New Haven Independent

Posted by: East Rocker | August 1, 2008 9:38 AM

The fundamental problem here is that the DOT and the safe streets folks are working at cross purposes. The DOT's plan is specifically to get more people down Whalley Avenue on their way to downtown and Southern CT State U. They are trying to relieve the huge congestion going up Whalley Avenue all the way into Woodbridge each day at rush hour. The safe street folks (with whom I sympathize) want fewer cars traveling this route. Of course what makes the DOT's plan ridiculous from the start is that no matter how much you widen Whalley from 63/69 to Emerson Street, you still have a bottleneck in Westville Village. This will just create more of a bottleneck.

No real relief will ever come until we have better bus service along Whalley and the suburbanites use it, leaving their cars in the suburbs where they belong.

Posted by: anon | August 1, 2008 10:20 AM

"it's not a question of expansion: they say the road is four lanes already."

This state road is two lanes in many sections - ConnDOT has neglected to stripe it with paint, which has created the problem. This plan widens the road significantly. Is that what people really want?

The DOT could start the process by being honest, then neighbors might be more willing to listen.

Posted by: Josh Smith | August 1, 2008 10:57 AM

Unfortunately, after attending the meeting, I assume they will not budge on the four-lane issue or the addition of bike lanes. Zbrozek stressed that he wants to keep "lane continuity" on the road, with enough space to keep cars moving through, and that the width measurements of the lanes are already set below what would have been considered standard for the project.

However, if you're interested in getting some ideas together to improve the road for cyclists as much as we can, despite the four lanes, there is a bike ride on this coming Thursday, which will be followed by an informal meeting on what can be done to improve conditions for cyclists while working within the four-lane framework they're giving us.

The bike ride starts at 6:30 at the parking lot of the Mitchell Library on Harrison Street. We will ride through Edgewood Park and then through Westville, and I plan to end the ride at Dayton Street Apizza to get some food and share ideas about what we can bring to the follow-up meeting with the DOT. I already have a couple of ideas to better conditions for cyclists, and I encourage you to bring yours as well. If you do not have a bike available, or do not want to ride, I think we should get to Dayton Street by about 7:30 or so, give or take 15-30 minutes or so. Please stop by and talk with us, and let's rally and form a concrete cycling plan. Since they cannot or will not make room for a bike lane on Whalley in the project, this is a crucial time to get something together for Westville (and all of New Haven!) cyclists to present to the DOT.

Posted by: T-Bone | August 1, 2008 4:31 PM

There are a lot of creative solutions for roadways such as Whalley that the DOT does not seem to be considering.

There are some great examples of what can be done here - The file is a powerpoint presentation in PDF format.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | August 1, 2008 5:18 PM

Zbrozek said that for some streets, the DOT is required by law to plan for the speed that drivers actually drive on a road, regardless of the posted speed limits.

A few folks asked me about this, so today I've been checking with the nonpartisan staff. So far as I know, the legislature didn't vote for anything like that.
Zbrozek must be using "required by law" in a very generic way. There is no state or federal law with this requirement.
There are guidelines, some associated with AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) and some recommended as standard by the federal government. We're still researching it.

This article captures the issue pretty well.

But I do want to add that some of the questions from the audience were brilliant. The DOT came in with their flak jackets prepared, I think, for anger and venting, and instead they got penetrating, thoughtful questions. A couple were just brilliant.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | August 1, 2008 6:09 PM

There was no sign in sheet at the beginning.
Later on someone took the initiative to pass one around, but a lot of people had left by that time.

But if folks want to be part of the follow up with DOT, they can contact the Livable Whalley group at

www.whalleyavenue.com

Posted by: David Streever | August 1, 2008 6:32 PM

I took issue with the pejorative way that Zbrozek handled Mark Abraham's questions. Mark asked if there was a compromise between 40 mph traffic & 15--maybe, heaven forbid, 25, the speed limit there. Zbrozek described this as "degrading" the road. Reducing speed, increasing safety, & making a liveable neighborhood does not "Degrade" a road. Rather, increasing a road in size & increasing the average speed degrades a whole neighborhood--it ensures that walkers, cyclists, and drivers are not safe.

I think it's a highly questionable proposal: begun 30 years ago & not updated.

When someone asked how they were going to slow down the street (they are designing it for 40 mph traffic) a DOT employee held up a sketch of trees & plants. That's great--but with no contract, no maintenance plan, no commitment whatsoever that these trees won't be allowed to die, how do they expect that to work?

