Newton Alderman voted last night to approve DPW Commissioner David Turocy’s request to return the recently reconfigured, controversial intersection of Centre and Cypress Streets back to the original design, Wicked Local’s Jim Morrison reports.
But at least a few aldermen seemed to be doing so reluctantly…
“I’m struggling with this,” said [Ted] Hess-Mahan. ”I want to do the right thing. It’s with heavy heart that I have to vote on this. It shakes your confidence in your vote when there’s so much you don’t know.
and this from Susan Albright…
“The planning that’s going into this change is as bad as the planning that got us into this in the first place. I don’t see why we should do it. I’m going to vote for safety and vote against it.”
and this…
“I voted against this in committee and I continue to be extremely unhappy with the process, said Alderman [Deb] Crossley. “It’s just bad, bad. There’s just no good side to this story. I hope I’m not making a mistake here.”
@Greg, for the record, Susan Albright did not vote for the measure reluctantly. She voted against the request.
You are correct Dulles, thanks.
I think that all of the aldermen appreciated Commissioner Turocy’s forthright admission that mistakes were made and his efforts to fix them before school starts after Labor Day. And I believe there was near universal agreement that the restoration of the previous configuration is not going to fix all of the problems with this intersection. But there was also general frustration at the paucity of information provided regarding how those mistakes occurred and the lack of a firm commitment to address in the near term the underlying safety issues which led to the reconfiguration of the intersection in the first place.
This is a shared responsibility, which requires a joint effort by the administration and the board of aldermen. In the end, the changes were approved and the board unanimously adopted an emergency preamble that will allow them to be implemented without further delay. I sincerely hope that all of the underlying issues will be resolved in a similar spirit of cooperation.
Ted,
Where’s the money going to come from? When the intersection is returned to its previous, sub-optimal configuration, there won’t be a push to get it redesigned (again) or money to go to plan C.
The opportunity that was squandered by the reversion to the previous design is the opportunity to do better than plan A or B. Shame that.
Sean, I don’t disagree with you. It was making the best out of a bad situation, and not a vote I was happy about casting. But the $$$ is the key. The work was done with mitigation funds from Chestnut Hill Square, and until we see some more state money to do work in Newton Centre, I doubt there will be much progress on fixing what ails that intersection.
Step 1. Gnash teeth.
Step 2. Sigh.
Step 3. Move onto the next problem.
Speaking of paucity of information, it will be interesting to see how much improvement there is come the fall, even with the the Cypress curb reverted to its old configuration.
Ted (and Deb):
Why vote yes? The item was going to pass overwhelmingly without your yes vote. Why not vote no to at least make a statement.
@Sean, fair question. Commissioner Turocy was convinced that the elimination of the “slip lane” and the addition of the “pinch point” at this intersection was causing the 15-20 minute backups on Cypress and Parker over the summer. As I said several times during the meeting, I do not pretend to be an expert on traffic so I have to rely on what the professionals in the department and consultants hired by the city are telling the board of aldermen.
There were a lot of unanswered questions, but all we really know for sure is that before the reconfiguration, the traffic backups were not nearly as severe. Perhaps the situation would have ironed itself out over time, but the professionals in DPW told us that leaving the intersection as is would be worse than changing it back to the way it was. That said, I don’t think anyone in the hall that night believes that going back to the previous configuration will fix all of the traffic and safety problems, particularly when school resumes after Labor Day. Indeed, Ald. Albright, who is on the Public Facilities committee that oversaw this project, disagreed based on her belief that changing it back would be less safe.
Now, I could speculate all day about how to fix the problems with this intersection, but at the end of the day, I have to rely on what the trained professionals are saying, which is why I voted as I did, albeit reluctantly. But, as I said at the meeting, it has shaken my confidence in what the traffic experts are telling us about this and other projects.
Ted, was that statement about the “slip lane” and “pinch point” supported by traffic engineers or data, or was it just the overwhelming consensus of the community? By blaming the most obvious physical change — the so-called bumpout — it’s quite possible the Commissioner got it wrong. We’ll never know. There was never a legal ‘slip lane’ before, and the change in right of way (resulting in the inability of Cypress Street traffic to move at all during peak travel times) could have been far more significant than the change in geometry.
Adam, I don’t disagree with anything you said. There was very little data, other than the wait times at the intersection before and after construction. In the end, I chose to follow the advice of our DPW Commissioner.
No one has mentioned that the speed bump created at the Yield sign on Route 9 and Elliot St was removed, once the new traffic lights were installed. The oversight was to create the speed bump, then realize that there needed to be a short pedestrian crossing in it’s place. Another waste of $$$ due to poor planning.