. PERMUT. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. You’re not new to the work, but new to the job 

you have, and we look forward to working with you. 

Mr. PERMUT. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. We appreciate your testimony. Mr. McHugh, 

welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOE McHUGH, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, 

AMTRAK 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman DODD. Why don’t you bring that microphone a little 

closer to you. The people in the back of the room might not hear 

as well. 

Mr. MCHUGH. I think that’s better, thank you. Thank you very 

much for your leadership today for holding this hearing and for the 

good work that your staff does each and every day in helping us 

at Amtrak and over the years, Senator, thank your for you abiding 

support for Amtrak. You have really been there for us, and I would 

like to thank you on behalf of all of our employees. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you. 

Mr. MCHUGH. We are also experiencing record ridership this 

year. Our last year closed with the single biggest increase in ridership, 28.3 million nationwide, and despite the economic problems 

the country is suffering, we’re still pretty much on pace with last 

year. We are just 4.3 percent lower overall across the system with 

our ridership. The Northeast corridor has been down slightly, but 

we see that picking up now. Our on-time performance this month 

through April is 97 percent on-time performance on the Northeast 

corridor, and ironically it’s our long distance trains which are pacing ahead of last year, about 2.5 percent ridership-wise over the 

last year, so we’ve sort of held our own through these problems. 

Touch briefly today on five topics. I want to talk generally about 

our partnership with Connecticut, some statistics on your Springfield line here, the opportunities thereto, opportunities for the main 

line, and some of the guiding principles the company will be looking to move forward with in partnership with the States that support us and where we have service, and I would also like to extend 

my welcome and privilege to be with these transportation professionals on this panel today. 

We operate 46 daily trains on the Northeast corridor through 

Connecticut and the Springfield line each day. Ten of the 12 stations in Connecticut are intermodal stations and have connections 

with other forms of transportation. For those traveling in Connecticut, and about 1.6 million Connecticut people boarded on stations in Connecticut last year, they have an unparalleled range of 

travel choices here. It’s a very good place to do business and in 

terms of transportation for Amtrak. 

We employ 544 residents of the State. Last year between our 

payroll and the purchases of goods and services, about $100 million 

were spent here in Connecticut by Amtrak, and last year we’re 

very proud to have completed a major replacement of one of our 

aging draw spans, the Thames River Bridge, which is now a 

vertical lift bridge, and by doing that, it’s a State good repair 
14 

project, but it also brought us greater reliability in terms of our operations on the north end of the corridor. 

We will be investing stimulus funds in Connecticut. Next up is 

the Niantic River Bridge. We will get started on that, and we 

would not be doing that but for the stimulus funding. That’s about 

a hundred million dollar project. Two other bridges, one in 

Stonington and one at the Miamicog River, will also be replaced. 

The work will begin in September of this year. Bids will be out on 

the street in May. We will be doing ADA compliance at a number 

of stations in Connecticut. Our total ARRA investment is $14 million. 

With regard to the Springfield line, Amtrak operates 22 daily 

trains on this route. Those are two Amtrak regional trains, eight 

shuttles, our Vermonter service, which goes up to St. Albans for a 

total of 12 Amtrak trains. Ten freights also share the corridor. It 

is 62 miles long. It is single track. It has good passing siding and 

it is cab signaled. It was formerly double tracked, but the second 

track was lifted in the late 1980s, unfortunately. 

This year we will be up there with our track laying machine. Actually, we will be up there with our track laying forces completing 

what will be an 130,000 tie replacement project. This will be the 

second year of a 2-year project; and when we do that, we will be 

able to lift 14 speed restrictions, we will have improved grade 

crossings, and we will be able to raise our speed slightly on routes 

so that we can have a consistent 79 mile an hour operation. 

The two big challenges down the road for the Engineering Department will be replacement of the Hartford viaduct, which was 

built during the administration of Grover Cleveland. That is about 

a $40 to $45 million project, and to get double tracking back, which 

is a goal for us and the commissioner, it will have to be done to 

sustain the weight of the double track. We are also going to replace 

the Connecticut River Bridge near Windsor Locks, which dates to 

1904. That’s a $20 million project, and again, we are going to get 

started on the work, the planning work for that, and we hope to 

move on those in the next couple of years. 

The Springfield line will need continued investment, but according to our Engineering Department, its track and structures after 

we get the tie replacement done this summer, will be in pretty good 

shape, we are very proud of the Springfield line. It is a designated 

as a high-speed corridor, and it has a potential for high-speed rail 

funding under both the Prea Bill and hopefully under the Stimulus 

Bill. 

We have been working closely with the State, with Howard’s 

group in terms of defining overall state of good repair needs for the 

entire Northeast corridor and just this week we are sending that 

report to Congress. It is one of the requirements of the Prea legislation. 

With regard to opportunities, you know, I think we view the 

Springfield line as really a successor to the work we did in Harrisburg, the Harrisburg line. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah. 

Mr. MCHUGH. That is also an Amtrak-owned line. There are differences. Harrisburg is electrified, Springfield is not. Harrisburg is 

double tracked. We have a single track operation here. We have 40 
15 

grade crossings on this route. We have four on the Harrisburg line. 

Here we do 79. There we did 90, but we moved it up to 110 after 

our track work was completed. It is part of our system. It is part— 

we own it and we have an obligation to bring it up to as a level 

of utility as possible. We will turn to these challenges. 

We have been meeting regularly with the State. We have a good 

relationship with Joe Marie and his staff, and I can’t begin to tell 

you how much we hope that that will bear the fruit of the goals 

we set forward in our testimony. So we hope to include, expand and 

improve the passenger service on that. We know that the State 

wants to bring computer rail there. That’s very important for us. 

We think it will be part of the community of service that’s offered 

there. 

With regard to the Connecticut to the main line service between 

New Haven and New London carries a substantial amount of 

inner-city and commuter traffic. Shoreline East service, which is 

funded by ConnDOT but is operated by Amtrak, we do both the operation and the mechanical work on that. There are 16 weekday 

roundtrips between New Haven and Old Saybrook. As Joe said, one 

of them extends to New London. 

We currently operate 308 daily trains along this route. There are 

limitations. We are limited to the number of trains we can operate 

over the bridges in Connecticut. It’s a DEP regulation, and it ties 

to the number of moveable bridges, and the need to open and close 

them for the boating community here in Connecticut. We continue 

to work through that to try to find creative ways to address their 

needs but also increases to service. 

We also work closely with Metro-North commuter rail, and we 

hope to have an even more engaging relationship in the coming 

months and years as we move forward on Prea requirements of reducing trip time on the north end. 

Springfield line offers a microcosm of what Amtrak would like to 

do in coming years across the United States. No two corridors are 

alike, but there are common threads such as the need to find true 

intermodal connections. We must make our stations intermodal 

centers. We can go where buses can’t go and vice versa. We are in 

natural alliance with the bus community. 

We want to push for faster service. We think 110 miles per hour 

is a good threshold for speed increases on most of these corridors. 

They are feasible. They are doable. We can realize them in our lifetime. They don’t require a big bang approach, and they will, overall, will increase our service portfolio. We would like to move to 

class 6 track for our 110 mile per hour operation. That will require 

some signaling improvements, but the combination of those two 

will give us greater ability to increase frequencies and to increase, 

reduce trip time. 

We will look to stimulus funding, Amtrak reauthorization funding. We believe that there will be a national rail policy. Just 2 

hours ago the President was in the White House. He and Secretary 

LaHood announcing what he would like to do with the $8 billion, 

and making it a lasting legacy of his administration. 

Chairman DODD. That’s high-speed. Is that high-speed? 

Mr. MCHUGH. It is the high-speed part, but there’s money in 

there for—— 
16 

Chairman DODD. But this could actually—Hartford/Springfield 

could qualify for that. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Yes, it could, and we would look to that as a possible funding—— 

Chairman DODD. He made that announcement already? I 

thought he was going to do it this afternoon. He did it this morning? 

Mr. MCHUGH. He did it this morning. 

Chairman DODD. He must have known we were having the hearing here this morning. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Exactly. So it’s a historic day in many ways for 

real policy. We look forward to our continuing relationship with 

you and with our colleagues here in New England. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thanks very much for that and you’ve touched 

on, raised a lot of questions, too, but I appreciate you dwelling on 

some of the major issues we have in the State as well. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Thank, you sir. 

Chairman DODD. And we look forward to having a, really an ongoing, very consistent relationship with you here to move forward 

on these things. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Very good. 

Chairman DODD. Ron, thank you for being here with us. 

Mr. KILCOYNE. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman DODD. Bring that mic closer. I can just—I’m having a 

hard time hearing you here. I am worried about the people in the 

back of the room hearing you as well so—— 

Mr. KILCOYNE. OK, is this better? 

Chairman DODD. It’s better. You really have to speak into it, and 

I can see people straining and moving up here closer. 

Mr. KILCOYNE. All right. 

Chairman DODD. You may have the entire audience hovering 

over your shoulder here. 

STATEMENT OF RON KILCOYNE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

GREATER BRIDGEPORT TRANSIT 

Mr. KILCOYNE. It’ll be nice and cozy. Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony at this morning’s hearing, and also I want 

to thank you for your efforts on our behalf. Your commitment to 

public transportation can be seen throughout our system. 

My testimony will focus on the overarching benefits of public 

transportation in many areas of critical importance to the future of 

national, State, and local levels, and more importantly, I would like 

to focus on the capital and operating needs of public transportation 

and how these may be considered and addressed in upcoming legislation and I will—the need for increased investment in public 

transportation has never been greater. Public transportation will 

necessarily play an increasing role in addressing some of the Nation’s most pressing issues including the reducing dependence of 

foreign oil, improving our environment, increasing demand on nonrenewable sources, helping people get back to work, providing access to essential community services for all, for people of all walks 

of life, provide an immediate alternative for those not wanting to 

join congested highways, and for economic development and job 

growth. 
17 

Investment in public transportation in Bridgeport has led to new 

services to major employment centers, extended service vans, helping second and third shift workers, and our services are heavily 

utilized. We have experienced 11 percent growth in ridership in the 

last 6 months of 2008, and that growth continues, and for every 

hour of service we put on the street, we carry over 30 customers. 

My written testimony goes into more detail on the benefits and 

the reasons why we need to invest in public transportation. I will 

not get into that, discuss that in my oral testimony. The city of 

Bridgeport is engaging on a sustainability plan. It’s the aim of the 

Mayor to have Bridgeport to be the greenest city in New England; 

and as part of that element, we want to reduce the carbon footprint 

of transportation, and we also want to sustain compact dense 

growth in lieu of sprawling development that is both environmentally and energy inefficient. 

The city is reducing minimum parking requirements, and is looking at ways to reduce the barriers for developing the 20 percent of 

vacant land and buildings in the city to environmentally sustainable infield growth. But this infield growth, while it’s located along 

the existing transit routes, will increase the demand for transit. We 

will have to run our services more frequently; and in doing that, 

we will need more buses, and we will need a larger maintenance 

facility. Therefore, we have significant capital needs. We have significant operating needs; and as I go through my testimony, I’ll try 

to talk about how we look at how the upcoming authorization bill 

may be able to address those capital needs and operating needs. 

Certainly Bridgeport is just an example. You can translate that, 

those needs throughout the country, but as far as capital and operating needs are necessary. 

You know, before the infusion of capital funding under the 

AARA, it was difficult to secure a local match for projects other 

than rolling stock and facilities to be funded under FTA formula 

or discretionary programs and additional—once the AARA vending 

is used up, additional Federal funding and additional local match 

are going to be required to continue to meet current and future 

capital needs. 

Transit agencies struggle with the inability to plan service improvements and expansions on a predictable and reliable schedule. 

There have been occasions where additional operating investments 

are proposed without the required capital investment, and there 

have been occasions where capital investment is made available 

with no associated operating funding. 

One of the things we would like to see in the next Authorization 

Bill is a way to encourage or leverage more State and local investment in transit operations. This could be done in a number of 

ways. I have provided more detail in my written testimony but, 

again, in the interest of time, I will not go into the great details 

of the minutiae there, but there could be incentives to incur to 

States and regional governments to invest more heavily in transit 

investment. There can be conditions placed on the receipt of new 

funding streams. There can be modifications to existing programs 

and regulatory requirements. Increases in local operating funds can 

be used as a local match for capital or there could be and probably 
18 

the best way would be a combination of these alternatives to have 

the biggest impact. 

Another challenge to increasing transit’s role is the difficulty accessing transit. Even though Bridgeport is a dense and older city, 

it has sidewalks. There are many areas where it is unsafe or virtually impossible to actually walk to or access bus service; and if 

it’s impossible to walk or access bus service, it is impossible just 

to walk for other short trips. For example, within Bridgeport, over 

20 percent of the people who live and work within Bridgeport live 

within one mile of their job yet in many cases they can’t walk and 

that—and so it goes—the improving access to transit not only increases transit use, it also reduces vehicles by encouraging more 

nonmotorized trips. 

So, once again, we would look to the next Authorization Bill to 

include incentives that could and other policy statements that it 

could encourage localities to improve and to focus on improving access to public transportation services. Some of the—some other specific recommendations that we would have for the upcoming bill, in 

the case of capital funding at the State level there is a need to commit to longer term capital planning and funding for facilities and 

rolling stock. Consideration should be given to longer term authorization with annual appropriations and minimum guarantees. This 

would allow for steady and efficient growth of the State’s transportation infrastructure. 

I touched on the need for increasing operating funds and to illustrate this, within Connecticut, Transit for Connecticut, which is a 

coalition of businesses, environmental and social services organizations, has conducted a study, which evaluated the need for additional capital and operating investment needed for public transportation just here in the State of Connecticut. This study concluded 

that we would need to operate an additional 1.8 million hours of 

bus service a year just to reach optimum ridership levels and to get 

optimum benefit from public transportation. That translates into 

about $63 million of operating funds as well as an additional $215 

million in capital necessary to do this. 

I explained in the Bridgeport case where we needed additional 

service and expand our facility, but if you translate those needs 

and expand them statewide, we have that need and, once again, 

every State, the commissioner mentioned that we were one of the 

highest per capita investments in transit to begin with yet we do 

not invest enough in transit even at that level. You multiply this 

by 50 States and you see the need. 

As far as capital on a national level, the upcoming authorization, 

we agree with APTA’s position that over the course of 6 years the 

capital, the transit program should be no less than $123 billion or 

about double what it currently is, and this should be guaranteed 

funding; and as I mentioned, there also needs to be a need to ensure steady and predictable funding from the Highway Trust Fund 

or new revenue, streams of revenues from Federal motor fuels 

taxes as Federal motor fuels taxes decline. 

And finally, flexibility. While under the authorization of all 

transportation should grow at the same time, we would like to see 

some level of flexibility in 53-10, which is a 53-16 and 53-17, which 

is the Jobs Access money and New Freedoms money into a com-
19 

bined program that will grow, but it’ll be a combined program, because many of the needs of these programs overlap, and this would 

help in that area. 

So I would—hopefully I’ve stressed the case that transit—and my 

written testimony goes into greater detail. The transit offers many 

benefits to address many, many issues at one time and—but in 

order to achieve and to achieve optimum benefit, we do need to increase investment. We do need to find a way to cover both the capital needs as well as incentives to encourage more stable local investment to partner with the Federal dollars so that we can increase the need, increase transit investment. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you. Now that was very, very comprehensive, and you go into some detail in your written testimony 

which was very, very helpful, as well, as we look at the upcoming 

legislation and incorporating the incentive ideas as well, and how 

can we can utilize because the issue—many of you raised the issue 

of parking or at least one of the difficulties of parking. Obviously 

the intermodal connections where you can, where that becomes less 

of a necessity, and that’s one of the major problems we have in 

Stamford/Bridgeport. We had people who couldn’t get—there was 

no public transit to get to the public transit, and so trying to find 

out ways in which we promote that connection is going to be critical as well. You raised a lot of issues this morning. 

Let me begin, Mayor, if I can, in asking you it’s pretty comprehensive. What are your—what are the biggest transportation 

challenges? I mean, aside from the money issue, obviously, which 

is important, and let me use the opportunity as well as someone 

who has authored along with Warren Rudman, the former Senator 

from New Hampshire, and Bob Carey of Nebraska, this idea of an 

infrastructure bank idea, which the mayor of New York, the Governor of California, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and, in fact, the 

President had spoke about it during the campaign, but also has 

submitted some budgetary requests for an infrastructure bank 

idea. 

Because candidly, as I listen to all of you here about the needs 

just to maintain systems let alone expand them, the costs are prohibitive in many ways, and we are already lowering deficits in the 

Highway Trust Fund, and that will be one of the battles we will 

face this year, about $65 billion, I think, is the deficit number, and 

the question is how do we—what mechanisms do we have in order 

to provide the resources for capital, which you need for operating 

costs. 

In the capital area the infrastructure bank idea of leveraging private dollars with public monies, which has been done in Vancouver, 

Canada, and other places, is one of the more creative ideas of how 

you get additional resources to bring them to bear for infrastructure generally. I mean, this is, obviously, one major area, whether 

you are talking about water systems, sewer systems, highway system, bridges, whatever else we are talking about here, we will not 

be able to just go to appropriation process or just to raise taxes all 

the time in order to meet these need. We’ve got to find more creative ideas, and the infrastructure bank idea, I invite you to take 

a look at it, is one of the proposals out there to try and come up 

with a creative means and mechanisms by how we would be able 
20 

to attract—and one of the benefits is even sovereign wealth funds. 

We are always somewhat hesitant about sovereign wealth funds 

coming to the United States. One of the benefits of getting sovereign wealth funds, other nations who want to invest in this country investing in infrastructure, is for whatever reason they change 

their minds next week, they can’t pick up the transit system and 

move it back to where they come from. 

So one of the ideas of attracting sovereign wealth funds for infrastructure particularly in the area of transit has and added benefit. 

You can’t take away your investment once you’ve made it in this 

country; and as I just raise it for you, it’s something to talk about. 

But, Mayor, would you just maybe begin and talk about what you 

see are the biggest challenges in this area, and then ask each of 

you to kind of—because it is going to be prioritizing this to some 

degree. We would love to do all the things you are talking about, 

but I’m going to need to get some sense of priority as we look at 

this transit proposal. 

Mr. DESTEFANO. I would say it in a way that where I think you 

can be effective, but it’s not directly under Federal Government’s 

influence, which is land use policy. I think to the extent to which 

funds could be targeted in ways that support development along 

transit corridors would be critical rather than sprawl development; 

and, frankly, I think the ways to do that are to do that through 

funding RPOs, the region plan organizations that exist in all of the 

States, but additionally, to target funds to areas that have said and 

are placing a value around smart, economic growth, around transit 

facilities, and I think, frankly, in Connecticut we have three large 

transportation corridors to my point of view, I-95, I-91, and I-84, 

and supporting those corridor developments and targeting funds 

there are useful for two ways. 

I think one, it supports density along corridors where there is already the vast amount of the infrastructure of the State. Second, 

it preserves what I think is incredible added value of this State, 

which is the open space and rural character in many parts of the 

State, which are being gobbled up by development right now. So I 

would target the money to corridors, frankly, irrespective of how 

you raise it. 

Chairman DODD. Well, it’s a great point. I spoke in North Carolina, Governor Hunt has an annual meeting called Emerging 

Issues, which he invites, I think, well over a thousand people, and 

this year was transportation was the subject matter, and I was the 

keynote at the event, and did some work on it. I just looking at 

North Carolina, in Charlotte, North Carolina, the light rail system 

that they built in Charlotte, defied all earlier predictions of what 

would happen to land values along that corridor, and actually land 

values increased by over $2 billion contrary to what the old thinking might be that actually development along a rail corridor would 

decline property values. 

In fact, they increased in value. The people saw it as a highly 

desirable area to be, the transit being the piece that attracted that 

kind of growth so—and this New Haven to Springfield, Massachusetts, corridor, again, is the classic example where you have an infrastructure in place. We have that kind of development that’s already there, it seems to me, and yet you have a tremendous con-
21 

gestion. I don’t need to tell you obviously here, it happens to be I95 and 91 here, but going north of Hartford as well during rush 

hours coming in and going are just staggering going on. So the idea 

of providing that along with the stops makes a tremendous amount 

of sense to me. I don’t if you want to comment, any of you want 

to comment on that? 

