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.

Image of sign

Suggested crossing plan for when bicycle routes cross diagonal tracks. Source: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05085/chapt14.htm

Oregon signage

yes, the railroad tracks need paint markers and signage! and this beautiful bridge is dangerous to cyclists; i ride across on the sidewalk because the cars speed too wildly..

Yes, I agree this needs attention. My boyfriend and I ride over the bridge twice/day and it is a major hazard.

This is the only way into or out of New Haven by bike from East Haven and the Shoreline. It is horribly unfriendly to bikes. Simple fixes can make a huge difference here! Please do it!

please fix this, its BAD

I agree. This is a very dangerous crossing. I know many experienced cyclists who have gone down on these tracks, even after having crossed them many times in the past!

I agree,
Please do something about this.

I've been with 2 riders when they went down there. Yes, fix!

This is an extremely important issue. Safe ways for bikes and pedestrians to move between the center city and the east shore are important now, and will be even more critical when construction of the Q-bridge commences. The demand for alternative transportation modes and pathways will be even greater with construction congestion. This needs to be fixed and protected as a secure route before the Q-Bridge project goes any further.

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....

$1 billion on the Route 1 and I95 (q bridge) and not a dime for cyclists/pedestrians? CRAZY! fix it now

Why not reconfigure the lanes so that there's one travel lane in each direction, a turn-out lane in the middle, and 6-or-7-foot-wide bike lanes on the shoulders. That's what the standard industrial arterial road looks like on the west coast. Multiple lanes in the same direction just allow people to change lanes and cut in front of each other. Minimizing the choices drivers have to make can reduce chaos on the roads, lowering the chance of collision and only moderately decreasing travel speeds.

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.

"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

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.

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!

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.

Last fall I was riding with a group and two people fell, the got cut and brused up. This is a very serious problem thank goodness they were not hit by the cars that were following close behind. Please fix this!

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!

Mark,
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.

David, I wasn't responding to you - that was just a general comment for "SeeFixers" about the fact that about 100 people have "SeeClicked" the issue in the past 24 hours :) Hopefully this will help spur people to take additional action so that the issue can be addressed before the weather gets warm again! I am calling my legislators and the Governor about the issue. Sorry for any misunderstanding David.

this is by far one of the worst obstacles in the city or anywhere.
it needs to be mended.

I've found that the only way to avoid getting your tire stuck along side the rail is to ride across it which inevitably puts the rider into traffic. SCARY on this bridge, especially since there are large oil tanker trucks coming away from the depot there.

You can contact the DOT about safety concerns here: http://www.dotdata.ct.gov/contacts/contact.aspx

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?

Good idea RE: a conversation

Please fix this. How many people have broken bones here? I can name some.

I submitted this to Conn Dot via their webform but I have never received response from that form. Lets see what happens.

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

Kevin, can you post information as to how people can reach you guys on issues like this?
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.

If you would keep this post updated as well with what is going to happen you will be alerting all of the people that have clicked they "want this fixed too" and have commented on the issue.
Thanks in advance for your attentiveness to the situation.

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

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

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.

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for advancing my thinking. Of course, whether DOT will entertain a proposition like that, I don't know, but the ask ought to be made - perhaps by the city or SCRCOG, with the support of all the folks and more who would like to see these necessary improvements made.

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.

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).

Street view image courtesy design new haven

Article about this in today's NH Register
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/03/29/news/ctbikes.txt

I took some photos of bike/ped bridge accommodations while I was back home in Portland over spring break. I forgot about them until I saw the Register article. Here's the first (click to enlarge).

[2nd photo of Portland bike/ped bridge accommodations] This is the lower deck of the Steel Bridge in Portland, OR. As you can see--like the Tomilson Bridge--the Steel Bridge carries railway tracks. It is the oldest bridge in Portland and one of the oldest operating drawbridges in the West. On the top deck, it accommodates light rail, buses, cars, and trucks in a total of four lanes.

[3rd photo of Portland bike/ped bridge accommodations] I chose to focus on the Steel Bridge because the bike/ped path where I'm standing was recently added as a retrofit. In this photo you can see how they attached the new pathway to the 97-year-old structure.

