The Appropriations Committee held a public hearing today on HB 5006, a bill that would increase funding to Connecticut’s Shore Line East rail line.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Christine Conley (D-Groton, New London), Rep. Cathy Osten (D-Sprague), Rep. Anthony Nolan (D-New London), Rep. Derell Wilson (D-Norwich), and Rep. Aundre Bumgarden (D-Groton, Stonington). The bill has been co-sponsored by 8 other representatives, 6 Democrats (Marx, Somers, Cohen, Rader, Palm) and 2 Republicans (Howard, McCarthy).
Shore Line East straddles the Long Island Sound, connecting New Haven in the west to New London in the east. New Haven connects the line to the Metro-North Railroad, allowing commuters to travel west into New York City, and to the New Haven-Springfield line, allowing commuters to travel north into Springfield, MA.
Shore Line East funding was cut last year following declining rider numbers. In the 2022-2023 budget, $34,941,000 was removed from the state’s Metro-North line, and $4,976,000 was removed from Shore Line East. While ridership with the Metro-North and New-Haven Springfield lines has begun rebounding to its pre-pandemic levels, with ridership rising to 60 percent and 83 percent of their pre-pandemic totals respectively, Shore Line East has not. As a result, the state is currently slated to increase funding to the New Haven-Springfield line and Metro-North lines in the 2024-2025 budget, but not to Shore Line East.
“On Shore Line East, after years of decline pre-dating the pandemic, ridership is at 30 percent of pre-COVID levels, and has averaged a 16 percent decline annually (beginning before the pandemic),” reads an excerpt from the State’s 2024-2025 biennial budget. “On an average annualized basis, Shore Line East provides only 448 rides daily, reflecting an estimated individual usage of approximately 250 riders. This ridership trend on Shore Line East has driven costs higher, now reflecting a per-rider subsidy of $102, more than double the more heavily used Hartford and New Haven area service lines. This budget proposes funding service at 44 percent of pre-pandemic levels.”
The Rhode Island Association of Rail Passengers submitted written testimony in support of the bill, offering a perspective as to why ridership has decreased. The Association said that the “prevailing narrative” of an increase in remote work as a result of COVID being the cause of Shore Line East’s reduced ridership is “misleading.” The Association pins declining numbers on an Amtrak maintenance project in 2018 that shut down several trains on the Shore Line East rail, replacing them with buses.
“This arrangement continued through August 2019 because CTDOT didn’t have enough functional locomotives to run the full schedule even when track maintenance was done,” reads the testimony. “Full service lasted only seven months before the pandemic began and service levels were once again cut back.”
Despite the cut in service, the testimony claimed that 660,000 passengers rode Shore Line East in 2019, compared to the 730,000 that rode the New Haven-Springfield line.
“Recent history therefore shows that even in a lower-density corridor, rail can work if service is sufficiently frequent and reliable,” reads the testimony. “For the better part of the past six years, Shore Line East has not met these minimum thresholds, and riders have responded accordingly.”
Altogether, 55 residents, advocacy groups, or state representatives submitted written testimony in support of the bill. Many residents hammered home the point that if the state resumes funding and scheduling of Shore Line East, ridership numbers will return.
“Do you really think that riders will ride a train that offers such a limited schedule?,” asked Susan Feaster, founder of the Shore Line East Riders Advocacy Group in her written testimony. “I speak to people every day that ride SLE, and those who wish they could, but cannot because there are not enough trains. One Southern student had to quit college because she is physically impaired and cannot drive, and the drastically reduced schedule made her day physically impossible.”
Steven K. Lamoreaux, a physics professor at Yale, had similar complaints.
“The lack of ridership has been due to the ridiculously limited schedule, which up until December 2023 had only trains at 4:28 PM and the next, 7:27 PM,” said Lamoreaux. “This is an impossible schedule for most workers, for example, hospital and financial industry workers.”
The environment was another oft cited factor for why the line should be supported.
“By encouraging more people to choose public transit over driving, we can alleviate traffic congestion on our highways and reduce carbon emissions, thus mitigating the impacts of climate change and improving the health of Connecticut residents,” wrote Nick Menapace, an East Lyme resident.
State Reps. Bumgardner, Nolan, and Conley submitted their own testimony in support of the bill, citing the economic growth of New London and Groton as a major imperative for the rail line’s funding to return. They noted how the growth of area employers such as Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods, Electric Boat and Yale New Haven Health, have made parking an issue.
“As it stands, Groton’s street parking and local park and rides are at full capacity, unable to support an impending influx of employees,” reads their testimony.” Parking strains will continue in the region as New London prepares for the construction of the National Coast Guard Museum, and the subsequent tourists that will arrive with it. The current dependency on personal vehicles is incompatible with projected economic growth, necessitating investment in public transportation.”
The Rhode Island Association of Rail Passengers went a step further, saying that an extension of Shore Line East into Westerly, Rhode Island would capitalize on New London and Groton’s economic expansion, and would add an estimated 160,000 riders to the line. It said that without the technical difficulties the line endured in 2018, and with the addition of advertising and incentives programs for riders, the line stands to make a full recovery upon resumption of its pre-pandemic funding. It had a gloomier outlook for the line if its current funding levels continue, however.
“Operating the line at its current (reduced) service levels will neither restore riders’ confidence nor reduce the subsidy,” reads the Association’s testimony. “It will trigger additional ridership losses by further eroding riders’ trust, resulting in revenue losses that offset the ‘cost reductions’ achieved by reducing service. The current arrangement is neither prudent fiscal practice nor a viable strategy to position the service for future growth.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
