Letters to DOT  and SCROG regarding the 146 Study

TO: Mr. Stephen Dudley, Transportation Director, SCRCOG, sdudley@scrcog.org

CC:

Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT, Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov

Mr. Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG, camento@scrcog.org

James Cosgrove, Branford First Selectman, jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov

Matt Hoey, Guilford First Selectman, hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us

The Friends of Historic 146, safer146@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I write to express my concerns about the scope and direction of the Route 146 study that you discussed in a public meeting on December 1. As a citizen of Madison, I request significant changes to the existing plan and a more transparent public process of review and consideration for the future of the road.

Any study or plan for Route 146 should address the specific historical, environmental, and recreational attributes of this exceptional roadway—a designated Scenic Road and Bike Route, running through four local historic districts and is on the National Register Historic Places. We also request a process of active participation and civic engagement by concerned citizens in the planning and design process. The current schedule for one more Webinar at the end of your study and no further public comment and engagement, is entirely inadequate.

I travel 146 frequently on my bike for exercise and it is one of the loveliest routes in the area.  I often take visitors through the area, stopping at Medlyn farm or at Stoney Creek. Whether in a car, on a bike or on foot, it is a special road and any changes or improvements should preserve it’s bicycle-friendly character and the access to the many trailheads along its course.

Although the current scope of services does address flooding concerns, it does not include any reference to the bridge over the crabbing spot or other historic preservation issues. Nor does it consider the presence of two Amtrack railroad bridges. In short, this study does not address the specific characteristics or special qualities and uses of this specific roadway, now or in the coming century.

I look forward to hearing from you on my requests to:

1. Revise the process to be transparent and collaborative

2. Revise the scope of services to address these issues and concerns.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

David Ackman

61 Hartford Avenue

Madison, CT 06443

January 15, 2021

Stephen Dudley

Deputy Director, SCRCOG

127 Washington Avenue

4th Floor West

North Haven, CT 06473

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I am writing to comment on the Public meeting held by SCRCOG on December 1 to present the results of the Route 146 Corridor Study.

I moved to Branford 20 years ago because of Route 146. There was nothing more magical than driving along a quiet country road through the Leete’s pastures, overlooking the tidal marshes and the Thimble Islands, or coming under the train overpass and hearing the tree toads at night. I made a point to travel on it whenever possible and would think to myself “Who is so lucky as to actually live on Route 146?” Last year, my husband and I found a home in a beautiful location on 146 overlooking a tidal marsh, Joshua Cove and the crabbing bridge. As a new resident I feel a responsibility to be a part of the preservation of the road and stewardship of the environmental resources in the area. So, I listened to the Corridor Study Report with keen interest in that regard and followed up by researching the history of preservation, environmental and engineering studies and DOT proposals.

All those years of enjoying Route 146, I took it for granted that it would maintain its historic and scenic integrity. From my research, I now know that I have a particular group of people to thank for that. Largely the same people from the town governments and the communities of Branford and Guilford have been working to preserve Route 146 as a scenic byway in one way or another for at least the last 25 years, producing countless studies and proposals on flood mitigation, wetland restoration, cyclist and pedestrian use and methods of preservation. 

Please work with DEEP

It is encouraging to know that representatives from SCRCOG, Friends of Historic Route 146, CT DOT and local legislators have known each other and worked together for a long time and will meet together next week. I hope this group will continue to meet and work together leading up to SCRCOGs final recommendations and DOT's next proposal regarding the bridge at the "crabbing hole". PLEASE also include a representative from DEEP to provide recommendations for flood mitigation and for the impact of any Rt 146 proposals on surrounding wetlands.  

Please Collect Cyclist Data

There is one glaring area of omission in SCRCOG’s Route 146 Corridor Study: Data on the prevalence of cyclists use of the road. Any of us who travel the road regularly know the dangers posed by the nature of the road and the mixed use by cars and bicycles. You gave an apt description during the Question and Answer period of the December 1st meeting when you stated,

Dangerous places on the road for pedestrians and cyclists “are so numerous as to be almost uncountable. Whether it’s on the inside of a curve where there’s a very narrow shoulder, on the outside of a curve where there’s tidal wetlands adjacent, cable and post guardrail, those all exist and have fairly high danger for pedestrians and cyclists…”

You later stated in response to another question,

“Rt 146 is problematic with regard to bike traffic. There’s no question about that. It has been a designated bike route on state maps in the past and that in many respects means it’s a “take your life in your own hands” sometimes with regards to the traffic that comes through there.”

Your words perfectly describe the situation of cyclists and motorists interfacing on Route 146. It is not only dangerous for cyclists, but for motorists as well. It is not uncommon to come around a corner or over the crest of a hill and encounter a vehicle barreling straight at me because the driver swung out around a cyclist into the oncoming lane without the sightline to do so safely. But, decision-makers need data to illustrate what we know from experience. Data on the actual cyclist usage similar to that collected on motorists (time of day, number, direction, parts of road used) would help decision-makers to determine safer motorist speeds and possible other actions such as installation of signage or other methods recommended by those with expertise in the area.

SCRCOG’s Route 146 Corridor Study Scope of Services Document dated 8/14/20 states a plan to collect cyclist use data in the Field Data Collection section on page 8.

        “17. Obtain bike route information from area bike groups to understand the number of avid bicyclists using the corridor as well as from traffic counts and observations.”

Has this been done and could that data be added to the Route 146 Corridor Study report? 

If not, it is very unfortunate that SCRCOG missed the opportunity to collect this data during the warmer months when cyclists are most prevalent. 

Would SCRCOG consider extending the study period in order to collect and include this key data? 

Or would SCRCOG commit to adding an addendum with the data at a later date?

Perhaps SCRCOG could engage a group of cyclists and/or community members who would volunteer to provide a yearly report such as described  in the Number 1 Policy  Recommendation resulting from the 2017 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan prepared by Fitzgerald and Halliday, Inc. for SCRCOG (page 98).  (READ HERE)

It’s hard to imagine making any recommendations for the road without obtaining cyclist use data. I hope that SCRCOG will consider doing so.

Sincerely,

Beth Mariotti

114 Leetes Island Rd.

Guilford, CT 06437

January 15, 2021

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I hope it is useful to offer my personal recollections of the history of this road.  I have lived here all my life except my four years in the Navy. For about 16 years I was in Branford on Harbor Street.  I had a full-time job and three kids but I worked every Saturday on the farm bailing hay on the meadows, fixing equipment, chopping wood with axes (before chain saws).  There was always something to do.  One of the things that helped pay the bills was to shovel small shells from Leetes Island to ship them to New Jersey. The biggest customer was the US Government to use for feeding carrier pigeons. I didn’t grow up thinking of it as a beautiful place.  As a younger person I didn’t appreciate some of the natural beauty.  It wasn’t about ooh-ing and ah-ing over the prettiness of it.  We had to get the work done.  People would say to us that it was such a wonderful spot. Perhaps I took it for granted and was just working too hard to really notice.  It was home and had been home for my family since my ancestor William Leete arrived here in 1639.

Over 80 years I have come to think of it as an exceptionally beautiful and very special place.  I am now taking this opportunity to reflect in the context of more changes that may come.

The Leete Farm is believed to be the third oldest farm in America in continuous operation.  From the Crabbing Hole and West to my house at 616 Leetes Island Road, on both the North and South sides of 146, is Leete Land. Much of it is now in nature preserve and the rest of it is mostly the farm and a cluster of houses on Leetes Island.  My nephew Jonathan uses the land to grow grass-fed cattle these days.  It used to be primarily a dairy farm. The Leetes Island houses are on land leases.  It started as a summer community and now there are some year-round houses too.  They aren’t large or fancy and are very rarely are sold.  We have understandings about how the neighborhood, the land and the people should be treated.  The setting is very peaceful and modest.  We only ever had to ask one person to leave who was a menace to the community.  Everything is done by gentleman’s agreement. There are no signed leases.  Everyone upholds the agreements and treats each other respectfully.  There are no property lines and there are no property disputes on our land.

We maintain the farm and the land the way it is by choice.  My grandfather felt very strongly about keeping the land and not everyone agreed. But this section of the road is what it is because of him.  He was a very kind, good and hardworking man. I grew up helping him and my father on the farm.  I would like to show you the photograph of my father working the salt marsh hay fields with a horse-drawn wooden rake behind my house.  My grandmother was a very special, strong and kind person who also worked very hard and did many things, including keeping everyone well fed.  She would never give up her wood burning stove for an electric.  She was always bringing food to people. I can’t forget the taste of her wineberry jam and her baked beans.  She also saved me once when I was caught under a sort of avalanche of lime bags. She heard me crying out and pulled them all off to free me up.  She was born on Moose Hill Road.

The second oldest farm in America, as I understand the history, is also right here in Connecticut, in Orange.  They once had a beautiful hilltop which had a view down to New Haven. But the family ran into trouble with a tragic accident.  I think the family’s son was driving a horse trailer and there was a collision in which a young man died.  It resulted in a lot of lawsuits and they had to sell the land on the south side in order to keep the rest of the farm.  They also had to sell a house they owned on Leetes Island.  The land went to housing development.  It had been beautiful hayfields. It is really a shame that it wasn’t preserved. There are so many natural areas and farms like that which have been lost to commercial development. There aren’t many left.

Before the State built Route 146 the old road used to run through the stone gates up the hill near the cemetery and behind the north barn which was built in 1700, and then down in front of the Peletiah Leete house.  It crossed the stream on an old bridge. You can still see some of those old stones between 146 and the railroad tracks at the Crabbing Hole at low tide. That area used to also be farmed for salt marsh hay and was controlled by a tide gate at the entrance to Great Harbor Marsh which was destroyed in the hurricane of 1938. About the old road, my uncle used to say that you could go from Leetes Island to the Town Green without touching the steering wheel because the ruts were so deep in the Spring.

I don’t remember family complaints about the new road even though the state ran it right between the old barn and our house. It used to be a pathway and probably grazing for cattle.  The new paved road is 13 feet from my front door which we think was the door from the original house. We still have the engraved doorstep dated 1705.  It was in bad repair and replaced with the front of this house in 1834 by my Great, Great Grandfather.  That front door is a solid 2 inches thick plus the many generations of paint.  

When we were kids and it snowed, my father would lower down the horse-drawn sleighs from the upper platform in the barn and we would ride through town. The sleighs are still up there in the barn but the block and tackle system is long gone and they haven’t come down in 70  years. The original structure is still intact, and we have replaced timber as required.  We maintain these barns on both sides of the road even though they are only partially used now for farming operations.  We replaced the silo though it has been years since the cattle needed it for feed and it stands empty.  The original one was purchased in 1940 at the Springfield Fair and dismantled to be reassembled here.  It is historic and is part of our Leete Family agreements to keep everything in order.  Jonathan and I oversaw the construction of the new silo in 2017. We used the same equipment, system and design.

