Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Storm drains on Rosemary Lane

As I previously mentioned, I was more-than-annoyed with the road work done on Rosemary Lane two years ago. But when the Council voted on the TMs contract last year, I mentioned it only briefly and explained that it was part of a larger pattern. Anyway, there was a reason that I revisited this issue at this time.

To put the kindest face on this possible, your tax dollars are -- at minimum -- being spent haphazardly.

Two years ago Rosemary Lane got repaved. Yet I took these photos only a few weeks ago:

At last night's Council meeting I asked the TM for details regarding the installation of these necessary storm drains after the road was constructed.

I intend to post that video in the next week or so. In the meantime, I offer that I didn't find the answer adequate... nor did Jimmy Sima seem to find it adequate. He thankfully placed this on the Planning Committee's agenda... since there clearly was not adequate planning on this project.

Tim White


Anonymous said...

I think the town has to consider where it puts curbing. The sluiceway created by a curbed road creates a channel for water as it courses down towards the low point at Broadview in heavy rain events.

The same amount of drainage existed on the original roadway. Flooding has always been a serious issue here but it is exacerbated by the curbing. If the rain could be left to sheet flow off the road onto yards the impact may be mitigated. Obviously the objective is to get the water out the way but lets face it this is the lowpoint.

The additional drywell drainage may help and it may not but the town is at least attempting to resolve a persistant and longtime problem largely created by geography.

As to scheduling I think its a little unreasonable to expect DPW to cut in drywell drains, pave over and have the grass growing in the same week.

Look at the town we get everything done in one meeting.

Tim Slocum

Anonymous said...

"As to scheduling I think its a little unreasonable to expect DPW to cut in drywell drains, pave over and have the grass growing in the same week."

I think the point Tim W is making is that the "Pave, Ready, Install Drain!" is well...embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

"...but the town is at least attempting to resolve a persistant and longtime problem ..."

For what we pay town employees they shouldn't just be attempting to fix what is broke. The expenditure of tax dollars should be for things which are truly needed and when spent the result should go well beyond just attempting to resolve an identified problem. How many local home owners would pay hard earned money to a contractor who would only attempt to cut down a tree, or attempt to paint a room, or attempt to fix a furnace etc?

More than a few of us have watched various road repairs that didn't work get repaired time and again. Just take a look at the stretch of Peck Lane currently getting some storm drains. In the end the roadway will still be maybe just a few inches above the local water table during the wet portion of the year. What good is a road built on little more than a swamp in the first place?

Anonymous said...

I am pretty sure that the point here is that this should have been done at the same time in order to save money. I am sure it costs more to cut away the road after the fact to install the drains.

Anonymous said...

If we had a real engineering Dept and a competent public works this would not have happened. Fire them all and sub out all work to skilled labor companies

tim white said...

The storm drains / dry wells were necessary, at least after the new road construction.* My concern is the order in which this happened.

Furthermore, it may (or may not) have been less expensive to put in complete storm drains (pipes attaching the drywells... down to the river, etc.). It seems likely that installing the dry wells prior to paving the road would have been less expensive than what has actually happened.

Why this is done in this order gets to the heart of a serious issue: planning. Thankfully, Jimmy Sima will be bringing this to the planning committee. My guess is that Jimmy Sima may see this not only as a discrete issue, but as something of a larger pattern with planning.

As for curbing vs. no curbing, that tends to be a PW vs. environment question. PW prefers to install curbing as it minimizes roadside erosion. But allowing water to filter thru the soil before getting to Long Island Sound (as compared to, say, a cigarette butt caught by a curb and sent to the Sound) is better for the environment. It's kind of a Planning Dept vs. PW Dept issue or pavement vs. environment issue.

* incl. curbs and my understanding is that the new road was simply paved over, thus raising the elevation of the road a couple inches in a low area. I've heard that the old torn up road did not have any material removed due to budgetary constraints... or maybe that is standard practice. This raises a fairly simple question though that should be addressed for lowland roadwork: Would it cost more to remove a layer of asphalt from the old road OR install dry wells? I hope the planning committee will get facts & information regarding this. So there are a number of moving pieces. And I'm not an expert, but I don't understand how proper planning would call for the installation of dry wells after paving the road.

tim white said...

4:47 I've said we need changes in the Town's Management team, but I disagree about the rest of the PW dept. The dept works hard. I've heard several examples where non-mgt tries to do something more intelligently, but mgt poo-poo's it. I don't bother getting into such stories because I don't want to get any of them in trouble. But it is another factor in my sense that we need changes in the Town's Mgt team.