New Haven Independent

Posted by: anon | April 3, 2009 9:51 AM

How about a plan to RESTORE the community to what it was before Route 34 DESTROYED it, not just "revitalize a corridor"?

The only way to do this is to rebuild a neighborhood that people can walk around and that has no pollution - basically, what was there before. Neighborhood-friendly, walkable streets that people want to spend time in. Top car speeds have to be capped at around 15 MPH, like they commonly are in most parts of Wooster Square, East Rock, Westville and other neighborhoods of New Haven. Otherwise, pollution will increase and nobody will walk, no matter how much the city wants them to.

Route 34 can be shut down and redirected while the city spends some time restoring the area and making it actually healthy again. Currently, the area is in the midst of a public health crisis.

Priority one should be the community's well being. This area of the city has suffered for too long and that's what it deserves. Everything else, including how to get traffic through to serve downtown, should follow.

Posted by: Olivia C. Martson | April 3, 2009 10:24 AM

I would like to see the largest developed block from Dwight to Orchard made into 2 smaller parcels still, work on 2 way streets on both legion and north frontage. or remove north frontage all together, connect as many cross streets as possible. Miller or Porter, Winthrop, Greenwood. We need housing for the elderly, employees of the hospital that is affordable and more green space. Lets think outside the box and define design criteria and zoning for what ever is built. The letter of concerned citizens is a good starting point for the Municipal Plan Development.

Posted by: Alderman Shah | April 3, 2009 10:29 AM

I am glad to see the West River Community speak out on this issue. I am sure that I will support what ever the constituants in my ward want to see on rt 34

Posted by: anon | April 3, 2009 11:00 AM

Olivia, the idea of smaller blocks is a great one. Check out this piece for a cool diagram:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/03/26/back-to-the-grid-john-norquist-on-how-to-fix-national-transpo-policy/

"The metrics would be intersection density, block size -- you would reward intersection density. And the feds can do that, they can say that states could draw federal money and add to the density of a street network, creating more mobility that way. And the metric we use is 150 intersections per square mile, which wouldn't just be like Manhattan or Philadelphia. In Wausau, Wisconsin, which is the home of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Dave Obey, we counted 158 intersections per square mile. That's counting alleys. You look at all these places that have high intersection density and they're very likely to be valuable settings for jobs and real estate, and they're also very good for distributing local traffic." - John Norquist, Former Milwaukee Mayor

Posted by: Frank Panzarella | April 3, 2009 11:11 AM

The summary of my comments from last night didn't quite get my point right. What I actually said was that our neighborhood has felt hemmed in by the traffic setup created by the connector. We want to see our neighborhood reconnected. "Anon" is quite right. We want the traffic reduced and slowed to a human scale and pollution reduced. We want a close walkable neighborhood with practical and pleasant small shops affordable housing and locally based jobs. By way of example I said for years we have told the city that kids can't even go to the huge West River Memorial Park because there is no decent way to cross the Boulevard. Even when they modified Barnard school with the wonderful expansion and overpass, they would'nt listen to our neighborhood when we asked for a simple street access for neighborhood kids to be able to cross over to the park without having to cross the Boulevard which is often like a dragstrip. The connector is just as bad with cars racing down it making it a constant worry for parents and kids and totally unpleasant for pedestrians. The city has been out of compliance for years with EPA clean air standards. Our neighborhood is one of the most polluted spaces in the state because of all the traffic convergences. We want concrete measures to reduce pollution. We know these are tough issues to wrap in one package and we are not just involved to give the city a hard time. We are part of the city and want to make New Haven an even better place to live. Our West River community wants to help figure it out and take the necessary time to do it right. I believe there is still a great potential to do this and in a timely way.

Posted by: anon | April 3, 2009 11:40 AM

Excellent points Frank. I agree that you can't fix what you can't measure. Set aggressive targets on the things you can measure, like pollution and health, and work back from there using what works in other areas. Look at the whole neighborhood, beyond just Route 34 -- we should fix the Death-Trap-Boulevard and Route 34 at the same time, otherwise no point. You'll still have a wall.

