Category: Windsor Politics

The piece appeared in the Windsor Journal in March of 2025.

Hello neighbors,

The referendum to approve the Broad Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety project failed by a roughly 42% to 58% in a high-turnout vote. I won’t sugarcoat it—this was a decisive result. The only district that supported the project was Windsor Center were the project is actually located, which is both telling and deeply disappointing.

I know this might sound odd right now, but I am so grateful for this experience. It has been a privilege to meet new friends and deepen existing relationships as we did the hard work of democracy together. I never expected this level of individual support, and I am in awe of the time and effort our friends and volunteers poured into this effort.

One unexpected outcome of our outreach was how many people came up to me, introduced themselves, and shared their personal stories of being injured in this neighborhood—or of friends and family members who have been hurt or killed. Just last week, a man told me about his brother, who was struck by a drunk driver on Bloomfield Ave and died at just 12 years old. It’s difficult to recall that conversation without tearing up. I can’t express what an honor it has been for neighbors to share their pain and their stories with me. We hear them, and we are not giving up on them.

We expected some NIMBY pushback. What we didn’t anticipate was how this referendum would take on the tone of a culture war, nor the outright misinformation spread by elected officials and even a few town employees. Insults and epithets were hurled at residents putting up YES signs, with greater frequency at our female volunteers. I also had to file a police report after putting up YES signs in the Center. A pickup truck swerved out of the travel lane to miss me and the car my daughter was napping in by inches, and then immediately ran all three red lights going up Poquonock Ave from Broad Street. We knew this would be an uphill battle, given the national climate, to say nothing of legitimate local concerns over property taxes. But we did not expect people’s anger and resentment to override Windsor’s tradition of bipartisanship and civil discourse. This passed the Town Council in a bi-partisan vote, after all. It’s incredibly difficult to have a reasoned conversation about detailed infrastructure plans in the middle of a culture war debate. Opponents of this project took full advantage, stoking fear and anxiety to make sure a rational, empathetic discussion never had a chance.

I respect the outcome of the referendum, but I am deeply saddened by the incursion of callousness, misinformation and political intimidation into Windsor politics. Broad Street remains dangerous. Windsor Center residents will attest to this fact, and publicly available data proves them right. We will continue to advocate to address this dangerous roadway in our neighborhood, and we will not be silenced or intimidated.

This project has suffered a major setback, but the support from Windsor Center points to a clear need for safety improvements in this neighborhood, much as other neighborhoods have concerns about speeding on their own roads. The town took a maximalist approach to Broad Street, which we fully supported because of the obvious need and the complications of doing this kind of work while meeting CTDOT standards on state roads. Pedestrianization often starts small, however—with inexpensive materials like paint and temporary concrete planters. Some opponents of the project expressed a desire to see more temporary fixes attempted before a full configuration: they may well get their wish. We will continue to support large-scale projects, but we’ll also advocate for neighborhood-level safety improvements throughout Windsor, wherever residents are unsafe.

All of this is to say: the feedback from the voters on this specific project was clear and we respect the outcome of the referendum, but we’re not done advocating for a safer Broad Street. Safety is a process, not a destination. We still live here. Collisions still occur with startling regularity. People are hurt. Lives are put at risk.

This road is still a tragedy waiting to happen. I sincerely hope that reasonable opponents of this project were earnest when they said it was the specifics of this project’s design and funding that they objected to, and that we don’t have to wait for a tragedy to implement common sense road safety measures.

Thank you again to everyone who voted, and thank you to everyone who poured their time, energy and stamps into making Windsor a safer, thriving community.

Sincerely,
Keller Glass
President, Citizens for a Thriving Windsor

This piece appeared in the Windsor Journal in February of 2025.

There are several persistent myths about roundabouts and road diets that often lead to misunderstanding. Here are a few of the most common ones:

“Roundabouts are dangerous.”

Decades of research show that roundabouts are safer for all users, especially pedestrians, who experience a 50-80% reduction in collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities.