I would also like to show you the copy of the Guilford Covenant which is framed and on my living room wall. We believe it was written by our ancestor William Leete who was supposed to have been the most educated of the people at the time. He graduated from Cambridge University in England and was an attorney who served on the King’s Court. The land given to him was the oldest land grant in the country (according to Joel Helander).  He donated the townspeople 20 pounds of silver for the privilege of having Leetes Island for his own property even though it was controlled by Charles the 1st.   He eventually became Governor of the United Connecticut Colonies around 1655.  He had owned the root cellar where Dixwell was hidden for one night during the King’s search for the three judges who were supporting his overthrow.   

You probably have read the Covenant. I have included the text below. What is remarkable about it to me is that it basically said that we are all here together for a higher purpose and we value the community over the individual. 

In the context of what is happening today in our government, I wonder if we can ever be that way again? I am disgusted by people’s bad behavior.  There are so many more important things than money – like integrity.  We were raised to understand that. 

I think there is a connection with what we are talking about with the road here. 

I don’t know a lot about your studies and plans.  But I do believe this history is valuable. I love this place and am proud of it.  I am making arrangements in my own affairs so that the next generations can keep and maintain it.  I hope you can also keep the road for people to enjoy. It should be safe and well-maintained.  Cars need to slow down.  Cyclists should ride single file and have enough room to be safe too. People should be able to enjoy the beautiful views and the nature surrounding them. I think it is worth trying to preserve this place.  It hasn’t been ruined.  There aren’t many places like this left on the coastline.

Respectfully,

Bill Leete

616 Leetes Island Road

Guilford, CT 06437

CC:     Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT, Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov

Mr. Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG, camento@scrcog.org

James Cosgrove, Branford First Selectman, jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov

Matt Hoey, Guilford First Selectman, hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us

The Friends of Historic 146, safer146@googlegroups.com

And here is the Guilford Convenant, FYI.

"We whose names are here underwritten, intending by God's gracious permission, to plant ourselves in New England, and if it may be in the southerly part, about Quinnipiac, we do faithfully promise each for ourselves and families and those that belong to us, that we will, the Lord assisting us, sit down and join ourselves together in one entire plantation and be helpful each to the other in any common work, according to every man's ability and as need shall require, and we promise not to desert or leave each other on the plantation but with the consent of the rest, or the greater part of the company, who have entered into this engagement.

"As for our gathering together into a church way and the choice of officers and members to be joined together in that way, we do refer ourselves until such time as it shall please God to settle us in our plantation.

"In witness whereof we subscribe our names, this first day of June 1639."

Dear Mr. Dudley

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SCRCOG Route 146 Corridor Study presentation on December 1. 

I have lived in Stony Creek since 1979 and I drive over the stretch of Route 146 that runs between Stony Creek and River Street several times a week.

I am very pleased to see that this study is taking place and that it explicitly includes addressing seawater rise.  

Amtrak may have chosen not to participate in this particular study, but I hope that there is informal consultation with Amtrak taking place. The Amtrak track bed is threatened by seawater rise in the same way as is Route 146.  See:

• https://ctmirror.org/2015/07/15/rail-1-staging/

• https://ctmirror.org/2015/07/16/climate-change-poses-risks-for-amtraks-already-vulnerable-eastern-connecticut-rail-line/

I found the information that vehicle traffic on Route 146 has increased only very slightly since 1993 and that there have been relatively few reported accidents on the road to be surprising. Unfortunately, the failure of VHB to discover that Route 146 itself (between Flat Rock Road in Branford and the western end of the West River Bridge in Guilford) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places undermines every factual assertion in the “existing conditions” presentation.

The presentation evidenced a lack of adequate appreciation for the “poetry” of Route 146.  The poetry is found both in the remarkable views from Route 146 and also in the rise and fall, tilting and curving of the road itself.  I endorse the comments of Dolores Hayden and appreciate her elegance of expression.

The presentation by the seawater rise consultant was nearly incomprehensible.  It relied on maps that were impossible to read at the scale at which they were presented.  

The study needs to involve each of us in a consideration of how much road flooding we can tolerate. I encourage you to accept the invitation from the Branford RTM to present to that body.  I also encourage you to post large-scale maps at the Branford and Guilford town halls and libraries.  Please also consider making presentations to the Stony Creek Association, the Hotchkiss Grove Association, the Pine Orchard Association and similar organizations in Guilford.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Penny Bellamy  

Dear Mr. Dudley:

 Since your public Zoom meeting on December 1, 2020, about SCRCOG’s Route 146 study, I have been paying special attention to this road, the artery that connects me to the world. Why is it special? Why do I like driving on it? Why is walking along it so difficult? What qualities of this historic route should be held sacred while anticipating future use and needs? And where are the danger zones? To address these questions, I want to share some observations with you that I hope you will take into consideration.

 For nearly 15 years, I have lived at 55 Sawmill Road (the waterfall house), overlooking Jarvis Creek and 146. Sitting at my desk, I can see when 146 floods, as it did on December 13 (a particularly high tide) and again on December 25 (after heavy overnight rain), and did for several consecutive days last week, coating the road with ice. Cars either come to a stop, then creep forward to keep the salt spray to a minimum, or turn onto Sawmill to avoid the water entirely. Sawmill is barely one lane wide, with two blind hills, and unknowing drivers who use this “detour” often drive too fast for these conditions. Sawmill is a town problem, but the problem starts with 146.

 Raising the roadbed at Jarvis Creek is not the easy answer, because the homes on 146, opposite the marsh, would be affected by runoff from a higher roadbed. The solution here may be in the marsh itself, possibly in the infrastructure for the old tidal dam. To explore such possibilities, it is essential that the SCRCOG study include input from DEEP. Signage might address the flooding in the short term, but as climate change models project much of this area will be inundated in the decades to come, it is incumbent upon studies like yours to work in tandem with DEEP for off-road solutions to keep the road dry.

 A similarly problematic situation is the blind entrance to 146 from the east end of Sawmill. This is dangerous for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. I cannot walk the 1,000 steps from my house to Medlyn Farm for a dozen eggs without taking my life in my hands. Without visual access to the east, I must rely on the sounds of the road before I dash across it, an increasingly dangerous method as quiet electric vehicles become more common. This is also true at the blind entrances to 146 from Old Quarry and New Quarry roads in Guilford. Neither the Sawmill nor Quarry blindness is posted to alert drivers on 146.

 As a frequent driver on 146, I know to watch for this and for other “unusual” behaviors. On December 13, for example, after the tide had ebbed, I drove into Guilford on 146. On my way home, as I came over the hill from the Crabbing Place I could see a car stopped along the straightaway, across from the Leete’s ponds. I slowed, anticipating that the car would move, but as I approached, it pulled to the side, and as I passed it, I realized the occupants had stopped to watch the large flock of ducks that were bobbing for food. Later, sitting at my desk, I noticed a westbound car stopped on the Jarvis Creek bridge. The tide was low, so I knew they had paused to admire, and no doubt photograph, the spectacular sunset. Both the cars slowed by a high tide in the morning and the wildlife and sunset watchers in the afternoon were evidence of the special qualities of route 146 and its landscape.

 While those of us who live on and near 146 value those qualities today, we also must work to safeguard both the users of the road and the road’s future. To protect the historic landmark districts linked by this road, to protect the fragile marshy landscape through which it runs, and to save the road itself, it is imperative that the State’s DOT and DEEP find joint solutions for this unique area. The best future of 146 lies not only in the hands of experienced civil engineers such as yourself but also in group expertise and state and community engagement – particularly community engagement. This road is not simply a thruway or a corridor. It is a landscape, as well as connected to a landscape. I know you recognize this, and will lead us to engagements with experts such as DEEP in order to address the preservation of these two landscapes together.

 Yours sincerely,

Cynthia Davidson

55 Sawmill Road, Branford

To: Mr. Stephen Dudley, Transportation Director, SCRCOG

Dear Mr. Dudley:

Over twenty years, when we lived in New Haven, a co-worker who lived up on Moose Hill Road used to arrive at work and tell us how lucky he was to be able to commute to and from work on scenic Route 146. We, too, came to love the road as we used to travel to Guilford’s Chaffinch Island on weekends. It was restorative, inspiring—a winding asphalt track through almost four centuries of history. A small sign welcomed us to “Guilford, An Agricultural Community Since 1639". We loved to drive Route 146. So, when my wife and I decided to move to Guilford, our first look was down Leetes Island Road. And on that first day, we found the right house. We now live, since 2002, in the old farmhouse just east of Breakfast Woodworks that we found for sale that day. 

We write today to say what we love about the road, and what elements we think we could accept to be changed. Above all, the character of the road, as it has evolved, should be maintained as a valued heritage for future generations. 

The Friends of Historic Route 146 have joined together to protect that heritage. We join with them to convey our concerns so that any recommendations coming out of this “corridor study” are fully informed by those concerns. We have both specific and general views about what might be done to protect the character of the road. We write to specify our concerns. We endorse the widespread view that “it should be kept it as it is…except for…” First, we note what should not be changed; then, we note what should be changed.

Key characteristics and elements that SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED:

·      Keep the twists and turns: The basic terrain-profile of classic rural highway design that Connecticut’s DOT created in the 1930s should be strictly retained. The DOT deserves kudos for that design and it should do nothing to alter or compromise the way the road itself comprises a scenic feature that should be treasured and never altered.  DOT's 1930s highway design for Route 146 deliberately made the roadway hug the terrain which made it look as if it was integral with the landscape it traverses. (See photos below of road segments where this feature is most notable.)

·      Keep the present width: Roadway (pavement) width should remain as it is.

·      Keep the post-and-cable guiderails: The post-and-cable guiderails should be strictly maintained. Ugly steel guiderails have recently replaced certain segments of post-and-cable guiderails. They should be removed and the traditional guiderails put back. (Were the Scenic Road Advisory Committees even consulted about placing the ugly steel guiderails?)

·      Do not consider a new bicycle/walk trail beside the road: There should be no new parallel lane for cyclists and walkers next to the road. Any such change would drastically alter the character of the road, and, as a practical matter, it is not even a feasible idea.

·      Don’t even think of speed bumps: There should be no speed bumps or any other physical measures to slow the light traffic.

Key characteristics and elements of the road that SHOULD BE CHANGED:

·      Wider safety margins for all users: Roadway shoulders should be widened and travel lanes narrowed, with overall pavement width unchanged, to provide a wider margin of safety for cyclists, runners, and walkers.

·      Strict enforcement of speed limits: Traffic laws (especially speed limits) should be much more strictly enforced. This is the only (and surely) effective way to calm traffic on the road, which is light in any event. This is a responsibility of the Towns of Branford and Guilford, true. Experiences we know of (Cape Cod's Route 6 north of Orleans, North Road out of Yarmouth ME) demonstrate that strict enforcement is quite feasible and very effective in calming traffic, if there is political will. The study should strongly endorse this measure.

