New Haven Independent

Posted by: anon | July 30, 2008 9:35 AM

I'm surprised you didn't mention that the intended (design) speed for the widened Whalley Avenue is about 40mph - that means traffic will be flowing through at a nice pace of 40-50mph.

50mph is just PERFECT for the neighborhood property values, for pedestrian safety (37mph is the threshold for guaranteed ped fatality, so if we're lucky, a few drivers might be going 35mph if they are distracted by their cell phones), and for promoting local retail! Just imagine the nice cafes you could have along a street with such beautifully flowing traffic, and the stores people will want to shop at while listening to highway background noise. Imagine how many pedestrians and bicyclists that these stores will draw and how easy it will be to pull into the parking spaces or parking lots. It will be a little bit easier than pulling over and parking on the shoulder of I-95! And with drivers going 40 or 50, it will be easy for them to see what stores are there, provided that they put up signs the size of what McDonald's currently has.

So, even though 50mph traffic is just PERFECT for one of the densest cities in the United States, I don't understand why the design speed is so high when the area is posted at 25mph. 25mph speeds would be much safer for drivers and pedestrians. The road could easily be designed to encourage safe, 25mph driving, with crosswalks that are easy for people to cross, and places that are worth spending time in.

But, then , we wouldn't need the businesses to buy signs the size of the Golden Arches. And we wouldn't be getting a miniature Wilbur Cross.

Posted by: Jay | July 30, 2008 10:03 AM

After the Mayor's talk about removing the Route 34 Connector and rebuilding downtown as a walkable area that is rich in jobs, taxes,
and urban identity, it seems quite ironic that he is letting the DOT build a 3/4-scale Route 34 Connector through the center of one of New Haven's most beautiful, walkable neighborhoods."

Posted by: sciencehill | July 30, 2008 10:04 AM

Wake up, Mr. Zbrozek! Just because something is a certain way now doesn't mean that it has to be that way forever. i.e. just because there are a lot of cars that drive very fast on Whalley Ave now doesn't mean that you can't change behavior by changing the environment. Widening a road to deal with current traffic problems will beget nothing but ... surprise ... more traffic.

Posted by: Bill | July 30, 2008 10:05 AM

Well, after they widen Whalley to near-highway proportions, I think all cyclists will want to get on the f*&%$n' sidewalk lest they risk their lives riding with the miserable mass of autos. Thanks DOT, for squandering an opportunity to improve our community. How about we come up to Hartford and put a four-lane road right through the capitol building. Maybe then we'll hear some sympathetic voices.

Posted by: DingDong | July 30, 2008 10:51 AM

What is wrong the Connecticut DOT? Why is it always either

a) totally incompetent and/or corrupt (see New Haven railyard project, I-84 storm drains)
b) totally dismissive of community concerns and retrograde and stuck in a 1960s, Richard Lee mindset (see this project)

Gov. Rell supposedly has promised us a plan to halt sprawl. How are you going to halt sprawl if you turn city streets into mini-highways. No one will want to live next to these roads, but at least you can get from exurbia to downtown jobs along them as quickly as possible.

Traffic counts on Whalley have not been increasing for at least the last ten years. Why does DOT think it needs to build a road to carry twice as many cars? Is it perhaps because if they do build it, no one will want to live near Whalley anymore and they will all have to move somewhere else and drive into New Haven along Whalley?

I don't have any specific design proposals here and it's senseless to argue whether or not we can have a roundabout. What it is meaningful to argue about is why we let our state DOT, part of our government, that represents us, be totally incompetent and totally dismissive of what we want.

Posted by: DingDong | July 30, 2008 11:04 AM

Bill,

They already have a four-lane road pretty much right through the capitol building, thanks to federal and state DOT idiocy. In fact, there are almost two: I-84 and I-91. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sll=41.767119,-72.667179&view=map&hl=en&q=state+capitol,+Hartford,+CT+06103&ie=UTF8&ll=41.764126,-72.67911&spn=0.010403,0.027466&t=h&z=16

And for the record, remember this is State DOT headquarters and state DOT's idea of good design:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&q=2800+Berlin+Turnpike,+newington,+ct&ie=UTF8&ll=41.673216,-72.71327&spn=0.010418,0.019312&t=h&z=16

Posted by: Paul Wessel | July 30, 2008 11:18 AM

Looks like Thursday's meeting will be a very fertile one.

DOT is right that keeping that commuter traffic moving safely and efficiently - employees, shoppers, patrons of the arts - between downtown and points West and off the Parkway is important to the region's vitality.

The neighbors are right that they want a safe, attractive, pedestrian/bicycle-friendly street through their neighborhood.

Figuring out how to balance both is a great opportunity.

It will probably be helpful to look at and understand DOT's data on the accidents over the last decade - DOT reports above that they averaged 110 annually. A discussion of that data might - might - provide some common ground for everyone.