“Roundabouts are a proven safety countermeasure because they can substantially reduce crashes that result in serious injury or death.” — Federal Highway Administration

“Roundabouts are safer intersections for all users.” — Connecticut Department of Transportation

“Roundabouts are designed to improve safety for all users, including pedestrians and bicycles.” — U.S. Department of Transportation

“Traffic-calming measures, such as roundabouts and speed bumps, are engineering approaches designed to reduce vehicular speed and, thus, decrease the number of pedestrian crashes and associated injuries.” — American Academy of Pediatrics

This is especially true for single-lane roundabouts like those proposed in the Broad Street Project, which consistently show reductions in all crash types, unlike some multi-lane designs.

“Drivers won’t know how to use them.”

Connecticut drivers adapt quickly to roundabouts. The two roundabouts installed in Glastonbury have resulted in 40% and 60% reductions in crashes at those intersections, as discussed in the Hartford Courant article “Glastonbury roundabouts significantly reducing collisions after 2 years in operation.”

First Selectman Ed Chmielewski of Salem said of the roundabout installed at the intersection of state roads 82 and 85, “I think it has saved lives.”

Granby development director Abby Kenyon, reflecting on the roundabout installed at Route 202 and Notch Road in 2020 remarked, “the complaints have really died down; the feedback now is largely positive.”

Roundabouts are increasingly common in Connecticut, and contrary to some claims, Connecticut residents have proven themselves perfectly capable of learning how to navigate them.

“Roundabouts slow down emergency response times.”

Roundabouts are far less likely to become backed up than lighted intersections, enabling traffic to clear for emergency vehicles more quickly. “Studies by the Federal Highway Administration have found that roundabouts can increase the traffic capacity by 30 percent to 50 percent compared to traditional intersections.” — The Open Transportation Journal.

Because they are better able to handle unexpected traffic surges and prevent backups, emergency vehicles can move through more efficiently. In free-flowing conditions, fire trucks, ambulances, and police vehicles can pass through without stopping, unlike at a red light.

“The project is too expensive.”

Roundabouts and road diets are more cost-effective than signalized intersections. They reduce the need for police enforcement, as speeding is controlled by design rather than active monitoring. This frees up Windsor’s police force for more pressing duties.

Roundabouts also save on infrastructure costs. The three traffic lights on Poquonock Avenue in Windsor Center are due for replacement, an expense that could exceed $1.5 million. Roundabouts eliminate the need for costly signal maintenance and use no electricity, leading to long-term savings. They also remain operational during power outages, ensuring safer roads in winter storms.

Residents will also save money. Roundabouts reduce fuel consumption by cutting idling time at red lights, lowering both fuel costs and travel time. They decrease property damage from crashes and reduce medical expenses, lost wages, and insurance costs due to fewer and less severe collisions.

As for the town budget, the total project cost is $6 million, with $3 million already secured from federal funds and $1 million from state transportation grants. Windsor is actively pursuing additional grants to cover the remaining balance.

Even in a worst-case scenario where no additional funding is secured, the estimated cost per household would be about $3 per month over five years. While any tax impact is a serious consideration, this project will enhance Windsor’s financial resilience and ultimately pay for itself through long-term savings at the state, town, and individual level.

“Nobody bikes or walks, so there’s no need for a road diet.”

This argument is circular: “We built an unsafe road, so people don’t walk or bike, therefore we don’t need to make it safer.” The reality is that Windsor’s roads see fatal crashes almost every year. Just because residents make the rational decision to avoid walking or biking on unsafe streets doesn’t mean the town has no obligation to make those street safer.

Road diets consistently lead to increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic by making streets feel safer. This, in turn, boosts local economic activity. A prime example is Hamburg, NY, “Completed in 2009, the project has resulted in a 60% decrease in crashes and 90% decrease in serious injuries. Unexpected by the State, the project has also catalyzed far-reaching social and economic benefits for the village, which has seen a steady increase in population and public programming. These include a farmer’s market, outdoor movie nights, garden walks, a street music festival and other events.” — Project for Public Spaces

Local business owners were also thrilled with the project’s results, “Our entire village is transformed. Not a day goes by in my store I don’t hear about how everyone loves our village. This project fulfilled every expectation and then some.” — Laura Hackathorn, Village Trustee.

Both roundabouts and road diets improve safety, reduce crashes, and create more livable, business-friendly streets. While myths persist, the data overwhelmingly supports their benefits—they work, and they work well.

This project is about making Windsor a safer, more connected, and more vibrant community—while saving lives and money in the process. Please join me in voting YES for the Broad Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Project on March 11.