Posted by: norton street | April 3, 2009 12:09 PM

Anon, great point about returning to the successful design of the old neighborhood.This is correct, generations before us had it right when new haven was first growing and becoming populated. they understood the importance of civic and cultural spaces and human scaled sidewalks, streets, buildings, blocks, communities and neighborhoods. they did almost everything right. the only problem with the old oak street neighborhood was on the interior of the homes. today we understand, in new terms, the proper space required for an individual and we understand that light is extremely important in living space. the old neighborhood should be restored with the only change being made to be in how light is brought into the buildings.

Posted by: norton street | April 3, 2009 12:24 PM

Here is my attempt at resolving the problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7lt2qT4FXE&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ohXa75u1UM&feature=channel_page

Posted by: ryan | April 3, 2009 1:04 PM

anon - do you actually walk around this city with your eyes open? where are these 15mph zones that you talk about. i've lived in east rock and westville, trust me they are not there, nor are they realistic

Posted by: anon | April 3, 2009 2:27 PM

Ryan, I am talking more about average speeds and design speeds, not speed limits. Lower speeds are not just realistic (and they are being rapidly implemented in hundreds of other urban areas around Europe, Asia, Australia, and in the United States): they are necessary. Without lower speeds, massive amounts of personal trauma, loss of walkability, and increased pollution will continue and get worse every year. There is no getting around that.

I know this may be hard to grasp if you are used to traffic planning of the past 50 years, but this is now the current worldwide trend.

Posted by: Whatsername | April 3, 2009 5:31 PM

"Route 34 can be shut down and redirected while the city spends some time restoring the area and making it actually healthy again. Currently, the area is in the midst of a public health crisis."

While I agree that the area is congested and should be revitalized, creating a detour through neighborhoods by shutting down Route 34 sounds like it would create MORE traffic. "Spending some time restoring the area" could take years and I highly doubt that we really need a severe traffic issue in an area that is already a mess to drive in.

We can moan about how the 1960's lefts New Haven with a traffic mess we deal with daily--but no matter how loud we moan, 95 and 34 are staying where they are. Working around them and reviving the neighborhood by extending it out, using the gigantic parking lots, creating spaces for community to come together (wow, a playground would be nice, huh?)--that would help. Elm Street, Chapel Street--they're all long streets, but the traffic is slow because there's businesses, residences, bus stops, things going on. We don't have to move traffic to make these things happen--we just need to make these things happen and traffic will follow. Maybe that's idealistic, but of course you're gonna blow down North Frontage Road--there's no reason to slow down. But if there were storefronts, playgrounds, pedestrian walkways--well, shoot, it's easy to slow down.

Posted by: Seth | April 6, 2009 4:53 PM

I am interested in joining this dialogue, but we need to know more about the changes to interstate 95 and the on and off ramps that will be closed/rerouted.

This is going to be a huge traffic flow issue. Many of us do not remember what is was like to see shops along Legion Avenue. We are used to the fact that the park we played in is now gone.

I would like to see a development that brings the Hill and West River Communities together. This city is in grave need of neutral space in which our young people can coexist.

Posted by: Seth | April 6, 2009 4:56 PM

Whatsername has a valid point!

Posted by: havenmaven | April 6, 2009 11:39 PM

I am very happy to see the evidence of strong connections and mutual support from the grass roots evident in the comments, and in the hearing. We should be doing everything we can to support and advance this kind of "self" government. The days of centralized top down governance are passing fast.

The thing that seems most sorely missing from this discussion is any connection to systems thinking and shared context. Though the vision of the community definitely trends towards lower carbon and lower oil dependency, the city should ideally be taking a lead in making this the greatest cutting edge example of "transition communities" in the US. Transition communities develop from very strong grass roots planning processes that create 25 year "energy descent plans". These plans recognize that the dual challenges of peak oil and global warming provide an unparalleled opportunity to create vibrant local economies that are more resilient and secure and FUN! Without planning in this context, both city and neighbors run the risk of missing out on the best solutions and even creating new massive failures. Dick Lee's mistakes arose from a different set of conditions- we must be fully awake to the largest and most powerful conditions of 2009 to 2050. For further info see http://sites.google.com/site/localresilience/ and http://www.350.org/.

