YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: The Asphalt Jungle


by turfgrrl


July 13th, 2007 · 33 Comments

Connecticut overall has a problem with roads. On a recent trips to Boston, I noted that in Massachusetts, roads were well marked, paved, and maintained. It didn’t matter whether they were state roads, or city roads. In Connecticut it’s a hit or miss proposition on whether you find nice roads. Some towns have them. Others, like Norwalk, as Mayor Moccia said as a candidate not so long ago, you drive along potholes waiting for a road to jump out.

There are some roads the defy categorization. Quintard being one of them, a mixture of ruts, pot holes and speed bumps. Were I a resident on that road I would file secession papers. I’ve noted that Osborne street, never in great shape, has now been under some sort of attack repair, for over a month. At one point it was left with a strip of rut that no sub sub sub contractor should have ever considered acceptable.

That’s where the problems start though. The competitive bidding process, leads to contractors who get to the lowest bid by hiring a continuing line of people who will work for less and less money. Utility companies think that they have no obligation to repair roads to better standards than they found, let alone the same standards. UI managed to create troughs and ruts along main ave (route 7) through Wilton and Norwalk, but redid some patching in upper Wilton and Ridgefield because someone cared enough to complain.

DPW has even complained that they don’t know where all the sewer system manholes are because many have been paved over. Paving is not a complex project. It’s a problem in need of some common sense accountability. Like the letter appearing in today’s Hour:

To the Editor:

As a lifelong city resident, I would like to express my utter disappointment regarding the paving recently completed on Fullin Road.

To begin on a more positive note, it was a relief to see that a road in much disrepair was finally getting the attention it needed, but from the time the job began, it seemed to be an unorganized situation that lasted several weeks and will linger for several more.

The job began with the digging and grinding of the original pavement, which exposed the drainage systems. This became an obstacle course to drive through, not to mention a dangerous one as well.

The actual paving did not begin until several weeks later. My neighbors and I were quite pleased once the paving finally began but extremely upset with the tops of our driveways being left incompletely paved. I spoke to the appropriate contacts in the city, and they promised it would be repaired appropriately including the entire top of the driveway cut and patched accordingly. The Deering Paving Company came back on Friday, July 6, and only repaired half of the driveway.

I do not understand as a law-abiding taxpaying citizen what I have to do get something like this taken care of properly. I am extremely disappointed with our city and the company they hired to take care of a repair job that did not require even an hour to complete.

I do hope that this situation does not get added to the ever-growing list of disappointing situations in Norwalk. I have raised my family in this city, and my grandchildren are being raised here as well. I would like to remain a proud citizen with problems resolved in a timely and efficient manner.

Anthony Buono

Norwalk

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

33 Responses so far “Norwalk: The Asphalt Jungle”


Pages: [1] 2 » Show All



  • 1 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 8:16 am

    As I’ve said many times and in many forums, the neglect of our infrastructure — dating back through administrations Democratic as well as Republican — is appalling. This has got to end.

    I completely understand that people don’t want to pay more taxes; for what I pay for my mortgage, taxes, and insurance to live here on this “gold coast”, I could have bought a small town in my native Vermont. That’s why I advocating creative, non-traditional sources of revenue, starting with my proposal to create a Norwalk Power Authority now. With an NPA, we could give rate-payers lower-priced electricity while at the same time using a portion of the “profits” to fund infrastructure repairs and improvements. And it doesn’t have to stop there: the technology exists to run broadband over power lines, so the city could offer lower-cost Internet access (extremely important to help make students from our lower income families competitive in the job market). Once you have broadband, you can offer low cost telephone service – I use Vonage myself right now. And could lower cost cable be far behind?

    Admittedly, I have the dual advantage of knowing a bit about the electric industry due to my position as a Second Taxing District Commissioner, and more than a little bit about networking from my 28 years in data processing. But this isn’t rocket science. Bill Collins put forth a much more elaborate proposal over a year ago, and as near as I can tell, all that has been done is a request for a study which was not fully funded. The then mayor had the gall to expect the Second Taxing District – the poorest area in Norwalk – to pay 25% of this study from their rate revenues (in addition to funding their share of the city’s contribution through their property taxes).

  • 2 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:13 am

    Is it me, or does it seem that right after the taxpayers pay for a road to be paved, that within 2 months is seems that the Utility companies have to tear it up to get to their system? The road is then poorly patched, and with the first frost heave, looks like it did before it was paved in the first place.

  • 3 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:27 am

    While we were doing the Second Taxing District budget, I asked if it would make sense to replace aging water mains when a road was torn up for repaving. The problem is that predicting when a main will break is darned near impossible: “new” mains can give way for reasons totally unrelated to their age, while “old” mains can last for many, many more years.

  • 4 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:53 am

    I believe that it really is quite a simple fact. When repaving a road, there is a great deal of unusual vibration, equipment load, and the removal of long standing gravel support. This has to impact the integrity of any system in the ground at that location. The least that should be done is to have the utility check the age data on the system below that road before it is sealed. I know one instance where the road was paved, and within 24 hours the water main broke. Someone mentioned it was 100 years old when the got to it. I watched as the workers just tapped the pipe with a shovel and it collapsed into pieces, all along it’s length. They fixed that section, patched the newly paved road, and left the rest of the pipe untouched under the road. I think it is called preventive maintenance.