[ a version of the piece appeared in
the Windsor Journal in February of 2025 ]

In a decisive vote Monday night, the Windsor Town Council approved the ordinance for the Broad Street Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Project with a 6-3 bipartisan majority, followed by a unanimous 9-0 vote to send the project to a public referendum on March 11, 2025.

The project has been decades in the making, driven by local residents and advanced through contributions from officials at every level of government. Discussions about improving safety and increasing foot traffic for local businesses began over 20 years ago with the Windsor Center Business Association, a group that later evolved into First Town Downtown. Despite strong local support, the project was repeatedly stalled by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), which historically opposed town-led changes to state-owned arterial roads. The initiative was later incorporated into Windsor’s 2014 Transit-Oriented Development Master Plan and the 2025 Plan of Conservation and Development, adopted in 2015.

Momentum for the project increased when the state legislature granted towns greater authority over state roads, allowing Windsor to seek funding. State Rep. Jane Garibay worked tirelessly to secure necessary funds, while Congressman John Larson secured federal support. Town staff also obtained grant funding to cover the balance of the road diet portion of the project. In 2023, residents successfully advocated for the inclusion of roundabouts to align the project with CTDOT’s Complete Streets Plan, which saw renewed emphasis under Transportation Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto. Town Manager Peter Souza and Economic Development Director Patrick McMahon helped guide the project through extensive design revisions and many public meetings over the years.

During Monday’s meeting, the Democratic caucus reaffirmed its focus on safety and emphasized the importance of giving Windsor residents a direct say in the project. The Republican caucus largely agreed with that principle but voiced concerns about the timing and scope of the initiative.

Among the three opposing votes, Councilors Ron Eleveld and Will Pelkey previously stated that they do not oppose the project on its merits, but believe the public needs more time to evaluate its full scope. Mr. Eleveld also expressed concerns that American drivers struggle to adapt to changes in road design. Pelkey has further suggested expanding the project to include additional pedestrian improvements, such as extending the west sidewalk of Broad Street into the right-of-way, closing the public library parking lot, and eliminating most or all driveway entrances onto Broad Street. Councilor Len Walker, the ranking Republican member, has not publicly explained his opposition. However, at a public meeting last year, he questioned the design philosophy of pedestrian safety features, including pedestrian refuge islands, telling a civil engineer, “Good luck with that.”

During Monday’s meeting, Mr. Eleveld cited a Michigan Department of Transportation study indicating that roundabouts have, in some cases, led to an increase in the total number of crashes, while acknowledging that the same study showed a significant reduction in deaths and serious injuries compared to signalized intersections. The Broad Street roundabouts are designed as single-lane entries and exits, a configuration that CTDOT data shows can reduce total crashes by 40% and serious injuries and fatalities by as much as 80% compared to traditional signalized intersections. The Michigan study cited by Eleveld, “Evaluating the Performance and Safety Effectiveness of Roundabouts – An Update,” highlights the critical difference between single-lane roundabouts, which saw an 8% increase in crashes in Michigan, and multi-lane roundabouts, where crashes rose 123%—while both designs still significantly reduced severe injuries and fatalities. As stated in the first sentence on the The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) roundabout website, “Roundabouts are a Proven Safety Countermeasure because they can substantially reduce crashes that result in serious injury or death.”

Public comments on the project were largely positive, with supporters emphasizing the safety benefits and the potential increase in foot traffic for local businesses. Opponents raised concerns about potential tax implications, whether these projects are more suited for struggling Rust Belt cities, that the current configuration has failed to bring retail back, and the uncertainty of federal spending and its impact on funding. While concerns about the project’s impact on the town budget are understandable, further state funding remains a strong possibility. The notion that roundabouts and road diets are primarily used in Rust Belt towns is misleading—these design principles are standard in modern urban planning across industrialized nations. Supporters of the project agree that the current Broad Street layout is ineffective, which is why change is needed. As for federal funding uncertainty, turning down available funding now because the Supreme Court might overturn the Impoundment Act of 1974 would be a missed opportunity to improve local infrastructure.

Windsor Center has immense potential, but Broad Street remains a barrier to safety, economic activity, and community vibrancy. According to the Connecticut Crash Data Repository, Windsor averages about one crash per day, mostly on four-lane arterial roads. Broad Street alone sees about one crash per month—a concerning statistic for a district that depends on pedestrian activity. Statewide, nearly one person dies on Connecticut roads every day. Windsor has an opportunity to reduce that risk by implementing proven safety measures.

