Description
Be very careful crossing the tracks on your bike. Go slow and cross perpendicular to the rails. Signage is desperately needed. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elmcitycycling/message/8023
resolution2012
Be very careful crossing the tracks on your bike. Go slow and cross perpendicular to the rails. Signage is desperately needed. See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elmcitycycling/message/8023
resolution2012
222 Comments
Ben (Guest)
I believe that public official also watches this website.
A little help Mr. Anonymous public official? :-)
I also know another person who was injured here for this very reason.
Mark (Guest)
Not fixed yet. Signage and road markings are really needed before someone dies while crossing this. An astonishing number of people have been injured trying to cross these tracks.
This is a major designated city bicycle route, and the only real viable connection from the East Shore to Downtown New Haven. Consequently, it is used by many first-time cyclists, including many people who are new to the city.
Anonymous (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
jo (Guest)
Kira (Guest)
Mike (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
Rob Rocke (Registered User)
ben (Guest)
Please do something about this.
eE (Guest)
Anstress Farwell (Guest)
David Streever (Registered User)
It's a no-brainer. Although, I've ridden the bridge at many hours, and never felt particularly in danger, I can see where an inexperienced cyclist may feel endangered. Not really much of a fix though, except a seperate path (such as widening the sidewalk). Does anyone have a real fix for that issue?
There are plenty of fixes for the railroad tracks, which have caused any number of accidents....
Resident (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Preston Wiles (Guest)
Mark (Guest)
"THis is a very dangerous rail crossing. Many many cyclists have gone down here, both those who didnt know about its reputation and those who did and took precautions."
I think that says it all. Anyone who minimizes the danger of the track crossing is woefully misguided.
Brian's suggestions RE: the bridge would work, or just narrowing the lanes that are there to create a buffered lane for cyclists (image of a buffered lane at left). The improvements would be best if they at least stretched back to East Street and included intersection treatments there - as bad as the bridge itself and its high speeds are, the East Street/Route 1 intersection is potentially just as bad, for the simple reason that the multi-modal traffic volumes are so high.
These issues represent a huge barrier preventing our neighborhoods from coming together.
Portland, Oregon has great examples of what to do on major bridges, as Brian could point out.
Here is some additional background: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elmcitycycling/message/9183
David Streever (Registered User)
To the best of my knowledge, no one has dismissed that the rr crossing is dangerous :)! I think that has been acknolwedged on all levels.
Brian, can you post some of those examples? I think that a buffered bike lane isn't really sufficient for the class of users incapable of riding on this bridge safely. Let's also note that this is state property, so anything that we can think of will have to meet/exceed CT State requirements. I'm a big fan of any of the possibilities for the rr crossing, but not so enthused about the bike lane concept for the bridge. I think widening the sidewalk & making it a mix use is probably a safer device in practical terms: if the problem is a callous disregard for safety/life as has been attested to, I'm not sure that some paint--even with bollards--is going to be the safest or best possible solution. I think it'd be better to continue the "standard" which may be established when the routes from downtown to the park area are established: there may be an opportunity for an off-street (i.e. widened mix-use sidewalk much like by IKEA, and commonly used through Madison WI very, very effectively).
I think bike lanes are counter to the policy of Complete Streets--they take a class of users off the road/street--but in order to address the very real safety concern here, I think it's probably worth considering an off-road mixed-use path, that allows cyclists to continue to use the road if they so desire, but gives them a safer option off the street. I think when you put in a bike lane--especially a clear, buffered one--you restrict cyclists choices & abilities, and send a mixed message to drivers.
Just as an aside, I rode this bridge 3-4 times a week for several months, at the height of commute time, & did not personally feel in danger. It was part of a mid-week "New Haven to Middlesex valley" Century route I rode once a week throughout the summer, using this bridge every morning between 8 & 9 AM. I had no close calls & no panicked moments here... I would personally feel safer & part of the street scape continuing to ride in the street, & if we remove 2 full traffic lanes for a buffered bike lane, we essentially remove that option from myself & the large number of commuter/recreational cyclists I see clipping along at 20 mph here.
A serious danger--to me--is the RR Crossing which is long over-due for a fix.
Mark (Guest)
The bridge design is obviously a longer discussion, and there would be many needs for transportation planners to assess, including the financial cost of doing things like widening a sidewalk for a mixed-use trail (that may be too expensive as a short-term option). Design isn't a black or white issues - buffered lanes are successfully used in many other places, and not used in others.
The key is to make it possible for everyone to cross safely, even families who are cycling along with young children in tow (like on many of the Arts & Ideas festival tours). The bridge is a small part of a much larger network of hundreds of miles of roads, so if implementing a safer crossing means that you have to slow down drivers or cyclists temporarily to get them safely across, then that might not necessarily be the worst choice.
Anyways, let's get the issues on the table and fixed as soon as possible (preferably before the weather gets nicer and Q-bridge construction starts) - the time for discussing specific design measures would be later!
David Streever (Registered User)
Hi Mark,
Sorry, I'm not trying to debate you. I'm fully aware of what you're saying, & appreciate your POV. Just sharing mine, also.
