New Haven Independent

Posted by: DOT to Blame? | July 10, 2009 11:35 AM

The idea that the DOT is the bad guy here is often portrayed by Rob Smuts as his justification for not having the City hold up its end of the bargain. Don't fall for it Elicker, Lemar and Streever. They have been lying to you all along about that too. Trust me. The Mayor's office sold out the advocates and the city councilor who called - they lied straight to their faces about their work on behalf of safety improvements.

This Mayor's office is out of control and engage in blatent lies to cover their asses, time and time again. Its truly pathological behavior.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 11:35 AM

While a coalition of neighbors is an excellent idea, let's be clear that we also need a coalition of City Hall employees & New Haven legislators! This is our street & the City needs to fight for our rights, too.

I'm grateful that the City agrees with us on the problems and solutions--and if they can join us in the work later, it will be equally appreciated.

Posted by: Bill | July 10, 2009 12:22 PM

It appears that this father and daughter are being reckless in trying to ride across Whitney avenue from a mid block location. This is illegal. One can either walk the bike across the road at a cross walk or must be on the road at an intersection to cross. The police were negligent in not informing them and enforcing the law.

Posted by: J.B. | July 10, 2009 12:29 PM

"DOT to Blame?" is right. For once this is not the state's fault. The city does not need DOT permission to make changes to the road, they just can't make changes using state money. That's the nature of the grant being used to for this project, which originates from the federal Department of Transportation. Anything that stays the same, the state pays for, anything that gets changed, the city pays for.

The city can make changes, they just need to pony up the money. That means if they want to add sharrows, they not the state, need to pay for the paint. The state would still pay for the rest of the project. Very doable.

The claim that the state won't let them change the road is complete BS. The can make all the changes they want, they'd but they'd rather spend the money giving raises to people like Rob Smuts.

The city has been incredibly dishonest and deceptive here.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 12:40 PM

Bill,
all mid-blocks count as legal cross walks
if they were injured in crossing, the state/city would be liable

Posted by: anthony | July 10, 2009 12:45 PM

it would be insane to not include bike lanes in any improvement of such a major down town artery.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 12:45 PM

J.B.:
I spoke to the DOT and was told the same thing. I also called on engineers outside of our immediate region & they confirmed what DOT had said. With that in mind, we're really hoping the City can move forward & work with us and not dwell on assigning blame/arguing with the State, but instead pony up the small amount of money needed to take control of the paint.

Posted by: anon | July 10, 2009 12:46 PM

Preserving the status quo on Whitney Avenue -- especially the 2 long "speedway" stretches (one between Edwards and Willow and the other from East Rock Road out towards Hamden), with all of their 50 mile per hour rush-hour traffic weaving through throngs of pedestrians who have ZERO crosswalks, cars speeding past other cars on the right and running reds -- is simply not acceptable. Some kind of serious action is needed at Whitney and Audubon, too.

If the city and state are unable to take action in the near future, can residents go out themselves with concrete, paint and tree planters and create a temporary fix? This has worked in other cities.

Also, Whitney Avenue through New Haven is not Route 10.

Aren't our lives, property and well-being worth more than a few minutes of "technical brush-offs" from bureaucrats? Let's hope that the progressive city officials, state legislators, DOT, residents and advocates can overcome this indolence and create a street that benefits the neighborhood, not one that takes away so much from it.

Posted by: robn | July 10, 2009 12:53 PM

STREEVER,

All mid-blocks do NOT count as legal cross walks.

The law defines a crosswalk as either (1) the part of a public road at an intersection which would laterally, not diagonally, connect sidewalks or (2) any area on a road which is distinguished as a crossing for pedestrians by devices, lines, or markings on the surface of the road (CGS § 14-297(2)).

http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps97/rpt/olr/htm/97-r-0173.htm

Posted by: Fed up with Foot Dragging | July 10, 2009 1:26 PM

It is a most shameful fact that the city is unable to respond to citizen requests for safety improvements to their neighborhood streets. Groups of people all over the city have been begging--literally--for traffic calming features to be built into new projects only to be completely ignored. Right now, there are projects being worked on all over the city--at great taxpayer expense--that incorporate NONE of the things that we were supposed to be learning from the many transportation consultants that have tried to encourage New Haven to modernize its road builing techniques.

