With a standing-room-only crowd in Greenwich yesterday, we ran out of copies of our printed informational packet... it's now available for download here:

secoast.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Greenwich-Briefing.pdf ... See MoreSee Less

4 weeks ago

Blumenthal will be in Old Lyme today, at 10:30. We are out of town, working across the state on the rail issue, but we encourage you to attend. ... See MoreSee Less

1 month ago

As we work through the Record of Decision, including 2600+ pages of public comment, summaries and responses from the Federal Railroad Administration, I'd like to briefly touch on a few key issues for communities across Connecticut and Rhode Island, and I'd like to ask a favor. Read on!

For communities stretching from east of New Haven to Providence, where the Federal Railroad Administration has dropped plans for a "Kenyon to Old Saybrook Bypass," from the just-released Record of Decision... a note of caution.

If you turn to Appendix A page 28 of the Record of Decision, we have identified a provision in the document which clearly suggests an intent to revisit 'dropped' plans to quad-track between Branford and Guilford stations in Connecticut, as well as to revisit plans for a Kenyon to Old Saybrook Bypass through the historic district in Old Lyme.

This is a bit technical, but here is the key portion of text:

........ snip..........
Accordingly, the Selected Alternative includes the requirement for a capacity planning study (the New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study), in partnership with Connecticut and Rhode Island, that will identify on- and off-corridor infrastructure elements to achieve the service and performance objectives of the Selected Alternative between New Haven and Providence. The New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study will encompass the geographic area within the following limits: along the Hartford/Springfield Line from New Haven to Hartford, from Hartford to Providence, and along the existing NEC from New Haven to Providence. This study area includes the areas considered for capacity expansion between Branford to Guilford, CT, and Old Saybrook, CT, to Kenyon, RI. Completion of a New Haven to Providence Capacity Planning Study for this area will be a pre-condition to any Tier 2 projects that are intended to increase capacity.
.........snip..........

We can't really think of any reason to mention these 'dropped' routes specifically in the Record of Decision, other than to guide later planning, and to assure that plans for the Kenyon to Old Saybrook Bypass, and Quadtracking between Branford and Guilford are reintroduced into decision making at a later date.

When? The best answer, as usual, is in a piece by Ana Radelat for the Connecticut Mirror. The key quote:

......snip...............
"There is no timetable for the capacity study, allowing for “a healthy process” to determine how to improve rail service in eastern Connecticut, said Rebecca Reyes-Alicia, who is managing the Northeast Corridor project for the agency."

She also said “there was no consensus” for the proposed Old Saybrook to Rhode Island bypass.
.......snip.............

ctmirror.org/2017/07/12/feds-drop-old-saybrook-to-rhode-island-bypass-from-final-rail-plan/

As a benchmark, we hope that that by a "healthy process," Reyes-Alicia means more, not less, public participation.

Now while this eastern portion, which impacts towns from Branford, CT to Charlestown, RI falls asleep, what will be happening to the west in Fairfield County?

Three days ago, I spend two hours ago being briefed on the plan by a rail insider, and his take was this:

Pay attention to the New Rochelle to Greens Farms Bypass, because that's "where the action is."

If you don't know already, the NEC Future Record of Decision selected this bypass as a solution to transportation problems in north/east of New York City. This plan proposes simply enormous impacts to the historic coastline towns in Fairfield County, including Riverside, Cos Cob, Stamford, and Darien.

So when does this planning start?

Our source tells us, that there is already an early working group at the CT DOT tasked with moving ahead piecemeal with the New Rochelle to Greens Farms Bypass. Last night, this was pretty much confirmed by Sue Haigh, in a piece for the Associated Press. Another must-read. Here is the key section:

.......snip................
Connecticut DOT Commissioner James Redeker said his agency first plans to examine ways to improve service frequency and travel times between New Haven and New York City. The FRA's updated blueprint calls for improvements including additional railroad tracks, station and system upgrades, and the replacement of aging moveable bridges. A state-funded, $3 million consultant's study is already underway. Redeker said DOT hopes to identify short-term initiatives in the next two years, followed by longer-term infrastructure upgrades.

