New Haven Independent: State, City Strike Union Station Deal

State, City Strike Union Station Deal

by Melissa Bailey | November 21, 2007 7:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (15)

Picture%20797.jpg Aldermen worry the city would give up a key piece of leverage in exchange for a “good faith” agreement from the state to build a new parking garage.

The deal among the city, the New Haven Parking Authority and the state Department of Transportation (DOT), concerns land at Union Station. Under the deal,the state may also move forward with one of its priority projects — building a power supply station down by the Union Station tracks. To do so, the state would slip out of a written statement in a lease requiring it to build a long delayed and badly needed second parking garage.

In exchange, the DOT has made a verbal agreement to support the city’s long-term vision to build a complex of new stores, offices and apartments around a second parking garage at the train station.

“We’re back on the same page and we’re going to move forward,” said an optimistic William Kilpatrick, head of the city parking authority. He presented the deal to aldermen at the Tuesday’s Finance Committee meeting in City Hall.

Aldermen, steeped in years of frustration over unfulfilled state promises to build the parking garage, had doubts about the tenuousness of the verbal agreement from the state.

Eventually they were swayed by faith in new DOT leadership that promises to back the city’s goals for “transportation-oriented development.” The committee unanimously approved the deal.

Skeptical Reception

Right now, Union Station has one parking garage. Its 1,170 spaces fill up by 8 a.m. most days. Hundreds more commuters must then park downtown at the Temple Street garage and wait for a shuttle to take them to a train station. The state, which owns the land, has long agreed to build a second, 1,200-space garage to relieve the commuter crunch.

The garage plans got mired in years of squabbles. Read background here.

Tuesday, Fair Haven Heights Alderman Alex Rhodeen (pictured) let a state bureaucrat know just how peeved New Haveners are at the years of delays.

“It’s an insult to everyone in South-central Connecticut” that the state has still not built the garage, said Rhodeen. Everyone has agreed for years that a garage is needed there. “It is the height of frustration that the state has refused to make a good-faith effort to its construction, but then has asked to come to us” with the current deal.

“We give you this, and then what?” Rhodeen asked Gene Colonese, the bureaucrat who bore the brunt of DOT-ward rage.

“If supporting this gets the garage done in the next 18 months, I’ll support it,” said Rhodeen.

“We’re not going to get a garage in 18 months,” replied Colonese, the DOT rail administrator. Colonese said all he could offer was a verbal commitment to build the parking garage.

The Commitment

DOT’s commitment is to “look at” the feasibility of the city’s vision of building a “transit-oriented development” wrapped around the garage. The idea is to include offices, stores and apartments to create a development that would boost the economy and profit from proximity to the trains. Click here for a previous story on that vision.

What if the state doesn’t follow through with the parking garage? Could the DOT provide anything more concrete than a “lip-service commitment” to support the city’s goals? Beaver Hill Alderman Moti Sandman wanted to know.

“I can understand your skepticism after two to three years,” replied Colonese, but the DOT has new leadership now, committed to transit-oriented development.

The DOT has already sat down at the table and participated in this process, said city transportation chief Mike Piscitelli. A DOT rep helped the city choose from six consultants to study the project. They’ve chosen the firm Jones Lang LaSalle, which proposes to take 14 weeks and charge $180,000 to complete a feasibility study of the project.

Consultants will also consider whether renovating the police department should be part of the new development.

Leverage Lost?

By the lease amendment, which must be approved by aldermen, the city agrees to give away leasing rights to one acre of train station property, so that the state can build a new power supply station there to provide electricity to the trains. The city would also stop managing two rear parcels near the train tracks. The city used to provide security on those parcels, but is giving management back to the state, said Kilpatrick.

Current language in the lease calls for the state to build “a new, 1,200-space parking garage on state property adjacent to the existing Union Station garage.” New language excludes reference to the parking garage from the lease.

The point is to “uncouple” the projects so that the state can go ahead with building the power supply plant, said Piscitelli.

Aldermen worried that the city would lose a key piece of leverage by letting the state go ahead with the power substation — leverage that could be used to help speed up the parking garage.

“We went through the same gut-wrenching decision in many ways,” replied Piscitelli. “One of our major pieces of leverage has been the substation.” But he gave three arguments in favor of the deal: One, the power substation is critical to the region, and would help improve the transportation system for all riders. Two, new leadership at the DOT has been brought on board with a specific focus on “transit-oriented development.”

Three, the city still does have some leverage because any future developments on Union Station property would require a lease amendment, which would need aldermanic approval. “It’s an important piece of leverage,” said Piscitelli, “but it’s not our last piece of leverage.”

Aldermen asked for a letter detailing what leverage the city would have left. At the request of Hill Alderman Jorge Perez, the DOT committed to holding a community meeting about the power plant plans.

“They haven’t built the garage to date, so frankly we can’t do any worse,” was Perez’s comment before the committee voted unanimously in favor of the deal.

Rhodeen said he was still frustrated with DOT’s past behavior, but “I acknowledge there is a new team, and it is fair to give them another chance.”

Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Yair | November 21, 2007 9:03 AM

So the city is making a concession, on paper, in return for a "verbal commitment", because the DOT folks seem trustworthy? People you can trust don't usually ask you to do that.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 21, 2007 9:25 AM

While all this squabbling is going on, can someone find a way to stop charging people for a shuttle ride from Temple Garage to the train station? For all those hapless souls who have to be inconvenienced and have their schedules trampled at the last minute, the fare for bus ride on top of the parking costs is adding insult to injury.

