CT's second proton cancer treatment center to begin construction this summer in Danbury for $96M

Rob Ryser

DANBURY – A $96 million cancer treatment center using novel proton technology to reduce damage to healthy tissue could begin construction on the city’s west side as soon as summer.

“We have an entrepreneurial team working very ambitiously to get our details together so we can move forward,” said Drew Crandall, a spokesman for a physician group called Danbury Proton that earned Connecticut’s approval in January to operate what would be the state’s second proton therapy center. “Our team has been going full speed forward, but there is a lot of work to do behind the scenes.”

A proton therapy center in Wallingford under a partnership between Hartford HealthCare and Yale New Haven Health broke ground in the summer with an opening planned for the end of 2026. That would make the Wallingford facility the only proton therapy center between New York and Boston.

The Danbury proton center would open in 2027 to serve Fairfield County and nearby New York, according to the current plan.

“I have been through the plant where they make this equipment in Boston – and talk about advance manufacturing,” Crandall said. “They take the protons out of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms and accelerate them into a beam.”

Unlike traditional radiation, a proton beam can be set to stop once it hits the tumor, thereby avoiding damage to tissue behind it. That makes the therapy especially useful for cancer near the brain and the spine.

The 14,000-square-foot Danbury Proton facility, planned for a 3-acre site on Wooster Heights Road overlooking Danbury Municipal Airport, received local land use approvals in 2021. At that time, the project was expected to cost $80 million.

But the project had trouble getting permission from a state oversight agency.

In 2022, Danbury Proton was denied by Connecticut’s Office of Health Strategy because the physician group had not established “a clear public need for proton beam therapy,” or that it would be affordable.

Danbury Proton appealed and was denied a second time.

In 2023, Danbury Proton filed a new application, hoping for better results.

Meanwhile, the same health strategy office approved the proton center in Wallingford.

Among the conditions Danbury Proton agreed to with the state agency in January are that the center will “become credentialed as a Medicaid provider” and it will “commit at least 5% of net revenue to providing care for the uninsured and/or covering patients’ out-of-pockets.”

Danbury Proton expects to create 100 jobs during construction and employ “32 full-time equivalent employees, including radiation oncologists, medical physicists, radiation therapists, medical support and administrative staff.”

“It is a pretty long construction process because it’s high tech, so we are on a two-year journey,” Crandall said.

The proton center represents the latest commercial investment in the city’s west side that continues to lead Danbury in economic growth.

A $39 million rehabilitation hospital with 40 beds is expected to open in September in a sprawling hilltop community called the Reserve.

Two other residential projects at the Reserve totaling 177 homes are under construction or have been approved, along with 360 apartments that have been completed or are under construction at the 1.3-million-square-foot mixed-use campus known as the Summit.

Also on the west side, a developer is seeking final approval to convert a defunct hotel into 200 micro-apartments at Interstate 84’s Exit 2.  

CT's DOT taps driving on the I-84 shoulder in Danbury as the best short-term option to ease traffic

Rob Ryser

DANBURY – After eight years of planning, there are still no specifics for Connecticut’s grand vision to rebuild congestion-plagued Interstate 84 in Danbury, state transportation officials confirmed during a recent meeting.

“They have big plans, but they don’t have budget or a strict timetable; I don’t know how to interpret that,” said Veera Karukonda, Danbury’s traffic engineer, about a state Department of Transportation project expected to cost $3 billion to $4 billion and slated for completion in the mid-2040s. “If we can put our finger on a date when it might happen … but that is a big if. That is the only discouraging part of this grand plan.”

State transportation experts stressed that while they are making progress to a complete a proposal that would then undergo environmental review and be followed by a search for money to pay for it, engineers are also planning shorter-term independent improvements that “could be implemented much quicker.” 

Among a handful of so-called breakout projects are plans: to improve the Main Street intersection with North and Downs streets off I-84's Exit 5; to upgrade the Exit 8 interchange with Newtown Road on the city’s busy commercial east end; and to allow motorists to drive on the inside shoulder when congestion is the heaviest during morning and afternoon rush hours. 

Of those breakout projects, the so-called flex lane could be implemented the soonest, according to Kevin Burnham, a state DOT project manager with the I-84 Danbury project.

“We have started looking at … some preliminary designs in the hopes that this would begin construction as early as late 2027, with construction costs in the neighborhood of $220 (million) to $250 million,” Burnham said during a Jan. 22 public information meeting in Danbury.

