Fighting with the Connecticut Department of Transportation to lock down safe and reasonable pedestrian and cyclist access is a long process, so it’s unsurprising that those attending the latest round were small in number– a mix of those who understand the project better than some of those presenting on it, and those who were uninformed about how we came to be in a room discussing a multimillion dollar project that nobody wants.
Background for those just tuning in: The DOT barricaded one of Hartford’s city streets last year. Pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, even emergency vehicles, are unable to go from Capitol Avenue to Farmington Avenue on this street.
Neighborhood groups opposed this for obvious reasons, like losing north-south access between Frog Hollow and Asylum Hill. Area small businesses opposed this out of fear of losing significant foot traffic; later, those stores along Capitol Avenue would experience the loss in revenue predicted. The City of Hartford initially opposed this, but then backed off. Aetna had been ready to provide legal support to fight this, but they eventually cowered. Christopher Brown, a resident of Frog Hollow and board member of Bike Walk CT, sought a writ of mandamus — for us plain folk, that means he sued the DOT, not to get any money, but to force them to keep Flower Street open for cyclists and pedestrians. In Superior Court, as in these public neighborhood meetings, the argument for keeping the street open got twisted; instead of the case being about safety, it was interpreted as being about convenience — something that has never been the emphasis for vocal residents and business owners. What came out of that time in court was that the DOT is now on record as being committed to building a bridge that would actually move pedestrians and cyclists in the north-south direction.
At Monday’s meeting intended to update the community on the DOT’s plans for this Flower Street up-and-over, the attention once again was placed on convenience over safety. Though the method for obtaining these numbers was never disclosed, we were told that taking the Broad Multi-Use Path would take 6.3 minutes, the Skywalk, 5.5 minutes, and the elevator, 5.6 minutes. During this process, the community has asked the DOT for data on pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries at at-grade crossings versus at busy intersections and at Interstate ramp crossings. To date, the public has not received this information.
At the meeting, Brown raised the point that according to the DOT’s own internal emails obtained through a FOIA request, there is a simple solution that would not require millions of dollars or minutes of detour: go from a double lane of busway to single for a small portion of the New Britain-to-Hartford path. According to the DOT participants in this email exchange, as of 2013, this was an option (scroll to pages 3-4):
Rather than take the path of least resistance, each of the proposed concepts comes with a hefty price tag. How these numbers were obtained was not disclosed at Monday’s meeting.
The skywalk, which appears to be the most expensive option, has also been the most popular with residents, if for no other reason than the knowledge that public outdoor elevators take on the stink of urine in no time.
Neither the skywalk nor elevator concepts presented were entirely new. Both had been revealed in 2013. The tentative plans from 2013 have only become more detailed. Really. Nothing new here.
The skywalk would be 900 feet long and include ADA compliant slopes, illuminated handrails, and a vegetative planting strip. In discussions of this concept, Manhattan’s High Line has been invoked.
When the DOT was asked on Monday who would own the structure, the rep replied: “I don’t know.”
That uncertainty makes the likelihood of a thriving High Line-lite unlikely. The park in New York, albeit larger in scale than what would emerge in Frog Hollow, received a $20 million gift from the Diller-von Furstenberg Family Foundation, which had given many millions to the High Line before that. Private funders have given millions. Millions-upon-millions have come from city and federal government. The State of New York contributed. The park has dozens of staff to manage upkeep. The result? It’s a destination.
Would we see a fraction of that dedication here?
Whatever the ownership ends up being, the DOT has investigated snow melt systems, anticipating that clearing the surface in winter would be an issue.
The less popular of the concepts was that involving a 12′ x 12′ glass elevator. A DOT rep said that after speaking with Riverfront Recapture, there were “serious concerns about vagrancy” when it comes to outdoor elevators. We did not hear if the elevator would be open year-round; the one at the Riverfront is closed for months. This design would include stairs, with the possibility of a “bike channel” that could be used for cyclists to roll their bikes along. There would be some plantings along the stairs and a bit of street landscaping.
With both designs, there would be the loss of some parking. The skywalk, depending on which version, could eliminate a Hartford Office Supply driveway; the other version would cut at some of that building’s parking. Recent plans for this building seem to all involve housing; apartments with limited parking could be a tough sell.
CT DOT has been in conversation with the Hartford Courant about all that this busway project entails for much longer than it has been with residents, and it shows. The state agency has stretched itself to ensure that newspaper delivery trucks are not impeded. The elevator options — one with a small cul de sac, one with large — would have impacts on the Courant’s parking, which immediately became an issue. At the meeting, the Courant reps did not indicate how many parking spaces it requires, but with the newsroom staff having been reduced significantly in the last two decades, one has to wonder if the potential loss of a dozen and some odd parking spaces would have the same impact here as it would on the nearby Hartford Office Supply, which is slated to be residential. No word on if the Hartford Courant will be encouraging its staff to take CTfastrak, reducing some of its need for parking.
Richard Armstrong of the DOT, who thought some of the earlier concepts seemed “bland”, explained all of the things that needed to be considered when narrowing down the five options to two: rights of way (Courant deliveries), Park River conduit, DAS steam pipes, truck operation (Courant), Courant facilities, winter maintenance (which Armstrong said was harder now that the road is closed), Amtrak clearance (vertical clearance required), parking impacts, roadway clearance, and the viaduct structure.
Whichever concept is chosen, construction is not scheduled to begin until early 2015.
In the meantime, cyclists are still waiting for the permanent striping of bike lanes on Broad Street. The temporary paint has been worn off completely in some areas. The green paint should be on the roadway “this month or next month” according to the DOT, who said, “hopefully, [Broad Street will] be better than it was before.”
Those hoping for better barriers separating I-84 and the east-west path between Flower and Broad, don’t hold your breath. There seems to be nothing in the works for adding guard rails in the area where a minivan had left the interstate and came to rest in the parking lot adjacent to the Hartford Courant earlier this year.
Christopher Brown
Regarding the steam lines, I had to look up what DAS stood for, and was kind of disappointed. Dept of Administrative Services is way more boring than the thought that they were mixing things up with a little German.
It’s much more fun to say “das Dampfleitungen”
Christian
Which option do think is the best?
Kerri Provost
The one that the DOT knows it can do but is not willing to consider.
Tony C
Thanks for the update. The hefty price tags are typical of DOT type projects. The East Coast Greenway ends up with bridges designed to take the load of an ambulance because the DOT doesn’t have standards for bike / ped infrastructure.
If anyone at CT DOT in a leadership role on the project was an urban cyclist or pedestrian (and Hartford resident – are there DOT employees that live in Hartford?), it might be helpful. It would make it easier for them to understand the issues being tabled.
Personally, I’d wouldn’t be as interested in the bike/ped flyover if the plans for making Broad Street a safer transit path for pedestrians and cyclists was more clear. Difficult to make that route safer with the highway connections.
Hopefully safety and economic viability for residents and businesses gets more attention than continuous smooth and uninterrupted flow of suburban commuter traffic.
Kerri Provost
When Christopher presented the DOT with its own email saying that the single-track was possible for this stretch — what would equal a few seconds of delay for the buses and a safe crossing — he was told by the DOT on Monday that it would not make sense to do this when the project has cost so much money. The money complaint makes no sense. What this sounds like, more than anything, is that the DOT is too stubborn to compromise. They’ve spent a lot of time and resources to go out of their way to “prove” they can’t just make a move that would cost the least amount of money and be the kindest on the neighborhood.