In Vancouver, WA, USA--the suburb of Portland where I grew up--we have an angled railroad crossing in an industrial area where they direct bicycles up onto the sidewalk in exactly the manner shown in the Federal Highway Administration diagram included above (see Mar 4th post or top of clicket). I'll ask my mom to take a photo of it next time she has a chance.

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).

This is this sign, though, which must be what I was remembering as prompting me to go up onto the sidewalk, even though it's hard to see how I interpreted it that way in retrospect.

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.

Here's what they did in North Portland where the bike lane had to cross the light rail tracks (path of cyclist shown in red in bottom aerial).

In case it wasn't clear from the aerials, the bike lane actually transitions into a bike path (sidewalk for bikes), which then comes to a right-angle turn just before the tracks. The sharp curve forces cyclists to slow down (so they don't get run over by the light rail trains) and brings the path to a right angle with the tracks.

In the comment about the sign in Vancouver WA, I meant to say "There is this sign," not "This is this sign." I appologize for any confusion that may have created.

Great photos Brian. The Register article said that the DOT would be putting up a small plaque below the RR Xing sign. Given all of the distractions in this area, that seems insufficient.

Photo of current condition of sidewalk. Too narrow for any meaningful use, littered with slippery glass and debris, ending abruptly at the cross street. Small poles stick out from the concrete and are tripping hazards. Trucks and cars whiz inches by at 60MPH, threatening to decapitate passerbys with their mirrors.

There should be a law against sidewalks that narrow on a busy street like this.

I agree with Brian. Can someone file an issue with the DOT on their web form and ask that they look into widening this sidewalk? It is a serious issue here.

file complaints here
http://www.dotdata.ct.gov/contacts/contact.aspx

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

Is the promised DOT report on the rail road delayed?

also is the dot going to do anything about that ridiculous sidewalk?

Why is there a delay on the DOT's report? Can someone please post it if it becomes available? This needs to be fixed ASAP. It is not something to sit on.

Still nothing from them? Why does it take so long to look at such a dangerous road situation?

what's the deal with conndot? i heard they had promised a report on this by the end of march. they'r just s itting there waiting for someone to die before fixing it no?

please fix this soon!

I called the DOT to check in on the status of the report that they had been working on. Will post when I hear more about this.

This is very dangerous. I have been a part of bike accidents at this crossing.

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.

It sounds like the DOT will be installing a little bit of new signage here, but not addressing any of the other issues that the community has raised. The next course of action may be to call state representatives and Governor Rell about the DOT's inability to address this major problem. Anyone else have thoughts about what to do next?

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.

Still haven't seen any signage here.

This is a tragedy (or two or three) waiting to happen.

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.

On 6/26 I noticed that there was a Caution sign [see Oregon sign picture] installed, however, I was driving when I saw it. I think it may be mounted too high for a cyclist to see it.
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.

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?

I'm pretty sure that if a cyclist were serious injured on that crossing they would not have too much trouble suing the State and/or DOT for the cost of their medical expenses and any lost wages. With the state DOT's deep pockets there are probably plenty of lawyers that would take the case in a second.

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.

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

" '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. "

I recently broke my arm crossing these tracks. Please fix it.

The Chinese can build a huge highway bridge in a few months but we can't immediately fix a tiny strip of pavement? I don't believe that.

the two scars on my shoulder are healing nicely; a year after the fact. Yet the problem is not fixed! Does anyone have a contact at the Register or WTNH so a story can be done? this is ridiculous that nothing has been done (no sign, no colored pavement denoting a hazardous feature, etc)

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.

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/

that foto of the current condition of the sidewalk is incredable.

[drawing of bike signal with "dinner plate" advisory bicycle pavement markings]

thoughts?

Interesting drawing.

the signal head visible on the left side of the drawing (with the sign adjacent to it saying "BIKE SIGNAL") is a bike signal similar to the one pictured in this photo (included with this comment).

I'm missing how this addresses the challenge of crossing the track?

What's with the DOT? The public has demonstrated the need to fix the safety hazards at the bridge, and offered great, commonsensical, and economic suggestions for how to do it. Should concerned citizens call for a public hearing? A friend of mine was very badly injured here. Why is the state willing to leave a hazard in place?