While it might be true that progress is being made on the Complete Streets reform, it shouldn't take a legislative mandate from the Board of Aldermen to force a change that is so long overdue and is of such obvious and significant benefit to all of New Haven's residents.

It is striking that the DeStefano administration no longer seems capable of actually implementing the kinds of changes that are the lifeblood of visionary political leadership.

Posted by: Walt | July 10, 2009 1:28 PM

Streever

Possibly displaying ignorance, I ask, what is a mid-block that gives bike or walker folk the right to cross?

Seems cockeyed to me.

As Bill says, those pictured appear posed to cross illegally and to have already been riding the sidewalks contrary to the law,

Just looks to me like most bicyclists, prepared to cut into traffic and blame motorists if they get into trouble.

I dont want to hit bicyclists, and dread seeing them along the road as, in my area, they often ride 2 or 3 abreast, ignore traffic signals and cut through traffic, apparently thinking they have the right of way at all times.

Others, not the tight pants groups, but the work- commuters early in the morning, wear dark clothes and have no reflectors, ignorantly inviting accidents.

Scary, often, at least to me.

Actually I favor the having bikes driving against traffic ao that I can see them, and they can see me and thus avoid collisions (Illegal I know.)

Maybe you folks who protest are careful bicyclists, but most I see (or just those I remember) are not.

Back to before my rant, why are midblock areas deemed crosswalks by you?

Posted by: walking&riding101 | July 10, 2009 2:18 PM

Perhaps the problem is not the roads but the residents of the very nice east rock neighborhood. Maybe you all just dont know how to cross a road or ride a bike.

love,
every other part of new haven

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 10, 2009 2:20 PM

Walt,

As one who drives and frequently rides a bicycle for transportation and recreation, I agree that people riding without regard for other traffic and the relevant traffic laws are frightening. But your suggestion that they ride against traffic is one of the most dangerous things a person can do on a bicycle. A driver is unlikely to see a cyclist riding against traffic in time to react, particularly is the driver is planning a turn in heavy traffic.

Thank you, though, for acknowledging that you do not want to hit bicyclists as often people who resist the idea that the infrastructure should accommodate are more than willing to entertain the idea of striking and possibly injuring or killing them. Yes, they do: I hear it all the time on the road.

Some of us who advocate (a term I prefer to 'protest') for better bicycle access are engaged in educating people, particularly children, how to ride more safely, with mixed success. Any suggestions on how this can better accomplished are welcome.

Oh, and I think you'll find that by law, even if a point in the road is not a designated crosswalk, a motorist or a bicyclist (any operator of a vehicle) is still legally required to yield to a pedestrian in the road; in other words, if you see a father and daughter walking across Whitney Avenue in the middle of a block, you're not allowed to hit them. It's just one of those pesky obligations that the nanny-state places on us when we encounter more vulnerable street users.

Posted by: anon | July 10, 2009 2:22 PM

Walking and riding: I'm sure the dozens of killed and thousands of injured pedestrians around New Haven over the past few years didn't know how to walk. Yeah, why didn't I think of that before?

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 2:25 PM

Robn:
Sorry to be unclear. At a mid-block 3 way intersection it is indeed a legal crosswalk even without striping, in that, if someone is injured there, the city/state is liable.

Part 1 of the law you so helpfully posted guarantees that.

Honestly, everyone, I agree that bike riders & walkers need to follow the law, but get a clue--
this is a very high speed roadway that divides East Rock from schools, churches, and public parks & other neighborhoods.

Significant stretches of this road have no pedestrian infrastructure at all.

It is perfectly legal for a PARENT to ride with their CHILD on a SIDEWALK: that is actually a municipal law.

