YourCT.com header image 2
← Sunday Open Season Thread Tracking the Real Connecticut Population →

Norwalk: Route 7 Merrit Interchange Snafu


by turfgrrl


April 2nd, 2007 · 27 Comments

Norwalk is at a crossroads. You have all these huge office buildings on Route 7 and Glover ave. Huge office buildings with people who drive cars into Norwalk. You have the Merritt Parkway which represents, the route 7 connector, and I-95 all representing different stages of traffic snarls because none of these connections works well. You would think the the CT DOT would be prioritizing it’s workload to address the transportation improvements that fairfield county needs. But no, it’s another sign of bacon bits being sprinkled as the DOT now says they might delay the completion of the Merritt route 7 interchange another year.

Another year.

It became delayed in the first place because preservationists decided that the bridge spanning main ave. was more important than the flow of traffic. The Merritt Parkway is a historical treasure. The many bridges that span it or the roads it crosses represent some of great architectural styles worth preserving. But the Norwalk main ave span is not really one of them. Yet preservationists decided to fight it out legally, while other more significant bridges rot away along the parkway.

From today’s Adovcate:

Construction of the Merritt Parkway-Route 7 interchange in Norwalk likely will not restart this month as projected and could be delayed for the rest of the year or longer, state officials said.

Merritt Parkway preservationists, who blocked construction last year through litigation, and state Department of Transportation officials will meet again next month to discuss design proposals, DOT officials said.

If both sides agree on a radically different design for the interchange, construction could be delayed for months or another year, DOT spokesman Kevin Nursick said.

…

The Merritt Parkway Conservancy and other preservation and community groups sued the Federal Highway Administration, saying the agency did not consider plans that would cause less damage to the parkway’s historical features.

The state’s two-phase project would have destroyed parkway bridges and landscape features.

The Merritt Parkway is federally protected on the National Register of Historic Places.

When construction was stopped last year, DOT officials said they were aiming to restart in April.

….

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said more pressure must be put on the state and the conservancy to agree.

“I really wish the DOT and the conservancy would meet more often and treat this like the priority it should be,” Duff said. “We should really hold everyone’s feet to the fire to get them to sit in a room and reach a solution.”

source: Norwalk Advocate, Merritt-Route 7 interchange may be delayed another year, By Mark Ginocchio, April 2 2007

Tags: In the News · Local · Norwalk

27 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Route 7 Merrit Interchange Snafu”



  • 1 anonymous // Apr 2, 2007 at 9:48 am

    Don’t blame the preservationists, blame the DOT for failing to involve anyone else in the process.

  • 2 savit // Apr 2, 2007 at 10:16 am

    See what I mean about the anti-preservation bias of the current Moccia adminstration and those who support it (like turfgir), Do you have any idea of what DOT had planned for that interchange? Did any of you see the plans? And did you know that the plan the DOT was implementing ignored all Federal guidelines and statutes for making the improvements to the nationally designated historic highway?

  • 3 anon // Apr 2, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Here’s what turfgrrl said a year ago on this very subject: turfgrrl said…
    ….a judge ruled the Federal Highway Administration did not provide sufficient evidence that it had explored all options for minimizing harm to the Merritt Parkway in building a Route 7 interchange.

    Meanwhile the price of concrete goes up, the interchange looks like an eyesore, the costs of fixing it go up, and the current bridge crumbles. The traffic flow in that area is abysmal. I suspect that the CT DOT is run by people who get paid whether they fix things or not, and thus couldn’t or wouldn’t get this project rolling without raising the ire of every nut job organization in the area.

    4/04/2006 11:46:07 AM

  • 4 indiga // Apr 2, 2007 at 11:59 am

    The only “nut jobs” in that case were the DOT.

  • 5 turfgrrl // Apr 2, 2007 at 12:18 pm

    The CT DOT is basically incompetent, and anyone who spends the time to dig into my old posts on this subject will find that the criticism leveled at the DOT are numerous and frequent. The DOT is to blame, but let’s not excuse the fact that in this case, like I said then, “I support serious preservation efforts, but have not seen it from this group, or more accurately from its chosen spokespeople. I don’t think CT DOT is blameless either.”