Mr. MARIE. Yes, Senator Dodd, I think that the Charlotte example is a very good one. I think the most—— 

Chairman DODD. You have to speak up, Joe. 

Mr. MARIE. The most comprehensive analysis that has been done 

was done in Dallas, the Metroplex area, where it was determined 

that the real estate properties and property values around the light 

rail that was built in Dallas improved by 56 percent greater anywhere else in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex which, you know, 

was a real sort of study where they have control, you know, study. 

So it was really indicative of how successful it was in the economic 

impact. 

The same thing happened in Phoenix recently with the opening 

of the Phoenix light rail system, $1.2 billion investment in light 

rail generated a $6 billion investment in private investment along 

the 20 mile right-of-way between Phoenix and Mesa. So it did have 

the economic benefits that people had hoped. They were exceeded, 

more precisely. 

I think you raise an important point about what priorities would 

be. From our standpoint we have to draw a distinction between, 

you know, sort of the regular maintenance activities and sort of 

modernization to sort of extend the useful life and the lifecycle of 

our assets. I think most of us agree we do a very good job on, you 

know, the maintenance of our assets to keep them in a good state 

of repair, but what we’re really choking on right now, and I think 

all of the sort of large industrial areas and the big cities, you know, 

the Washington, the New York’s, the Boston’s, the Chicago, Philadelphia, is that the age of our infrastructure is sort of, as we talked 

about, reached a midlife crises where it requires a lot of money to 

keep it in a state of good repair, and that’s the thing that’s really 

hurting us and putting the sort of financial pressure. 

You know, our revenues are declining because some of us depend 

on, you know, special gas tax funds. Operating costs are going up 

because of medical costs. Preservation and modernization needs are 

going up, and at the same time the desire for our services is going 

up, because people, once they have been attracted to public transportation and away from their automobiles even—you saw that late 

last year with gas prices falling, riderships continued to go up on 

public transportation. So we have an opportunity to keep that ridership and expand upon it, but the only way we are going to be 

able to do that is invest in that capacity by, you know, improving 

the systems that we do have to increase the level of service that 

we have out there. 

Chairman DODD. Let me ask you, Howard, on Metro-North, because, again, there’s a deficit in New York City. 

Mr. PERMUT. Right. 

Chairman DODD. They are talking about cutting back services, 

raising fees. There’s some talk about a 25 percent increase in fees. 

Mr. PERMUT. Right. 
22 

Chairman DODD. It seems to me we are going in exactly the opposite direction. 

Mr. PERMUT. Yeah, I think—let me speak—I would like to speak 

to that. 

Chairman DODD. Bring that closer to you, yeah, the microphone. 

Mr. PERMUT. Yeah, sure. I would like to speak to that as well 

as well talk a little bit on the needs and on the development that 

the other, that Joe and the mayor spoke to. The most immediate 

issue is the issue you just raised, that there is a fundamental financial crisis that is affecting the MTA, which Metro-North is a 

part of, and that crisis has been—it’s, if you will, the perfect storm 

of a couple of different things that have been put together. 

Part of it is is that in the 1990s the decision was made to fund 

the capital investments that were absolutely needed, to fund them 

with debt service and that debt service, the amount of debt service 

that is now needed to pay back those bonds we are now paying that 

back and it’s escalating at a very, very high rate. That requires 

more care. At the same time with the loss—much of the MTA is 

funded by tax revenues that are very sensitive to the economy particularly real estate taxes; and with a almost complete collapse of 

the real estate market, those revenues have gone down dramatically. 

And so what we sit with today is a huge financial hole, because 

the costs have gone up because of debt service, and the revenues 

have gone down, because these nonpassenger revenue subsidies 

have gone down. The revenue from the riders has actually gone up, 

because the ridership on all the MTA systems is at historic levels, 

so we are faced with a true financial crisis. 

You may be aware that the Governor appointed Richard Ravich, 

who is a previous chairman of MTA. He had a commission. The 

commission made an series of recommendations, had a host of public hearings, and those are now and have been under public debate 

in Albany for the better part of four or 5 months; and as we sit 

here today, we are not sure of that outcome. We are still optimistic 

that something, we will get positive some financial support that 

will help us provide the necessary monies, and those monies— 

what’s not always fully understood, it’s not only we are facing service cuts and high fare increases, which I agree, we would agree are 

absolutely what we don’t want to do, and are antithical to what we 

have done at Metro-North. 

We also do not have a steady source of capital funding after this 

year, and one of the successes for Metro-North has been having, in 

the whole MTA, but I will speak to Metro-North, having a stable, 

sufficient fund source so we could invest over time to modernize 

the system. So we’re faced with truly a huge issue that will affect 

the New Haven line. It will affect the rest of Metro-North and the 

higher MTA, which is an operating budget out of balance. It is not 

sustainable even with all these cuts and service increases. There 

would have to be further on increases and cuts as well as no capital investment and we all know when—I can tell you that personally, you know, from being at Metro-North many years, the results 

of no capital investment is what Metro-North inherited, which is a 

system that was collapsing when we took it over in 1983. So it’s 

a road we absolutely don’t want to go down but we’re faced with. 
23 

And hopefully something will come of it. I remain optimistic that 

we will get a solution. We don’t want to end up down that road, 

because I think that would be a terrible road both for New York 

and for Connecticut, because we do have a partnership here, and 

the two States have to work together. I would just add very briefly 

just two other things. 

Chairman DODD. Are we talking to you about this? I mean, Joe 

are we involved in this conversation? 

Mr. MARIE. Absolutely. In fact, I am going to be in New York this 

afternoon and again tomorrow afternoon meeting with Howard 

talking about these issues. We’re in constant dialog and we need 

to—this is indicative why this is a regional problem and regional 

problems require regional solutions, so we have ongoing dialog. 

Mr. PERMUT. If I may just quickly, when we talk about—to echo 

what Joe and the mayor said and what you said as well in terms 

of economic benefit of investing in public transport, when you look 

just on the Metro-North system where you look where the investments have been made up and down the line, you’ll fine that they 

are almost invariably right next to the train station. So be it Stamford, be it in what’s being talked about in New Haven, what’s being 

built at State Street. You go to Yonkers, New York, the development, the high-rises next to the station. New Rochelle is the highest apartment buildings in Westchester County, the 50-story buildings they are next to the train station. They were put there because people—that’s the access both to and from Manhattan, and 

the lifeline is Metro-North. 

And so we have at least 10 different places where it’s already 

been done. We have a number of places underway where people 

want to develop next to train stations, and I think on the Federal 

side what can be done to support that, be it either legislatively or 

financially, would be a huge benefit. I think that could help structure more of these and make this not so—I think the ingredients 

are there, but it’s based on local funding and what developers want 

to do, and I think with a Federal role we could greatly increase and 

expedite those types of developments and the number we have. 

And the last point here, the issue of priorities, I think that we 

have to stay focused on maintaining our system, the basic system. 

They are expensive. There’s no question they are expensive, but the 

alternatives are much more expensive. And even where we sit here 

today in Connecticut, as an example, the catenary in the State of 

Connecticut was built in 1910 so it’s a hundred years old, and we 

are trying to operate the New Haven lines, the biggest rail line in 

the United States. More people ride the New Haven line between 

Amtrak and Metro-North than anywhere else in the country. We 

are operating both high-speed critical Amtrak service, critical commuter service, and we are running on a system that is now a hundred years old, and so I think we can’t lost sight of the fact that 

there are still significant investments that must be done so we can 

reliably provide the service that we need on the railroad. 

Chairman DODD. That’s well put, too, and that’s—and by the 

way, I don’t want this hearing to turn into—this is not an antihighway hearing, by the way. It’s obviously critically important as 

well, and we are talking about transit here, but obviously having 

a mix, but there are obviously disadvantages. I mean, the way 
24 

these formulas work a State or locality gets 80 percent funding if 

a highway is involved. You get 20 percent, 30 percent or 40, in 

some cases, if there’s transit funding. You don’t have to have a 

Ph.D. in economics to understand you’re going to do better by 

building a highway financially than you are if you run a transit 

system and we need to—I want to get us as close to that mode neutral where States and communities can start making decisions 

based on what their needs are rather than incentivizing it in a way 

that just, you know, guarantees an outcome that might not be the 

wisest at all, in fact, may be counterproductive in terms of what 

you’re tying achieve. Now, I don’t anticipate I am going to win that 

battle this year, but we ought to start down that road and get to 

that point where you have that sort of mode neutral approach so 

that people can start making decisions about these issues. 

And what I find encouraging, too, and I think I talked with some 

of you about this, historically we have seen this as kind of an East 

Coast/West Coast issue with interest in Chicago, and so forth, 

about it. What I have found among Senate colleagues of mine is 

that some of the greatest concern about transit issues come from 

western States where you have the utmost urbanized State in 

America. It’s always a fun trivia question to ask, what’s the more 

urbanized State in the United States of American and the answer 

is Nevada, which people usually never answer, but you have about 

98 percent of the population live in one county, Clark County, 

around Las Vegas. 

Senator Bob Bennett of Utah is deeply entrenched with transit 

issues in Salt Lake. Richard Shelby, my colleague on the Committee, cares about these issues in his communities as well, so this 

issue is getting more attention across the country; not just in the 

highly dense population States but in areas where you have a lot 

of dense population in concentrated areas. So I’m optimistic there 

is a growing constituency for these issues as we try to look forward 

to how we balance the needs back and forth. 

Let me if I can raise, Mr. McHugh, the issue, because you have 

a lot on your plate, obviously, and obviously we’ve got some real 

issues here, and I want to say, by the way, whether it’s in May or 

when we can do this, Joe, to really—we’ll use our office or however 

you want to do this, but we really want to have a very intense and 

close working relationship with you to move forward on these 

issues, because there’s a lot of overlapping that goes on here and 

delay. 

Shoreline East is obviously—I was pleased to hear you talk about 

this. There is a lot of interest in this from New London to Old 

Saybrook and of course this corridor, the tri-city corridor project, 

and I would just like to find how we can cut through a lot of this 

so I can prioritize what the needs may be so that we can start making some requests, and anticipating how we can get to that point 

of getting this up and moving. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Right. 

Chairman DODD. So share with me—give me some timeframe 

lines, if you will, on Shoreline East New London to Old Saybrook, 

and tell me how you think we can get this, how quickly we can get 

this tri-city project from New Haven to Springfield up and going. 
25 

Mr. McHugh. Very well. As I said earlier, the track—the foundation of a good railroad is good track, and we will have much of our 

track of proven programs done this summer, and we feel then that 

that’s something we can check off as a necessary component to a 

stable and reliable railroad. The next thing we’re going to need to 

do is Joe and his staff and a few at our staff are going to have to 

prioritize what the next steps are going to be, and I think double 

tracking has to be the next step. We have to have a plan—— 

Chairman DODD. The rights of way are there. We don’t have to 

acquire land. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Yeah. Unfortunately, it was torn up 25 years ago, 

so we don’t have to acquire land I think in just about every case. 

We’re going to have to look at where we can begin that process, 

and I think, one, you can get a plan together for double tracking, 

and you ask yourself then and there do you anticipate the electrification of this, because as you move up the track, you move up 

the tract or down the track, you add your double track, you move 

your signal boxes, and you begin to pour the foundations for your 

pole lines to carry the wire, and I think it’s probably—we have to 

sort this out, but that would probably be the next couple steps 

would be to advance a double track operation, and to advance the 

electrification. Electrification gives you hire speed operation. We 

can operate easily 110. Our diesels really only get up to 110, and 

it takes a while to do that. Electric operations allow you to accelerate faster and decelerate faster so your station stops are shortened, and you can pick up valuable times on the—— 

Chairman DODD. What about mag lev approaches, some of the 

more futuristic approaches. 

Mr. MCHUGH. Well, that is—I mean, what we can get by double 

tracking and adding catenary is going to be infinitesimal in terms 

of cost, and what it cost to build mag lev, and we would see it in 

our lifetime. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah, OK. 

Mr. MARIE. Yeah, if I could add to that real briefly. We had a 

good discussion about that this morning, Joe, and it’s Connecticut, 

Amtrak and Massachusetts getting a core group of people together, 

three or four folks, and I think your idea of having a meeting down 

in Washington and kicking it off, and coming up with an investment strategy, I think, is sort of the way we’re moving. 

We are going to have the right engineering people in the room, 

the right development people in the room so that we can start making sort of those shared decisions that we need to make on the investment strategy. So we hope to be able to do that in the next couple of months. We have to finish what’s called a NEPA document, 

an environmental document here in the State, because there is 

going to be some parking and some other things that require us to 

do environmental analysis. That document is going to be completed 

February of next year. 

So it gives us some time to come up with the framework of the 

investment strategy, agreements, work with the Federal Government to see where we can, you know, come up with money to all 

this, and then start making the investment. 

You also mentioned Shoreline East. We are in a very good dialog 

with Amtrak about the work they need to get done, and we do have 
26 

some work to do with the coastal maritime community as it relates 

to the opening and closing of these bridges. We want to achieve 

consensus with that community to ensure that we don’t impact 

their businesses. So we have some hurdles to overcome in the next 

few months there. We’re hoping to get some semblance of the service extended to New London later this year early 2010, and we’re 

optimistic we are able to do that. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah, let me mention—let me just, Joe, take 

advantage of the gathering here to say let’s plan on maybe in 

May—we’ve got new leadership at the Federal Transit Administration as well as the Federal Railroad Administration. We got nominees that have been made now and I’ll put together—have you 

come down. We’ll put together some meetings with them right 

away to begin that process. 

Mr. MARIE. Sure. 

Chairman DODD. Let me, if I can, the issue of—it’s been raised 

before and the mayor’s done a great job, in fact I think the numbers are fantastic, the number of people who actually walk, bicycle, 

utilize more traditional modes of transportation than otherwise 

being seen in the city. It’s within raised, and I saw this is true in 

Europe, that there are trains that actually accommodate bicycles. 

They actually make it possible for you to take a bicycle with you. 

I don’t know if we do that at all. Is there any talk about doing that 

so you are actually encouraging people to be able to then utilize an 

alternative means of transportation? 

Mr. PERMUT. We—let me start at least on the train side. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah. 

Mr. PERMUT. We’ve just put in a new bicycle policy that will be 

going in effect May 3 to make it easier for people to bring bicycles 

on trains, so that will be in place. We are always balancing two 

things. Our trains—we don’t have enough railcars. The trains are 

crowded, so we’re balancing having enough space versus having bicycles. So we have to be careful with that. It’s something we’re 

looking at. When the M8s come, the new cars come, we are looking 

at putting in some type of racks for hooks for bicycles to get them 

out of the space where people walk or if, God forbid, when we have 

emergency evacuations, which do happen, we can’t have bicycles 

blocking the way. So we’re doing that. We have had, with mixed 

success in New York, programs to get more bicycle racks at the 

train stations. That’s something we talked to the bicycle community about, and we are always hoping to figure out better ways to 

get more people to bicycle to the train stations. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah. 

Mr. MARIE. Senator, we are actually, as part of the our stimulus 

monies in the enhancement side actually investing a quite a bit in 

our bikeways and pedestrian walkways to improve conductivity to 

our stations. We need to do more at our stations to be able to give 

bikes the opportunity to park there, have people park their bikes 

there. 

As Howard mentioned, equipping the M8s, the M8 fleet, the new 

fleet coming in, with bike racks makes a lot of sense. It’s not just 

Connecticut or New York that has the issue of this balance between allowing bikes at all times. You know, just about every new 

system that’s opened up in the last—even a new commuter system 
27 

or light rail system that’s opened up in the last 20 years has fought 

this sort of the battle between allowing bikes during rush hour or 

the rush hours, as they are now, and having enough space on the 

train. 

So typically policies around the Nation have reflected that not allowing bikes during this sort of peak of peak rush hours, but allowing them off peak. So that’s those are the types of things we are 

exploring now with Metro-North. 

Chairman DODD. It almost seems to be counterintuitive. It seems 

that the time you want people during the rush hour so they are utilizing the alternative means of transportation. 

Mr. MARIE. Yeah. 

Mr. DESTEFANO. So we expect next year to have bike stations 

where you can rent bikes at about five locations around the city. 

Washington is doing it, Velebs from Paris type of deal. So we think 

that’s a good way to complement—one of the stations would be at 

Union Station. And the way transit systems can support that it can 

be one of the sponsors of that, right, Joe? 

Mr. KILCOYNE. And we do have bike racks on all of our buses, 

and they are all well used; and when we opened up the intermodal 

terminal in downtown Bridgeport, the bike racks we put there were 

almost immediately filled up so, you know, we can put another bike 

rack out there now. 

Chairman DODD. John, do you have—Ron was talking about incentives as well, and I wonder if you have any thoughts on the 

incentivizing investments at the local or State level as well in this 

area. 

Mr. DESTEFANO. You know, look. Local zoning in this State is insane because of the way we do it and it’s just—it is counterproductive and, most frankly, the thing that could be done is when 

you send your money, when Congress sends its money, it insists we 

have plans of development that support corridor developments. I go 

back to it. The point is exactly correct that everyone’s made up 

here, does increase value along the line, and it also has to do with 

development. 

So for instance, the Federal government owns a lot of property 

around these train stations. Give you an example. Brewery Street 

Post Office here in New Haven. It’s an outmoded asset, and it 

would be a shame if ConnDOT used it, for instance, for parking for 

its employees rather than build a parking garage rather so——I 

mean, you know, you can come up with a plan where you can see 

it would be good to help get funding for a parking garage for the 

rail yard, and we’ve got this incredible asset of land overlooking the 

harbor at the intersection of I-95 and the rail service, and it’s just 

smart land use. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah. Those are good suggestions. Let me ask 

in general do you have any questions at all you want to raise? 

Mitch, do you have any questions? 

Mr. WARREN. No. I think if you want to talk about how we can 

specifically incentivize, follow-up with the mayor’s point about 

incentivizing transportation-oriented development. 

Chairman DODD. Well, that was sort of the question of just 

incentivizing things you’ve done, actually, John, in town, and that 

is incentivizing by developing, at the local level, the bikeways and 
28 

so forth, encouraging people to utilize alternative means of transportation within the community itself, and I think that’s very important. It compliments what we’re trying to do, so it isn’t a question of Federal dollars, but it can occur locally. I thank all of you, 

and we can spend all day with just this paneling, but we have a 

second panel I want to hear from as well on some of these issues. 

We’ll stay in close touch with you and I’m very interesting ideas. 

Ron, you made some very good suggestions as well, and I’m going 

to want to prioritize. We’re not going to have—it’s going to be a 

battle already because of the deficits. I’ve mentioned in the Highway Trust Fund, and the historic battles between highway and 

transit, and obviously there are needs in a lot of areas, but I really 

look forward to this being an opportunity to break some new 

ground, and that’s why I want to call it the authorization not the 

reauthorization. 

I mean, again, if we are relying just on gasoline tax revenues and 

States that have more gasoline tax revenues get more dollars, you 

just again have the self-fulfilling prophecy as to where all this ends 

up, and at a time where we’re trying to move away from one alternative and I, again, as I mentioned in my remarks, in 1950s the 

interstate highway system did a remarkable job of increasing economic development in the country and without it, I don’t know— 

we would be a shadow of ourselves economically. 

But I think we’ve arrived at a time when we need to recognize, 

as well, how important the role of transit can play in exactly the 

way the highway system did 50 years ago. In fact, if we don’t do 

that, I think we leave ourselves—just to get the hours lost with 

people sitting in traffic, the amount of gasoline being used and fuel 

oil, the carbon footprint, all of the issues that people raise independently; and one of the reasons I suggested that they form in the 

White House a task force on sustainable development with the Secretaries of Housing, Transportation, Energy and Environment to be 

the core of it, and I’m going to have a hearing in fact with all four 

of those secretaries to come and talk specifically with how they 

interrelate with each other. 