·      Ensure access along the road while keeping true to the roadway’s design: Continuous access along the length of the road should be ensured. Rising sea levels and storms unquestionably threaten such 24/7/365 access through more frequent flooding at multiple points along the road. The road should be raised where necessary to make sure that flooding does not hinder full access during at least the next 30 years. However, as noted above, the present terrain-profile of the road should be strictly preserved. In the places where the roadbed needs to be raised, the redesign of the road should ensure that its scenic character be replicated as closely as possible. Examples are shown below of sections of the road that must, after any raising of the roadbed, look the same as they do now.

·      Restore post-and-cable guiderails: The sections of the road where ugly steel guiderails have been installed should see them removed and the original post-and-cable guiderails should be restored. This solution is preferred to the timber guiderails of the Merritt Parkway. But the ugly steel guiderails are contrary to the character of the road. (If there is some public safety threshold requiring steel guiderails at current speed limits, we endorse lowering the speed limit to below such thresholds.)

·      Improve signage: Appropriate signage should be installed. Signs should be posted that warn of strict traffic enforcement—assuming that becomes the case. Signs should be posted noting the historic and scenic character of the road. (Current signage is inadequate.) 

Because of the intense public interest in the future of Historic Route 146, the “corridor study” should have an additional public hearing, after the study’s draft report is complete, and before the report becomes final. There are numerous constituencies and stakeholders whose interests need to be processed. Furthermore, the road itself traverses different physical environments and the particular needs of these different environments need specific attention. 

Finally, we note the great importance of the ultimate fate of the crossing at the Great Harbor Marsh (not necessarily a bridge). We realize that this is not a topic to be addressed in this “corridor study”, so we encourage the SCRCOG and DOT to develop a follow-on process for soliciting public input and collaboration on the design of that crossing. The DOT should not pursue (let alone unveil) a steel-and-concrete bridge solution for the crossing without first collaborating with the Friends of Historic Route 146 on a crossing design.

We hope that the “corridor study” will give serious considerations to our views above, and we also ask that we and the Friends of Historic Route 146 will have a similar chance to collaborate on the design of the Great Harbor Marsh crossing.

Best regards,

Alan Fairbank and Cheryl Wilcox

-- 

Alan Fairbank, PhD

Cheryl Wilcox, JD

77 Leetes Island Road

Guilford, CT 06437 USA

+1-203-453-6828

+1-203-812-9695 mobile

email: fairbanka@gmail.com



Hello Mr. Dudley,

I would like to weigh in on the ongoing dialogue about the Rt. 146 corridor study and echo the dissatisfaction many of my neighbors have expressed with the scope of the current study and the lack of genuine inclusion of stakeholder input. 

My wife and I purchased our home several years ago in the Dromara/Moose Hill/Leete's Island neighborhood so we could raise our family amongst the exceptional environmental resources in this neighborhood and along Rt. 146. The proximity to Shell Beach, Westwoods, endless salt marshes, neighborhood farms, Stony Creek, etc. were reasons we were thrilled to move into this neighborhood. The ability to walk, ride our bicycles and generally experience these assets safely is very important to our family. The presentation you and your consultant colleagues gave a couple of months ago showed your process is not adequately addressing these aspects of the Rt. 146 historical road and its associated marvels.

Therefore I urge you to widen the scope of the study, seek authentic stakeholder input, and spend more time listening to the people who live and work along the corridor. A few points in particular I would like to highlight:

1. It is very unsafe for pedestrians, especially the many children and older residents who live in this area, to cross Rt. 146 from Moose Hill Road to Shell Beach Rd. The combination of the blind corner and hill east of the intersection with the high speed of motorists coming from both directions make this crossing a roll of the dice. Traffic calming is necessary here to protect residents and motorists alike.

2. As an avid cyclist, I am continually impressed with the diversity of other cyclists I see on Rt. 146. We need to better accommodate not just the lycra-clad athletes who cherish this roadway, but also the elder neighbors who get their daily exercise by riding. Unfortunately, children are currently absent. A combination of narrower vehicle lanes, lower speed limits, and  adequate shoulders, including well-maintained roadside vegetation, would go a long way to making this road safer for all residents and visitors, including children. It is ridiculous for a town that continually invests in playing fields, a boardwalk at the beach, playgrounds, a frisbee golf course, etc. to ignore one of the most important recreation assets for our kids--the roads. Let's allow our children to develop their independence through exploration and movement around town the way we all did growing up by providing a safe corridor for them.

3. Though I now live in a home built in 1977, I grew up in a historic 1756 home in a nearby town and I greatly appreciate the historic character of many of the homes along 146. Guilford's history is rich, and any improvements to Rt. 146 should seek to minimize impact on historic character and buildings. Like so many of my neighbors, I would not support widening the roadway, thereby infringing on these historic properties, in order to accommodate greater vehicular convenience. 

4. While I realize this particular study is not explicitly about the crabbing hole bridge, it does need to directly address potential solutions for that location since it is an integral part of the road. At the aforementioned public meeting you appeared to brush off any suggestion by attendees that this current study should also address the bridge, apparently to avoid further controversy on an already hot topic. Unfortunately, you can't adequately conduct an adequate Rt. 146 corridor study without directly addressing the public's wishes, the environmental concerns, and the climatic considerations of that bridge.

In summary, I urge you to expand the Rt. 146 study to represent and support the full value and potential of Rt. 146 and the people who live along it. As presented thus far, the study appears to provide substance only for the vehicular realm.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to more fully integrating stakeholder input into this process.

Sincerely,

Spencer

Spencer R. Meyer, PhD

Landscape ecologist, conservation planner and forester

Dromara Road

Guilford, CT

January 15, 2021

to: Mr. Stephen Dudley, Transportation Director, SCRCOG
cc: Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT
Mr. Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG
James Cosgrove, Branford First Selectman
Matt Hoey, Guilford First Selectman

re: CT Route 146 Corridor Study by SCRCOG – Branford / Guilford

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I write this letter wearing several hats and from several perspectives – as a resident of Branford living in Stony Creek, as a District 2 representative on the Branford Representative Town Meeting, as the Chair of Branford’s Coastal Vulnerability ad hoc Working Group, and as a founder of one of the state’s largest architectural / planning firms.

Your planning group has received voluminous correspondence from concerned citizens of Branford and Guilford who are passionate about the future of CT 146, especially the section from Stony Creek to Guilford Center. Those letters express far more eloquently than I could the extreme connection our communities have to CT 146 as a treasured resource of both towns, so I will not try to add anything further to those expressions other than to offer my concurrence.

I am, however, concerned about the process that has been followed limiting public input at meaningful points in the development of this study. A public meeting at the beginning of the project when your team had only evaluated existing conditions, followed by a final presentation after the body of the study has been completed is wholly inadequate and does not offer any meaningful opportunity for the public to impact the final outcome.

As you know, the Branford RTM has submitted a letter of concern to your team signed by all representatives, stressing the importance of this asset to the community and the need for adequate input from citizens. That letter included an invitation to meet and present to the RTM in February, I believe. I trust that this invitation will be accepted.

It must be apparent by now that this so-called “corridor” is far more than just a vehicular corridor – it is an experiential corridor, a cultural heritage corridor, a scenic corridor, a cycling corridor, a walking corridor, and maybe lastly a residential vehicular access corridor. It is not a key circulation link between our communities; it is not an important commercial road; and, it is not a heavily trafficked vehicular highway.

Key concerns have been submitted about the visual and functional characteristics of 146 to be maintained – as an historic, scenic, recreational treasure.

Key concerns have been submitted about certain characteristics to be discouraged – speeding traffic, commercial usage, employment of standard DOT highway elements, etc..

The concerns that all have voiced about characteristics to be avoided could be addressed in the final recommendations by suggesting the application of traffic calming elements, the use of non-standard DOT highway elements such as the Merritt Parkway wooden guardrails, placing limitations on heavy trucking in certain areas, careful attention to shoulder details to facilitate safe cycling and walking, minimizing any inclination to widen the road, and employment of appropriate historic signage.

I would also note that, although this is listed in Branford’s Emergency response plans as an emergency access corridor, it, in fact, only functions in an emergency as a pathway for local residents to leave their homes and seek refuge in upland areas - in the event of a coast hurricane for instance. Branford residents would head toward Stony Creek and Guilford residents would head toward Guilford Center. The use of the road for any mass exit from either community is questionable.

Flooding, of course, is a key issue to be responded to through your planning recommendations – but, response should be minimal and should not attempt to address all possible flooding events.

The two low areas of 146 near Jarvis Creek and the low area at the Guilford town line rail underpass are all approximately 3’ NAV88 elevation – which is just about mean high high water level in this area. With monthly perigee tides carrying that water higher those sections typically flood with 4 to 8 inches of water. Based on the required planning criteria of 21” sea level rise by 2050 the lowest portions of those two areas would need to be raised by about 28” to avoid monthly flooding through 2050. A roadbed elevation of about 6’+ NAV88 would need to be maintained. Also, that is about the highest the road could be elevated, relative to neighboring houses, before more serious engineering challenges arise.

The unpredictability of long-term sea-level rise would seem to point to a moderated response that is restricted to elevating low sections of 146 to above the perigee high tide line – with the understanding that this will not avoid flooding due to major storm surge events or to tidal levels that may be experienced late in this century.

Also, there is much yet to be studied about the health of marshlands, marshland migration, the use of sophisticated (yet to be developed) flood and tide gate systems, and the impact of the Amtrak rail berm on many flood-prone coastal roadways.

Again - a prudent approach would be to construct minimally “damaging” road elevation changes at this time and re-evaluate the sea-level and coastal conditions later in the century. Low lying sections of 146 around Jarvis Creek are upland of the Amtrak “barrier” - so that “barrier” may become a component of protection at some point in the future if sea levels continue to rise and if more technologically regulated barriers are developed.

The section of 146 at the RR underpass near the Guilford town line could be protected from perigee tide conditions by a low sea wall on the curved Guilford side of the underpass - combined with a tide gate. In cases of extreme storm surge flooding this underpass may be impassable. Residents evacuating on the Guilford side may have to leave heading toward Guilford, and residents on the Branford side may have to evacuate heading toward Branford.

In sum, I would suggest that the elevation of 146 should be approached with moderation and limited to the goal of avoiding monthly nuisance flooding. Toward the end of the century we may find sea level conditions untenable and, depending on how the Amtrak berm is addressed, residents may have to face “retreat”.

Much thoughtful input has been submitted by our towns’ residents and I sincerely hope that the recommendations of your study will be responsive.

Sincerely,

Peter Hentschel
Branford District Two RTM representative
Chair of Branford’s Coastal Vulnerability ad hoc Working Group
Chairman of Tecton Architects

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I write to express my concerns about the scope and direction of the Route 146 study that you discussed in a public meeting on December
1. As a citizen of Branford, I request significant changes to the existing plan and a more transparent public process of review and consideration for the future of the road.

Any study or plan for Route 146 should address the specific historical, environmental, and recreational attributes of this exceptional roadway—a designated Scenic Road and Bike Route, running through four local historic districts and is on the National Register Historic Places. We also request a process of active participation and civic engagement by concerned citizens in the planning and design process.