I'm saying that I personally do not favor a buffered lane like you propose. That's all! No need to explain design to me, but I appreciate you taking the time.
Thanks.
Augustine Filomena (Guest)
Mark (Guest)
The fact that almost 100 different people have voted on the need to "fix" this issue, not to mention the personal testimonies of so many local citizens who have seen their friends fall here and become injured, is an indication that this problem is probably worse than anyone realized.
And this is just among a small percentage of the population using SeeClickFix!
David Streever (Registered User)
is it a slow work day? :)
No, really, I'm not debating that this is a dangerous RR street crossing! I added myself to the list of people too, and have been pushing for this for years. I don't understand why you keep posting "proofs"? I fully agree. I'm not sure why you seem intent on "establishing" the danger here? as you wrote, it's self-evident. I was going to call you earlier to try to explain because I think you must misunderstand me, but couldn't find your #. I don't think SCF needs to be a debate platform. Give me a call if you still think I'm opposing you on this! 203 843 1866. I'm a little surprised by the volume of your response.
Mark (Guest)
matthew (Guest)
it needs to be mended.
Lisa (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
Captain Kickstand (Guest)
Something should be done to make this intersection safer; I'll leave the 'what' to the experts and the decision-makers but I have seen several experienced cyclists fall crossing those tracks. Riding over them in a group--even a small one--introduces another variable in addition to the volume and speed of local traffic.
There are two issues at work; first, the dangerous RR crossing and second, the inhospitable nature of the road. Personally, I've had more than one close encounter with an angry motorist on that bridge, but would be reluctant to be shuttled onto some kind of half-assed segregated bike path. However, I would feel very differently if I was riding across it regularly with children as I have done on several occasions when guiding bicycle tours.
Any chance of a conversation with the relevant state and city officials?
Anonymous (Guest)
jeffb (Guest)
ben (Guest)
Nursick, Kevin J (Guest)
We have been contacted directly by members of the public regarding the
Tomlinson Bridge. We are in fact reviewing the issue, and will be
responding to those who have contacted us, pending the completion of our
review.
Kevin
Ben (Guest)
It would be excellent if you would create a watch area on this site with your information or at least post that info here.
There is growing frustration in Greater New Haven from many members of the public that the state is inaccessible and unresponsive.
Please browse this site to see all of the other issues on your properties related to poor maintenance, graffiti, and dangerous areas for cyclists and pedestrians.
Thank You.
Ben (Guest)
Thanks in advance for your attentiveness to the situation.
Mark (Guest)
Kevin: Thank you for opening a review of the road configurations. Are you looking into the bridge design, or just the railroad crossing (or both)?
We appreciate your attention to these issues as soon as possible.
Thank you again!
Mark
Chris (Guest)
There is a clear need, plenty of money already, and plenty of space to do the right thing here and make this crossing and overall route safer for everyone. Personally, I would never ride with my kids out to Lighthouse Point from the west side because of this specific issue.
Kevin, thank you for looking into this. Please keep everyone here posted on the progress you and your colleagues are making in the coming weeks. Can you share the timeline and process for your review?
Chris
Mark (Guest)
Chris, by "plenty of money" do you mean that you think that a very small portion of the $1 billion used for the two highway bridges should be diverted to creating a truly safe and convenient bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure between Downtown New Haven, East Shore and all of the eastern suburbs of the city?
Do you think the DOT would listen to a proposition like that?
Spending $1 billion on highways to cross a small river, but in the process creating a huge obstacle for the huge proportion of NH residents who don't drive to work every day, seems like something that should be addressed. Particularly if the site is just going to get worse over the next 5 years due to the $750M+ Q bridge project.
Chris (Guest)
Mark (Guest)
That's a good idea, Chris - the city is probably following this, could they push that question as well?
Commissioner Joe Marie from ConnDOT is presenting at a national "sustainable transit" panel with Chris Dodd this month in Washington -- perhaps he would want to call the Q-bridge project back for a review in order to show that when the government spends nearly $1 billion to get cars across a small harbor, it needs to do a better job incorporating pedestrians and cyclists. 1% of the project budget would be more than enough to create a viable connection here for the majority of NH residents who don't drive to work every day.
Mark (Guest)
I did some investigation and found out that the Waterfront Street crosswalk, the one that continues in the direction of the bridge sidewalk towards the neighborhood and which is seriously faded, is in fact a ConnDOT responsibility. I hope that it will be restriped as soon as the warmer weather hits (April-October is the window for epoxy paint).
Word is that DOT is apparently looking into fixing the railroad crossing (great!), with a report due around April 1st. They are not currently looking into addressing the bridge situation overall. In other words they aren't convinced that the speeding on the bridge, or the lack of attractive ped/bike facilities, is a serious issue.
If you disagree with the DOT and would like to see the bridge situation addressed, please send your comments to http://www.dotdata.ct.gov/contacts/contact.aspx. Yes, DOT actually reads these comments (and if you have time, you can copy them here so that other citizens can refer to them).
