New Haven Independent

Posted by: Ned | June 16, 2008 10:12 AM

Have a look at what the CT DOT (Department of Tar) considers good design: DOT headquarters - notice how all of the trees have been cut down, the acres of tar, etc. They could have just taken over an abandoned WalMart... Is it even possible to reach this place by public transit? walking? bicycle?
Check out the DOT's totally crappy statewide bicycle map.
Just to show how retarded CT (and the United States is) in general transit planning: Qatar to build 35km air-conditioned cycle path.
Meanwhile the DOT can't even seem to install a few cheap plastic signs, reminding drivers not to run over pedestrians.
Yeah's to everyone trying to design streets for people - DOT go sit in the corner.

Posted by: Looks great, but... | June 16, 2008 10:57 AM

Thank you Erin for leading this charge - I've talked with about a dozen alders regarding this type of investment in our communities.. and I hate to say it, but only Erin and Roland Lemar seem to even understand the importance and value of traffic calming. Many other alders were downright hostile to pedestrian -oriented design. Thankfully, the Mayor's office seems to be coming around, so maybe Erin and Roland can find a way to work this through the Mayor's side rather than the Board of Alders. Both Erin and Roland seem very optimistic about getting something done and Roland went as far as identifying a few "next steps" he would take to get the city to invest.

Again, thank you Erin for your tremendous leadership on this! And thank you to the City for finally seeing the benefit in investing intraffic calming measures. SAVE OUR STREETS!

Posted by: new haven safe streets | June 16, 2008 12:27 PM

Like what you are reading? See more at http://www.newhavensafestreets.org

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | June 16, 2008 1:34 PM

This is very exciting and has application in EVERY neighborhood not just Fair Haven. I'll admit that I am only a recent convert to the Traffic Calming cult and am now anxiously awaiting my first bicycle in about 20 years (hurry up Devil's Gear!!!) so I can park my SUV. But a true convert I am.

I also believe the model of a community having a direct hand in the design of their streets - can apply to the implementation phases as well as the planning phases. Just like we raised money and worked with partners to get the study done we can work together to get at least some of the recommendations implemented. I look forward to working with Erin, the Chatham Square Neighborhood Association and all of New Haven to fix our streets.

Since my conversion experience, I've started trying to actually drive the speed limits and generally obey the traffic laws. My first observation is that doing so is EXTREMELY difficult. It is hard not to pick up speed driving down Ella Grasso Blvd. or Whalley or Front Street or many other streets in this city. I am amazed at how many blind corners I have to turn. You can't see cars either without easing out into cross traffic.

My second observation is that even though I try to watch for pedestrians and cyclist there were way too many times that my only option was to stop and let them pass or risk hitting them, parked cars or cars in other lanes.

My third observation is how often cars in the next lane pulled away from a stop sign or light at high rates of speed only to stop again at the next sign/light. And how most times I, driving no faster than the posted limit, would catch up to them at every light. I could see their frustration at having to stop. Meanwhile, I was relaxed and noticed a lot of things on the street that I never noticed before.

I'm getting a bike and I'll also admit that I am afraid to ride it on our streets but I heard someone say that if more of us get out there the better it will be for all of us. I'll do my part. But just in case I also got a bus pass. ;-)

Posted by: cedarhillresident | June 16, 2008 3:48 PM

ohhh pretty!

Posted by: -fairhavener- | June 16, 2008 9:26 PM

I - WE - cannot wait to see some of these ideas realized.

Posted by: David Streever | June 16, 2008 10:00 PM

Thank goodness for Alderwoman Sturgis-Pascale!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rob Smuts | June 17, 2008 12:41 AM

Ald. Sturgis-Pascale brought Burden in to talk to us City Hall folk. Several of us were favorably inclined to the general concept of traffic calming beforehand (Mike Piscitelli and Dick Miller found the money in their budgets to pay half of Burden's contract, afterall), but I was really much more impressed than I expected to be.

Before hearing his presentations, I thought of traffic calming as something to do wherever it was practical - but that it is very costly and therefore fated to be very limited. After seeing him present twice, three things struck me.

The first is the wide range of measures that can be appropriate and effective. Some streets need the full-scale, expensive overhaul - but many do not, and much less expensive treatments can have tremendous impact.

The second realization is that when done right, traffic calming isn't at all similar to a stop light or speed bump. Traffic calming is not an unpleasant but necessary experience like eating overcooked vegetables. It has a dramatically positive impact for those living, walking and biking in a neighborhood - but also for those driving. Stopping at lights and stop-signs, then bursting forward to the next stop is a really unpleasant way of driving. We stop at stop-signs because we feel compelled to - like being lectured to do something - whereas we drive safely on traffic calmed-streets because it intuitively feels right to do so.

The third thing was that 1) given that this is a more realistic priced option than I had thought and 2) how broadly important it is, we're going to have to re-examine our priorities. I am sympathetic to the arguments that traffic calming will lower our costs due to accidents, reduce everyone's auto insurance, etc, but that's not how our budget works. We'll have to do less of something else (since we're in no place to just add another priority), most likely street and sidewalk repaving.

I don't foresee positive outcomes if we unilaterally tell a neighborhood they're not getting repaved streets and sidewalks because we're trying out this new concept on them, so it's great that Ald. Sturgis-Pascale and others are organizing communities to be able to help make this decision for themselves.

This is really exciting - my congrats to everyone who've been pushing this forward!

