NEC Future FRA Proposal
Dear Friends & Neighbors,
I want to make you aware of an important Transportation Committee public hearing THIS Monday, February 6, 2017 at 12:30PM in Room 2E of the Legislative Office Building – 300 Capitol Ave, Hartford.
The Committee will hold a public hearing on a variety of bills including three that Senator Paul Formica and I drafted related to the FRA proposed bypass through southeastern Connecticut. The hearing will offer you the opportunity to testify on these bills:
HJ 54 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN ALTERNATIVE AMTRAK ROUTE THROUGH SOUTHEAST CONNECTICUT
This is a House Joint Resolution (meaning both the House and the Senate will vote on it) to object to the proposal by the Federal Railroad Administration regarding construction of a bypass on the Northeast Corridor rail line between Old Saybrook, Connecticut to Kenyon, Rhode Island through the scenic and historic towns of southeast Connecticut.
As many of you know, the governor, our Senators, and many other local and federal officials have come out in objection to the bypass – I’d like to have the entire General Assembly oppose it and this is how we can accomplish that. I’d urge you to send in testimony supporting this resolution to move forward.
SB 253 AN ACT REQUIRING MUNICIPAL APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO RAIL SERVICE
Many of our constituents felt that their concerns were not properly considered and that the FRA was trying to ram this bypass proposal through without a proper public hearing from those most affected by it. We agree. So, we drafted this proposal which would require municipal approval, through referendum, for any changes to commuter rail service through an impacted community.
SB 263 AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO RAIL SERVICE
This bill pairs with SB 253 in that it prohibits the state from expending funds on rail projects that did not receive municipal approval through a referendum.
I would encourage you to support these concepts and express your thoughts on how you feel the FRA process has gone thus far and any concerns you may have.
You can testify in person or in writing — I have provided the instructions below.
HOW TO TESTIFY:
Please email written testimony (can be as formal or informal as you want) in Word or PDF format to TRAtestimony@cga.ct.gov. Testimony should clearly state testifier name and related Bills. The Committee requests testimony be limited to matters related to the items on the Agenda.
The first hour of the hearing is reserved for Legislators, Constitutional Officers, State Agency Heads and Chief Elected Municipal Officials. Please keep in mind, public hearings can be very long, so, if you plan on coming to Hartford to testify, keep your schedule clear.
Speakers will be limited to three minutes of testimony.
Sign-ups for public hearings tend to begin a few hours before the hearing starts and are done through random lottery. Unofficial sign-up sheets have no standing with the Committee.
All public hearing testimony, written and spoken, is public information. As such, it will be made available on the CGA website and indexed by internet search engines.
Let me know if you have any questions about the bills or the public hearing process.
As always, please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or concerns about state government.
Thank you for your time.
FRA Releases NEC FUTURE Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Final EIS) for NEC FUTURE, is now available for download at www.necfuture.com.
NEC FUTURE is the FRA's vision for improvements to the Northeast Corridor (NEC) rail line from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts.
The Tier 1 Final EIS recommends a Preferred Alternative for NEC FUTURE, and includes responses to comments received on the Tier 1 Draft EIS.
The NEC FUTURE Tier 1 Final EIS includes the Programmatic Agreement (under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) and associated supporting documents.
Information about the FRA's decision-making process, waiting period, and how to provide feedback is also available on the NEC FUTURE website.
For questions or assistance in accessing the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 Final EIS documentation, contact the FRA via email at email@example.com.
Comments from First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder about FRA EIS Statement Released Today
After months of waiting, petitioning the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on behalf of Old Lyme, and working with our Congressional representatives, local legislators and state leaders, the FRA has finally released its Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--months later than promised and only one month before a new administration is sworn in.
We have made strenuous efforts to convince the FRA that selecting Alternative 1 in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which incorporates a “bypass” from Old Saybrook, Connecticut to Kenyon, Rhode Island, would be a colossal mistake. Not only is there substantial thinking that this southern route would not best serve the economic interests of our nation, state and the Northeast Corridor, there is enormous doubt that this bypass can be constructed in a cost-effective manner that avoids catastrophic damage to our environment and cultural heritage.
