New Haven Independent

Posted by: Along the Q | February 24, 2009 12:37 PM

HA!! You East Rockers crack me up! The bridge will only be out for ONE year!!! Deal. The bridge has to get fixed. We in Fair Haven had to deal with the situation you are facing for 5 years and will be facing it again when the Grand Ave Bridge needs repair.

AS far as tractor trailers...yup, we deal with that too with our antique homes. At lease your roads aren't built on landfill like ours.

Police enforcement of speed limits will help, IF you can get it.

Good luck...but seriously its only a year

Posted by: robn | February 24, 2009 12:49 PM

The abysmally slow reconstruction of the Temple St bridge over the farmington canal has diverted a lot of what would have been Whitney Avenue traffic onto Orange and State. This is one good reason to delay other East Rock Road work.
As far as tractor trailers go...ban them from East Rock.

Posted by: JP | February 24, 2009 1:17 PM

Does anyone know what the deal is with the bridge at state and elm? when will that be done already its been years?

Posted by: City Hall Watch | February 24, 2009 2:50 PM

Better get used to it. If the mayor and all the stone age crowd get their way, all the Route 34 traffic will come your way too. Enjoy.

Posted by: Pedro | February 24, 2009 3:07 PM

JP, the state and elm bridge, is the grand avenue bridge.
That was closed January 2nd 2007 and is due to reopen hopefully this summer, ahead of the scheduled completion date of November 2009.

The bridge had to be completely closed and entirely removed and replaced over the most active train track, in the northeast, so to say this was a pretty big project.
I visited it the other day, and they are definitely moving along!

I live a block away from this bridge, so needless to say I've been following it very closely.

Posted by: Streever | February 24, 2009 3:17 PM

Along the Q,
why should we "Deal"?
This project has been heavily supported at many stages by residents of East Rock. We've done work & put real hours into this. Why should we "deal"?

Why the sour grapes attitude?

I'm sorry that you had 5 years of a bad situation. Why should that become the de facto standard & model for these issues? Why shouldn't we--as a community--work hard to ensure that future developments do not entail such a high level of community pain?

In one breath you argue against the situation: in the next you support it.

If your community attempts to improve the situation @ Grand, I can assure you, our neighborhood will not come on here to bash or belittle you. Best luck in getting a new bridge & having only mild inconvenience. You have some wonderful alders who will work hard for you, just as ours do for us.

City Hall Watch:
Yes, the bike, pedestrian, public safety, young traffic engineers who are working on Rt 34 certainly are in the "stone age"! We represent old fashioned engineering & road use. (What?) All of us young liberal people can be lumped into the designation "stone age" in our view points and methodologies. Have you come to any of the Route 34 planning meetings? Please do show up at the next one, we'd love to see you.

Posted by: norton street | February 24, 2009 3:38 PM

man, cars sure do make things convenient.

Posted by: Beansie's Mom | February 24, 2009 4:16 PM

Hey Streever,

Try four dozen neighbors meeting with the Mayor and the State DOT for the long overdue renovation/repair of Quinn Avenue last OCtober. Where historic homes have QOL has been devasted by the 18 wheelers using Q Avenue a detour b/c of I-95 construction projects as well as the over five year delay in the Ferry Street bridge renovation. And b/c that dragged on and on, it's only a matter of time that before Grand Avenue Bridge get's closed. That part that connects the Eastern part of the city to DOWNTOWN.

So the Mill river is a less costly project so it gets bumped up.

As for the Route 34 matter. Too bad we can't get the sitting in limbo funds released from the badly designed Exit 8 project for local city traffic improvements along Middletown Avenue and Foxon Boulevard here in the City of New Haven. Why because that over funded, incompetent State DOT with their Engineers and Consultants have turned New Haven into speed zones for Route 80 and Route 17. All to benefit North Haven, EAst Haven, Brandford, etc.

And at whose expense. The people who want to walk or push a carriage in the North East part of this city.

Posted by: Cracks along the Q | February 24, 2009 5:28 PM

Streever,
I agree with Beansie's Mom. You all do what is the right at the time (like us) but community involvement doesn't mean a thing when it comes down to the $$$!
It sure is frustrating isn't it?

Posted by: ned | February 24, 2009 8:08 PM

Speaking of bridges, check out the Millau Viaduct - only took three years to build.

New Haven's industrial transportation base was built on water and rail, so all of these trucks and suburban commuters, driving in from the suburban smog and death network, aka the "interstate highway system," are really an anomaly.

The Willow Street/I91 exit/entrance debacle is the result of the state DOT's seriously misguided attempt to destroy East Rock Park.