The bike signal push button would trigger the all-red ped phase at the intersection of Waterfront and Forbes (just behind the viewer in the drawing). The bike signal would then change from red to green and the bicyclist would have an empty road on which to follow the white dots safely over the train tracks, into the left-hand lane, and then back into the right-hand lane. After an appropriate length of time, the bike signal would change to yellow, then red, and the overhead signal at the intersection would change back to green for automotive traffic.

[revised drawing] A second bike signal on the right might help to alert bicyclists coming toward the tracks that they need to pull over, push the button, and wait for the bike signal to turn green.

could a route from waterfront street turning onto forbes be incorporated? that's the main bike route to lighthouse pt etc (though rt 1 itself is also widely used)

Are the "dinner plates" in the lane of traffic, or off on the shoulder somewhere?

I printed out the drawing, colored in the travel lanes, and then remembered that I only have a black and white scanner. I hope this is helpful.

Here's a photo of a "dinner plate" that I spotted on a sidewalk/bike path near the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.

Very cool. I like when they are made out of inlaid brass, but I suppose that could make them vulnerable to theft and more expensive.

I like Puzzled's idea of a public hearing. Would anyone like to set one up?

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

Would planting street trees help slow people down?

This is as dangerous as ever. It's very sad that it's impossible for our government to take quick action even when lives are so clearly at stake.

it really does take a considerable amount of time to establish yourself in the center of the road and slow the traffic behind you so that you can take these tracks at the right angle. it is honestly a leap of faith. when placing these signs on the road, there has to be significant warning WAY before the tracks so that bicyclists can take the lane before it is too late. not a solution, but something to help in the meantime...

The warning signs are incomplete; they forgot the MUTCD placard that's supposed to go beneath that says "abandon all hope, all ye who dare cross these tracks."

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.

please fix!

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.

What are the barricades for?

I agree the signs are pretty much useless. Can't ConnDOT come up with a better solution? Don't they get that this is a main route where dozens have been seriously injured?

Would the DOT be open to adding more signs?

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

Another cyclist was recently injured on the bridge, according to http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/7750 - ironically a week after reporting the issue.

"Hit cyclist joins Tomlinson Bridge Club"

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/09/bridge_claims_a.php

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?

Just saw a guy crash his bicycle Sunday morning 09-13-09 on those tracks due to his tires getting stuck in the ruts.

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.

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.

Hey David Good Call.
Who is the state rep for this area?
Bob Megna?

i would call every legislator in new haven about this. especially pat dillon, marty looney and toni harp.

A cyclist took a spill while approaching the tracks from the east during the Critical Mass ride on 09/25/09. If 125 random riders crossed the tracks and 1 fell, you could infer that there is about a 1% chance of an accident each time a bicycle crosses the tracks. As accident rates go, that's astronomical.

That's a scary video, Jason.

Note from a friend, 9/26/09: "on the yale ride today, two riders went down here."

jason I think there were 185 cyclists--still a good chance of getting hurt, but a testament to how many people feel strongly about this that 185 riders showed up to ride it.

Saw black car going about 95 miles per hour in the westbound lane this weekend, continuing down Water street. Literally. That proves more than just about anything that the design of the bridge is horribly inadequate. Please narrow the lanes so they don't look like a superhighway and add speed restrictions. Thanks.

NH Independent's captioned version of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I203BujG6XQ

In 10 years of daily commute by bike, both in new haven and San Francisco, this is the only place I have gone down on my bike - excluding being hit by a car. This is an exceptionaly dangerous crossing and it is shocking that it remains unfixed after all the efforts being made by the many concerned folk here and elsewhere.

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.

i wouldnt use the alternate route because it is far less direct.

I fell on these tracks in aug of 07. My Left shoulder is still not right. Did some damage to my rotator cuff that was told will probably require surgery to repair. A MUST FIX for cyclists coming in and out of New Haven.

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.

Has anyone heard back from their legislators on this? I know that a number (from New Haven and elsewhere) were contacted and had committed to look into the issue.

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?

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?

Anyone have details on the construction taking place in this area?