"We're sort of actually ahead of the game in terms of moving forward in Connecticut," he said, adding how there is not an immediate rush to work with Rhode Island on the New Haven-to-Providence stretch of the rail line because there isn't money available to make the improvements.
........snip...............

This raises a few key questions: Who is conducting the study? When did the study begin? What are the parameters of the study? And how could CT DOT begin a "state-funded $3 million dollar consultant's study" without some prior knowledge of the decision to select the New Rochelle to Greens Farms Bypass as part of the Record of Decision?

So... it's pretty clear that there is no time for delay, and that we need to actively engage communities in southwestern Connecticut in this process as soon as possible. The best solutions -- and there will be solutions -- will require serious, immediate, and informed engagement from the public and elected officials in Greenwich, Stamford and Darien.

And that brings me to that favor I'm asking of you... it's a small state. I know all of our readers have friends and family living in Fairfield County. Please reach out to them... explain to them what we've accomplished here east of New Haven, and encourage them to "like" or "follow" our page on Facebook, or sign up for our newsletter on our website at SECoast.org.

For everyone living along the New Rochelle to Greens Farms Bypass, this is just getting started, and they are going to need all the help they can get. And lastly: PLEASE SHARE THIS POST. ... See MoreSee Less

1 month ago

We have been overwhelmed with media outreach and interviews over the last 24 hours...I am sorry that we have been very quiet here on the site today as a result. We will have much more detailed analysis of the next few days, but let me briefly explain what has just happened.

We see this as a split decision. For southeastern Connecticut, this Record of Decision offers a major reprieve from the impacts of the proposed Kenyon to Old Saybrook Bypass. Quadtracking between Branford and Guilford has also been dropped from the plan. But in contrast, in Fairfield County, the Federal Railroad Administration has selected a New Rochelle to Greens Farms rail bypass which poses equally significant economic, historic, and environmental impacts. It's reasonable for residents of Norwalk, Darien, and Greenwich to ask why they were treated differently.

I would like to say that the early, strong, and bipartisan leadership on the issue from Senator Blumenthal, Congressman Courtney, State Sen. Formica and State Rep. Carney played no small part in the particular success we've achieved east of New Haven. Rob Vavasour in Guilford and Jon Wilson in Stony Creek deserve significant thanks for their grassroots work on the Branford and Guilford quadtracking. I believe it was crucial. Jo Conboy and the Greenwich Preservation Trust have been strong advocates in Fairfield County, and we intend to work vigorously to reach a good result there despite the disappointing selection of the New Rochelle to Greens Farms Bypass as part of the Record of Decision. Lisa Konicki, executive director of the Ocean Community Chamber of Commerce has been enormously effective and influential both in Rhode Island and in Connecticut. And let me say that the entire Northeast Corridor owes a debt of gratitude to the leadership and work, late in coming, but remarkably effective, from the Charlestown Citizens Alliance, and the Charlestown government. It has been a model effort on their part as a local government. Let us all learn from them.

We believe that the announced NEC Future Record Of Decision represents significant progress. It is a victory of sorts. And we
believe that the sort of changes affected in the Record of Decision are unprecedented in a federal project of this
type and scope. That said, until we arrive at a solution to real capacity, speed, and resiliency issues along the Northeast
Corridor through southeastern Connecticut and southern Rhode Island, there remains a significant threat to Old Lyme, Mystic, Stonington, Westerly and Charlestown, as well as to Branford, Guilford and Stony Creek.