Anonymous (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/29/news/ctbikes.txt
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Oh wait...never mind. I just took a look at the google maps street view and I guess this is an example of a false memory. I always used ride up onto the sidewalk and then back down into the bike lane in order to come at the tracks at a more perpendicular angle. I could have sworn there was a sign telling bicyclists to do that, but I don't see one in the photo.
At any rate, as you can probably guess from this photo, it is a lot less scary to ride on this street than Forbes Ave, even though the traffic is essentially the same (lots of huge trucks driving 55 mph).
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
PS. In response to snow/ice issue raised in the Register article, I'm pretty sure the steel/concrete plating visible in the photo above is safe for trains in all weather conditions.
Also, here are side-by-side aerials of the two crossings. I'll let you decide what conclusions to draw from them.
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Resident (Guest)
bridge user (Guest)
Brian Tang (Guest)
Mark Abraham (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
http://www.dotdata.ct.gov/contacts/contact.aspx
Kam Lasater (Registered User)
At the suggestion of the previous commenter I submitted a complaint. I would encourage everyone else to do the same. Feel free to copy my entry if you want.
-------------- Report to CT DOT --------------------
Location: Westbound Route-1 / Forbes Ave on the east side of the Tomlenson bridge / Quinnipiac river. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.296284,-72.902294&spn=0.00109,0.002071&t=h&z=19)
This intersection is extremely dangerous for cyclists. The rail road tracks for the port cut across the roadway at an angle that makes riding treacherous and hazardous for bicyclists.
I have commuted by bike in three different cities around the country. I am also an avid recreational road cyclist. This is by far the most dangerous intersection I've encountered.
Thank you for your attention. I await your swift reply.
-Kam
traffic watcher (Guest)
traffic watcher (Guest)
Resident (Guest)
Resident (Guest)
per (Guest)
Rachel (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Tom Petersen (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Please remember to put in comments to http://www.dotdata.ct.gov/contacts/contact.aspx if you haven't already.
Comments related to the entire bridge/sidewalk issues, not just the rail crossing (which DOT has already acknowledge is an issue) would be helpful.
Thanks Kam for copying everyone here on the comments.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
On low-speed, lightly traveled railroad tracks, commercially available flange way fillers can eliminate the gap next to the rail. The filler normally fills the gap between the inside railbed and the rail. When a train wheel rolls over it, the flange way filler compresses. This solution, however, is not acceptable for high-speed rail lines, as the filler will not compress fast enough and the train may derail. -ConnDOT Bicycle Design Guidelines, Page 42
I don't believe that this is a high speed, heavily traveled rail line. In fact I have never seen a single train use it in over 10 years of living here.
Resident (Guest)
Sally (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
I have heard that signage similar to the one pictured above in the 03/04/2009 at 05:44PM post should be installed in the near future.
Also, last time I talked with them, some folks from Elm City Cycling were looking into other possible next steps.
Larry (Guest)
I remember a few years back that caution warnings were painted in the roadway on the approach, this is where most cyclists would see it.
I have not fallen at this spot, but I personally know some that have. The alternate rout is the Ferry St bridge, but that has an open steel deck with nubbies.
Anonymous (Guest)
I feel like ConnDOT and the city transportation department should be legally required to provide accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities on urban streets the same way that business owners are legally required to provide accommodations for the disabled though the Americans with Disabilities Act. I feel like this was the intent of the Complete Streets bill unanimously passed by the Board of Aldermen. Judging by the Whitney Ave fiasco, the Complete Streets policy might not be as legally binding as we thought it was.
My question for the RR crossing is whether the state might be liable for injuries or damage to bicycles resulting from inadequate bicycle accommodations on Forbes Ave at the railroad crossing. After all, if the entrance to a business or public builing is accessible only by stairs (i.e. no wheelchair ramp is provided) I am pretty sure they are not allowed to just post a sign saying "CAUTION: Stairs not recommended for disabled persons" and call it good; they have to actually provide a safe alternative.
My guess is that the State would point to the sidewalk as the "safe" alternative, claiming that bicyclists should dismount and walk their bikes the mile or so across the river. I find this a rather weak legal arguement and suspect it wouldn't hold up in a civil suit. Who knows? Are there any lawyers in the house? Is this a sound legal arguement?
J.B. (Guest)
David Streever (Registered User)
Yet another cyclist went down there--a very experienced cyclist--because the cyclist in front of her crashed.
Broke her wrist. Off the bike for 6 weeks.
Thanks DOT. Thanks City of New Haven.
Jim (Guest)
There's an article on this in the Register today
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/07/06/news/new_haven/a1_mon_necycling_art.txt
J.B. (Guest)
" 'James Newman, acting engineering administrator at the state Department of Transportation, in an e-mail to an Elm City Cycling member, said “it was not possible to improve the rail crossing geometry given the constraints of the location.'
When the DOT says something is "not possible" it's their way of saying that even though it's been done successfully elsewhere, they haven't done it themselves and have no interest in learning how.
Given the fact that they are one of the least respected DOTs in the country, their arrogance is astounding.
