By Linda Conner Lambeck
WESTPORT — The Board of Finance has agreed to spend up to $313,500 to figure out the best way to improve safety on a stretch of Cross Highway between North Avenue and Bayberry Lane.
The unanimous decision approving funds for the traffic study came during a Zoom meeting Wednesday after finance members were told efforts by town engineers to improve what was described as a notorious roadway have not been successful. The appropriation awaits final action by the Representative Town Meeting.
“Luckily, no one has gotten killed, but we are really worried,” said Public Works Director Peter Ratkiewich.
More than 20 crashes in three years
Over the past three years, there have been at least 21 motor vehicle accidents between the two intersections, including several T-bone crashes, town officials say.
The area sees heavy vehicular traffic as well as foot traffic from students walking to Bedford Middle School, Staples High School, town-owned Wakeman Town Farm and The Porch, a local eatery.
Ratkiewich said the Bayberry intersection particularly worries him because curves, off-kilter topography and sightline issues often cause drivers to miss the stop sign.
The North Avenue and Cross Highway intersection was also called confusing, and at times, a source of traffic backups.
Survey aims for “holistic” solutions
“There is a lot going on there,” Ratkiewich said. “It is not something simple.”
He wants a holistic solution for the whole corridor.
The aim is for professionals to conduct a traffic study and propose solutions to enhance safety and upgrade the pedestrian corridor.
Among the suggested fixes are traffic lights, carving round-abouts into the intersections or enhanced stop signs.
The request for proposals to design a traffic study drew five responses. Of the three firms interviewed, Tighe & Bond, with offices in Shelton, was selected.
The firm mapped out a detailed planning period that would start in September, with construction possible in 2023.
Study will include bridge issues — at a price
Ratkiewich said the study’s cost rose from an initial $200,000 to $285,000, plus a 10 percent contingency account, because the firm is being asked to analyze the corridor three ways.
The work also includes an evaluation of a small bridge that crosses a stream, which officials want to preserve. Too narrow accommodate a walkway, the idea is to design a separate pedestrian bridge alongside the existing span.
The bridge analysis is the reason the costs increased by $92,000, Ratkiewich said.
Roadway is “incredibly dangerous”
“Anyone who travels along that corridor recognizes it is incredibly dangerous,” said Sheri Gordon, chairwoman of the finance board. “We have heard from a lot of people in town who want us to find a way to do something … It’s really time.”
Jay DesMarteau, a board member, said the cost of the study is a lot of money, but agreed looking at the bridge at the same time as the traffic study made sense.
Remedies may raise neighbors’ concerns
Brian Stern, another board member, said he likes the Tighe proposal, but worried the solutions recommended might disturb what is considered a rural section of town.
Traffic lights, he said, could change the area’s character. “In my judgment, we need to go slowly on this one,” he said.
Stern suggested the project take a pause after a preliminary design is delivered, to give the public a chance to weigh in.
Ratkiewich said public input would be sought and adjustments made if there are strong objections. He said it would be disruptive to the process if planning is cut off midpoint.
“It is a visible part of town and we want [the eventual solution] to work,” Ratkiewich said.
Board member Lee Caney, who lives in the neighborhood, agreed the area is dangerous, but also cautioned that including lights as part of the solution “is a dramatic thing.”
“It would require a lot of public discussion,” Caney said.
Danielle Dobin, chairwoman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, who joined the meeting, assured the finance panel there would be robust public hearings on potential solutions.
Public comments, particularly from neighbors who live around the Bayberry intersection, are what prompted the study, she said.
“People who live in this area want to be able to walk in the area safely,” said Dobin.
One mother told Dobin that she believes her children would die if she let them walk to school, she said.
“So I am glad we are looking at It,” Dobin said.
Freelance writer Linda Conner Lambeck, a reporter for more than four decades at the Connecticut Post and other Hearst publications, is a member of the Education Writers Association.