The current schedule for one more Webinar at the end of your study and no further public comment and engagement is entirely inadequate.

I have lived in Branford for 35 years and one of the best things about living in this area is Rte. 146. Before moving here, I used to ride the train between New York and Boston and marvel at the beauty in the landscape I passed in this area. I feel so fortunate to have made my home here. As a young family, my husband and I would bike with our children between our home in Stony Creek and Guilford on Rte. 146 and now my 28 year old son bikes the same route, all year long, almost every day, no matter the weather. It is his balm.

I am concerned that the road be kept safe for bikers.

I am concerned that the wetlands along the road be protected.

I am concerned that the character of this beautiful and rare scenic route be preserved.

Although the current scope of services does address flooding concerns, it does not include any reference to the bridge over the crabbing spot or other historic preservation issues. Nor does it consider the presence of two Amtrack railroad bridges. In short, this study does not address the specific characteristics or special qualities and uses of this specific roadway, now or in the coming century.

I look forward to hearing from you on my requests to:

1. Revise the process to be transparent and collaborative

2. Revise the scope of services to address these issues and concerns.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Laura Barr

11 Ridge Road, Branford, CT

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I am writing to add my voice to the throng of voices who care very much about a very special road—Rte 146 from Branford to Guilford—and who are very concerned about its future.

I have lived in Stony Creek since 1976; I’ve walked or cycled or motored Rte 146 almost daily for 44 years. Thanks to those who worked passionately and diligently to achieve the “Scenic Road” designation, the character of the road—and the roadway—has been protected and preserved. For the most part, the beauty of the route has not changed.

When I became aware of the SCRCOG study, my first impression was that it was driven primarily by the promise of funding, rather than need or merit. Others have parsed the study with far more expertise and scrutiny than I have; I defer to them, and I echo their concerns.

My observations and concerns fall into three categories:

• Preservation of the beauty and “character” of the route and the roadway. Best achieved by respecting and adhering to the “Scenic Road” designation and committing to the active participation and civic engagement by concerned citizens in the planning and design process. 

• Safety. I was surprised to learn that your study showed that the volume of vehicular traffic has not increased over the last twenty+ years. In my observation, what HAS changed, is vehicular speed and recklessness, and the increased distractedness of drivers. Cyclists, many of whom do not ride responsibly, also contribute to the perilous nature of the road. Measures that address traffic calming must also address cyclists/runners/walkers following the rules of the road.

• Flooding. There may be ways to deal with flooding in some locations; in others, the Amtrak bridges and track embankments are non-negotiable obstacles. In some locations, the only option may be for people and municipalities to adapt to the occasional flooding of roadways caused by moon-tides and storms. Further, there are DEEP rules and regulations that necessitate their partnership in any mitigation plans.

These concerns—preservation, safety, and flooding—are not mutually exclusive. They are related; addressing them requires coordination, cooperation, and mutual consideration.

I see the conclusion of this study as a departure point for further work that is transparent, inclusive, and collaborative.

Sincerely,

Barbara Marks

15 Flying Point, Stony Creek, CT 06405

January 15, 2021

Steven Dudley
Deputy Director, SCRCOG
127 Washington Avenue 4th Floor West North Haven, CT 06473

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I am writing to comment on the Public meeting held by SCRCOG on December 1 to present the results of the Route 146 Corridor Study. I have lived on Route 146 for just over one year.

I want to address the design of a replacement bridge for the current culvert over the great march/lost lake area. I would like to propose replacing the culvert with a small, narrow bridge to both retain as much of the current scenic value of the road while helping reduce traffic speeds over this causeway section of Route 146.

A thoughtful design of a new bridge can provide an opportunity to slow traffic down. Instead of widening the road overall and limiting visual interruptions to the sight lines of the road (which psychologically leads to faster speed and paradoxically reduced safety for drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and fishermen), narrow the road (at least visually) by including barriers/rails between the roadway and a separated walkway for pedestrians, but only narrow it for a short distance at the point of a bridge at the location of the current culvert. Since the bridge would only replace the current culvert, it can be relatively short. This visual mass of the bridge with some clear separation for pedestrians will cause cars to reduce their speed. This could be supported also by bringing the speed limit down to 30 mph over the causeway and bridge. Yellow warning signs about the narrow bridge or perhaps warning lights will also assist reducing speed.

As drivers approach the causeway from either side, the broad sweep of view and downhill approaches encourages increases in speed. Having a visual (seemingly) narrow bridge at the base of the road will reduces speeds here and for a good portion or all of Leetes Island and the approach from Guilford.

A small bridge will also reduce impacts on the scenic nature of the current road.

Sincerely,

Jack Mariotti
114 Leetes Island Rd.
Guilford, CT 06437

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I write to express my concerns about the scope and direction of the Route 146 study that you discussed in a public meeting on December 1.  My wife and I grew up in Connecticut and moved to Guilford in 2018.  We spent two years searching for our ‘forever home’ and found it in Guilford on Island Bay Circle which is just south of historic Rt 146.  Guilford won us over with its quaint Town Green, historic buildings, beautiful beaches, and woodland terrain.  Every day we drive down Rt 146 between the Red Barns at Hereford Beef and pinch ourselves since we still can’t believe that we live in this magical place.   We appreciate that the State of Connecticut invests significantly in its land use and transportation planning to keep this state one of the prettiest in the nation.  

I attended the virtual Dec 1st meeting and was pleased to hear that one of the members of the study spent time cycling on the road, getting an intimate view of the area.  I was also pleased to hear that the traffic has not increased in 20 years and that accidents were minimal.  However, I agree with my friends and neighbors that this “Corridor Study” does not appear to address the character of this historic roadway.   I spend many hours driving, jogging, and walking down the portion of Rt 146 between Stony Creek and The Guilford Green and would like to take the liberty to add some specific comments and observations:

1.) Traffic Calming:  The traffic goes too fast.  I think we can all agree on that.  I believe traffic calming should be the #1 priority for this roadway.  I have read through SCRCOG’s traffic calming resource guide and feel that many of these techniques could be used to calm the traffic.

2.) Proposed Traffic Island with Crosswalk at Moosehill Rd: The intersection of Moose Hill Rd and Leetes Island Road (RT 146) is very dangerous because pedestrians often walk down Moose Hill Rd and across Rt 146 to access Shell Beach.  This may not be apparent from traffic study data or a casual bike ride.  But there are often joggers, families with strollers and dogs, the elderly, etc. slowly crossing at this intersection to access Shell Beach.  Vehicles come flying up around the bend at high rates of speed.  I believe this area is an accident waiting to happen.  I suggest a traffic Island with cross walk similar to the intersection of New Whitfield Street and Old Whitfield Street in Guilford as in the image below.  There is already a white street light at this location so the traffic island would be well lit.  (photo)

3.)  Eliminate Passing Zones:  These appear to encourage higher speeds and do not seem necessary with such a low traffic count.

4.)  Regularly Clean Roadway Shoulders and Tree Trimming: Can we have the roadway shoulders cleaned on a more regular basis?  Having walked and jogged down the shoulders, there is often significant debris which prevents using the full width of the shoulders which are very small to begin with.  Also, increase tree trimming to keep the shoulders clear vertically would be very helpful.    

5.)  Replace Double Yellow Line with Single Yellow Line:  I notice that a single line is used in some portions of RT 146.  This could suggest to drivers that this is NOT a corridor.  (Is the roadway being resurfaced any time soon?)

6.)   Narrow The Driving Lanes: I believe they are 11’ wide now but could be reduced to 10’?  This would allow more room on the shoulder to share the road with pedestrians and cyclists and keep traffic moving slower. Widening the road should not be considered and I have learned that previous studies determined widening is not possible due to so many homes and barns being so close to the road.  

7.)   Require The Wooden “Merritt Parkway” Guardrails: These are much more aesthetically pleasing than the standard galvanized guardrails.

8.)  Signage: Adding signs that show RT 146 is a historic roadway would be welcomed.  Perhaps this needs to be coordinated through on of the historical societies? Adding signage that this is a shared roadway would also be welcomed.

9.)  Flooding: It appears as if the tidal flooding issues can be resolved economically by raising the roadway where necessary.  Under the train bridges, building berms on the sides of the road and adding one way/flood gate type storm drains could be a temporary fix until the train bridges are elevated.  

This is such a beautiful place and we would like to keep it that way!

I agree with my friends and neighbors that because there are so many details critical to ensure the roadway retains its historical importance, it is imperative that there is civic engagement by concerned citizens in the planning and design process.  The current schedule for one more Webinar at the end of your study and no further public comment and engagement, is entirely inadequate.

The rushed timeline and lack of civil engagement is alarmingly similar to a situation I experienced in Glastonbury back in 2015.  The short story there was that Fuel Cell Energy, under contract by United Illuminated, rushed to install a Fuel Cell energy plant in a residential area (photos attached: before, after).  The Siting Council allowed the plant to be closer to the road than they originally proposed and the contractors worked overtime through weekends and holidays in an obvious effort to avoid civic engagement.  In this case, the CT Siting Council apparently showed no respect for the aesthetics of our state.  They claimed there would be “installation of evergreens” but it never happened.  The Siting Council made no effort to make the Power Plant blend into the landscape.  The end result was a hideous power plant that could not be camouflaged.  Glastonbury Councilman Kurt Cavanaugh summed it up by saying "We've been had".   See images below. and link to Siting Council petition as a reference.

 https://portal.ct.gov/lib/csc/pending_petitions/petition_922/pe922dcltr.pdf

I am hopeful that the corridor study and crabbing bridge will have better results that this power plant.  I appreciate your consideration and look forward to hearing from you on my requests to:

1. Revise the process to be transparent and collaborative

2. Revise the scope of services to address these issues and concerns.

Thank you!

Kind Regards,  

Paul Pranzo
2 Island Bay Circle
Guilford, CT 06437

Hello, all.

We're sorry that we are unable to attend the Zoom meeting this evening, but we'd like to add a few thoughts to the ongoing conversation.

We greatly appreciate the work and the thought that has gone into this project, by everyone involved. However, unless tidal flooding and lack of law enforcement are addressed, other improvements will have little effect.

Our family house, built in 1875 by my great grandfather, is next to Jarvis Creek and is situated mere feet from the road.  Although we are able to enjoy the beauty of the salt marsh both across the street and contiguous to our property, we also experience the downside of our location.

During storms, our cellar has been flooded, twice with several feet of water.  Frequent high tides, which are more and more common, often preclude us from leaving our own driveway in either direction.  Our shallow well has been contaminated with salt water.  The noise level, mostly from motorcycles, trucks, and sports cars, make it impossible for us to carry on a conversation on our own front porch. 

We are also active users of Rt 146, walking, biking and driving on it almost daily.  We have had many close calls with speeding drivers, and are astounded that there have not been accidents involving the hundreds of bikers we see on the road.

