YourCT.com header image 2
← More on Dog Poop 93 East Ave and the Argonauts →

Route 7 Merritt Interchange Still In Play


by turfgrrl


May 15th, 2008 · 22 Comments

With State Rep Larry Cafero leading the way, residents of Silvermine got their opportunity to speak out on the proposed interchange design with officials from the DOT. A neighbourhood meeting was held at Silvermine elementary school. The Hours Robert Koch reports that meeting was attended by over 150 people, with the usual assortment of political flunkies on hand.

Raising concerns about traffic safety, and impacts on wetlands and woodlands, Silvermine residents told state Department of Transportation officials Wednesday night to dump what is known as the Modified Cloverleaf with Option D2 for the Route 7-Merritt Parkway interchange project.

Silvermine residents want the DOT to look closer at what is known as Alternate 12A. While retaining ramps near Main Avenue, Alternate 12A lacks the cloverleafs where the parkway meets the Route 7 Connector. As such, the design cuts less into the Silvermine neighborhood than does the cloverleaf design.

“Choosing between these two plans is a no-brainer for me,” said Nancy Meany. “The 12A plan has dramatically less impact on Silvermine, is substantially safer, keeps the development in the already commercialized (Main Avenue) corridor. … In my mind, the cloverleaf plan, in any form, is unacceptable, and I would like to see it completely taken off the table.”

Meany was one of numerous speakers to draw applause from the 150-plus person, standing room-only crowd inside the Silvermine Elementary School gymnasium Wednesday night for the public information meeting, which was arranged by state Rep. Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-142, house minority leader.

“The irony is, from my perspective, that the very people who sued, because they felt they were not having enough input from the public … really did not seek the approval, as much as I believe they should have, from the very people who are most affected by this project,” Cafero said. “And that is the Silvermine residents.”

Silvermine residents began sounding off about the cloverleaf design after a DOT informational meeting at City Hall on March 18. Then, DOT officials explained various alternative designs for the interchange overhaul, which was halted by a lawsuit brought by the Merritt Parkway Conservancy and other preservationist groups in 2005.

Seems like the Merritt Parkway Conservancy spent little time working with the Silvermine residents who actually live within the proposed interchange area. Which is an odd position to take.

The meetings are not quite done yet either. Another one is scheduled for May 29th at city hall around 7 pm.

source: The Hour, Silvermine residents sound off to DOT, By ROBERT KOCH, May 16, 2008

Tags: Norwalk · Transportation

22 Responses so far ↓ “Route 7 Merritt Interchange Still In Play”



  • 1 silvermine lover // May 15, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    The MPC is a front for powerful real estate interests, and they were just about to give the shaft to Silvermine neighborhood residents in order to keep the ramps of Alternate 12A away from their buildings (namely Merrittview and a proposed building on the old Caldor parking lot.)

    Many well-meaning preservationists and other supporters of the cloverleaf who spoke in favor of it at the March 18th meeting at City Hall, were duped by a slick PR campaign waged by the MPC for months before that meeting that presented the cloverleaf as the best solution, without mentioning the 6,000 trees to be removed, the major safety compromises,the traffic jams, the neighborhood that would be destroyed, the wetlands destroyed, or even the fact that the cloverleaf would be much uglier than Alternate 12A because it would wipe out a quarter mile of trees along the parkway. We forgive everyone who once supported the cloverleaf, since their support was mostly based on flat-out lies from the MPC. It really was too good to be true. Alternate 12A is the best option, if you just look at the plans carefully.

    As Ricky used to say to Lucy, the MPC “has a lot of splainin to do.”

    The truth came out last night. Hooray for Silvermine!

  • 2 Judy Wasserman // May 16, 2008 at 10:28 am

    I have heard a lot of comments on many boards that speak to the fact that the residents of Silvermine are just a bunch of priviledged people that are whining that they don’t want an interchange in their backyard and are self consumed that they want to put their neighborhood on top of the good of all CT drivers.

    Let me state this, we are all in favor of progress, like many others there are Silvermine residents including my husband that commutes everyday on the Merritt to Greenwich.

    My block in particular which is very affected by CHOICE of options are a great mix of white and blue collar workers that are a great representation of the body of CT on a whole.