    Saving trees is admirable, but not when it comes as a priority over saving the majority of wonderful bridges that are rotting from neglect and maintenance issues. And not when congestion and traffic accidents stem from poorly engineered interchanges that have been outgrown for decades by the high usage.

  • 6 Anonymous // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    The DOT ignored the Conservancy until the courts told them to pay attention to their concerns and the DOT’s not happy nor is the construction lobby and the building trades like like road building. As for the cost of concrete going up, that’s irrelevant to the debate. The cost of concrete will remeain about the same in constant dollars.

  • 7 Anonymous // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Savit again shows her bias. What does Moccia have to do with the interchange and how does that translate into anti preservation. This is a state Snafu, by the way Alex supported the plan publicaly, is he anti preservation. It is one thing to dislike an adminstration, it is another thing to be just plain igornant and give out false info.

  • 8 Mike Lyons // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:20 pm

    Savit — this is a MOCCIA administration matter? EVERYTHING involving this project predates Moccia’s election. Here’s from the News 12 web site, dated March 30, 2005: “Among the passionate are the current mayor of Norwalk, Alex Knopp, and three former mayors, Zullo, Collins and Esposito. They recently gathered to express their support of the proposed Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange. The one they say should have been built years ago except that opponents and funding issues stopped it in its tracks.” Knopp went further — he issued a press release attacking the preservationists for holding up the interchange! See www.knoppformayor.com/press/akmpwayrt7finaltestimony4-5-2005.pdf. Do the anti-Moccia people on this blog EVER check their facts?

  • 9 Mike Lyons // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    FYI, www.knoppformayor.com/press/akmpwayrt7finaltestimony4-5-2005.pdf won’t open from the blog, but if you type it into your web browser it will open.

  • 10 indiga // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:33 pm

    So, tiger-girl, you’re saying the Merrit Parkway Conservancy, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Norwalk Land Trust, the Norwalk River Watershed, and the Norwalk Presrvation Trust are “nut jobs”. Reading the complaint might educate you a bit…but I doubt it. Your bias against historic preservation is, I’m afraid, as solid as Moccia’s and Coffey’s.

    http://www.merrittparkway.org/DOCS/MPC_Merritt_FHA_Complaint.pdf

  • 11 Mike Lyons // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    indiga — don’t forget to mention Alex Knopp’s “bias against historic preservation”, too, since he fully supported the original interchange design and attacked preservationists (see above) for stopping the project.

  • 12 savit // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Absolutely right, 8. Knopp did not support this preservation effort at all. I was trying to cover too many bases in one post — 1)the legitimacy of the presrvation efforts re the Merrit, 2) turfgirl’s dismissive comments about presrvation efforts and 3)the consitency of those types of comments with the anti-preservation stance of the Moccia administration in general. Clearly, Moccia was not around for the Merrit Parkway issue. I will try to keep it simple and limit my presrvation angst to one per post.

  • 13 turfgrrl // Apr 2, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    Indiga: I read the complaint ages ago, as well as news coverage of the incident, ages ago, and my opinion has not changed. The CT DOT is the most incompetent agency in the US, and the spokespeople, I believe there were 2, that the merit parkway conservancy sent out, were “nutobs”. Ok, I should have been more temperate in my language choices then.

    I was, as I do here, responding to the article in the newspaper, which I remember as featuring “tree” comments by Bill Wrenn and Leigh Grant. Now, some people would agree with my original characterization, others will take offense.

    The CT DOT is unresponsive. But their original plan wasn’t an aesthetic problem for me. It was very similar to the one they put in place in Trumbull, by the mall, which works very well under heavy traffic congestion. Their overhaul of the exit 42 in Westport, likewise works well and is aesthetic.

    My bias against incompetence is legendary. Don’t confuse that with assumptions on where I think philosophically on issues.

  • 14 indiga // Apr 2, 2007 at 2:03 pm

    Read it again. It’s nothing like the Trumbull interchange or the Westport improvements.

  • 15 turfgrrl // Apr 2, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    indiga: Of course not, its bigger because it has to connect to the super 7 connector. However, let’s not lose sight of what I was pointing out in the original post, bacon-bits. Because everyone here is really talking about the same issue, just attacking it from different perspectives. The issue is that when it comes to making infrastructure investments in Norwalk, the State ignores us and serves up bacon-bits.