You'd think an agency with a track record as blemished as theirs might consider being open to new ideas rather than clinging to failed policies of the past. "
Lara (Guest)
Gray (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
David Streever (Registered User)
if you've been injured here, PLEASE file an intent to sue the state.
you don't actually have to sue, and it lets them know that we are serious.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
According to the DOT, the new signage (similar to the first photo on this thread) will be installed by the end of the day tomorrow.
To the injured person above -- there have already been two recent pieces in the Register on this. I'd encourage you to call WTNH and other stations, though, as they might do a TV piece too. If you aren't willing to be in the piece, I'm sure they could talk to some of the same people who were quoted in the Register feature piece - see http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/29/news/ctbikes.txt. There are plenty of people who are willing to speak out about this!
You should also mention that the Governor signed the "Complete Streets" bill into law last weekend, which requires bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on all roads (with few exceptions, certainly a road like the Tomlinson that is the only connection between New Haven and the east side of the city would not be excluded).
Please continue to post information and more details on this thread so that we have good documentation.
It's great the signs are going in, and hopefully we'll see even more progress very quickly. I know that the Tomlinson Bridge has become an issue of concern to the city, too, and that they're looking into longer term solutions.
This has even been highlighted nationally: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2009/07/07/clicking-to-connect-with-government-and-get-things-fixed/
Anonymous (Guest)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
[drawing of bike signal with "dinner plate" advisory bicycle pavement markings]
thoughts?
Resident (Guest)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
ben (Guest)
puzzled observer (Guest)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
cyclist (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Sara (Guest)
Resident (Guest)
puzzled observer (Guest)
To ask for a Board of Aldermen hearing, write to its President, Carl Goldfield. He could assign it to either the Public Safety Committee or the City Services and Environmental Policy Committee.
Carl Goldfield:
Ward29@newhavenct.net
Anonymous (Guest)
Resident (Guest)
juli (Registered User)
WIMBY! (Guest)
Mark Abraham (Guest)
Juli, I suggested exactly that to the DOT when I heard they were planning signs. Despite the fact that I ride this road regularly and my extensive pleas for them to reconsider their position, they were simply not willing to listen.
Hopefully, continued pressure from the city and residents will create new opportunities for improvements.
Anonymous (Guest)
Ben (Guest)
Crossed over the tracks last night.
The situatuation has gotten much worse.
There are orange barricades that force you right into line with the tracks.
Can these be adjusted better...more people are going to get hurt.
Also, the signs are not noticeable to cyclists who are focusing on a high traffic high speed road.
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Resident (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
If you are concerned about the issue of cars parked on the bridge and blocking the sidewalks (or just want to report cars parked there), which is a frequent occurrence, someone has opened a separate issue. Head over and vote.
http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/7750
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
"Hit cyclist joins Tomlinson Bridge Club"
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/bridge_claims_a.php
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Because bridge roadways are often especially dangerous, it is not at all uncommon for bikes to be routed onto the sidewalk (i.e. transitioning from a bike lane to a sidewalk-level bike path—a.k.a. “cycle track”). In fact, I had never seen it done any other way before moving to the east coast.
In doing this, the important thing is to make it 100% clear where bikes are supposed to be. For example, the street markings on the Broadway Bridge in Portland, OR direct bikes directly from the bike lane up onto the sidewalk (see aerial photo from bing.com/maps: http://bit.ly/lHAk1). The Morrison Bridge in Portland is currently being retrofitted to widen the sidewalk on one side from 5 ft to 15 ft by eliminating one travel lane. (shortened link to project website: http://bit.ly/1pDrea). This 15-ft sidewalk will serve bi-directional bike traffic and I think it would probably be the closest model for the Tomlinson Bridge.
Bike riders are not required (nor intended) to dismount while riding on cycle tracks, as they are basically considered bike lanes that just happen to be located at the sidewalk level as opposed to the roadway level.
There are two major engineering obstacles to accommodating bi-directional (non-dismounted) bike traffic on the Tomlinson Bridge sidewalk:
First there is the problem of safely getting bicyclists traveling toward downtown on the East Shore side of the bridge from the right-hand side of the road to the left-hand side where the sidewalk/shared-use path is located. I recommend that this be accomplished using a bike signal at the RR crossing that would halt all traffic and permit bikes to cross Forbes Ave at a diagonal, riding from the right side up to the sidewalk on the left-hand side. Conveniently, this would also solve the problem of the awkward geometry of the RR crossing.
The second problem is that the Forbes Ave right-of-way narrows down substantially between the RR crossing and the bridge itself, perhaps to as narrow as 40–50 ft (don’t quote me on this, as I’m just eyeballing it from aerial photos). I honestly have no idea how to overcome this problem, seeing as how there are huge gas tanks preventing CTDOT from having any realistic prospects of widening the right-of-way. The only think I can think to do would be to eliminate at least one travel lane to widen the sidewalk. This would unfortunately leave us with a 60 ft roadway on the bridge itself and only two or three lanes to fill it. Perhaps the extra space on the bridge itself could be used for on-street parking for the fishermen? This seems unlikely, as you wouldn’t want to have a situation where you need to lift the bridge and there’s a car parked on it.
