Help America get back on track by putting America back on track.

If such a project (for self-powered green energy streetcars) were successful, there might even be a significant international market for such a transit vehicle platform. This is especially so since most of the world population lives in urban environments and are looking for green transport solutions.

The Hartford to New London/Westerly, RI corridor has much potential for commuter rail It ties together two colleges Wesleyan University and Connecticut College. It provides a one seat ride from Hartford, Wethersfield & Rocky Hill to Connecticut’s shoreline, a direct ferry to Block Island and other summer destinations. Shoreline East train cars will be replaced with the new M-8 cars giving commuters a one-seat ride from GCT to Old Saybrook. That means the Shoreline East equipment could be used for a new line. I don’t think there’s much potential for freight rail – coal is 50% of freight rail by volume, but to be honest I haven’t really thought about it.

I favor preserving the rail right-of-way and strategically using it for commuter/passenger purposes. Without knowing the details of the area adjacent to the rail corridor I most like would support a trail next to or nearby the rail corridor. I would very much begin a dialogue with you. PLEASE contact me via this link (http://www.railtec.org/railtec.org/About_RailTEC.html)

@ Lynne – Bingo, your comments are spot on. I have also observed advocates underrate the importance of investment in complete streets (designed for vulnerable users) in favor of trail building.

@ Chris – thanks for posting!

Warmest Regards,
DD Vasseur

Hey I know, in order to celebrate why doesn’t the state gov’ment sell off the utility system? Let’s call the state’s mergers and acquisitions department. That would be deep.

Especially since this deal is for distribution and transmission only, it would seem that instead of more sell-off of state assets to out-of-state corporate interests burdened with maximizing financial returns for their investors, a wiser move would be for the state government to create public power throughout Connecticut. This would not only keep more money within the state, thereby fostering economic development, but would also allow more active utility restructuring for local, clean, renewable energy service, which could be more easily facilitated by local and state initiative.

I would suggest the state try thinking long term instead of always reacting to corporate initiatives such as this, which are usually about maximizing profit for their particular owners. The electric system is referred to as public service for a reason. Not withstanding the several largely temporary agreements worked out by politicians and lawyers (thank you), this deal seems to be further corporatism of the public sphere. My opinion is that it should be rejected, and the state government should initiate public power.

I’m writing as a CT resident, though our NOFA membership is in NY, where our family farm is.
Sorry to be focusing on this issue late, after the public hearing; just finished a major project at work.
It is too late to make a difference with an op ed for the Hartford Courant or another paper?

Risk to human health was well supported by testimony at the public hearing for HB 5117, in particular from the BT gene for membrane disruption in caterpillars. Has there also been good testimony on the effects on non-target insects, of GMO crops genetically modified to produce systemic insecticide compounds? Eg. effects of eating corn pollen containing the toxic BT protein (intended to control corn borer) on monarchs and other butterflies from nearby meadows and backyards? Citizens should be able to vote with their pocketbooks against buying GMO foods that poison creatures that naturally wander onto farm fields from offsite areas. Are you aware of an investigation to find out whether the sharp drop in migrating monarchs in the late summer of last year was related to increased use of GMO-BT- crops?

How widely understood are the drawbacks of more widespread and heavier applications of Round-up (glyphosate) when Round-up ready GMO food crops are planted? From an ecological standpoint, increase round-up spraying further reduces hedgerows, buffer strips, and a low presence in fields of non-crop “weeds” and other plant species – food for sparrows and so many beneficial/harmless arthopods. The increased use of Round-up is also causing much faster evolution of crop strains resistant to glyphospate.The plan to introduce Round-up ready lawn grasses is of grave concern.

From a human and livestock health standpoint – with implications for farm economics- GMO food crops grown in soils drenched with persistent glyphospate are often low to deficient in trace minerals, as reported over ten years ago by researchers at the Institute of Plant Nutrition, at the University of Hohenheim, in Stuttgart, Germany. This is because glyphosate interferes with micro-nutrient uptake, both directly and indirectly. (In the midwest, a new business has actually sprung up since Round-up use became widespread: sale of micronutrient crop supplements to farmers.)

The herbicide directly immobilizes the trace minerals. It also blocks symbiotic mineral uptake processes by harming or eliminating soil microflora and fauna (like many other pesticides, as any orgnaic farmer knows). Round-up (glyphospate) impedes the natural recycling of dead plant materials into available nutrients in the rhizosphere, causing depletion of trace minerals over time. Toxicity screening has documented adverse effects on diverse soil organisms, including earthworms, isopods (sowbugs), springtails, nitrogen-fixing microbes, and beneficial mycorhyzal fungi, which form sheaths around roots and help with nutrient uptake.

