Residents Lose Their Voice
“Shore Line East is not a priority for Governor Lamont, by his own admission. He believes in equity for all, but not for the Shore Line East area taxpayers…CT records some of the highest levels of air pollution in the region (38%) with motor vehicle emissions being the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Increased cars coupled with diesel trains will unjustly expose those on this corridor to harmful greenhouse gases. That is not equity, that is exclusion and targeting a specific demographic.”
These were the words spoken on a Wednesday afternoon phone call with Susan Feaster, the founder of Shore Line East Riders Advocacy Group. A group of commuters who promote an easier way to work for those who live on the eastern shoreline. It was clear that a group of constituents feel underrepresented and unheard here in Connecticut. She explained to me on the phone that she was not one to mince her words; many people on the eastern shores feel discriminated against and disenfranchised by the leadership in Hartford.
Ms. Feaster described the Shore Line East service as the “poor stepchild” of CT Rail, the state’s rail subsidiary of the DOT. She said there were sightings of SLE rail cars on the New Haven line and in Harlem, with the state DOT replacing their own rolling stock in recent weeks with diesel trains without notification.
One would wonder why rail cars purchased for Shore Line East were being leased out to the MTA, and for what purpose. Are we downgrading our own services so those living south of the New England border can live an easier life? The MTA has not publicly published a deal to purchase or lease any of these cars, so the question remains. Why are railcars with the Shore Line East logo and branding not running on the Eastern Shoreline? Why are these residents being forgotten?
“Lamont is out of touch with Southeastern Connecticut,” she said, referring to lack of focus in objectives east of the Capital/New Haven corridor. Concerned that the DOT doesn’t want to get a fair deal with Amtrak in order to stifle their rail service.
We spoke briefly about the proposal to cut the budget to the rail line that have recently been raised in hearings. She compared Amtrak to the bad landlord; over-charging for rent and not keeping up with maintenance.
She advocated for bargaining with the national rail operator. Ms. Feaster, being a longtime paralegal in her professional career, argued that the Amtrak usage on the New Haven corridor owned by ConnDOT (The largest section of the NEC not owned by Amtrak) should be used as a bargaining chip with the national carrier in order to save taxpayers money. Bringing together the DOT and Amtrak leadership in a room could allow for enough headroom to run the services needed on the line.
The question we should ask ourselves as residents of Connecticut is the following: “Why is it that we treat those on one side of New Haven different from the other?” If there are multiple trains per hour leaving Stamford for New Haven, then why should a resident of New London have to wait 2 hours 30 minutes if they miss their train. Are our residents to be left stranded? If we want our state to truly follow our meaningful state motto that hangs as a powerful symbol on our flag, then those who have come must be allowed to sustain. This level of service does not allow our citizens to sustain; it allows them to barely hang on. When rail services are frequent and reliable they become a beacon for a community, a lifeline, and a new mode of transportation. Shore Line East was that pillar of the community for over 20 years, hampering the rail line now is hurting their economy, and that is not sustainable. So, it is an ask that we must put forward to our representatives in government.
Make it possible so that Qui transtulit sustinet.