Acknowledged By Transportation, Traffic and Parking Department.

any progress on this disaster of a bridge? is it in the city's bike plan

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.

With the spring cycling season approaching, this issue will soon rise to prominence in local dialog. I'm going to try bringing it before the CT Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to see if they'd be willing to throw their weight behind a letter to tHe DOT demanding an immediate solution to the problem. The Board is new and it's purview and powers are still being worked out, but it would be a good first crusade for the board to pursue all the way to a solution.

Through 2015, the state is spending a billion dollars on the Q bridge and related construction directly adjacent to this bridge. If they took 1% of that funding (as required by the state's Complete Streets law, signed into law in 2009), that would be more than enough to fix the Tomlinson Bridge and make it more attractive to cyclists and pedestrians.

I actually chose fair Haven Hts to move to over Morris Cove, mainly bec my husband bikes downtown to work, and we were terrified of T Bridge! It would really behoove Cove residents to try to get this dealt with!

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

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

Thanks of the update, Justin! That is excellent news! Mark or Jason, have you emailed out that update to the ECC list? I bet a lot of people would be interested to hear that the city is actually making progress with the state DOT.

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

before the long-term is figured out, could the roads be painted with a caution leading to the tracks on both sides during this road painting season? it seems like a small thing to ask if it could prevent very likely injuries.

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?

Here’s what I would do. It would require very minimal additional paint and would not require the removal of any existing striping. The basic idea is to temporarily get rid of the right-hand lanes in order to make space for bike lanes designed to Federal Highway Administration standards for angled railroad crossings (see diagram and link above). This would only be an interim solution until a more permanent solution can be devised.

If you have Google Earth (which you can download for free here: http://earth.google.com/), you can view my proposal by opening this .kmz file: http://www.box.net/shared/vh9e00i0m8

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

Any email contacts for a state official whom we could add as a watcher of this issue?

Thank you for looking into this, Justin. Brian's solution seems to be viable as a short-term fix to the crossing issue, as it would only require a minimal striping budget. The bridge would have more than enough capacity with one lane.

Following up on the latest ECC Digest (No. 2446) regarding the Tomlinson Bridge RR Tracks. I was crossing the tracks last September on my return trip during the Folks on Spokes ride, caught my front wheel and went down. I wound up cracking a rib in the fall. If you don't cross the tracks just right, it's likely that you are going to go down too. Even then it could be hit or miss since there doesn't seem to be a right way to cross the tracks since it also depends on where exactly you cross.

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.

Yes, there was an injury here today, due to the tracks, that was quite severe. More info will be posted here when available.

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?

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

As a fourth-year medical student, I would like to see this fixed too.

It's important to the safety of bicyclists as well as drivers that bikes have enough space on the roads. Sometimes I feel like it would be safer to ride on the sidewalk because there just isn't enough room on the road for me to be safe. I don't ride on sidewalks but I've had too many close calls with cars and one accident. Please consider the safety of cyclists.

My above comment was in reference to Whalley St.

Bike lanes on Whalley are necessary as they are on every road.

Please fix this issue!

What about a sky crossing for pedestrians and bicycles or the train can go underground? Too bad so many people still get injured :(

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?

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.

Hey Juli,
I created a community action item. You should schedule the event at the top of this issue on the website.

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)
 

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/

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

join us again on thursday at 5pm (whenever you can make it, before 7)

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

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."

Resurfacing is key to alleviating the inherant risk of crossing the tracks while on a bicycle, motorcycle or moped. Just adding flange fillers in asphalt is a temporary fix due to the fact that asphalt will erode in a short period of time. The clear solution is to construct a concrete foundation to eliminate the potential for wear and tear in the short term. Concrete will also assist in providing necessary traction for two wheeled vehicles. Some railroad crossings use metal plates but this would only add to the problem of limited friction when the surface is wet due to inclement wheather. There have been too many accidents to implement a temorary fix to the problem.

Is this what you have in mind, Ethan?

Trying to post image.

Sorry, did you mean to attach an image? I'm not seeing anything.

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

Mark, I drew up a mock-up of the temporary fix you suggested (steel plates).