    I was just talking to Bob Duff about the widening of Route 7 between Grist Mill and the Merritt Interchange. He was concerned that the DOT didn’t tell him about the proposed widening project when he had met with them earlier in the week. Yet, the DOT was here in Norwalk, presenting its plan in its typical stealthy fashion.

    Note that if you drive route 7 at all, all of the ruts and potholes that I ranted about last year got repaved north of Norwalk. The Norwalk section remains as a patchwork mess.

    I’m tired of Norwalk getting bacon-bits, aren’t you?

  • 16 savit // Apr 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Trying to talk about preservation on this blog is like “trying to tell a stranger about rock and roll”. You will never, ever get the fact that the work taht prewrvationiest are doing can be GOOD FOR THE CITY ECONOMICALLY. Like SoNo better than 50 Washigton Street? Thank that dyanmite combination of Bill Collins and Valle Fay — the original Norwalk PResrvation Trust. The opposstion was fierce. How about Mathews Mansion? Like that better than a reflecting pool? Hug a preservationist. Tyhe city wanted to tear it down. Think And theyb fought hard to save it.

  • 17 turfgrrl // Apr 2, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    savit: I’d be pleasantly stunned if preservation talk actually happened here, but what’s been passing as preservation talk has been lots accusations that various people don’t care and nothing along the lines of constructive conversation.

  • 18 savit // Apr 2, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    Opps…incomplete send.

    Too fast on the previous send…here’s the rest of the post.

    What it takes to make good preervation happen is what we don’t have now — a city administration that is willing to work with preservationists –not try to dismiss them, marginalize them, and pull the rug out from under every effort. Let’s work together folks. To dismiss the knowledge and the hard work that good people have invested in the saving the buildings that are the visible reminders of Norwalk’s hsitory is simply shortsighted. Aren’t we all in this to create a better Norwalk? What am I missing here?

  • 19 savit // Apr 2, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    Hey, I’m willing to talk. But when you call presevation minded people “nut jobs” it kind of cuts into the openness of the dialogue, don’t you think?

  • 20 turfgrrl // Apr 2, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    savit: Yeah I shouldn’t use the word “nutjob”, however, someone posted an old comment of mine from last year without bothering to look at the rest of what I was referencing, and that’s what I said then. And as I stated above, I was making a comment on the two people who were cited in an article with statements that I found, er, nutty. So let’s move onto better discussion ground.

  • 21 Mike Lyons // Apr 2, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    I think its worth noting an interesting fact. Savit states “Like SoNo better than 50 Washington Street? Thank that dynamite combination of Bill Collins and Valle Fay — the original Norwalk Preservation Trust.” Absolutely true; Collins is largely responsible for the very successful Washington Street preservation / renewal. Yet as News 12 noted above, “Among the passionate are the current mayor of Norwalk, Alex Knopp, and three former mayors, Zullo, Collins and Esposito. They recently gathered to express their support of the proposed Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange. The one they say should have been built years ago except that opponents and funding issues stopped it in its tracks.” So Bill Collins, the saviour of Washington Street and preservationist par excellence, supports the original design for the Merritt interchange opposed by the recent preservationists. This means that either (i) Collins has become an apostate from the True Preservationist Faith, or (ii) the Merritt interchange really doesn’t have all that much historic preservation value. Which would you say is true?

  • 22 anonymous // Apr 2, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    Really what is the hold up? A frog that is endangered? A family of ducks that have no where else to nest? It has been at least twenty years in the making and with each year that goes by so does the price go up. By the time this thing gets built we will be able to beam ourselves to work like Scotty on Star Trec.

  • 23 Scott Piotrowski // Apr 3, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Interesting to hear comments directly from those involved. I’m only peripherally involved in the Merritt situation in that we have here in the LA area another old Parkway that is used as a freeway. Ours, the Arroyo Seco Parkway or Pasadena Freeway, has recently been named a National Scenic Byway. It was constructed in the late 1930’s and opened on 12/30/1940. It is considered the first freeway west of the Mississippi. It’s also the first freeway portion of Route 66.

    Obviously, from the standpoint of preservation, this is a great example of road-building technology mixing with architecture to enhance the scenic beauty of the area that the roadway went through. There should be little debate about the need for preservation.

