Issue link: https://nebusinessmedia.uberflip.com/i/735930
20 Hartford Business Journal • October 10, 2016 www.HartfordBusiness.com OPINION & COMMENTARY EDITORIAL Larson's $10B tunnel vision intriguing, but worrisome C onnecticut and Hartford in particular are in need of bold visions and Congressman John Larson's $10 billion plan to put I-84 and I-91 in tunnels to ease traffic congestion and open up Hartford to the Connecticut River, certainly qualifies. Larson recently unveiled his unexpected proposal to the Hartford Courant, outlin- ing what he called a "100-year vision for the region" that would create two tunnels: one replacing the I-84 stretch connecting Hartford to East Hartford; the other where I-91 currently runs along the Connecticut River. We applaud Larson for his bold thinking — although it's not totally an original con- cept (his Republican opponent in this year's election, Matthew Corey, told the Courant he pitched the same idea two years ago) — and certainly agree that interstate high- ways, particularly I-84, have harmed the Capital City by dividing Hartford's neighbor- hoods and cutting off access to the Connecticut River. Traffic congestion is also a problem as the aging highway system carries more pas- sengers today than it ever intended to serve. But Larson's plan raises numerous concerns and questions. The timing is also sus- pect, considering the state Department of Transportation — after years of planning and input from various stakeholders, including the business community — recently ruled out building a tunnel to replace the I-84 viaduct through Hartford, because it's too expensive. Most concerning is the price tag. Larson said he'd like to get federal funds to help pay for his tunnel plan, but federal transportation funding, much like the state's, has become anything but reliable in recent years. If the federal government remains divided after the November elections, it would make it harder to stir bipartisan support for such a major infrastructure investment. To Larson's credit, he has been actively lobbying Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster, who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is reportedly open to the tunnel plan. But securing billions of dollars would be a tough slog, particularly when real highway spending per mile has fallen 50 percent in the U.S. since the 1950s, according to the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. Meantime, Connecticut's budget constraints are well documented and state DOT officials in June ruled out building a tunnel to replace the I-84 viaduct because the $10 billion to $12 billion price tag was unaffordable. Instead, DOT officials largely settled on a lowered highway alternative, which would entail complete reconstruction of I-84 at ground level or slightly below. The cost would be as high as $5 billion. Additionally, one of the key ways Larson wants to finance the tunnel construction is by adopting tolls at each tunnel entrance. We think that's a bad idea. While we don't completely reject the adoption of tolls in Connecticut, placing them in the Capital City would only encourage people to avoid Hartford, which is the com- plete opposite of what this investment would intend to do. If lawmakers were to adopt tolls they should be placed at Connecticut's borders so that out-of-state travelers who consistently use our roads and bridges pay their fair share of the maintenance costs. Placing tolls in Hartford would punish mostly Connecticut residents who work in the city, and raise the costs to employers who have made it widely known in recent years that Connecticut is already an overly expensive place to operate. We applaud Larson for thinking big and bringing the two-tunnel idea to the table, however we wish he did it years ago in conjunction with the state DOT's planning to replace the viaduct. If Larson can get the federal government to shoulder a large por- tion of the construction we'd certainly want to learn more. Until then, Larson's plan will remain a pipe dream. n OTHER VOICES Small business is no Sikorsky By Andrew Markowski W e recently saw state lawmakers over- whelmingly approve a deal to entice Sikorsky Aircraft to remain in Con- necticut valued at a dramatic $220 million. That's a lot of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to ensure that another large corporation does not depart Con- necticut like General Electric did. Unfortunately, the agreement that passed the legislature during the special session did nothing to address the underlying impetus causing employers to explore states outside of ours. And lately, Hartford's only response to these situations has been to spend more money that the state does not have in hopes of staving off continuing job and revenue loss. Sikorsky departing would have dealt a tre- mendous blow to our economy on all levels. Not only would thousands of jobs have been lost but small businesses would have felt the ripple effect as supply chains