I, for one, am stumped. It’s too bad the ROW narrows down so substantially at the gas tanks on the east side of the bridge/the roadway widens so substantially on the bridge itself and on the west side of the bridge. Any ideas?
Arie (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
News today that ConnDOT is conducting some investigation into the issue: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/field_tested_bi.php
The note refers to the problem "taking a long time." I think everyone should contact their elected officials and see if they can get ConnDOT to fix the situation sooner, before more people are injured.
People are falling here on a weekly if not daily basis and it's only a matter of time before something very serious happens again.
David Streever (Registered User)
ConnDOT has reported that they believe they have solved this problem. With the signage they put up 3 months ago.
The steady accidents that have not leveled off seem to disprove this?
Maybe it's time to get in touch with your legislators and ask them to push on this.
Ben Berkowitz (Registered User)
Who is the state rep for this area?
Bob Megna?
Anonymous (Guest)
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
Anonymous (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
David Streever (Registered User)
Resident (Guest)
Anonymous (Guest)
Matt (Guest)
SJB (Guest)
General question for those that commute or regularly travel the Tomlinson Bridge: if improvements were made to the nearest alternate route (Chapel Street - Ferry Street - Quinnipiac/Fairmont Aves - Woodward or Townsend - Forbes) would you use that as an alternative?
No question that this extremely hazardous bridge needs to be corrected, but I'm wondering whether this issue can also be used as leverage to push for the city or DOT to invest in a complete street through Wooster Square, Fair Haven, and the East Shore. Something many of us would like to see anyway.
Anonymous (Guest)
tp (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
TP, would you be interested in a class action lawsuit?
There are certainly a few dozen people who have suffered similar injuries and would join you.
The neglect of the state and city in pushing for safe infrastructure here is absolutely astounding.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Anonymous (Guest)
No progress on this. Amazing how DOT can ignore these types of safety hazards.
City just got $1,100,000 to improve "security" at the port, can some of it be used to address the bridge too?
Anonymous (Guest)
I hear the city is getting dozens of millions of dollars for the port stuff... why not take 0.01% of that to make the city's east side and eastern suburbs accessible to pedestrians and bikers?
why does everything have to go towards terrorism?
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Acknowledged Department of Transportation, Traffic and Parking (Registered User)
resident (Guest)
Mark (Guest)
Beautiful photo of the Tomlinson posted today on the NH Independent.
It's too bad that the bridge is completely unattractive and so often unusable, or downright dangerous, for the majority of our road users.
Jason S. (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Lisa (Guest)
Justin Elicker (Guest)
This issue came up at the City Plan Commission meeting last week. I spoke with the City Engineer and we're working on getting the old tracks removed by the state and potentially getting them paved over in the meantime. I'll keep you informed.
Justin Elicker
Ward 10 Alderman
justin.elicker@gmail.com
Anonymous (Guest)
get off your bike and walk across the tracks. Should the city also mark out all the curbs, trash, potholes, and people so you can avoid them?
We need more education to city riders to;
1. stay out of traffic and let vehicles by
2. pay attention to train tracks and other hazzards
3. have fun
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Justin Elicker (Guest)
Just a bit more info on this: There are new sections of track that are going to be installed on Waterfront Street to access several of the industrial facilities. These tracks will pose problems similar to those at the Waterfront/Forbes tracks because they curve across the road. In the City Plan Commission meeting I was able to add conditions to the application that the project contain bicycle-specific safety signage (such as the sign that has been put in at the Waterfront/Forbes) and make every effort to ensure the track installed includes infrastructure to address the needs of bicycle access and safety.
I believe it's important to allow train access to these industrial facilities to reduce the amount of truck traffic that currently exists there. Unfortunately, the dimensions of the road require a curved track. With that in mind, let's do the best we can to have these tracks in place but make sure the road is safe for cyclists as well.
Dick Miller (City Engineer) and Al Paolillo (the Alderman in the ward) have been very supportive on the issue. I'll keep you informed as things progress.
Justin Elicker
Ward 10 Alderman
justin.elicker@gmail.com
juli (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Justin, this issue is about the extremely dangerous situation on the Tomlinson Bridge, not the new tracks being installed several blocks down.
Has any progress been made on this?
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Justin Elicker (Guest)
Hi All,
The progress on this issue has been depressingly slow. Al Paolillo, the alderman representing this ward, and I sent a letter to the State a few months ago requesting that the old tracks be removed. Dick Miller, City Engineer, has also been in contact with the state. I checked in on the issue about two weeks ago and Dick said he would contact the state again. I'll see him tonight and ask him.
I share everyone's frustration that issues such as this one take so long to address.
Justin Elicker
Ward 10 Alderman
justin.elicker@gmail.com
zakstone333 (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Chris Barlow (Guest)
Steve Brown (Registered User)
And, another serious injury today.
It is nothing short of criminal negligence that the state refuses to take action to remedy a known hazard like this. This isn't a case of "someone could get hurt." People HAVE been hurt. The problem is well documented, multiple solutions have been researched and documented, and the state has been fully informed of all of the ins and outs of this issue. If motorists were repeatedly getting into crashes resulting from an improperly constructed roadway I find it hard to believe DOT would look the other way like this. I'm sure when a cyclist dies here, the problem will be fixed the next day, but I pray it doesn't come to that.