With the Town Council’s approval, the Broad Street Safety Project now moves to a March 11 referendum, where Windsor voters will have the final say. Absentee ballots will be available at Town Hall beginning February 18.

Please join me in making Windsor Center a safer, more vibrant place to walk, ride, and live.

[ This piece appeared in the
Windsor Journal in February of 2025 ]

The mid-air collision over the Potomac River this week is an unmitigated tragedy. As of this writing, all 67 people aboard both American Airlines Flight 5342 and the Army helicopter are presumed dead. The sudden loss of so many lives is horrifying and deeply saddening.

Tragedies like this—and far less severe aviation incidents—are always followed by rigorous investigations that lead to safety improvements. In South Korea, a recent crash that killed 179 people prompted the removal of many concrete structures near runways throughout the country. After the 2009 crash in Buffalo, New York, which killed 50 people, the FAA implemented sweeping changes, including stricter pilot fatigue rules, higher experience requirements, improved stall training, and a national pilot record database. Following last year’s Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 decompression incident, the FAA grounded all Boeing 737 MAX 9 aircraft, and the NTSB launched a full investigation.

Because of these rigorous investigations and strict accountability measures, air travel remains remarkably safe, even in spite of high-profile disasters like Flight 5342. The death rate per mile traveled by air is thousands of times lower than that of passenger vehicle travel. It’s a modern marvel that people can spend a lifetime flying and experience such negligible risk. In fact, the paradox almost explains itself: air travel feels scary, so we refuse to accept injury and death as inevitable—and we go to enormous lengths to make it as safe as possible.

But this raises an important question: if we refuse to accept death and injury as a normal part of air travel, why do we accept it as a normal part of automotive travel?

The comparison is striking. I recently drove through Windsor Center and saw the aftermath of a serious crash at the intersection in front of Geissler’s. The car’s hood was caved in, windows shattered. No emergency responders remained. Traffic flowed around the wreck, drivers adjusting slightly to navigate past it. I did the same. It was a relatively unusual sight—but not shocking. There was no media coverage of the crash. If a public figure had been involved or if the crash had caused a major traffic jam, maybe the news would have paid attention. But as it was, the incident passed unnoticed. Perhaps police issued a citation, but no one examined whether the intersection’s design played a role, whether vehicle visibility issues contributed, or whether both drivers had a clear instruction on right-of-way rules during their driver safety course. There was no systemic review—because we, as a society, don’t expect one. Car crashes are just a fact of life: they are banal.

The U.S. sees 46,000 auto-related deaths per year—the equivalent of an American Airlines Flight 5342 disaster happening every 12 hours. Every two months, we lose as many Americans to car crashes as we did in the entire Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, the unhoused, and people with disabilities—are disproportionately affected. The deadliest day of the year for children, by far, is Halloween as hundreds of kids are hit by cars while trick-or-treating in their own neighborhoods. But these tragedies rarely make the news. The NTSB does not spring into action every time someone is struck in a crosswalk. Departments of transportation do initiate systematic reviews when people die in car crashes. We simply mourn, care for the injured, and move on.

Connecticut is not immune. As of this writing, someone has died on our roads every single day of 2025. Windsor is no exception either. According to the Connecticut Crash Data Repository, we experience traffic accidents almost daily and lose roughly one resident per year to auto-related deaths. The most serious crashes happen on four-lane arterial roads, but even local streets see their share of serious injuries. The sections of Poquonock Avenue and Broad Street under consideration in the Broad Street Safety Project have seen more than one crash per month over the past decade.

We do not accept this level of risk in any other part of our lives. And what makes our indifference even more striking is that these crashes don’t happen in private spaces. They happen on our roads—our public property. The only comparable cause of accidental death in America is gun violence. Unlike many states, Connecticut has taken a common-sense public health approach to gun regulation, leading to lower firearm deaths per capita than many other states, and less than half that of our automotive death rate.