As practical people, we realize that the road cannot be widened, drivers will never go 25 mph, and police will not enforce noise laws currently on the books.  Our only hope for a safer road is the use of speed traps, either by officers or cameras.  And although we all love the vistas that this road offers, unless the flooding can be addressed, it will be truly impassable in the not too distant future. 

Deborah R. Hull

Robert V. Hull

December 30, 2020

Stephen Dudley

Deputy Director/Director of Transportation

South Central Regional Council of Governments

127 Washington Avenue, 4th floor

North Haven, Connecticut 06473

Via email: sdudley@scrcog.org

Subject: Route 146 Corridor Study

Dear Mr. Dudley:

Preservation Connecticut is the statewide nonprofit historic preservation organization for

Connecticut, established as the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation by special act of

the General Assembly in 1975. Our mission is to “preserve, protect, and promote the

buildings, sites, and landscapes that contribute to the heritage and vitality of Connecticut

communities.”

The Route 146 corridor through Branford and Guilford is a prime example of the places that

Preservation Connecticut believes are crucial to Connecticut’s identity. Comprising a wide

array of significant buildings, sites, and landscapes that span the state’s history from before

European settlement, the corridor offers a rich experience to all who live or work in it or travel

through it.

As has been noted several times, in press coverage and during the information meeting held

on December 1, Route 146 passes through four districts listed on the National Register of

Historic Places, and the corridor also contains other places that are individually listed on the

National Register or on the State Register of Historic Places. Route 146 also is a State

Scenic Road—indeed, it is the very road that inspired the creation of Connecticut’s State

Scenic Road program—and it is punctuated by scenic landscape and views of marshland,

farmland, town and villages, rock outcroppings, stone walls, and more.

While planning for the continued usefulness and safety of Route 146 is important, this

planning will not be a success if it does not include as a top priority maintaining, and even

enhancing, the historic and scenic character of the road and the country through which it

passes.

Another factor noted several times in the public presentation is that the Route 146 corridor is

richly varied over its thirteen-mile length. It should be obvious that in order to take historic

and scenic character meaningfully into account in this planning process, it is necessary to

understand just what makes up that character, in specific terms.

Unfortunately, the discussion of history and scenery in the public presentation was not very

detailed, limited to a sweeping statement of scenic beauty and rural character. The slide

show included mapping of historic resources, but no indication of just what they contribute to

Route 146 on a larger scale.

For instance, the discussion of historic resources did not mention one resource which will be

crucial to the outcome of this study, and that is the roadway itself. Within the Route 146

National Register district, the entire right-of-way is a contributing historic resource. Thanks to

the scenic road designation, similar argument could be made for most of the rest of the

roadway.

This means that preserving historic resources along Route 146 is not simply a matter of not

demolishing Colonial houses—it extends to the very pavement itself. Giving proper attention

to this will mean that standard road building guidelines cannot be applied in an off -the-shelf,

one-size-fits-all manner. Instead, the guidelines must be applied in a thoughtful manner, by

planners who are willing to take time to understand the nature of historic resources and the

role they play in the corridor as a whole, and time to explore and evaluate innovative

solutions to issues that arise. This is in fact an opportunity; an opportunity to be join in a

centuries-long process of creating and maintaining a place that is very unusual, if not unique,

within the state.

Of course, time was limited, and the consultants may in fact have devoted more time and

attention to understanding the character of Route 146 than was immediately obvious from the

presentation. Nonetheless, here are some recommendations on what the final study needs to

include in order adequately to meet the goal of respecting historic and scenic character for

future planning for Route 146.

The existing conditions report should include an inventory of State and National Register

listed sites along the roadway, with a brief description of the defining historic characteristics

of each. In addition, there should be a broader description of historic and scenic character

that includes a breakdown of the corridor into sections with different characters. I am a

member of the Department of Transportation’s Merritt Parkway Advisory Committee. As the

Department has been planning improvements to the interchange between the Parkway—

which is listed on the National Register—and U.S. Route 7, we have found such an inventory

to be crucial to creating a design that will respect the Parkway’s historic character.

The inventory for Route 146 should recognize that there very likely are other historic and/or

scenic resources within the corridor which may not currently have official designation, but

which may be eligible for designation. Environmental review of any construction projects

along Route 146 under the National and Connecticut Environmental Policy Acts and Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will of course require that such resources be

identified and included in an evaluation of effects.

This should be performed by a consultant or sub-consultant with demonstrated expertise in

history, architectural history, and historic preservation designation and practices.

Other sections of the final report should refer to specific resources where appropriate. In

discussing recommendations for future projects, the report should identify issues where

preserving historic character and achieving other goals for the study may come into conflict

and suggest principles for resolving those conflicts.

The bottom line is that this study cannot be regarded solely as a traffic or road design

project. It also must be equally regarded as a preservation project and a conservation

project. As one of Connecticut’s most important state scenic roads, Route 146 will be looked

to by other communities. You have a matchless opportunity to get it right, not only for this

road, but for other scenic and historic roadways throughout the state. We at Preservation

Connecticut would be happy to help in any way that we can.

Very truly yours,

Christopher Wigren

Deputy Director

cwigren@preservationct.org

Copies:

Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG

James Cosgrove, Branford First Selectman

Matt Hoey, Guilford First Selectman

Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT

Mary Dunne, State Historic Preservation Officer, CTDECD

Friends of Historic 146

Mr. Stephen Dudley 

Transportation Director 

SCRCOG 

sdudley@scrcog.org 

Dear Mr. Dudley, 

We are writing write to express our concerns about the scope and direction of the Route 146 study that you discussed in a Guilford public meeting on December 1.  There is need for significant changes to the existing scope of services and a more transparent public process of review and consideration for the future of that road. 

Any study or plan for Route 146 should address the specific historical, environmental, and recreational attributes of this exceptional roadway—a State-Designated Scenic Road (western section only) that passes through four National Register Historic Districts: Guilford Town Center, Route 146 (also on the National Register of Historic Places), Stony Creek/Thimble Islands, and Branford Town Center.  

This off-the-shelf study does not address the specific problems of this particular road.  The plan’s deficiencies are abundant.  It fails to mention the proposed bridge at the Crabbing Place and the design of that facility.  It also fails to consider the two railroad bridges, massive stone constructions that are not readily amenable to widening.  Without addressing those bridges, any alternative effort to affect traffic flow would seem a waste of time.  Alternatively, the costs of building new bridges and rerouting the railroad solely to affect traffic flow on this historic route would seem to be money badly misspent.  

In addition, Route 146 is lined with houses built in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries, including one of the oldest barns in Connecticut, most within five or ten feet of the roadway. Thus widening of the road, which would necessarily destroy important historical aspects of our community, should not even be considered. 

We also fault the process of active civic engagement in planning and design:  The current schedule was simply inadequate. The public was provided a 10-day notice of the December 1 meeting, followed by a deadline for comments of December 31.  Considering the specific time of year and Holidays, along with the current realities of the COVID pandemic, I find the proposed schedule to be at least insensitive to community concerns and more likely an effort to minimize public response and input.  In either case, it is disrespectful and regrettable. 

We look forward to more positive and collaborative discussions in the New Year regarding the fate of Route 146 and our much-loved community. 

Yours truly,  

Mavis Lockwood 

Jonathan Borak, MD         

          Clinical Professor of Medicine, Yale University 

Residence: 4 Island Bay Circle, Guilford 

Cell Phone: 203-494-2494 

Email: Jonathan.Borak@Yale.edu 

CC   Mr. Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov 

Mr. Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG camento@scrcog.org  

James Cosgrove, Branford First Selectman jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov 

Matt Hoey, Guilford First Selectman hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us 

The Friends of Historic 146   safer146@googlegroups.com 

 Dear Steve,

I have used 146 for 40+ years and lived in a cottage on Leete’s Island for 30 of those years-I know 146 very very well-

I’d like to make a few suggestions to add to the present discussion regarding speeds, flooding, and cyclists-

The posted speeds between Branford and Guilford range between 25-35 mph with one very important 10mph at the hairpin RR underpass at the Branford/Guilford line- can we reduce any of these speeds? I would especially recommend that the 10mph be reduced to 5mph- can we use an exclamation point on this sign?thankfully the 13’6” height allows large trucks to go through using both lanes-the Sachems Head underpass at 11’8” can’t accommodate these larger trucks- large trucks can be 12-13ft high-

Can the passing zone between the Leete barns and the gate at the cow pasture be eliminated? that stretch encourages speeding even when not passing- it is one of the most beautiful sections- why not slow down?

Can we put specialized calibrated signs that flash only when there is water over the road at the spots prone to flooding? this would eliminate the moving back and forth of the “Water Over Road” signs even when there is no water-

The cyclist issue is more complicated but good signage would help- presently there are two yellow signs- one at the 4 corners in Stony Creek the other after the bridge in Guilford- they show a bicycle symbol and underneath the words “Next 5mi”- the sign in Guilford is badly fades and damaged and needs to be replaced-could we use something more in line with those used on Cape Cod that are a row of 3 signs on one pole-the top sign is just the bicycle symbol- underneath on a separate sign

the words “SHARE THE ROAD” and on the lowest sign the bicycle symbol and underneath the words”SINGLE FILE PLEASE”-

Clearly there is no room for widening 146 especially to accommodate cyclists if you want to keep it as it is- if you want to go straight and fast take I95!-

These suggestions don’t involve widening, straightening, walls, guardrails or curbs and are focused on preserving with a minimum of disturbing-cyclists and motorists have an EQUAL responsibility on this scenic and historic road-

We have no control over higher high tides and rising sea levels and neither does the DOT as was shown by the hideous over designed bridge presented to the public 2 years ago- PLEASE can we keep them from implementing any more of their overblown and unimaginative plans on this gem of a road? it is my road- it is our road-not theirs-

Thank you for your attention and expertise with this project going forward-

Most sincerely,

Wallie Festa-Hammer

I39 Corncrib Hill

Leetes Island

Guilford 

Stephen,

As you may already be aware, in 2019 the Guilford Board of Selectman established the Safe Streets Task Force (which I chair) in order to address numerous ongoing concerns about pedestrian and cyclist safety throughout Guilford. Nearly all of these concerns are the direct result of transportation infrastructure "upgrades" over the past century that have prioritized automobile traffic over all other forms of transportation. In order to reverse this dangerous trend, many states and local governments (including both the State of CT and the Town of Guilford) have adopted "Complete Streets" resolutions that REQUIRE any transportation infrastructure projects to account for ALL forms of transportation, not just motorized vehicles, in order to secure funding.

For example, here is the language from CT Senate Public Act No. 09-154 (and echoed in the attached DOT guidelines):

• "Accommodations for all users shall be a routine part of the planning, design, construction and operating activities of all highways, as defined in section 14-1 of the general statues, in this state." (Route 146 clearly falls into that definition)

• "As a condition of funding, Complete Streets must be considered, in adherence with Public Act 09-154. This policy enables the alignment of transportation funds to encourage improvements for non-motorized users, especially those that connect to transit, schools, and other generators of non-motorized traffic."

