New Haven Independent

Posted by: Esbe | October 16, 2007 11:08 AM

Enforce traffic laws. What a non-New Haven-ish thought.

If we want a better bike-and-pedestrian friendly city, how about

[1] Our State Reps and Senators support a bill allowing traffic cameras on stop-lights, which would be used to mail out tickets to offenders (yes, because you don't know who is actually driving, the fine could be less and not result in driver's license "points", should be more like a bad parking ticket)

[2] In the meantime, the police start stopping folks who run "pink" lights -- it is a dangerous "tradition" in New Haven that if you saw the light when it was green, then you can run it ("accelerate on red")

[3] The police enforce a California-style law that says drivers actually have to yield to pedestrians in cross-walks, as opposed to actively trying to run them over (another tradition here.) I get so confused in CA when the cars stop for me, but when I remember they are waiting for a pedestrian, wow

[4] The police stop blaming cyclists when drivers try to run them over for sport.

[6] While you are ticketing the drivers going 50 down the "straight-aways" leading to/from downtown, also fine the Yale kids who wander aimlessly through the traffic on Elm like they were strolling through the cross-campus lawn. Maybe Yale needs to build a tunnel for the poor dears (or is that "deers in the headlights")

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | October 16, 2007 11:35 AM

Another day. Another new tax idea and an alder who will support it. Why should private garage owners be forced to pay an extra tax for public transportation? They pay high property taxes in New Haven already. Some of those taxes support the bus service, the fake trolley which is losing ridership, and all the rest of city services. It's very easy for these people, all well meaning and enthusiastic, to support taking money from other people to support a lifestyle and transportation choice they personally prefer. If they feel so strongly about it, perhaps they should levy a tax on bicycle purchases; bike equipment and bike shops or they could open their wallet and give the City of New Haven more money and earmark it for public transportation and bicycle improvements.

Better yet...why not support a complete overhaul of the city budgeting process so that a priority like this gets funded out of existing city revenues and appropriate cuts are made elsewhere in the budget to accomodate it?

Posted by: nfjanette | October 16, 2007 12:24 PM

I doubt anyone would argue that the state of driving has gone from bad to worse, but the blame is not always solely in the hands of motor vehicles. At least ESBE is willing to assign some responsibility to pedestrians and bicyclists.

To the list of proposed changes, I would add ticketing bicyclists that run red lights, which is a common occurrence in New Haven. For all of the ills inflicted upon two-wheelers by other vehicles, bicyclists should not be increasing the chances of being broadsided, or of hitting pedestrians crossing with the proper lights.

You cannot, however, have pedestrians stopping traffic anytime by walking in crosswalks at major intersections; both vehicles and pedestrians must obey the traffic signals to ensure safe mutual use of the streets. Currently, neither do so predictably, with pedestrians always on the losing end of that situation.

Posted by: Carole | October 16, 2007 6:30 PM

NFJanette,

Plenty of us on bikes would like to see everyone -- including other bicyclists and pedestrians -- follow the law. I didn't see anything in the article to suggest otherwise.

The law for pedestrians: At an intersection or crosswalk with a light, you have to wait your turn. No crossing against the light or at a "Don't Walk" signal. At other intersections or crosswalks, drivers must yield to pedestrians. It's so much not a part of New Haven culture that I often forget to stop, myself, when driving. But it's the law, and it can be enforced; just go to Northampton, Mass., to see how well it works.

Posted by: DingDong | October 16, 2007 6:38 PM

Using public transportation or bicycles over automobiles is not just a personal choice. They are important reasons to encourage bicycling and public transit over car travel. Car travel is already enormously favored in spending priorities; car travel is dangerous and kills 42,000 people a year in the US; there is something called global warming occuring (this probably should be repeated a few times); and cities that are full of garages and parking lots do not attract retail. There are other reasons too. I am not saying that we should all stop driving cars today. I am just saying that the city is quite right to be encouraging other modes of transportation over automobiles. This is not some baseless imposition by some of their preferred lifestyle on others.

Posted by: Bruce | October 17, 2007 12:58 PM

ESBE: "The police enforce a California-style law that says drivers actually have to yield to pedestrians in cross-walks"

Not sure if this is clear to everyone or not, but this is already a CT law! People just don't bother following it and police rarely enforce it. If you are driving and see someone stepping into a crosswalk, you MUST hit the brakes and let him or her cross. This drives me nuts -- especially where Lincoln crosses Temple Street.

Posted by: dana b | October 17, 2007 1:55 PM

I couldn't agree with New Haven Tea Party more. It's ridiculous that the bike advocacy group wants to fund its laudable aims by imposing a new tax on another subgroup -- this time it is the parking garage owners and by extension, the drivers who use those garages.

NHTP's point is well taken: fund bicycle improvements from the existing budget. Biking to work, biking safely, educating the public to accomodate bicyclists and pedestrians, etc. -- all are things that can be handled by existing city agencies.

We simply have to prioritize and put bike issues higher up on the agenda. That's politics.

Advocating a new tax that drivers will ultimately pay is a divisive approach and just plain naive.