In the past it’s been a stovepipe approach where each department sort of deals with its own issues without thinking about the 

impact on the others, and so to get a real coordinated effort—and 

to the credit of the Secretary of Housing, he and Ray LaHood have 

actually formed a dual task force with Housing and Transportation, 

going to your point, John, about sustainable development and land 

use as we move forward. So we look forward to working with you 

very closely on all of this and I, again, thank you immensely for 

coming to spend the time and share some thoughts with us. 

Mr. KILCOYNE. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you. We’ll move to our second panel as 

our first panel leaves, and I’ll ask them to join us at the table here. 

First witness is Jim Butler, who is the Executive Director of the 

Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments for the past 10 

and a half years, and part of that he was employed with the Town 

of Groton as Director of Planning for 11 years. 

Then we’ll going to hear from Karen Burnaska, who is the coordinator for Transit for Connecticut, a coalition of statewide organizations dedicated to improving awareness of the benefits of increased 
29 

bus transit, advocating increased use of bus services, also a member of Connecticut’s Transportation Strategy Board and cochair of 

the Coastal Corridor Transportation Investment area. 

The third witness is Phil Madonna, who is the financial secretary 

of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 281. Prior to his employment with the ATU, Mr. Madonna worked for CT Transit as a 

maintenance technician for 26 years. 

And last, we’ll hear from Eric Brown, who is the associate counsel at the Connecticut CBIA, Connecticut Business and Industry 

Association. His primary responsibilities involve developing policy 

positions on environmental, transportation and land use issues for 

CBIA, so we welcome Mr. Brown, and thank you as well, thank 

you, all of you, for joining us here this morning and I hope I 

haven’t overstayed—we are trying to move along, and not have people—as I said, we can spend all the time just with one panel or the 

other. So I am very grateful for all four of you to provide some 

background and ideas as we go forward with a major, I hope a 

major transit effort as part of the Surface Transportation Bill. So 

we’ll begin, I think, with you, Mr. Butler. 

Mr. BUTLER. Good morning, Senator. 

Chairman DODD. Good morning. 

Mr. BUTLER. Nice to see you again. 

Chairman DODD. Bring those microphones closer. Again, people 

are having a hard time hearing in the back. Nice to see you again. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. BUTLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 

Mr. BUTLER. The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments for which I work represents 20 municipal in the southeast 

corner of the State where the region’s metropolitan planning organization, which under Federal Surface Transportation law, makes 

us responsible for transportation improvements within our region. 

Thank you for convening this hearing in Connecticut, and for having me to participate a witness. 

I have been ask by your staff to provide prospective on a number 

of mass transportation issues facing our region. While our region 

is particularly well served by highways, southeastern Connecticut 

and somewhat transit poor. That this is the case as a function of 

history, geography, and our population density. However, times are 

changing, and over the past 20 years there has been an increasing 

demand for more transit service to, from and within southeastern 

Connecticut as two of the world’s largest gaming facilities were 

constructed, new shopping centers and subdivisions built, roads became congested, and fuel prices began to increase. 

Traffic on some of the region’s major State highways is increased 

by as much as 150 percent depending upon the highway’s location, 

and in certain times of day or in a particular season a significant 

number of our region’s roads are congested to the point that the 

amounts of traffic they carry exceed the capacity of the road. All 

this means that the region needs more transit; and while southeast 

area transit, our region’s bus provider, capably serves it is nine 

member towns, it is a small system with low service levels that primarily serve the region’s transit-dependent population, and is not 
30 

considered a viable option by those who still can afford to travel by 

private automobile. 

Both casinos do offer privately operated transit alternatives to 

their patrons, but they still attract thousands of visitors daily who 

travel to the region by automobile at all hours of the day and night. 

The southeastern Connecticut region has long been blessed by the 

location of a number of transportation providers in proximity to one 

another in New London. We have called this confluence of modes 

the region’s intermodal transportation center where high-speed, 

conventional, rail, ferry service to Block Island, Long Island and 

Fisher’s Island, long haul, bus, taxi service and public and private 

parking services all serve the traveling public. However, the transportation services are all independently opened and operated, so 

there is little coordination between them that could make this a 

world class transportation center. 

Recognizing this fact, the Council of Governments and the Connecticut Department of Transportation initiated a study last year 

that is about halfway complete. They will identify physical and 

operational improvements to tie all these modes of travel together 

making it more convenient and safer for passengers as well as recommend transit-oriented development opportunities. To compound 

the fragmented nature these transportation services in New London, Union Station, a historic and architecturally significant railroad station, around which all the modes are located, is privately 

owned, the only privately owned station along the shoreline rail 

corridor in Connecticut. 

This is a problem, because while the current owners of the Union 

Station may wish to see the building remain a transportation center, they need to have the building generate revenue to pay for capital investments and their ongoing operating cost. The Council of 

Governments has had discussions with ConnDOT, and continues to 

intend to do so about the State of Connecticut either owning or creating some kind of public/private partnership that will guarantee 

that this beautiful building remain a transportation center for 

many years to come. 

I was very glad to hear you note in your remarks and ask questions of Commissioner Marie and others about Shoreline East. 

Shoreline East currently operates limited service beyond Old 

Saybrook to New London. Although I live in New London, about 

two miles away from the train station, I bicycled there this morning, I had to drive to Old Saybrook, leave my car there to take the 

Shoreline East train to here in New Haven. 

Earlier this year, at the region’s urging, ConnDOT successfully 

convinced Amtrak to allow Shoreline East fares on some Amtrak 

trains if a multi-ride ticket is purchased. While this is a start, the 

region is hopeful that ConnDOT will very soon implement the, 

solve the impediments to bring you more commuter trains to and 

from New London. 

In an editorial in the Day newspaper this past Sunday, 

ConnDOT Commissioner Marie was commended for his efforts toward this end and the region is grateful. But the region will continue to urge the State of Connecticut to reach an agreement with 

the marine interests concerning the requisite bridge closings and 

negotiate with Amtrak, the owner of the rail line, concerning the 
31 

upgrades required to accommodate additional trains on this stretch 

of track. The southeastern Connecticut region needs, deserves and 

warrants train service commensurate with it with Metro-North 

service that ConnDOT provides for the southwest corner of the 

State, because region’s tourism base is vital to the health of the 

State’s economy. 

In 2005 our Council of Governments completed a study, which we 

called Intermodal Connection Study Southeast, fancy name for a 

proposed tourist transit system. This study developed a business 

plan for a high quality, dependable, seamless bus-based transportation system linking rail, ferry and buses to the region’s major 

tourist centers. A market analysis and the interpreted results of 

visitor surveys conducted during the course of this study, projected 

that enough visitors would use the system to make the investment 

in the system pay for itself. 

The study concluded that more people would visit region, the 

length of stay would increase, and people would visit more attractions if these linkages were better. A ridership of between 1.7 to 

3 and a half million people annually was forecast. Because a major 

beneficiaries of the system, the casinos and the other major tourist 

attractions in Mystic, could not easily be convinced to pay for the 

system’s $30 million startup capital costs and annual operating 

costs of around $7 to $8 million. The study recommended that conduct of a 2-year pilot demonstration project to show the potential 

funders of the system that it would be successful. This pilot project 

would cost $12 million dollars over 2 years in 2005 dollars. 

The Council of Governments remains convinced that the proposed tourist transit system would be well used and contribute significantly to improving our region’s transportation system. To date 

we have been unsuccessful in identifying the full $12 million needed for ConnDOT to pilot the system. 

How would we improve the transportation system in southeastern Connecticut? Based on my previous comments, it should be 

clear that our region is very desirous of increased transit service 

in southeastern Connecticut. Our Council of Governments and the 

region’s bus transit provider SEAT are now having discussions 

about how to expand service beyond the nine member towns that 

constitute SEAT. It is hoped that our study of the region’s intermodal transportation center in New London will result in improvements that will allow even more passengers to travel into, out of, 

and through the region safely and efficiently. 

The full extension of Shoreline East in southeastern Connecticut 

will provide travelers to and from the region, an alternative to an 

increasingly congested I-95. And if the tourist transit pilot system 

project could be funded, we are convinced that those private businesses that would benefit from its operation would step up to the 

plate and pay for it similar to what L.L. Bean does up in Maine. 

But all of these transit improvements cost money; more money 

than the State of Connecticut can apply to just one of its 15 regions. 

So I guess the bottom line is the best that we can do is continue 

to plan, advocate, and provide support for the region’s needs all the 

while being patient until such time as funding does become available to create a better and more transit-oriented transportation 
32 

system in southeastern Connecticut. Thank you again for this opportunity, Senator. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very, very much, and I said that we 

want to help in any way we can on the Shoreline East and when 

you get to the point of—because the marine interests are not insignificant and obviously it is a major part of our economy as well, 

and so we want to work with them very carefully, particularly during their peak seasons. It’s important to them. So let us know what 

we can do as well to help coordinate that effort—— 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman DODD. ——so we can move through that. We appreciate you being here. And I remember having been involved years 

ago, we almost lost that train station in New London. It was a very 

close vote, more than 25 years ago, to actually tear at that building 

down, which would have been a great loss, an architectural gem, 

and by a very narrow vote, I forget the exact vote, of the City 

Council, they decided to keep the building, and as a result, we have 

a fabulous piece of architecture in New London. Almost it’s—it’s 

kind of almost a defining piece of architecture for New London in 

many ways, so let us know if we can be of help to you as well. 

Karen, thank you very much for joining us. 

STATEMENT OF KAREN BURNASKA, COORDINATOR, TRANSIT 

FOR CONNECTICUT 

Ms. BURNASKA. Thank you. It’s my pleasure, and as Ron mentioned, I am the coordinator of Transit for Connecticut, which is a 

statewide coalition of environmental, business, social service, planning, transportation organizations dedicated to increasing awareness of the benefits of bus transit and advocating increased funding 

for bus transit; and on behalf of the coalition, I thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you for being here. Speak up, too, 

Karen, if you can, so the people can hear you in the back. 

Ms. BURNASKA. OK. I am going to use an analogy that I took 

from a gentleman in Norwalk that Connecticut’s transportation 

system is like a three-legged stool. The three legs are roads, rail, 

and bus. All three are needed for a balanced system and all three 

are in interconnected. On behalf of Transit for Connecticut, and 

with the support of One Region Fund, we completed the Bus Needs 

Analysis Study in 2007. That study detailed the benefits of the bus 

transit and also proposed an investment plan that would increase 

bus transit usage in Connecticut by 80 percent. 

This study gave various ways to increase bus transit service, increase hours of frequency, increase express bus service, increase 

interregional service, paratransit and demand response service, 

and also increase the connections with rail stations; and as I think 

you mentioned before, people need to be able to get to the train station, and when they get to the train station, they need to be able 

to get where they’re going, and this is a big concern especially 

when it comes to parking. 

The 2008 study also detailed the many varied benefits of transit, 

and there are many benefits. The economic benefits. Transit provides access to jobs and a larger labor pool for employers to choose, 

and this is very important especially when looking at first time 
33 

entry level positions and in the very congested conditions in southwest Connecticut. 

Better bus connections enhance the State’s investment and the 

Federal investment in rail and multi-modal systems. There are significant financial savings for households who choose transit over a 

private automobile, and studies show that every dollar invested in 

transit yields $3 in economic benefits. There’s also numerous environmental benefits. 

Increased bus transit reduces highway congestion. It decreases 

fuel consumptions, and it fights global warming pollution. It also 

reduces toxic diesel soot through clean vehicle technology, and it 

supports responsible growth around stronger transit centers and it 

fights sprawl. And as an added benefit to all of that, transit helps 

people of all ages. It increases mobility and choice for existing and 

new bus customers, nondrivers, the elderly and the disabled. It increases opportunities for better jobs as well as access to more medical, education, recreational and other specialized services. Bus 

transit/paratransit service, can reduce healthcare costs as seniors 

are able to age in place and remain in their homes. 

During this difficult financial time public transit is needed more 

than ever. Using transit provides direct savings to residents of the 

State. Individuals can save money by using public transportation 

instead of a private automobile. According to APTA, the American 

Public Transportation Association, households can save up to 

$8,700 annually by switching to public transportation. Employers 

who offer free parking could save more than 750 per parking space 

if it’s no longer required, and people don’t have to drive to work. 

According to Governor Rell’s budget summary for 2003 to 2005, 

for each elderly individual that can age at home instead of a nursing home because of the mobility and access to healthcare furnished by public transit, the State of Connecticut saves 3,500 to 

$4,000 per month. In addition, congestion costs commuters in Connecticut’s urban areas between $340 and $590 per traveler in 2005, 

and that number represents additional fuel costs and the extra 

costs of travel time. 

In addition, lower levels of traffic may allow the State to save 

money through less expenditure related to road repair and maintenance as well as enforcement of traffic laws, and society as a whole 

benefits from lower levels of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. A figure that we commonly use is a medium size car with 

an average mileage of 21 miles per gallon driven 10,000 miles a 

year produces five and a half tons of carbon dioxide emissions a 

year. 

In order to achieve the benefits of increased bus transit, an investment of capital and operating funds is needed. To achieve an 

80 percent increase in bus ridership, Transit for Connecticut recommends, and this is as Ron Kilcoyne had previously said, $215 

million in capital expenditure and an increase of $63 million in operating funds. While capital funds are needed to purchase rolling 

stock, improve facilities and shelters, upgrade communication systems and fare boxes, operating funds are critical to putting vehicles 

on the road and providing necessary service. A dedicated, reliable 

funding source is needed for all transportation projects if Connecticut is to achieve a 21st century transportation system and 
34 

move forward, and assure that all three legs of our stool provide 

the necessary mobility for residents. 

I just would like to comment. This is not in the testimony, written testimony. What Mayor DeStefano had said is there really is 

a need to—although there is funding needed, and it always comes 

down to the money, funding is necessary, both operating and capital, so that the State can plan how it will prioritize its expenditures. They do need to look, as he said, at transportation corridors, 

see what growth they want, the State, what is best for the State 

in those particular corridors, determine the transportation investment needed, how much it will cost, and then be able to prioritize. 

But I look forward to continuing this discussion, and I thank you 

very much for your time and consideration. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Karen, very, very much. Phil, we 

welcome you. It’s nice to have you with us. 

Mr. MADONNA. Same here. 

Chairman DODD. If you can speak into that microphone, too, 

Phil, I would appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP MADONNA, JR., CHAIRMAN, ATU 

CONNECTICUT STATE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE BOARD 

Mr. MADONNA. OK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to testify on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union. 

The ATU represents more than 2,000 workers in 11 cities across 

the State of Connecticut. Given the financial crisis facing transit 

systems used by Connecticut residents as well as others across the 

Nation, I would like to focus my remarks on funding issues and 

would respectfully request that my entire written testimony as well 

as the ATU’s comprehensive transit reauthorization proposal entitled We Can Get There From Here, be made a part of the record. 

Chairman DODD. It will be made part of the record. All of your 

documentation, I think, will be helpful. 

Mr. MADONNA. Thank you. Record high gas prices in 2008 caused 

millions of people to try public transit, and despite the recent drop 

in the price of the oil, many transit system continue to report capacity issues. Yet ironically, at a time when Americans are leaving 

their cars at home like never before, transit systems are being 

forced to implement painful service cuts and fare increases and layoff workers because of shortages in State and local revenues. 

In our testimony we cite all the reasons why Federal operating 

assistance is needed to help transit systems stay afloat during 

times like these. Yet ATU is aware of a long history of transit operating assistance and the ideological battles that have gone on in 

Congress for many years over this issue. Let’s leave all that aside 

for now. Instead, let’s talk about impact of steep fare increases and 

deep service cuts on working families across the Nation. Let’s talk 

about how much of a burden it is for a person with disabilities who 

is already making far less than an able-bodied person to deal with 

his or her paratransit trip more than doubling in cost. 

Fare increases are having a devastating effect on working families. Between the increased price of food, healthcare, energy expense and other everyday necessities, middle class families are getting squeezed like never before, and as if the fare increases are not 

enough, the service cuts may actually be worse. Generally when 
35 

routes get cut, transit systems tend to look toward those with low 

ridership, early morning, late night, and weekend service. People 

who work nontraditional hours who have no other means of transportation are disproportionately affected. A single mom who now 

gets her kids up at 4:30 in the morning to catch two buses in time 

to get her children to daycare and then herself to work cannot be 

expected to wait an additional hour for a transfer bus to arrive 

standing in the freezing cold with two kids in tow, but that’s exactly what is happening out there. Our drivers nationwide have 

seen it firsthand. I hope the Members of the Committee can see 

how ridiculous the current situation is. State and local tax revenues are weighed down, wildly fluctuating fuel prices and insurance costs are busting transit agencies budgets. 

Even if the Federal Government gave Connecticut Transit the 

money to double the size of its existing fleet, it would probably 

have to keep a good portion of those buses in the garage. Transit 

systems simply do not have the operating money to run their current fleets. As a result, we are cutting service at a time when people are turning to transit in record numbers. 

The ATU supports giving local transit systems the opportunity to 

use their FTA funds for operating purposes. At the minimum, we 

recommend that the Committee consider allowing fuel and energy 

costs to be classified as capital expenses. Of course, there is more 

than one way to generate more operating assistance for transit 

agencies. One way, as we already discussed, is to change the Federal rules. Another is to encourage States and local communities, 

which bear the bulk of the responsibility for funding transit operations, to invest more. 

We hope the Committee will give strong consideration to the 

ATU draft bill that would create a flexible incentive grant program 

within FTA. Under this bill if a State increases its level of spending on public transportation, then it would receive bonus surface 

transportation funds. States like Connecticut that are already investing in transit would do very well under this program, and other 

States that are simply building new roads would be encouraged to 

change their ways. We think this approach is an excellent incentive 

for States and local governments to increase their level of transit 

operating expenses so that we can put more service on the streets 

and stop the senseless service cuts, fare increases and layoffs. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. Good testimony. Appreciate it. 

Mr. MADONNA. Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Mr. Brown, welcome to the Committee. Nice to 

have you with us. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC J. BROWN, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, 

CONNECTICUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your holding 

this hearing and inviting us to be a part of discussions today. What 

I would like to do in our brief time is give you some context of our 

involvement in the issue, and share our perspective on where Connecticut is at this point in addressing its challenges, discuss a little 

about the nature and cost of congestion from our perspective, and 
36 

some of our views on the solutions, and also just comment briefly 

on the primary challenges we see going forward. 

CBI and its member companies have long recognized the importance of a safe and efficient transportation system, and we have 

worked with State officials and the legislature over many years to 

achieve that goal. However, it was in 1999 that our organization 

significantly elevated the priority of transportation following a 

meeting of our board of the directors with Michael Galice, who had 

just finished an incentive study of Connecticut’s transportation 

challenges and the economic peril that our State faced as a result 

of those challenges. 

The report prepared for the Connecticut Regional Institute of the 

21st Century concluded dire economic consequences for our State 

if actions were not taken to address traffic congestion, and to more 

seamlessly integrate our transportation system with regional, national, international corridors of commerce. Over the next several 

years CBI worked with the legislature and the Governor to intensify the focus on identifying, prioritizing, funding and implementing policies and projects to improve our transportation system. 

In 2000, the legislature created the Transportation Strategy 

Board as an instrument to insert more strategic economic thinking 

into our State’s transportation planning. In subsequent years the 

legislature and the Governor allocated and approved several hundred of millions of dollars for transportation investments. These 

were important and helpful measures that have begun to improve 

Connecticut, and move it in a better direction. However, significant 

challenges do remain. 

In the mid 2000s the failed I-84 construction project along Waterbury/Cheshire corridor brought a higher degree of public scrutiny upon the operations of Connecticut’s DOT. In 2007 Governor 

Rell created a special commission to look broadly at the operations 

of DOT, and make recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency. The commission produced an outstanding report, among other things, looked at what measures 

other State transportation departments had taken to improve their 

operations. The commission’s report was presented to the legislature in February, 2008, and provides an excellent blueprint for 

going forward. 

