Merritt Parkway in Connecticut deemed endangered!!

[mhallack]

I don't know if this has been posted yet. Sorry if it is.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Merritt-Parkway-deemed-endangered-by-National-493220.php

[Truvelo]

I've driven this on a couple of occasions and I do like its period charm. Like anything that has historic value, there has to be compromise between maintaining it's character and the ability to cope with modern traffic demands. If there's one thing I would like doing to the Merritt it would be improving the on-ramps to give proper merges rather than have traffic sit at a stop sign and pull out into the path off approaching traffic. I got caught out by this several times on my first visit as cars would pull out on you with just a few seconds to spare. If bridges need replacing to achieve this then so be it but the new structures could easily be built in the same style and with the same height clearance as the originals.

[Mergingtraffic]

The problem here is the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, it's a group made up of local people, that don't drive the parkway at rush hour or peak times.  They complain if the DOT installs a new sign.  I'm serious!  Currently the DOT is widening the shoulders and installing new guiderails, the conservancy complained the DOT cut down too many trees to do the work.  I drive it everyday and have not noticed a lack of trees.  

The DOT started work on the US-7/Merritt Pkwy interchange, to make it a complete interchange with flyover and flyunder ramps.  Work already began in 2005 and the conservancy halted work by sueing the DOT and work has stopped.

The DOT and the Conservancy met to work out the kinks and the DOT, which was catering too much to these type of groups tried to push through a cloverleaf interchange.  Local residents got upset as that would take up MORE land and commuters got upset b/c it would be a traffic weaving nightmare.  

More studies were done and now the new copcept is similiar to the original one and the ramps won't be as high and farther away from the parkway.


Of course the DOT had to spend more money and also money on the clean up efforts when work started in 2005.  They had to put the land back to it's original condition before work started thanks to the conversancy.

Work was all set to begin and then the state said it had no more money to continue until at least 2012.  So the conversancy made the DOT spend more money and halted the project and it now will cost twice as much.  Not to mention the daily commuters that have to suffer with poorly designed roads.  I think they forget that.


They are also the reason the CT-8/Merritt Pkwy stack interchange is missing one direction.  You can't go from CT-8 SB to CT-15 NB

As for the bridges, they are nice but I think they could still widen the parkway to 6 lanes and keep the bridges.  
Such as this


They could widen the bridges and restore them or build replicas of the originals.  The could have wooded guardrails and 6 foot shoulders to keep the character.  But, people won't go for that, as soon as you whisper widening bridge huggers go nuts.

[Duke87]

The problem here is the Merritt Parkway Conservancy, it's a group made up of local people, that don't drive the parkway at rush hour or peak times.  They complain if the DOT installs a new sign.  I'm serious!  Currently the DOT is widening the shoulders and installing new guiderails, the conservancy complained the DOT cut down too many trees to do the work.  I drive it everyday and have not noticed a lack of trees.

Indeed. People bitch all the time about supposed "loss of character" due to improvements to the road, but there's something being completely missed: said character was lost years ago due to this thing called population density. Southern Fairfield County isn't sleepy New England countryside anymore. It's bustling suburbia. Not much scenic character to a road when there's bumper to bumper traffic, is there?

They are also the reason the CT-8/Merritt Pkwy stack interchange is missing one direction.  You can't go from CT-8 SB to CT-15 NB

Directly, anyway. The Connection does exist via Nichols Avenue.

The crazy thing is, adding a fourth level to the interchange would not have been necessary to make it. Could've just been a loop, without introducing any weaves. Dunno why that wasn't done.

As for the bridges, they are nice but I think they could still widen the parkway to 6 lanes and keep the bridges.

Well, a few of the overpasses span each direction separately and would have to go. But otherwise, yes. That was even originally planned for in the road's construction. Right of way is sufficient for 8 lanes.

It's never going to happen, though. Forget that the Conservancy wouldn't allow it... road improvements are politically incorrect in this part of the country, period.

[haljackey]

As for the bridges, they are nice but I think they could still widen the parkway to 6 lanes and keep the bridges. 
Such as this

That looks awesome.

Will adding one additional lane really help reduce congestion? Yes it should add 1/6th capacity but when you factor in all the weaving and whatnot it's really more like 1/10th or so. That's not worth demolishing that wonderful bridge IMO.

[Truvelo]

The bridge is wide enough for an extra lane but the height at the outermost lanes will be severely restricted. One possible way is to lower the pavement if the bridge has deep enough foundations.

[ctsignguy]

*looks at the bridge piccy*

Well, since the Merritt doesnt allow trucks and most other commercial vehicles, i dont see the issue with widening the roads under as many current bridges as safety allows

[Mergingtraffic]

Here are more details of the CT-15/US-7 interchange project.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3403&q=410316

Checkout Design 21A, that is the new option..I believe.

This interchange would've been all complete by now if the conservancy didn't step in...talk about wasting valuable tax dollars.

Duke...well said above!!

[NJRoadfan]

The section of the Garden State Parkway pictured was originally build with 3 lanes with the provision to widen to 4 lanes. Squeezing a 5th lane required taking of the shoulders under the bridges and reducing lane widths.

[shadyjay]

Regarding the Merritt/US 7 interchange, I'm not sure why they don't go with a simple cloverleaf with c/d lanes, and reducing or eliminating the Main St (old Rt 7) interchange. 

While the Merritt is one scenic road to drive, its not fun driving it during rush hour.  And whats worse is that if there is ever an accident on the roadway, there is no easy alternative since all roads which intersect it run north/south and the parkway runs (generally) east/west.  At least on I-95, you can always jump off onto Rt 1, but with the Merritt, its a several mile trip south or north to meet another n/s road and go back in the opposite direction.

Would an additional lane help the Merrit's traffic?  Possibly.  Will we ever see it in our lifetimes?  Probably not.   

[Duke87]

Regarding the Merritt/US 7 interchange, I'm not sure why they don't go with a simple cloverleaf with c/d lanes, and reducing or eliminating the Main St (old Rt 7) interchange.

Judging from the sentiment at that town hall meeting on the matter I was at a few years ago... C/D lanes would not be considered aesthetically appropriate for the Merritt Parkway.

As for the Main Avenue (old route 7) interchange, all plans involve reducing it from a tight old cloverleaf to some form of modified diamond that ties in with the 7 connector interchange. Practically so... but it's heavily used enough that simply eliminating it is not a good idea.

And whats worse is that if there is ever an accident on the roadway, there is no easy alternative since all roads which intersect it run north/south and the parkway runs (generally) east/west.  At least on I-95, you can always jump off onto Rt 1, but with the Merritt, its a several mile trip south or north to meet another n/s road and go back in the opposite direction.

Paralleling the parkway actually isn't that difficult (for a local roadgeek, anyway ), it just involves taking all sorts of back roads rather than signed state highways. The easiest stretch is between exits 42 and 52: Cross Highway to Congress Street to Jefferson Street/Old Town Road to Route 8.

[Mergingtraffic]

This is the current proposal.
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/deng/102-269&102-312/Alternate-21_with_bike_path.pdf

The DOT tried to push through the cloverleaf design, as they even showed exampls of other cloverleafs in the state.  The conservancy wanted a cloverleaf design and I was shocked the DOT would accept that, knowing design standards and traffic problems in that area. 

In the beginning people didn't want the full connection at all b/c they thought it was a precurser to the completion of the US-7 expressway.   A highway that should be completed.  If nothing else, at least to the northen junction of CT-33, just to give it a proper ending and bypass of the heavily congested two-lane road.