In summary, the current proposal is deficient in several ways vis-a-vis the environment
- The report fails to demonstrate that the environmental impact of the preferred alternative is sound when compared to other possible alternatives.
- The FRA failed to examine the possibility of creating new alternatives based on the concerns for the environment as raised in comments on its Tier 1 alternatives.
- The FRA proposal fails to persuade that the benefits of the route in question are economically practical and that the future cost of construction of this alternative outweigh the environmental risks, especially in light of the fact that its chief client, AMTRAK, prefers another route.
- The proposal fails to address the effect on the circulation flow and sediment transport vital to the health of the Connecticut River estuary.
- The proposal fails to identify the impact of such a massive infrastructure project (both during the construction phase and upon completion) on the biodiversity of the estuary and its wetlands and the species that breed, spawn, fledge, inhabit and migrate to these wetlands.
- The proposal fails to identify the impact this project will have on the estuary and its wetlands as climate continues to warm and tides rise and whether the construction of such a tunnel or aerial bridge will hasten the adverse effects of carbon emissions, tidal and temperature increases.
- The report is silent on how the FRA proposes to acquire the property necessary for this expansion and the effect on the farmlands, fields, forests, open spaces and private property involved as well as whether this project will contribute to the existing problems of habitat loss and forest fragmentation.
- The report is silent on how the construction phase of this proposed project will impact other transportation in the affected communities, particularly, traffic on Interstate 95 and CT Rte.9, as well as local roads.
In addition, while these comments primarily address the effects on the Connecticut River Estuary, there are a number of other environmental issues and questions that remained unanswered including:
- The effects of this project on air quality and water resources (including tributaries in the watershed);
- The effect on ground water resources and water quality, especially since the historic village of Old Lyme relies on wells;
- There is little analysis of noise;
- The visual effect of a tunnel/bridge forever changing the landscape of the area and adversely affecting its economy which is reliant on tourism; and
- The effect of a tunnel/bridge on the area’s geology and areas of archeological significance.
Although we acknowledge that this route may never be implemented, the uncertainty that attaches to this recommendation has caused, and will continue to cause, substantial economic and social distress along its route. In the absence of solid scientific evidence that such a route is even feasible, it is unconscionable and purposeless to impose this harm on our state. We therefore have exhorted the FRA to leave the determination of the new alignments unspecified in the EIS, pending future review by all interested parties. Despite all our efforts, including a recent letter to the FRA Administrator, Sarah Feinberg, pointing out the economic damage that has already been felt in our community, the costly bypass from Old Saybrook to Kenyon is included in the recommendation.
It is deeply disturbing that the FRA appears to have completely disregarded the harm this plan is causing, and rejected the viable suggestion to leave all “lines on the map” blank, allowing the State of Connecticut and local leaders to determine how new alignments should be mapped through our state. Hundreds of individuals, experts, and stakeholders have tried to communicate their concerns with this bypass, but they apparently fell on deaf ears, as did the unwavering efforts of Congressman Courtney, Senator Blumenthal, and other state and local leaders.
But let me be clear – this new route will NOT go through Old Lyme. I am pleased to have the support of Governor Malloy, Commissioner Redeker, and others in saying that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT and local governments, not the FRA or the Federal Government, will ultimately determine the route high speed rail takes through Connecticut. We will stand united against this proposal and be prepared to fight the Goliath.
Academy Lane Fire Dock
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Notice is hereby given that the Town of Old Lyme, CT will accept Statements of Qualifications from Contractors who are highly experienced in the demolition, construction, and finish work on solid wharf facilities made of large stone and concrete blocks and gravel. Projects of similar scope such as CT DEEP boat launch ramps, rubble groins and “dry” or “wet” stone seawalls using nominal 2 ton or larger stone, rubble or concrete pieces may be considered an equivalent experience pending review of the details. Contractors must be able to demonstrate completion of three such projects within the past 5 years and the ability to “self-perform” the work. Working space will be limited. Concrete/stone pieces will be on the order of 4,000+ pounds each. Some work can be performed from the water. Bids
for the project will be solicited from the three most qualified respondents.