One of the major recommendations of the report was to make 

intermodal travel a high strategic priority. The importance of that 

recommendation is supported by data from the latest report of key 

mobility measures from the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 

Urban Mobility Report, perhaps the Nation’s most comprehensive 

comparative report regularly published on traffic congestion nationwide. According to the report road travelers, not just those traveling at peak hours in the Bridgeport/Stamford areas, averaged 31 

hours of delay each year, and that that number was increasing at 

a ‘‘much faster rate’’ than similar Metropolitan areas around the 

country. 

In Hartford and New Haven areas the number dropped to 19 

hours of delay each year with ‘‘much slower growth’’ in other areas, 

and I think this speaks a little bit to your point about striving for 

modal neutrality where there’s no sort of predestined way to go and 

certain areas of the country or, in our case, the State might want 
37 

to focus resources on one mode more than another but there’s no, 

as you said, predestined outcome. 

The costs associated with these delays are obviously substantial. 

The report estimates a $78 billion annual drain on the national 

economy. Connecticut undoubtedly contributes hundreds of millions 

of dollars each year to that figure. The causes for congestion and 

its adverse impacts on the economy and environment are multiple 

and can vary in different locations. Similarly, there’s no one silver 

bullet to solve congestion problems. 

Unquestionably improving mass transit is one piece of the solution and Connecticut is clearly moving forward in that area. Obviously as with most other strategies for reducing congestion, there 

are significant costs associated with large scale transit projects. In 

addition to infrastructure and other capital costs, substantial State 

subsidies will likely be needed to support these projects once completed. CBIA supports expanding mass transit where it makes 

sense and makes the most sense to do so. 

Individual corridors and options must be carefully studied from 

a cost benefit prospective to ensure limited but substantial transportation dollars go to those projects that provide the greatest economic and social benefits. Additionally, we cannot become so focused on transit that we short shrift our highway and bridge needs. 

In addition to the sobering statistic provided earlier by Commissioner Marie, a recent statewide survey of Connecticut businesses 

found that about 70 percent of the respondents said that the most 

positive impact State transportation officials could have on helping 

their businesses would be improving the condition of existing roads, 

highways and bridges or expanding highway and road capacity. Expanding mass transit options garnered a 13 percent response. 

Going forward, Connecticut needs to closely examine the degree 

to which State funding will be needed to accomplish the goal of creating and maintaining a first class integrated multi-modal transportation system in Connecticut, and we will have to make tough 

decisions about the sources of that funding including exploring opportunities for public/private partnerships. We need to do a better 

job of refocussing our transportation planning from an interstate 

regional perspective and more appropriately balance those priorities with project lists created by multiple regional bodies within 

Connecticut that are appropriately but more narrowly focused on 

their local transportation needs. We need to rebuild the trust of our 

citizens that money raised for transportation projects will be spent 

on transportation projects, and that those projects will be of the 

highest priority, and will be implemented in an efficient and costeffective manner. 

Under the outstanding leadership of Connecticut DOT Commissioner Joseph Marie, we are equally impressed with all our dealings with him so far. Working with the Governor, the General Assembly, our Congressional delegation, and a variety of other regional, national transportation entities, Connecticut is moving in 

the right direction, and we are optimistic that the State can one 

day be the envy of most or even all other States with respect to 

our transportation system. We look forward to working with them 

and the many other transportation stakeholders to help realize 

that vision. Again, thank you very much for this opportunity—— 
38 

Chairman DODD. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. ——to provide testimony and your leadership and 

support of this matter. 

Chairman DODD. Well, let me just pick up on your last point, and 

I agree with you here where, you know, where there are counties 

in other States of the country that are larger geographically than 

our State. San Diego County is larger than Connecticut physically, 

not to mention the population is substantially more than we have, 

and we are located where we are with all of these potential arteries 

around for us to take advantage of the situation. So in many ways 

we have a wonderful opportunity right before us here to connect in 

a way that provides alternative modes of transportation for people, 

moving goods, services, as well as people and, I think, give us a 

chance to become sort of a model while other States could do or 

other regions of the country could do, and many of them are moving in the direction. 

I had a conversation with my Senate colleague from Texas, Kay 

Bailey Hutchinson, recently, and she was talking about this great 

interest she has in this, a light or high speed rail system between 

Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio with stops in Austin, that triangle, in a sense what a difference that could make and go to the 

point of sustainable development or land use development as well 

where then you’d be talking about a concentration of development 

occurring within that triangle as a result of building a mode system to allow people to be able to move between those major cities 

without having to rely on major highway construction as well. 

So there are a lot of people out there in places that we don’t normally associate with transit that are, in a sense, thinking very, 

very progressively and very, very future oriented in terms of their 

needs. 

Let me ask, if I can, and in fact, Mr. Brown made a point about 

regional cooperation. In 1958 or 1959, some 50 years ago, Connecticut moved away from county government to city and town government, so we have 169 cities and towns in the State. We still 

have eight counties, but their political structure there’s regional 

school districts and there’s obviously some other areas we deal with 

regionally. We really don’t—Regionalism has not been a major 

focus of our attention, and obviously that’s important, and you 

mentioned that very specifically, Jim, in your conversation in talking to us hear about a regional approach, and we have a tendency 

to think of transit issues as being sort of a Fairfield County issue 

in Connecticut because of our proximity to New York, obviously, 

and that’s an obvious need, and so getting people—and a lot of congestion, obviously, on the roads as well. 

How can we better promote regionalism in this subject matter? 

Is this an area that invites the kind of cooperation between communities that we haven’t otherwise seen in other areas. 

Mr. BUTLER. Senator, if I might, I don’t think we need to invite 

it anymore, I think it’s insisting on being in the house with us, if 

you will. I think our towns and cities are recognizing they need to 

work together. In fact. Regions need to work together. We have a 

very close partnership, as you can imagine, with the Connecticut 

Department of Transportation, because the financial straits we are 
39 

all in demand that we work together now more than ever to see 

regional solutions happen. 

I mentioned our Regional Intermodal Transportation Center 

Study. The First Selectman of the Town of Bozrah said, ‘‘I know 

that’s down in New London and that’s 20 miles from my town hall, 

but this is critical for our region’’ so they get it. I think our chief 

elected officials get it. Our taxpayers, our citizens, our traveling 

public understand that we need to work together and transit and 

regionalism goes hand in hand, in my opinion. 

Chairman DODD. Well, the fact you have—just with the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, the fact that we are 

having these regional Council of Governments, I think, just speaks 

to that issue as well and chambers now, as well. There are communities that have their own chambers. There are more and more of 

them are region chambers as well, you’re seeing that, so there—the 

incentives in the business community are there as well. 

Mr. BROWN. There are certainly, Senator, but I would mention 

that while I think you comment regionalism has gotten kind of 

short shrifted, this year at the legislature up in Hartford it’s a very 

high priority issue. There was, as you may know, a smart growth 

work group that went on over the last year, very broad cross-section of stakeholders, and there is very strong consensus that legislation is needed this year, and there are several bills out there that 

will incentivize regionalism within the State. So I think it is getting good attention this year. 

Chairman DODD. That’s good. Well, one of the things we discovered, I think a lot of communities are discovering the affordable 

housing, for instance; that they are discovering that people who 

would be or people who want to work in the trades and so forth 

that every community needs are finding it harder and harder to afford to live in communities, and also they discovered that carpenters and the plumbers and the roofers and other people that 

can sustain and maintain a community and its needs, no longer 

can afford to live in these communities. 

We have the highest rate of young people exiting our State of 

any State in the country because of cost, and so all of these issues 

really, I think, are causing people to think anew about housing 

needs, job creation in the future, so it speaks to it in many, many 

ways. In getting people off the roads, Karen, you spent a lot of time 

on all of these issues, and I think as someone pointed out earlier, 

even as gas prices dropped, this may have been Joe Marie mentioned this, I think, that even as gas prices came down—I think we 

all accepted the notion last summer, when the gas prices went to 

$4.50 or so a gallon, that people had no choice but to opt for a transit option given the impact financially on them. But even as those 

prices came down, ridership was maintained; that people didn’t revert back to their own automobile. They now discovered that it 

wasn’t, this wasn’t a burden; that it was actually pleasant. It was 

fast. They were able to engage in other activities that they normally wouldn’t be able to do if they were alone in their automobile. 

So it became sort of an attractive idea. 

But what do we need to do, now that gas prices are down again, 

but obviously it can go back up again very quickly, how do we encourage more public use of transit? How do we get people to be 
40 

willing to try this in the absence of the kind of economic incentive 

we saw last summer? 

Ms. BURNASKA. In order to get people to use transit, it has to be 

convenient, reliable, and safe. It has to get people to where they 

want to go, when they want to be there, and that means increasing 

the service I think the transit districts in the State, and CT Transit, have been very good at even with not having increased operational funds. They look at where the need is, and they move their 

routes around to try to meet the new demands of the workforce. 

And as I believe one of the speakers mentioned earlier, we don’t 

have people who just work 9 to 5 Monday through Friday anymore. 

We have people working at night, and working on weekends, and 

those are the people we have to also service. But in order to increase service and I do believe you’re right, when the gas prices 

went up, some people who might never have thought to get on a 

bus before have used it, and some of the commuter shuttles and 

the express bus routes into Hartford, where most have even seen 

more than a 5 percent increase—have seen a huge increase in ridership—and I think when people do get on them, if they can get 

them where they want to go and when they want to go there and 

they are reliable, people will use them. 

In many cases they are not as convenient as an automobile, but 

they do save them money over gas, insurance, parking. I do believe 

you need to improve and increase the frequency of the service in 

order to get more people to use it. 

Chairman DODD. You know, Mr. Brown, I spent part of this past 

week, I was at Pratt & Whitney, the news up there about the F22. I was at Sikorsky yesterday. These are now places where Electric Boat in Groton, but at Sikorsky and Pratt & Whitney there’s 

a lot of employment. In fact, we have some relatively good news 

about it looks like things may be fairly stable for them for at least 

the next several years because of the announcements on defense 

work, but very crowded parking lots in these facilities, and I’m 

wondering if any thought has been given, by some of our larger private employers, about providing kind of bus, bus services coming 

out of the commuter parking lots and so forth. There’s a way of— 

is that a cost factor? 

I was just looking at just the amount of land used just to accommodate the parking vehicles of employees and there, by the way, 

I’m thinking your point, the three shifts, there at Sikorsky they 

have three very active shifts going. So the idea of, obviously, a 

third shift gets, raises all sorts of complicated issues in terms of 

transit questions. But I wonder if there’s been any thought or any 

discussion, I was wondering whether anyone looked at the economics of that from a business perspective as to whether or not providing their own private means of transit for employees has any 

benefit to the business involved. 

Mr. BROWN. Right. Well, I know, for example, again, back in 

Fairfield County, some businesses have initiated their own service 

to connect their company with mass transit modes, train stations 

and so forth. There were some tax incentives available for doing 

that. I believe they went away, and I don’t think they’ve returned. 

So, I mean, obviously that’s—and it’s a tough time to be doing that, 
41 

but there has been strong interest in that in terms of connecting 

modes of mass transit. 

In terms of, you know, the place up in Windsor or something 

where you’re, you know, trying to more go out into the neighborhoods and pick up people in their neighborhoods, I don’t know empirically if any studies have been going on that. My sense is I think 

our data shows that, you know, people are pretty spread out, and 

live in a wide range of distances from there. As a matter of fact, 

I think I saw that 10 percent of employees in Connecticut come 

from, commute to other States, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New 

York. 

So we do have that spread out mentality, and so I would imagine 

it would be a challenge, but certainly in some ways and, again, if 

it makes economic sense to do so, and for hanging onto good employees and so forth, I think you’re right, businesses should look 

at it. They are looking at things like, you know, telecommuting 

and, you know, trying to be more flexible, and there are tax incentives for employers that offer employees, you know, for mass transit, to help supplement their mass transit costs. So there is some 

of that, but I agree, it needs to be—— 

Chairman DODD. That’s an interesting, just, observation. I think 

you’re probably right that people are spread out great distances, 

and just isn’t necessarily absolutely convenient. But it just occurred 

to me I looked at how much land use and your statistics on the cost 

per parking space and so forth in terms of just economic growth 

and development or expansion, needs and so forth, I just question—that’s interesting. 

Mr. BROWN. I think as mass transit develops further, for example, New Haven, Hartford, Springfield rail, you’ll see an expansion 

of that idea of connecting businesses with modes of mass transit. 

Chairman DODD. That would make a lot of sense, yeah, obviously, as well. 

Ms. BURNASKA. If I may, Pitney Bowes in southwest Connecticut, 

Pitney Bowes does run a shuttle from the Stamford rail station to 

its office, and there is a lot of cooperation with the Norwalk Transit 

District, who over the years, and I just pulled out some statistics 

in case you might ask, is that this the Norwalk area between 2007 

to 2008, 275,000 commuters were shuttled back and forth, and this 

happens and there’s shuttles—this is a rail station shuttle. It’s not 

all supported by businesses, but some businesses are looking into 

it in Norwalk, Bridgeport, Fairfield, Stamford; for Shoreline East 

in Hartford, New Haven, Derby, and Danbury. 

So that is one thing I believe that the transit districts and the 

State is looking at in conjunction with businesses on how to alleviate the overcrowding at many of the parking areas of train stations. 

Chairman DODD. I thought that our witness from Bridgeport 

talking about a number, it was a stunning number to me. Was it 

like almost like 30 or 40 percent of the population lived within a 

mile of where they worked and yet there aren’t—there really 

isn’t—there is no capacity to walk to get to your job, and that in 

itself seems—— 

Ms. BURNASKA. That is true and in Bridgeport—I don’t know if 

Ron is still here—I believe 30 percent of his bus riders leave the 
42 

bus and go to the train station to take the train to where they work 

so—and that the access to bus routes, though, in these cities that 

do have bus, a good bus service, is difficult, and that’s why they 

are looking at more of a complete streets type of legislation with 

street coming in to allow bike lanes and sidewalks in areas and 

better access to transit. 

Chairman DODD. Mr. Madonna, you’ve spent a lifetime in this 

business and industry. 

Mr. MADONNA. Yes. 

Chairman DODD. And 26 years, I think, is the number I recall 

saying you worked in the business. 

Mr. MADONNA. Yes. 

Chairman DODD. Tell us any thoughts you have on this, on increasing ridership, what needs to be done, how can we do a better 

job. Obviously there are financial questions, the operating costs, 

capital, I accept all of that, but beyond that. 

Mr. MADONNA. Yeah, I agree with Karen. It starts with the service. You know, you’re asking people to get out of their cars and get 

on the bus and come to work, and they need to do that conveniently. You don’t want to add an hour in the morning and an hour 

in the afternoon to their day, and it’s just not convenient. If you 

have the type of service that people can get to work within a reasonable amount of time, then you could start incentives for people, 

employer/employee incentives where maybe the employer could pay 

for half of a monthly bus pass, tax incentives, things like that and, 

you know, if you build it, they will come, you know, but I think it 

has to start with the improved service. 

Chairman DODD. As well, I agree with that. Mr. Brown, do you 

have—— 

Mr. BROWN. Related to that, sort of the flip side of the $4 gas 

price, getting people onto mass transit, I think it was the Dallas 

system that 15 when it was new, they decided for a certain period 

of time, it may have been as little as a week or two, to let people 

ride it for—it was free, wasn’t it, yeah, for free, just to give people 

to say, you know, what I’ll give this a shot and, you know, and a 

certain percentage of those people are going to stick with it so you 

have to think creatively like that, too. 

Chairman DODD. You found out you can read that morning newspaper, and all the things you can’t do on your own. 

Mr. MADONNA. At CT Transit several years ago we had a tritransit—I think it was a day or a weekend. You got a voucher, and 

you got to ride the bus, and I think if you have incentives like that, 

but maybe give people a voucher for a week, they can really see 

how much money they can save by parking their car. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah. 

Mr. MADONNA. You need to get them—you need to get the ball 

rolling by getting them to get on the bus. 

Chairman DODD. Yeah, and then it does become contagious even. 

If someone hasn’t tried it, they see someone at work who has. This 

is pretty 16 good. It works well. I will got home on time. I got to 

work on time and, you know, sometimes it spreads as well. Well, 

I raise the issue of the—I don’t know if CBI, if you prioritize any 

of these transit issues. They obviously—the Shoreline East is very 

important to southeastern Connecticut to complete New London 
43 

and Old Saybrook. The big one, obviously, for many us is this New 

Haven to Springfield, which is regional. Again, given the density of 

the population of that corridor and obviously doing what we can 

Metro-North and so forth makes some sense as well. Is there a priority sense that CBI has in any of these projects? Have you taken 

such a position? 

Mr. BROWN. Well, we really haven’t, to answer your question. We 

try not to get into the argument which project is more merit than 

another. What we push for is that there be some, and preferably 

as objective as possible, priority analysis, so whether it’s using like 

economic models like the REMI model or whatever. What we’ve 

tried to do is to push for policies that kind of take some of the politics outs of it and say listen. From a purely economic and social 

benefit standpoint, you know, this project ranks above the next 

one; and whatever that is, we’re for it as long as long as that 

prioritization took place. But we don’t generally get in the business 

of, you know, picking one project over another. 

Chairman DODD. I urge you to look as well—I mentioned before 

this infrastructure bank idea, which is we spent a lot of time trying 

to develop this idea. I tell you a quick anecdote. Bob Carey, Chuck 

Hagel, rather, and I from Nebraska, he just retired from the Senate, my Republican colleague from Nebraska, we were cosponsors 

of this idea, and we did all the—we did 2 years of work in developing the idea, and we were deciding when to announce it, and 

Chuck Hagel, Senator Hagel came and said, ‘‘Well, let’s announce 

it—’’ It was like the first week in August, 2007. I said, ‘‘If we announce this in August, no one in the world will even pay any attention to this at all. Just no one will come, and you’ll end up with 

maybe two reporters that will cover this 2-year effort we put into 

this.’’ Well, he said, ‘‘I would rather get it done now than rather 

wait until September.’’ 

So he prevailed in the argument, and we had the press conference and I was right. In fact, I was wrong. We didn’t have two. 

We had one reporter show up to cover this wonderful idea we had 

spent so much time developing. That was at 10 o’clock in that 

morning. By 5 o’clock that afternoon Senator Hagel and I were 

probably on every television set in America, because at 4 o’clock in 

the afternoon the bridge over the Mississippi collapsed in Minneapolis, and I forget how many people died, I think 19, something 

like that, people died, a hundred more were injured, and all of a 

sudden infrastructure was a major subject matter that evening and 

for days afterwards. 

You may recall people running around in every State determining whether or not the bridges were safe, the roads were safe, 

and everything else. So obviously if we had waited until September, we would have been accused of pandering responding to 

that situation than by having announced this thing 6 hours before 

it occurred. We looked as though we were onto something. I would 

urge you to take a look at this. 

We are trying to get more people more interested in this idea of 

being creative, how we can finance and fund, whether it’s operating, in this case, capital expenses, in ways that are just not going 

to be available to us. We all know what kind of condition we are 

in economically. We know the investments being made to try and 
44 

get the economy moving again. They are already going to put us 

behind substantially, and I’m one that believes these investments 

make sense at this point to try and get the economy moving. 

Nonetheless, they are going to put tremendous pressures on us 

to make investments in the coming days. So we need to be far more 

creative and imaginative if we are going to have any economic 

growth. If you can’t make investments in human infrastructure and 

physical infrastructure, whether it’s education or transit systems, 

the subject matter this morning, then that ability to grow in the 

21st century is going to be severely curtailed by it. 

So this is one idea. There may be many others out there, but I 

would invite your attention to you to look at it and let us know, 

particularly CBIA would be interested and your thoughts on it. We 

have had testimony, Phil from organized labor and others, and the 

national Chamber, by the way, has taken a strong position in favor 

of it. So we have had a rather interesting collection of people testify 

before the first hearing I held on the subject matter endorsing this 

idea of leveraging private capital with public dollars to see if we 

couldn’t get some of these efforts underway, and get over at least 

some of the hurdles, the financial hurdles we face. So I invite your 

attention to that. 

