Not all intersections on Greenwich Avenue are created equal

I am writing in support of the proposal to improve the intersection of Greenwich Avenue and Arch Street.

I have challenged the plan for the Elm Street intersection because of the need to remove a large healthy tree and because the “bumpouts” caused problems turning to and from the Avenue and West Elm Street due to the narrowness of this intersection. The tree was saved with a slight redesign, but insufficient lighting makes crossing problematic in the evening and at night, and parking spaces were lost.

The Arch Street intersection is different. Since the removal of the police officer directing pedestrians and traffic, heavy traffic, particularly during rush hours, at this wide intersection with Arch Street’s irregular lanes makes crossing the avenue dangerous for pedestrians and vehicles.

The size of this intersection allows for easy turning to and from the avenue in the proposed plan. The Greenwich Department of Public Works and First Selectman have pledged that the plan will provide additional net parking, including additional parking reserved for people with disabilities. No tree is removed and the landscaping for the “bumputs” is appealing. Shortening the distance to cross the pedestrian street should increase safety.

While the available “third-party” funding, to which the city is not otherwise entitled, is not in itself a reason for a project, DPW has assured that the city will not incur any out-of-pocket costs for this worthwhile improvement.

My endorsement of this plan would not extend to a similar plan for the narrower Grigg Street intersection, but we do not currently have a plan for the Grigg Street intersection.

Peter L Malkin


About Rachael Garcia

Check Also

London apartment renovation: How an extension transformed this run-down studio into an airy one-bed room

W When Christian Brailey and Faye Johnson inspected a tiny one-bedroom apartment with tobacco-colored walls, …