Stop the Q Bridge Expansion?

by Allan Appel | April 18, 2008 9:15 AM | | Comments (7)

nhi34%20005.JPG“Is there any way,” this woman wanted to know, “that at this late stage the Q-Bridge expansion can be mitigated or stopped?”

The surprising question — and an even more surprising answer — were aired at a public meeting Wednesday night at Career High School on reconnecting the city after the old Oak Street corridor, Route 34, comes down, if it comes down.

Molly McKay, the transportation chair of the Connecticut Sierra Club, posed her question to John Norquist, who, as the mayor of Milwaukee, removed a Route 34-like corridor; the area’s resulting renaissance has made him a guru of the anti-highway movement or what’s known as the new urbanism. He was the featured speaker at the Career High event. (Click here to read a story about that event.)

“Hey,” he answered, “as long as it’s not built, as long as contracts aren’t signed … it’s like death row, you can get a last-minute commutation. That’s what I did in Milwaukee.”

nhi34%20006.JPGAfter the meeting concluded, Fair Haven Alderwoman and traffic-calming expert Erin Sturgis-Pascale introduced herself to Connecticut Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner Albert Martin, another of the evening’s speakers. “Yes,” she said hopefully, “what would it take to stop the Q Bridge mess and take those funds and, for example, use them for the removal of the connector and the development of the new area?”

“Well,” said Martin, “we’d have to receive a proposal first even to consider…”

“And who would it be best for that proposal to come from?”

“Oh, we need to know that the community is behind the idea.”

At recent hearings in Hartford, the DOT revealed that the low bidder for the first part of the Q Bridge re-do had backed out, and the contract is being offered to the number two, at the cost of $27 million more to taxpayers. So maybe the time, though late, was still opportune as apparently no contracts have been signed.

Sturgis-Pascale and Martin said to each other that they were both traffic-obsessed, but not likely in the same way.

As people trickled out of the auditorium, Sturgis-Pascale was seen huddling with East Rock Alderman Allan Brison. “We’re just thinking,” she said, “that not only the Board of Aldermen should write to the DOT about this, but the mayor too. We’ll see.”

Norquist — a preacher’s son and full of inspiration — had no doubt: “Albert Martin will probably blanche,” he said, “but if you really want to stop that bridge expansion, you can. Do so.”







Share this story: digg / newsvine / facebook

Comments

Posted by: Uncle Nunzio | April 18, 2008 10:08 AM

Why would any one want to stop the rebuilding of the Q-Bridge? It's about to fall apart! Who cares how much it will cost tax payers? It's something that needs to be done. Would we rather be paying for emergency funds and law suits when the bridge eventually collapses on itself from the stress it was originally designed NOT to handle?

If anything, why aren't they getting this new bridge up as quickly (and safely) as possible?

Posted by: James | April 18, 2008 1:57 PM

People, please save your breath and do not comment on this asinine question. The Q is a part of our national transportation infrastructure, linking I-95 as it does. Nobody will ever consider not rebuilding the Q, so please let this thing die here and now. Lady, do you have any idea of the economic significance of I-95? There's activism, and there's stupidity. Which one do you think prompted this question?

PS. There's also stupid activism.

Posted by: James | April 18, 2008 2:17 PM

Also, please take some care before throwing around labels like "new-urbanism." To begin with, it's a buzz word that most planners hate. Primarily because it means something different to everybody and therefore nothing at all. Second of all, the broad concepts lumped together and called "new urbanism" are not necessarily anti-highway. They are, frequently, pro-density, pro-pedestrian, but highways are an integral part of our or any transportation network.

Upon reading further, it seems this woman is the transportation chair of the Connecticut Sierra Club? It's this kind of knee-jerk, stop all development regardless of value BS that make all environmentalists and smart growth backers look like nutjobs. You would think that somebody holding Ms. McKay's position would know enough about transportation to ask a more intelligent question.

Failure to fix the Q would be an environmental net negative. More capacity means less need to expand local arterials. More capacity means less time idling in traffic means lower emissions. What does Ms. McKay see as the benefit of halting the construction? Damn, I consider myself a liberal with strong environmental concerns, but thus lady strikes me as a nut. Maybe she just wants an excuse to picket something?

Posted by: Kevin | April 18, 2008 3:00 PM

While I believe there is a broad consensus that the bridge needs to be replaced before it falls down, it may good time to determine whether the 10-land configuration is still appropriate given what has happened to the price of construction and gasoline since the project was approved. Moreover, some concerns, such as climate change are far more salient now than 10 years ago.

Posted by: dylan | April 18, 2008 3:02 PM

Fixing the Q is an absolute necessity when it comes to motorist safety and transportation along the 95 Corridor.

However, the problem is not the fact that it is going to be rebuilt. The problem is precisely how. Replacing the existing structure with a 10 lane suspension bridge is very different from updating what's there currently. With federal highway money drying up this year, building an expensive to maintain mega-structure is fiscally irresponsible. In an era of increasing oil prices, and the realization that highways leading into cities do not help their economies (and by extension, the economy of the region and state, according to a summer 2007 report by the Brookings Institute about older industrial cities like New Haven), facilitating further car usage by a super-widening of the Q should not be on the DOT's agenda.

Posted by: DowntownNewHaven | April 18, 2008 3:29 PM

How about fixing the Q-bridge but rebuilding it with 6 lanes instead of 10? Wouldn't that save money? Expanding the bridge will just lead to more sprawl, congestion, higher fuel prices and traffic that we'll all be paying for as taxpayers and consumers.

The only people benefiting from a 10 lane bridge will be the multi-millionaire property owners in the eastern New Haven suburbs, and the car dealers, road construction companies, car companies and oil companies.

Six lanes is perfectly adequate, especially if coupled with improved mass transit. When gas hits $9/gallon in a couple years, the 10 lane bridge just beginning construction will seem very odd.

Posted by: Kyle | April 21, 2008 2:19 PM

Is the intent to turn the remainder of the I-95 into a ten-lane highway? If not, then why would the bridge itself need ten lanes?

Sorry, Comments are closed for this entry

Sections

Neighborhood News

Special Sections

Legal Notices

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Legal Notices

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

NHI Store

Buy New Haven Independent Stuff

News Feed

Powered by
Movable Type 3.35