The nice family in the photo aren't breaking any laws at all--but you wanna-be lawyers are lacking in common sense.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 2:43 PM

Walt: They are riding to the street directly across--making this a legal crosswalk--because as Robn so hopefully points out, at all intersections, there is a legal crosswalk. (Point 1 of the statute posted)

Posted by: Brian | July 10, 2009 3:54 PM

"once government finishes?" I feel like maybe you're missing an article.

Posted by: WIMBY! | July 10, 2009 4:19 PM

When I accidentally rode my bike down Huntington into Whitney the other day (I meant to be on East Rock Road, but forgot to make the turn at Prospect), it looked like they were installing a brand new traffic signal in front of the new Hooker School. Assuming it's going to have pedestrian signals, that will provide one more usable pedestrian crossing. At least that's something.

As for sharrows, I'm not sure if they would work in the portions where parking is allowed during certain times of the day, but I would definitely appreciate them where parking is not allowed. I see an awful lot of bicycles between Edwards St and Sachem St. As far as I know, parking is never allowed on this stretch. Would sharrows placed about four feet into the roadway work on this stretch. There are actually bike route signs posted between Humphrey and Sachem. I feel like sharrows in the right-hand lane between Edwards and Sachem should not be too much to ask.

Posted by: Streever | July 10, 2009 4:34 PM

Definitely, Wimby!--and it's perfectly allowed, as long as we reimburse the government the paint that was put on that stretch of the road.

Posted by: anon | July 10, 2009 4:35 PM

I agree, Wimby. The new signal will be a big improvement. I wish the city transpo folks had more resources so they could be more aggressive about measures like these. From what I've seen, currently there's not even enough money in DeStefano's budget to repaint the crosswalks that already exist, much less paint new ones.

Posted by: Brian | July 10, 2009 4:38 PM

You can take down my grammatical correction now, if you want. Sorry I didn't notice that there's a separate place to report typos until it was too late. I approve of the change (from a strictly grammatical standpoint).

Posted by: eddie | July 10, 2009 4:45 PM

While I agree that Whitney Avenue is long overdue for improvements that would make it friendlier to pedestrians and cyclists, it seems to me that we're a little behind the curve here. It's asking a lot for the city to rethink how Whitney Avenue is used while it's in the middle of re-paving it. And it's also unfair to lash out at the city for paving the bone-crunching potholes that bedevil Whitney Avenue -- potholes are not and should not be considered as traffic control measures!

A plan needs to be drawn up, presented to the public, debated and adopted as policy -- not invented on the fly in the middle of a paving project!

Posted by: WIMBY! | July 10, 2009 5:10 PM

Great comments, Mr. Kurtz.

Another reason bicycling against traffic is unsafe is that it *significantly* reduces reaction time.

If I am bicycling at 10 mph and the car passing me is traveling at 30 mph, it's really as if I am standing still and the car is traveling at 20 mph--that is to say, from my standpoint the car's relative speed is only 20 mph.

On the other hand, if I am bicycling at 10 mph toward oncoming traffic, and a car is coming toward me traveling at 30 mph, from my standpoint it is actually as if the car is traveling *40* mph!

Even though a stationary observer would say that we were both traveling at the same speed in each case, one is clearly more dangerous. Not only do we each have much less reaction time in the second case, if we were to collide, I would be in much more serious trouble.

[Congratuations! If that sounds perfectly obvious to you, you now understand the principle of relativity! See? Physics is fun!]

Posted by: Our Town | July 10, 2009 5:17 PM

Streever...I always gave you credit for being more rational than ANON, but you are wrong on two points. First, the city/state would NOT be liable for an accident, the motorist or pedestrian would. There is no requirement to mark crosswalks.

Second, how do you know the pictured bicyclists are at an intersection?

And to ANON, who said there are no cross walks on Whitney, as I recall there are marked crosswalks at every signal.

Posted by: Walt | July 10, 2009 5:56 PM

Streever

Explanation helps clarify but your original statement was not about any intersection as you wrote it.