It's great the Rep. Dillon and Sen. Harp are involved. Both have leverage over the DOT's budget - Sen. Harp, as chair of the Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Dillon, as a member, approve DOT's budget. They are well positioned to act on the neighborhood's behalf to leverage some enhancements to the existing DOT plan.

Posted by: anon | July 30, 2008 11:33 AM

Paul, wouldn't a dedicated bus lane be much safer and more efficient than thousands of cars speeding through the area at 50mph every evening? The DOT may be "right" in its overall goals, but totally "wrong" when it comes to designing a roadway that has an intended speed of 40-50mph, and "wrong" about spending the majority of its budget on highway expansions while spending less than 1% on bike/pedestrian infrastructure.

Bottom line is, "safe and efficient" travel is great -- but not when the result is destroyed property values, failing retail districts, lack of places to walk, plummeting public health, dead children and elderly people, dead and injured drivers, high air pollution, excessive noise, toxic brake dust, household dependence on extremely expensive automobiles (which Woodbridge residents can afford, but not necessarily New Haveners), and the destruction of our neighborhoods.

If property values and safety have been shown to be inversely correlated with street widths and speed in urban areas, why is the road being widened and sped up?

If the road were designed attractively, maybe some of those commuters could even stop and go shopping along Whalley or somewhere closer to their homes, rather than driving all the way across the region for every trip. Yes, it is a tradeoff (especially if you are trying to maximize profits for oil and auto companies).

But is getting a few thousand people to and from downtown in a private vehicle at 50mph, instead of 25mph, really worth dozens of deaths and hundreds if not thousands of serious injuries?

Posted by: Anon in FH | July 30, 2008 11:34 AM

The DOT is pathetic. The don't live here. How DARE they not listen to the community who live with the decisions. It seems the community is fighting this without the help of City backing. If the City of New Haven was really serious about traffic calming measures, it would be pressuring the state DOT to think about people vs. cars. The City's "traffic calming" should be applied to all streets within the City limits.

When are City and State officials going to move forward instead of backward?

Maybe we should find out where Mr. Zbrozek lives and replicate the traffic these people live with and are going to have to live with. What's good for the goose and all...

Posted by: Westville Resident | July 30, 2008 11:41 AM

Is this meeting public? Anyone know what time?

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | July 30, 2008 1:18 PM

Westville Resident,

Yes, thanks for asking. The meeting at Edgewood School on Thursday is definitely public. That's the point.
There may be slight changes, but this is the schedule:

5 PM - 6 PM: Open House:
meet with CDOT design team with a station for traffic, design, landscape. Staff will be available at each station for questions.

6-6:45 CDOT presentation

6:45-7:30 Discussion and follow up

Posted by: Josh Smith | July 30, 2008 2:30 PM

If it's true that the target speed for the road will be 40, the plans cannot go forward as they stand. Traffic-calming measures must be taken to lower the speed to 25 (actual speed, not just a number on a sign), while allowing cyclists to use the road and pedestrians to cross the road safely. Bike lanes are a must on any new/redeveloped road in the city, and medians must be created with raised/textured crosswalks along with the promised "new walk signs" so pedestrians can cross safely. This is 2008, not 1968.

Posted by: anon | July 30, 2008 3:09 PM

I agree Josh. Interestingly enough, traffic volumes flow more smoothly at 25mph then they do at 40mph or 50mph, because cars can be much closer together as they drive along. You can get more people there, more quickly, if the road is a 25mph road than you can if it is a 50mph road. Witness what happens on I95 when there are too many cars: the speed slows to 25 to 30mph. That's because that's the most efficient way to get people from one place to another. It's also much safer for drivers and pedestrians. 40-50mph roads have significantly more deaths and injuries than 25mph roads.

Just look at Ella Grasso Boulevard (a 40-50mph zone) and all the deaths there as an example. I can't even begin to tell you how many people I know who live along Ella Grasso or along Whalley and who never cross the street because it is simply too dangerous to even think about. They also don't even bother driving there, because even parking along such a high-speed road is dangerous, and bikes are totally out of the question. The situation we now have translates directly into dying retail districts.

Does the neighborhood really want a hybrid Ella Grasso/Route 34 running right down their throat?

Posted by: oldswede | July 30, 2008 3:41 PM

Small towns in Connecticut have learned to resist the DOT *road-improvement* schemes. The town may want some changes to existing curves or intersections, to make minor adjustments. What inevitably happens is that the Department wants to rip up everything and build a four-lane highway, often right through the center of the town. That is all they seem to know how to do.
oldswede

Posted by: Carole | July 30, 2008 4:33 PM

OldSwede,

Can you point us to any specific success stories of Connecticut towns resisting DOT's "state highway" approach? Do you know what appeals or tactics those towns used that worked?