  • 5 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 10:11 am

    I agree that in that specific extreme example, much would have been saved had the main been examined. But as I said, age alone is not the only factor. As for the vibration, etc., that happens both when the old surface is removed and when the new surface is put down, so a main that is intact after the surface is removed may be compromised when the new surface is installed, regardless of the age of the pipe.

    The only sure way would be to expose the main, the sewer, and the storm drain for the entire length of the repaving so they can be inspected. That would greatly increase the cost of the repaving, greatly lengthen the time the street is torn up and impassible, and increase the cost your water company must charge to defray its costs. Are you willing to pay that price?

  • 6 turfgrrl // Jul 13, 2007 at 10:17 am

    It should just be part of an ongoing maintenance program to send cameras down pipers methodically on a schedule to inspect pipes. If the private sector can do it for oil pipelines then it should be done for water/sewer. Details aside, maintenance has to be an important part of the infrastructure budget.
  • 7 Sara Sikes // Jul 13, 2007 at 10:52 am

    Mike Geake,Congrats on being the only candidate (so far)to follow up on Bill Collin’s brilliant plan to buy the power plant and have Norwalk control its own electricity. The idea of also providing lower cost Internet telephony and television is truly exciting. I was really dismayed that our elected officials did not jump on the band wagon. Hopefully things will be different with the 2008 Common Council.

  • 8 Anonymous // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:00 am

    Sara Sikes-how do you know who and who did not jump on board with this? Perhaps a bit of insight is needed? Can you give a list of those he contacted and those who didn’t respond?

  • 9 turfgrrl // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:04 am

    MGeake: I think that the mayor suggested that the second taxing district contribute to the funding of the study to get it to happen. And why not, the second taxing district is a utility and thus has an obligation to reinvest revenue to improve services, one those being alternative energy creation. Saying its the poorest district makes little sense in that context. There are more industrial and commercial electricity users in the second taxing district that alter the equation.
  • 10 anon // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:14 am

    From what I understand, the city has donated towards the study and the Third Taxing district has donated towards the study but the second taxing district is the only one holding this up. What’s the problem?

  • 11 Anonymous // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:36 am

    Potholes sounds like a juicy campaign issue to me. Let’s hope someone jumps on it. Looks to be a pretty boring season otherwise.

  • 12 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:39 am

    The problem is that the Second Taxing District stands to gain absolutely nothing from the creation of the Norwalk Power Authority, even if the Collins’ proposal (takeover of Manressa) comes to pass, because we are in the process of rebuilding our own generating capacity. Our ratepayers will receive absolutely nothing from the NPA, and unless or until Manressa is owned and rebuilt by the NPA, “alternative energy” is nothing but a red herring.

    Now the other taxing districts (excepting the Third) will get their electric rates lowered by up to 30%. In what universe is it fair or reasonable to ask a low income ratepayer to subsidize the electric bills of high[er] income ratepayers??? Before coming to the Second and Third Taxing Districts, what was wrong with asking (expecting) the First and Sixth Taxing Districts to chip in? They’re the one’s who’ll benefit the most.

    As for the use of NPA “profits” for infrastructure, the Second Taxing District is already paying its fair share of the city’s contributions — we call that property taxes!

    As for the Third Taxing District, you’ll have to ask them what their ratepayers will gain by paying a second assessment.

  • 13 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:47 am

    MGeake wrote in post 5
    “Are you willing to pay that price?”

    Don’t we pay it in the long run when the road is torn up and damaged to the point that it only has 60% of it’s life remaining before it begins to deteriorate at the excavation patch site, and begins to pothole?

    Not to even mention the esthetics of a beautiful new road turned into a scarred Frankenroad.

  • 14 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:55 am

    I don’t have the percentage of time a road is torn up for utility repairs, so I really cannot do a cost/benefit analysis here on the fly. And forgive me this question, but what cash value do you place on “esthetics”? On the time a street is impassible due to construction?

  • 15 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    The end justifies the means.

  • 16 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    And it’s okay to torture ’cause the information you get is so darned reliable …

  • 17 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    I have no idea where you are coming from bringing torture into a discussion about streets. I take it that if you don’t have an answer you confuse the topic?

    You wrote in post 14.
    “cash value do you place on “esthetics”? On the time a street is impassible due to construction?”

    Let me see if I can explain myself on a simpler level.

    If a street has to be closed due to construction for 2 or even 3 weeks to see that the taxpayers cost for the job is not wasted, is not a problem.

    When you match it against a newly paved street being butchered and having to be stared at driven on, and falling apart, 24/7 for the next 25 or 30 years until it is POSSIBLELY re paved again.

    THAT IS TORTURE.

  • 18 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    I just thought we were sharing our favorite Republican platitudes to divert attention from the real issues!