    We see the Merritt Parkway everyday.

    What we are stating and want people to understand is that there is another option Alt 12A on the table, already drawn out that only goes into the already built up commercial corridor instead of jutting into a wonderful historic community.

    There are choices people, the Alt 12A is safer, takes down less tress, harms much less wetlands and does save a historic neighborhood in the process.

    Who are the ones crying here, the multi million dollar owners of the Merritt Buildings corridor. That is what we want people to wake up to. Come to the next meeting on May 29th. The facts are pretty compelling. Hear for yourself the choices and why 12A is the best option.

    Thank you
    Judy Wasserman

  • 3 David Waters // May 16, 2008 at 10:47 am

    #1 and #2, you paint with too broad a brush. The owner of Merrittview is deeply involved with the MPC, but the owner of “the old Caldor parking lot” is not.

    The very original plan had a ramp running right through (above) the parking lot, and DOT incorrectly believed that the property was undevelopable and that all they would need was a taking of a few parking spaces for a couple of piers for the ramp. We objected, and they moved the ramp to the edge of the property on the DOT land — which is how 12A came into being. We were satisfied with that solution and we take no position on the relative merits of the proposals currently under consideration, or any other proposals for that matter, as long as they don’t go through our property.

    David Fite Waters
    General Counsel
    Building and Land Technology

  • 4 robert larsen // May 16, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Silvermine has been raped twice already since 1973 when I bought my home here. First by a monster expressway crashing through our woods and wetlands all the way to Wilton. Second by the practically Eiffel Tower sized pylons of the power lines (which in other communities along that corridor have somehow miraculously been buried underground–why not in Silvermine?) down to the power station in Broad River. I fought (and lost) against both of those violations. Now, it is to be a third rape of Silvermine by clear cutting 20 or more acres of mature forest in order to construct a new monstrosity in the form of the cloverleaf interchange? We say no, no, and no! Not this time! Those woods are a buffer against rapes #1 and #2. Please come to the meeting on May 29 at Norwalk City Hall in order to inform yourselves about the many safety, environmental, and aesthetic reasons why the cloverleaf option is and ought to be a dead issue. All you have to do, really, is look at the overlay maps of the two options–cloverleaf and Alternate 12 A–to see the difference in terms of detriment to Silvermine and to the countryside along the Merritt.

  • 5 Judy Wasserman // May 16, 2008 at 11:10 am

    # 3. Thank you David Waters for coming out and explaining that. I think all facts laid out on the table is a good thing going forward. I think the only ones at this point against 12A is the MPC and the DOT which is only because they are being strongarmed by the MPC.

    12A is and can be a very viable option that will help the Merritt Parkway, help the business along this corridor and keep the construction where it belongs.

    Thank you
    Judy Wasserman

  • 6 one who knows // May 16, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Thank Bob Duff and Alex Knopp for our power line rape.

  • 7 Anonymous // May 16, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    More Knopp than Bob.

  • 8 Alan Kibbe // May 16, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Thanks for the input #3. How is it then, that you and your client were so asleep at the switch that ConnDOT was able to bid and execute construction contracts that would build a ramp across your property? The overhead ramp from the Original Design is shown on older detailed maps of this propery in City Hall.

    When did you finally object? The MPC finally purchased plans of the interchange in 2004, after construction had commenced, claiming they hadn’t seen final plans of the project. That seemed unusual to the judge who decided the MPC’s lawsuit, since the MPC was involved in years of planning and sat on the Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee which approved the original interchange design.

    Did you, too, wait until the project was in construction to make your objection? It strikes me as odd that your client would plan a new office building where the site plan shows an overhead roadway. We’d be interested to know.

  • 9 silvermine lover // May 16, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    The DOT plans clearly show the state right-of-way
    line right through the big red square labelled “proposed building” in the old Caldor parking lot. When was this land transferred/sold to Building and Land Technology?

    Why were the original plans approved without protest, then all of a sudden the original plan is no longer any good?