Here is the language of the Complete Streets Resolution (also attached) unanimously adopted by the Board of Selectmen in March, 2019:

• "Complete Streets must be considered, in adherence with Public Act 09-154 (CT Senate,2009). This policy enables the alignment of transportation funds to encourage improvements for non-motorized users, especially those that connect to transit, schools, and other generators of non-motorized traffic".

• "The overarching goal of the adoption of the Complete Streets Policy is to improve safety, mobility options, and connectivity while preserving and enhancing Guilford’s scenic, historic, and environmental resources." (I would argue that Route 146 checks every box in this list)

I attended the December 1 Corridor Study meeting and did not hear the phrase "Complete Streets" mentioned by any of the presenters. Instead, I heard a lot of discussion about automobile traffic volumes and lane width requirements. What are the lane requirements for pedestrians and cyclists? When a road becomes narrow, why is the width of the automobile lane maintained at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist safety? These questions would appear to be consistent with Complete Street principles and I recommend they be addressed in any forthcoming design presentations.

The irony of this situation is that, until the invention of the automobile, Route 146 was a perfectly Complete Street. Horses, buggies, wagons, pedestrians, and eventually cyclists were able to share the road without fearing for their lives. As cars continue to get bigger and more powerful, their drivers crowd pedestrians and cyclists further and further to the side of the road until there is literally no road left. Surely this is not what our forebearers had in mind when Route 146 was first laid out more than 300 years ago. This current 146 study and design project offers you and your team the opportunity to restore 146 into a Complete Street that better accommodates all users. I will continue to monitor this project with keen interest. Please do not hesitate to reach out if you require additional information.

Sincerely,

Sam Gerritz

290 North River St.

Guilford, CT

Chair, Guilford Safe Streets Task Force

Hello Sam,

I have always felt safe on Guilford streets and byways for the last 30+ years.   My concern today is that the threat of planned changes to historic Rte 146 between Guilford and Branford. That has been my “home course’ on my bicycle for well over 25 years.  I ride it literally hundreds of times per year, all year around.   The rolling variety, water and farm views and the smells are a comfort to me and my wife.  I have even been hit by a Peterbilt semi-truck under one of the Eastshore RR overpasses a couple of decades ago. I only broke my collarbone and lost a good cycling jersey at the Yale ER that day.  I did not lose my taste for adventure or my curiosity about what the cows, sheep and egrets are doing that day.  The accident did not keep me off the standard ride down the shoreline to Stoney Creek or Pine Orchard ever.  

You ask what the huge truck was doing on 146?  He had just delivered fancy cars to Sachem Head from Florida and was trying to edge his way back to I- 95.  The solo driver had no lookout posted on the other side of the underpass as he inched his way around the sharp bend leading into the underpass as he took up the entire roadway.   I was coming from the other side (Stoney Creek) leading some Dunk Rock Roadie pals and yelled, “Truck” (they later told me they thought I yelled F**k, but I am too old to talk crudely like that) and hit my brakes hard so I barely skidded into his HUGE bumper and fender.   It was enough to flip me over and smoosh my bike and shoulder. 

I eventually recovered and still ride that route often.  I feel safe and comfortable there and only watch for HUGE trucks covering both lanes.   It is such a comfort to me to cruise that stretch still.   It is the “home course” for me and scores of local cyclists. Many of us wouldn’t mind a lower speed limit as motorcycles and sports cars try out their machines on beautiful days.   But, then again, I hesitate.  Let them have their fun if they stay in their lane.

I cannot imagine it be made straighter and safer.   I believe it is near perfect just as it is.   Pleas leave it alone and I will keep riding it until I die.

Steadfastly,

Paul Rogen   

Paul Rogen

Vice President

Thomson Bike Tours

On Behalf Of Bloomer, Kent

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:00 AM

To: jalves@branfordpolice.com; camento@scrcog.org; Joseph.balskus@vhb.com; Cohen@senatedems.ct.gov; Robin.Comey@cga.ct.gov; jcosgrove@branford.ct.gov; sdudley@scrcog.org; sagirioni@aol.com; Joseph.Giulietti@ct.gov; hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us; prhugret@gmail.com; jmulhern@branfordpolice.com; plazoalj@ci.guilford.ct.us; Sean.Scanlon@cga.ct.gov; safer146@googlegroups.com

Subject: Route 146 Bloomer Letter

We welcome the opportunity to submit comments concerning the projected study of historic Route 146. Attached is a scan of our signed letter, a few copies of which have also been sent by postal mail.

Thank you for reading it and sincerely,

                                                         Kent and Nona Bloomer

Mr. Dudley:

I am the president of the Hotchkiss Grove Association.  As you probably know, Rte 146 runs thorough Hotchkiss Grove. The board unanimously supports the letter (below) sent by Melissa Harris.  We are very concerned about the increased traffic and constant speeding on Rte 146.  We urge the South Central Regional Counsel of Governments and everyone involved with the future of Rte 146 to make the preservation of the the area's history, character, and environment a top priority, as well as to find a way to calm the traffic to protect the many walkers and bike riders on this scenic route. 

Elizabeth McMahon (Betsy), President HGA

December 21, 2020

Mr. Carl Amento, Executive Director

South Central Regional Council of Governments

127 Washington Avenue, 4th floor

North Haven, CT 06473

Sent by email

Dear Mr. Amento:

In the mid 1980s, as residents of Stony Creek, we had an idea: to try to afford some protection to the character of the roadway of Route 146. Not to protect the many historic houses and stunning vistas that line the road, for those are under the control of their owners and the towns’ zoning and building ordinances, but to protect the character of the roadway itself – its twists and turns, ups and downs, and intimacy with the above attributes by virtue of its relative narrowness. Thus was born P.A. 87-280.  P.A. 87-280 has led to the designation of 51 scenic roads throughout the state, and discourages widening, straightening, or flattening of these roads.

We have some grave concerns about the current planning effort being undertaken by your office.  Though the firms involved are doing a thorough job, they are limited by the Scope of Services, which places little emphasis on the road’s scenic designation.  When we attended the presentation on December 1, we heard a lot about traffic and intersections, which doesn’t seem relevant. We have never heard complaints about “traffic” issues on Route 146, so we don’t understand why this discussion is necessary. We also heard a lot about flooding and we noted in the scope of services document the following (highlights ours):

Final Study Report – the final report will document the entirety of the work for the study

and present a planning document to guide future decision on traffic and infrastructure

improvements in the corridor for resiliency and development coupled with potential

impacts of sea level rise.

This is the first time in the document that this issue is mentioned, but we wonder if this is the driver of the study. If it is, the Scope of Services should have been so framed. 

What we didn’t hear much about on December 1 was protecting the scenic character of the road, which should be paramount. We fully acknowledge the importance of the sea-level rise issue, but we want to stress the importance of respecting the scenic road designation and its implications.  The importance of this designation should also be paramount if any modifications are considered to the road for the purposes of bicycle or pedestrian use. 

In addition, we are disturbed by the limited opportunities for public comment.  One meeting was held, with little notice, and the next one will not be held until the study is completed! What’s the point of holding a public hearing when it’s too late for changes? When Environmental Impact Statements are prepared, a public hearing is held on the draft; so this process should be conducted for this project. 

Thank you for your attention.

Lauren Brown and John Herzan

35 Flying Point Road

Branford, CT 06405

cc Stephen Dudley, SCRCOG Deputy Director

James Cosgrove, First Selectman, Branford

Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Transportation

Mr. Stephen Dudley

Transportation Director

SCRCOG

sdudley@scrcog.org

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I write to express my concerns about the scope and direction of the Route 146 study that you discussed in a public meeting on December 1. As a 31 year citizen of Branford I request significant changes to the existing plan and a more transparent public process of review and consideration for the future of the road.

Any study or plan for Route 146 should address the specific historical, environmental, and recreational attributes of this exceptional roadway—a designated Scenic Road and Bike Route, running through four local historic districts and is on the National Register Historic Places. We also request a process of active participation and civic engagement by concerned citizens in the planning and design process. The current schedule for one more Webinar at the end of your study and no further public comment and engagement, is entirely inadequate.

As a Yale Professor, I have the opportunity to travel and I have cycled on many roads around the country and even around the world.  I have ridden 146 from Branford to Guilford well over 2000 times.  Our little local route is truly world class.  That 10 mile ride ranks amongst the best in world for serenity, beauty and comfort.  It would be great if cars went a little slower, but most that use the road know it will be filled with bikes and they are courteous and give plenty of room.  There is no doubt that this road is a national treasure, and we, as citizens of the towns of Branford and Guilford should provide stewardship appropriate to the value of our little treasure.

Although the current scope of services does address flooding concerns, it does not include any reference to the bridge over the crabbing spot or other historic preservation issues. Nor does it consider the presence of two Amtrack railroad bridges. In short, this study does not address the specific characteristics or special qualities and uses of this specific roadway, now or in the coming century.

I look forward to hearing from you on my requests to:

1. Revise the process to be transparent and collaborative, with special focus on the value of 146 as a bicycle route.

2. Revise the scope of services to address these issues and concerns.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

David Rimm

CC   Mr. Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT

Mr. Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG

Stephen Dudley, Transportation Director, SCRCOG

James Cosgrove, Branford First Selectman

Matt Hoey, Guilford First Selectman 

The Friends of Historic 146    

I am writing in support of Bob Yaro’s thoughtful suggestions to you (letter attached) regarding the scope of the Route 146 Study and the timing of community involvement.  The very short notice given will deprive many citizens of the opportunity to be engaged at the outset and contribute to the effort to preserve and enhance Route 146. I respectfully encourage you to postpone the Webinar until January and to change the format to a meeting which enables collaborative engagement on the important issues we face. 

This road is a treasure for our community and for many who travel here to enjoy it.  I live at 616 Leetes Island Road and dearly love this part of CT. 

I am an avid cyclist and try to stay off 146 as much as possible. The cars travel too fast and are inconsiderate and intolerant of walkers, runners and cyclists,  as is the case on most roads, though cyclists pay taxes and have equal rights to this public space.  I was hit from behind by a car just this spring on 146 while riding as far to the shoulder as appeared to be safe at that moment, though I would have been within my legal rights to take the lane.  I live here and can ride on other roads.  Many who live in urban or suburban settings go to significant trouble to come here to cycle on 146 to enjoy the spectacular views and the historic context.  They should be welcomed, encouraged and protected – as should be the case generally.

I am also a painter and frequently find spots along the corridor to work en plein air.  Vistas of natural areas such as we have here are rare and of great value to our health and community.

Thank you in advance for your good work and kind consideration of input from the community of concerned citizens.

Best regards,

Trish Karter

Mr. Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner, CTDOT  Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov

Mr Carl Amento, Executive Director, SCRCOG carmento@scrcog.org

cc: Stephen Dudley, Transportation Director, SCRCOG sdudley@scrcog.org; jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov; hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us

Dear Messrs. Giulietti and Amento:

I am writing on behalf of a number of Guilford and Branford residents who have deep concerns about the current scope and direction of the Rte 146 corridor study. We request that 1) the current scope of services and work plan for the Rte 146 Corridor Study be significantly amended, and 2) that the hastily called hearing on December 1st be postponed until after the holidays in order to facilitate civic engagement. 