Windsor has a rare opportunity to take meaningful action. Every design element in the Broad Street Safety Project is backed by decades of research showing benefits across the board. These projects have been proven to increase property values, boost sales tax revenue, spur development, lower municipal maintenance costs, reduce fuel consumption, lower insurance costs, reduce harmful air particulates, and shorten driver travel times. Towns from Pasadena to New Britain, Grand Rapids to Edgewater have demonstrated that well-planned traffic calming and pedestrian safety improvements lead to more vibrant, resilient, and economically sustainable communities.

But ultimately, this is about saving lives. If we do nothing, more people will be severely injured—or killed—on Broad Street, given the current crash rate and the decades-long lifespan of projects like this.

Do I wish the NTSB took automotive deaths as seriously as plane crashes? Yes. Do I wish the Connecticut DOT was more responsive to local safety concerns? Absolutely. But the reality is that these improvements happen at the local level. I trust the FAA and NTSB to take the tragedy in Washington seriously, and to take meaningful action to keep such tragedies from happening in the future. But if we want the same consideration for the tragedies we experience on our own roads—if we want a safer Broad Street and a more vibrant Windsor Center—we have to make it happen ourselves.

Please join me in taking this small step toward a safer country—and a huge step toward a safer Windsor.

[ This article appeared in the Windsor Journal on August 23, 2024 ]


Our town is at a crossroads. With the upcoming Founders Square and other mixed-use developments, we have an opportunity to support this new growth and address long-standing safety concerns and make Windsor Center more vibrant and welcoming. The Center improvement plan—which includes options for reducing lanes on Broad Street, the installation of roundabouts at two key intersections, and dedicated bike lanes—is the right step forward for everyone; residents, businesses, and visitors alike.  

Broad Street is not safe in its current form. With four lanes of traffic, it's a hazard for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike. The wide expanse of asphalt discourages foot traffic, which in turn hampers the ability of local businesses to thrive. The lack of bike lanes forces cyclists to share the road with cars, creating a dangerous mix. The result is frequent vehicle accidents and serious injuries, with little economic benefit to Windsor Center to show for the thousands of daily vehicle trips through Broad Street, most of which do not stop in town. The current configuration does not serve our community's needs.  

Reducing Broad Street from four lanes to two, with a center turning lane, will streamline traffic and make the Center a safer and more inviting place for pedestrians. This configuration has been proven to reduce speeding and accidents while maintaining traffic flow. The extra space gained from reducing lanes will be repurposed for dedicated on-street parking, bike lanes, improved greenery, and expanded sidewalk bump outs for pedestrians, enhancing the overall environment of the town center.  

Adding bike lanes to Broad Street will make the Center safer and more accessible for everyone. A dedicated space for cyclists will reduce the likelihood of accidents and make biking a viable option for more residents. Research shows that bike lanes not only improve safety but can also boost local economies. Numerous studies have shown improved economic activity and property values near dedicated bike infrastructure, while also improving safety for cyclists of all ages and motorists who no longer have to share lanes with cyclists.  

The proposed roundabouts where Poquonock Avenue intersects Bloomfield Avenue and Broad Street will improve traffic flow, safety, and walkability. Roundabouts can move many more vehicles than traditional lighted signals, meaning they are better able to handle unexpected spikes in traffic flow caused by backups from Interstate 91. Roundabouts also significantly reduce the likelihood of severe accidents, injuries, and deaths. Roundabouts keep traffic moving smoothly, reducing congestion and the frustration that comes with it. For pedestrians and cyclists, roundabouts provide shorter, safer, more predictable crossing points. Put simply, roundabouts save lives and are better at moving cars.

When combined, these design improvements will not only make our town safer, but also more economically vibrant. This project, in conjunction with the mixed-use developments in progress, offers Windsor the opportunity to leverage the Center's proximity to rail, air, and Interstate transportation, while providing a pleasant place where people want to spend their time and disposable income. Improved infrastructure will attract more visitors, increase foot traffic, and make our town a more desirable place to live, work, eat, and shop.  

The Center improvement plan is more than just a set of infrastructure upgrades—it's a vision for a safer, more connected, and thriving community. The business community understands the value of these improvements. Center residents understand the value of these improvements. Civil engineers understand the value of these improvements. It's time for all of us to come together to support this plan. By making these changes, we can ensure that Windsor Center remains a place where people want to live, work, and visit for generations to come. The benefits are clear: let’s embrace this opportunity to enhance our town’s safety and economic future.