New Haven Independent

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | June 4, 2009 8:53 AM

Good job Mark Abraham and others for your efforts and success. Streets that are safe for walking and biking are good for economic development. Connecticut is loosing its young population whereas places like Portland, OR are attracting people because it a place to live and get around in a safer and sustainable manner. These are the progressive kinds of policies that will attract creative young people, then businesses that want access to these kinds of places. Additionally, we see people moving back to the cities and those folks also want to walk/bike safely. The cities that are leading the way will have the most success.

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 4, 2009 8:59 AM

This is good news and a step in the right direction, but it does seem that this language:

(d) The provision of facilities pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall not be required if the Commissioner of Transportation or a municipal legislative body determines, with respect to a highway, road or street that: (1) Nonmotorized usage is prohibited; (2) there is a demonstrated absence of need; (3) the accommodation of all users would be an excessively expensive component of the total project cost; or (4) the accommodation of all users is not consistent with the state's or such municipality's, respectively, program of construction, maintenance and repair.

is a dangerous watering-down of the bill's intent. I read section (4) as meaning, "we don't have to accomodate all users if we haven't been doing that all along. Nyah!"
Regardless, nice job, Connecticut legislature, in taking a progressive step in transportation policy.

Posted by: Nan Bartow | June 4, 2009 9:44 AM

I commend Mark Abraham and Erin Sturgis-Pascale for their perserverence. Their partial victory is an important step in the direction of traffic-calming.

Posted by: anon | June 4, 2009 11:29 AM

Great work to all and good luck to Pat Dillon on the Whalley Avenue widening project! Bringing the DOT from their 1980s plan to create a 6 lane highway through Westville down to creating a truly walkable, healthy place for everyone would be one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of the city.

Posted by: anon | June 4, 2009 2:38 PM

"Connecticut is loosing its young population whereas places like Portland, OR are attracting people because it a place to live and get around in a safer and sustainable manner."

True, jeffreykerekes, but this is really about more than the young population (even though a huge percentage of New Haven's population in the 20-40 age range does walk, bike or take transit to work).

More important than that, our population is getting older very quickly, and a large part of the state's families can not even afford to own a car, or can at great cost (typically between 20% and 40% of their household income). Is the state going to keep shutting them out? Not to mention our children, who are far less likely to get physical activity than their parents' generation -- the consequences of which leads to billions of dollars in health care costs down the road.

Since this is really a broader issue about the future of our state's economy and health, the DOT needs to step up and begin to comprehensively fund pedestrian infrastructure, transit access, and access for seniors, not just leave the entire burden on our municipalities. Currently, the state won't even pay for crosswalks at the new state-funded magnet schools.

Unfortunately, the governor's budget currently proposes a draconian, 40% hike in transit and bus fares. As a result, millions of dollars will come out of the pockets of the poor, older residents and children.

Posted by: Frother | June 4, 2009 4:27 PM

Nonsense feel-good legislation that will do virtually nothing, as DOT already spends more than the bill calls for and most CT towns have no need for bike lanes or curb-cuts or anything similar.

Posted by: anon | June 4, 2009 5:00 PM

Are you sure, Frother? It sounds like a pretty high authority -- either the DOT commissioner or a town "legislative body" -- would have to approve those types of exceptions you refer to.

Currently, it's very easy for a town bureaucrat to prove the absence of need in some hidden paperwork: once you have the idea that the legislative board or first selectman (or DOT Commissioner in the case of a state project) has to approve something, then you get a real debate going, no?

Posted by: Streever | June 5, 2009 10:11 PM

It's discouraging to see this bill get watered down. Despite the 30+ hours I've now spent at the Capital, talking to Congressional leaders, they've yet again gone and stripped out important provisions.

provision 4: "the accommodation of all users is not consistent" effectively kills this bill. It allows anyone to say, "We don't want everyone to use this road" with no checks, no balances.

Frother's right. What was a meaningful bill that a lot of people worked extremely hard on became feel-good.

Oh well. I guess we'll just have to devote more time & energy next year.

Posted by: anon | June 7, 2009 2:14 PM

"Anyone" can say that? Seems like a gross oversimplification of the reality of the bill's language, Streever.

Posted by: William Kurtz | June 8, 2009 9:30 AM

Maybe not just 'anyone' Anon, but that "municipal legislative body" language leaves a pretty wide escape hatch for a town or city to decide they're not going to abide by the provisions.