This project may be subject to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and audited by Federal and State Agencies. Respondents must demonstrate conformance to State and Federal Labor and Hiring Laws and Regulations. Certified payrolls will be required. Payment requisitions will be on a monthly basis.
Respondents must provide information on recent contracts, current contracts, and available work force in the skillsets required for the scope of work described above, financial resources to abide by state agency payment processes, bank financial references, prior work references from licensed professional engineers and references from the CT DEEP and/or US Army Corps of Engineers.
Submittals must be received by 2pm on August 17, 2016 at the Office of the First Selectman, Town of Old Lyme, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT 06371, or via e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
No questions on Academy Lane Fire Dock RFQ were received by 8/8/16 deadline
INVITATION TO BID
STATE PROJECT #104-172
ROUTE 156 BIKE WAY AND SOUND VIEW IMPROVEMENTS
OLD LYME, CONNECTICUT
Sealed Bids for STATE PROJECT 104-172, “ROUTE 156 BIKE WAY AND SOUND VIEW IMPROVEMENTS” will be received by the Selectman’s Office, Town of Old Lyme, located at 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT 06371 until 2:00 pm on Monday, August 8, 2016. At this time, Bids will be opened and publicly read aloud. E-mailed, faxed, or bids received after the stated date/time will not be considered.
Interested persons may examine the bid documents at the Selectman’s Office at the Old Lyme Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT during the hours of 9:00 am-4:00 pm Monday through Friday. Copies of the bid documents may be obtained at the Selectman’s Office, Town of Old Lyme, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT 06371 (860) 434-1605 x211 during the hours of 9:00 am-4:00 pm Monday through Friday for a non-refundable cost of $50. Partial sets will not be issued.
Follow the links below to view the construction documents (plans & specs) for STATE PROJECT #104-172 ROUTE 156 BIKE WAY AND SOUND VIEW IMPROVEMENTS.
A pre-bid meeting will be held on Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. at the project site. Attendees should meet at the Shoreline Community Center, 39 Hartford Avenue, Old Lyme, CT. While not required, attendance is strongly encouraged.
Questions regarding the project should be addressed in writing to the Selectman’s Office at Old Lyme Town Hall, 52 Lyme Street, Old Lyme, CT 06371 or by e-mail at email@example.com no later than 4:00 pm on July 29, 2016.
Each bid shall be accompanied by a bid bond, payable to the Town of Old Lyme, in the amount of five percent (5%) of the value of the bid in the form included with the Bid Documents.
Payment bond and performance bonds each in the amount of 100 percent (100%) of the contract price, will be required in the form included with the Bid Documents.
Bidders attention is called to the following:
Prequalification: Prospective bidders must be prequalified by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation in accordance with the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation Construction Contract Bidding and Award Manual, as revised, in order to be eligible to have their bid proposals reviewed and to be considered for award of a contract.
FHWA Funded Contracts: This project is subject to contract provisions required for FHWA- funded contracts.
No Bidder may withdraw his Bid within 90 days after the actual date of the opening thereof.
The Town of Old Lyme reserves the right to waive any informalities, irregularities or defects in bids, to reject any or all bids, if it is in the best interests of the Town of Old Lyme.
TOWN OF OLD LYME, CONNECTICUT
Hains Park Boathouse Q & A
- Q: Is it correct that all questions are due by 10 June?
A: That is the current deadline; if you require more time, submit a request for an extension.
- Q: What are the permitted work hours?
A: On site work shall start no earlier than 7:00 a.m. and end no later than 10:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
- Q: Was the 25% SBE set aside requirement postponed for municipalities?
A: No. The requirement was not postponed, is currently in effect for municipal work and Contractors must meet the goals or be able to document good faith efforts to meet them.
- Q: Who is responsible for demolition of the building?
A: The Contractor is responsible for demolition and proper disposal of the existing structure. The building will be empty when turned over for demolition.
- Q: Are there any hazardous material in the building?
- Q: Is any Special Testing required?
A: There is no Special Testing required. The Town Building Official will perform inspections of excavations, rebar, framing, sheathing, electrical, etc. The Town will retain a testing lab for concrete cylinders.