In my view, the problem with those two particular intersections with Cross Hwy is that all 3 roads (Cross Hwy, North Ave and Bayberry) are heavily trafficked through a residential neighborhood with drivers who are almost always in a hurry. In addition to leading to the schools and recreational facilities, these are also the corridors to access the Merritt Parkway, a means to circumvent Merritt Pkwy traffic, as well as a conduit to the Post Road & I95. No “study” will improve the volume of traffic in this area.
I have lived in Westport for 36 years and quite often when I drive Cross Hwy there are vehicles that ROLL through the stop signs at the North Ave and Bayberry intersections. Far too many drivers DO NOT come to a full stop; they see the signs and/or already know of their existence – BUT they are in a hurry. AND far too many drivers speed down these roads. No study will improve those traffic law violations.
You want to mitigate the problem relatively inexpensively without detriment to the neighborhood’s character? Enhance the stop signs with flashing lights, notify drivers that they are approaching a STOP sign that includes feedback radar speed notification, consider installing a speed hump properly positioned at the stop sign’s approach. AND assign a traffic vehicle patrol in the area with an officer who issues summonses to drivers who believe that a stop sign merely means “Yield”, and a permissible speed limit depends upon their personal needs.
Installing cameras with a notice alerting drivers that the intersections are being monitored, and installing prominent signs indicating that crossing pedestrians have the right of way (along with a designated penalty fee for violating as it is in so many communities around the country) will also have a positive impact.
Due to it being the primary, preferred or exclusive means to the aforementioned destinations, we will never diminish the traffic in these areas. Curtailing the egregious driving “habits” of those who believe that laws either do not apply to them or are dependent upon their particular circumstance at the time, does not occur spontaneously. Consistently enforcing traffic laws and rules of the road by issuing warnings and/or summonses, are the most effective deterrents and behavior modification tools we have. Drivers ARE fearful of summonses, court appearances, impact upon their driving privileges, and increased insurance costs – BUT only if those risks are considered to be real. Unless penalties are reliable and meaningful, driver attitude and behavior does not change (witness the public’s general disregard for distracted driving laws).
The means for such enforcement at those problematic intersections might already exist – IF those who live in the neighborhood actually want it. I might be wrong, but I imagine that a significant proportion of the “hurried” drivers who do not completely stop reside in that general locale.
While we further discuss this appropriation proposal at the RTM level, why don’t we consult our police department to formulate a traffic monitoring and enforcement plan during the months of September, and October, and see what happens. At a minimum we could gather information that might prove helpful – and perhaps we might actually ameliorate some of the current safety concerns simultaneously.
Methods to mitigate this problem can take are at least five approaches:
1. Physical, via construction to alter the topography &/or roads,
2. Operational, to alter the behavior of drivers and pedestrians using the above mentioned signage & feedback speed notification and speed humps to force drivers to slow down before the stop signs, in conjunction with instituting a REAL risk of fines and licensure impacts
3. Education to alert Town residents of these changes, rule enforcement and penalties,
4. Monitoring , to inform the public that the rules will be enforced, and
5. Enforcement that conveys the message that the Town is actually serious,- which will promote positive driving attitude and behavioral changes to occur.
While some physical alterations might be justified and necessary (such as installing a sidewalk and designating pedestrian crossing areas), I imagine that it is the only one that will be significantly expensive without a fiscal return and take time to accomplish. The operational, educational, monitoring and enforcement paths should be relatively inexpensive, can be instituted immediately, and might even generate revenue from summonses.
In any event, in my opinion making expensive physical changes MIGHT ultimately have benefit – however they are expensive, time consuming, destructive AND will not alter what is arguably the most significant piece of the problem’s etiology – inappropriate attitudes and dangerous driving behaviors. The latter should be addressed first, will be relatively inexpensive, and can be instituted almost immediately.
JMHO
One last comment on this important issue:
As basis for their appropriation request for this study, the public works department pointed to 20 accidents at these two intersections that occurred over the past three years. This information was used to acknowledge that these intersections can be dangerous.
