DOCSLIB.ORG

Norwalk Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Norwalk Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan NORWALK PEDESTRIAN & BIKEWAY TRANSPORTATION PLAN Introduction and Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum DRAFT Submitted by: Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. 72 Cedar Street Hartford, CT 06106 Contents Vision..............................................................................................3 Executive Summary...........................................................................4 Key Points Plan Purpose....................................................................................5 Background Study Area The Case for Walking & Cycling Plan Development............................................................................7 Review of Existing Plans 2009 Connecticut Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan..........9 SWRPA Bicycle and Pedestrian Study......................................10 2008 Plan of Conservation and Development for Norwalk.......11 Existing Conditions Report..............................................................14 Population and Employment................................................14 Land Use...........................................................................15 Transportation Network.......................................................16 Overpasses & Underpasses..................................................17 Sidewalks & Footpaths.........................................................18 Major Pedestrian Routes......................................................19 Connectivity Plan................................................................23 On-Road Bicycling.............................................................26 Trails /MultiUse Paths...........................................................30 Bike Storage/Amenities........................................................31 Crash Data........................................................................32 Appendix 1: Summary of Focus Group Meetings.............................34 Appendix 2: Summary of Public Meetings.........................................40 Appendix 3: Detailed Survey Results.................................................42 2 Norwalk Pedestrian and Bikeway Transportation Plan Vision The draft vision statement was first presented to stakeholders at the fo- Norwalk’s walking and bicycling vision is: cus group meetings and to the community at the public meeting held in July 2010. The comments and suggestions received at those meetings All Norwalk residents and visitors have access to the benefits of walk- were incorporated into a revised vision statement. The result is a state- ing and cycling. They are physically active and they and their children ment that is a synthesis of the many goals stated by various participants have learned to safely walk and bike, giving them mobility and inde- regarding their goals and aspirations for the Pedestrian & Bikeway plan. pendence. Norwalk is a community where people can walk or ride from their home to work, transit, to places for shopping and entertain- ment and for recreation. Norwalk’s streets are livable places that accommodate many activi- ties. Neighborhood business districts are thriving with foot traffic from residents and visitors. A civic commitment to share the road is respect- ed by drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike. Norwalk is the hub of a connected regional bicycle network that includes bike lanes, multi-use paths and greenways. This statement will be used over the coming years to guide pedestrian and bicycle initiatives and improvements in the City and is a critical component of Plan. The vision statement forms the foundation for the goals, objectives, recommendations and designs within this plan so that all participants will be represented and will work congruently and coherently toward a desirable future. Norwalk Pedestrian and Bikeway Transportation Plan 3 Executive Summary City of Norwalk Sidewalks, Footpaths, Multi-Use The City of Norwalk seeks to create a transportation system that will Paths, Schools & Transit Centers accommodate the needs of all users, including pedestrians and cyclists; one that integrates safety improvements, reduces congestion, and pro- motes healthier lifestyles. Norwalk’s pedestrian infrastructure of side- walks and footpaths provides good access to the City’s urban streets and to certain rural parts of the City adjacent to schools and parks. In many cases, however, sidewalks and footpaths are narrow, in poor condition, and have significant gaps or are missing pedestrian activated crosswalks to link sidewalks at dangerous intersections. Bicycle facili- ties in Norwalk are less comprehensive, limited to multi-use trails and shoulders of roadways. The City has no clearly designated on-street bike lanes and bike racks are hard to find. Improvements made to the walking and bicycling infrastructure in prox- imity to densely populated areas, employment centers, schools, transit facilities, parks, and community facilities are needed and will have a positive impact on residents and businesses alike. The present network of roads is primarily designed to serve the needs of motor vehicles and provides limited support