Others

As to direction of bikes, law is clear, and the physics of the situation is clear, but with the bicyclists I see, very likely to make weird swerves or illegal turns, I would still prefer that they see me coming and avoid me, just as I try to avoid them,

Going through redlights and making illegal turns is no more correct for the bike rider than for me.

Posted by: Norton Street | July 10, 2009 6:59 PM

Our Town,
Me thinks the two are standing here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=whitney+ave+new+haven&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=31.509065,56.513672&ie=UTF8&ll=41.319269,-72.919006&spn=0,359.956055&t=h&z=15&layer=c&cbll=41.319193,-72.919042&panoid=XphntDsdql7v_XF-3SWptg&cbp=12,29.51,,0,3.58
If they are, then they are not across from an intersection.

Also, does anyone know if there will be another meeting, I couldn't go to the one last night because I was at another meeting.

Posted by: Derek | July 10, 2009 10:19 PM

While it is a little late in the game now to get any actual infrastructure changes made to Whitney (not that we didn't ask for them!) but it's perfectly reasonable to demand some thought be put into the paint that will soon be applied to that smooth new super highway.
I really like the idea of allowing parking all day - my favorite commute is the days when I come home at 3 to pick up kids from school, I'm always amazed at how much easier it is to feel safe on Whitney if the zooming, booming, texting auto drivers are confined to the center lanes. I can't see how it can cost the city very much at all to change that... just take down the signs that say no parking during rush hour. hmmmm... I can think of a way for that to be free...

Posted by: Bill | July 11, 2009 6:52 AM

Streever,
The photo does not show the riders riding to a street directly across. This kind of darting out into traffic is reckless and points out the problem with riding on sidewalks. I don't understand why cycling advocates constantly defend bad cycling.

Posted by: Streever | July 11, 2009 2:01 PM

Our Town:

Call the cities highly paid consultants--Nelson & Nygaard--who told me that directly.

Do you have any legal or technical expertise that actually proves otherwise? This is direct information from very prominent transporation consultants who have worked on a large number of these projects.

It was foolish of me to argue with the trollish commentators who have no idea of the context of this family crossing--they don't even know it's legal for the two to ride on the sidewalk in our city and are unwilling to read the statutes--so perhaps it's better to not continue the conversation. The reality is this is information directly relayed by consultants the city employs. If they are wrong, then I apologize for relaying false information, but I'd like more than anonymous comments to establish that these individuals are incorrect.

And FYI, City Engineer Richard Miller HAS been sued & almost lost his job for decisions he made regarding city streets--there is a definite history of this & you would do well to research it.

Posted by: gzuckier | July 11, 2009 2:03 PM

The basic problem is that you can't expect Whitney Ave to serve as both a main street in a residential district and as a major traffic artery connecting downtown with suburbia.

Posted by: Contrarian | July 11, 2009 7:08 PM

Mr Streever.

Whitney Avenue has been repaved. It was a pot holed track last week. This is an improvement.

I agree that the pedestrian cross walk light are too short. I would think this is a job for an electrician. Nothing to do with repaving a road.

Whitney Ave has 4 lanes and takes much traffic. Any cyclist who uses it is taking there life in there hands. Why not ride along Orange Street one block away. It has less traffic and bike lanes. Pedel up a cross street to go to Whitney.

If cars go too fast along Whitney get NHPD to radar them. The fines will reduce taxes. It will piss motorists working in New Haven and living in the suburbs. Who cares. They cant get jobs in other towns now.

The Board of Aldermen should look at the Nelson and Nygaard contract. If they are highly paid are they overpaid? Why arent city employees doing this work? The fact there work is expensive does not mean its good. From other postings I would assume they are just making big campaign contributions.

If Mr Miller has been sued why dont you post the information here. Is this character assasignation?

If Mr Miller is going to loose his job I think he should run for Mayor. He's very dynamic and a very nice man.