Given their intransigence I think it's getting to the point that we should begin exploring legal recourse against the state to force a resolution. If someone gets killed here I would consider the state responsible.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
I agree with Steve - perhaps a group of local residents impacted by the bridge design could march down to the state DOT's offices on Chapel Street?
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
I just created a Wikipedia entry on the Tomlinson Bridge. I include a section on the "Railroad Crossing Controversy." I would encourage SCF users to edit the page and add to the list of injuries that are inventoried there, always including a web link to documentation of the the injury. Good sites to comb for documented injuries include SCF, DesignNewHaven, the New Haven Independent, and the New Haven register. The injuries list will help us prove to the Providence & Worcester Railroad and ConnDOT that the crossing poses an unacceptable threat to cyclists.
Here is a link to the entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomlinson_Lift_Bridge
Natalie Spicyn (Guest)
Shannon Knudsen (Guest)
Shannon Knudsen (Guest)
Melissa VT (Guest)
Kelly Forbush (Guest)
Jan (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
It's amazing that this issue is still open, even after 2 years of documentation, advocacy and many more serious injuries.
I'd like to know exactly how many calls our City government has put into DOT and state legislators about this. Are they really backing up local residents, or just resisting change?
juli (Registered User)
i think it is time to bring more attention to this issue. phone calls, letters, and these comments seem to be falling on deaf ears.
i plan to stand at this site on monday evening to challenge inaction. join me. i will be there at 5:30. i will bring some markers and signs.
press welcome.
Community Neighbor (Guest)
I created a community action item. You should schedule the event at the top of this issue on the website.
This was posted on New Haven listserv (Guest)
Apologies for the omission:
Meet at the RR tracks for both events.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Juli Stupakevich wrote:
An informal press release by a concerned citizen.
Concerning the Tomlinson Bridge Railroad crossing, I've proposed a protest in regards to the lack of progress on this intensely dangerous situation.
Despite:
-numerous documented injuries spanning two years (some of them severe, even by experienced cyclists, i.e. a broken femur)
-being the only crossing between East Haven and New Haven, making it a highly-travelled route by cyclists
-being listed on the Official Bike Route of New Haven
-being listed on the East Coast Greenway Trail Route
-acknowledgement of the severity of the problem by the City of New Haven's Traffic and Parking Dept. and City Engineer
The only proposed solution by the P&W Railroad is to post signs warning cyclists of the presence of the tracks. This is an unacceptable solution.
We demand:
-speedy installation of flange way fillers for a short term solution before another person is needlessly injured
-consideration of bike lanes and narrowed travel lanes for a long term solution to connect New Haven to East Haven
TWO EVENTS ARE PLANNED:
Monday July 12th at 5:30 pm
Tuesday July 13th at 5:00 pm (for those who will be absent due to the regularly scheduled Elm City Cycling Meeting at City Hall)
More information can be found here: http://seeclickfix.com/issues/1300
Sincerely,
Juli Stupakevich
(contact me with questions at julioccasionallychecksthis@gmail.com)
juli (Registered User)
great job to all that joined.
please join us this evening at five pm.
some press:
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/cyclists_protest_lame_solution_to_dangerous_crossing/
Annelies Gamble (Registered User)
A blog was written about this issue on the SeeClickFix website. Check it out!
http://seeclickfix.blogspot.com/2010/07/issue-1300-tomlinson-bridge-protest.html
Thank you very much for being active members on the SeeClickFix website.
Best,
Annelies
The SeeClickFix Team
juli (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Thank you Juli. Please come out at 5PM today!
BTW, here is the information about how this stretch of road is designated as a primary bicycle route:
State Bike Route
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/images/ibikes/b3_big.gif : Zoom in to see the Tomlinson Bridge designated as the primary recommended "Cross State" bike route.
http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=1390&q=292876
City Bike Route
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/cityplan/pdfs/EnvironmentalInitiatives/Greenways/BikeMap_Front.pdf
Tomlinson Bridge is designated as a "recommended [on-road] bicycle route for cycling around New Haven, focusing on routes that connect New Haven's neighborhoods while enjoying as many calm, wide, and scenic streets as possible."
There is also another summary of these developments posted at http://www.newhavensafestreets.org/2010/07/dozens-of-injured-at-treacherous-rail.html
dnh (Guest)
Response from the PWRR corporation:
"P&W is not responsible, "directly" or otherwise, for the situation. The roadway, the Tomlinson Bridge and the right-of-way over which P&W operates are ALL owned by the State of Connecticut. The situation presents several issues including the placement of signs, the possible necessity of resurfacing the roadway, the suitability of "flange fillers" and, of course, the attendant financial issues."
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
dnh (Guest)
dnh (Guest)
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
A orthopedic surgeon at Yale-New Haven sent the following letter to ConnDOT and the Railroad this past weekend. It is just one of dozens of letters sent by CT residents over the past few weeks, imploring ConnDOT to immediately fix the tracks before more residents are severely injured or killed.