From a health standpoint, mineral supplements are not the easy solution. It is widely known that trace minerals are more readily assimilated from food than from supplements. It is also a fact that insufficient levels of micronutrients interfere with human – and livestock – health and immune response – low zinc levels affect neurological health for example.

In Stuttgart, over ten years ago, university plant disease researchers first linked increased rates of pathogenic fungal diseases to Roundup application, and this has been confirmed over time for multiple diseases. Farms have begun switching from GMO soybean seed, since an They attributed lowered disease resistance to trace mineral deficiencies and missing beneficial microbes in soil drenched with Round-up (glyphosate). Mycorhyzal sheaths physically protect roots from attack by pathogenic fungi, which fosters increased use of fungicides, many of them toxic – with health risks for farm workers and consumers.

A mucus that protects roots from fungal infection is less effective in GMO Round-up-ready crops; is this due to modifications associated with genetic side-effects of the gene insertion? Much testimony has already been provided to the legislature on the inadequate follow-up testing process for genetic side effects of gene insertions. In addition to testing for adverse health effects, testing is needed for many other potential adverse side effects, like increased susceptibility to disease and reduced nutritional value of the food crop.

I do support inserting genes for disease resistance, provided testing for side effects is much more extensive than at present; directed by an entity other than the manufacturer (e.g. not by Monsanto). However, I strongly oppose inserting genes for herbicide tolerance or genes for producing pesticides. In my professional opinion, splicing new genes into chromosomes is likely to impair the crop plant, whether or not human toxicity results: e.g. micronutrient status, immune or antioxidant functions; the rhizosphere; and ecological harm. All these concerns warrant labeling of food for GMO content.

To introduce myself, I have my MS in Plant Ecology from UConn Storrs, my BA in Biology from Brown, and also 20 credits in Plant Pathology from Cook College at Rutgers. I have worked on a wide range of ecology consulting jobs since 1990, often reviews of development applications, with an interlude as Executive Director of the Quinnipiac River Watershed Association from 1995 to 2000.

Respectfully,

Sigrun M. Gadwa, MS

ED BOMAN
Assistant Director of Public Works
City of Fairfield

The following were important to the Town of Fairfield’s Energy Management Plan:
Grants from the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund for the fuel cell, A Photovoltaic system and a wind power study
Loans and grants from United Illuminating Company’s Energy Opportunity and Energy Blueprint programs
An ARRRA grant for the combined heat and power facility at the police station
DEP grants at the Water pollution control facility
Department of energy funds to build and upgrade a natural gas fueling station and buy 29 compressed natural gas vehicles. The use of local tax dollars when necessary, Support of the elected officials at all times

Bio: Edward Boman

Mr. Boman has served 14 years as a Clean Cities Coalition Coordinator, and since 1993, as Assistant Director of Public Works for the Town of Fairfield, CT. For the two years prior to that, he served as Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Bridgeport. From 1988 to 1991 Mr. Boman was a partner in an environmental consulting firm that specialized in solid waste issues. Between 1984 and 1988, he was project manager for the State of Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority that built the Bridgeport RESCO 2200 ton-per-day, waste-to-energy facility and established a recycling system that serves both Fairfield and Bridgeport. From 1968 to 1984, Mr. Boman acted as Chief of Staff for the First Selectman of the Town of Fairfield.

Among his many accomplishments he has won more than $50 million + in state and federal grants that helped pay for more than (1,000 acres of open space), miles of sanitary sewer extensions, two sewage treatment plant additions, a compost recycling system, a new town hall, new parks and beaches and $1.1 million for diesel particulate filters. In addition Mr. Boman created a program and acquired the necessary funding to preserve and enhance the public transportation system for the region. Mr. Boman was also responsible for the Town of Fairfield’s award of a AAA credit rating.

Mr. Boman has built CNG stations in the Connecticut communities of Fairfield, Bridgeport, Trumbull and Stratford, and developed and implemented CNG vehicle fleets in these same municipalities, to include school buses in Fairfield.

Posted by: Milford CT Environmental Concerns Coalition

.Thanks Chris, You Rock!

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmyBillAllComm.asp?bill=HB-05122&doc_year=2012