I want to thank you all. Listen. Can—again, we spent a lot of 

time on the subject matter, but you’re helping us build a case and 

some ideas and thoughts, and I kept on used the line if they build 

it, they will come, and I was going to use that line with the Shoreline East, because I know one of the concerns we have is there 

enough ridership that will support that addition between New London and Old Saybrook; and I believe, again, if you look—like today, 

if you ran the first train tomorrow and said we are going to determine the success and failure on what happens in the first week, 

you might not get it. But if you build it, they will come, in my view, 

and you’re seeing that kind of development. 

And what I find interesting—I don’t in you paid as much attention, but to the point we’re getting as much traffic going from 

Stamford east as you would normally think everyone is heading 

west to New York, so you’re getting a lot of traffic and now with 

Pfizers in Groton, of course, and the work at Electric Boat and others, there’s a lot of economic development not to mention, of course, 

the casinos, and that part of the State that are also attracting a 

lot of population movement. So I think there’s a good argument to 

be made if we get this moving, it will really provide some real relief 

as well in that corridor. 

I thank all four of you. You’ve been very helpful to have your testimony, and I appreciate our audience that stayed around. I look 

out, I see some real people that have forgotten more about this 

than I’ll probably ever know in the area of transit, and I appreciate 

their patience and participation here as well. We’ll leave the record 

open. I’m going to make sure my other colleagues on the Committee, they may want to submit some questions to those of you as 

well. So we’ll leave it open for a few weeks, and we’ll submit some 

questions to you, if that’s the case. I want to thank my staff. I want 

to thank Mitch Warren, who does a great job. Dawn, I thank you 

as well, and the clerk for the Committee, and Shannon, we thank 
45 

you very, very much, a North Carolinian working for my colleague 

in Alabama so—you’ve been with him how many years now seven? 

Ms. HINES. Nine. 

Chairman DODD. Nine years been with the Committee, and does 

a good job as well. We thank her for participating and with that, 

the Committee will stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:] 
46 

1 Connecticut Economic Vitality and Land Use. Rep. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Regional 

Institute, 2003. 2 Connecticut Climate Change: Working Together for a Climate We Can All Live With. July 

2006. CTClimateChange. 15 Apr. 2009 http://www.ctclimatechange.com/documents/FinalCT2006-Inventory-V5.pdf. 3 Comprehensive Plan of Development. 15 October 2003. City of New Haven. Mayor John 

DeStefano, Jr., Mayor. 4Sohmer, Rebecca, and Robert Lang. Downtown Rebound. Fannie Mae Foundation and 

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Census, May 2001. 5 ‘‘Richard Florida—Creative Class.’’ Creative Class The Source on How We Live, Work, and 

Play. Creative Class Group. 15 Apr. 2009 http://www.creativeclass.com/richardlflorida/. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN DeSTEFANO, JR. 

MAYOR, 

NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT

APRIL 16, 2009 

Chairman Dodd and honorable Members of the Committee, my name is John 

DeStefano, Jr., and I am the Mayor of the City of New Haven, Connecticut. I am 

honored to appear before you today to share my insight on climate change and 

transportation, as these pressing matters relate to the future economic standing of 

the Nation, to the environmental health of the States and to the overall quality of 

life for our citizens. This is an opportunity to share with you the New Haven experience and to make a case for national support for an integrated and sustainable 

transportation framework. 

The Situation in New Haven and Connecticut 

Connecticut’s land use pattern is in many ways typical of the national experience. 

Central cities grew dramatically with the Industrial Revolution. Over time, however, 

residents settled further and further from the central core—first to suburbs, then 

to so-called ‘‘Edge Cities’’ and even to exurbs. Over 80 percent of Connecticut workers now drive alone to work and overall vehicle miles traveled on Connecticut’s 

heavily congested local roads increased nearly 50 percent from 1986 to 1995. 1 From 

a climate change perspective, the cumulative effect of our land use decisions is staggering: transportation accounts for 40 percent of the Connecticut’s greenhouse gas 

emissions. 2

In New Haven, I am pleased to report a far more positive story. Over the past 

decade, New Haven has made great strides with dramatic improvements in the 

health of the city. Community indicators ranging from public safety to education 

and from economic growth to quality of life indicate positive change and long-term 

sustainability. The Downtown remains strong as evidenced by the 500-unit transitoriented residential development now under construction at 360 State Street. 

Sustainable transportation systems are one of many factors contributing to New 

Haven’s success in recent years. More people live in Downtown New Haven than 

in the downtowns of many larger cities, including Denver, Detroit, and Charlotte. 3

Nearly half of the city’s population does not drive alone to work; and, by percentage, 

more residents walk to work here than in any other New England city, including 

Boston. 4 We have two passenger railroad stations and a major public bus system 

and many New Haveners simply do not need or want to own a car. Rather, on any 

given day, you will see cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians all sharing city streets 

in an ever more appropriate balance for a community street. 

New Haven’s Economic Standing and Transit-Oriented Future 

Two of our leading institutions—Yale University and Yale–New Haven Hospital— 

are global leaders and this elevates New Haven to measure itself on that scale. Our 

competitive advantages are in three basic economic sectors: advanced fabrication, research and development, and higher education. To compete in the global marketplace, our challenge is to (1) support these sectors as they excel in their economic 

sector; (2) create an environment conducive for residential and cultural activity 

within walking distance of major employers; and (3) enhance our quality of life in 

terms of cultural enrichment and environmental health so that New Haven remains 

a destination city for the Creative Class. 5

Since these economic sectors are concentrated in the central business district and 

medical district areas, the city recently released ‘‘Downtown Crossing’’, a 20-year development framework for New Haven. A central focus of this effort is to reconnect 

the city and build a critical mass of transit-oriented urban land use by converting 

Route 34 from a traditional highway to an at-grade urban boulevard. From there, 

the city plans to initiate a fixed rail streetcar system which extends pedestrian mo-
47 

6 Jones Lang LaSalle. Economic Impact Analysis Transit-Oriented Development District 

Union Station. December 2008. Economic Development Corporation of New Haven. 15 Apr. 

2009. 7 New Haven City Plan Department. 2007 Annual Report. 15 April 2009 http:// 

www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/pdfs/AnnualReports/Annual%20Report%202007.pdf. 8 New Haven City Plan Department. 2007 Annual Report. 15 April 2009 http:// 

www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/pdfs/AnnualReports/Annual%20Report%202007.pdf. 9 Jones Lang LaSalle. Economic Impact Analysis Transit-Oriented Development District 

Union Station. December 2008. Economic Development Corporation of New Haven. 15 Apr. 

2009. 

bility from the northernmost reach of the Yale campus to Union Station and the 

medical district. In the future, the city will be woven together seamlessly in a more 

organic, pedestrian-centered environment. 

The economic impact associated with the short- and long-term development 

projects within walking distance of Union Station is promising. Short-term projects 

alone are expected to result in over 1,800 jobs and $200 million in gross regional 

product at stabilization. 6

Route 34 East 

The Oak Street Connector (Route 34) was conceived in the 1950s as a link for 

commuters to and from the Valley and to address dramatically increasing traffic volumes. Companion urban renewal-era projects designed to eliminate blight and substandard conditions in the Oak Street and Church Street neighborhoods were intended to redevelop the districts with more contemporary structures and land uses. 

The section of Route 34 between the Air Rights Garage and Interstate 95 opened 

in 1959. 7 Additional right-of-way was acquired to the west, but this section was improved only with a pair of frontage roads. During the period from project inception 

to ultimate closure, the Oak Street/Route 34 effort displaced over 880 families and 

cleared 350 buildings. Adjoining neighborhoods were fractured, creating a clear division between the medical district and Downtown, as well as distinct residential communities to the north (Hill) and south (West River and Dwight) of the connector. 8

The concept plan restores these neighborhoods by converting Route 34 to a community-scale urban boulevard and by converting excess right-of-way for new homes 

and businesses. Likewise, the project provides economic opportunity through mixed 

use development and encourages sustainable transportation systems through a balance of bicycle/pedestrian improvements and public transit enhancements. 

The Route 34 East project ultimately results in 16 acres for new development by 

constructing a new street grid consisting of six traditional intersections and new city 

blocks between College Street and Orange Street—thereby bridging the city’s medical district, Union Station, and downtown into a seamless transit-oriented development zone. Over the long term, this signature project for the city will create thousands of new jobs within walking distance of transit stops. For these and many 

other reasons, this project is our highest priority. 9

New Haven Streetcar Project 

The city, in cooperation with Yale University, is proposing a new fixed-rail streetcar line generally along the College Street corridor of the University’s central campus. The entire line is approximately four (4) miles, connecting the central campus 

with the Yale University and Yale–New Haven Hospital medical district. The streetcar project fills a gap in the local public transportation system, as no public transit 

service currently serves a heavy pedestrian corridor running between central campus and the medical district. 

As in Portland, Seattle, and other cities, the streetcar works from the national 

model of fixed rail transit in support of high density mixed use development. In New 

Haven, new growth is concentrated at the edges of the corridor, thereby enhancing 

the value public transit. At the northerly end, Yale University is planning to construct two new residential colleges, which when complete, will expand the undergraduate enrollment by approximately 15 percent. At Science Park, over one million 

s.f. (including 400 new residential units) are planned or under construction on the 

site of the abandoned Winchester Repeating Arms Factory. At the southerly end, the 

streetcar connects to the above-referenced Route 34 East development and, in Phase 

II, to historic Union Station. 

Summary 

As demonstrated here in Connecticut and across the Nation, we are faced with 

decisions on how to reduce congestion and how to dramatically cut greenhouse gas 

emissions. I argue for a sustainable transportation system that accomplishes both 

objectives. 
48 

The Committee is encouraged to focus on the goals: compete effectively in the 

global economy and reduce substantially the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Investing in sustainable transportation systems, particularly ones that link residential 

neighborhoods with a region’s basic economic sectors, is a pathway to reach both of 

these goals. With that in mind, your engaged support for transit-oriented systems 

is very much appreciated. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and share with you the New Haven experience. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on this matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH F. MARIE 

COMMISSIONER, 

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

APRIL 16, 2009 

Good morning. I am Joseph F. Marie, Commissioner at the Connecticut Department of Transportation. I want to thank you for convening this hearing and allowing me to discuss the current and future transportation investment needs in Connecticut. 

Our transportation infrastructure—our roads, bridges, ports, airports, buses, ferries, and trains—are essential to the economic well-being of our State and our Nation. In order to address the challenges in front of us and allow our citizens to prosper, our transportation system, while fundamentally safe and productive, must be 

preserved, strengthened, and enhanced. 

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (Department), is unique amongst 

other State transportation agencies, as it owns and operates not only a highway system but also owns and operates two (2) commuter railroads, the New Haven Line 

and Shore Line East services which carry over thirty-four (34) million passengers 

a year. The statewide bus services include twenty-one (21) bus operations, which 

carry over thirty-five (35) million passengers per year—the State owns three of the 

largest and supports the remaining 19 bus services. The State also owns and operates six (6) public airports including Bradley International Airport—New England’s 

second largest airport, two ferry services and one deep water seaport. In addition, 

the State participates in subsidizing several bus transit operations, dial-ride services, job access mobility services and other transportation demand services. A truly 

intermodal—operational—transportation agency. 

Our transportation needs are many and all of this is taking place during a time 

when the cost of doing business is colliding with a current economic crisis. 

This will require tough choices ahead for our State and the Nation. I can tell you 

that we are not alone. I have had the chance to talk with many of my peers from 

around the country and our State is not alone. 

Many would argue that the state of our Nation’s infrastructure has also reached 

crisis mode. In our State, the average age of our bridges is more than 50 years old 

and ranks as one of the highest in the Nation for age of bridges. 

Over the past several years, Governor Rell and the General Assembly have overwhelmingly endorsed bold, comprehensive, and multi-modal transportation initiatives that have provided a major start on long overdue measures to meet Connecticut’s transportation needs and assist the Department in its mission. 

The Governor’s 2005 Transportation Initiative was the largest capital investment 

in two decades in Connecticut’s transportation system and included $667 million for 

new rail cars for use on the New Haven Line and Shore Line East; $300 million 

for new rail maintenance facilities; $187 million for operational improvements and 

congestion mitigation measures for I-95 between Greenwich and North Stonington; 

$150 million for improvements to other State and interstate roads; and $7.5 million 

for new transit buses. 

A year later, the Governor and General Assembly approved another multi-modal 

transportation bill that provided for important projects such as the New Britain— 

Hartford Busway and the New Haven–Hartford–Springfield (NH–HFD–SPR) Commuter Rail Service including shuttle service to Bradley International Airport. Both 

projects had been under consideration for many years and outlined in the Department’s Master Plan and will provide the needed expansion to support mobility and 

will support economic development. The 2006 initiative also supported the rehabilitation of rail passenger coaches for use in commuter service, the West Haven/Orange Rail Station and parking, capital improvements on the Branch Lines, parking 

improvements on the New Haven Line, Shore Line East, and the Branch Lines, 

highway infrastructure improvements projects and rail links to the port of New 

Haven. 
49 

Again in 2007, the Governor and General Assembly continued their commitment 

to improve and enhance the transportation system in Connecticut. In particular, a 

‘‘Fix It First’’ program for the rehabilitation and rebuilding of roads and bridges was 

established for fiscal years 2007 and 2008—$60 million for roads and $90 million 

for bridges. Rail station improvements identified in the New Haven Line Train Station Visual Inspection Report ($6 million total) and a parking garage at the Stamford Transportation Center. 

All these projects all have significant transportation benefits for travelers and 

commuters as well as opportunities for transit-orientated development and the Department has been aggressively working on their implementation since passage of 

that bill. 

The State of Connecticut has provided specific transportation funding investments 

that will build upon our regular Federal transportation program in order to continue 

a balanced approach so that Connecticut’s transportation system enhances the general quality of life, economic development, and increase in productivity and movement of people and goods in a safe, efficient manner. 

In fact, in 2007, Connecticut had the highest per capita State investment in transit funding, followed by our border States—Massachusetts and New York. The importance and significance of passenger rail service is clearly demonstrated in Connecticut. 

While we’re enhancing and expanding transit services in State, we still have significant preservation challenges ahead. 

ConnDOT’s Capital Needs 

In order to provide a safe, efficient transportation system that meets the mobility 

needs of people and freight within the State and the region, the Department has 

identified a five point action plan that identifies the major areas for prioritizing and 

emphasizing investments for all modes of transportation: 

• Preservation—State of Good Repair; 

• System Modification (Safety); 

• System Productivity—Efficiency; 

• Economic and Environmental Impact—Quality of Life; and 

• Strategic Capacity Improvements. 

While our needs on our highways and bridges are great, for purposes of this hearing, I’m going to focus on the capital needs for public transportation. 

On the rail side, the Department’s major capital improvements needed for state 

of good repair and system capacity improvements include the following: 

• New M8 Rail Cars—(380 cars): $686M (CT share) Funded 

• M4/M6 Rehab/Replacement: $210M (CT share) Unfunded 

• New Haven Rail Yard Expansion— 

• Tier 1: $847M Funded 

• Tier 2: Car Wash $ 57M Unfunded 

• Tier 3: Deferred Elements $178M Unfunded 

• Modernization of Catenary/Moveable Bridges—New Haven Line— 

• C1B: $140M Funded 

• C1A: $600M Unfunded 

• C2: $975M Unfunded 

• Mainline Signal System: $310M Unfunded 

• Track Program: $200M Funded 

• Positive Train Control: $52M (CT Share) Unfunded 

• New Haven–Hartford–Springfield: $600—$700M Unfunded 

• Shore Line East Station Expansion: ($97M)$40M Funded/$57M Unfunded 

Summary—Total: $5.052B; Funded: $1.913B; Shortfall: $3.139B. 

The projects I have noted reflect current estimates of major rail capital needs and 

does not account for other routine capital maintenance needs. 

It is important to note that in addition to these projects, there will likely be further system enhancements as a result of the Department’s ongoing branch-line studies. Early estimates on the Danbury Branch alone are somewhere in the vicinity of 

$300 million with passing sidings, track realignment, electrification Norwalk-Danbury and extension to New Milford. Station and parking improvements and year of 

expenditure considerations would likely increase this amount. While no estimates 
50 

have been developed to date for the New Canaan and Waterbury branches, there 

will also be significant improvements identified once the studies are complete. 

Shore Line East will also require necessary catenary and capacity enhancement 

improvements. 

On the transit side, the Department’s major capital improvements needed for 

State of good repair and system capacity improvements include the following: 

• Systemwide Bus Replacements: $270M (Partially Funded) 

• Systemwide Bus Mid-Life Overhauls: $20M (Unfunded) 

• New Britain–Hartford Busway: $569M (Partially Funded) 

• CT Transit—Hartford Facility Rehab: $30M (Partially Funded) 

• Waterbury Bus Maintenance Facility: $120M (Partially Funded) 

• Northwest Transit District Maintenance Facility: $20M (Partially Funded) 

• Windham Transit District Maintenance Facility: $20M (Partially Funded) 

• Southeast Area Transit Maintenance Facility: $20M (Partially Funded) 

• Housatonic Area Transit Maintenance Facility: $3M (Funded) 

• Greater Hartford Transit District—Union Station: $20M (Partially Funded) 

• Greater NH Transit District Maintenance Facility: $30M (Unfunded) 

• Milford Transit District Facility: $15M (Unfunded) 

• Systemwide Intelligent Bus Investments (Fareboxes, radios, AVL): $40M (Unfunded) 

Not included in what I have discussed is what it would take to modernize existing 

freight lines to support regional growth. 

Ridership on the New Haven Line is up 3.9 percent and 18.1 percent on Shore 

Line East. Ridership on our statewide transit system was also up 4 percent over 

the last 12 months. Connecticut has continually upgraded and improved its New 

Haven Line, over which Metro-North and Amtrak operates, to a tune of over $120 

million annually. 

While the State has made significant investments over the past few years, our 

ability to keep pace with systems infrastructure requirements will be problematic. 

In order to expand rail service within the State, we will need additional Federal 

funding in the next authorization bill. If not, we’re ultimately going to have to balance our state of good repair needs with system expansion. 

In all of these efforts, the Federal government is a critical partner in the success 

of these initiatives. 

Transportation Authorization. SAFETEA–LU provided Connecticut an estimated 

$3.2 billion for highways and $713 million for transit (FFY 2004–2009). This 

amounts to about 66 percent of Connecticut’s transportation program. 

AASHTO has calculated that Congress should fund a $545 billion multi-modal 

program, including highways, public transit, intercity passenger rail, and freight. 

The Department and the Northeast region both believe that there needs to be a 

strong Federal role in transportation policy and financial investment is essential to 

achieving the mobility that underlies the broader public policy goals. As Congress 

begins to debate the next transportation authorization bill, it’s important that investment levels over the longer term correlate with documented needs. 

The Department has been working over the last few years with organizations such 

as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Council of 

Northeast Governors (CONEG) and the Northeast Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (NASTO) on authorization principles as well as program 

specific recommendations. It is fair to say there are many similarities in their surface transportation authorization principles that advocate for: 

• A strong Federal role in a comprehensive national transportation policy; 

• An increased Federal financial investment; 

• A financial commitment and strategy to preserve and maintain the existing 

transportation infrastructure, including highways, transit, and rail; 

• Commit to policies that will ensure investments are made strategically; 

• Expanding revenue sources; 

• Investing holistically; 

• Improving program administration—Simplifying Federal transportation programs and regulatory processes and reducing project delivery time to create a 

more efficient and effective transportation program; 
51 

• Integrating Federal policy and strategic investment for all modes of passenger 

and freight transportation, including the development and collection of adequate 

and appropriate data for all modes; and 

• Strengthening support for transit and intercity passenger rail to provide energy 

efficient and environmentally sound options for managing the carbon footprint 

of transportation systems. 

