Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows language on Harding–Wallingford redesign after residents’ objections; contract approved with amendment
Summary
Council amended a consent-item contract after resident complaints about engagement and the proposed narrowing of the Wallingford–Harding intersection, directing the city administrator to continue collaborative public engagement before finalizing design.
Council members on March 3 approved a multi-site 2025 miscellaneous utilities contract (CA 5) that includes work at the Harding and Wallingford intersection, but only after adopting an amendment that changed staff language from "narrowing of Wallingford–Harding intersection" to "Wallingford–Harding intersection safety improvements" and directed the city administrator to continue collaborative engagement with residents before final design.
Background and public concern: The utility project requires replacement of water and sewer mains on Harding Road and will remove pavement at the intersection, presenting an opportunity to reconfigure the corner for pedestrian safety and ADA compliance. Neighbors said they were surprised by proposed drawings and complained of insufficient early collaboration; petition signatures (171 residents and 111 households cited in public comment) were presented opposing a narrowing design and citing low traffic volumes and study data indicating modest speeds.
Staff response and amendment: City engineering staff told council the design was not final and that additional calming options—roundabouts, speed humps and alternatives—were being analyzed. During the consent-item debate, Council member Regina (mover of the amendment) proposed and the council adopted language that (1) replaces the memo wording to read "Wallingford–Harding intersection safety improvements" rather than "narrowing," and (2) directs the city administrator to continue to engage and collaborate with the public and to make the final decision on the design only after that public engagement.
Council member Adena said the amendment was intended to restore trust with residents and emphasize that no final design decision had been made. Council member Cornell voted against the amendment; the amended motion passed on roll call and the main contract (as amended) was approved by council.
Engineering rationale and process: Staff said the intersection was evaluated because the pavement will be removed for utility work, not because it had been prioritized above other locations. Staff cited ADA noncompliance, long pedestrian crossing distances, large-radius curves that encourage higher turning speeds, and proximity to Tappan Middle School and Burns Park Elementary as reasons to evaluate safety improvements. Staff also said the formal traffic-calming program budget is separate and that this project would not draw down petition-driven traffic calming funds.
Next steps: Staff will analyze alternative design concepts, share suitable alternatives with the public for an additional round of feedback, and return with a final design. The amendment directed the city administrator to continue collaborative engagement prior to final selection.