SCOPE:  We recommend that it focus on measures to preserve the historic, scenic, recreational and residential attributes of this exceptional roadway —the only state highway in Connecticut that is a state designated Scenic Road and State Bike Route —and from Stony Creek to Guilford Green, it is located within three National Register Historic Districts. This is what the Towns of Guilford and Branford originally proposed, but in the intervening two years that it took for you to advance the project, these goals have been totally lost.

ENGAGEMENT & TIMING:  We also request that this work plan be redesigned to permit active participation and civic engagement by concerned citizens in the planning and design process. The current plan for only two Zoom webinars, with only limited opportunities for comments and discussion, is totally inadequate. Further, your decision to hold the first on-line webinar on Dec 1, with only a week’s notice during the Thanksgiving holiday week and pandemic, makes it appear that you have a total disregard for the public.

CONTEXT:  This study needs to begin with the recognition that this road is an historic and scenic treasure for the towns and the State of Connecticut, that must be preserved and restored for future generations. Instead of a focus on preserving the road’s historic, scenic, recreational and residential character, what SCROG and CTDOT are now advancing is a conventional highway corridor study that might be appropriate for any other road in the state —but not this one. 

BACKGROUND: This project was initiated at an April 10, 2018 meeting of the First Selectmen from Guilford and Branford with Commissioner Giulietti. This meeting was held in the aftermath of the Town of Guilford’s rejection of the Shoreline Greenway Trail proposal. Instead of a separate bike lane, the Town proposed that effective traffic calming and enforcement measures be adopted on the existing paved surface of Rte 146 so that cyclists and pedestrians could safely share the road with automobile and truck traffic. These measures would also reinforce the historic and residential character of the roadway in Branford and Guilford.

This meeting with Commissioner Giulietti also followed the rejection by Guilford residents of CTDOT’s proposed $15 million bridge at the Great Harbor Marsh (“Crabbing Place,”). At this meeting the Commissioner agreed that the Corridor Study should create a framework for consideration of this bridge proposal.

Although the current scope of services does call for an investigation of options to address flooding concerns, it does not include any reference to the bridge or historic preservation issues.

DEFICIENCIES: There are several key deficiencies in the current scope and work plan that must be remedied:

• This scope barely mentions the need for traffic calming and consideration of the full range of traffic calming solutions now being used on similar roads across Connecticut and the around New England. The study should have a central focus on measures to slow speeds, reduce through trucking and protect the road’s scenic, historic, recreational and residential character. Everything else in the study needs to be organized around this central focus.

• There is only limited recognition in the scope that this is the only road in CT that is a state scenic road and state bike route —and there is no mention of the fact that from Stony Creek to Guilford Green, it is located within three National Register Historic Districts —one of them the Rte 146 National Register District, which specifically discusses the importance of preserving this early 20th century roadway design and its historic features.

• There is no mention of CTDOT’s proposed bridge at the Crabbing Place and the importance of having the design of this facility be consistent with the conclusions of the Rte 146 Corridor Study;

• The study should consider that Rte 146 begins and ends at Rte 1, and closely parallels Rtes 1 and 95 for its entire length. It should consider how through-truck traffic and other higher speed traffic could be diverted to Rte 1.

• This road is lined with historic 18th, 19th and early 20th century homes and barns, many of them located within five or ten feet of the existing pavement, and consequently this should permanently rule out any roadway widening or a separate bike route in the existing ROW. For this reason, the study should examine traffic calming and other measures that can be accommodated within the existing paved surface.

• There is no consideration of options to limit through-truck traffic or limit truck weights or speeds;

• There is no mention of roadway design details — for example, the need to preserve and restore historic post and cable guardrails instead of the DOT’s galvanized steel rail standard. This is a place where “one size fits all” will not do. If these historic post and cable rails are unsafe at high speeds, then speeds should be lowered through traffic calming and enforcement measures to a level where they are safe.

• There is also no discussion of scenic road signage standards similar to those adopted by MassDOT and other state DOTs, and how they could be adapted to Rte 146.

• There is no mention of measures to address invasive species, for example extensive phragmites and Japanese knotweed infestations, in the roadway corridor that interfere with the road’s scenic qualities.

• Finally, In terms of process, the study scope should be modified to include a number of public workshops or charrettes that would engage community residents and officials in exploring design and management solutions with SCRCOG and CTDOT staff and consultants. The current proposal for just two online public forums, with only limited opportunities for public comment or discussion, at the beginning and end of the process, is inadequate. Guilford’s Safe Streets Task Force has recently engaged consultants who are planning on-line workshops to address similar issues. Not having an opportunity for public participation in the Rte 146 corridor planning process will only invite the kind of vehement community opposition to the results of the study that we have seen in the response to the Shoreline Greenway Trail and CTDOT’s Crabbing Place Bridge proposals.

In advance of a public hearing and continuation with the proposed DOT schedule, we look forward to  to a meeting to discuss ways that the current consultant scope of services and work plan can be remedied to address these concerns.

Sincerely,

Robert D Yaro

715 Leetes Island Road

Guilford, CT 06437

From: Jonathan Waters <fvnightheron@aol.com>

Date: Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:24 AM

Subject: Fwd: Historic rt 146

To: <sdudley@scrog.org>

  From: Jonathan Waters 

Subject: Historic rt 146

    Dear Mr Dudley , like yourself and Kim  ,I grew up in Guilford ,and  I lived in the Pelitiah Leete house, We found a date in the attic 1706, and chaulk   drawings of square rigged sailing ships.Old rt 146 went thru our front yard ,The Rail Road went thru our back yard .Leetes Barns were across 146 ,cows in the field ,The salt hay in the marsh was harvested by horses as they didn’t get stuck like a tractor could .Lost Lake basicly behind the house was surrounded by land before there were trust trails running thru it  ,protecting that property for the foreseeable future .All good ! And I am happy to report that little has changed along historic rt 146 as well , that it still appears much the same as when we were children riding our bikes to Guilford to get a checkerberry soda , or some penny candy at the 5 and 10 .Sweet memories for sure ,and I want to thank you , for helping me to remember these and think of many others alongthe route as I write to remind you  that maintaining this historic appeal , that caused 146s’various state and federal historic designations ,were put in place to protect it  .,True that there are many contemporary issues affecting the road , traffic , competing uses , flooding , most have been addressed here eloquently by many concerned and reputable people , and deserve to be considered . Isn’t this what we are all tasked to do ?                                I want to weigh in on one aspect . Flooding ,much of the flooding issues have been caused by climate change and related sea level rise .Parts of 146 have been impacted because the tide gates ,which control the rate of water into the marshes ,have not been maintained ,. Not to look for blame , but solutions., by repairing flood gates , repairing berms , dykes , and existing infrastructure at the source of the problem one can spare the road and rail bridges , and avoid only a bandaid fix by raising the roadbed .I only remember flooding occurring during hurricane storm surge when I was a child ,the tide gates and berms protected the road bed at its existing levels during the moon tides and nor easters , why could they not now ?....respectfully submitted , Jonathan Waters, Stony Creek Residen

December 17, 2020 

Sent by E-mail transmission and  

Regular First Class Mail 

Stephen Dudley, P.E., Deputy Director 

SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 

127 Washington Aenue-4th Floor 

North Haven, CT 06473 

Re: Connecticut State Route 146 Study 

Town of Branford/Town of Guilford 

Dear Mr. Dudley 

We, the undersigned, are the elected representatives of the Branford Representative  Town Meeting (RTM). It is our understanding that the Connecticut Department of  Transportation in conjunction with SCROCOG has initiated a study of Route 146 to be  completed by the consulting firm Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

Route 146 is a treasured asset of Branford which serves as both a key vehicular road  connecting Branford to Guilford and a highly valued corridor used for biking and a variety  of recreational activities. Route 146 is a State of Connecticut designated “Scenic Road” a  State of Connecticut designated “State Bike Route” and the roadway itself is on the  “National Register of Historic Places” 

Various segments of Route 146, especially around the Jarvis Creek area, are subject  to periodic tidal flooding which has created critical public safety and emergency access  issues of great concern to the RTM, the governing body of Branford. 

Additionally, we are aware that many residents of our Town (and of Guilford) are  extremely concerned that historic character of the roadway not be diminished and that “any  further alteration or improvement on a scenic road will maintain the character of the road" as required by the State legislation. 

As such, the RTM requests that the scope of services defining the consultant work on  this project address these concerns and that significantly expanded opportunities for public  meetings allowing comment and input during the design study be added to the current scope  of consultant services. We note that the current scope only calls for one public presentation  at the beginning of the study and one upon its completion, but none during the process. 

Finally, we extend an offer for you to attend a meeting of the RTM to discuss the  process the study will follow and the issues it will address. Thank you in advance for your  anticipated cooperation in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Branford RTM Representatives

1st District 2nd District 3rd District 

Michele Sember DeeDee Hakun Peter Black Lindsay Greenberg Peter Hentshcel Linda Erlanger Clare Torelli Chris Hynes Peter Jackson Frank Twohill, Jr. 

George David Wells 

Patricia Austin 

4th District 5th District 6th District 

Dan Adelman Ray Ingraham Anthony Alfone Shaida Soomro Dennis T. Flanigan Ed Prete Ram Shrestha Tracy Everson Marc Riccio Tricia Anderson Don Conklin Chris Sullivan James Stepanek Carolyn Sires 

Sean Kelly 

7th District 

Tom Brockett 

Kevin Healy 

Donna Laich 

cc: Joseph Giulietti, Commissioner 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

2800 Berlin Turnpike 

P. O. Box 317546 

Newington, CT 06135-7546 

Joe Balskus, Consultant 

VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN, INC. 

100 Great Meadow Road 

Suite 200 

Wethersfield, CT 06109 

Christine Cohen, State Senator-12th District 

Legislative Office Building-Room 2802 

300 Capitol Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06106

Sean Scanlon, State Representatie-98th District Legislative Office Building-Room 3200 300 Capitol Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06106 

Robin Comey, State Representative-102nd District Legislative Office Building-Room 4000 300 Capitol Avenue 

Hartford, CT 06016 

Matthew T. Hoey, III, First Selectman TOWN OF GUILFORD 

31 Park Street 

Guilford, CT 06453 

James B. Cosgrove, First Selectman 

TOWN OF BRANFORD 

1019 Main Street 

Branford, CT 06405

From: safer146@googlegroups.com <safer146@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Melissa Harris

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 9:12 PM

To: sdudley@scrcog.org

Cc: jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov; Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov; carmento@scrcog.org; hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us; safer146@googlegroups.com; Sean <Sean.Scanlon@cga.ct.gov>; Senator Cohen <Cohen@senatedems.ct.gov>; Shirley <sagirioni@aol.com>; Police-Chief Jon Mulhern <jmulhern@branfordpolice.com>; Police-Deputy Chief John Alves <jalves@branfordpolice.com>; Peter R. Hugret <prhugret@gmail.com>

Subject: Route 146

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I’m writing to express my concern with the current focus of the "Route 146

Corridor Study.” 