“Somewhere between a 40(%) to 70% reduction in delays will happen by incorporating the flex lane,” Burnham said. “The good thing about it is because it can be constructed in the existing right-of-way, there’s going to be limited impacts, and it could be implemented much quicker.”

As the driving-on-the-shoulder plan stands now, the flex lane would only be available near Exit 7, at the interchange with Route 7.

“If you were traveling eastbound in the (afternoon rush hour) – that’s the time that the flex lane would typically be open – you would see a green arrow indicating that the shoulder would be permitted only at those times,”  Burnham said. “And similarly, in the (westbound) direction it would be open in the (morning rush hour).”

Two speakers at the meeting questioned the idea.

“If you add that extra lane and still maintain the left exit for Route 7, now you’ll have two lanes trying to get over to I-84 … not only that but you have the curve and the hill,” said one of the speakers, John Gentile. “That is a horrible, congested area right in that one spot going in that direction. That is why I don’t see how (a flex lane) improves anything.”  

Sharat Kalluri, another state DOT project manager with I-84 Danbury, said the hope was to find short-term relief in the Danbury area while the DOT continues to work on “the much larger vision.”

“Yes there is a geometric concern with the curves and everything, but what we are also doing is … seeing if there are ways we can improve a geometric concern within the footprint of the highway,” Kalluri said.

The January update meeting is the 15th public meeting the DOT has conducted in Danbury since 2019. It comes eight years after then-Gov. Dannel Malloy announced planning had begun to rebuild “an 8-mile, heavily congested stretch of I-84 between Exits 3 and 8 in Danbury – a project that will improve safety, increase capacity, and improve operations and access to the highway.”

The project was supposed to begin construction “by 2022 and continue for several years.” Since then, the I-84 Danbury project has been expanded to include all eight exits in Danbury.

Danbury’s traffic engineer said time is everything.

“Everything is a seven- to 10-year project – it doesn’t matter how urgently it’s needed,” Karukonda told Hearst Connecticut Media Group about the DOT’s I-84 Danbury project. “No solution is a quick solution. Everything takes a long time even to initiate a preliminary design.”

Norwalk road closures begin this weekend for construction on railroad bridge built in 1890

Hana Ikramuddin

NORWALK — Construction on the railroad bridge over Strawberry Hill Avenue in Norwalk is set to begin Saturday, closing a portion of the road until later this year, state Department of Transportation officials said.

Strawberry Hill Avenue will be closed in both directions between Fitch Street and Winfield Street, from Saturday through October for construction, according to the DOT.

Traffic south of the bridge will be detoured via Fitch Street to East Avenue, while traffic north of the bridge will be detoured via Winfield Street to East Avenue.

The bridge, which supports four tracks used by Metro-North Railroad and Amtrak trains, was built in 1890, and the improvement project is meant to reduce commuter travel times, according to the DOT.

"The Strawberry Hill Avenue Railroad Bridge project replaces the existing bridge superstructure and updates the supporting structure underneath while maintaining the current vertical and horizontal clearances," a news release from the DOT said.

The construction will start with the demolition of the superstructure, according to the DOT, and work on the south side of the bridge is expected to start in 2026.

NPU kicks off upgrade of natural gas infrastructure: What streets are affected?

Beth McDermott

Norwich Public Utilities is upgrading its natural gas infrastructure with a $20.9 million project, according to a community announcement.

The initiative aims to replace over nine miles of aging cast iron gas mains with high-density polyethylene ones.

NPU was awarded $10 million from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration in 2023, followed by an additional $10.9 million in April 2024. These grants will accelerate 25 years of capital improvements into a five-year plan.

“We have been very pleased with the initial progress being made with this critical work and we anticipate even more safe and productive work through the fall,” Chris LaRose, NPU general manager, said in the announcement. “These improvements will make our natural gas system safer while reducing leaks that can impact air quality in our community. These investments will pay benefits for years to come in Norwich.”

Older natural gas pipes pose safety risks and are more prone to methane leaks.

The first phase of the project began in October 2024, focusing on Asylum Street. NPU is currently tying in about two dozen service lines in this area, with plans to resurface the road upon completion.

Work for 2025 has started on Franklin Street and McKinley Avenue. Main installation will continue on these streets until early April, after which NPU will work along North Main Street and 4th Street.