However, what was absent from this discussion was even an elementary analysis of these 20 accidents. A fundamental review of the details of these accidents is foundational to any root cause analysis AND will guide targeted specific remedies that will mitigate future accidents.
For example:
How many of these accidents involved speeding?
How many involved failure to sufficiently stop &/or yield at the intersection?
How many were caused by a “blind” spots impairing the visualization of other vehicles?
How many “at fault” drivers asserted that they actually “didn’t see the stop sign” as being the cause?
How many involved residents familiar with these intersections vs “out-of-town” drivers unfamiliar with these intersections?
How many involved impaired drivers?
How many drivers were distracted (by cell phone use or other)?
How many were drivers who were circumventing Merritt Pkwy traffic?
Was there a predominance to the time of day/day of the week that they occurred?
Were there any age demographic trends in these accidents?
These are fundamental questions that should be explored in order to best determine what corrective actions need to take place in order to mitigate future accidents from occurring. These are the foundational elements to any meaningful and consequential “Root Cause Analysis”.
Anyone can simply opine that these intersections are “dangerous” based upon historical accident data, and anyone can “assume” the accident etiologies. However that opinion sheds zero light onto the actual REASON(S) making them dangerous, and unless those “assumptions” are proven factual, proposals become subject to failing the most beneficial, effective solution.
We are fortunate to have data to evaluate – 20+ accidents might provide patterns or trends that can guide targeted remedies. Before we rush into throwing money at yet another problem “study”, we should at least do our own due diligence with the information already at our disposal. We DO NOT require a consulting company to do this for us.
If we dedicate a modicum of time and energy into accident report review, I suspect that a more targeted, less expensive, and readily implementable corrective action plan might come to light.
I can give details about one of the accidents. My daughter was driving home from high school on Cross Highway a few years ago when a car traveling north on Bayberry ran the stop sign and hit the front right section of her car. It was her word against the other driver’s word and the police blamed my daughter as the teenage driver. I believe my daughter’s story. It makes me angry that apparently this is a notorious intersection and yet she was not believed. (The other end of Bayberry at Long Lots is also a place where drivers completely ignore the stop sign.)
Karen O
Thank you for sharing that information. I hope your daughter was uninjured.
This anecdote illustrates my point.
If the other driver denied running through the stop sign it can be inferred that he/she knew it existed. Therefore a more prominent sign would not have been preventative. That driver residing in Westport would further support the fact that the stop sign was known.
Without maligning the police assignment of fault, more details of the incident would be helpful to determine contributory or causative factors. Was speeding involved? Distraction?
If speed and failure to stop at the sign is (as I suspect) the primary cause, then “forcefully encouraging” drivers to stop on Bayberry using a road impediment such as a speed hump proximate to the sign would certainly help – even if the driver is on the phone.
A camera monitoring the intersection would also encourage rule compliance while providing the police officer (and your daughter) causative evidence to accurately ascribe fault.
A detailed review of the 20+ known accidents will certainly provide information essential to effectively mitigating the dangers of these intersections.
There were no injuries. I do not know the version of events the other driver gave the police. The other driver was not a Westport resident. I don’t know if they were familiar with that intersection. My recollection is that the other driver didn’t stop at all at the intersection.
The Westport PD don’t even enforce at the Post/Riverside intersection, and it has a traffic light. Do we really expect them enforce here?
Chris
I get your valid concern, but cynicism will not help rectify this real problem. If the Town prioritized this in conjunction with a collaborative targeted police initiative, it would happen.
Cross is heavily trafficked by Merritt evaders who use Cross as a rat-run (to use the traffic engineering term). Not much we can do about that locally, and Hartford will never address the traffic issues on the Merritt and I-95 with any seriousness of purpose. However it would help a lo cut down on schoolbus evaders — parents or (even more egregiously, students) driving the short distance to school rather than walking or taking the bus.