As proposed, the Record of Decision requires a 2:45 travel time between Boston and New York, and proposes a planning process which would partner the CT DOT, RI DOT with the FRA to develop a solution that delivers this federally-mandated result. As such, there is much work ahead. This Record of Decision does not assure a good solution, nor does it assure a better process, it does however, provide the communities of southeastern Connecticut with a some breathing room. As we move forward SECoast and the Connecticut Trust will continue to engage this issue, and push for a better planning process in the next stage. We do not expect this new planning process in southeastern Connecticut or southern Rhode Island to be an immediate priority for the FRA.

So... yes, let's celebrate.... you deserve it... and then let's roll up our sleeves and get back at it... ... See MoreSee Less

1 month ago

We are expecting an announcement of the NEC Future Record of Decision tomorrow @ 11 am ... See MoreSee Less

1 month ago

Connecticut’s Historic Preservation Council voted unanimously this afternoon to recommend involvement by the State Attorney General’s Office to prevent the demolitions of 116 and 130 Bank Street in downtown New London. Below is testimony given at the hearing by Laura Natusch, the new executive director of New London Landmarks. Take a look......

I’m Laura Natusch, executive director of New London Landmarks, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you today.

Brad Schide from CT Trust for Historic Preservation has shown that a feasible, prudent alternative to demolition exists for both buildings. I’m here to talk about the incredible level of support we have for preserving these buildings and about why that support exists.

We have a letter of support from Mayor Michael Passero. Those of you who attended the SHPO conference in May also heard Mayor Passero speak about the importance of historic preservation and our efforts to save these buildings during the mayoral panel discussion.

We have a resolution passed unanimously by the New London City Council and a supporting letter from our Historic District Commission.

We have 1518 petition signatures asking for your help today. About 400 of these signatures came from online petitions, but over eleven hundred people signed in person. We gathered these signatures with very little canvassing: under ten hours.

Most of these signatures came from the efforts of the downtown business community. Seventeen downtown business owners displayed the petition in their businesses and encouraged their customers to sign or allowed us to gather signatures during their special events. Another thirteen downtown business owners signed the petition without displaying it, usually because they had no available counter space.

Our regional newspaper, The Day, editorialized that not only should these buildings be saved, but that the City of New London should use this threat to Bank Street’s historic streetscape as an opportunity to codify its vision for Bank Street in its Plan for Conservation and Development. In one of several pro-preservation columns, David Collins wrote, “If you ruin the historic fabric of the downtown with precedent-setting demolition, you are snuffing out renaissance potential.”

We’ve received twenty-seven letters of support, ten of which came from local and regional organizations including Hygienic Arts, the Southeastern Connecticut Cultural Coalition, New London Main Street, Hope, Inc., Thames River Heritage Park Foundation, Hodges Square Village Association and the Connecticut branch of the Sierra Club. They spoke about issues such as the link between historic streetscapes and economic revitalization, the regional importance of and investments we’ve already made in heritage tourism, the environmental impacts of demolition vs. rehabilitation, and about what the wrecking ball has already taken from our city.

So why is there such an outpouring of support for the preservation of these buildings?

To understand that, you have to understand a little bit about New London. We’re an old port city. We’re the Whaling City. We have WPA whaling murals in our downtown post office, a ten-foot tall whale tale fountain across from Union Station, our high school athletes are Whalers, we buy beer at Whaling City Spirits.

But nowhere is our maritime heritage more evident than on Bank Street, named for the bank of the Thames River. When you approach Bank Street from the water, you see the same buildings that nineteenth century whalers saw when they sailed into port. When you walk down Bank Street, you’re walking past sea captains’ homes and sailors’ boarding houses. Bank Street has always been both the heart of our downtown and the heart of our maritime activity. If you dismantle that streetscape, we’re no longer the Whaling City. Without that streetscape, all our Whaler’s pride is just window dressing. Those Bank Street buildings are the windows.

And here’s something else about New London: we’ve lost a lot of historic buildings and neighborhoods, and those losses hurt. Many of the people who wrote letters or commented on our petition spoke about neighborhoods razed and families uprooted. More than one of them likened these losses to the 1781 torching of New London by Benedict Arnold--which isn’t an obscure or forgotten history for us. We have an annual festival where we gather behind Bank Street—right behind these two buildings—and raise our fists, and yell, “Fie! Fie!” as we burn Benedict Arnold in effigy.