Having lived in New Haven, on and off, over the past 25 years, I still do not understand the twisted relationship that the City has with cars and the suburbs - it's like maybe if I build a shopping mall, the suburbanites will love me; maybe if I invite them in to drive all over me, they'll like me; verbally abuse me; penetrate me at will - see Trumble Street during the morning or evening commute - the towing of cars, from city streets, is like the city lubing up for some anonymous suburban johns.

Posted by: anon | February 24, 2009 8:32 PM

I agree with Beansie's Mom. Why can't the city push back a little and force the DOT to design roads that benefit our community, not roads that Destroy Our Town (DOT)? At the current rate, all of New Haven is going to end up looking like Route 80. Route 34 should be redirected down I-95 and up Route 10, not through the center of the Dwight Neighborhood. Why do we have to stick to a misguided concept from the 1940s?

At least we'll have plenty of MacDo's to serve YNHH's growth.

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 9:36 AM

The city feels that suburban commuting arteries (more like festering open wounds if you evaluate their impact) are more important than the quality of life in the neighborhoods. Cars are more important than people.

The city government should stand up for the people, not kowtow to the DOT.

Posted by: DAFeder | February 25, 2009 11:13 AM

Are the details of this plan available on line? I can't make it to most ERMT meetings, but I'd like to see the overall plan for neighborhood traffic.
Are there preemptive plans for dealing with the overflow traffic, beyond "detour" signs? If we have a stream of speeding cars diverted down Nash St., will we get some speedbumps here, too?

And re: Millau, NED: Nice work -- I guess they didn't have to cope with the kind of technical challenges you have building a 20-foot bridge on Temple St.!

David

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 12:05 PM

Much of the traffic headed down State is bound for Yale, Westville and other points west.

For drivers who used to go State-Edwards, wouldn't the logical "new" route be either State-Willow-Whitney or State-Willow-Nash-State?

I would imagine that State-James-Humphrey-East-Grand/Chapel will also be popular, but those streets can handle increased traffic better than Willow or Nash, which have beautiful small houses right up against the curb.

Maybe New Haven should consider a "congestion charge", like what hundreds of cities in Europe, large and small (even cities of 20000 or so people), are currently implementing? A New Haven "congestion charge" could balance the city budget overnight.

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 12:39 PM

For those drivers headed to the west side of Downtown, by "State-Willow-Nash-State", I meant State-Willow-Nash-Edwards (or State-Willow-Orange-Edwards, etc.).

Posted by: Kevin | February 25, 2009 1:00 PM

David (and anyone else who is interested)

I have a copy of the detour map and should be able to get plans for the project. You can reach me at kevin.mccarthy@cga.ct.gov

Posted by: Adam | February 25, 2009 1:49 PM

Typical scare tactics by Anon - no one will be diverted anywhere near Mechanic or Nash Streets

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 3:07 PM

What's your reasoning, Adam?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 25, 2009 3:24 PM

This bridge needs to be done...way past due. Cedar Hill area is concerned that is is going to be cut off even more than it already is. But as a few of us have been talking about it for the past year...my guess is most people will be detouring on the highway even if the detour signs can not state that. At least that is what most of us will be doing.

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 3:27 PM

From the corner of State/Ridge in Hamden to the 1,200 new jobs at Science Park, for example:

Current recommended route via State, Edwards->Science Park: 3.0 miles, 8 minutes

Proposed detour via State, James, Humphrey, East, Edwards->Science Park: 3.4 miles, 10 minutes

Actual route most likely to be used via State, Willow, Whitney, Edwards->Science Park: 3.2 miles, 8 minutes

If Willow Street can handle the likely increase in traffic, this is fine. But if it can be seen coming, perhaps now is the time to invest in safety improvements along Willow rather than hoping that everyone will follow a detour down James Street.

Actually, I would be more concerned about the truck traffic, since this will have to go all the way down to Grand Avenue to get across, because the Humphrey rail bridge has a low clearance: Does Willow Street currently allow this type of truck traffic?

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 3:29 PM

CHR, isnt the highway a pkg lot at rush hour?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 25, 2009 4:01 PM

Anon you are right it is, but to go the side roads with lights and narrow roads, the highway is still a quicker option. One remedy is no truck threw signs on some streets and maybe turning some into one ways. Not sure if there is an easy way out of it. But this has to happen. I think the residents directly effected can have some imput into some of the detouring.