for alternative modes of transportation, includ- ing cycling and walking. This study will focus on identifying deficiencies and recommending improvements to the existing system that will assist in a mode shift from auto traffic to walk, bicycling, and transit use. Norwalk’s pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is concentrated in densely populated areas and near pedestrian generating facilities (see Figure 1). Filling gaps and improving this network by alleviating barri- ers, making new connections and providing new wayfinding signs is a critical component of the plan which will improve the environment for bicycling and walking in Norwalk. Key Points • Norwalk’s extensive sidewalk infrastructure and emerging bi- cycle path network provide access for the majority of residents and pro- vide a good foundation for future improvements. • Connecting the gaps in this network is critical to the success of facilitating walking and bicycling in Norwalk. Figure 1 4 Norwalk Pedestrian and Bikeway Transportation Plan • Overpasses and underpasses and the lack of crosswalks at criti- Study Area cal intersections present obstacles to safety and can represent a critical deficiency in an otherwise safe pedestrian corridor. The study area of this plan includes the entire City of Norwalk (see Figure 2) with attention called to specific focus areas within the City. In particular, The Existing Conditions Report will evaluate the condition of the existing this plan focuses on pedestrian and bicycle connections between schools, network and provide the basis for Task 2 which will prioritize key corri- transit centers, parks, open spaces, and other community facilities and dors, develop design guidelines and recommend needed improvements amenities. over the next decade. A subset of the study area is the Norwalk Connectivity Study area which Plan Purpose is bordered by Wall Street on the north, Washington Street on the south, the Norwalk River/ harbor on the east, and West Avenue on the west. This area was analyzed in detail in the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency Background Connectivity Plan study area. All pedestrian and bicycle issues and rec- ommendations in that area are included in the Connectivity Plan. Dur- The 2011 City of Norwalk Pedestrian and Bikeway Transportation Plan ing the citywide Pedestrian and Bikeway Transportation Plan development, will serve the City of Norwalk by providing direction on improving and the study team coordinated with the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency to expanding pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The ultimate goal of the ensure that the two plans’ recommendations were compatible with one Plan and the planning process is to advance the transportation network another. to include a more connected system of bikeways and walkways through- out the City. This technical memorandum provides an introduction to While there is some discussion of state roadways, the Plan places special the overall planning process and analysis of the existing transportation focus on City facilities, whose design and construction are primarily the network to assist in determining what improvements are necessary to responsibility of the City of Norwalk. support a more connected system of sidewalks and footpaths, on-road dedicated bicycle lanes, and off-road bicycle and walking trails. The final Plan provides recommendations as well as specific plans and drawings to illustrate the recommended improvements. The Case for Walking and Cycling in Norwalk The City of Norwalk initiated this planning effort because it believes that As stated earlier, research shows that fewer than five percent of Norwalk an improved system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities will encourage residents are walking or bicycling to work. An improved system of pedes- residents to use these modes more frequently. The Plan of Conserva- trian and bikeway facilities can encourage residents to be more active and tion and Development (POCD) for Norwalk reports that fewer than five thus has the potential to reduce motor vehicle trips. percent of Norwalk residents walk or bicycle to work. Early outreach in the planning process identified missing links and gaps in the system The benefits of increased walking and bicycling in Norwalk are multiple. of sidewalks, footpaths, and bikeways as possible causes for this single These include improvements to health, transportation, the environment, digit mode share percentage. Ultimately, the Planning Commission
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AQUIFERPROTECTIONAREA SW Estport , CONNECTICUT