Not to discount the great efforts on the part of the community or the city, but right now we run the risk of acting interior decorators on the Titanic, quibbling over the color of the wall paper. We have the opportunity to build a life boat that is even better than the ship that is sinking.

Posted by: Streever | April 7, 2009 10:24 AM

Whatsername hits the nail on the head.

Everyone wants to play urban designer, but lets face it, you don't have the qualifications or the background. Some very talented people are working on this, and the counter proposals only work on paper, and rely upon all limitations just vanishing. Unfortunately, the people being paid to do this work actually have to do the work. They can't just dream up ideas all day. It's valuable--ideas--but it isn't always what gets you through, is it?

You all really want to push for a multi-million dollar, decade long project on route 34, while the surrounding neighborhoods suffer & degrade? Just to achieve an ideal street?

The reality is a dense commercial/residential neighborhood with adequate traffic calming measures, green ways, well-designed crossings, good signalization, and attractive buildings will be a safer street. As Whatsername points out, look at Chapel.... Elm is a problem, it's way too wide, that much is true. That's why they are narrowing the road on 34 with on-street parking. No one has ruled out bumpouts yet. Raised crosswalks are in the plans.

I just want to point out for people who aren't following this, a lot of the critics have publically called for elements which are actually in the plan. I don't think they are reading the same plans the rest of us are. I think they continually refer to these as "final plans" when it's a "Final draft". I think that some of them should work on their understanding of technical concepts, because it's ridiculous to see them asking for measures which have been in the plan.

I see a lot of mischaracterization of the plan, & a lot of inaccurate information, and it really makes me wonder what the aims & goals are.

So far, the only counter-solutions I've seen involve millions upon millions & decades of work. This isn't realisitic. Some times, we have limitations. I'm sure that on a blueprint their plan could be better, in a vaccum of time & space. Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury outside of our mental spaces.

Posted by: Patricia Kane | April 7, 2009 11:55 AM

The community involvement in the re-design of the Route 34 area is part of a democratic process that we should be proud of.
As a new resident, I have come to understand and share my neighbors' goal of re-connecting the West River and Hill areas. The scar that is Rte 34 needs to be healed.
Right now the areas surrounding Rte 34 and Grasso Blvd. carry a heavy burden of traffic, noise and pollution, none of which would be reduced or alleviated under the proposed plan.
We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to improve the lives of the people most affected by these roads, but the design is currently more about the car and retail development than the things that make for an attractive neighborhood: accessibility to green spaces, human scale building and a reduction in pollution - air and noise.
The Cecil Group and City officials have worked hard, but our love affair with the car and urban sprawl is over! Walking, biking, support for local business, green spaces and mass transit (which reduces the need for parking lots)are what we need in the 21st century. Yes, the City needs to increase its tax base, but not by increasing the burden on the neighborhoods.
Jane Jacobs was not an accredited urban planner, but her classic "Death and Life of Great American Cities" explained what supports life in the city and what dulls it.
I hope the local leaders will continue the process of creating a vision and goals which will better guide the planners in finding a solution we can all live with.

Posted by: Concerned New Haven Citizen | April 7, 2009 1:35 PM

Streever, I'm quickly starting to lose respect for you. Your typical superior attitude and patronizing tone is annoying and insulting. Criticizing government is not only a right but an expectation in our democracy. Challenging 'experts' is how progress happens. Fortunately there are few people in this city who take you seriously.

I was at the meeting where the statement was developed and was present when it was read. I've also had several conversations with the leaders of this movement. Contrary to popular belief there is no hidden agenda. The residents of the Hill, West River and Dwight only want to see the best development on this property as possible. It's really that simple. It is also true that we do not believe that what we have is the best possible development plan for the property... at least not for the community.

