New Haven Independent

A $1.2 billion, 74-acre bungled construction project upgraded New Haven’s railyards is expected to have “no adverse impacts” whatsoever on traffic, parking, and pedestrians in the city.

Not that the public seemed particularly worried anyway.

A legally mandated hearing for residents at Gateway Community College Wednesday night garnered public comments from only one speaker, a supportive Mike Piscitelli, the city’s transportation director.

At the meeting, representatives from the Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) and its consultants offered the positive news about the expected impacts from the railyard project.

After conducting sound tests in nearby residential areas and explorations of the railyard’s historical significance over the course of about two years, project planner Marianne Latimer (pictured above) of Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. said that any impacts would be “minor” and easily mitigated.

“Through its impact avoidance and mitigation measures,” concluded her report, “the New Haven Rail Yard improvements will not incur any significant environmental, cultural, or social impacts.” That includes harmful effects on socioeconomic conditions, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, neighborhood aesthetics, environmental justice, public safety, water quality or endangered species.

Not all of the city’s environment will go unharmed, however, in the project that is being co-led by the Federal Transit Authority and ConnDOT. The site is a “potential source of contamination” because of its antique origins and will displace less than an acre of wetland while slightly disrupting the 100-year floodplain. During construction, now slated for spring 2008 through “2015 and beyond” for phase two, temporary effects are also expected to be felt, though not severely.

The wetland’s function — “to trap and remove sediments contained in stormwater runoff and to provide flood storage capacity” — is slated to be replaced by the state’s own “stormwater management system.” And the potential contamination must be “further evaluated” by a Licensed Environmental Professional as the design of the site moves forward; a remedial action plan may be needed.

Although the details were not specified, “there will be impacts” to the coastal-flood hazard area, planners also announced. The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection must review the proposal and work with the project managers in securing proper permits.

Situated between Union Avenue to the west, Cedar and Hallock to the South, the Church Street extension and Brewery to the east and Route 34 to the north, the construction site is not seen as close enough to the rest of the city to cause major disruption for residents.

Just in case, though, the report outlined several methods in which it will mitigate construction-period disruptions: the maintenance and protection of a traffic plan; an erosion and sedimentation control plan; noise abatement measures; a health and safety plan; and finally, almost as an afterthought, “coordination with the city of New Haven.”

For its part, the city sent Piscitelli (pictured), the transportation director, to submit the only public comment of the evening.

“We have very few comments on this project as you know,” Piscitelli said. “This,” he added, “is one of the signature and most exciting projects happening in the city right now,” demonstrating a “true commitment” to improving transit and rail use in New Haven.

From $300 Million to… $1.19 Billion

The railyard project was not always chugging along so rosily.

The project picked up speed only after state leaders began to come to terms with its prior mismanagement and unrealistic budgeting last April. In 2005, ConnDOT said the project would cost $300 million. By March 2008? $1.17 billion. (That figure has since increased to $1.19 billion.)

At the time, State Sen. Eileen Daily labeled the endeavor “the next Big Dig”; State Sen. Andrew McDonald said it was a “mangled mess of planning and lack of communication”; and Bob Genuario, Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s budget secretary, admitted that he “could have done and should have done a better job” informing the legislature of the potential costs before it faced an unprecedented budget gap earlier this year.

For Melissa Bailey’s report on an April hearing on the railyard project in Hartford before the state legislature’s Finance and Transportation Committees, click here.

According to the executive summary of the project, its purpose is to “transform and expand the existing New Haven Rail Yard into a fully functional and coordinated facility that provides for efficient and effective storage, dispatching, inspection, maintenance and cleaning of an increasing fleet of rail cars.”

Among the likely improvements are 25 new storage yard trucks; a 2-track, 10-car service and inspection shop; two-wheel true shops; a maintenance-of-way building; a rail car washer; a component change-out shop; repair-paint shop; a new parking structure; and an employee overpass to facilitate the “safe movement of employees” within the rail yard.

The enhancements coincide with the expected impending arrival of state-of-the-art Virginia rail cars and the implementation of a $2 billion state transportation package

A Startling Summer Trend?

The sparsely attended hearing came one day after the city saw three meetings held for the public that collectively garnered a grand total of one resident .

As pictured, dozens of empty comment forms sat on the table outside the community room at Gateway Community College one hour after the meeting began. They would remain untouched — and unmarked.

“I did, especially because the project has been in the news lately,” said Keith T. Hall (at right in photo), the transportation supervising planner at ConnDOT. But Principal Engineer Scott A. Hall (left), also of ConnDOT, disagreed, arguing that a low turnout should not be surprising given that the environmental impact is expected to be minimal and planners have met with dozens of residents and community leaders over the past two years.

The public can still comment on the potential environmental impact of the railyard project. Written remarks may be submitted through July 9.