    n M ! R F S o N G o Godfrey Pond C e t Inwood Rd u P u n o d a r u d B W d r n n r t e R L r e t d R d b e r t e R o t t s n R 111 D i l n I o a e l a r o M o t e n l s S1 r R i t t V W w l r A O d n k a l d e K i i R e i S d 1 n M a n n l R W B e l y D H o id g e a a T u a l R t R i Wheelers Pond 1 H L l a a r x d n l B o a g e R d r r a v a d o F d d e d d R n r T t e Nod Hill Pond t e y n l n e R r e R R W d h d o e u d r D e D d i y n u D R v M R e e E w e e d n k d e o S H R u b n d w r r a r r r e Chestnut Hill r c d e o e d d w 7 R H u w o n b L e r D d l R d Mill River h B o d L w t S W n d b n s s s u Plymouth Avenue Pond £ a d s y e ¤ r A u o i R R s o n i b Pipers t o R h d Hill R n d o i n L c S d d e 5 C t a e d r r d d B o U H g Powells Hill k t t o r t 9 d e S k n Spruc u p r l d D o R d c r R R L P e S i a r n s l H r Cristina R 136 i h L Ln e n B l i r T R o d n r d s l L S o n r R V e o H o k L R i r M d t M Killian A H G L a S ve d R e s R y n l g e d Pin 1 i l C r a d w r n M e d d e r a a 1 i R r d c y e D h k h s r S R 1 d o d c E Cricker Brook i t c a k n l 7 r M d r u w a e l o R l n y g a R d r S n d l Dr c e B W od l e F nwo d r Nature Pond o t utt o l S i B t w d C h l S B n y i d r o t l e W ch R e i D R e e o o D p B r M Hill Rd i L d n r H R ey l on r il H P H n L H o ls illa w o d v r w t w a w on La n o s D D d d e O e S e n w r g r R e p i e i W k l n n e d d W t r g L e v e r t l y e l D l r y g l 53 e e T a e o R e l s d y d H n Plum rkw o a D i P a R n l r a S d R L V W i w o u r u Jennings Brook l
    [Show full text]
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C
    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Customer Opinion Survey Final Report
    Task 1.2: Customer Opinion Survey Final Report URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. May 2003 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT 1: SURVEY SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................................2 COMPARISON TO METRO-NORTH RAILROAD CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY ...........................................................10 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS.........................................................12 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 .................................................................................13 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 .............................................................................15 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY
    [Show full text]
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting
    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
    [Show full text]
  • Information Packet.Pdf
    Resilient Connecticut Phase II Potential Regional Adaptation/Resilience Opportunity Areas Information Packet for WestCOG and Chief Elected Officials Thank you for following progress of Phase II of the Resilient Connecticut planning process. We have enjoyed presenting Resilient Connecticut to you at the monthly WestCOG meetings of fall 2020 and winter 2021. Now that spring has arrived, we are pleased to present another project milestone. • The information sheets following this page include the following: ✓ The “Terms to Understand” page provides a list of terms and their meanings on the left side, and a list of project resources with hyperlinks on the right side. ✓ Each potential regional adaptation/resilience opportunity area identified in the WestCOG region is described on an individual page. Regional adaptation/resilience opportunity areas are the geographic locations that our team has identified based on overlays of flood vulnerability, heat vulnerability, social vulnerability, zones of shared risk, and regional assets and infrastructure. • Here are some helpful hints when reviewing information sheets: ✓ The numbers associated with the flood, heat, and social vulnerabilities are relative scores between zero and one. This means that a score of “0.9”in one opportunity area demonstrates higher vulnerability than a score of “0.5” in a nearby opportunity area. ✓ The ID numbers for the zones of shared risk include a four-digit watershed identification number developed by the State. For example, “7300” is the Norwalk River watershed. ✓ The “areas of planned development” have been gathered from community plans, but the names that we selected for these information sheets are a work in progress. We plan to revise these as needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Drainage Report
    ENGINEERING REPORT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 FLAX HILL ROAD NORWALK, CONNECTICUT September 21, 2020 Revised April 20,2021 Prepared for: Workforce Partners, LLC PO Box 692 South Norwalk, CT 06856 Prepared By: Ricardo Ceballos, P.E. Professional Engineering Consulting Services 245 Sturges Highway Westport, CT 06880 (203)635-0922 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 132 Flax Hill Road Norwalk, CT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The descriptions and computations included within this Stormwater Management Plan and Appendix are provided in support of applications submitted by Workforce Partners, LLC to the City of Norwalk for permitting purposes related to site and building improvements at 132 Flax Hill Road in Norwalk. The site's storm water management system shall be sized to accommodate runoff from a 25-year design storm and the system shall be designed so that post development peak discharge rates, and stormwater runoff volumes, do not exceed predevelopment quantities. Per City requirements, the storm water management plan has been prepared by a Connecticut-licensed professional engineer. Location The project site is located at 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, Connecticut (site); As shown in Figure 1 the site is located in South Norwalk. The 0.217-acre site is a fully developed urban area. Project Location Figure 1 Project Location – 132 Flax Hill Road, Norwalk, CT. Page 2 Existing Conditions The site has 1 existing residential building, a detached garage structure, a driveway, and walkways. The site’s open space are landscaped grass areas. The purpose of the proposed project is to demolish the existing garage structure and add additional parking and driveway areas. As shown on Appendix A, there are no stormwater features, catch basins, yard drains or storm pipes.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Station Report