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 17, 2008 8:04 AM

Congratulations on getting a bike, Kevin. Have fun and ride safe. I expect you will find, as I did, that riding more often makes you a better and more careful driver. You'll likely have a whole new concept of 'high speed' for example, one in which 25 miles per hour feels like flying. Riding a bicycle also provides useful lessons in conserving momentum and learning to ease up on the pedals as you approach a stop light so as to not have to come to a complete stop before it changes again. This, too, translates into driving. Accelerating slowly and driving between lights at, or sometimes below the posted speed limit, I often find that lights magically turn green before me.

Finally, if you think you notice a lot while driving more slowly, you'll probably find that you notice even more riding your bike. Have fun!

Posted by: resident | June 17, 2008 8:41 AM

Rob, on point #3 - shouldn't the city's priorities have something to do with saving lives rather than continuing a status quo that results in hundreds of seriously injured citizens every year? Of course this is not just a budget issue. Everyone agrees that decisions should not be made unilaterally, but implying that this is just a Fair Haven or "neighborhood" issue is disingenuous -- the issue of dangerous and deadly traffic affects our entire city economy, retail districts, environment, public health, and every neighborhood and that is why it is a priority no matter where you go or who you talk to in the city. The city needs to immediately adopt across-the-board reforms to every department, coming directly from the Mayor, to address the issue before more lives are lost.

Maybe the fact that gasoline is expensive or that people are routinely speeding at 55MPH down Whalley, Clinton, Shelton or Howard Avenues doesn't affect the majority of the city staff, but it does affect the average family who feels the need to get in a car just to run an errand down the block because their neighborhood streets are not pleasant to walk or bike down, who don't use their living room because of the screeching noise and fear of a car crashing into the front of their house, and whose kids can't walk to school.

Posted by: Yair | June 18, 2008 7:13 AM

I'm about 95% in favor of traffic-calming measures for all the reasons that have been stated. For example I appreciate that 'natural' or 'intuitive' features that slow down drivers feel better than the start-and-stop of bumps and stop signs, and of course have huge advantages for pedestrians. However, I would like to know that someone is thinking about these effects in a concrete, quantitative way. For example, did the consultant give numerical answers to questions such as these:

1. Is the AVERAGE speed of a car passing through a traffic-calmed area about the same as that of a car passing through the same area without the calming? Higher? Lower?

2. In rush hour there are lines of cars backed up into Woodbridge (for example). Can we expect these lines to be longer or shorter and by how much?

I am not trying to argue that traffic throughput is the only thing to consider, but we also ignore it at our peril -- the city depends on a lot of people coming in and out of it every day. The benefits of calming are probably worth some slowdown in transit times, but it is imperative to know how much.

There are many hard quantitative issues involved, and my real concern is that real data be used to address them -- data from studies in other cities, and data from good modeling and simulation.

Posted by: Erin Sturgis-Pascale | June 18, 2008 10:43 AM

Great questions Yair. This movement for safe streets is in fact data driven. Traffic calming results in measureable, and often dramatic, reductions in speed and crashes and increases in property values. Not only is good street design humane and equitable, it is an economic development tool.
Another benefit is that well-designed traffic calming actually increases the capacity of a road. Even though the cars are moving more slowly, they are not stopping at every intersection. Consider roundabouts which accomodate 30% more traffic than a signalized intersection. Moving cars through an interesection at a slow, steady and predictable pace increases safety and capacity. Take a few minutes to watch a few cycles at a signalized intersection. There are considerable gaps of time when there is no traffic in the intersection even though lines are queued up in one or both directions. Incredibly inefficient and a significant source of air pollution with all of those cars idling and then gunning it to get through the light. With four times the national rate of asthma in this city, it is just one more argument for better street design.
Ultimately, this is about creating a healthy and safe place for PEOPLE, be they children, the elderly, small business owners, dog-walkers, friends, neighbors or you!
I would be happy to get into more specifics offline with anyone who is interested in doing more research on the health/safety/capacity improvements attributable to traffic calmed streets and cities.

Posted by: anon | June 18, 2008 10:51 AM

Yair, the average speed in a traffic calmed area is closer to what the desired speed is. Traffic speed is primarily dependent on street design. If you design a street for 40mph traffic, people will go 40, even if the posted speed limit is 25. Design for 25mph, and people will drive 25mph. So the answer: generally traffic calmed areas see slower traffic speeds, because they are designed that way, but not necessarily. There might be cases where most people are driving 25mph, but a few people are going 50mph, in which case traffic calming can help reduce the # of people going 50mph while the average speed stays around 25.

As I understand it, the answer to your second question depends on the specific design, but generally speaking, traffic calming has no effect on volume. In fact, traffic calming measures actually often improve the volume/mobility of traffic by A) reducing inefficiencies in the system (such as the need to constantly be stopping at stop lights or stop signs) and B) increasing capacity because slightly slower traffic speeds actually mean cars can drive closer together to one another (smaller distances from one car to the next).

Posted by: Allan Brison | June 18, 2008 11:16 AM

Looks Great But.... says above

"I've talked with about a dozen alders regarding this type of investment in our communities.. and I hate to say it, but only Erin and Roland Lemar seem to even understand the importance and value of traffic calming."

Actually there is considerably more interest on the board for traffic calming. For example, 20 alders, including myself, have signed on the the safe streets petition which has traffic calming as an important component. See the 3rd comment for the link to this petition.

I personally am very interested in the issue and will work with Erin and Roland and others to help bring it about.

Allan Brison
Alderman, Ward 10
Green Party

Posted by: Paul Garlinghouse | June 18, 2008 9:59 PM

Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts Rob. Could you please put our speed bumps back on Perkins Street until the traffic calming changes get installed? I just listened to a car speeding crazily down the wet street.