We need policies that support maximum flexibility for the States and maintain 

the existing flexibilities of the current surface transportation programs that allow 

for the inclusion of rail projects. Given the magnitude and diversity of needs, State 

and local governments should be provided with the maximum discretion to make the 

investments that are right for our State, local, and regional requirements 

Continuation or modification of surface transportation authorization transit programs are necessary. For example, the Department recommends simplifying the 

New Starts and Small Starts Program, continuation of the Railroad Rehabilitation 

and Improvement Financing (RRIF) Loan Program, the Rail Line Relocation and 

Improvement Program and the Fixed Guideway Modernization Program. The current formula for Fixed Guideway is extremely beneficial to States like Connecticut 

and New York whose transit systems operate over established older networks. 

Transit is a particularly important regional asset in the Northeast, providing mobility for ten billion riders annually within and among communities, both urban and 

rural. Effective transit systems can provide energy efficient and environmentally 

sound options for managing the carbon footprint of transportation systems. 

Public transportation also contributes to creating economic growth. APTA estimates that every $10 million in public transportation capital investment yields $30 

million in increased business sales, and that every $10 million in operating investment in public transportation yields $32 million in increased business sales. Further, every $1 taxpayers invest in public transportation generates $6 in economic 

returns. 

Transit is clearly an integral part of the national transportation system and must 

continue to receive sustained, assured, dedicated Federal funding. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to discuss Connecticut’s current and future transportation needs as you begin the process of drafting surface transportation 

authorization legislation. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD PERMUT 

PRESIDENT, 

MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD

APRIL 16, 2009 

Good morning, Chairman Dodd, Members of the Committee. I am Howard 

Permut, President of Metro-North Railroad and I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on ‘‘A 21st Century Transportation System: Reducing Gridlock, Tackling 

Climate Change, and Growing Connecticut’s Economy.’’ 

I was appointed President in July of 2008, but I am by no means a newcomer 

to Metro-North. In fact, I was part of the original Metro-North management team 

and have seen first hand what is necessary to create a viable transportation system 

and how that system, in turn, can help create a vibrant regional economy. 

Metro-North service has made it possible for this region to remain strong and to 

grow. The business community has choices that are the envy of the rest of the country. They can elect to house their corporate offices in the middle of Manhattan or 

in the middle of cities and towns that were considered part of suburbia not too long 

ago. Our solid schedule and reliability has facilitated the creation of employment 

centers in White Plains, Greenwich, Yonkers, and Stamford. The city of New Rochelle has developed an entire new residential district around our train station. 

Fordham station in the Bronx is our 4th busiest station—and it is mostly used by 

people heading away from New York City to jobs in Westchester and Putnam counties. When the Dia museum was seeking a location, it chose Beacon, New York— 

adjacent to our train station there. 

Metro-North is no longer just a ‘‘commuter’’ railroad serving the traditional New 

York City-centric business market. More than 50 percent of our customers every 

year are travelling either to work locations outside the city’s limits or taking discretionary trips to the theater, museums, or summer homes as far away as the Berkshires—trips that help fuel the rest of the region’s economy. 

The railroad is also a lifeline to ensuring mobility while reducing reliance on the 

automobile. Every day, almost 4,000 people travel to Stamford from points east. 
52 

Without Metro-North service to carry these people, you would need to add one lane 

in each direction on I-95 to handle the additional cars on the road. Investing in a 

safe, reliable, efficient railroad to do this work and reduce traffic seems like a better 

bet. 

Before I go further, however, let me put Metro-North’s role here into some context. Metro-North was created in 1983 as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York. 

Through a comprehensive and complex service agreement between the MTA and 

the Connecticut Department of Transportation, Metro-North assumed the operation 

of the New Haven line commuter service from bankrupt or near-bankrupt freight 

carriers. 

The New Haven Line itself is largely a 4-track railroad, 75 miles long with 36 

stations in Connecticut and 8 in New York. Most of the stations in Connecticut are 

owned or managed by local communities. 

We assumed operation of this and its sister lines in New York, the Hudson and 

Harlem, after years of underfunding. The lack of investment brought those operations to the brink of disaster. 

Annual on-time performance averaged 80 percent—barely. Annual ridership was 

falling—roughly 42 million. It wasn’t difficult to figure out why. Rail cars were 

dirty, dark, hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and breaking down more frequently than they were running. Forget a seat for every customer. There was barely 

standing room for every customer. The power systems—both the system that distributed the electricity and the ones that fed electricity to the trains—were old, inefficient, and insufficient for a modern railroad’s needs. We were afraid to conduct customer surveys. Letters told us clearly enough what our customers thought of us. 

Today, while we would all agree that there are still improvements to be made to 

Metro-North and the New Haven Line, the infrastructure is in better shape than 

it’s ever been. 

Last year, on-time performance systemwide was 97.5 percent; New Haven Line 

performance was 97.0 percent. Metro-North also posted another record ridership 

year and doubled the amount of riders since our inception. Over 84 million customers travelled systemwide in 2008, with 37.9 million on the New Haven Line 

alone. 

ConnDOT has begun replacing the catenary system—the overhead wires that 

power the trains—section by section. Funding has also been secured to order 300 

new railcars that will begin to arrive next year. These railcars will replace 40-yearold vehicles that we continue to triage but which are undeniably past their useful 

life. They will also add much needed seats for customers who have been flocking 

to our New Haven Line service. 

And we began conducting surveys in the late 1980s. Last year we hit two milestones. A total of 94 percent of our customers on all three lines indicated they were 

satisfied with our service. And we were particularly gratified that, for the first time, 

90 percent of New Haven Line customers gave us a ‘‘thumbs up.’’ 

By constant vigilance and attention to detail, Metro-North has become an important part of the communities it serves. However, it would be dangerous to take our 

contribution to the region’s economy and mobility for granted. 

As an active participant in the evolution of both Metro-North and the New Haven 

Line, I can tell you with certainty that there is no magic wand that will make these 

types of improvements possible. You need certain ingredients to be successful. 

First, you need good partnerships. We are fortunate to have leadership at the 

Connecticut Department of Transportation working with us to improve public transportation in general and our railroad specifically. 

Second, you need a committed workforce. A company cannot achieve the levels of 

reliability, satisfaction, and quality and get the return business we get without most 

everyone pulling together to produce a premier product. We have 5,800 employees 

at Metro-North. Over 1,500 are Connecticut State residents. Almost 1,400 work 

within the State’s borders. I’d say we have a vested interest in doing our best. 

Third, you need a plan that is strategic, comprehensive and that moves your organization toward achieving what’s important. 

And when you combine all these ingredients and prepare to execute your plans, 

you’d better have one last thing. You’d better have the money to carry them out. 

I’m not talking about funding individual projects. I am talking about a stable, sufficient, dedicated, multi-year funding stream. It makes everything possible. Our experience at Metro-North is the example. 

Since our creation in 1983, we committed ourselves to identifying and executing 

investments that have addressed our State of good repair (SOGR) issues, and accordingly have allowed us to reduce maintenance needs, operate as efficiently as 

possible and reduce reliance on taxpayer subsidies. As a result, our fare operating 
53 

ratio has gone from 38 percent to 55 percent—which means that more than half of 

our expenses are now covered from fares, one of the highest ratios in the country. 

We were also fortunate to have benefitted from visionary leadership in New York 

State when then MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch worked with State lawmakers to 

create a dedicated, stable means of funding infrastructure investment. These 5-year 

capital programs have allowed us to replace equipment, rebuild bridges, tunnels and 

track, install modern, efficient technology solutions for everything from reliable 

train operations to adding capacity to increasing customer amenities. 

In all, we have invested $6.3 billion in our system. Those investments have gotten 

us this far. Don’t be fooled, however, into believing that we are done. We are far 

from it. 

Metro-North is currently finalizing its 20-Year Needs Assessment. In an unconstrained world, we estimate that we will need to invest $12 billion in our infrastructure and rolling stock for the railroad to maintain SOGR and to keep meeting the 

needs of this region, exclusive of the need to expand Metro-North to regions we don’t 

serve today. In the 2010–2014 timeframe alone, we are looking to fund projects totaling $1.9 billion. 

Whether you look at the 20-Year Needs or the next 5 years, the type of projects 

break down the same way. Almost 90 percent of that amount is required to either 

bring us to a state of good repair or to replace equipment and infrastructure that 

is at the end of its useful life. Approximately 7 percent of that amount has been 

identified for projects that will help us increase ridership or that will add capacity 

to carry additional riders. 

Metro-North has also identified billions of dollars to build projects that expand 

our reach and further improve mobility in the region. These expansion projects include providing service from Metro-North’s system to Penn Station, building a public transportation system across the Tappan Zee Bridge and across the I-287 corridor, and increasing Metro-North service in Orange County, New York and extending it to Stewart Airport. 

When we turn to Connecticut, we see the potential for a further rebirth of commuter rail service. Metro-North has just completed a study of our communication 

and signal systems to determine what improvements will be needed to meet the 

New Haven Line’s service requirements through 2030. This study would also include 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor Service and those Shoreline East trains that operate 

to and from Stamford on the main line. Metro-North has already replaced outmoded 

signal locations and vital signal cables. We have completed the design of the new 

system as far as Greenwich. ConnDOT just awaits additional funding to extend this 

improvement further into Connecticut. 

As a result of last year’s Railway Safety Act we will also incur significant costs 

to install a Positive Train Control (PTC) system on virtually all parts of our railroad. PTC was mandated by Congress in the wake last year’s collision in 

Chatsworth, California. It will require us to design and install an additional feature 

to the signal system on our trains and tracks with the intent to further minimize 

the risk of a similar accident. This re-engineering must be carefully and precisely 

done so as not to compromise the system you’re trying to improve. Initial estimates 

put the cost of this system in the half-a-billion range and the work must be done 

by 2015. This is an ambitious schedule WITH funding—and currently no funding 

has been identified. Frankly, we will be looking at funding sources at the Federal 

level to help us meet this Federal mandate. 

Another essential project that is underway is the Catenary Replacement project 

for the entire New Haven Line. The New York State section has been completed. 

The preponderance of this critical power structure, however, is located in the State 

of Connecticut. ConnDOT has been progressing this work and approximately 36 percent of the overhead wire has already been replaced. This project also benefits the 

Northeast Corridor. 

In addition to the current commitment for 300 new railcars, we have begun discussing an option to buy additional cars to expand service. 

Lastly, in addition to investing in railcars, Connecticut DOT understands that it 

is equally important to invest in modernizing the facilities that are required to repair them and the infrastructure that allows them to operate at their best. 

ConnDOT is managing and funding investments in our shops and yards in New 

Haven and Bridgeport. The shop needed to make running repairs was completed 

last year. A new facility to conduct the rigorous acceptance testing required to put 

the new M-8 cars in service is being built and will be ready when the cars arrive. 

A shop dedicated to component changeouts, which will greatly help facilitate repairs 

of major units like traction motors and trucks and return cars to service more quickly, is at the 90 percent design level and will be advertised for bids shortly. The ex-
54 

pansion of the East Bridgeport Yard to store additional trains is at the 30 percent 

design level and is proceeding well. 

And last but not least, ConnDOT is working with United Illuminating to ensure 

that we have sufficient power on the railroad to operate the additional service that 

the New Haven Line so desperately needs. 

A full funding strategy and comprehensive project implementation plan are being 

formulated by ConnDOT for all of these improvements. Similarly, we await legislative movement in New York on a funding plan for the needs we know we have to 

address during the next 5 years. I continue to be optimistic that a plan will be approved and funded in both States shortly. 

Why? I am convinced that the elected officials understand the importance of public transportation to the region’s economy. I know the business leaders in this area 

understand it. And, frankly, we are a lifeline to many of your State’s residents— 

our customers. 

Yes, it’s a lot of money. And yes, it is a lot of money to invest in one part of your 

infrastructure. But it is not only an important investment in the railroad’s future. 

It is also an important investment in the region’s economic health and the quality 

of life that it provides. Metro-North’s history is illustrative of that fact. 

And, in this case, history must repeat itself. Or we will all be poorer for it. 

We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, your staff, and other partners in Congress to address some of these issues in the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill later this year. On behalf of the Metro-North and the entire MTA family, I thank you for your interest and your support. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer any question you may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOE McHUGH 

VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AND CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, AMTRAK

APRIL 16, 2009 

Amtrak in Connecticut 

• Northeast Corridor and Springfield Line 

• 46 daily trains (Acela, NE Regional, Vermonter, Springfield Shuttle) 

• 1.6 million boardings and alightings from 12 stations in FY08 

• Important economic presence 

• Spent $67.3M for goods and services in FY08 

• Employed 544 Connecticut residents, $39.8M payroll 

• Several major engineering projects in coming years: 

• Replacement of Niantic River bridge ($100M) 

• Replacement of two bridges in Stonington and at Miamicock River; major repairs to others 

• Station improvements (ADA compliance, accessibility, security) 

• Total stimulus investment of nearly $142.8M 

• Formerly a double-tracked 62 mile line, now single track with some passing sidings 

• Expect to complete 2 year recapitalization project in FY09 

• Currently replacing ties—up to 130,000 in current and previous FY—will 

allow us to lift some speed restrictions and bring track to SOGR 

• Will need continued investment to attain state of good repair, including: 

• Hartford Viaduct (must replace to double-track the line) 

• Connecticut River Bridge 

• Grade crossing needs 

• 12 daily passenger train movements (Amtrak) 

• About 10 daily freight movements 

• Planning for capacity needs of this line is ongoing 

• NEC Master Planning process 

• Involves Amtrak, State DOTs, and partner rail authorities 

• CDOT interested in operating commuter services 

• Amtrak is considering service improvement on the route in the long term 

• Master plan process extends through 2030 
55 

• Route designated for development as a high speed intercity corridor 

• Need to reserve capacity for an hourly intercity frequency 

• Scale of the proposed commuter operation is not yet determined 

• Capital needs will depend on desired frequency 

• Even basic operations will require some additional infrastructure 

• For denser operations (e.g., multiple frequencies per hour), will almost certainly need to double track 

• Any track reconfiguration plans must accommodate freight and intercity needs, 

and will require FRA approval 

• Intercity operations limited by agreements that set a ceiling on number of daily 

trains 

• Designed to limit traffic over movable bridges during boating season 

• Originally 34 Amtrak trains per day 

• Raised to 38 per day in 2003 

• Some SLE trains eliminated 

• In exchange, SLE passriders allowed on certain Amtrak trains 

• CDOT began SLE commuter rail expansion plan in 2007 

• Phase I (add’l frequencies, weekend service) summer 2008 

• Phase II (extend all trains to New London) bridge restrictions limit frequencies 

• Phase III (electric, bidirectional service by 2012) requires additional M-8 

EMUs and likely infrastructure modification (electrical generation capability 

is a potential need), including electrification of station sidings and added 

interlockings 

• Amtrak wants to work with CDOT to develop the Springfield line 

• This line is representative of the types of improvements we would like to make 

in coming years 

• Faster service 

• Reduced trip time 

• More frequencies 

• Incremental development 

• Enhance intermodalism 

• The time is now 

• Federal funding 

• Federal and State policy 

• Strong support from the Administration 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RON KILCOYNE 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

GREATER BRIDGEPORT TRANSIT

APRIL 16, 2009 

Introduction 

Good morning Senator. My name is Ron Kilcoyne and I am the General Manager/ 

Chief Executive Officer for Greater Bridgeport Transit. In addition to my role at the 

GBT, I have spent 29 years working in the provision of public transportation—promoting its importance in healthy communities. In addition to my work at the GBT, 

I serve at the Chairman of the Bridgeport Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the 

Land Use and Transportation subcommittee of the City of Bridgeport’s sustainability effort (BGreen 2020), Chairman of APTA’s Urban Design Standards subcommittee as well as APTA’s Systems Management, Operations and Planning subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony at this morning’s hearing. Forums such as these ensure that the comments of public transit providers and others 

interested in the role public transportation plays (and will play) in healthy communities, the Nation’s energy, environmental and economic policies are considered. 

I would also like to thank you for your efforts on our behalf. Your commitment 

to public transportation can be seen throughout our system. Today, thousands of 

riders are traveling to work and school using services made possible under the 
56 

JARC program, new interregional bus service has been established along the congested I-95 corridor in south western Connecticut (providing over 100,000 trips per 

month), riders in the Bridgeport region are benefiting from the new bus station in 

Downtown Bridgeport and GBT is beginning design work on a project to improve 

and expand our maintenance facility to allow for growth over the next 15 years— 

all made possible through your commitment and with funding under SAFETEA–LU. 

My testimony will focus first on the overarching benefits of public transportation 

in many areas of critical importance to our future at the national, State and local 

levels. More importantly, I would like to comment on the capital and operating 

needs of public transportation and how these may be considered and address in upcoming legislation. I will conclude with specific recommendations for future funding 

using a Connecticut example. 

Overarching Benefits of Public Transportation 

The need for increased investment in public transportation has never been greater. Public transportation will necessarily play an increasing role in addressing some 

of the Nation’s most pressing issues including reducing dependence on foreign oil, 

improving our environment and decreasing demand for nonrenewable resources, 

helping to put people back to work, providing access to essential community resources for people from all walks of life and providing an immediate alternative for 

those not wanting to join congested highways. 

Investment in public transportation in Bridgeport has lead to new services to 

major employment centers, extended service spans helping second and third shift 

workers and our services are heavily utilized—we have experienced an 11 percent 

growth in ridership in the last 6 months of 2008 and the growth continues. 

More and more, people are turning to public transportation as their mobility 

choice and we need to expand the services to meet the new demand and take advantage of all of the benefits public transportation brings to healthy communities— 

there has never been a better time than now. 

As I stated in my introduction, I have been involved at the policy level with the 

American Public Transportation Association (APTA) for many years. APTA has conducted their own research regarding the impacts of public transportation and assembled the findings of others. While I will not dwell on these facts as they are 

readily available in much greater detail, I would like to briefly cover some of the 

benefits of public transportation regarding: 

1. Dependence on Foreign Oil—Riders using public transportation save the Nation 

the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually. Public transportation 

riders also save the equivalent of 900,000 automobile ‘‘fill-ups’’ every day. 

These benefits grow as the cost of fuel rises. 

2. Public Transportation and Moving the Economy—For every $1 billion invested 

in federally aided public transportation projects approximately 30,000 jobs are 

created. The funding from the ARRA will create over 250,000 jobs for Americans. Secretary LaHood had it right when he said ‘‘We are the Federal agency 

most responsible for keeping people working.’’ Every $10 million invested in 

capital returns up to $30 million in business sales alone and every $1 invested 

in public transportation returns $6. 

3. Public Transportation and Our Environment—Public transportation services 

offer an immediate alternative to people wanting to reduce their ‘‘environmental footprint.’’ A rider switching from a 20-mile roundtrip commute will cut 

his/her CO2 emission by 4,800 pounds per year and public transportation 

‘‘saves’’ 37 million metric tons of CO2 annually. These are some of the benefits 

of using public transportation and they will grow in the future as transit providers transition to more fuel efficient or new technology vehicles. In addition, 

many agencies are incorporating environmentally friendly elements into the 

design of their facilities and stations. At Bridgeport, our new facility expansion 

project will be designed for LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design) certification. 

4. The Importance of Transit-Oriented Development and Healthy Communities— 

Americans living in areas served by public transportation save 541 million 

hours of travel time and 340 million gallons of fuel annually. Public transportation is a critical component of the City of Bridgeport’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and sustainability efforts that are now in full swing. The City 

of Bridgeport is determined to reduce its carbon footprint and improve urban 

air quality. It is reducing minimum parking requirements and is actively seeking dense infill without increasing roadway capacity all of which will require 

a significant increase in transit use. Public transportation provides an immediate alternative to contributing to congestion, and dependable accessibility for 
57 

people of all walks of life (seniors, riders with disabilities, students, employees). Households cost are reduced significantly for those choosing public transportation. 

5. Local Benefits—The local benefits of bus transportation that we provide in the 

Bridgeport region have been great—ridership is growing, JARC and DSS funding has been used to implement new services. Some limited new State investment in bus transit has allowed for service improvement. We have a queue of 

projects ready for implementation and this will continue this if the capital and 

operating investment is there. Other transit providers around the State have 

service improvements ready to go. There is clearly a need for greater and more 

reliable investment in public transportation. 