---
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
My name is Connor Telles, I'm an Orthopaedic Surgery Chief Resident at Yale New Haven Hospital who has been directly involved in the care of MANY patients injured by the dangerous situation with the tracks near the harbor/route 1 bridge. In fact I took care of a lovely 25 year old female with a broken
pelvis this weekend from just that RR crossing. I have had friends hurt as well. I myself ride from the Annex/East Shore park area daily to work. It is less than ideal. Something needs to be done ASAP.
THIS IS A LAWSUIT WAITING TO HAPPEN.
Any way I can be of help let me know. And please emai/call me regarding what has been done to address this (and signs don't fix the problem).
Connor Telles
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Ethan,
They could be paved over with non skid asphalt. See the technical literature at TransAlt, as well as the governments of San Francisco and NYC's City Codes, among other places. The point of the plates is that installing them, or removing the tracks altogether, would resolve the situation until ConnDOT figured out a way to design a road that didn't severely injure dozens of people.
ConnDOT and the railroad have had more than two years to take action on this, and they haven't. Since people continue to be seriously injured on a weekly basis, so it's time for an immediate resolution.
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
Jason S. (Guest)
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
Steve Brown (Registered User)
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Ethan, the steel plates are intended as a short term fix until this phase of construction is completed and the full roadway width is again available for use. At that stage, recommend transitioning to the angled bike lanes, combined with weekly TLC for the asphalt condition in the area of the two bike lanes. The angled bike lane scenario with weekly asphalt TLC is itself intended as a temporary fix until DOT and/or the railroad can prepare plans for a new trackbed covering and put it out to bid. If the new trackbed covering includes flange fillers, then the temporary angled bike lanes could be removed and Forbes Ave could be widened back to four lanes. If the new trackbed covering does not include flange fillers, the angled bike lanes will remain, but the weekly maintenance will no longer be necessary.
When we say “steel plates are a short-term fix,” we don’t mean something that can be implemented over the next few months, we mean something that DOT can implement within 48 hours. The rest of the timeline depends on DOT’s construction schedule and how quickly they can design and bid out a new trackbed covering.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Stopping the constant, predictable level of severe injury of cyclists and motorcyclists needs to take precedence over the railroad (especially when it is not in use, but even if it were not).
Ideally we can do both, but this needs to be fixed immediately either way.
During construction, the road must be made safe for travel. Clearly, it currently is not.
A temporary, immediate fix will give time for ConnDOT to work out a more permanent solution that can make the crossing safe, and is acceptable to the railroad.
Eventually the entire bridge must be turned into a "complete street" since the crossing isn't the only problem here.
Brian's suggestion is workable as an immediate solution. The plates can be removed, and reinstalled as needed. As I mentioned above, there are guidelines and city codes on this in many other places.
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
I agree with Mark that the plate surface can be treated so as to remain relatively safe to cyclists even when it is wet. I plan to show Brian's rendering of the plate tiling at the upcoming meeting between ECC, the City, the DOT, and the P&W.
Personally, I'm having a hard time imaging how an angled bicycle lane would work on such a busy auto and truck route. I think flange fillers along with a mat of concrete or rubber around the rails will solve the problem.
When the P&W says that flange fillers on curved tracks could cause derailments, what they really mean is that they can't be troubled to replace the flange fillers every few years due to winter deterioration. They're trying to evade responsibility for properly maintaining the tracks. Given ConnDOT's role in approving a flawed design, the agency should share some of the costs of flange filler maintenance with the P&W.
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Continued coverage of injuries, track issues, in the 7/21/10 New Haven Register:
http://nhregister.com/articles/2010/07/21/news/doc4c4668864bf33841083033.txt
I've written a reply to ConnDOT, regarding their comments on the issue, here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elmcitycycling/message/11568
Brian Tang (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Ethan Hutchings (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
These are to remain in place until the completion of this stage of construction and reopening of the railroad tracks.
Brian Tang (Registered User)
To remain in place from the removal of the steel plates until the installation of flange fillers. If flange fillers cannot be installed, the angled bike lane shall remain indefinitely.
Brian Tang (Registered User)
If the new trackbed cover includes flange fillers, the angled bike lane may be removed and Forbes Ave may return to four lanes. If flange fillers cannot be installed, the angled bike lane shall remain and Forbes Ave shall remain two lanes.
Brian Tang (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Ducky (Guest)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Here is an updated timeline.
For printable copies of Elm City Cycling’s most up-to-date recommendations for the Forbes Ave railroad tracks, please visit http://www.elmcitycycling.org/tomlinsonbridgemee/
juli (Registered User)
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
Brian Tang (Registered User)
Elm City Cycling board member David Streever has posited the idea of widening the sidewalk on the south side of Forbes Ave in order to create a 12'-wide multi-use trail. I have attached a video of a bridge sidewalk that was widened in order to create a multi-use trail.