Posted by: Walt | July 11, 2009 8:52 PM

Streever

Inasmuch as you are so touchy about posters who use their first instead of their last names, is it rude to point out, seemingly contrary to your statement, that New Haven has no Statute which allows parents to ride on sidewalks with their kids.

Statutes are State laws.

An ordinance? Probably. Would like to see the wording if you have it. (Can I ride on the sidewalk legally with my son, who is apparently older than you.)

If you are to be so picky, you should be more complete and more accurate in your own posts so that we do not have to question your meanings..

Posted by: Justin | July 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Whitney was a disaster and needed to be repaved--it was hard to believe that such a road, which seemed more suited to a third world country, could exist in the richest state in America. The argument that that road shouldn't be repaved because New Havenites don't observe red lights is just silly. If people just followed the traffic laws--and if the police enforced them on a regular basis--that would go a long way to making the streets safer. I've never lived in a place in which red lights were so casually ignored.

Posted by: Mark | July 12, 2009 6:53 PM

I've read before this claim that DOT has jurisdiction over Whitney Ave because it's Route 10, but every map and sign I can see indicates that Route 10 doesn't follow Whitney until north of Dixwell Ave in Hamden. Is that enough for the DOT to have a say some four miles south?

Posted by: hrsn | July 13, 2009 12:23 PM

Mark, Whitney used to be Route 10A (and still marked as such at the Hartford Turnpike/Davis intersection in Hamden); it now is (unsigned) State Service Road 707.

Posted by: anon | July 13, 2009 12:52 PM

Based on what I've seen, State Service Road 707 runs from Route 10 in Hamden to the city line, but does not run through the city of New Haven.

Posted by: LastStraw | July 13, 2009 2:01 PM

"Whitney Ave has 4 lanes and takes much traffic. Any cyclist who uses it is taking there life in there hands. Why not ride along Orange Street one block away. It has less traffic and bike lanes. Pedel up a cross street to go to Whitney." -Contrarian

On that same token, Why not drive the route 40 connector to 91 South just a few miles away. It has more lanes and higher posted speed limits.

Posted by: anon | July 13, 2009 3:27 PM

Exactly, Last Straw. New Haven should prioritize its streets for the health, safety and livability needs of its own residents -- other considerations should come second.

Posted by: Contrarian | July 13, 2009 6:21 PM

Last Straw and Anon

You seem to be cycle zealots at the exclusion of reality. The car may be the scorge of the 21st century. It is here and will be around for many years if not decades and centurys. All I am saying is cars and cyclists must be separated on roads.

I pay taxes to drive my car.
1. Personal property for it
2. Fed and Ct tax on gas
3. License plates
4. Emissons tests
5. Parking meters

I'm not driving miles too far to keep away from cyclists at my expense. How much do you fanatics pay in user charges. Zilch. All we hear is how green you are saving the environment.

If the cycle lobby wants things the city should license there bikes and make them pay a fee. Road paint isnt expensive. If you are really green you will walk. It costs nothing, is healthy, and preserves the environment 100%. Bikes are made of aluminum and we all know how much the factorys pollute the environment. They are in China and other third world countries so we dont see it and dont care.

Its not easy to walk with manic cyclists zooming on the sidewalks.

Posted by: Charlie O'Keefe | July 13, 2009 9:29 PM

Great idea. Make the cyclists pay taxes for what they want.

Posted by: friendlycyclist | July 13, 2009 11:33 PM

OK contrarian, we get it. You don't want cyclists on the roads. And you don't want them on sidewalks either. So where do you want them? Off your lawn by the sounds of it.

We cyclists have just as much right to the roads as you do. Most of us pay taxes on our cars and all the other fees you mention. Believe me, I would like to be completely separated from most drivers, especially ones who are hostile to us.

Bikes are made of lots of things, steel, titanium, carbon, and aluminum--just like your sweet gas guzzling ride. All of my bikes are made in the good ole' USA. The same pointless criticism can be made of all the folks driving foreign cars, which BTW, you may have noticed, have just bankrupted the US auto industry.