7. Q: Are the cedar sliding barn doors to be 2 ¼ inches thick at their narrowest point or at their thickest point?~
A: The cedar sliding barn doors are to have a maximum thickness of 2 ¼ inches.
8. Q: Are the cedar sliding barn doors to be finished or unfinished?~ If they are to be finished please supply the specifications for the desired finish.
A: For bidding purposes, assume the cedar sliding barn doors and all exterior trim are to receive one coat of latex-based primer and two coats of latex-based finish.
9. Q: Wall type 2 is an exterior wall with drywall on the inside, but is drawn on A1.0 without insulation. Is that correct?
A: That is correct; wall Type 2 does not contain insulation. The only wall insulation required is in the Type 1 wall, which is a 1-hour rated assembly (UL design No. U348) due to its proximity to the property line.
10. Q: At the prebid meeting, temporary fencing to secure an area for use by the town was mentioned. Please supply the length, height, and style of fencing, along with the number and sizes of gates desired.
A: Please refer to Bid Form item L.1.c.4 for the definition of the fence allowance.
11. Q: Will it be acceptable to use Hardie in lieu of the Boral trim?
A: Hardie trim is acceptable in lieu of Boral trim.
12. Q: Is there a color that has been selected for the vinyl siding?
A: The color for the vinyl siding has not been selected yet.
13. Q: For the Hardie Batten Siding, shall 16” on center for the battens be assumed so there are no exposed fasteners inside?
14. Q: For the Hardie Batten Siding, are the panels to be smooth or wood grained?
A: The panels shall be wood grained.
15. Q: For the Hardie Batten Siding, shall the panels and trim be prefinished by the manufacturer or primed and painted in the field?
A: The panels and trim shall be prefinished by the manufacturer.
16. Q: Based on the description for cupolas on the bid form, there are 3 (Model Monterey) that are an add alternate. However on A3.0 it mentions there are 3 for the base bid (Model Redwing). Please confirm that 3 Redwings (painted) are to be included in the base bid with an alternate price for 3 Montereys.
A: Correct. The base bid shall include three Redwing cupolas and Alternate 3 is the difference in cost for three Monterey cupolas per Alternate Bid Note 5 on A3.0, A3.1, etc.
17. Q: Please provide a detail for connections at the new slab to the existing slab/foundation; does this require pinning?
A: Pining is not required, however all new slab edges are to be thickened per details in the drawings.
18. Q: Regarding the foundation wall that is to be removed between the existing slabs. The drawing indicates to bring top of foundation wall to 8” below grade. The slab infill here will only be about 8” wide which will be difficult for pins to be installed as well as compacting backfill under the new slab. Shall we figure a minimum of 12” slab removal on either side of the wall to allow for ease of back filling and not having such a narrow infill?~
A: Pinning is not required. All slab infill shall be thickened to 8-inches, so the infill will bear on the wall, which will be demoed to 8-inches below the finished slab.
19. Q: On C-200 there is a note for the electrical and data conduits to be run into room 103 which is on an existing concrete slab; will the slab be cut for the conduit runs?
A: The conduit may be run under the new slab or over the gypboard ceiling in Room 102 Multi-Use Flex Space, and shall be run overhead, across the corridor between Room 102 and Room 103 Office. The electrical service conduit shall terminate in a flush mount panel in the west wall of Room 103, and the (2) tele/data conduit from Town Woods Road and the (1) from the Toilet Building shall stub out of the west wall.
20. Q: Has the power company been consulted on this project? The power company has not allowed the following in the past; the power has to be metered before entering the building and unmetered power cannot be run under the building slab.
A: The power company has not been consulted for this project, however, the intent is for the meter and any Code-required disconnect to be mounted on the outside of the building, with metered power continuing into the building.
21. Q: Is there an electrical raiser diagram? Is the service 200 amp 1 phase 120/240 Volt?
A: There is no electrical riser diagram. The 200 Amp service is single phase, 120/240 Volt.
22. Q: Does the storage rack system require any power system?
A: No, the boat storage rack system is manually operated and requires no power feed.