Public Transportation Needs 

The benefits of public transportation are clear. In Bridgeport, throughout Connecticut and across the country, people, for the reasons I just mentioned, are finding 

public transportation (all modes) an attractive alternative to driving alone. How 

then do we sustain this momentum and reap the environmental, economic development, and energy rewards the increased use of public transportation can bring? By 

recognizing the importance and increasing capital and operating investment—increasing Federal funding and offering creative incentives to encourage increased 

State and local investment in transit operations and improved coordination with 

land uses. We need to fund the efficient expansion of our public transportation services and improve access to them—this is true locally in Bridgeport and throughout 

the Nation. 

Capital and Operating Needs—Before the infusion of capital funding under the 

ARRA, it was difficult to secure the local match for projects (other than rolling stock 

and facilities) to be funded under FTA formula or discretionary programs. This difficulty is likely to continue after the initial ARRA funding is exhausted. The Connecticut Department of Transportation has been enormously cooperative in helping 

the Bridgeport region with their 2009 and 2010 capital plans and today we are 

working with the Department on several large capital projects including the replacement of 15 buses and the possible purchase of buses to expand our fleet. However, 

additional Federal funding and additional local match are required to meet the current and future capital needs. Transit agencies also struggle with the inability to 

plan service improvements and expansions on a predictable and reliable schedule. 

There have been occasions where additional operating investments are proposed 

without the required capital investment and there have been occasions where capital funding is made available with no associated operating funding. 

Encouraging New Operating Investment—The next surface transportation authorization legislation should include, as a major component, incentives, conditions or 

new programs that encourage States and local governments to invest more in public 

transportation operations. There are several alternatives to explore in this area including: 

1. Incentives—The creation of an incentive program for States to invest in new 

and expanded transit operations. This could include bonus grants to States 

and/or regional entities that have the highest levels of transit service and highest increases in transit service as well as incentive payments to States that 

allow gas tax and other road user fees eligible for transit use. H.R. 1827 is a 

good start. However, there are ways it could be improved. First, it should reward outputs (e.g., service hours per capita or ridership per capita) instead of 

inputs (dollars spent) to assure that the investment is resulting in desired outcomes and to use a measure that has the same value in all locales. Second, 

the amount of these incentives needs to be increased to have impact. However, 

the bill does allow for the incentives to be used for either transit or road use. 

While we don’t want to encourage new roads, this is good since recipients are 

more likely to be motivated by this program. 

2. Conditions—Conditions may be placed on any new funding available through 

authorization which would require new investment in transit operations. In 

order to access funding from a number of ‘‘pools’’, local and State governments 

would be required to commit higher levels of service in new or existing public 

transportation modes. As with incentives conditions should be based on outputs 

rather than inputs. 

3. Modifications to Programs/Regulatory Requirements—ARRA requires no State 

or local match and these projects are moving quickly. Consideration should be 

given to modifying local match requirements for the capital programs so that 

State and local governments would be able to match capital funding with new 

investment in operations. This alternative helps to address the capital vs. oper-
58 

ating ‘‘catch 22’’ I mentioned above. States and local governments would be encouraged to identify new and creative sources of operating investment and 

would be assured that the requisite capital elements of the service would be 

in place. 

4. A combination of all of these alternatives may have the biggest impact. 

Access to Public Transportation—How accessible is our public transportation system? The extent to which our services in Bridgeport and across the State are ‘‘accessible’’ or available goes beyond our ability to implement new routes or add or extend 

service hours. It must be considered as part of planning, development and urban 

design efforts. There is a need at all levels to incorporate public transportation access to stations, stops and new developments as they are being planned. Consideration should be given to creating incentives or conditions on funding which encourage or require close land use/public transportation planning. The incentives and conditions referred to above for increased State and local investment in transit can be 

used as models of developing the incentives and conditions for assuring States and 

local governments address the access to transit issue as well. 

Specific Recommendations 

Capital Funding—At the State level, there is a need to commit to longer term 

capital planning/funding for facilities and rolling-stock. Consideration should be 

given to longer term ‘‘authorizations’’ with annual appropriations and minimum 

guarantees. This would allow for steady and efficient growth of the State’s transportation infrastructure. 

Local (State) Needs—To illustrate the need for increased levels of transit service, 

Transit for Connecticut, a coalition of businesses, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, AARP and over 30 other agencies, has conducted a study which evaluated the need for additional capital and operating investment in public transportation. The study concluded that the State would require a steady increase in operating investment to reach an additional $63 million to provide optimum (bus) transit levels (1.8 million hours of service) and an additional $215 million in the associated capital investment. I have included this report and its executive summary as 

an attachment to my testimony. 

National Needs—In the upcoming authorization—no less than $123 billion over 

the course of 6 years coupled with strong guarantees is recommended. There is also 

a need to ensure steady and predictable funding from the Highway Trust Fund or 

new revenue streams as revenues from Federal motor fuels taxes declines. Ironically, partially as a result of the successes in public transportation and other efforts 

to reduce VMT (Americans drove 90 billion fewer miles in the last 11 months of 

2008), Congress will need to change the Nation’s approach toward funding the 

transportation infrastructure. 

Flexibility—While under the authorization all transportation programs should 

grow at the same, we would like to see some level of flexibility in the 5310 (Capital), 

5316 (JARC) and 5317 (NFI) programs, allowing locally coordinated human service 

transportation planning groups determine the most appropriate approach to investment of these funds in their respective regions. Combining these three programs 

into one will result in more effective use of the funds. 

I hope that my comments are of value during the dialogue that will take place 

as authorization and other legislation is being considered. I will be available at any 

time if you or your staff has any questions or require any additional or support materials. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and for all of you efforts 

on our behalf. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES S. BUTLER 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

APRIL 16, 2009 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Jim 

Butler and I am the Executive Director of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of 

Governments (SCCOG), which represents 20 municipalities in the southeast corner 

of the State. We are the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which 

under Federal surface transportation law makes us responsible for planning transportation improvements in our region. Thank you for convening this field hearing 

in Connecticut, and for asking me to participate as a witness. 

I have been asked to provide perspective on a number of transportation issues facing our region including: 
59 

• Transit needs in southeastern Connecticut 

• Congestion of traffic on highways from tourism and other factors 

• Intermodal facilities in the region 

• Extending Shore Line East from Old Saybrook to New London 

• SCCOG’s Proposed Tourist Transit System 

• How to improve the transportation system with transit in southeastern Connecticut 

Transit Needs in Southeastern Connecticut/Congestion of Traffic 

While our region is particularly well served by highways, southeastern Connecticut is somewhat transit poor. That this is the case is a function of history, geography, and our population density. However, times are changing, and over the past 

20 years there has been an increasing demand for more transit service to, from, and 

within southeastern Connecticut as two of the world’s largest gaming facilities were 

constructed, new shopping centers and subdivisions were built, roads became more 

congested, and fuel prices began to increase. Traffic on some of the region’s major 

State highways has increased by as much as 150 percent depending upon the highway’s location, and at certain times of day or in a particular season a significant 

number of the region’s roads have Volume to Capacity ratios in excess of 1.0, meaning they are congested to the point that the amounts of traffic they are carrying 

exceed the capacity of the road. All this means that the region needs more transit, 

and while the Southeast Area Transit (SEAT), our region’s bus provider, capably 

serves its nine member towns, it is a small system with low service levels that primarily serves the region’s transit-dependant population and is not considered a viable alternative by those who still can afford to travel by private automobile. Both 

casinos do offer privately operated transit alternatives to their patrons, but they 

still attract thousands of visitors daily that travel to the region by automobile at 

all hours of the day and night. In addition to SEAT, there are some small paratransit providers in the region, but these are intended to provide transportation 

services to the elderly, handicapped persons, and other persons that do not have access to a private automobile. 

Intermodal Facilities in the Region 

The southeastern Connecticut region has long been blessed by the location of a 

number of transportation providers in proximity to one another in New London. We 

have called this confluence of modes the region’s Intermodal Transportation Center 

where high speed and conventional rail, ferry service to Block Island, Long Island, 

and Fishers Island, long haul bus, taxi service, and public and private parking facilities all serve the travelling public. However, the transportation services are all 

independently owned and operated so there is little coordination between them that 

could make this a world class transportation center. Recognizing this fact, the 

SCCOG and the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) initiated a 

study last year that is about halfway complete, that will identify physical and operational improvements to tie all these modes of travel together, making it more convenient and safer for passengers. To compound the fragmented nature of these 

transportation services, Union Station, the historic and architecturally significant 

railroad station around which all the modes are located, is privately owned, the only 

privately owned station along the shoreline rail corridor in Connecticut. This is a 

problem because while the current owners of Union Station may wish to see the 

building remain as a transportation center, they need to have the building generate 

revenue to pay for their capital investments and ongoing operating costs. The 

SCCOG has had discussions with ConnDOT, and intends to continue to do so, about 

the State of Connecticut either owning or creating some kind of public–private partnership that will guarantee that this beautiful building remain a transportation 

center for many years to come. 

In addition to the existing facility in New London, a second intermodal center is 

planned in the City of Norwich, with construction scheduled to begin later this year. 

This project will create a new facility for SEAT buses just outside downtown, and 

will also provide parking for several hundred automobiles. With its location on Hollyhock Island, it has the potential to serve rail and provide access to the Thames 

River. 

Extending Shoreline East From Old Saybrook to New London 

Shoreline East currently operates limited service beyond Old Saybrook to New 

London. Earlier this year, at the region’s urging, ConnDOT successfully convinced 

Amtrak to allow Shoreline East fares on some Amtrak trains if a multi-ride ticket 

is purchased. While this is a start, the region is hopeful that ConnDOT will very 
60 

soon solve the impediments to bringing more commuter trains to and from New 

London. In an editorial in The Day newspaper this past Sunday, ConnDOT Commissioner Joseph Marie was commended for his effort toward this end, and the region 

is grateful. But the region will continue to urge the State of Connecticut to reach 

an agreement with the marine interests concerning the requisite bridge closings 

(currently limited to a maximum of 39 Amtrak, two Shoreline East trains, and two 

freight trains per day as required of Amtrak in 1996 when the rail line was electrified), and to negotiate with Amtrak, the owner of the railroad, concerning the upgrades required to accommodate additional trains on this stretch of rail line. The 

southeastern Connecticut region needs, deserves, and warrants train service commensurate with the Metro-North service that ConnDOT provides in the southwest 

corner of the State because the region’s tourism base is vital to the health of the 

State’s economy. 

SCCOG’s Proposed Tourist Transit System 

In 2005, SCCOG completed a study named Intermodal Connections Study Southeast. This study developed a business plan for a high-quality, dependable, seamless, 

bus-based transportation system linking rail, ferry, and buses to the region’s major 

tourist centers. A market analysis that interpreted the results of visitor surveys conducted during the course of the study projected that enough visitors would use the 

system to make the investment in the system pay for itself. The study concluded 

that more people would visit the region, their length of stay would increase, and 

people would visit more attractions if linkages were better. A ridership between 1.7 

to 3.5 million people annually was projected. Because the major beneficiaries of the 

system, the casinos and other major tourist attractions, could not easily be convinced to pay for the system’s $24–31 Million start-up capital cost and annual operating cost of $6.5–$8.6 Million, the study recommended the conduct of a 2-year pilot 

project to demonstrate to potential funders of the system that it would be successful. 

This pilot project would cost $12 Million over the 2 years. While SCCOG remains 

convinced that the proposed tourist transit system would be well used and contribute significantly to improving the region’s transportation system, to date we 

have been unsuccessful in identifying the full $12 Million (in 2005 dollars) needed 

to conduct the pilot project. 

How To Improve the Transportation System With Transit in Southeastern 

Connecticut 

Based on my previous comments, it should be clear to see that our region is very 

desirous of increased transit service in southeastern Connecticut. Our Council of 

Governments and the region’s bus transit provider SEAT are now having discussions about how to expand bus service beyond the nine towns currently served. It 

is hoped that our study of the region’s intermodal transportation center in New London will result in improvements that will allow even more passengers to travel into, 

out of, and through, the region safely and efficiently. The full extension of Shore 

Line East into southeastern Connecticut will provide travelers to and from the region an alternative to an increasingly congested I-95. And if the tourist transit system pilot project could be funded, we are convinced that those private businesses 

that would benefit from its operation would step up to the plate and pay for it, similar to what L.L. Bean does up in Maine. But all of these transit improvements cost 

money; more money than the State of Connecticut can apply to just one of its 15 

regions. So I guess the bottom line is, the best that we can do is to continue to plan, 

advocate, and provide support for the region’s needs, all the while being patient, 

until such time as funding does become available to create a better and more transit-oriented transportation system in southeastern Connecticut. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN BURNASKA 

COORDINATOR, 

TRANSIT FOR CONNECTICUT

APRIL 16, 2009 

My name is Karen Burnaska and I am Coordinator for the Transit for Connecticut 

Coalition administered by Connecticut Fund for the Environment. The Transit for 

Connecticut Coalition is a statewide coalition of business, social service, environmental, planning, transportation, and civic organizations dedicated to increasing 

awareness of the benefits of bus transit and advocating for increased funding for bus 

transit. On behalf of the Coalition, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 
61 

Connecticut’s transportation system is like a three-legged stool: the three legs 

being roads, rail, and bus. All three are needed for a balanced system and all three 

are interconnected. 

With the support of the One Region Funders’ Group and its Connecticut partners, 

the Fairfield County Community Foundation and the Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, Transit for Connecticut completed a bus needs analysis study in March of 

2007. The study detailed the benefits of bus transit and proposed an investment 

plan that would increase bus ridership by over 80 percent. 

The study stated various ways to improve bus transit in Connecticut: 

• increase hours of service and frequency of service; 

• provide more weekend service; 

• expand paratransit service; 

• increase express bus service; 

• implement Bus Rapid Transit along major corridors; 

• increase interregional bus services; and 

• increase commuter connections to rail stations in order to complement and enhance the State’s investment in rail service. 

The study detailed the many and varied benefits of increased bus transit. 

Economic Benefits 

• transit provides greater access to jobs and a larger labor pool for employers; 

• better bus connections enhance the State’s investments in rail and multi-modal 

systems; 

• there are significant financial savings for households who choose transit over 

a private automobile; 

• studies show that every $1 invested in transit yields $3 in economic benefits. 

Environmental Benefits 

• increased bus transit reduces highway congestion, decreases fuel consumption 

and fights global warming pollution; 

• reduces toxic diesel soot through clean vehicle technology; 

• supports ‘‘responsible growth’’ around stronger transit centers and fights 

sprawl. 

Helps People of All Ages 

• increases mobility and choice for existing and new bus customers, nondrivers, 

the elderly, and disabled; 

• increases opportunities for better jobs as well as access to more medical, education, recreation, and other services; 

• specialized services can reduce healthcare costs as seniors are able to ‘‘age in 

place’’ and remain in their homes. 

During this difficult financial time, public transit is needed more than ever. Using 

public transit provides direct savings to residents and the State. 

• Individuals can save money by using public transportation instead of a private 

vehicle. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 

American households can save up to $8,754 annually by switching to public 

transportation. 

• Employers who offer free parking could save more than $750 per parking space 

that is no longer required. 

• According to Governor Rell’s Budget summary for FY2003–FY2005, for each elderly individual that can age at home instead of a nursing home because of the 

mobility and access to health care furnished by public transit, the State of Connecticut saves $3,500–$4,000 per month. 

• In addition, congestion cost commuters in Connecticut’s urban areas between 

$343 and $592 per traveler in 2005. This number represents additional fuel 

costs and the cost of extra travel time. 

• Lower levels of traffic may allow the State to save money through less expenditure related to road repair and maintenance, as well as enforcement of traffic 

laws. 

• Society as a whole benefits from lower levels of pollution and greenhouse gas 

emissions. (A medium sized car with an average mileage of 21 mpg, driven 
62 

10,000 miles per year, produces approximately 51⁄2 tons of carbon dioxide a 

year.) 

In order to achieve the benefits of increased bus transit, an investment of capital 

and operating funds is needed. To achieve an 80 percent increase in bus ridership, 

Transit for Connecticut recommends an increase of $215 million in capital expenditures and an increase of $63 million in operating funds. While capital funds are 

needed to purchase rolling stock, improve facilities and shelters, upgrade communication systems and fareboxes, operating funds are critical to putting vehicles on 

the road and providing necessary service. A dedicated, reliable funding source is 

needed for all transportation projects if Connecticut is to achieve a 21st Century 

transportation system and move our State and its residents forward. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP MADONNA, JR. 

CHAIRMAN, 

ATU CONNECTICUT STATE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE BOARD

APRIL 16, 2009 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU). My name is Phil 

Madonna. I currently serve as Chairman of the Amalgamated Transit Union’s 

(ATU) State Legislative Conference Board here in Connecticut. 

ATU is the largest labor organization representing public transportation, paratransit, over-the-road, and school bus workers in the United States and Canada, 

with more than 185,000 members in over 270 locals throughout 46 States and 9 

provinces. Here in Connecticut, we represent more than 2,000 active and retired 

members in the transit, paratransit, intercity, and school bus industries. In addition 

to New Haven, which is where I am based, we represent the workers in Hartford, 

Stamford, New London, Bridgeport, Mystic, South Windsor, Derby, Danbury, Milford, and Rocky Hill. My Local, ATU Local 281, was chartered in 1902, and most 

of our local divisions throughout the State were established well before the creation 

of Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT). 

For more than 100 years, ATU has been proud to serve the mobility needs of 

Americans, playing an important role in most legislative efforts affecting the public 

transportation industry during the past century, from requiring closed vestibules for 

streetcars in the 1890s, to the creation of a Federal role for public transportation 

in 1964, to passing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

(ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), which 

recognized that local communities should be primarily responsible for the transportation choices that ultimately affect them. Our century-long commitment to transit 

safety and security issues has led to many of the innovative improvements within 

the industry, including better bus designs and braking systems, exact fare, and Federal penalties for assaulting public transportation workers. And, we have championed the need for increased funding and expanded service at the Federal, State, 

and local levels. 

We are pleased to offer our views on the upcoming surface transportation reauthorization bill, which are summarized in our comprehensive proposal, entitled ‘‘We 

Can Get There From Here.’’ Our 10-point plan calls for increasing transit funding, 

developing programs to increase ridership, creating transit workforce development 

programs, improving paratransit services, as well as other critical steps that the 

Federal government can take to improve the delivery of transit here in Connecticut 

and nationwide. 

However, given the current funding crisis facing public transportation systems 

used by Connecticut residents as well as others across the Nation, I will today focus 

my attention on just two issues: the need for Federal transit operating assistance 

and ways that we can encourage States and local governments to invest more in 

transit. 

Transit in Crisis 

Record high gas prices in 2008 caused millions of people to try public transportation, and despite the recent drop in the price of oil, many transit systems continue 

to report capacity issues. 

Americans took 10.7 billion trips on public transportation in 2008, the highest 

level of ridership in 52 years and a modern ridership record. This represents a 4 

percent increase over the number of trips taken in 2007 on public transportation. 

Yet, ironically, at a time when Americans are leaving their cars at home like never 
63 

1Transit at Capacity, Connecticut Post Online (Bridgeport, Connecticut), June 27, 2008. 

before, public transportation systems are being forced to implement painful service 

cuts and fare increases and lay off workers because of shortages in State and local 

revenues. 

Fare Increases, Service Cuts 

All across the Nation, transit systems are reluctantly carrying out some of the 

steepest fare increases and deepest service cuts in recent history. Unfortunately, we 

do not have to look very far for examples of drastic cuts that are hurting middle 

class families. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has announced that it will consolidate late-night Metro-North train service to Stamford 

and other Fairfield County towns and end New Canaan ticket window service. 