And Walt, I live near Whitney and work near Whitney. And cycle all over the state. I rarely if ever have seen cyclists swerve or make illegal turns. I do get screamed at by guys in pickups, grandparents coming home from church, been flipped off and threatened (by off duty cops) and have things thrown at me when I am riding legally and safely. I cant count the number of times I have been harassed, nearly run off the road, all intentionally by people who appear to hold similar attitudes about cyclists. For the love of Pete, I cant understand it. But I am actually MOST worried about all the women (sorry gals) on their freekin cell phones drivin their SUVs on the way to pick up Timmy at soccer practice after having their nails done. (See, I can rant too.)

I think most cyclists can honestly admit they have pushed it when approaching a light about to turn red. I even hear some motorists may have done similar things. Why does it piss people off SO MUCH MORE when its a cyclist.

Because you arent expecting to SEE cyclists and when you do it shocks and annoys you. We get that. What we dont get is the ongoing hostility. Gas is over. Cars should be over-as much as we all love them and depend on them.

You seem to even complain about cycling being green. Really?!?

I do see cars make illegal turns all the time.
I DO see many cars turn right and LEFT on red where no such turns are permitted. ALL THE TIME. Right? You live and drive around here right?

I routinely see folks going 40-45 mph down Whitney. All of these are far more serious moving vehicle violations, (in contrast to the father and daughter scofflaws you take issue with) but none are ever stopped by police, as I can attest having lived here for over 20 years.

I do see many students cross Whitney illegally at Whitney and Edwards (against the traffic signals) and yes, also the cyclists who are FORCED to ride the sidewalk on WHitney at this stretch since there is no safe place to ride the street there---these cyclists also cross the intersection at will, ignoring the walk/dont walk signs and causing havoc to those of us who (shudder) are driving and legally crossing on a left turn only sign.

So we all have our pet peeves.
But look at it from the walker or cyclist's point of view.

If they are walking or cycling up Lawrence from Orange or up Bishop from Orange toward WHitney--they arrive there with full traffic blasting down WHitney with ZERO provision for crossing.

THis is a nightmare scenario with Lawrence/Edwards/Bishop all intersecting Whitney within less than a true block's distance and creates all kinds of havoc. Throw in a high volume fire station and a major office complex on Planned Parenthood---well I hope you get the point.

The new paving will surely make this worse with drivers now wanting to own both lanes in either direction.

Posted by: Norton Street | July 14, 2009 12:20 AM

contrarian,

you're not really trying to compare the cost of bicycle infrastructure with automobile infrastructure, or the amount of aluminum used in a bike and a car, are you?

Why are you complaining about paying for your car? Its completely unnecessary, no one is forcing you to drive a car. It was your choice to buy a car and its a choice to continue to own one.

Posted by: Walt | July 14, 2009 9:53 AM

Friendlycyclist.

Makes sense. You appear to remember reckless drivers. I remember reckless cyclists,

Dont believe I made any comment re cyclists being "Green"..Assume that comment applied to someone else.

Will try to be more tolerant of your view. Ask that my views , not really anti-bikes, just against the very numerous reckless bike folks in my area, be considered.

Could not agree more re women drivers with cellphones. They run through stop signs as much or more than bike folks even when they are carrying kids

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 14, 2009 10:33 AM

I remember reckless road users of all sorts; drivers, cyclists, scooterists (if that's a word), pedestrians, equestrians (yes!) and so on. As a community, we will all be better off if we stop drawing the lines between the means by which people choose to use the roads (car, bike, foot) and instead draw the line between safe, courteous and responsible road users, and reckless, dangerous and rude ones. Looking at the situation this way is also an important early step in creating truly complete streets.

Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2009 2:33 PM

The real victim is not the cyclists who can't ride on the road or the motorists that want cyclists to pay taxes, but the 1000's of obese children in our neighborhoods, terrified to leave their home due the possibility of getting hit by a car.