    3 years ago after the interchange was started, MPC began a well-funded and slick PR campaign that labelled the original plan as an assault on the precious Parkway, gets passionate local preservationists involved as willing partners who are appalled that the big bad DOT would “ruin” the parkway, they initiate the lawsuit paid for by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (MPC chairman Malkin who owns Merrittview and the Empire State Building is one of the National Trusts biggest donors-he gets a nice tax write-
    off by indirectly funding a lawsuit through a non-profit, which means you and I have helped pay for the lawsuit to stop the original interchange which would have been almost done by now and have cost us taxpayers millions less than even the “cheap” cloverleaf will. Brilliant.
    Malkin gets the ramps away from his Class A fully occupied Merrittview, and BLT gets their footprint expanded for their new high-rise just a stone’s throw away across the parkway.

    Who wins? The ones with the money and the lawyers, none of whom live in Norwalk but in back-country Greenwich on palatial estates.

    Who loses? The residents of Norwalk and the entire region, but especially the residents of Silvermine who were going to end up with an interchange in their backyards well away from the fancy office buildings, the thousands of local drivers and families including accident victims on Main Ave. who have to deal with the mad crush of inter-highway traffic on that nightmare of a local street, the tens of thousands of daily commuters who are stuck on the highway because of the inadequate ramps at Main Ave. and the missing links, which causes miles-long backups in both directions at rush hours.

    Basically the entire population of a region is being held hostage by a few rich and smart men who will stop at nothing to pad their pockets. How many more millions do these people need to be happy?

    When will the truth come out? Probably never,
    because Mr. Malkin is married to the daughter of CT Attorney General Blumenthal.

    It is time for the governor to clean this mess up, and demand Alternate 12A get built as soon as possible.

  • 10 Louis Morris // May 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Starting to sound like Super 7

  • 11 David Olson // May 17, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Safety continues to be my biggest concern with the interchange project. I am in full support of making the connection between rte. 7 and the Parkway. We must, though, ensure that the chosen design is safe for motorists and is an efficient design that will not create additional congestion. There is a tremendous amount of research against the cloverleaf and modified cloverleaf design. Both designs feature a weaving traffic pattern - cars that want to enter the Parkway merge left while cars that want to exit merge right. Experts state that for a cloverleaf to be effective, you must have at least one mile between the on ramp and off ramp. Otherwise, the weaving traffic will be dangerous and will create congestion. The proposed modified cloverleaf design features 800-1000 feet of weave space - less than 1/5 of a mile. In addition, research shows that congestion occurs when more than 1,000 cars use the ramps per hour. At least 5,000 cars per hour use the southbound Parkway during the morning rush hour (this count was actually done at 6:30 am, before the height of rush hour). We all know about the incredible congestion issues that already exist on the Parkway. Why would we want to add a design that adds to congestion? Cloverleafs are reserved for rural areas where there is a tremendous amount of space for large ramps and long weaving sections, not for urban and suburban areas with limited space. They are being unisntalled and redesigned all over the world. Why would we install one?

    Larry Cafero - against the cloverleaf
    Bob Duff - against the cloverleaf
    Kelly Straniti - against the cloverleaf
    Doug Hempstead - against the cloverleaf
    NASH - against the cloverleaf
    Tom Harley (CT DOT) - “The DOT prefers Alternate 12A.”

    I am struggling to understand why the Merritt Parkway Conservancy has the power to move the CT DOT away from their preferred design. Why is the DOT more concerned with appeasing the MPC than with creating the safest interchange possible? Perhaps the above statements help explain.

    I hope all attend the May 29 meeting at City Hall - 7:00 pm. Let’s make sure that the state knows that we want the safest interchange possible.

  • 12 TILII - TELL IT LIKE IT IS // May 19, 2008 at 9:36 am

    In today’s Hour there is a story about how there may be a conflict of interest on the part of the Parkway Conservancy. The chairman of the Conservancy is also the owner of the office building that would be affected by the original design, but not by the Cloverleaf. The conservancy seems to work hand in hand with developers, and as we know most of them put money before neighborhood residents, or driving safety. This story will not go away, and I believe that it is no coincidence that the conservancy lobbied and tried to strong arm the residents of Silvermine in the hope that they would just lay down and shut up, like good peasants should. It is time that the developers, who have been running wild in this city, have their methods dragged out and examined in the light of day. The Conservancy has denied any conflict of interest, but what do you expect them to say, “Yeah! We were just protecting our investments, not yours.” If it smells like crap, feels like crap, and looks like crap, I don’t have to taste it to know it is crap. The little guy who owns a home in this city has had it up to their eyeballs, with this type of under the table dealing. They have drawn a line in the sand, and those who cross it had better be ready to open their books and files, to the attorney general.