Posted by: Josh Smith | July 30, 2008 6:47 PM

I would actually welcome a four-lane road, but only if traffic-calming measures were put in place, and if the plan included cyclists and pedestrians. For example: a bike lane both ways, so you don't have to ride in the same lane as 40-50 mph traffic, and medians/islands in the road with walk/don't walk signals and countdowns like in downtown that prioritize pedestrian traffic, so you don't have to pray and run across four lanes of screaming-fast traffic, to cross Whalley.

Posted by: pedidoc | July 30, 2008 10:18 PM

Interestingly, Hartford has a roundabout that works pretty well from my experience... Pulaski Circle, which is a little speedy because it is essentially the terminal portion of the exit from 91, but really a nice method.
So, for the DOT chap to say that it can't be done in a large city is laughable.

Posted by: David Streever | July 30, 2008 11:06 PM

I think we should sue the state if they go ahead with a plan to encourage people to drive at 40 mph.

Posted by: commuter | July 31, 2008 7:22 AM

I agree with Paul, Whalley needs to move traffic efficiently and safely. Pedestrians need to be able to cross safely at designated crosswalks. As a cyclist of decades, I don't ride much since moving to New Haven. I feel accommodating cyclists on Whalley is fairly silly. There are parrallel routes that are already much "calmer". Improve the flow on Whalley and you will get me off of Valley and Goffe, my long preferred routes... I think that would be a good thing for cyclists. Also, I have long preferred Edgewood to Whalley. I see Whalley as the main artery, but I will go blocks out of my way to avoid the lane changers, line jumpers, pull outs, left and right turners in crazy situations, BUSES and TRUCKS, and stoplights stoplights stoplights. For a dedicated bus lane to make sense, I would think routes would have to be moved off of Goffe and Edgewood to the Whalley lane, and I don't think that is best for the patrons. Whalley is not a calm serene street. It is no different now than in the last 15 years at least. It is for motor vehicles. But when the light turns red and the walk sign goes on, pedestrians must be safe and feel safe.

Posted by: DingDong | July 31, 2008 9:34 AM

Commuter -- This work is being done on a part of Whalley (between Emerson St and the 63/69 junction) where Edgewood and Goffe are not alternative routes.

No one thinks that moving traffic efficiently and safely is unimportant. The thing is, as you have pointed "nothing has changed in the last 15 years" on Whalley -- that is traffic counts have not increased -- yet DOT wants to come in and widen the roadway and double its capacity. The problem is that
1) they haven't provided a convincing reason for needing to double the motor vehicle capacity.
2) they could, instead of doubling the roadway capacity, take concerns of taxpayers and citizens into account, and try make this stretch of Whalley more liveable, more pleasant, more attractive to retail, better for pedestrians and cyclists. As people have pointed out, it should still be possible to increase motor vehicle capacity -- and certainly safety -- while doing this. (Of course, motor vehicle capacity may not double -- but then DOT has yet to convince anyone why it needs to double).

Posted by: anon | July 31, 2008 10:09 AM

"It is for motor vehicles." That's a pretty big claim on your part considering how many thousands of PEOPLE also live there. How would you like it if someone took your front yard, and said "Sorry, that's for motor vehicles"? Our public streets are for everyone, and how they are affects our general economy, safety, health, and welfare -- they are not there exclusively for speeding pieces of metal.

Posted by: David Streever | July 31, 2008 2:24 PM

Commuter,

I have to agree with those that point out that 1000s of people do live there.

In East Rock, we have mostly well-behaved children and calm streets & pretty houses. I can't help but think that 4 lane roads with speeding vehicles is a factory for social problems....

Posted by: Josh Smith | July 31, 2008 9:34 PM

Surprise, everyone! After attending the public meeting tonight, I learned that the DOT isn't open to the idea of bike lanes or a center left-turn lane. They don't want to "degrade the roadway", which basically means it has to be four lanes, two each way, and that's the way it's going to be. But, hey, we'll have some spiffy trees along the sides of the road! And a small park at the corner of Whalley and East Ramsdell, oh boy! Not that I could get there without either driving or walking, though.

Maybe if we all pray really hard, we'll get "share the road" signs and lane markings, so we can share the right lane on a road where the design (or target) speed is 40 mph. And maybe, just maybe, we won't get hit by someone who thinks it's okay to go 60 mph, or drag race at 100 mph. They have no plans to increase the posted speed limit beyond 25. But what happens when you design a road for the "85th percentile", a.k.a. 40 mph, and make it even easier for traffic to flow through? Bad things.

Posted by: DEZ | July 31, 2008 11:01 PM

" I can't help but think that 4 lane roads with speeding vehicles is a factory for social problems...."

How small minded can you get? While I realize that the traffic calming issue is of utmost concern, I can think of many cities with four lane roads that are not "factories for social problems". (Think Boston, Providence, Manhattan...) Get off of your bike and educate yourself OUTSIDE of East Rock! Armchair traffic calming indeed! Next?