New Haven Independent

Posted by: charlie | February 8, 2006 9:16 AM

Mayor (and everyone else) vs. "Community"

"Community" my donkey. The Mayor's goals are to expand downtown's footprint. Downtown is the primary provider of jobs, taxes (and therefore life) to people in New Haven. The city desperately needs new jobs, from Yale's expansion, to a new Cancer Center and biotech buildings near the existing medical center. Stalling the immediate approval of these new jobs is akin to murder, because it is depriving others of the basic human rights of jobs and medical care.

Also, don't tell me a one-story building is of greater priority than hundreds of jobs that can support local families. Cities need to grow their downtowns in order to survive and the two projects here are the only way to do it. They should be immediately approved.

Posted by: nfjanette | February 8, 2006 2:46 PM

I'm no fan of many of the projects from the '50s-'70s in New Haven; the building of the connector highway as an elevated road and the building of the Coliseum cut off downtown visually and conceptually from Union Station and the harbor. The Chapel Mall stood as a fortress apart from the city streets rather than an integrated feature. Many of the huge concrete housing projects were failures. It's fair to say that the outcomes of Urban Renewal efforts are certainly mixed in New Haven and other cities. But, can we with accuracy and honesty tar and feather anything and everything regarding these projects? Apparently, yes! Let's review the quotes, which are placed at strategic points in the body (beginning, middle, and near the end) of the text, that support the thesis of Evil Urban Renewal Projects (EURP?) as applied to the Rt. 34/Oak Street area.

We start off early with:

About this still-open wound from Urban Renewal failure of the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s, the gathered neighbors and West River Association members had especially potent feelings.

Well, we've started off with a bang! Or, is it a fizzle? That may depend upon whether one wishes to allow all of relevant historical facts into the argument, or rather play a game of revisionist history. The author has chosen the later, as we'll see.

In the middle we're given this quote/paraphrase from city deputy economic development chief Wendy Clarke, who manages to artfully both play to the crowd (and the reporter) by referencing the problems with the Evil Urban Renewal Projects yet standing firm against changing the existing roadway:

Recalling the destructive history of the Urban Renewal era (a neighborhood was destroyed on that land to make way for a highway that was never built), she said that the existing road system would be maintained.

If that's an accurate version of her statements, Ms. Clarke certainly earned her political stripes with that dance! Ginger Rogers, look out.

Finally, we close with a quote from a local resident (who at least has a right to an opinion on this matter, unlike some other folks) that signals the third and final repetition of the theme:

For one neighborhood resident, Clarke’s condemnation of the “highway that led to nowhere� was simply not strong enough: “Ill-conceived? They killed the [Oak Street] neighborhood!� For many, a sense of past wrongs done the Route 34 zone lent gravity to development decisions and the process of revitalization.

There is just one small problem with the thesis that everything bad in this area can be blamed on Urban Renewal: it's an overly simplistic revisionist distortion of a complicated history of the rise, decline, and attempted renewal of urban areas. It plays upon the mixed success and failure of the attempts to fix what was already badly broken in some city areas. The Oak Street neighborhood was already a shadow of its former self in the "glory days". One needs only to look at how few Jewish merchants such a kosher butchers were still in that area as an indication of just how much of the core Jewish population had already migrated away into other areas of the city (some just a few blocks away, some further). The Oak Street street area had declined into what some former residents openly call a slum.

What if the "still-open wound", using the author's words, was caused by earlier economic and social changes? What if the Evil Urban Renewal Projects were not the cause, but rather failed attempts to heal wounds that were already there?

Posted by: newhavenMW | February 8, 2006 3:03 PM

What your comment misses is that whatever the actual record of urban renewal may be, it didn't manage to earn the trust of ordinary citizens 30+ years out. The author of this isn't being disingenuous if she identifies the actual grievances people are feeling and reports on them--whether or not you or even some unimpeachable objective source has reasons to believe their feelings of betrayal and mistrust are based on inaccurate evidence. Furthermore, if a roomful of angry and mistrustful people _and_ the representative from the city are willing to buy into what you call "revisionist history", it's just good community reporting to talk about why people feel the way they do.

Posted by: Ned | February 8, 2006 5:03 PM

The emphasis on massive parking garages is unfortunate, but necessary as apparently, there is absolutely no chance of a Portland, OR., or Seattle, WA. type transit system even considered for the "Elm"(Auto?)City. The governor wants to start a commuter rail line (which seems designed to fail) linking New Haven to Springfield, MA. In addition, James Amman, D. Milford wants $6 billion for "transportation," that is, road building. Living on Willow St., aka, the I91 connector, I can appreciate the frustration of city dwellers who have to eat the exhaust of suburbanites, and the degrading effect that extreme auto traffic has on the life of a neighborhood. In addition, parking garages are generally hostile, ugly, threatening environments - regardless of how they are dressed up. Route 34 escaptist dream: light rail from Union Station out to the boulevard up to Whalley Ave., to Westville, and back downtown to Union Station. Trains run at least every 15 minutes in both directions.

Posted by: Daniel Sumrall | February 9, 2006 12:38 PM

"Route 34 escaptist dream: light rail from Union Station out to the boulevard up to Whalley Ave., to Westville, and back downtown to Union Station. Trains run at least every 15 minutes in both directions."