    The ends don’t justify the means. Taxing people out of their homes and out of using water to prevent one occurrence in a thousand does not make sense, but paying a reasonable price to prevent a one in three or one in five occurrence would.

    All I want is real numbers, not hand waving and guessing, and neither of us has those at our disposal right now.

  • 19 Mike Lyons // Jul 13, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    Mike G., what you’re leaving out of the equation is that your proposal for the City Power Authority includes having the Second District manage operations in the western half of the City and the Third District do so in the eastern half (in advance of any possible purchase of the Manresa Plant). Perhaps you meant for the Districts to do so as charitable contributions without any compensation, but if you (quite reasonably) expect the Districts to be paid for their services, the proposal could be financially beneficial to the Districts as well as to the City. That was the reason the Mayor suggested cost-sharing between the City and the Districts on the study (I know this to be a fact, I was chatting with him about it during Dave Brown’s and your statements to the Board of Estimate during the budget public hearing).

    And while it is true that the Second District’s population is the lowest-income in Norwalk, let’s not forget that the Second District Water Department provides water to half of the City (outside of the District), at considerably higher rates than those charged to District residents, so it has sources of income derived from the higher-income areas of Norwalk. What is the Second District’s total annual budget, against which you consider $25,000 as a contribution to the study to be too much of a drain?

  • 20 MGeake // Jul 13, 2007 at 1:47 pm

    Admittedly the Taxing Districts would be reimbursed for the cost of temporarily servicing the NPA’s customers; the details of that compensation — should such an arrangement even come to pass — is the topic of a future negotiation. Without a firm commitment from the city that such an arrangement would be made, a commitment the city would not make prior to completion of the study, any investment by the Second Taxing District would be (to use your description) a charitable contribution.

    Given the wealth of the First and Sixth Taxing Districts, is $25,000 too big a drain to lower the electric rates of their residents?

  • 21 Ed Portman // Jul 13, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    As for the Third Taxing District, you’ll have to ask them what their ratepayers will gain by paying a second assessment.

    If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

  • 22 Mike Lyons // Jul 13, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    Ed Portman — agreed, the Third District has a good situation now and doesn’t need the City to go to public power to maintain its advantageous position. If the District was in a position to profit from service fees it could charge the City to operate part of the City’s network, however, it could make a very nice return on a $25K investment. Dave Brown and the Third District Commission evidently considered that to be the case, since they offered to put in $25K to match the City’s $50K.

  • 23 Ed Portman // Jul 13, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    Mike, I remember the big Dem/Rep wars over the third district. It didn’t need fixing then but at least it survived and is living well in East Norwalk. If we can make a few bucks for the district on an investment, great. I don’t want any part of becoming partners with anyone else. As far as ANOTHR FIX THAT IS NOT NEEDED. All the 3rd will get is headaches, so lets just Forgeddaboutit…..

  • 24 inout // Jul 13, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Sara you are incorrect in your assumptions.
    There is a power committee who was assigned the task of moving the idea along as long as it was feasible
    If I remember correctly it was Bill Krummel, Gywen Briggs, Doug Hempstead . They supported and requested funds for a study. .
    The Mayor,the BET and the C Council appropriated money in the 07-08 budget for a study.
    This is a complicated and very expensive proposal and will takes a long time to put together.

  • 25 Sara Sikes // Jul 13, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    I believe the statements from Mike Geake and Bill Collins to be sensible, that a study needs to be done by experts before the proposal goes anywhere.
    MAybe Mike Lyons will enlighten us to why the BOE didn’t decide to fund it fully. It seems like the majority of people in the city would benefit greatly.

  • 26 Anonymous // Jul 14, 2007 at 8:08 am

    This is a complicated and very expensive proposal and will takes a long time to put together.

    Especially if the city won’t even appropriate the money to study it.

  • 27 anon // Jul 14, 2007 at 8:50 am

    #26-if you read the above posting you will see that the city did appropriate $50,000 towards the study. Third taxing $25,000 and now they are waiting for SNEW to appropriate $25,000 for the $100,000 study.

  • 28 Anonymous // Jul 14, 2007 at 9:23 am

    And I’ve allocated $1000 for my new Corvette. I’m just waiting for my next door neighbor to allocate the rest …

    This is for the city, not the taxing districts. Why should they be expected to pay anything?

  • 29 anon // Jul 14, 2007 at 9:57 am

    Look, don’t shoot the messenger, I was just telling you what was said in an above posting. If the TTD and SNEW are going to be a part of a combined energy savings program then why wouldn’t they chip in? Hoiwever, the prospect of building a generation plant on Manresa is very unlikely due to the contamination factor and all the hazardous materials from yeqars and years of use. There doesn’t seem to be a logical place to build one and the costs involved would be staggering. But the idea of a study is good and the idea behind the study is good and will give an insite to the feasabilty of this but I still think the over all costs would be staggering.

  • 30 turfgrrl // Jul 14, 2007 at 10:01 am

    anon: Manresa is a generation plant, it just sends its electricity to Long Island instead of Connecticut.

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All

Leave a Reply