would dry up and customers along with revenue would be lost. The company's decision to stay should not be taken lightly, however, neither should the cost of keeping them here. Once again we see lawmakers put in the unenviable position of deciding which sectors and businesses should "win" and there - fore others "lose" as they use tax dollars instead of carrots to keep large employ- ers in place. But what about the state's larg- est employer, small business owners? What incentives is state government providing to ensure that they do not pack up and head to greener economic pas- tures? While the answer for some may be that the state doesn't do nearly enough, the bottom line is that most small business owners don't seek out such assistance either. All they seek is a stable environment that is conducive to suc- cess and provides room to thrive. Unfortunately, and frustratingly so for many small business owners, there are indeed times when it is necessary to provide incentives to companies in order to compete with neighbor- ing states; thus is the nature of the economic development "arms race" states find themselves in today. But how effective, or sustainable, is this economic hunting as opposed to economic gardening? This deal was an incredibly expen- sive yet easily avoidable solution to a problem that was created by a state government with a spending problem. Call it a $220 million manifes- tation of a refusal by elected officials to act on the warnings of the business community that over regulation and burdensome taxes are simply unsustainable for employers of a variety of sizes. The numbers speak for themselves; peo- ple are leaving Connecticut and taking their tax dollars with them. We have fewer small business owners and fewer jobs and for those still fighting to survive here, fewer customers to appeal to. We are losing on average 1,000 small businesses a year and each time that one closes up shop, jobs are lost and commu- nities are left with a void. And yet week after week, we see another national ranking that places Connecticut at the bottom of the bar- rel. Whether it is tax burden or business cli- mate, we have become a poster child for what not to do in order to improve an economy. Some politicians would decry business owners and advocates who point out these national statistics as being overly pessimistic, rooting for failure, or bemoan them for failing to adapt to changing times. However, the real- ity could not be further from the truth. Small employers inherently take risks, make chang- es and ultimately will sacrifice whatever nec- essary to ensure their doors remain open. Their very nature is to work hard and ask for little in return but they do ask for a fair playing field and a certain level of predictability. At the moment in Connecticut, the only continuity in our economy is lackluster per- formance and bleak economic forecasts. Small business owners feel the deck is stacked against them when it comes to maneuvering the bureaucratic maze of state government and that hiring additional people is more expensive and burdensome than necessary. The good news is that incentivizing most small business own- ers does not require tax dollars or com- plicated legislation. Getting state govern- ment's own fiscal house in order will not only help retain businesses, both large and small, but it will encourage new growth and increased entrepreneurship. By focusing on reduced state spending, and therefore fewer tax increases and a lower cost to do business, certainty will increase right along with the jobs that are created. When lawmakers stop spending the hard- earned money of small business owners and imposing new labor mandates, in return they will see employers investing in their own places of business. Whether it's hiring additional workers, buying new equipment or expanding their scope of sales, everyone wins when small business owners can grow. Hundreds of millions of dollars are not nec- essary to provide the state with economic growth and the chance to finally prosper. Sikorsky remaining in Connecticut comes at a high price and hopefully with equally high results, but without backing up the deal with legislative changes for the rest of the business community, it alone will not be enough to improve our overall economic con- ditions. Let's root for success for Sikorsky, of course, but don't let it end there. Let's all remember to root for success for our state's largest employer, small business. n Andrew is the Connecticut state director of the National Federation of Indepen- dent Business. HARTFORDBUSINESS.COM POLL Is U.S. Rep. John Larson's $10B Hartford tunnel project a good idea? ● Yes ● No To vote, go online to HartfordBusiness.com. Last week's poll results: Do you plan to use Aer Lingus' trans-Atlantic flight out of Bradley? 77.1% Yes 22.9% No Andrew Markowski ▶ ▶ Small business owners feel the deck is stacked against them when it comes to maneuvering the bureaucratic maze of state government.