Contents --- 1. Introduction --- 2. Roadway System
3a. I- 84 --- 3b. RT 7 South --- 3c. RT 7 North

4. Projects by Municipality --- 5. Bus Plan --- 6. Rail Plan
Other Elements 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e --- 8. Resource Center

For any transportation project in the Region to obtain a commitment of federal transportation funds, it must first appear on the HVCEO maintained lists below:

4A. BETHEL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4B. BRIDGEWATER TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4C. BROOKFIELD TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4D. DANBURY TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4E. NEW FAIRFIELD TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4F. NEW MILFORD TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4G. NEWTOWN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4H. REDDING TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4I. RIDGEFIELD TRANSPORTATION PLAN

4J. SHERMAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PROJECTS INITIATED BY CONN DOT
In general there are two options for transportation project development. First, Conn DOT is often the initiator of improvement projects in the municipality, even without anyone asking.

On state roadways safety problems must be addressed, turning lanes added, new signals installed, and maintenance activities scheduled. These are often at considerable expense and make use of federal funds received at Conn DOT. So without any lobbying at all, the municipality receives some improvements.

And when it comes to these state initiated improvements, mostly to the state roadway network for which it is responsible, Conn DOT is very good about seeking local opinions and input. And in addition, as needs statewide are great and financial resources are limited, there is little interest in forcing investments upon an unwilling community.

But ultimately there may be a difference of opinion, such as the need to widen from two to four lanes in an area noted for its village character (such as Ridgefield’s Branchville section on Route 7), or on the raising of the height of an overpass that will have the consequence of allowing larger trucks to pass (as on Route 53 in Bethel).

In these situations the municipality has recourse to a veto power exercised by HVCEO under federal law over the regional list of federal projects known as the Transportation Improvement Program for the area.

But realistically, the mayors and first selectmen on HVCEO are not anxious to stop federal funds that Conn DOT wishes to see flow into the area. Rather, that their consent is ultimately needed tends to keep state and local officials cooperating and shaping projects in their early stages such that they can succeed.

A subset of state projects are those state required but funded at private developer expense. These types of upgrades are required when a traffic generator has an impact on a state roadway, and therefore must help address that impact, usually thru a combination of roadway widenings, the installation of turning lanes, and new traffic signals.

PROJECTS INITIATED BY MUNICIPALITY
While much of the available federal and matching state financial resources are funneled into Conn DOT initiated projects, perhaps just as much is applied to projects for which the initiator is not Conn DOT but the municipality. This is the second option, a complex process without a single application form or definitive municipal dollar allocation as guidance.

At the outset of determining which congestion relief projects to pursue, it is important to know that not all must be located on state roadways. Some local roads, if they are higher classifications of important collectors and arterials, also qualify for federal funds.

Also, non-transit projects that do the most to relieve state roadway congestion or that facilitate investment in major economic development receive the most attention from the state. For large economic development projects, state economic development agencies and the Governor’s Office sometimes intervene with Conn DOT.

The best initial approach is to spend some time up front developing sound project proposals. HVCEO receives federal transportation planning funds to assist municipalities with this step.

A critical component of municipally initiated project development is to seek the input of Conn DOT transportation professionals early on, as improvement concepts are formulated.

To facilitate this process Conn DOT maintains, within its Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations, a well organized Project Development Unit (PDU) to receive and evaluate such ideas. The PDU required that municipalities submit their proposals thru the HVCEO, which in this and in other ways acts as a localized field agent for Conn DOT.

After review, if the municipality and Conn DOT agree that a project is worthy, the next question is finding sufficient funds to design and construct the project. This is, or course, the hard part. There are multiple federal funding categories utilized in Connecticut, each with slightly different rules as to use, and much competition.

One small category, STP-O, is tied to subarea allocation within Connecticut. HVCEO and the other regions are empowered by the federal government to set priorities for this funding source.

A recent example of an STP-O project for Danbury is the central area coordinated signal system. In Bethel, the new bridge over Limekiln Brook on Old Hawleyville Road. HVCEO also sets regional priorities for STP-E, the federal enhancement and streetscape program.

Since 1990 HVCEO has taken the intermunicipal competitiveness out of its STP-O decisions by use of a “fair share” allocation tied to municipal population. But flexibility of allocation is possible, as when Danbury agreed that Brookfield could exceed its STP-O fair share for widening of Federal Road in Brookfield up to the Danbury City Line, as that congestion relief logically assisted both municipalities.

Federal funding categories with much larger dollar sums, such as STP-A, have no mandatory subarea allocation and are thus largely controlled by the state. Here old fashioned lobbying by the municipality, its legislators, and HVCEO, is needed. The key is to have someone in the local government to coordinate the effort.

Sometimes projects begin with the more limited STP-O program, and then stall because that limited category cannot accommodate the large cost revealed after preliminary design is completed. Then the municipality can hope to have its STP-O project converted by Conn DOT to the larger STP-A category. Danbury succeeded in this approach with the upcoming Mill Plain Road widening.

Coordinated statements and appearances by the legislative delegation are always valuable. These activities can be aimed at the level of the Conn DOT Commissioner or the Governor’s Office.

But it again must be stressed that it is best to have first shaped the desired project such that it has the support of Conn DOT professional staff, as their opinions are given great weight at legislative hearings. The discussion there can be centered around a proposed bill that proposes to give direction to Conn DOT on a particular transportation project.

Even after some initial progress is made there are still problems. While smaller scale maintenance projects usually proceed to construction by their own momentum, such movement is never common with the larger cost roadway capacity oriented projects.

These may at first proceed relatively smoothly through their design phase. But then advancing to the more costly construction phase is stalled, and another lobbying phase is needed.

This halt of progress is not always apparent to local leaders, for the official Conn DOT statement as to completion date has been authoritatively issued. But the completion date is then continually revised and revised again.

The cause may be silent, such as two state agencies not in agreement about some aspect of project impact and without anyone above them intervening to negotiate. The answer is again for officials representing the community, both local and state, to show interest when there is a delay.

Another possible funding route is to seek a congressional appropriation. This window opens widest when federal transportation funds are reauthorized every seven years, with each federal representative and senator receiving a little piece outside of the regular funding formulas. The upcoming capacity improvements at I-84 Exit 6 in Danbury were funded with this source.

In years past it was possible to lobby the Connecticut General Assembly for 100% state funding for a local road improvement project. But in recent years state funds have decreased for such purposes. Rather, state funds for traffic relief and transit improvement are reserved to serve as the required matching shares for federal transportation funds. Still, the State Bond Commission continues to make state funds available for some traffic improvement projects.

Sometimes a municipality pursues a project with Conn DOT where the effort reaches a relatively quick and happy ending. This can occur when the need is small enough such that DOT District 4 maintenance forces can complete the needed changes with existing manpower, without escalating the improvement to the status of a “federal project” at all.

Overall, the key to municipal transportation project development is to acknowledge it as a multi-year process, to which someone in the local government can be assigned to pursue for the long haul. For the monitoring of Route 7 improvements in New Milford, Brookfield and Ridgefield, state representatives have taken on this “champion” role.

In sum, success requires strong initial planning, regularly project monitoring, lobbying and effective use of Conn DOT and HVCEO.

Contents -- 1. -- 2. -- 3. -- 4. -- 5. -- 6. -- 7. -- 8.