Norwich - Representatives of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments said Wednesday that an apparent error in a document for a 30-year state transportation strategic plan inflates by millions of dollars the proposed transit projects for Eastern Connecticut.

Sprague First Selectwoman and state Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague said she was concerned that the "overinflating" of the projects could negatively affect how much funding the region will end up receiving, since the people who decide state funding read the document.

The regional council voted to request that the state correct "Let's GO CT," a 30-year transportation plan document, that lists goals for statewide projects and categorizes projects by regional corridors. The corridors in the appendix are New York to New Haven (through southwestern Connecticut), New York to Hartford (roughly the I-84 corridor), New Haven to Springfield (the Connecticut River Valley) and Eastern Connecticut.

Maps within the document show the Eastern Connecticut corridor as beginning west of the Connecticut River at the shore and then sloping eastward to the north. West of the area on the maps is the New Haven to Springfield corridor.

James Butler, the council's executive director, informed the council Wednesday that the document listed several projects located outside of the region under the "Eastern Connecticut" corridor.

Among the $5.6 billion in projects for Eastern Connecticut within the long-range plan are about two dozen projects for the region, including $220 million to replace the Connecticut River rail bridge at Old Saybrook; $30 million to build a commuter rail station in Niantic; $200 million to extend rail service from New London to Westerly, $900 million to improve the Gold Star Bridge, and billions of dollars to widen Interstate 95.

But that list also includes some projects outside of the region, including $10 million in highway infrastructure improvements for the Rentschler Field area in East Hartford, $6 million for improvements to highway capacity in the Hartford area, $100 million for the Route 2 and Route 17 interchange and $40 million for Route 2 between exits 3 and 5.

After contacting the state Department of Transportation, Butler said he was told that the error may have occurred while rushing to publish the document in time for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's budget address to the General Assembly in February, but that the document does include major projects for the region. Butler agreed, noting the list includes improvements to Interstate 95, Route 11 and Route 2A over the Thames River.

At the regional council's meeting, some members said the overall funding figure, cited in earlier news reports, gave the impression that more projects were proposed for Eastern Connecticut than in reality.

The council voted to send a request for changes to the online document and that its recipients be notified.

The appendix lists $29,540,200,000 for New York to New Haven, $14,296,000,000 for New York to Hartford, and $5,585,000,000 for New Haven to Springfield.

David Elder, a supervising planner for the DOT, said in a phone interview after the meeting that the 30-year vision plan acts as a "precursor" to the state's long-term strategic plan and was released to accompany Malloy's five-year "ramp-up" plan. The DOT will also present the plan to councils of governments and local groups and hold at least four public "open houses" in the region to discuss the plan.

Elder said the document's focus is on the strategies for each region within the state, while the list of projects within the appendix represents a means of implementing those strategies and may shift over time.

He said he would look over the document and is open to having more discussions with the council about how to categorize the projects, such as perhaps listing projects by an area covered by a council of governments.

He said there are different ways of categorizing regions with the state. He said the maps within the document were developed independently of the corridor regions listed within the appendix, which may explain why there is not a direct correlation in some cases.

k.drelich@theday.com

Twitter: @KimberlyDrelich