Norwalk sidewalk non-study released

Update, 2:30 a.m., April 10, better PDF

NORWALK, Conn. – You can now read the fine print that is in the $20,000 sidewalk analysis that Norwalk Department of Public Works Director Hal Alvord refused to hand out last week, citing fears that it would cause confusion in the public.

Although Alvord said on Thursday that, “This is not something I would put out to the public or even to a committee and say, ‘Oh, here you go.’ You can’t make heads or tails of this thing,” on Tuesday he handed out copies at the Public Works Committee meeting. 

This followed a Monday Freedom of Information Act request filed by NancyOnNorwalk, as required by Alvord. NancyOnNorwalk did not attend the meeting but was provided with a recording.

“The delay had become an issue so we wanted to get it out there,” Public Works Committee Chairman David McCarthy (R-District E) said, after announcing a “little surprise present for you” as others attempted to adjourn the short meeting.

“Do we have magnifying glasses?” Councilman John Igneri (D-District E) responded.

Indeed, the type on the analysis is tiny.  The analysis, attached below, is 48 pages long.

Although Alvord has been saying that sidewalks were rated 1 to 10, the analysis defines them from poor to excellent.

“The distinction between a 1 and a 3 didn’t make a lot of sense so we went to this rating system,” Alvord said at the meeting.

“We began with the idea of rating 1 to 10,” he said in an email. “However, that turned out to be trying to slice the onion too thinly.  Good, fair and poor is much more workable.”

Not every sidewalk in the city is included in the analysis. DPW asked its paving consultant, Vanasse Hangen Brustin Inc. (VHB), to look at sidewalks in the urban core. Sidewalks that have been recently installed, such as on Connecticut Avenue, were not part of the analysis.

The cover page explains that the abbreviation PCC stands for poured concrete; BC means asphalt. The first map shows the area that was studied. Then there are enlarged portions of the maps. There are also spreadsheets that show a cost analysis: $7 million to replace the worst sidewalks with the materials they consist of now, and $12 million to make them all concrete.

Councilman Bruce Kimmel (D-At Large) suggested during Tuesday’s meeting that perhaps the city might want to reconsider where it allows asphalt sidewalks to be installed, for cost purposes, as asphalt is significantly cheaper than concrete.

Rules made 20 to 25 years ago might be costing the city money and should be reexamined, he said.

“I don’t think anyone is going to complain about a new asphalt sidewalk. It might look like a hodgepodge, but over the course of 25 to 50 years it wouldn’t be, and we would have to live with that. … The point is we might be able to save some money.”

On Thursday, Alvord said the analysis is not a study in the way people think of a study – it’s not deciphered for consumption by lay people yet, as it was done as cheaply as possible, just to get information for the engineers in his department.

In refusing to release it, he said, “There’s no big secret here, but if I hand this over to somebody and go, ‘Here you go,’ they’re going to go, ‘Are you an idiot? I don’t know what the hell this is telling me.’”

Norwalk sidewalk assessment 001