OPINION: By Ed McKeonI had heard they were coming. I knew they were coming. They're here.
Main Street bump-outs. Bump-outs are extensions of the pedestrian sidewalks that protrude into traffic lanes. Their goal, ostensibly, is to make pedestrian crossing on busy streets easier, and to calm traffic.
The bump-outs were offered as part of a much larger plan to eliminate traffic lights on Route 9. The DOT made a presentation to the public twice in the past four years.
Both plans were roundly criticized at the public meetings where they were presented, and eventually rejected by the city.
However, the DOT apparently had some money burning a hole in their pockets. They claim, without any evidence, that the bump-outs were accepted by the public at those meetings.
They were not.
In fact, the DOT promised in October of last year that they would not move forward with the project
According to a October 25, 2018 article in the Middletown press:
“'We’re not moving forward without another public info meeting,'” according to Connecticut Department of Transportation Project Engineer Erik Jarboe. That meeting is expected to take place some time in the spring."
The bump-out project is expected to cost the state $2 million.
It will cost the city more.
By creating bump-outs at most Main Street intersections, the state will cause traffic tie-ups because cars will no longer be able to easily make right turns on red, thereby alleviating traffic tie ups. City trucks removing snow on Main Street will have to maneuver around the bump-outs. Clearing snow from the bump-outs themselves will be difficult because there will be no areas where snow can be easily piled. In addition, the bump-outs are more difficult to navigate for larger trucks. The bump-outs will also make it impossible to create future bike lanes on Main Street.
Several years ago, Meriden added bump-outs in their downtown for some of the same reasons cited by the DOT. They are now removing all bump-outs at a cost of millions to the city.At the beginning of his term, the governor's office was contacted to indicate an easy way to save $2 million would be to cancel the bump-out project. No action was taken.
Opposition to the DOT plans was widespread, with two exceptions that the DOT said could be easily remedied. Fixing the traffic light patterns at Main and Grand, and creating a traffic flow from Bridge Street to Johnson Street. Work on neither of those projects has proceeded.
Views opposing the DOT plans included those by the mayor, the mayor again, a member of the Downtown Business District, the public and yours truly.
So how do we stop this from proceeding??
ReplyDeleteThe State must still have money left over from clear cutting the highway medians and all the forsythia they planted near overpasses years ago.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. In response to our concerns, they will also be covered in turf and non-residents will have priority use.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone also considered school buses, and tractor trailer traffic, larger vehicles, who require more road real estate to make their turns safely onto Main Street? Oh, and the Main Street Fire house! Just wait until there’s an emergency, and cars have no where to turn, or go, to make space for the FD coming around the corner to go up Washington! Smh ��♀️ I’m praying for a large snowstorm, a 3 footer, where ya lose the city for a week or so, so the plow blades can destroy the bump outs. Then, the easy, logical fix would be to remove the debris and pave over the spot.
ReplyDeleteBump-outs are part of good downtown planning. They won't hamper traffic, Including larger vehicles, but they will slow traffic down (good for pedestrians, good for attracting more pedestrians, good for the city). Snow-wise, they'll just continue to move it to the middle, then truck it away. It's never piled up on the sides of the street. As someone with iexperience in streetscape design, and knowing what works well all-around, I am glad to see this work being done.
ReplyDeleteWe have so many other needs and this is what they are spending our money on.
ReplyDeleteActually, bump outs will not prevent LEGAL right-turn-on-red. Currently, if traffic is stopped, drivers will go around the right in parking area to make the turn. That is illegal. Turns should be made from the right lane. I've nearly gotten hit more that once trying to make the turn only to have someone try to scoot by on the right. Not saying I favor bump outs, just saying they would increase safety.
ReplyDeleteThese are city roads. The Mayor and Police Chief are legal traffic authority. This cant be done without mayors consent. No doubt this will cause more congestion on Main street. Bump outs are for dead downtowns looking for anything to spruce up the corridor (meriden). They were also proposed in the 1980's in Middletown. We dont need them anymore.