I would think that since the objections are coming from people who have clearly been at the table from the start, residents in all three surrounding neighborhoods, the question one should be asking is, 'what is wrong with the process that community stakeholders are objecting.' If anything, I'd like to see West River, Dwight and the Hill answer that question. The problem is that the process allows little time for that. Typical community meetings consist of 55%-75% of the meeting a presentation of the plan then the remainder of the time to react to it. As Kevin Ewing said at the meeting, "it's like we've been given a box and we're only allowed to play in that box." (or something like that.) All folks are asking for is the opportunity to take another look and make sure we are covering everything.

Everybody realizes that this isn't the final plan but if you're starting with an inadequate concept then you are bound to get an inadequate development. Why not take a step back and make sure you've considered all alternatives?

I reread the statement and I can see how some in City Plan may take it personally. From their perspective some of the statements may have been a bit harsh. But it could also speak to the fact that all too often the only way a community can be heard is to scream. The only way to get attention is to make some dramatic move. Could it be that this happens because our government has lost the ability to hear the people? I know City Hall will deny it and can present sign in sheets from public hearings/meetings/workshops but are they working? I want to suggest that in this case they are not. Residents clearly don't feel like they were heard. (Again, not a critique but an observation.)

It's been 40+ years with the only changes to the corridor being made for automobiles and trucks. What would it hurt to take a few more months and make sure you have the right plan? When it comes right down to it, that's all the community is asking.

Posted by: anon | April 7, 2009 2:40 PM

"You all really want to push for a multi-million dollar, decade long project on route 34, while the surrounding neighborhoods suffer & degrade? Just to achieve an ideal street?"

You have just repeated the #1 most common threat from urban designers and politicians to neighborhoods - "if you don't listen to our idea right now, your neighborhood will get worse quickly." It is a very pessimistic outlook, designed to get the community to roll over and accept the cheapest plan and/or the plan that is most convenient for the people in power.

There are ways to do both - create a neighborhood that homeowners in the area can live with and thrive in for the next 100 years, and get it fairly quickly. Keep in mind that the community has worked on this plan for the past 20 years, so they can wait another few months if it means not rolling over to the whims of the DOT and other interests who want to keep the current high-speed, one-way roads, with very few intersections, in place.

The problem with the current draft "preferred" (you can argue if this is just another word for final) plan is that it completely misplaces priorities. High volume, one-way roads, and not spending money to restore the neighborhood's layout, have been deemed a higher priority than the neighborhood's health or economic security. The city is proposing to go forward with the plan while not talking about the fact that the neighborhood is incredibly unhealthy, by any available measures. Have you looked at the state's numbers? You might be surprised.

Start with restoring the area's health, economic vitality and livability, using very specific measures that have been proven to be achievable in other cities (like dramatically lowering speeds and greatly increasing the # of intersections per square mile), and then start talking specifically about how the street layouts or building codes can meet each goal. And given the critical nature of this project to the entire city, the measurable goals should not be seen as "goals", they really should be seen as necessary measures.

Things like public health, maternal stress and economic security are not things to compromise on.

As for the other criticisms of the community, it is worth pointing out that the most respected urban planner of all time, Jane Jacobs, was one of many preeminent urbanists who had no specific training in the field. Urban designers were responsible for Route 34, I-91 Exit 3, the CT Financial Center, and countless other blights on New Haven. Perhaps it is time to listen to the community this time around. If this project were in the middle of the Yale campus or East Rock, things would be very different.

Posted by: anon | April 7, 2009 2:47 PM

A couple people above pointed out Chapel Street. I think that the one-way section of Chapel Street should hardly be a model - except for a couple of congested downtown blocks during the day, speeds are excessively high, and the fact the street is one-way makes it difficult to navigate the city without looping around and burning gas (or making it impractical to bicycle).

Also, if you actually looked at the plan, you would see that it proposes parking on just one side of the road. That makes it more like Whalley Avenue or Elm Street than the one way section of Chapel Street -- which through most of downtown has parking on both sides of the street.

Does the community really want another Elm Street running through its heart? Yale doesn't, so why would the community?

Posted by: anon | April 7, 2009 2:50 PM

Patricia Kane, you are absolutely correct.

Posted by: anon | April 7, 2009 9:44 PM

to the poster above--the "citizen" letter comes up online if you do a google search for route 34 letter new haven.