Everyone can agree on the immediate problem with all of these obese children, who may someday grow up to be obese adults. Childhood diabetes will only increase, and when gas is around 15 dollars per gallon (even as much as 18 by the summer) there will be an immediate increase in asthma rates amongst obese children with diabetes.

Just yesterday I looked into window of a house as I was passing by and saw an incredibly obese child; he was crying. I wish the streets were safer so he could go outside.

Posted by: Streever | July 14, 2009 4:02 PM

Walt:
I hope you'll forgive me when I choose not to look up the statute for you on parents riding with under-aged children. Your ability to comment on NHI articles demonstrates your ability to do basic look-up of statutes. (and fyi, I have no problem with someone commenting without their name, if they do so without resorting to conspiracy theories/appeals to trust in them/etc. I just get annoyed when anonymous people write things like, "Trust me". What trust can I have in an invisible person?)

Posted by: anon | July 14, 2009 4:12 PM

Anon #2 (or #3, #4, or #5, I can't keep track!): obesity is one of the deadliest diseases in the world and you make some good points that physical activity can be greatly increased through access to recreational facilities and walkable streets (for example, see the compelling recent SDSU study)... but the rest of your post doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Ned | July 14, 2009 4:35 PM

Contrarian:

You seem to be an auto zealot at the exclusion of reality. The car is the scorge of the 21st century. It is here and will be wrapped around trees, other cars, innocent bystanders and bicyclists for many years if not decades and centurys [sic]. All I am saying is cars must be separated on roads away from civilization.

I don't pay taxes to walk.
1. Sales tax on shoes!
2. Fed and Ct tax on Gas-ex and Beano
3. name tags
4. Emissons tests - after eating beans.
5. Park benches

I'm not cycling miles too far to keep away from automobiles at my expense. How much do you fanatics pay in user charges? Zilch - car travel is heavily subsidized. All we hear is how not green you are killing the environment and supporting the Saudis, Russian oligarchs and the Nigerians.

If the pedestrian lobby wants things the city should license their feet and make them pay a fee(t) - otherwise amputate. Road paint isnt expensive (look at some of the makeup jobs on the girls around town). If you are really not green you will drive. It costs nothing (pay up or your feet are history), is un-healthy, and destroys the environment 100%. Some cars are made of aluminum and we all know how much the factorys pollute the environment. They are not in Detroit and other third world countries so we dont see it and dont care.

Its not easy to drive with manic cyclists zooming on the sidewalks.

Posted by: anon | July 14, 2009 5:25 PM

Gas and car taxes pay for a tiny fraction of road construction and maintenance. Cyclists, pedestrians and even many transit users are heavily subsidizing drivers, not the other way around.

And that's before you even consider any of the other environmental, health, military, related infrastructure (e.g., school buses, utilities) and social costs created by driving and sprawl. If you asked drivers to pay for their share of the subsidized road transportation system -- even without adding in all of these other costs -- gas would be far more expensive.

Of course, our state and federal government, particularly under the Obama administration, will continue to subsidize driving, highways and sprawl with hundreds of billions of dollars per year, particularly in exurban areas, because in this country it has always been acceptable for a slight majority to override the concerns of the minorities and the poor.

However at the local level, in a city where the majority of folks do not drive to work every day, you can bet that there will be a rebalancing: beginning with the redesign of 100% city-owned roads like Whitney Avenue.

Posted by: Contrarian | July 14, 2009 6:20 PM

Its interesting all the responses to my posting how people have interpreted thing that werent said. I drive and I like my car and would never go without it. I walk and enjoy it when I'm not being buzzed by manic cyclists on sidewalks. I do not cycle because the roads are unsafe. They have hostile cars and hostile cyclists on them.

What I am saying is that bikes should be licensed like cars and cyclists should pay user fees. If bikes had plates there owners could be reported for traffick offenses. The tax would be used to pay for cyling safety. If the roads were safer I'd ride a bike.