    Yet there is. The ASP is sorely outdated for the traffic that it is expected to handle today. One possible way of enhancing traffic flow on the Arroyo Seco Parkway is to actually ELIMINATE one lane of traffic in each direction, thus lessening accidents by minimizing merging traffic. At least, that’s the theory.

    Anyway, the point of mentioning the Arroyo Seco Parkway was more this: CalTrans essentially will not do anything except necessary maintenance solely because the Parkway is eligible for the National Register. So no upgrades happen, but no improvements happen, either. I think that is really lacking here is an understanding on the part of ALL DOT’s about how to successfully navigate the preservation minefield to not only improve traffic issues but also satisfy preservation regulations.

    Those of you truly interested in the issues might wish to check out www.historicroads.org. They have a biennial conference in a different location every year in an effort to bring together preservationists and DOT’s to create a better understanding between the two. The next conference is April 2008 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Geeky sessions, but very enlightening.

  • 24 savit // Apr 3, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Regarding Mike Lyons comment: there is a iii) that perhaps the DOT was not completely open with Collins et.al, and that his support was based on incomplete information. I raise that as a possibility because the DOT was not exactly forthcomng with the facts during the hearing and tried to invent after the fact hearsy evidence to cover their actions.

    The presrvationits case was simple: CT DOT had not complied with Federal Transporation law section 4f which adresses environmental and historic resources. I’m not a lawyer, but a web site explains it like this.

    DE MINIMIS IMPACTS.—
    REQUIREMENTS.—
    REQUIREMENTS FOR HISTORIC SITES.—The requirements of this section shall be considered to be satisfied with respect to an area described in paragraph (2) if the Secretary determines, in accordance with this subsection, that a transportation program or project will have a de minimis impact on the area.
    ….
    HISTORIC SITES.—With respect to historic sites, the Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact only if—
    the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the consultation process required under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), that—
    the transportation program or project will have no adverse effect on the historic site; or
    there will be no historic properties affected by the transportation program or project;
    the finding of the Secretary has received written concurrence from the applicable State historic preservation officer or tribal historic preservation officer (and from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation if the Council is participating in the consultation process); and
    the finding of the Secretary has been developed in consultation with parties consulting as part of the process referred to in subparagraph (A).

    There’s more but that’s the gist. No doubt this is also in play in the Arroyo Seco case mentioned. There may be other laws since CA has some really good preservation statutes it seems to me.

    As an aside for all you Joe Lieberman supporters…Did you knoow that, while he was AG in CT, he was responsible for strengthening the AG’s involvement in protecting National Register properties under the CT Environmental Protection Act? He is also quite actively supporting historic preservation legislation currently. I guess he’s just another “nutjob” preservationist — like me.

  • 25 turfgrrl // Apr 3, 2007 at 10:52 am

    savit: There’s no apologists for the CT DOT here. Bt you are bringing up technicalities, and have yet to outline what exactly is being preserved by denying the original DOT plan.

  • 26 Mike Lyons // Apr 3, 2007 at 11:21 am

    Savit raises a possible point — DOT the best-run organization in the State? NOT! But I haven’t seen anything indicating that Collins has recanted his support for the original design (Knopp clearly still supports it). A 3/30/05 article on Cablevision’s site says “Former Mayor William Collins thinks dissenters are Stamford-based, fearful that that city might lose business to Norwalk if road improvements like the interchange were made.” I suppose he could have changed his mind since then, but there isn’t any evidence that he has.

  • 27 savit // Apr 3, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Jeepers, trying to talk sense on this site is like death by a thousand cuts. There’s always a nuance or a “gotcha”. OK..one more try and then I give up.

    Bill Collins is terrific on preservation; he disagrees on the Merrit interchange. He is an individual with an opinion. It does not change the fact that the parkway is a nationally designated resource, that there is Federal law on how to go about doing things that have an impact on national register resouces, and that the CT DOT ignored the law. If they had not, the interchange would have been built, the parkway’s historic value would be respected, everyone would be happy, and that would be that. Maybe you don’t like the Parkway, but — again — that is your personal opinion. It doesn’t change the law. You are certainly free to work to have the parkway undesgnated or change the law. However, as it stands now, the DOT was not in compliance.