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 4:02 PM

Good suggestions

Posted by: jawbone | February 25, 2009 5:16 PM

This is an very localized comment, but here it goes.
It looks like I will have to step up my campaign to make the intersection of Anderson and Willow (in front of Archies) safer. At most times there are customers of Archie Moore's parked too close to the intersection (meaning between the 'No Parking' sign and the corner) This makes a situation where it is extremely hazardous to turn onto Willow from Anderson because you can't see the oncoming traffic. Add more and faster traffic to Willow and you will certainly have more accidents at this corner.
My remedy is to call the traffic cops all the time and ask them to come out to tow the illegally parked cars away. Which they actually do relatively quickly (city income stream).
My point is that Willow can't take much more volume. A lot of people already use Willow to get on and off the highway in the mornings and evenings to avoid the backups closer to downtown.
I wonder if the DOT ever completed a study of the current volume utilizing Willow on a workday. I haven't seen any of those rubber tubes crossing the road...hope they are not making assumptions.

Posted by: anon | February 25, 2009 6:11 PM

Jawbone, great comments. I also think that the speeds along Willow are too high - people regularly barrel down that road at 40MPH, especially in the area that you point out near Archies. They could be reduced if you took out the centerline, put in traffic calming like what West Hartford does all over (chicanes, marking on road indicating speed limits etc).

Enforcement won't get you too far, you need to design the road so it is an asset to the community, not a liability.

Does the city understand the link between pleasant streets and property values? I know that there are many people who wouldn't even consider buying a house on that road, given the traffic situation they would have to deal with.

Having a community that is worth investing in, and is a great place to live in, is worth making a few drivers take an extra minute or two to get to work. The public health and economic benefits outweigh the convenience of a few suburban drivers crossing town.

Posted by: robn | February 25, 2009 7:36 PM

ANON,

The troubles we're seeing on Willow and Trumbull are a faint foreshadowing of the chaos that will ensue if the Oak Street Connector is torn down and replaced with a surface road with diminished capacity . I-91 Traffic will back up and pour off into East Rock.

Posted by: Chicwa | February 25, 2009 7:54 PM

The road gods must be appeased at all costs. Only through human sacrifice will the villagers acheive safety.

Posted by: anon | February 26, 2009 11:06 AM

Robn, I don't really see where you are coming from. Route 34 is a massive blight on the city and the hundreds of wasted acres of land around it have the potential to be incredibly valuable (from both an economic and a social/health perspective).

Regardless of what goes on with highway traffic (which is now declining as fewer people can afford to or want to drive in a one-person vehicle every day), East Rock streets, like Willow, must be traffic-calmed so that they are nice places to live again. In other words, I think the city can have its cake and eat it too.

Posted by: Streever | February 26, 2009 11:43 AM

BEansie's Mom/etc,

my point isn't that the Q river neighbors haven't done enough :) Sorry. I believe you've all worked very hard, and like I said, I'm sorry you've had to endure a bad situation. I'm not defending the city on this!

I'm just asking "Along the Q" why pit neighborhood against neighborhood? we're trying to build on the work already done by other neighborhoods in ensuring that smart development happens, that's all. I don't understand why "Along the Q" would post such a negative comment to us, and it's dissapointing.

Posted by: ROBN | February 26, 2009 1:20 PM

ANON,
Heres where I'm coming from...I'm coming from the future and I'm travelling south on I-91 during rush hour...but unfortunately, someone with a bonehead idea tore down the wide feeder highway (Oak Street Connector) that dispersed traffic into downtown and replaced it with a surface road that has less capacity. So traffic is backed up I-91 for miles and I have a choice..I can either wait in traffic, or I can get off at Exit 2 (Trumbull Street) or Exit 3 (Willow Street). Get the picture?

Traffic calming doesn't work under the duress of an overwhelming volume of traffic.

I don't give a damn about turning the land around Oak Street Connector into valuable property. I do care about preserving the valuable property that exists in East Rock today.

Posted by: huh? | February 26, 2009 3:27 PM

I don't get the Anon/Robn interchange here. The traffic that builds up at the I95/91 exchange is not because of cars trying to get onto the connector or downtown. It's caused by folks trying to get from 91 to 95. I'm often stuck in traffic when trying to get onto the connector because of the cars in the Exit Only lane so that they can jump the cars waiting to get onto the 95.

As to the State St. bridge (the real topic of the story), I know it will be painful for a year and the city/state should do everything possible to minimize impact to residents, the truth of the matter is that the bridge will fall down if nothing is done. You can't replace it with cars running over it. Progress and change require sacrifice. Sorry but there is no way around it.

Having said that, Ned and the rest, keep making your issues known or they will be ignored. I've lived on a street where trucks traversed and lost several dishes when they were shaken from their shelves by 18 wheelers.

Posted by: robn | February 27, 2009 8:45 AM

HUH,

Aerial photos of the area do show what you've mentioned, however, I've been on slow rush hour traffic jams on the Oak Street Connector. It happens.