Why can't we have that? I hate driving, I hate the fact that I'm caught in this rolling metal/plastic box that essentially gives me the freedom to speed (and therefore endanger myself and those around me) and control the radio. I went to college just north of Chicago and grad school just south; I love trains. I like walking the couple of blocks to a station, getting on a train, getting dropped off miles away, and walking the couple of blocks to get to work.

A train means less fuel used, which means lower prices for everyone. A train means construction jobs and maintenance jobs, it means operator jobs, it means easy access for neighborhood residents to find work outside of the city regardless of whether or not they have a car. It means less pollution in all neighborhoods. It means more room to park what cars we have. It means safer city streets with less traffic and thus less traffic.

A train isn't escapist; it's practical; it's pragmatic; it gets the job done.

Posted by: Yair Minsky | February 9, 2006 4:27 PM

I think the big question about viability of rail is ridership. Would there be enough riders to fill the trains and make it affordable to run them? Not clear. Much as I like trains and dislike cars (I bike to work when the weather is good -- it's been a great winter so far) there are hard economic issues here.

I don't actually know the numbers; I don't know if anyone has done a study of this in New Haven. I do know that the buses, which I also ride, are usually running real close to empty.

Posted by: nfjanette | February 10, 2006 12:28 AM

I'm a longtime supporter of passenger rail transportation and will be the first to say that this state and this country have badly underfunded the passenger railroad infrastructure for decades, yet has cheerfully built and improved the highways and airports. However, a proper evaluation of the transportation needs as well as the the most optimal mode of mass transportation is an important element when considering where we should use new rail service. Trains require heavy usage to justify the cost of running a rail operation; building new light rail would involve even more (much more) cost. Running trains between New Haven and New York City makes sense because of the number of passengers served; running rail between Westville and downtown is a tougher idea to justify.

Sometimes the advantages of a bus indicate it is the better choice than a train for a given number of passengers. Buses don't have to use diesel fuel - they can run on other combustible fuels with much lower pollutant output, or even from overhead wires like the old trolley system (that sacrifices some of the independent routing flexibility, but is much more quiet than the current buses). We could purchase and run many new alternatively powered buses for a fraction of the cost of a light rail system.

The state should have ordered replacement Metro North RR train sets for the New Haven to New York City line a decade ago; the DOT (Department Of Tar) may have spiked those plans for many years. At least the order is finally in, even if it will take more years to receive it - you can't just buy new train sets off a dealer lot. New stations along the shore line rail at West Haven AND Orange should have been build years ago; they don't have to be fancy (and expensive) to get the job done.

The state should immediately fund one of the options presented by the transportation consultants for the north-south run from New Haven up to at least the state line, and perhaps Springfield if Massachusetts will kick in some funding. Like the Shoreline East service, there have to be enough train runs so that people have travel options including in the middle of the day. Other areas of potential passenger rail revival include New Britain to Hartford and Middletown to Hartford, which would help remove traffic from the highway system, and help catch up our use of passenger rail transportation to what was already done - well - over one hundred years ago.

Posted by: Daniel Sumrall | February 10, 2006 1:01 PM

Let me get all 'Field of Dreams' on you--if we build it, they will come. There won't be any lack of ridership.

In Minneapolis they finally built a lightrail from downtown to the airport about a year and half ago. It's great people ride it and love it and it is leading to the Twin Cities considering extending the rail program. But this was an uphill fight for the exact same reasons that people have been expressing here--'no one will ride it' and 'it'll cost too much.' Cars, parking, transit--these are issues that require the long view. Maybe a lightrail or elevated train (my personal preference) might not have full ridership at first and maybe it will be initial expensive to build. But it will develop ridership and maintain ridership into the future, it will be less expensive over time than parking lots and autos.

And it's not just between DT & Westville. Transit is always part of a larger system. It allows you to take a train from westville to DT, from DT to the MetroNorth Station, from there to NYC or Boston or, hopefully, Hartford or Springfield. Transit means cheap, certain, low polluting connection not just within a city but between cities and towns. Why can't Greater New Haven rival Chicagoland?

Look at all the people that currently ride the bus and you have to figure in the number of people who would leave their cars. But you're right, we need to know specific numbers. The city need to take point on this issue--commission a study, build a task force, and publish a report/recommendation in the next year. It can be done and done starting now.

Also, the NH Urban Design League already as a Parking Demand Management plan that will save the hospital money and address neighborhood concerns about having their community bunkered in by parking lots and swarmed with autos.

This discussion has been great because we're hashing out real alternatives. Now let's get the Alders, the community groups, Yale, developers, and the Mayor on the same page--maximum effect, minimum cost which means sussing out transit not parking.

Posted by: Bill | August 2, 2006 3:59 PM

BRING BACK THE TROLLEY SYSTEM

Light rail, or Trolleys, were successful for at least two generations in New Haven. Fixed rail routes are always more popular than buses. Buses are cheap but always under-utilized. Slap a bus on rails and suddenly ridership increases like gangbusters. Check out what Memphis has done with trollies in the past decade--and they're not even hooked up by to train to a world class commuter city like New York! Besides, who thinks Memphis is some awesome new metropolis like Portland. You don't have to be to have light rail. New Haven development outside of the downtown Green area and all its environs, ESPECIALLY Westville, were built in pattern with trolley line expansion. As road congestion increases exponentially it is common sense that the only mitigating potential alternative to tearing things down for more roads again is the resumption of railed vehicles. Nothing else makes sense for the existing built environment. Have faith, build it and they shall ride!