ReplyDeleteHave no fear. This will work just as great as the High Street re-design a number of years ago.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to imagine that after all of these years the issue is even on the table to say nothing of actual implementation. When I chaired Planning and Zoning in the 1960's (yes that long ago) the subject came up. One reason then promoted was that it made to pedestrian crossing distance shorter and thus safer. The subject was discussed up one side and own the other and all of the reasons that Ed has outlined were recognized including the terrific difficulty for our own Public Works. A bad idea has been imposed upon the city. It is a disgrace and our budget conscious Governor and legislature should know better.
ReplyDeleteBiff Shaw
80 Years in Middletown
Now in Essex
If you want to make it safer for pedestrian's to cross, extend the walk cycle time. Also what our downtown needs is parking. Bump outs are not necessary but just look around, parking is.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Mayor Drew and Parking Director Geen Thazamapallah on this??
ReplyDeleteSafer for pedestrians would be slower traffic. Vehicles normally pass the police station much in excess at 40+ mph.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Ed, for clarifying that the DOT promised not to go forward on this plan without a public meeting. You are certainly correct in stating that opposition has been stated from the very beginning and that there is no doubt about how residents feel. I have continually expressed strong concerns about the effect the bump outs will have on right-turn-on-red access, leading to greater congestion on Main Street.
ReplyDeleteOn October 26th, 2018, Cassandra Day reported on the bump out proposal being moved forward. My comments that day on "No Strip Mall. No Wrecking Ball" (where the article had been reposted) were neither subtle nor likely to have been misinterpreted by anyone. I offered to check the data DOT had collected and whatever mathematic modeling software they were using at DOT along with their design plans. I had very strong objections to implementing any portion of the Rt.9 plan and very specific objections to the bump outs that have been expressed since the very first public meeting at Elks Lodge when you, P&Z chair Stephen DeVoto, and I first talked about this. Because so many other speakers, including Seb Giuliano, spoke so articulately, in such numbers, and at such length I did not feel a need to add any further comments to the record.
On October 26, 2018, Stephen DeVoto responded quickly to my post on NSM.NWB. He stated that P&Z was supposed to have been informed of any amended proposal from DOT and had the authorization to approve or not approve. He stated that had not happened. He solicited help in forming a response. I immediately replied with a more detailed analysis and made it clear I would like to be kept informed and to be involved in the response. I heard nothing after that, and I certainly did not hear about any of the discussions that were going on. I only found out after the construction started that the mayor had contacted DOT a year ago and told DOT to move forward. Is this correct?
Part one
ReplyDeletePart two
So, when DOT and the mayor claim the public did not express any objections I can only question how it was that Stephan Devoto never got back to me on the biggest project to hit Middletown during his tenure at P & Z. Our paths only crossed by accident two weeks ago at Russell library when I stopped him to ask if the bump out plan had been canceled. He then told me that it was actually out to bid and that he now strongly supported it. Does he now only need our input when we agree with him?
I assume he probably also knew the construction would be starting within two weeks, but he'd shared enough truth for that brief encounter. When many of us worked so hard to get him elected to P & Z it was in response to exactly this type of underhanded back channel planning with outside interests that do not serve Middletown. Had the town held a public meeting I would have been there along with many others.
If Stephen doubted my qualifications to examine and comment on DOT traffic modeling he only needed to have a conversation with me and I would have been happy to present my qualifications and 15 years of experience in using mathematical modeling to create real time and highly detailed renderings of complex real world acoustical energy interactions in physical models. My company also created improved operating systems for the very platforms on which mathematical models were created. Traffic flow on Main Street is remarkably similar in its numerous inputs, outputs, time variant influences, and interactive feedback responses. However, I don't think it would require a team of rocket scientists to understand had I been given the opportunity to explain it. A map, some markers and a few days worth of measurement data from every corner on Main Street would have been enough to explain my concerns. As Stephen must know, I have some experience explaining mathematical concepts so that even children can understand the interactions of geometry, statistics, probability, and graph theory. I can only assume he was aware that had I been given a chance to explain, this project would not have been able to go forward without intentionally ignoring the anticipated risks.
Soon anyone will have a very concrete model of right turn on red possibilities under constricted flow conditions. Sadly, it will be too late at that point to amend the plans at that point. For the record, I have alternate proposals that would not have required bringing any traffic from Rt 9 onto Main Street. I would like to point out that after their second defeated proposal DOT promised to encourage resident input before creating a new proposal.