CT
DOT is back to the drawing board, looking for a third plan to remove the traffic
signals on Route 9. The dilemma is how to accomplish that without adding to
downtown congestion. The two plans presented so far involved the relocation of
exits, which meant pushing more vehicles onto already-clogged streets at peak
afternoon traffic.
Here
are the key questions, as I see it. What are the key features of any proposal
that will not worsen downtown congestion? And given the spatial constraints,
road safety design requirements, and budget limitations involved, can a project
that incorporates those key features actually be designed and constructed?”
Removing
the traffic signals on Route 9 remains a worthy goal in terms of reducing
accidents, pollution, wasted fuel, and time spent in traffic. Of the 7,530
vehicles travelling on Route 9 in both directions at peak afternoon rush hour,
2,780 (37%) exit in downtown Middletown. The dreaded late-afternoon back-ups already
affect the North End and Newfield Street area because southbound drivers exit
in Cromwell and use Liberty, High, Grand, and other residential streets to
access the bridge.
Here’s
the heart of the challenge. Removing the Route 9 signals requires the
relocation or redesign of exits—namely, the northbound and southbound exits at
Washington Street (exit 15) and the northbound exit at Hartford Avenue (exit
16). How can that be accomplished in a way that does not involve a 23-foot wall
at the bottom of Washington Street (as in the first plan), does not push all
those exiting vehicles onto Rapallo Avenue (as in the second plan), and does
not worsen downtown congestion by forcing drivers via relocated exits onto
streets where those drivers do not wish to end up (as in both previous plans)?
Removal
of the three above-mentioned exits will affect approximately 760 vehicles per
hour at peak afternoon rush hour. (All vehicle and turn count figures are
projections for the year 2020, provided by CT DOT.) Of those 760 vehicles, 460
are headed for a destination lying west along Washington Street—specifically,
87% of the cars exiting at Washington Street. About 280 of the 760 are headed
for the entrance ramp of the Arrigoni Bridge or another destination that takes
them through the north end of Main Street—that is, 83% of the cars that exit
northbound at Hartford Avenue plus some that exit northbound at Washington
Street.
In
other words, about 740 of these 760 vehicles are currently exiting precisely where
they want to go. Forcing these cars and trucks to exit anywhere else will put
more traffic on Main Street and side streets. Therefore, the best solution to the Route 9 congestion problem will
retain these exits exactly where they are. But can we accomplish that and remove the traffic signals for
through traffic?
Here
are two possible solutions. Both of these involve signalizing the entering and
exiting traffic at Hartford Avenue. In other words, entering northbound traffic
would alternate with exiting northbound traffic, both moving under the proposed
elevated southbound lanes whose traffic would not have to stop. Northbound
Route 9 traffic would also continue without stopping.
Where
the two options differ lies in how the northbound traffic exiting at Washington
Street is dealt with. In the preferred but more expensive option, Route 9
southbound would be lowered sufficiently to allow northbound exiting traffic at
Washington St. to cross the southbound lanes via an at-grade or slightly
elevated bridge. This may require some pumping equipment to be installed to
deal with the possibility of flooding. It would also involve removing the
pedestrian tunnel under Route 9 from Melilli Plaza—a loss, but perhaps an
acceptable one if a pedestrian overpass to Harbor Park is constructed. (Note
that this pedestrian tunnel almost never floods, so maybe flooding isn’t such a
serious obstacle to lowering the southbound lanes.)
The
less expensive option would require northbound traffic exiting at Washington
Street to go a bit farther north to the Hartford Avenue exit, cross under the
elevated southbound lanes, and return to Washington Street where it could exit
to the right. Not real pretty, admittedly, and spatially complicated, but
perhaps it can be made to work.
The
main point: both of these options would leave downtown traffic patterns
virtually unchanged. I have spoken with DOT engineers on several occasions
since August 2016 about these ideas. Their responses have included mention of issues
that only traffic engineers can deal with, but I have heard no absolute
deal-breaking factors. I do not pretend be a traffic engineer myself, but I
believe that, given the many serious
constraints of the situation, any acceptable solution will entail both compromises
and less-than-ideal features. With some speed reducing measures such as
narrower travel lanes, and perhaps widening the opening where Route 9 passes under
the railroad bridge, it seems that some such approach is feasible. More to the
point, it seems that some version of one
of these must be made to work if we are to leave local traffic patterns
unchanged.
But
speaking of minimizing negative impacts, here is another dilemma to reckon
with. The project (separate from the
traffic signal project) to remove the stop sign at the northbound entrance of
Route 17 onto Route 9 — one of the highest accident rate locations in the
state— involves building a northbound acceleration lane along the right/east
side of the highway near Harbor Park. The engineers have said that this
requires the removal of the Harbor Park northbound entrance ramp that serves
560 vehicles per hour at peak afternoon traffic. That’s a lot of cars. Where
will they enter Route 9 after the Harbor Park entrance ramp removal? The
remaining options are South Main Street, Eastern Drive, and Hartford Avenue. Is
there a way to allow the Harbor Park entrance ramp to remain?
Finally,
we should embrace those aspects of the most recent CT DOT proposal that would
benefit Middletown quite apart from the Route 9 traffic signal issue. The
at-grade railroad crossing from Portland Street into the Miller/Bridge Street neighborhood
should be restored as soon as possible. The pedestrian bump-outs on Main Street
can be installed to improve visibility and safety for pedestrians as well as
the efficiency of vehicle traffic flow. The City could modify some streets and
build trails—some of which are already planned—to encourage bicycling in and
out of the downtown area. Cut-through traffic would be reduced by closing the westbound
ramp from the bridge onto Spring Street and the ramp from Liberty Street to
Newfield Street, thereby adding to pedestrian safety around Macdonough School.
That, of course, would likely put more cars onto Grand and Liberty, but a more
efficiently-functioning Main Street and use of one-way streets would reduce the
temptation for drivers to cut through on side streets. Middletown police have
said they would like to see Main Street traffic signals synchronized, but the
lights north of Washington are controlled by the state, while those south of
Washington are controlled by the city. Can’t we work something out?
I
commend Middletown residents for their informed engagement on these challenges,
and I commend CT DOT for their listening, responsiveness, and the time they
spend speaking with the public. Many of us—I certainly among them—have gotten
quite an education in the process. Let’s all stay involved. And by all means, if there are better ideas
out there, let’s hear them.
John C. Hall is the Executive
Director of the Jonah Center for Earth and Art, but the views expressed here are his own. This opinion article first appeared in the Middletown Press.