Posted by: Daniel Sumrall | October 17, 2007 2:44 PM

"Enforcing traffic laws to improve the safety and comfort of all road users," I adore this notion. I've personally witnessed police cruisers violate traffic laws and turn a bored, non-active eye away from drivers who turn on red when the sign clearly prohibits it, run red lights, speed through yellow lights, and generally just speeding down city streets.

I've said this before on the NHI comments board--there is nowhere in New Haven that you need to go faster that the posted speed LIMIT of 25 mph. There should be digital speed signs along every heavy car/foot traffic street. Police need to pull over and ticket every violator they possibly can. Police need to ticket pedestrians for jaywalking--because quite simply pedestrians need to wake up and pay attention. And we should have bike lanes along major thoroughfares.

We all need to start following the rules or more people are going to be run down, knocked off their bikes, or in automobile accidents. The solution is easy--BE SMARTER.

Posted by: on whalley | October 18, 2007 10:46 AM

"Police need to ticket pedestrians for jaywalking"

Well, imagine that! A cop hanging around Elm and York would clean up with all the jaywalking Yalies. Then there's all the kids weaving in and out of traffic on their bikes or seemingly closing their eyes and running across Whalley and Dixwell as though some high power will keep them safe.

The catch, of course, being that the kids and the parents on Dixwell and Whalley will not pay due to many factors and I really doubt Yale would look the other way while the city it owns tries to ticket every Yalie running out into traffic.

And Dana B and Tea Party, you should know by now that isn't how New Haven's budget works. New Haven spends more than it can afford one year and rather than cutting spending the next year they raise taxes or invent new ones to barely break even then rather than cut spending they over spend again so they can further hike taxes the following year.

There are no budget priorities other than spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax. It's like the city is charging us for magazine subscriptions we don't want and can't cancel. Maybe DeStefano is trying to win publisher's clearinghouse?

I like the idea of taxing bike related purchases for bike related programs. It works for hunters. But for the record I oppose any and all taxation for any and all uses. The government should have to beg and plead for money. Not take it at gun point.

Posted by: Brian Hornby | October 18, 2007 4:21 PM

Perhaps if we want to share the tax burden equally between cars and cyclists we should increase the motor vehicle tax to include the following:

Maintenance to Roads
Fire/Police/Medical response to Accidents
Traffic Lights and Signals
Medical costs due to asthma/resperatory illness from pollution

If car owners paid for these things exclusively then i would be happy to pay an extra tax while purchasing bicycle related items, however all of these costs that are associated directly with automobile use are burried in property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc. I feel that anyone who is using a car is getting away with a great deal. In fact if more people used bicycles, walked or took public transportation, the amount of maintenance needed to keep the roads in good repair would decrease as would the amount of traffic, and pollution.

Posted by: charlie | October 19, 2007 12:22 PM

I agree with Brian. Cars are MASSIVELY subsidized by the government. Mark my words, there will soon be a massive reckoning, causing the price of car ownership to rise to be more in line with what it actually costs, i.e., about what Europe charges. In Europe, gas is about $9 per gallon and taxes on cars can cost more than the car itself costs. But that's because that is what cars ACTUALLY cost all of us. You might not understand this unless you've studied a lot of economics, but it's time to think about it because the days of cheap cars running roughshod over our entire society, destroying it in the process, are soon to come to an end.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | October 19, 2007 3:45 PM

Charlie: Government "massively" subsidizes cars??

Fact Check Time;
1. CT collects nearly $300 million a year in gas taxes at the pump. Less than one half of that is spent on roads, bridges and transportation. The rest of it, goes into the black hole of the general fund where politicians never seem to run dry on wasteful ideas to spend it. That money to waste is supplied by car owners who are subsidizing everything from education, to roads, to bridges, to welfare, and more.

2. Car owners also provide tens of millions of dollars in sales taxes each year, when they purchase new and used cars. This money goes into the general fund at the state level.

3. Car owners also provide huge sums of money to the cities where they live through property taxes on their cars. Since New Haven's outrageous mil rates apply equally to cars as it does homes, understand car owners here pay large sums. This money goes into the general fund at City Hall - where it pays for the fake Trolley, for city hall jobs, education, after school programs, education, cops and more.

4. Auto owners also use their vehicles to travel to New Haven, park in our garages, pay for those lot attendants, the taxes, licenses and fees associated with those parking garages - and then spend money in our restaurants and shops and businesses that employ thousands of people.

Now, you and alot of other people may think this can all happen on the bank of a bicycle or by walking over the Q bridge or from the farthest reaches of New Haven. You would be wrong.

Posted by: charlie | October 19, 2007 5:40 PM

Why are you only looking at state and local monies, Gary, when the vast majority of automobile & gasoline infrastructure is funded (directly or indirectly) through the Federal government?

Also, where do you get the figure that only $150 million or less of the $36 BILLION state budget goes (directly or indirectly) to road systems?

Posted by: Bruce | October 21, 2007 3:38 PM

Mr. Doyens, you forgot a few expenses -- highway patrol, hospital costs for uninsured drivers, court costs & legal fees for traffic offenses. I don't have numbers off hand, but these have got to considerable expenses. Have you ever seen how many traffic violation cases go through our court system?