We are so lucky in Guilford and Branford to still hold onto a sense of small New England town life, community, and history. We have not yet “evolved” into yet another suburban-type area like what has happened to Fairfield County, for example. On the Shoreline, we have extraordinary eco-systems, beautiful Greens, and a pace that is as fast—95, or as peaceful and pretty—146, as we wish (or something in-between with the Post Road). How lucky we are to have these choices. Why limit our choices?

Once lost to an idea of progress that equals more and faster traffic, a road such as 146 and its surround is irretrievable…. Let’s take this beautiful road and make it safer for cyclists and wildlife and hikers. Let’s protect the wonderful history of the area, and our communities. Let’s safeguard our landscape and shoreline and consider any idea of improvement within the context of community, and an ecological conscience.

Route146 should be like the “slow food” movement — thoughtful, intelligent, healthy, safe, sustainable, wonderful and yes —slow. Why would we even consider giving this up?

Thank you for your consideration.

Most sincerely,

Melissa Harris  -  Rock Point Lane, Guilford

From: Andrew Wynn <wynnandrewj@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:38 AM

Subject: Concern over "Route 146 Corridor Study"

To: sdudley@scrcog.org <sdudley@scrcog.org>

Cc: jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov <jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov>, Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov <Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov>, carmento@scrcog.org <carmento@scrcog.org>, hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us <hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us>, safer146@googlegroups.com <safer146@googlegroups.com>, Rep. Scanlon, Sean <Sean.Scanlon@cga.ct.gov>, Senator Cohen <Cohen@senatedems.ct.gov>, Shirley <sagirioni@aol.com>, Police-Chief Jon Mulhern <jmulhern@branfordpolice.com>, Police-Deputy Chief John Alves <jalves@branfordpolice.com>, Peter R. Hugret <prhugret@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Dudley,

I’m writing today to express my concern with the current scope and focus of the  "Route 146 Corridor Study" and with the request that you reconsider its objectives with a mind to historic preservation, community benefit, and safety.

Currently, it appears that the study is focused almost entirely on moving motor vehicle traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible through the area with almost no concern for other factors and the unique characteristics of the road. As you know, this road serves many more purposes than serving motor vehicle traffic and by focusing the study solely on that element we risk losing a unique, valuable, and cherished resource in exchange for “just another road”. A few examples of other areas of importance not properly being factored into the study:

• Historic Importance: Route 146 has earned its own National Register Historic District designation (Route 146 Historic District) and the road also runs through three more National Register Historic Districts (Guilford Town Center Historic District, Branford Town Center Historic District, and Thimble Islands/ Stony Creek Historic District). We must focus the study to take these districts and their underlying importance into account to preserve this historic resource and ensure the road lives on as an example and showcase of the 18th-century history of farming, fishing, house building, and boat building unique to our area.

• Community Benefit: Route 146 provides access to numerous trails including the Branford and Guilford Land Trusts, protected environments, and historic sites. By focusing on traffic throughput, we risk diminishing the community ability to take advantage of these benefits. Additionally, increased speeds, traffic, and thru trucking diminish the communities' enjoyment of these resources due to noise and risk disturbing the important ecological environments surrounding Route 146.

• Safety: This issue is relevant for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists alike. Currently, the near-total abandon for speed limits on 146 jeopardizes the safety of drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Route 146 is for the benefit of all and were we to focus simply on motor vehicle throughput, rather than safety for the numerous pedestrians and cyclists who use the road we risk alienating entire groups of users of the road. We must focus on slowing traffic and creating a safe environment for mixed-use enjoyment of this resource rather than the outdated and regressive “car first” notion of road design.

I thank you for your consideration in updating this study to reflect the unique and important characteristics of Route 146. The recommendations from this study will be instrumental in determining the future of Route 146 so key we get the scope of the study correct. We are at a crossroads with the choice to either preserve a cherished 18th-century artifact while simultaneously preparing it for 300 more years of service as a safe, historic, mixed-use, community resource or to regress by simply making it another car-centric corridor. I trust that you see this opportunity and importance and will update the study accordingly.

Andrew Wynn

690 Leetes Island Road

Branford CT, 06405

From: safer146@googlegroups.com <safer146@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Kim Granbery

Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 4:28 PM

To: sdudley@scrcog.org

Cc: jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov; Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov; carmento@scrcog.org; hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us; Friends of Route 146 <safer146@googlegroups.com>; Rep. Scanlon, Sean <Sean.Scanlon@cga.ct.gov>; Senator Cohen <Cohen@senatedems.ct.gov>

Subject: Historic Route 146

Dear Stephen,

I was born and raised on Historic Route 146. Bill Leete was my bus driver. When I turned 16 and got my driver’s license my mother told me that if she heard from Bill or Roddy, or any of the other Leetes, that I had exceeded the speed limit going past the barns, I wouldn’t have to worry about the Guilford Police, she’d suspend my license herself. It was just common sense, one of those things you teach your kids about being a civically minded neighbor growing up out in the country.

There’s nothing “unsafe” about Route 146; there are a few irresponsible people, driving motor vehicles on our road, who are unsafe. If you think there is a problem with speed and safety, please lower the speed limit, and we’ll remind our Town officials regularly to enforce it.

Water over the road is an occasional inconvenience. It was even more of a problem on Old Quarry Road when I was younger. There were days when the bus would drop us off at the end of Andrews Road and we would walk up to Jean Baldwin’s (the town librarian) and she would feed about ten of us children from the Quarry with her own. Can we all take a moment to collaborate together and come up with more appropriate solutions than just applying a bunch of current parameters to a 300 year old piece of local and national history?  The hard-gained historical classifications for this road exist not to inconvenience motorists; they act as a protection for a truly special historic entity. 

Regarding the term "corridor," any mapping software on anyone's smartphone today confirms that the most efficient “corridor" between the Stony Creek intersection and the Town of Guilford (what your presentation called “the middle section”) is via Route 95. Even somebody from out of state can clearly see that 146 is not a “corridor” to follow for speed and efficient travel. It’s important for DOT and SCROG to acknowledge this fact. Historic Route 146 is a historic Colonial byway to be cherished, respected, and preserved for future generations. 

Thank you for your consideration,

Kim & Gretchen Granbery

982 Leetes Island Road, Guilford, CT

--

From: safer146@googlegroups.com <safer146@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Hayden, Dolores

Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2020 2:27 PM

To: sdudley@scrcog.org

Cc: jcosgrove@branford-ct.gov; Joseph.giulietti@ct.gov; camento@scrcog.org; hoeym@ci.guilford.ct.us; safer146@googlegroups.com; Rep. Scanlon, Sean <Sean.Scanlon@cga.ct.gov>; Senator Cohen <Cohen@senatedems.ct.gov>; Shirley <sagirioni@aol.com>

Subject: Historic Route 146

Dear Mr. Dudley:

As a Guilford resident since 1991 and a commuter on Historic Route 146, I was an attentive listener at the SCRCOG Zoom meeting on December 1, 2020, posted as https://projects.vhb.com/42689/Route146PIMpresentation12120webposting.pdf

While I appreciate that many important details about research were presented by your two consultants, VHB engineer Joseph Bolskus and RACE engineer Jill Pietropalo, I hoped for a more sustained analysis of the road’s importance. "Route 146 Corridor Study" suggests a large-scale state highway in a built-up commercial area, not a winding, scenic, rural road connecting four National Register Historic Districts. 

I’d suggest calling it the “Historic Route 146 Study,” as a reminder that this is not a corridor but an amazing road from the 18th century that reveals the history of farming, fishing, house building, and boat building. For much of its expanse, the scale of life in earlier centuries survives: the narrow road rises and falls. Bordered by stone outcrops, it winds past hills and salt marshes, meadows and woods, historic houses and barns. It frames views of Long Island Sound. This quiet, beautiful, historic cultural landscape requires very careful treatment to preserve its small scale and varied texture.

The presentation included an odd collection of local places as "cultural locations" including a golf course, the Guilford Yacht Club, and the Branford Elks club, while failing to map the "Route 146 Historic District" between the West River in Guilford and Flat Rock Road in Branford that has won a National Register of Historic Places designation for the road itself.  https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/b228ab75-de0a-4eae-88d2-0c14e2ec1eaf\

The photographs your engineers took do not do justice to the beauty of the area. The consultants’ maps of Historic Route 146 also fail to represent its complexity. The entire stretch of 13 miles was labelled “scenic highway.” The road is diverse, and from Branford center to the western end at Route 1, there exists commercial development. Perhaps the study area needs to be divided into zones –west, east, center—with the Route 146 Historic District listed on the National Register of Historic Places at the center. It was not marked on the maps at all, but it needs more protection than the ends closer to Route 1 in either town.

The four National Register Historic Districts involved (Route 146 Historic District, Guilford Town Center Historic District, Branford Town Center Historic District, and Thimble Islands/ Stony Creek Historic District) all hold a more important designation than Connecticut “local historic district” or “scenic road.” Federal designations outweigh state listings (also present here but easier to get). Those national designations are vital to any future work relying on Federal Highway Administration funding because construction that will negatively affect National Register Historic District properties requires a review with the CT Historic Preservation Office according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

If the VHB firm has access to consultants with expertise on historic cultural landscapes and scenic roads, adding them to the team now might help balance historic resources against traffic management. The VHB engineer organized most of the data collection around roadway intersections and traffic counts, aiming to move cars and trucks, emphasizing connections to retail stores on Route 1. That can’t be the main objective in an historic landscape of this quality.

The RACE presentation also addressed important problems of flooding, with projections of 2050, but many attendees' questions about preserving the intimate scale and scenic quality of the road were answered with the statement that "DOT state highway standards require X."

Connecticut has many other commercial highways but only one Historic Route 146. We need a plan for calming traffic. A plan to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists who dodge speeding cars and trucks. And with appropriate funding, a plan to place utility wires underground, and keep wood guard rails to preserve the scale and texture of this amazing historic landscape, where old buildings of wood and stone are not well served by contrast with 21st century wires and steel rails glinting in the sun.

One final note. Despite the technical focus on road data and standards, I believe you have excluded some technically demanding issues from the study, the previous over-scaled CT-DOT bridge proposal to replace an existing causeway, and the low-lying Amtrak railroad underpasses. They were in the original request for a study from Guilford. Can you propose guidelines for these difficult engineering problems that also protect the existing scale of Historic Route 146?

If SCRCOG and the team from VHB can expand the report on Historic Route 146 to recognize the unique quality of this area, officials and citizens of both towns will be grateful.

Sincerely,

Dolores Hayden

Professor Emerita, Architecture, Urbanism, and American Studies, Yale University

www.DoloresHayden.com