Once this phase is complete, crews will move to the area near Norwich Free Academy, including Rockwell and Crescent streets. This work is scheduled for the summer to minimize traffic disruptions.

The project involves installing new gas mains and services, followed by road pavement and restoration.

NPU is committed to providing regular updates on the project's status, progress and schedules through its website, social media channels and customer newsletters.

For more information, visit norwichpublicutilities.com or follow NPU on Facebook.

Big solar array in small CT town illustrates contention over Siting Council

Don Stacom

Along remote Pompeo Road deep in the woods of rural Thompson, Sandra and Noah Sarucia started a bed and breakfast a few years ago with the idea of attracting guests drawn to scenic, unspoiled views.

But C-Tec Solar LLC’s plan to clear part of a nearby woodland to install a large solar panel array changes all of that, the Sarucias say.

“We have a small BnB business on our property that relies on the scenic road look and feel to attract customers,” Noah Sarucia told The Courant.

The Sarucias were dismayed when the Connecticut Siting Council authorized the project earlier this month, and said all Connecticut residents should know that the council can make such decisions regardless of local opposition or community opinion. They’re not saying whether they will challenge the decision in court, but noted that residents in numerous towns have been pursuing appeals in recent years.

“We believe that the Siting Council has unchecked power as seen by so many appeals being submitted across the state by folks just like us who weren’t given proper notice nor proper information about how to participate in the objection of such irrevocable decisions,” Noah Sarucia wrote.

They are not alone in their frustration: At least a dozen individuals, companies and towns have sued the Siting Council over the past four years, challenging its approval of battery power storage farms, high-voltage power lines, cell towers and solar arrays.

The video player is currently playing an ad

Just four weeks ago, Granby filed suit against the council for authorizing Key Capture Energy’s plan for a 5-megawatt battery energy storage facility not far from the Salmon Brook; the town contends the council didn’t give enough weight to evidence of environmental and safety hazards.

So far, court appeals against the Siting Council have a poor record of success. The courts have mostly ruled upheld the council’s decisions, noting that state law deliberately designed it to make decisions in the best interest of all Connecticut power customers and utility users — with freedom from obeying preferences of neighbors or the local community.

But state lawmakers have been looking for ways to give citizens and communities more of a voice in the decisions, and are focusing efforts this spring on Senate Bill 78. It would require the Siting Council to include a representative from the community where a proposed facility would be located; the mayor or first selectman would be responsible for appointing that person.

The local representative wouldn’t get a vote, but could deliberate with the council’s voting members. Currently the council is made up of a representative from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a designee from the state House speaker and another from the Senate president, and five public members appointed by the governor.

In testimony to the Environment Committee last month, Fairfield resident Mary Hogue urged support for the bill.

“These decisions are long lasting, if not forever changes to the landscape and infrastructure of the area. In Fairfield and Bridgeport we are currently dealing with an issue that should have included the citizens along the route of the EDC monopole project so that we would not be at this impasse,” Hogue said. “Let’s learn from this and include more transparency and citizen participation.”

Rachel Briggs, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, said her organization supports the bill, but wants other changes, too.

“Many community members do not find out about proposed projects until it is too late for them to fully participate in the process. Improving notice is a key way the council can improve public involvement and the quality of decisions,” she told legislators at a hearing.

The foundation wants the council to notify the public at least 30 days before public hearings, and to use social media, local news media, municipal websites and signs at the proposed project site to do it. In addition, the council should enable residents to sign up for email notices of any proposed project in their town, she said.

Betsy Gara, executive director of the Council of Small Towns, also wants the bill to authorize the Siting Council to consider the number of energy facilities already in a community so that no town gets overburdened.

“Although we recognize the importance of the Siting Council process in advancing the state’s energy goals, COST remains concerned that the council is approving several facilities in a handful of towns which is placing a disproportionate burden on these communities,” she wrote.

But in testimony to the Environment Committee, Gov. Ned Lamont said the bill should fail.

“The Siting Council is a critical statewide body that ensures consistent siting practices for statewide infrastructure. Ultimately, the Siting Council regime ensures that all Connecticut residents can benefit from statewide infrastructure,” he said. “Municipal participation in Siting Council proceedings is already extensive … disturbing the consistency of the Siting Council’s approach will inhibit Connecticut’s response to climate change.”