I would support a $250 a year cycle fee in New Haven. If there are 10,000 bikes in the city this would yield $2,500,000. Just think how much safer the city would be. I cant see how any sensible cyclist could object to this.

Posted by: friendlycyclist | July 14, 2009 10:47 PM

Glad to hear you would ride a bike if the roads were safe. THey never will be more safe unless MORE cyclists take to the road and make it normal--not less. This is part of the problem.

How could a sensible cyclist object to a $250 fee for registering a bike? Easy.

First of all, most bikes are purchased for under, way under $250 dollars, so creating a tax or fee at that level is simply extravagant.

Secondly, I dont think we need to pay our wonderful city or state any more taxes or fees for anything considering most of the money is wasted. Unless it goes to strictly cycling related traffic and street safety. Try cycling the "bike path" in Hamden Cheshire (it is a bike path BTW and labelled as such and created by cycling advocates)--walkers with earbuds strolling in the middle of the lane upset when you need to pass, pairs of moms with kids in strollers two and three abreast hogging the road, dog walkers chatting idly on one side of the bike path with their teeny pups pooping on the far opposite side of said bike path on INVISIBLE retractable leashes extending across the road ready to destroy any cyclist that rolls by. (think Steve MCqueen in the Great Escape snagging a motorcycle from the German). Yes, my friends, this is what years of advocacy, money donations and Rails to Trails has given us--a "bike path"intended to be a recreational and commuter bike trail now virtualluy completely unusable for cyclists while the walkers in Cheshire (why are they all fat?) claim full use of the road.

License plates to report bike traffic violations. Does this work for cars? No. Didnt think so.

Part of the dialogue between car advocates and cyclists that burbles up in these discussion and occurs on the road ALL THE TIME is.. and I hate to say it or see it this way...but something along the lines of if I am in a car, I am important and my being in a hurry is waaaay more important than you measly little unimportant cyclist on a cheesy bike.

So, yes Miss or Mr. Contrary, the fact that you suggest a 250 dollar fee for bikes suggests you was very out of touch with the economic reality of most people and those who ride bikes. One of the reasons bikes surged was the ridiculous price of gas. Bikes are simple machines. Easy to fix. Inherently inexpensive and economical. They dont pollute. THey use no fossil fuel. How many toys, tools, machines, home appliances have you bought that can easily last 10, 20, or 30 years. I see bikes like this all the time in New Haven.

And yes, there are class issues attached to this. Sorry, but until more doctors and lawyers and architects and cops and firefighters ride bikes, we cyclists, like Rodney Dangerfield, aint gettin no respect. If Obama goes to the Vineyard this summer, and I pray he doesnt, the only way he can redeem himself is if he and the fam bike everywhere. Cycling needs a poster celebrity (besides Lance) to make it NORMAL.

Posted by: 44555111000 | July 14, 2009 11:20 PM

My guess is that the father/daughter are not crossing the sort of boundaries Bill likes to see.

Posted by: William Kurtz | July 15, 2009 8:44 AM

Who would pay this fee? City residents, or anyone who rides a bike within city limits? If every municipality followed suit, we would have a serious imbalance, considering that $75.00 is the cost for a two-year state automobile registration fee. But okay, fine; I will get behind that and pay it cheerfully as soon as it buys me fully one-half of every paved road within the fee area. More than generous, I think, again point out that it's about six times what a motor vehicle registration costs.

Of course I don't want to pick on the details. You make a useful point, Contrarian, about how the perception that the roads are unsafe keeps some from riding. But you have to see that the answer to hostile drivers on the streets isn't charging cyclists $250 each to ride there. It's the culture of reckless and irresponsible use of the streets, the 'me-and-my-convenience' first attitude among all users that has to change.

Posted by: anon | July 15, 2009 10:39 AM

Good points, William. But I'm not holding my breath for that cultural change while another 40,000 Americans die and 2,000,000 get seriously injured each year. Trying to change the culture isn't the approach that any other cities I know of are taking -- they're focusing more on the deadly infrastructure itself.