Tuesday, April 24, 2007

DOT troubles get serious

I didn't finish reading this Courant article, but what I read seemed to be a scathing indictment of the wretched performance of the state DOT on I-84 (by Edmund H. Mahony).

The Federal Highway Administration is concerned that what experts call "stunning" failures in the highway drainage system may be creating underground washouts that could lead to road collapses.
And now the feds are threatening to holdup money until their concerns are addressed.
For its part, the state Department of Transportation has been largely mute on the subject of the more than $60 million reconfiguration project along a 3-mile stretch of I-84 on the east side of Waterbury and in adjacent Cheshire. Carpenter has said he can't discuss the matter because it is being investigated by the FBI.
But the story only gets more interesting
Some industry experts say Keazer's letter may be a sign of growing federal impatience over contracting irregularities at the state Department of Transportation, an agency that receives $400 million a year in federal subsidies for highway projects.Last year, state prosecutors accused a half-dozen state transportation employees in connection with an alleged scheme to rig contracts to repair highway cracks. So far, one employee has been acquitted, one returned to his $135,000-a-year job after getting a special form of probation on reduced charges, another was convicted and three more are awaiting trial.
As I mentioned a few days ago, Tom Gaffey was right about the DOT Commissioner. To fix the DOT though, we may need to really clean house... and go beyond the Commissioner.

Tim White

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tim I can read the Courant on line I don't need this constant featuring of news articles.

Anonymous said...

Tim, I appreciate your take on this stuff. Apparently some don't like it. It's nice once and a while to see a Republican agree with a Democrat and take on Rell at the same time. It's to the benefit of you as an individual and the GOP too if thye'd only listen.

Anonymous said...

There is much to clean out. Imagine as I travel on this many times a day that part of the road can collapse. Thanks. Someone should be held accountable. Maybe it should start from the bottom? Noone cares about anything anymore. Why don't people take pride in their work?? A whistle should have been blown a long time ago. Fear of job? Who knows. Wait until something happens. Much to late. Praying for nothing seriously to occur.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 10:54
You have a seriously bad attitude. If you don't want to read the post...then don't! I don't understand the people that are so negative. Tim is just trying to inform people. He doesn't need badgering by the likes of you!

Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work Tim!!!!

Anonymous said...

Now I'm not a brilliant, popular photogenic Ivy League barrister from the Gold Coast....so I'm sure I'm too dumb to figure out this grand strategy....but

why would I settle a month ago with the one "deep pocket" on the claim for a fraction of the probable cost of repair and then go after the bankrupt firm the bonding company was standing in for as surety?
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2007/03/23/78053.htm

Jeez, maybe it would have made more sense to get a huge judgment against DeFelice first and then get the surety to cough up in full??? (FYI....surety bonds are uusally 100% of the contract amount!)

Outside the Ivy League that's what you would do....why does this lawsuit seem based on reacting to a headline instead of any sound litigation strategy?

Anonymous said...

ask Jodi 7:20; she said in a recent written statement that she supports the lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

If that's the best defense Blumenthal can offer is to pin this on the Governor,(who is not the state's official lawyer) perhaps an investigation is needed as to whether he actually attended Harvard and Yale

One other question. All those contracts DeFelice and Maguire sign with the state...didn't the AG's office approve them.

Watch Maguire's defense be that the defective inspections weren;t within their contracted scope of services