The proposal would also eliminate two weekday afternoon trains between New 

Haven and Grand Central Terminal that stop at Stamford. The agency is also set 

to raise subway and bus fares to ease its budget woes, inflicting pain on thousands 

of Connecticut residents who commute to New York. Meanwhile, Connecticut’s 

Metro-North customers regularly complain about too few seats aboard rush-hour 

trains, a lack of heating and air conditioning and a shortage of station parking on 

the New Haven Line. 

Furthermore, even though businesses are sprouting up along the Route 25 corridor from Danbury to Bridgeport, there continues to be a major gap in transit service. The proposed Danbury–Bridgeport bus line, which would have cost $1.4 million 

to create, was one of several candidates for $5 million the State planned to spend 

on bus service enhancement in 2009. But faced with a State budget deficit that grew 

to about $350 million, Governor Rell last fall recommended that the State postpone 

the much-needed plan to enhance the State’s commuter bus lines. Housatonic Area 

Regional Transit, based in Danbury, proposed the Danbury-Bridgeport service, 

which it would have run in tandem with the Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority. 

But without the operating revenue to run the service, two of the largest cities in 

western Connecticut will continue to have no public transportation between them. 

And no one is immune from the cuts. Here in New Haven, transit district officials 

announced plans last fall to scale back the hours and eliminate Sunday service for 

the Regional Rides Program because of a budget shortfall. The service, which offers 

door-to-door transportation for elderly and disabled residents in 13 area towns, is 

facing a deficit. These cuts were necessary despite the program’s overwhelming success—the number of riders doubled from 10,000 in 2006, the program’s first year, 

to 20,000 by the end of 2008. 

Working Families Hurt the Most 

Nationwide, fare increases are having a devastating affect on working families. 

Between the increased price of food, health care, energy costs, and other everyday 

necessities, middle class families are getting squeezed like never before. Americans, 

especially seniors living on fixed incomes, simply cannot afford transit fares in the 

neighborhood of private taxis. In October, 2008, for example, Bridgeport was forced 

to raise base fares from $1.50 to $1.75 and day passes from $3 to $4. 

And as if the fare increases are not enough, the service cuts may actually be 

worse. Generally, when routes get cut, transit systems tend to look towards those 

with low ridership—early morning, late night, and weekend service. People who 

work nontraditional hours, typically minorities who have no other means of transportation, are disproportionately affected. The single mom who now gets her kids 

up at 4:30 in the morning to catch two buses in time to get her children to daycare 

and then herself to work cannot be expected to wait an additional hour for that 

transfer bus to arrive, standing in the freezing cold with two kids in tow. But that 

is exactly what is happening out there. Our drivers nationwide have seen it firsthand. 

Operating Assistance Is Needed 

Throughout the United States, our buses are overflowing with passengers. As 

mentioned above, the people who turned to transit to beat the high cost of gas in 

2008 are sticking with us. Ridership is at a 50-year high. 

That is the good news. The bad news is that the transit industry cannot handle 

the increased demand. Our members report having to leave people behind at bus 

stops because vehicles are at capacity. In Chicago, they were recently tearing out 

seats on subway trains to make room for more people. As one CTTransit official said 

last year during the height of our most recent fuel crisis, ‘‘If suddenly ridership were 

to increase by 25 to 30 percent overall, we’d be really, really struggling.’’ 1
64 

2 California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York provided $7.7 billion of the $9.5 billion that States appropriated for transit in 2005. Survey of State 

Funding for Public Transportation—2005, prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 3See the State constitutions of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 4See highway-only statutes in Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

Indeed, some Connecticut routes will soon be on a standing-room-only basis, if 

they are not there already. 

But instead of adding new service to meet increased demand, transit systems are 

being forced to do the exact opposite—they are cutting routes and punishing people 

for leaving their cars at home by increasing fares. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Members of the Committee can see how ridiculous the 

current situation is. Ridership numbers are going through the roof. We have a tidal 

wave of new passengers, more farebox revenue, basically every general manager’s 

wildest dream come true. We could not have asked for a better situation. Yet in 

many places—not all but many—we find ourselves unable to cope with the change 

in Americans’ travel habits. 

The question is: why? The answer is simple. It is about money. State and local 

tax revenues are way down. Wildly fluctuating fuel and energy prices and insurance 

costs are busting transit agency budgets. 

Unfortunately, this problem will not be solved by simply appropriating more capital dollars. Even if the Federal government provided CTTRANSIT and other systems with enough money to double the size of their existing fleets, the agencies 

would probably have to keep a good portion of those buses in the garage. 

Transit systems simply do not have the operating money to run their current 

fleets. Current law generally prohibits most major transit systems from using their 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds for operating assistance. Therefore, as 

a result, we are cutting service at a time when people are turning to transit in 

record numbers! This is insane! 

Transit systems need flexibility in the use of their Federal funds so they can stay 

afloat and avoid balancing their budgets on the backs of working people—transit 

riders and employees—who do not have any more to give. People are paying more 

and getting much less. This has to stop! Given the challenges faced by transit systems from coast to coast, ATU supports giving local transit systems the option to 

use their FTA funds for operating purposes. At a minimum, we recommend that the 

Committee consider allowing fuel and energy costs to be classified as capital expenses. 

Encouraging State Investment 

Of course, there is more than one way to generate more operating assistance for 

transit agencies. One way (as discussed above) is to change the Federal rules. Another is by encouraging States and local communities—which bear the bulk of the 

responsibility for funding transit operations—to invest more. 

Too many States are shortchanging transit at a time when their residents are 

looking for more travel options. Just seven States are responsible for more than 80 

percent of all State transit funding. The other States fund transit at an average of 

just over $42 million annually. In fact, nearly one-fifth of States fund transit at less 

than $1 million annually, and four States do not provide funding at all. 2

In recent years, the lack of State funding has caused transit crises in a number 

of areas. For example, State Legislatures and Governors in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, among others, have had to consider so-called ‘‘rescue’’ packages just to avoid massive service cuts, layoffs, and fare 

increases. 

In addition, even as the Federal surface transportation program has sought to become more flexible—allowing States to use Federal highway funds for transit 

projects, and transit funds for highway projects—the States have not followed suit 

with respect to the use of their own funds. Thirty-four States still restrict all highway trust fund resources solely for highway purposes. While 23 States have such 

restrictions in their State constitutions, 3 eleven are limited in their use of transportation funds due to long-standing statutory provisions. 4

The Federal government needs to play an active role in leveraging State and local 

investment—encouraging States and local governments to invest in public transportation. Generating more non-Federal revenue is the key to putting more transit 

service on the streets. 
65 

5 As provided under H.R. 1827, 111th Congress. 

ATU recommends the establishment of the ‘‘Flexibility Incentive Grant’’ (FIG) program within the FTA. 5 This program would provide additional Federal surface 

transportation dollars to States that increase their own level of funding for bus, rail, 

and ferry services. 

Some States (like Connecticut, see below) are already investing in public transit, 

and they would be rewarded for doing so under this program. Other States which 

have not yet seen the benefits of expanded bus and rail service would be given an 

incentive to invest in more than just new highway construction. Under this bill, everyone wins. 

The FIG Program would allocate Federal transportation funds to States that (1) 

increase spending on public transportation; (2) create a transportation trust fund 

that distributes funds for public transit; or (3) unlock their existing highway trust 

fund by distributing transportation dollars for both highways and transit. 

The money allocated under the FIG program would be bonus money—so it would 

not impact formula or capital funds received by urbanized areas or States from 

other Federal transit programs. And, as the name of the program suggests, the Federal dollars awarded through this new program would be flexible, meaning that they 

could be used by States for any highway or transit project. In summary, if a State 

increases its level of spending on public transportation, then it receives extra Federal surface transportation funds that it may use as it sees fit. Significantly, under 

the proposed program, other non-Federal resources (local government funds) may 

also be counted towards the States’ total. 

The idea is derived from a recent Federal highway program which granted Federal transportation dollars to States as a reward for increasing their level of seatbelt 

usage, based on a national average. Similarly, the FIG Program would award flexible transportation dollars to States on the condition that they raise their level of 

spending on public transportation. 

This is a new concept for the Federal transit program. Rather than simply granting funds to States and cities on the condition of a nominal local match, we would 

be providing them with a real incentive to put some of their own resources towards 

expanding public transit services. State and local transportation funding needs to 

become more flexible. We can make that happen with a Federal incentive—a FIG 

grant. 

Connecticut Would Fare Well Under the FIG Program 

In 2006, the State legislature passed a $2.3 billion transportation package which 

would fund mass transit improvements across the State without requiring tolls or 

increasing the gas tax. The bill authorized the State to issue up to $1 billion in special tax obligation bonds for the projects. The prior year, lawmakers approved the 

Governor’s 10-year, $1.3 billion initiative, which included money for new rail cars 

for Metro-North, and 25 new CTTRANSIT buses. 

If the FIG program had been in place during that period, Connecticut would have 

been rewarded with bonus Federal transportation dollars for funding public transportation at the State level. ATU supports the establishment of the Flexibility Incentive Grant (FIG) program within FTA to encourage States to invest in public 

transportation. 

Conclusion 

Before Congress makes decisions on new policies and revenue streams for the 

SAFETEA–LU reauthorization bill, it must first set its priorities. Most importantly, 

what is the overall goal of our surface transportation program? 

Do we want to remain stuck in endless traffic jams, polluting our air, and wasting 

billions of dollars on fuel that we purchase from Middle Eastern nations that raise 

the price of oil at their pleasure? Or, are we ready to provide Americans with new 

public transportation options that can help us to save our planet, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and spend more time with our families? 

Based on recent trends, ATU and its allies believe that Americans are ready to 

modify their travel habits and embrace transit like never before. Congress can help 

facilitate these overdue changes through the creation of bold, well funded, and innovative programs. 

Without question, hard choices are going to have to be made along the way, and 

the cost will be enormous. However, the potential to improve our quality of life and 

preserve this world for the next generation should guide us through the substantial 

challenges that lie ahead. 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC J. BROWN 

ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, 

CONNECTICUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

APRIL 16, 2009 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Eric Brown. I serve 

as associate counsel for the Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA). 

CBIA represents the interests of approximately 10,000 small, medium, and largesized businesses throughout Connecticut. Approximately 90 percent of our members 

have fewer than 50 employees. 

CBIA and its member companies have long recognized the importance of a safe 

and efficient transportation system and we have worked with State officials and the 

legislature over many years to achieve that goal. However, it was in 1999 that our 

organization significantly elevated the priority of transportation following a meeting 

of our board of directors with Michael Gallis who had just finished an intensive 

study of Connecticut’s transportation challenges and the economic peril our State 

faced as a result of those challenges. The report, prepared for the Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21st Century, concluded dire economic consequences for our 

State if actions were not taken to address traffic congestion and to more seamlessly 

integrate our transportation system with regional, national, and international corridors of commerce. 

Over the next several years, CBIA worked with the legislature and the Governor 

to intensify the focus on identifying, prioritizing, funding, and implementing policies 

and projects to improve our transportation system. 

In 2000, the legislature created the Transportation Strategy Board as an instrument to insert more strategic economic thinking into our State’s transportation 

planning. In subsequent years, the legislature and the Governor allocated and approved several hundreds of millions of dollars for transportation investments. 

These were important and helpful measures that have begun to move Connecticut 

in a better direction. However, significant challenges remain. 

In the mid-2000s, the failed I-84 construction project along the Waterbury–Cheshire corridor brought a higher degree of public scrutiny upon the operations of Connecticut’s Department of Transportation (CT DOT). 

In 2007, Governor Rell created a special commission to look broadly at the operations of the CT DOT and make recommendations for improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the agency. The commission produced an outstanding report that, 

among other things, looked at what measures other State transportation departments had taken to improve their operations. The commission’s report was presented to the legislature in February of 2008 and provides an excellent blueprint 

for going forward. 

One of the major recommendations of the report was to ‘‘make intermodal travel 

a high strategic priority.’’ 

The importance of that recommendation is supported by data from the latest report of key mobility measures from the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban 

Mobility Report—perhaps the Nation’s most comprehensive comparative report regularly published on traffic congestion nationwide. 

According to the report, road travelers (not just those travelling at peak hours) 

in the Bridgeport–Stamford areas averaged 31 hours of delay each year and that 

number is increasing at a ‘‘much faster rate’’ than similar metropolitan areas 

around the country. 

In the Hartford and New Haven areas, the number drops to 19 hours of delay 

each year with ‘‘much slower growth’’ than other similar areas. 

Costs associated with these delays are obviously substantial. The report estimates 

a $78 billion annual drain on the national economy. Connecticut undoubtedly contributes hundreds of millions of dollars each year to that figure. 

The causes for congestion and its adverse impacts on the economy and environment are multiple and can vary in different locations. Similarly, there is no one ‘‘silver bullet’’ to solve congestion problems. Unquestionably, improving mass transit is 

one piece of the solution and Connecticut is clearly moving forward in that area. 

Obviously, as with most other strategies for reducing congestion, there are significant costs associated with large-scale transit initiatives. In addition to infrastructure and other capitol costs, substantial State subsidies will likely be needed to support these projects once completed. 

CBIA supports expanding mass transit where it makes the most sense to do so. 

Individual corridors and options must be carefully studied from a cost-benefit perspective to ensure limited but substantial transportation dollars go to those projects 

that provide the greatest economic and social benefits. 
107 

Additionally, we can not become so focused on transit that we short shrift our 

highway and bridge needs. In a recent statewide survey of Connecticut businesses, 

about 70 percent of the respondents said that the most positive impact State transportation officials could have on helping their businesses would be improving the 

condition of existing roads, highways, and bridges or expanding highway and road 

capacity. Expanding mass transit options garnered 13 percent. 

Going forward, Connecticut needs to closely examine the degree to which State 

funding will be needed to accomplish the goal of creating and maintaining a firstclass, integrated, multimodal transportation system in Connecticut, and we will 

have to make tough decisions about the sources of that funding. We need to do a 

better job of refocusing our transportation planning from an interstate regional perspective and more appropriately balance those priorities with project lists created 

by multiple regional bodies within Connecticut that are appropriately but more narrowly focused on their local transportation needs. We need to rebuild the trust of 

our citizens that money raised for transportation projects will be spent on transportation projects and that those projects will be of the highest priority and will be implemented in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

Under the outstanding leadership of CT DOT commissioner Joseph Marie working 

with the Governor, the General Assembly, our Congressional delegation, and a variety of regional and national transportation entities, Connecticut is moving in the 

right direction and we are optimistic that the State can one day be the envy of most 

or even all other States with respect to our transportation system. We look forward 

to working with them and the many other transportation stakeholders to help realize that vision. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID KOORIS 

CONNECTICUT DIRECTOR, 

REGIONAL PLAN ASSOCIATION

APRIL 16, 2009 

May name is David Kooris and I am the Connecticut Director of Regional Plan 

Association, the Nation’s oldest regional planning organization. For over 80 years 

RPA has identified regional strategies to address challenges and opportunities that 

do not respect political borders. 

This statement highlights the importance of prioritizing the strategic investments 

that position our national, local, and personal economies for the next age of prosperity. 

Even the current levels of stimulus spending are dwarfed by the mounting lists 

of potential capital projects in every community across the Nation. In this period 

of economic peril, with daunting environmental challenges looming on the horizon, 

we cannot afford to bet our future wealth on investments that do not create communities of value for the future while meeting the needs of today. A sustainable investment strategy would improve Connecticut’s access to global gateways, solidify its regional centers, connect neighborhoods, coordinate housing and transportation, and 

engage the public constructively in the decision making process. 

Transportation emissions make up 40 percent of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Congestion around our job centers imposes 

a blunt tax on doing business and living in our State. About a third of our bridges 

are structurally deficient. Stamford’s is the highest priced rental market in the 

country, while pockets of extreme poverty and segregation in our urban areas will 

significantly impact our workforce competitiveness in decades to come. Targeted enhancements to Connecticut’s mobility system, in coordination with a coherent housing and neighborhood policy, would work to mitigate the impacts of this perfect 

storm of challenges looming on Connecticut’s horizon. 

For too long, infrastructure decisions have emphasized one objective—safe and 

fast automobile access—at cost to all others. We can no longer afford to make investments with such limited impact and return. 

Connecticut has a phenomenal legacy of compact walkable town centers—each 

with its own unique character—linked by one of the most robust transit networks 

on the continent. For the past 50 years we have neglected these assets while energy 

was cheap and climate change a topic of science fiction. But global warming has 

begun and volatile energy prices will decimate those communities whose development patterns and mobility systems depend on the private automobile. Our State 

faces these challenges with a leg up on the competition. Will we identify the key 
108 

investments which build on our inherent advantages in the age of carbon constraint, 

or will we squander our limited resources? 

Connecticut has been called an economic cul-de-sac because we lack international 

airports or freight terminals. While our corporate headquarters and world class universities act as global gateways for information and talent, we are physically disconnected from the major ports and airports in greater New York and Boston. Our 

coastal communities tie into the Northeast Corridor, but the Capitol region is offset 

from this economic spine; Springfield–Hartford–New Haven–New York rail enhancements would attach Hartford at the hip to the region’s economic core and provide 

intercity connectivity at less than half the carbon emissions per passenger mile compared to automobiles while creating hundreds of permanent jobs. 

At the intersections between the global economy and our State—in places like 

Hartford, Stamford, and New Haven—regional centers act as hubs for local transit 

networks and are centers of innovation which drive the economies of communities 

in their immediate vicinity. Our centers have concentrated employment, education, 

entertainment, and a mixture of housing options necessary for our parents to age 

in place and our children to return home and raise families of their own. Occurring 

at nexuses in the existing mobility network, these regional centers contain infrastructure representing generations of investment and embodied energy. Present efforts can be most effective by leveraging these resources to build up the sustainable 

communities of the future. Investment in these regional centers will ensure a high 

economic and social return, not just for our cities but for the overall. 

Radiating out from these centers must be a network of complete streets, better 

utilizing existing and new public corridors by balancing pedestrian, bike, and transit 

infrastructure alongside lanes for automobiles. Busways and express buses link regional centers to other downtowns while bike lanes and sidewalks permeate the economic vitality and vibrancy of these nodes of activity into the surrounding neighborhoods. Our research has demonstrated the pronounced impact that transit access 

has on property values within a half mile of commuter rail; innovative strategies 

are necessary to filter this value into the surrounding neighborhoods. With priority 

placed on those routes which link existing activity centers to one another and to 

neighborhoods in need of sustainable access to jobs, a mobility field will be created 

incrementally which strings together the communities of the State with greener and 

more efficient transportation. 

However, we will probably not have the resources necessary to bring a bus or 

sidewalk to every far-flung outpost of our current settlement patterns, so we must 

ensure that new housing, offices, and shops are located within reach of the mobility 

field we are now beginning to create. While a generation of investment has brought 

road access to nearly every corner of the State, dependence on the automobile has 

also wreaked havoc on personal economies exacerbated by energy price fluctuations. 

With the highest priced rental market in the Nation and low affordability statewide, 

lowering households’ transportation and energy costs is as important as providing 

affordable housing. An ‘‘affordable’’ house in an automobile dependent neighborhood 

did little good for a family last summer when the need to use a car for every trip 

all but obliterated any savings on monthly rent. Development that is oriented towards our regional centers, towards our transit system, and toward our sidewalks 

and neighborhood parks is a necessary step towards providing affordable and quality housing for all residents of this State. 

The investments and policy changes necessary to achieve sustainable communities 

cannot rest with the decisions of insiders alone, but must be the product of an open 

and robust dialogue that engages all the members of the Connecticut community. 

As RPA has demonstrated around the tri-state region, involving people early, often, 

and honestly to collaboratively formulate a blueprint for the State’s future will result in investment decisions and policies that reinforce existing communities, reduce 

future energy demand and carbon emissions, and capitalize on the social fabric that 

intimately knows the assets and opportunities in each neighborhood. 

Through coordinated planning for land use and transportation we can achieve 

growth without increased emissions, encourage economic development without sacrificing neighborhood character, enhance mobility without dividing communities, enable revitalization without gentrification, and move towards the Connecticut of the 

future, based on the foundations of the past, and without sacrificing the Connecticut 

of today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.