New Haven: Ultimately, the state is putting more financial requirements on us. They expect the traffic to be slowed by police presence, and the nice aesthetics to be paid by the city. That's a hoot considering that we already provide over 14 million in regional services & the state denied us the 14 million it normally grants this year.

Get ready to pay more, as the state builds another route 34, and a factory for disaffected, disgruntled youth. The 300 hardcore knuckleheads the mayor warns about?

The state is going to spend 13 million to produce a new generation of them, and we can all pay for it in 30 years.

Coming into an area & dropping 13 million then disappearing isn't going to help us, the city, or the neighborhood--or the entire region. Zbrozek & company, when confronted with the fact that this is a neighborhood with 1000s of residents, replied that it was a highway.

We are missing out on a big chance to improve our city. I strongly encourage you to get involved with livable whalley & do what you can.

Posted by: Edward_H | August 1, 2008 7:06 PM

Would not reducing traffic speed and reducing the amount of lanes increase pollution due to cars and trucks idiling in this bottleneck?

Posted by: Jacki | August 1, 2008 7:15 PM

Upper Whalley is striped for one lane in most areas at the moment. Zbrozek said "marking four lanes of traffic was simply a recognition of the de facto situation on the avenue, where people drive as though there are four lanes already." So, does this mean that people will turn those 4 lanes into 6 or 8 in each direction? We all know folks in New Haven make any lane into 2 lanes.

Posted by: anon | August 1, 2008 7:46 PM

The DOT's response to the question about making Whalley Avenue a livable, 25mph speed road that encourages community, economic development, safety, etc., was basically this: "It needs to be a highway. We need more cars there. If you make Whalley too safe, people will take alternate routes."

It is true that some of the current alternate routes, like Valley and Fountain Street, have straightaways and traffic speeds that are unsafe as well. But this shows the DOT's flawed thinking. Keeping traffic off the other local roads is not a reason to destroy Westville with a 4-lane, 40-50mph road that will just continue the pattern of hundreds of injuries, and feel even more like a superhighway.

Instead, the logical response would be expanding the scope of the project so that traffic calming was put into place on surrounding streets. You can't always solve a problem by isolating it into a vacuum and just looking at 0.8 miles of road. I think that the state and city may need to step back and look at the bigger picture here -- i.e., the entire neighborhood.

Maybe you can increase the volume of traffic on Whalley, as the DOT wants, but still bring speeds down to a reasonable level (i.e., 25 max, and more crosswalks, etc.) while preventing an increase in traffic along the alternate routes by traffic calming those streets as well. If the alternate routes became 15-20mph average, attractive "slow streets" (like Orange Street in East Rock, for example -- and look at the property values there!) and Whalley was brought down to a reasonable 25mph, people would still take Whalley. It could be a win-win situation for everyone, and increased property values on the calmer side streets could just add to Whalley's overall appeal.

Instead, it appears that the DOT strategy is to write off the entire neighborhood as a highway. Not a surprise, considering that the original DOT plan for Whalley Avenue was a 3-lane highway in each direction, and the destruction of everything along its path.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | August 2, 2008 4:58 PM

Anon @7:46:
Do you think they're trying to keep traffic off of side roads? I'm not sure.
It wasn't stressed in the presentation, but looking at their calculations, increasing mobility (travel at 40 MPH) on Whalley assumes that many cars will turn on to Dayton, to go through to Forest Rd. Otherwise, given the constriction in Westville Village, their model doesn't work for them. So that may have safety implications for Dayton, the Fountain St intersection, and Forest, but it isn't clear that any new safety measures are anticipated there.
Also, I thought the question about safety around the Mobil station was interesting. The response was "it's outside the project area."
I do like the sewer separation, which is long overdue, though in a way that's a different issue.
Granite curbs are punishing to cars and to cyclists, so I have to see what other people think about that as a 'calming' measure.
Plantings were added late, but nice, and I assume the city will be responsible for upkeep.

Posted by: anon | August 2, 2008 9:13 PM

That's true -- by increasing the capacity of Whalley (which they are doing), the side streets are just going to have more traffic. But I think you see my point, which is that "improvements" to a small section potentially have a major impact on the whole area. It's the typical urban planning dilemma. I was just saying that their rationale for not wanting to build a neighborhood-friendly, 25mph road doesn't hold up.

Posted by: HENRY | August 4, 2008 1:51 PM

GOOD JOB!