    Individual Station Report South Norwalk URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Westport According to those at the meeting, which included the First and Second Selectmen and a representative from the Police Department, who run the station, Harry Harris wants CDOT to take control of the stations and parking. This was the first issue brought up by the town representatives – that the State wants to run the stations to provide better quality control, and that the State feels that this is the only solution to improve the supply of parking along the entire line. Furthermore, the feeling was that CDOT would be exempt from local zoning and would therefore be in a position to deck parking lots without local permission. Westport feels that they do a good job with the two town stations, and that they have an excellent relationship with Carl Rosa regarding maintenance and operations and with Harry Harris regarding policy. They feel strongly that if other towns ran their stations and parking like they do CDOT would have far fewer issues to contend with. Westport understands the desire for uniformity among the stations and supports that policy, albeit with concern regarding home rule issues. Westport, ultimately, is satisfied with the status quo, and feels the working relationship is excellent, the division of responsibilities clear, and their ability to have input into the ADA design process excellent.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 !Ã !N !N !N !N !N !N !Ã !N !Ã !N !Ã !N !N !N !Ã !N !N !N !Ã !N !N !N !N !N !N !N
    D T a Earth Pond u Ferris Hill Cyrgalis Pond d d n d R r R b y t O R Coleytown at r l C o t l e Domenicks Pond u n e n h C d H e ve d L e r e d r B n R r o b Belden Hill s y Copts Brook Doubtful Pond R D A 14 o o lu l s R y C u d l l a C i d o F B l R k ry l R R r r Sayles Pond re l d u d l R c nt a il e e nn r T Doughnut Lake d s i n e u M g L h e Fivemile River H n i d d r o k o L i W Silvermine Pond Huckleberry Pond n w L e C is R Barker Pond a n F k n r t 57 a r L R g m e e Newtown Avenue Pond Laurel Reservoir C R e o r S d L L Fire Pond Coleytown V F n g n n n High Ridge i i in d t R d d K L n a Tuttle Pond n e pl g r Belden Hill Brook l p T O i Sipperly Hill a n e d Mayapple Pond y e w Crawford Pond u r a i l A 14 R M n T a k d a Saugatuck River k R P South Wilton o o Kingdom Pond a o B m W L r n Jules Pond M R d d T L in B am R k B ho d rne Rd L o K er i r h t n r s L e l s n t a a Covleytown a e l d a l i t E Chestnut Hill Pond e c R T y o n n S k R l e o e g r n t r m S u Landscape Pond F u Lambert Pond t n T a b r L e H tA 14 Collins Pond D s Lake Susan 124 R o w s lls Rd Rd D i L a y i s d West H Hill Old South Norwalk Reservoir Coleytown New York Tanglewood Ln S N r Canoe Hill i t x d V R t s New Canaan Pond d n R t i s N l t r t g l h i ll e e e s r L i R d n V e L e r L t H P t L a y H w C r l L s e n i w A 14 a d h n l l R o e a r w T n n o s v Rosebrook Pond y a C M r C s d L R o u y e e C o W Ke Qu s o n Tulip Tree Pond ar G d t t l e a r Field Pond s a r e r e M 5 e l tt K ile i d y m A R l v Rd n n Grumman Hill m e
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Scope of Work Has Been Prepared to Reflect the Request For
    TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN FOR SOUTH NORWALK RAILROAD STATION NEIGHBORHOOD EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT Prepared for: The City of Norwalk Prepared by: The Cecil Group, Inc. TR Advisors Milone & MacBroom December 22, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Cecil Group – TR Advisors – Milone & MacBroom – Language Link Consortium Existing Conditions Evaluation Report i The Cecil Group – TR Advisors – Milone & MacBroom – Language Link Consortium Existing Conditions Evaluation Report ii SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The Existing Conditions Evaluation Report is a multidisciplinary review of the current elements that comprise the area surrounding the South Norwalk Railroad Station. This document has been assembled as part of the Transit Oriented Development Master Plan for South Norwalk Railroad Station Neighborhood Study Area for the purpose of accurately informing subsequent analyses and decisions related to constructing a Transit Oriented Master Plan for the South Norwalk Railroad Station Neighborhood. The purpose of the Transit Oriented Development Master Plan for South Norwalk Railroad Station Neighborhood Study Area is to provide The City of Norwalk with planning recommendations that can guide and manage future change in the area of the South Norwalk Railroad Station. The aim of the planning recommendations will be to capitalize on this area’s development potential, while providing benefits that will appropriately enhance the area neighborhoods and their component places. Project Goals and Objectives have been collaboratively prepared with members of the public, community stakeholders and City staff, to guide the planning recommendations associated with this project. The project Goals and Objectives are included as Appendix A of this Existing Conditions Evaluation Report. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) generally refers to land use and activities that are advantaged by proximity to and pedestrian access to public transit.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbury Station
    TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES IN SOUTHWESTERN CONNECTICUT KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO KNOWfor HOW TO GOSENIORS, PEOPLE KNOW HOW TO GO WITH KNDISABILITIESOW HOW TO GO KNOW HOW TO GO and VETERANS www.knowhowtogoct.org Waterbury Station Naugatuck Station Beacon Falls Danbury Station Station Seymour Station Seymour Danbury Bethel Station Ansonia Station Ansonia Monroe Derby Shelton Redding Station Station Derby Redding Ridgefield Branchville Station Shelton Trumbull Milford Easton Cannondale Station Weston Bridgeport Wilton Wilton Station Milford New Merritt 7 Station Canaan Station Fairfield BridgeportStratford Station Stratford Station New Canaan Westport Station Fairfield Metro Station Fairfield Station Stamford Norwalk Southport Station Talmadge Hill SERVICE SERVICE AREA Station Green’s Farms Station Springdale Westport Station Station Darien E. Norwalk Station Glenbrook S. Norwalk Station Greenwich Station Rowayton Station Darien Station Noroton Heights Station Long Island Sound Stamford Station Old Greenwich Station Riverside Station Cos Cob Station Greenwich Station 1 Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Ferry ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Strategies
    INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES COMMUNITY FACILITIES UTILITIES SUSTAINABILITY RESILIENCY TRANSPORTATION 113 114 MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE COMMUNITY FACILITIES 12 Overview Community facili‐ ties provide for Community facilities support functions such as education, public works, public desired services safety, and recreation, all of which are important to maintaining the character and enhance the and quality of life in Darien. quality of life in The POCD does not get involved in the day‐to‐day operations of individual the community … departments. Rather, the POCD seeks to identify potential community facility needs (buildings and sites) so that they can be anticipated and planned for. The POCD also serves as a useful guide for referrals of proposed municipal im‐ provements (as required by CGS Section 8‐24) for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Education Recreation Safety Emergency 115 Legend Address Community Facility Needs Generally expected to be EDUCATION FACILITIES Assessment adequate for community Education Darien public schools are consistently ranked among needs to 2025 Darien High School the best public schools in Connecticut Darien residents are firmly committed to neighbor‐ Middlesex Middle School hood schools and new residents often purchase May have some based on school districts issues to Hindley Elementary consider Holmes Elementary Some elementary schools have been using portable Ox Ridge Elementary classrooms since the late 1980s Attention Royle Elementary None of these 14 classroom spaces are directly appears
    [Show full text]
  • East Norwalk URBITRANR EPORT
    Individual Station Report East Norwalk URBITRANR EPORT CONTENTS: Stakeholder Interview Customer Opinion Survey Parking Inventory & Utilization Station Condition Inspection Lease Narrative and Synopsis Station Operations Review Station Financial Review URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. July 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 June 2003 Stakeholder Interview URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. Westport According to those at the meeting, which included the First and Second Selectmen and a representative from the Police Department, who run the station, Harry Harris wants CDOT to take control of the stations and parking. This was the first issue brought up by the town representatives – that the State wants to run the stations to provide better quality control, and that the State feels that this is the only solution to improve the supply of parking along the entire line. Furthermore, the feeling was that CDOT would be exempt from local zoning and would therefore be in a position to deck parking lots without local permission. Westport feels that they do a good job with the two town stations, and that they have an excellent relationship with Carl Rosa regarding maintenance and operations and with Harry Harris regarding policy. They feel strongly that if other towns ran their stations and parking like they do CDOT would have far fewer issues to contend with. Westport understands the desire for uniformity among the stations and supports that policy, albeit with concern regarding home rule issues. Westport, ultimately, is satisfied with the status quo, and feels the working relationship is excellent, the division of responsibilities clear, and their ability to have input into the ADA design process excellent.
    [Show full text]