Gov. Lincoln Almond visited the editorial staff of the Providence Business News on Wednesday, March 8. In this, the first of a two-part interview, he discusses the health of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, the status of a proposed shipping port at Quonset Point and the importance of dredging in the Providence River.
Name: Lincoln Almond
Age: 63
Position: Governor, State of Rhode Island
Background: Elected as Rhode Island’s 56th governor in 1994, re-elected in 1998. Before his election Almond served as U.S. Attorney for more than 20 years, receiving his original appointment to that post in 1969. He was re-appointed by President Reagan in 1981 and served until 1993. Prior to his service as U.S. Attorney, Almond was appointed Town Administrator in Lincoln in 1963 and elected to full terms in 1963, 1965 and 1967. Almond is also the former president of the Blackstone Valley Development Foundation. He is currently a member of the National Governors’ Association (NGA) where he serves on the Economic Development Committee. He also serves on NGA’s Legal Affairs Committee, which advises fellow governors on whether the NGA should take legal positions on matters pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Almond was the 1998 Chair of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) and the 1997 Chair of the New England Governors’ Conference.
Education: Bachelor of Science, University of Rhode Island; Juris Doctorate, Boston University
Family: Wife, Marilyn; two grown children and five grandchildren
Residence: Lincoln
Rhode Island's Market Has Changed. Developers, Builders, Investors and Sellers Must Change With It.
By Emilio DiSpirito IV License Partner | Engel & Völkers Oceanside Leader | The DiSpirito…
Learn More
THOUGHTFUL GOVERNOR ALMOND gazes out a State House window.
PBN: The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority has been hurt by a sharp reduction of federal dollars. Much of that has been made up by the state – but clearly there is a limit to how much the state can increase its financial support of RIPTA. What is your sense of the agency and its financial difficulties?
ALMOND: One of the biggest problems for RIPTA has been that loss of federal funding. We’ve increased our funding for RIPTA, but of course, a lot of that is just replacing the reductions on the federal level. We’ve gotten new buses out there. But it is a significant deficit situation and that’s not just in Rhode Island. Historically, transit systems in urban areas run deficits and are subsidized. It becomes a question of the significance or the amount of subsidy you are going to put into RIPTA within the overall needs of the state. We’ve been moving gas tax over to the Department of Transportation – we’ve been moving gas tax over to RIPTA. We moved over an extra penny last year, which is about four-and-a-half million dollars. It’s a big issue. But they are changing routes, making sure they have routes where they want them. They have tried to make some changes with respect to workplace routes.
Are you satisfied with the progress?
Yes and no. If you have a metropolitan area like Washington D.C. you will always have a better transit system because people have to ride the transit system. In Rhode Island, that is very difficult. You don’t have these bad commutes to get people out of their cars. We can have the best system in the world and people will still have that love affair with their car. The issue here is to make sure we have a strong transit system–that we have the right routes and the right equipment. And that we try to draw people out of their cars, as opposed to systems where people are using public transit out of need. In Rhode Island, it is not a need, but an option for a lot of people.
Because the state is committing more dollars to RIPTA – does that mean you have a keener focus on the agency?
I think public transportation is extremely important. If you are going to have livable urban areas, you’ve got to have a good transit system.
So the RIPTA board members that you appoint, your guidance to them is what?
That we want to have a strong RIPTA. The executive director, Beverly Scott, has done a great job. She was a great addition. I have a great relationship with Beverly — we talk all the time. Beverly has the same problem a lot of people in the state have. She wants more money. We’re trying to get money over to her.
We met recently with the Conservation Law Foundation and they talked about a pressing need for the state to have an overall environmental plan, including public transportation as a part of that. Is there any move afoot to create this kind of long-range environmental plan?
I think Jan Reitsma at DEM has been very active with regard to Grow Smart and very supportive of its particular activity… My instructions to DOT when I took office were to fix it first. And that’s what we’ve been doing. We haven’t been doing any significant work on new roads. The only two that are out there are the 195 relocation, which we think is important and the 403 into Quonset.
And where are you with that road into Quonset?
We’ve condemned the property on that – it’s in the TIP (state Transportation Improvement Program).
U.S. Congressman Robert Weygand says that project is moving too slowly.
He also said he funded it and he didn’t. Congressman Weygand has made two statements in the last couple of years One, that the bond issue in 1996 included Route 403. It had nothing to do with 403. And secondly, that it was somehow funded federally. It is not funded federally. It’s part of our normal federal highway program. We put that into the TIP. The TIP has to be approved by the federal government. We get a certain amount of money and then we have to decide how we are going to allocate that.
Since the proposal to build a shipping port at Quonset Point by Quonset Point Partners was dismissed, there seems to be growing frustration that plans to develop a port are moving slowly. Where is that proposal?
You know, there have been times when I have read that I brought in Quonset Point Partners. Let’s put that to rest. They were there when I took office. I gave some interviews last year and I said that one of the problems was that we should never have gone out with an RFP (request for proposals) in 1994. That was a major error. In 1996 or 1997, when Quonset Point Partners was up for renewal, I was very hard on whether they would be re-upped. The only reason they were re-upped and renewed was because SSA (Stevedoring Services of America) came in. I was hopeful SSA would take a much more active role in that partnership and that did not come about. What should have been done is that the state should have gone out with a plan in 1994 and 1995, prior to going out with an RFP. With the state in command of what we wanted at Quonset Point – because we were generally at odds with the developers We should have done what we are doing now. We’ve hired consultants. We’ve said, here are the parameters. Take a look at it from the standpoint of the environment. Take a look at its economic feasibility. We have hired consultants, but we have given them parameters as to what they’ve got to work with. It’s going along well at this point.