You can also ask the police administrators to stop parking their cruisers in the garage and free up space for it's intended patrons. At the very least, they should be in the outdoor area and not taking up protected spots for paying customers.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 21, 2007 1:54 PM

In the business world - a world far more grounded in reality than the fairly land inhabited by city and state management - everyone involved in the failure to build a new parking garage in a reasonable amount of time would have been fired long ago. Now, the city of New Haven is complicating the situation with fanciful ideas about the latest in hip urban planning buzz terms, "transit-oriented development." Try this on for size: a functioning new parking garage will far more "transit-oriented development" than any additional retail or living space envisioned by the city folks. Don't give the state an inch until are actually constructing the new building.

Posted by: pdh | November 22, 2007 5:33 AM

Of course, the need for a new parking garage would not be so urgent if the city didn't use the present garage for storing police cars and other municipal vehicles. On any day of the week, 10-15 spaces in the Union Station garage are occupied by such vehicles -- depriving citizens of much-needed parking and the city of revenue.

Posted by: Walt | November 23, 2007 6:02 AM

It is apparently not enough that we provide highly subsidized train trips to those who go the NYC to work for the big bucks.

It is apparently not enough that we provide highly subsidized bus rides from a garage at which he again does not pay the full expense.

Now he wants his bus ride to be free to him and paid for by taxes on the poor slobs toiling locally.

I don't mind paying part of the fare for local bus riders who seem not at the top of the economic scale, but kicking in for the usually-highly-paid New Haven, Stamford, Greenwich commuters to the Big Apple gets under my skin.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | November 23, 2007 9:06 AM

Dear Walt,

You seem to think that only low income people from New Haven subsidize the AmTrak System. Also seems to be the same population that pays for the operating costs of the CT Transit buses. Maybe I can write off those costs on my taxes since we apparantly are not contributing to the plight of ... New Haven.

We rich New Haveners do have a choice. We can drive our Cadillacs to New York, give Al Gore the finger and not contribute to the system that you subsidize wholly from your working class savings. This way, I have it my way.

By the way, I have a great idea which will save you a ton of money. STOP SUBSIDIZING EVERYTHING!!!! Let rich Republican capitalists figure out how to deliver goods and services that people want at a cost they can afford.

Posted by: Walt | November 23, 2007 10:57 AM

FED up is a phony like Gore who uses several times the energy of the average person whom he calls on to conserve.

His squandering of energy is OK he says. because he is rich and buys energy certificates from others to make up fopr his own excessive us.

Neither a New Havener, an Amtrak or Ct Transit user but I think Fedup should pay his own transportation costs.

He says he is rich, but still demands free busses,

Posted by: DingDong | November 23, 2007 5:28 PM

Walt,

If global warming is actually occuring (and it is) and driving cars is a major contributor to it (and it is), then what is wrong with encouraging people to take more efficient means of transportation by subsidizing it?

Alternatively, I-95 is entirely clogged right now at rush hour. By subsidizing train travel, the state is saving lots of money because it doesn't have to build new lanes for all the people who would otherwise drive.

In addition, the idea that highways and the road network pay for themselves out of the gasoline and the car tax has been shown by numerous studies to be a myth. The gasoline tax would have to be about 40cents/gallon higher for that to be true. So, car travel is also highly subsidized. I won't bring up the issue of foreign wars that the desire for cheap oil leads to.

Finally, not just rich people ride Metro-North (which you have confused with Amtrak apparently). I have no statistics on it, but take a ride: most of the time, the average passenger seems far from affluent. Oil is at $100/barrel (up from around $30 a few years ago), so I don't see the less affluent driving more anytime soon, either.

Posted by: charlie | November 24, 2007 12:13 PM

It is ridiculous that the garage is not being built right now, and as a transit-oriented development wrapped with retail and housing that encourages city life. This just once again shows how the United States is 50 years behind Europe, and how we are all going to have to pay for our shortsightedness for the next 50 years.

Everyone at the DOT should be fired. NOW.

Posted by: Walt | November 25, 2007 6:56 AM

It is Fedup who says AMTRAK, so I used the same term, Same stuff goes for Metro-North.

It is Fedup and the other commuters who would clog up the roads if they did not take the train to work.

Build the garage, keep the train. Make it more expensive to use the roads, Charge a breakeven rate on the trains,

Why should the rest of us , who do not use those facilities pay your way?

The guy who works in New Haven must pay for his own parking, but Fedup claims his Caddy should get free parking.

Sounds phony to me.

Posted by: Questio | November 25, 2007 4:03 PM

WALT, can't the guy who works in New Haven take public transit (CTTransit), too? Why does anyone *have* to pay for parking?

I really don't understand your idea that only rich people take the trains--if they're so darn rich, why the heck are they living in New Haven with a 4-hour daily commute to NYC?

Posted by: Walt | November 26, 2007 8:30 AM

Quisito

Of course, as you say, the guy who works in New Haven probably uses CT Transit, and gets a subsidized fare, but he also has to pay the regular fare out of his own pocket.

The point is that "Fedup" also gets the subsidized rate to the RR Station. but he objects to paying any fare, and believes that his use of subsidized trains, and subsidized parking and subsidized buses justify his demand for completely free bus use.

Will his next demand be that New York City pay for his cab=fare?

A Phony in my book.

Posted by: katharine weber | November 26, 2007 1:26 PM

Just chiming in to say that as a frequent Metro North passeneger to New York, it is seriously irritating to see all those police cruisers taking valuable spaces at Union Station. There is also a vast covered area on the entrance level of the garage for employee parking that could surely be better utilized for commuter parking.

New Haven Independent

State, City Strike Union Station Deal

Comments

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

News Feed