State panel decision irks rail advocates
Toolbox
By STEPHANIE M. PETERS STAFF WRITER - Published: June 8, 2009
Several Rutland County rail advocates were upset last week by the governor's Rail Advisory Council's endorsement of a proposal from Essex Junction Village to repurpose federal earmark dollars already dedicated to a Pittsford bridge project to their own rail upgrades.
But a state transportation official said Friday the council's vote of approval is unlikely to spur a change to the Agency of Transportation's priorities for the $26 million in the earmark secured by Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., for western corridor rail upgrades.
The project "has not been included in any budget that we submitted, it has not been included in any budget the Legislature approve and we think the Rail Advisory Council – though we appreciate their input – made the wrong decision here," said Robert Ide, rail director for the Agency of Transportation.
To be sure, however, David Allaire, one of two Rutland County appointees to the council — both of whom were absent at the time of the vote — said he will abstain from casting a dissenting vote in order to allow him to raise the issue for reconsideration at the council's September meeting.
The two projects in question have nearly the same price tag attached to them – which may have been the reason for Village Manager Dave Crawford's suggestion that the funding be switched from one to the other, though Ide said he did not know and Crawford could not be reached for comment. Village President Larry Yandow was also unavailable.
Ide said he believed Essex Junction's $4.2 million proposal included rail upgrades and the construction of a multiuse pedestrian path parallel to the railroad's route.
In Pittsford, Bridge 219 is budgeted for $4,032,000 in engineering and bridge construction between now and 2013, he said.
Though Allaire and Eric Bohn of Omya, another member of the council, were not present for the vote, Rutland Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Tom Macaulay was. He said he felt the need to speak up and raise concern about how manipulating the funding would affect both the construction of the Middlebury spur, of which the bridge is part, and the Rutland rail-yard relocation.
"Until we understand what the impact on those projects is, it doesn't make sense to me to put $22 million in local contributions (secured for the Middlebury spur) at risk," Macaulay said. "Those $22 million will leverage $88 million more."
Macaulay also noted that the only council members present at the time of the vote were Chittenden County representatives.
"If they want to take Chittenden County money and put that toward Essex that's fine, but don't come to Rutland County for it," Macaulay said.
stephanie.peters@rutlandherald.com
40