Please explain the use of steel plates. How would they be a benefit, especially if they become wet? a temporary fix would be just that, temporary. Especially (if what I am interpreting is correct based on your sketch Brian) when the plates are removed as the train starts operating again.

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.

You can't seriously be considering stopping the use of the tracks. That will derail (ha) the whole argument. Asking for that would be a kick in our caboose (sorry I can't help it now). This is not a viable request. This is what is referred to as "the little engine that can't"

I agree with Ethan that the railroad likely won't go for a solution that involves burying the tracks in concrete or asphalt. I think laying steel plates over the tracks in a tiled pattern, as shown in Brian Tang's rendering, is the best short term fix. The plate surface can be serrated, knurled, or otherwise treated to increase friction so that it is not hazardous in the rain.

If there needs to be a temporary fix, it needs to also incorporate the movement of the train coupled with an application that provides a safe crossing for cyclists. Steel plates will halt the train. Cyclists dismounting from their bikes is not a workable compromise. There needs to be another solution until a long-term permanent solution can be installed, such as a concrete foundation to eliminate erosion around the rails.

THERE ARE NO TRAINS.

Not at the moment, due to construction.

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.

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.

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.

Photo showing the decrepitude of the pavement around the tracks.

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

Jason, I assume you mean that an angled bicycle lane without flange fillers would not be a good solution in *long term.* A temporary angled bike lane, combined with weekly asphalt maintenance is the best *medium-term* scenario I can think of for the time period between when the steel plates are removed and the flange fillers are installed. Once flange fillers are installed, the temporary angled bike lane can be removed and Forbes Ave can be widened back to four lanes.

Brian, when Forbes Ave is widened back to four lanes, could a "road diet" be used so that an angled bike lane fits? Combined with other traffic calming measures, this could be a good step towards the longer-term goal of building a "complete street" at the bridge and surrounding streets.

Yes, Mark, that is exactly what I am suggesting as an interim stage between the removal of the steel plates and the installation of flange fillers.

I see. Sorry for the confusion. I misunderstood.

Jason, could you post a photo of flange fillers, as well as your photo of the Omni rubber trackbed covering?

Stage 1: Steel Plates.
These are to remain in place until the completion of this stage of construction and reopening of the railroad tracks.

Stage 2: Angled Bike Lane.
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.

Stage 3: New Trackbed Cover.
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.

(I spotted an error in the timeline. Here’s the corrected version).

Thanks, Brian. I think we have a road map for moving forward.

Thank the cute girl in the road who brought me to this issue. It would be nice to see this fixed (and see her again somewhere, lol).

Elm City Cycling has revised its Stage 1 recommendation for the period before the tracks reopen. The recommendation is now for a layer of asphalt separated from the tracks by felt.

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/

has the DOT been notified of this potential deadline?

I'll pass along Brian's timeline and staged remedy suggestions in advance of Thursday's meeting.

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.

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?

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.

Here is a photo of a veloStrail flange filler compressing under a rail wheel. If anything, the freight trains using the Frobes Ave crossing will be heavier than the passenger trains typically used with the veloStrail, providing even more weight to compress the flange insert and minimizing the risk of derailment.

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.

Representatives from the City's economic development and transportation departments both said last month that they were frustrated with progress on this issue, and agreed that bike lanes are necessary, perhaps combine with reversible travel lanes to make room. Is DOT asleep?

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

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.

People continue to fall and get seriously injured and hospitalized here, indicating that ConnDOT's minor improvements were nowhere near sufficient to make the location safe.

Please fix this serious safety hazard. It has been too dangerous for too long. (Mark, CTDOT does not read these posts, but the new DOT Commissioner is very responsive. Let him know. He will be in New Haven at 5:00 pm this Monday at Long Wharf.)

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.

Do we have records anywhere of the recent injuries? The Tomlinson Bridge Wikipedia page would be one place to index them.

I just crashed here Thursday morning. Crossing over on west bound side en route to train station.

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.

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.

Thanks for reporting yet another in dozens of injuries here, some very severe.

More rail construction in area to begin
http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/06/14/news/new_haven/doc4fd92a88a795e362869294.txt

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.

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

Just as an update, there have been many additional injuries at this location over the past few years. The fixes put in place are inadequate.