What is the time frame for getting something back?
They’re pretty well along. We’ve got to make a decision as to how we want to approach it once we get the consultant reports back. We have to work with the community – work with the environmental groups. The next step would be the overall Master Plan for Quonset Point/Davisville. We have to look at where the waterfront fits in and where we go ahead with an Environmental Impact Study for that whole area. The next step would be the permitting process. But keep in mind. There is no magic wand that says if everyone in the world or everyone in Rhode Island wants a port it’s going to happen tomorrow. You still have to come up with the developers who are willing to put up, I would estimate, $400 or $500 million dollars, into that particular project. I think it is going to happen. I think it is something that should be in the Master Plan. The issue is permitability and economic viability.
What size port do you envision?
There are many ways you can do a port. Quonset Point Partners had a particular vision as to what should have been operated and developed – that was larger than what I had always envisioned. It depends on what your vision is as to how to actually operate a port. We’ve given the consultants parameters as to how it would be operated – whether it is going to be a wheeled operation or a non-wheeled operationhow much technology is going to be in it. All of those things impact size. You can build a port of varying sizes. I have been to ports in Singapore and all over the Far East. When I was in Ireland and England last year I visited two ports. I’ve seen ports on 100 acres, I’ve seen them on 75 acres – I’ve seen them on 200 acres. I’ve visited an awful lot of ports in this country and outside of this country to get ideas. What we’re looking at right now is whether you can do a port of a particular size at Quonset in a particular location. I gave the consultants two potential locations for a port on the economic viability. I think it will come back positive. The next step would be to attract developers.
Are we talking years off, before anything really happens?
We always have been. The permitting process alone is probably about a two-year process.
And the Environmental Impact Statement – that must be a lengthy process?
Actually, we’ve already gotten quite a ways with that. We have had people working on that issue. I think it is very doable – and I think it should be done.
One proposal that came up recently, was the idea of moving the Port of Providence to Quonset Point. We were surprised, in talking to the Conservation Law Foundation, that they did not dismiss the idea out of hand. And that frankly, environmentally, it might be a more sound location for what is now going on in Providence.
That depends on what you want the port to be. If you want a tank farm at Quonset Point/Davisville, sure, you can move them down there. But you won’t have much else in terms of development. The issue is what you want in your Master Plan and of course, you have to work with the community. I made a decision early on that we did not want bulk or petroleum products at Quonset Point. Keep this in mind, we have had a lot of development at West Davisville and Quonset. There is significant development – Keifer Park is just about full. There is also some very prime land down there. One of the disagreements I had with North Kingstown was using the Davisville piers for a port. That’s where the autos come in now. Some of the most prime land, from a standpoint of development, is oceanfront or bayfront right at Davisville. Now, if you put a tank farm down thereyou find me a site in New England with water view on the water. That should be reserved for very high development. It may sound fine to move these things down, but when you move them you eliminate other potential uses for that property. Plus the fact that I don’t think North Kingstown would be very impressed with that kind of development.
So you think that would just be an impossible sell for North Kingstown residents?
Not only that, but look at the number of jobs per acre. It would be very low, if not zero jobs per acre.
One of the other issues we deal with in terms of Narragansett Bay is dredging. Where are we with the dredging issue?
The Army Corps of Engineers the EIS (Environmental Impact Study). When I was in Washington D.C. last week I met with some people from the Department of Energy and they are looking at the whole energy issue and are doing a survey. I told them that if they are going to do any kind of a survey, they have to include capacity in the region and dredging. It was something they really had not given any thought to. If you are going to have a solution to some of the reserves in home heating oil, you’re going to have to get it in. One of the problems we have right now with the Providence River is that mostly barge traffic comes in there, and it is unreliable in the bad weather months of the year. Dredging should be a priority. I’ve talked with the Corps of Engineers and they are moving ahead with it. But you can’t get them to move any faster than they are – you have to get the funding for it. One of the reasons that I talked to the Department of Energy was to tell them that if they do a plan, they should make a recommendation to Congress that funding for these dredging projects up in this area is crucial. They indicated that they would look at that as part of their overall planning. But the dredging of the Providence River is extremely important. It’s got to be done. The barge traffic is unreliable and dangerous. We should be able to bring tankers in there and have better capacity. We’re prepared to go forward with it. Our share of the dredging is in the capital budget. We’re just waiting for the Corps of Engineers to come back, based on the comments that came out of the public period. I’ve also told the Corps of Engineers that once we get over this issue on the Environmental Impact Statement and they make a decision as to what they are going to do with respect to the dredging, The Corps should immediately have a maintenance-dredging program for the Providence River. We should never get in this position again. We should have had a maintenance-dredging program for years – they are not in disagreement with that.
But if the Army Corps of Engineers does not change its preferred alternatives to get rid of the dredged spoils will the state come up with the money to bring those spoils out to Rhode Island Sound or some other location?
We haven’t seen their preferred alternative. It may be what our recommendation was. We should know within the next several months. If they agree with us regarding the final EIS, then we would have to come up with any additional money. It would be part of their plan.
What if they disagree?
We would have to find it.
And the state could do that?
We would have to. We would have to amend the capital budget and find the additional funding to get it done. But it’s got to be done. I can’t over-emphasize the maintenance- dredging issue. That’s got to become policy.
