They Knew, Now What?

Since the issue of the Haynes Street intersection was initially brought up by a reader a few weeks ago, I have written about it a few times, received a lot of comments about the intersection, and received an acknowledgment of the issue from Selectman Tom Creamer.  Tom told me he would find out what he could.

I trust that.  Tom is like a Bull dog when it comes to staying on topic, and finding answers.  During the time I was writing about the intersection I did expect a response form the BOS in its entirety, or at least some acknowledgement from the current TA, not just one selectman working solo.

Anyway, Tom did get  answers, but they are not the answers I wanted to see.  In fact, the answers actually are worrisome, and raise a lot more questions.

Below is Tom's latest email to me from yesterday. Read it in its entirety.  I have highlighted some text that I address at the conclusion of the email.

Enjoy.

"Wally, I trust this correspondence finds you well. 

As a follow-up to my phone message left earlier today, I wanted to provide (as promised) a written response relative to the issue you identified at the Haynes Road - Route 131 intersection. 

First, let me thank you for taking the time to bring this issue forward and for your patience while this issue was researched. Over the past week or so since you first reached out to me, there has been ongoing correspondence between the Town Administrator, the project engineers from MassDOT, our DPW Director, and myself. As well there have been conversations between the principles listed above via phone, face-to-face interaction, and at our BOS meeting this past Monday; all aimed at gathering the most relevant, factual, and detailed information available.  

The wheels of government can appear to be moving very slowly, particularly considering that the BOS meets but 3 times a month; rest assured however that there has been a great deal fact-finding that has been undertaken in the appropriate manner by the appropriate individuals. Equally, one must bear in mind that public issues such as this cannot be discussed outside of a public meeting by a quorum of Board members, thus any information gathering or discussions outside of a public meeting are so done independently by each member to whatever degree each may deem appropriate for them to address it publicly when the proper time arrives, that being a public meeting. Thus, the time frame between meetings and the public discussion on public issues can lend itself to a sense of nothing being addressed but rest assured the wheels are always turning. To that end, Board members seek input and guidance from a range of sources and over the past week or so I, with the help of the Town Administrator, our DPW Director, and MassDOT have been able to come to resolution in terms of the necessary information with which to address the concern you have raised. 

Based upon a review of all pertinent materials, as well as a review by the project engineers which concluded today, it has been determined that the difference in the intersection now as opposed to before the start of construction can be measured in inches and is in fact "negligible. Correspondence received today from the Area Engineer stated the following: "The survey section has reported back that everything has been installed per plan or within a tolerance of a few inches."  To that end, further review of the original plans for the project as well as reports from MassDOT and our DPW Director are consistent with information received from the Area Engineer that  "the design/intent of [the] work...was to restore what was previously there". 

Greg Morse and his staff have verified this and a review of the design plans and the actual work that I was able to conduct today demonstrates consistency with the Area Engineer's report and Greg's findings. Now, that is not to say things haven't changed, but merely that they haven't changed to the degree it appears when one looks at the intersection. The most notable difference is that now because of more design-appropriate sidewalks which were once tar, dirt, and grass in some areas with minimal edging, we now the appropriate level of curbing, which in effect presents an illusion of a narrower width. In fact, the Area Engineer stated (and it is clearly depicted on the plans) that previously because trucks were short-turning at the intersection, they had eroded the curbing/berm and were actually driving their vehicles upon the walkway, thus creating their own turning radius. Note this comment from the Area Engineer in correspondence received today: "It appears that there are very minor changes to the intersection. I think that prior to construction there was a very small reveal on the curb allowing trucks to drive over the curb onto the sidewalk to make the turn.  They should not have done this as it poses obvious safety hazards. With the new curbing and the establishment of wheelchair ramps they will no longer be able to do this." 

It is clear from reviewing the information received as well as all of the reports generated by MassDOT that their work has been done consistent with the agreed upon plan, which virtually changed nothing in terms of actual road-width. Clearly, however the turning radius has been somewhat reduced as the appropriate corrections have been made to the curbing along the sidewalks. 

MassDOT on a suggestion recently conveyed to me by a resident in terms of adjusting the stop lines on both Haynes Road (east bound side, next to the Center Office Building) and Route 131 North (next to the library), which may help increase the turning radius by reducing conflict with vehicles. Basically, the stop lines would be moved further back from the intersection to help increase the turning radius.

One is unclear if this approach would address the challenges at said location, as such could only be confirmed via a simple engineering review, but it is used in other communities with success when properly designed and of course enforced. This is not to suggest that the "fix" is this simple, but it is to suggest that there are many variables that can and will be considered and evaluated as appropriate. 

I am grateful that you chose to bring this issue to my attention as I welcome and am honored whenever I am presented with the opportunity to serve the residents of this community. Though, I cannot always provide the outcome that individuals seek, I endeavor always to ensure that their concerns are given the consideration they deserve and that they are met with factual, credible, and timely responses. On that note, I have not forgotten the other issue you brought to my attention some time back, it is merely taking a considerably longer time-frame than I would have expected due to personnel changes. It is however on the radar screen of the appropriate individuals.  

Once again I thank you for providing me the opportunity to be of service. "

So, there you have it.  A well researched bunch of information obtained by Tom Creamer.  What is disturbing is the following:

• The difference between the old intersection and the new intersection is "negligible".  With the old intersection being as badly designed as it was, and by the engineers own admission, trucks were using the soft berm to increase their turning radius before, why would the design of the new intersection not allow for this since this situation was well known?  Why would hard infrastructure such as granite curbing, and sidewalks be placed on the original foot print of the old intersection thus preventing trucks from making those hard turns?  Who was the Sturbridge expert(s) feeding information to the State engineers?  Who were the Sturbridge folks giving their feedback on the design?  Why would the state engineer stay with a bad old design?
• The work was to restore what was already there without improvement to a bad intersection.  Why?  Look at the other intersections along Route 131 from Route 20 to the Southbridge town line.  The new intersections look like a Boeing 747 could land inside of each one.  At some, such as Wallace Road, where Savers Bank is, there was some land taking to make the intersection wider to allow for a better turning radius. Why was this not done at Haynes Street, especially since the rehab of the Center School was being done at the same time and the work could be coordinated?  Did they feel it would have a negative impact to the War Memorial?
• There is an admission that the intersection is plain wrong from the engineers, and a solution of moving back the stop lines admits to this.  Yes, that will be a temporary fix, as noted, but what about the permanent fix, since it is alluded to?

I want to thank Selectman Tom Creamer for the time, and energy it took to find the answers to the basic questions asked.  His follow up, and follow through, is not only appreciated by me, but by others that are concerned about this intersection.  Now, that we know that the intention of the intersections design was never to improve it, but to return it to its previous state with the  further restrictions of granite curbing, and sidewalks, what do we do now?

The intersection is a failure.  A bad intersection one, that is admitted to by the engineers, while other intersections along the newly refurbished Route 131 are getting a well deserved make over.

What now?