State DOT warns: Get ready for congestion in Stamford’s South End
STAMFORD — The state Department of Transportation held its eighth informational meeting on its ambitious plan to replace the Atlantic Street railroad bridge while maintaining train service this week — the message was the same as previous ones: Get ready for congestion in the South End.
The plan will close a sliver of Atlantic Street just south of the Interstate-95 overpass for six months starting in late February.
That sliver, although fewer than 100 feet, means a lot to all city residents who live below the rail line. It pushes traffic, some 4,100 vehicles a day on average, to three other arteries in and out of the South End. Part of the project calls for more closures nearby later on. At a meeting Thursday evening, about a dozen residents focused on the three remaining arteries and nearby intersections. They pressed the state and city to manage traffic beyond detour signs. Drivers often block boxes around the area, residents said. This will only make it worse. “This is going to cause tremendous disruption and impact the quality of life for those who live in Stamford,” Shippan resident Anne Quinn said. “This is not about inconvenience. This is about getting to and from your house.”
Quinn said the closure — and all the traffic — could make her commute hellish if not properly managed. She, and others, called on the city and DOT to have police stationed at intersections around the “epicenter” of the closure and actively direct drivers.
Resident Engineer Kevin Conroy and city Transportation Bureau Chief Jim Travers said they will closely watch the issue, but Conroy said their options are limited. “We can’t create new streets,” he said. “All we can do is regulate traffic.”
The $75 million bridge replacement has been discussed for years and work began in August preparing for this second phase of the project. Next comes the congestion-inducing demolition of the old bridge and the piece-by-piece construction of a new one.
Starting in February, the DOT will begin building a median column to support the new bridge as it takes apart the old one. The department needs to close the road because the column construction will leave just feet on either side of the roadway for passing traffic, Conroy said.
Keeping the road open is also impossible because Atlantic Street will be lowered by about 4 feet, Conroy said. As the structural pier goes up, four bridge-length panels will be built north of the bridge, two to the south. The pieces will be rolled in from South State Street and Dock Street from late June to early July.
The roll-in period will be the most taxing on drivers, Conroy said, followed by the biggest impact to train riders. The five tracks will be reduced to just two from June 28 to July 8, Conroy said.
The change will result in a holiday-service schedule out of the train station, the busiest in the area — second only to Grand Central. The schedule has not yet been set or published, he said.
By Sept. 8, all roads will re-open, but work will be far from finished. For the next year, the DOT will work atop the tracks although that is not anticipated to affect drivers.
The department will hold more informational meetings as the Atlantic Street closure nears.
For more information, visit www.atlanticstreetbridge.com or sign up for updates by emailing info@atlanticstreetbridge.com.
Hartford files another motion seeking control of Downtown North properties
City leaders are again trying to persuade a judge to allow them to develop on properties surrounding Hartford’s minor league baseball stadium, despite a lawsuit that has stalled new construction on the parcels.
Officials on Friday filed a motion for injunctive relief, asking the court to order the stadium’s fired developer, Centerplan Construction Co., to remove the liens it placed on the properties and release the lots to the city. Hartford has greenlighted a new project at the site that includes 800 housing units and 60,000 square feet of retail, but the city can’t proceed until the liens are lifted.
“Given the contentious relationship between the plaintiffs and the city, it is clear that these parties can never cooperate to complete the development,” Leslie King, a lawyer with Murtha Cullina, which is representing the city, wrote in the motion. The city in September filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to bring to a head the long-simmering dispute over control of the properties. But Judge Thomas Moukawsher denied the request, reasoning that Hartford can’t terminate its ground lease with Centerplan unless the developer has been found in default.Centerplan won the original bid to build office space, housing and retail on the parcels, but was fired from the entire project after it missed two key deadlines to complete work on the baseball stadium. Another firm finished construction at Dunkin’ Donuts Park, and it opened a year late.
Centerplan sued the city for wrongful termination.
The ordeal has cast a long shadow over hopes of new construction at the site. Development of the parcels, in a neighborhood known as Downtown North, is considered crucial in generating needed tax revenue for the city. Hartford, which last year nearly filed for bankruptcy, is on the hook for annual debt service payments on the $71 million baseball stadium. Tax revenue from the wider development would help to make those payments.
In the motion filed Friday, King argued that Centerplan has “nothing to lose” if the city regains control over the properties, since the lawsuit would continue to wind its way through the legal system. Centerplan has asked for $90 million in damages. “Their rights are protected and they have an adequate remedy at law,” she wrote. “By continuing to cloud title to the parcels and holding up development, the plaintiffs certainly will not achieve any reconciliation with the city or improve the parties’ ability to cooperate with one another.”
“The plaintiffs have nothing to gain by maintaining a stranglehold over the parcels,” she added. “To the contrary, denying the city’s requested relief gives the plaintiffs an unreasonable and absurd amount of leverage to determine or destroy the fate of the Downtown North revitalization plan.”
Raymond Garcia, an attorney for Centerplan, declined to comment Friday.
Mayor Luke Bronin said he is “confident” the city will prevail in the case, but doesn’t want to wait until its conclusion to move forward with new development.
“Given the history, it’s clear that Centerplan cannot be the city's development partner, and we believe that the court will recognize the tremendous harm that would be done to the city's economic development efforts if we are unable to pursue these parcels during a lengthy, complex litigation,” he said.
Centerplan sued the city for wrongful termination.
The ordeal has cast a long shadow over hopes of new construction at the site. Development of the parcels, in a neighborhood known as Downtown North, is considered crucial in generating needed tax revenue for the city. Hartford, which last year nearly filed for bankruptcy, is on the hook for annual debt service payments on the $71 million baseball stadium. Tax revenue from the wider development would help to make those payments.
In the motion filed Friday, King argued that Centerplan has “nothing to lose” if the city regains control over the properties, since the lawsuit would continue to wind its way through the legal system. Centerplan has asked for $90 million in damages. “Their rights are protected and they have an adequate remedy at law,” she wrote. “By continuing to cloud title to the parcels and holding up development, the plaintiffs certainly will not achieve any reconciliation with the city or improve the parties’ ability to cooperate with one another.”
“The plaintiffs have nothing to gain by maintaining a stranglehold over the parcels,” she added. “To the contrary, denying the city’s requested relief gives the plaintiffs an unreasonable and absurd amount of leverage to determine or destroy the fate of the Downtown North revitalization plan.”
Raymond Garcia, an attorney for Centerplan, declined to comment Friday.
Mayor Luke Bronin said he is “confident” the city will prevail in the case, but doesn’t want to wait until its conclusion to move forward with new development.
“Given the history, it’s clear that Centerplan cannot be the city's development partner, and we believe that the court will recognize the tremendous harm that would be done to the city's economic development efforts if we are unable to pursue these parcels during a lengthy, complex litigation,” he said.