116 Bank Street was probably the very beginning of Bank Street’s rebirth after Benedict Arnold’s fires. It was built between 1786 and 1789—we believe it’s the oldest building on the water side of Bank Street--and its first owner was a baker who supplied bread to the Continental Army. Underneath its siding, it’s one of very few wooden structures on Bank Street, where wooden construction was banned in the early 1800’s. In the nineteenth century, it became a sailor’s boarding house, then a mission. It’s where the forty-two drowning victims from the steamship Atlantic were laid out in preparation for burial.
130 Bank Street was built in 1828, as New London was recovering from the blockade of 1812 and beginning to prosper with whaling money. Its original owner, John Deshon, became a sea captain in 1798 when he was twenty-one years old. His brother co-founded New London’s whaling industry in 1819.

Together, these buildings tell the story of New London’s recovery and ultimate resurgence as the second largest whaling port in the world. But they also tell another facet of New London’s history. A boarding house next to a wealthy sea captain’s home: then as now, downtown New London was everyone’s neighborhood. It’s where the rich and poor have always rubbed shoulders.

Maybe this is why so many people used the word “our” when they told us why they were writing letters or signing our petition: our downtown, our city, our heritage.

This gets to the core of the tension between Mr. Cornish’s private property rights and the rights of the public. If historic buildings are resources in which the public has a trust, then surely that trust is amplified in a municipality’s downtown.

The irony is that if Mr. Cornish were to tear down 116 and 130 Bank Street and replace them with a larger, new building, he would then be able to market his apartments as being located along New London’s historic waterfront. His profit margin would hinge on his neighbors not doing what he hopes the state will allow him to do--yet he argues that he has the right to diminish the value of their properties by demolishing a chunk of the historic streetscape upon which this community depends.

What makes the threat of demolition hard to swallow even for people who are not hard-core preservationists is Mr. Cornish’s lack of architectural plans. He has not hired an architect, nor does he intend to hire an architect until after the buildings are demolished. What little he has said about his intentions are contradictory. In April, at the Historic District Commission meeting, he said that he wants to tear 130 Bank Street down to its foundation and build something taller but with the same footprint. In May, he said that he wants to build a much larger residential building encompassing both lots.

We believe that Mr. Cornish has spent no more time exploring alternatives to demolition than he has spent developing architectural plans. We hope that by recommending involvement by the State Attorney General, you will bring everyone to the table to have a serious discussion about what those alternatives could look like.

We’re optimistic that if we work together, we can find a solution. New London’s downtown real estate market is booming, and a number of long-neglected buildings are being rehabbed with care and sensitivity. Historic apartments with water views are renting for prices considerably higher than the rents CT Trust used to show how rehabbing these buildings could be profitable.

In conclusion, the people of New London are clamoring for your help in preserving 116 and 130 Bank Street. These buildings comprise a substantial portion of a beloved historic streetscape, they are both either sound or repairable, and Mr. Cornish has not provided any plans which would justify their loss. We believe that the demolitions of 116 and 130 Bank Street in New London would be unreasonable, and we ask that you recommend involvement by the State Attorney General to prevent them. ... See MoreSee Less

2 months ago

I'd encourage residents in the area to voice their ideas and concerns to the State Historic Preservation Office directly!

"The Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is working on a Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan to be completed by the end of the year. The Plan will be an intensive level planning document addressing the treatment of the historic and cultural resources across the state. It will serve as a guide for planning and decision making by the SHPO, Towns, agencies, non-profit organizations, and others who may affect these resources."

For southeast Connecticut, there will be a meeting at The Pavilion at Saybrook Point Park, 154 College Street at Saybrook Point, Old Saybrook, CT on June 27 from 7 to 9 PM. ... See MoreSee Less

2 months ago