  • 13 Anonymous // May 19, 2008 at 10:31 am

    I agree with you #12. And the turn out at the last meeting was great and should be at the May 29th meeting. However, the DOT are professionals at “handling” residents and then doing whatever they want. The only thing that gets their attention, as the MPC has demonstrated, is litigation. Regardless of the May 29th meeting’s outcome, as they will all say anything to pacify us, we should pursue litigation against the DOT AND the Merritt Parkway Conservancy to stop the insanity of the Cloverleaf!!!

  • 14 Anon // May 19, 2008 at 10:39 am

    Don’t the homeowners have a similar conflict of interest in oppssing the cloverleaf — that it has a detrimenal impact on their property? Why fight among yourselves? Get together and force the DOT to develop a plan that works for BOTH homeowners and the conservancy. The DOT must love the fact that there’s dissent among the dissenters. Plays right into their hands and will let them do whatever they want.

  • 15 Anonymous // May 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    Yeah, 14, all those annoying kids are a conflict of interest.

  • 16 Anon // May 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Huh? One plan is better for kids? What are you talkng about?

  • 17 Anon // May 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    DID ANYONE EVER THINK OF THIS…..put it out to a public vote. I bet the MP Conservancy people would have their a**es handed to them. It’s a highway, people, not a Michealangelo. Enough is enough. The area is growing in population, jobs, residences, businesses, and traffic, but these MP dopes think it is OK to make people have to wait in traffic longer than they already do. Progress takes priority over the highway’s “charachter.” I agree that commercial traffic should still not be allowed, but the whole highway needs to be expanded to 3 lanes in both directions, and also make the interchange between 7 and 15 accessable in all directions.

  • 18 Anonymous // May 20, 2008 at 10:44 am

    The MPC has said they will only accept a cloverleaf solution which is unsafe and compromises the Silvermine neighborhood while protecting commercial property. The MPC has been less than transparent regarding their actions and statements. There is no common ground to work out a solution with them. Unfortunately, litigation is the only thing that the MPC and DOT will pay attention to.

  • 19 robert larsen // May 24, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    # 14 suggests that the home owners of Silvermine have a conflict of interest. This is absurd. The home owners admit forthrightly that they have interests–safety, congestion, aesthetic interests, and yes, quality of life and value of property interests. But there is nothing hidden “behind a curtain.” The MPC, on the other hand, says one thing–preservation of the integrity and beauty of a national landmark–and then in fact acts to protect moneyed real estate interests on Main Avenue and in the commercial corridor. Therein lies a conflict of interest. A real one!

  • 20 Prospective Silvermine Resident // May 25, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    Does anyone know how far West the development of the cloverleaf design would go? As far West as Perry Avenue? Further? I have not been able to visit City Hall to see the design because of an unexpected business trip, and I want to be prepared for this week’s meeting. Many thanks! Go, Silvermine!

  • 21 Stuck on Rt 7 // May 25, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    FINISH THE GD RT 7 CONNECTOR INCLUDING THE CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGE NOW !!!!!!

    Enough of the insane lawsuits by a few wacko’s who faint every time hedge is trimmed.

    Oh by the way…. #6 Got it right !

  • 22 Claire Schoen // May 26, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    @#20 - The Cloverleaf design will result in destruction of woodlands and wetlands all the way over the Perry Avene, while Alternate 12A will contain contstruction in an already-developed area around Main Avenue. @#21 - Get your facts right - the litigious “wackos” are not tree-huggers, they are commercial real estate developers who are representing themselves as a Conservancy. They put forth a plan that is less safe for drivers and more damaging to the environment.
    Come to the meeting on Thursday at City Hall and look at the maps to see for yourself. 6:30 for public review of the maps; 7:30 for public hearing. There is alot at stake here for Norwalk and for anyone who drives these roads on a regular basis.

Leave a Reply