Bicyclists wishing to get to the trail from westbound Forbes Ave would cross diagonally across the intersection of Forbes and Waterfront Street on an exclusive bike/ped phase (see my discussion of bicycle signals, above). Diagonal crossing with exclusive bike phase works pretty well; in fact, I happen to have ridden through the very first intersection in America with that configuration on the next leg of my commute just after riding across that bridge. Five different cyclists were passing through the intersection at the same time and it worked fine. (Coincidentally the bike route then passes over three sets of light rail tracks a block later, without incident, to my knowledge).
One advantage of the diagonal crossing from a westbound bike lane on the north side of Forbes to the trail on the south side of Forbes is that it would put cyclists at much closer to a perpendicular angle crossing the tracks, dramatically reducing the risk.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Little progress has been made on resolving this since the last round of meetings this summer.
How many times in the past month has the City of New Haven called the DOT to request that actions be taken to resolve this?
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
Another meeting with ConnDOT on this issue is needed. ConnDOT promised to fill the flange way with stone dust as a short-term remedy and to create "areas of refuge" where cyclists could dismount and cross the tracks on both sides of Forbes Ave. To my knowledge, neither has been fully implemented. The stone dust was added after the last meeting between community members and ConnDOT, but it was then promptly removed to accommodate a passing freight train. And the north side of Forbes Ave is still filled with dirt and debris in the area where cyclists are supposed to dismount and walk across the tracks.
The long-term intervention proposed by ConnDOT is to eliminate one vehicle lane on the bridge and use the space to create 6' bike lanes on both sides of Forbes Ave east of East St. ConnDOT is presently discussing the proposal with the City of New Haven, which would like for the center of the three remaining lanes to be reconfigurable to permit traffic flow in either direction, as needed. This would bring the bridge closer to being a Complete Street and would certainly help matters at the crossing, though it's unlikely cyclists would be able to maneuver toward the tracks at a full 90 deg angle.
Flange fillers such as the veloStrail, http://www.strail.de/index.php?id=197&L=1, were not greeted with enthusiasm by the Providence & Worcester Railroad, which cited the threat of derailment when the flange fillers are impregnated with ice. But the veloStrail has been successfully used in other cold climates. The community needs to keep the pressure on ConnDOT and the P&WRR to conduct a full assessment of the suitability of the veloStrail for the Forbes Ave rail crossing before they are dismissed as a long-term safety improvement at the tracks.
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
I agree that another meeting is needed.
How many times in the past month has the City of New Haven called the DOT to request that actions be taken to resolve this? Supposedly ConnDOT has been "in talks" with the city, but I haven't seen evidence of any significant time spent on actual talks or meetings. Perhaps the New Haven Independent or another journalist can FOIA the City of New Haven and ConnDOT emails and phone records on the issue to see exactly how much effort has been spent on resolving this? Citizens can't do everything themselves, and we are nearing the point where the hundreds if not thousands of citizen volunteer hours collectively put towards this may be going to waste.
The railroad's argument about flange fillers should be dismissed out of hand. They simply don't want to have to maintain them.
cyclist (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
It seems DOT has not addressed this, despite repeated calls from local and statewide boards.
http://www.newhavensafestreets.org/2011/03/multiple-crashes-at-tomlinson-bridge-in.html
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Some minor improvements have been added here over the past month (including a small bicycle lane, and a "dismount area"), but according to City staff and local advocates, they are not sufficient to create a safe crossing at this location for cyclists of all ages and abilities.
It is great to see progress from the DOT, but that progress is not nearly fast enough given the ongoing risk of injuries here.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Cordalie (Guest)
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
More severe injuries in the past few weeks, and still no sign of progress. Does someone need to die before something happens here?
Has anyone on this thread heard recently from any elected officials or city employees about the bridge? I have heard that the City talked with ConnDOT about this issue, but that no concrete timelines were set for improving it. If you have more info please post here.
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
Turk (Registered User)
Jason Stockmann (Registered User)
Turk, I'm really sorry to hear of your crash. I'm not sure it will be any consolation, but I did verify today that flange fillers have been installed in the rail grooves on both the east and westbound crossings. This is a huge advance for safety at the tracks! Kudos to the DOT, the City of New Haven, and the P&W Railroad for getting the flange fillers installed.
I tried pressing on the flange fillers with my fingers, and they were springy and rubbery to the touch. They will easily compress under a railroad locomotive but remain firm under a bicycle. The only concern is that their material properties could change during winter when the temperature drops below freezing, causing derailments. Let's hope for the best on this.
Tell it like it is (Guest)
Turk,
Sorry to hear about your accident and I hope you are ok. Did you report it? I hope so. I know of and have read of people getting into accidents at this location but don't actually report it to the athorities. Each accident reported is one more piece of proof that gets added to city data. Not reporting the issue is just as bad if not worse than actually getting into an accident, whether or not someone else was involved because it is lost information that cannot be used to make a case.
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
DOT info (Guest)
http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/14/news/new_haven/doc4fd92a88a795e362869294.txt
CT Livable Streets Campaign (Registered User)
Have there been any injuries here over the past year?
Just wanted to continue to make sure that they are all documented publicly, as there is little sense that the city, the state, or the railroad believe that the problems associated with this high-speed bridge are an urgent issue of access and safety.
PatrickMag (Guest)
guest (Registered User)