23. Q: Will an alternate manufacturer to the specified Certainteed vinyl product be considered?
A: Alternate manufacturers will be allowed, but it is incumbent upon the Contractor to demonstrate that material characteristics and warranty of the proposed product are equivalent to the Certainteed product specified.
24. Q: Regarding the siding alternate (Hardie), should the alternate price for the Hardie siding include Hardie soffit material?
A: Yes. Hardie soffit material shall be included with the Alternate for the Hardie siding.
25. Q: The exterior window casing appears to be the same size at the head and sides, however the door casing appears to be larger at the head. Please clarify.
A: Typical dimensions for the window casing are given in the Window Elevations on A6.0. Typical door casing shall be 6” at the jambs and 8” at the head.
26. Q: The rake trim shows as 5/4 x 8 fascia with a 5/4 x 2 applied rake board, but the details on page A5.1 indicate a 5/4”x2-1/4” piece. Are these dimensions actual, or nominal?
A: The trim shall be 5/4 nominal thickness throughout. Dimensions of materials such as 5/4 x 8 shall be understood to be nominal dimensions. Dimensions associated with dimension lines, or fractional dimensions, e.g. 2-1/4”, shall be understood to be actual dimensions.
27. Q: All windows show a dotted line indicating venting window; are all windows to be priced as operating?
A: All W1 windows shall be operable; the three W2 windows on the North Elevation shall be fixed.
28. Q: Are there any obscure glass requirements? ~
A: The W1s in the Locker Rooms shall be glazed with ‘Obscure’ pattern glass.
29. Q: Are there any tempered glass requirements?
30. Q: Are the window dividers/false muntins to be SDL with spacer, SDL without spacer, GBG or Removable interior grille??
A: Windows shall be SDL with spacer.
31. Q: Should extension jambs be included to reach out flush with the 5/8” GWB on the interior, or will there be a drywall return? ~~?
A: Extension jambs shall be used at the interior.
32. Q: If interior wood trim, please provide sizes and profiles of head & side casing, stool & apron or picture-frame
A: Casing shall be 1x4 flat for heads and sides; stools shall be ¾” with 1x4 flat aprons.
33. Q: Architectural drawings show ½” CDX wall sheathing, but the Structural drawing notes indicate 5/8” CDX wall sheathing; which is correct?
A: The large scale details and the Shear Wall Schedule take precedence over the Structural Notes; use ½” CDX for wall sheathing.
34. Q: Can the RFI deadline be extended? The prebid meeting was held on Wednesday and the RFI deadline is Friday (2 days later). The bid date is still 11 days away and other clarifications may be needed as we dive deeper into the plans and specifications.?
A: No. The project is not complicated, and the number and nature of questions received prior to the posted deadline indicate an extension is not warranted.
35. Q: Would a bidder who is registered with the state of CT as an SBE or MBE count towards your SBE or MBE set aside goals?
A: If a bidder is registered as an SBE or MBE, the portion of their contract that will be credited towards the SBE/MBE goals is that portion that is self-performed. The value of work that is passed through an SBE/MBE contractor or subcontractor to a non-registered SBE/MBE will not be credited to the 25% goals.
36. Q: Which trades do the major subcontractors need to be listed under Section F of the bid form?
A: The number of ‘major subcontractors’ listed is not fixed and will vary from bidder to bidder depending on how much work they self-perform. Any subcontract with a value greater than $20,000 shall be listed.
37. Q: Can the required EMR numbers for the subcontractors under Section F of the bid form be provided by the low bidder or low 2/3 bidders within a day or two after the bid opening?
A: Bidders that do not include the requested subcontractor EMRs at the time of bid risk having their bid rejected outright as being non-responsive and incomplete.
38. Q: Can the required cost and quantity breakdowns under Section K of the bid form be provided by the low bidder or low 2/3 bidders within a day or two after the bid opening?
A: Bidders that do not include the requested cost and quantity breakdowns at the time of bid risk having their bid rejected outright as being non-responsive and incomplete.
Rogers Lake Weed Control
Black Hall Dredging Project
Invitation to Bid
and Camp Niantic