New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | September 14, 2009 11:17 PM

Dear Mr. Hanley,

Thank you for your timely response (insert happy face denoted by a humorous colon and close parentheses) to the alleged issue of danger posed by the physical conditions of the Tomlinson bridge as related to said bridge's use by (non-motorized) cyclists. 1

Please direct your attention to the following list of alleged occurrences denoted by an eye-catching asterisk and following the placement of this (non-humorous) colon:

* A bicyclist got knocked over by a speeding car and dislocated his shoulder. It happens a lot.

Given the drama suggested by my use of emphasizing asterisks 2 I apologize for the brevity of my list and encourage you to focus your "research" 3 upon that which has already happened, as opposed to your proposed data gathering efforts..

My Very Best Congenial Regards 4 ,

John Q. Public

1 Said danger not being caused by wear and tear or faulty maintenance, but rather, poor (allegedly) design (allegedly.)

2 A poor man's plain text substitute for a rich text formatted bullet point.

3 Use of enclosing quotes suggesting irony, hopefully inducing visions of the physically ironic "air quote" 3-a gesture in which forearms are raised and index and middle fingers are simultaneously flexed in a non-physically intimidating but intellectually intimidating way.

4 And earnest hopes for your continued job security.

3-a These particular quotes not intended for irony.

Posted by: Greg | September 15, 2009 10:26 AM

Thanks for checking this out, Mr. Hanley. As someone who rarely rides over this bridge, the tracks are a cause for concern every time I do.

Posted by: juli | September 15, 2009 1:49 PM

robn,

i am confused by your intensely negative reaction. i don't see where you read that this man was personally claiming that the incidents were "alleged". i read his letter as an attempt to be as clear as possible about a complex problem. you seem to think his professional response shows a lack of concern.

i, too, am frightened every time i cycle over this bridge and want a resolution that will accomodate traffic of all kind as safely as possible. and, yes, ConnDOT certainly hasn't rushed to fix a dangerous problem. but i don't think we need to piss off the very people in a position to facilitate that, who are actually trying to figure out why the problem is as bad as we say it is.

thanks for passing along the correspondence, streever. and thank you mr. hanley for your attention to this matter and i am anxious to hear what comes of it.

Posted by: robn | September 15, 2009 6:46 PM

JULI,

My problem with the DOT response is that it indicates technocratic info-shuffling and CYA mumbo-jumbo rather than real action. How about this for some imaginary bullet points we might have been given?

* The DOT will immediately instruct the bridge operator to call the police when cars are parked illegally on the bridge and will personally call Chief of Police Lewis to alert him of this policy.
* The DOT will send a crew down on Monday to install NO PARKING signs along the sidewalk.
* The DOT will send a crew on Monday to paint bike sharrows on this road skirt.
* The DOT will immediately order compressable flange filler to make bike crossings over rails more safe.

...pretty simple.

Posted by: Josh Smith | September 15, 2009 9:10 PM

I say Mr. Zbrozek from the DOT should have to field-test Whalley Avenue on several bicycles after it's been rebuilt, in order to see if it improves safety for cyclists using the road.

Posted by: William Kurtz | September 16, 2009 7:47 AM

It's at least encouraging to see some response from CONNDOT to local concerns of non-motorists, even if that response is a slow bureaucratic shuffle. Time will tell whether they're just blowing smoke or committing to real solutions for the problems. Hopefully it's the latter.

Posted by: robn | September 16, 2009 8:47 AM

WILLIAM,

I agree.

MR.HANLEY,

Don't take my sarcasm personally, but please take the frustration seriously. I'm tired of seeing my fellow citizens hurt becuase of inflexible rules and bad design.