New Haven Independent

Posted by: Pedro | November 17, 2009 11:56 AM

I do have to say that this one of those times that the desires of the neighbors to have a 2-way street outweighs the general public's safety of having a 1-way street or other fix.

Another possibility would be to prohibit left turns on the street and put a raised turning lane to force people to go to the right.

It would be a shame for someone else to die at that intersection while a fix is worked out.

Posted by: anon | November 17, 2009 11:56 AM

http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/1342.html

Vote and comment here to get it fixed.

Posted by: HewNaven?? | November 17, 2009 11:57 AM

There's a simple solution: Ticket speeders!

Alas, cops will never do that because they would be constantly writing tickets to themselves.

Posted by: Pedro | November 17, 2009 11:58 AM

And sorry to post again! Yes, the big drawback for the 1-way proposal is that it forces all of the people who live and drive on that block to use the intersection every single day. It is still dangerous taking a left into it as well.

So my suggestion is to make it right turn only with a raised lane, and also to prohibit turning left into west elm from the northbound lane across traffic.

Posted by: Just a thought... | November 17, 2009 1:02 PM

Since the red house pictured on the corner of Forest and West Elm is in foreclosure,can the state buy it and widen the road enough to increase visibility and/ or put in a stoplight and crosswalk? While they're at it ,they need to fix the lack of visibility turning from Barnett onto Fountain and the tricky light and turn at the Dayton/Fountain/ Forest intersection.

Posted by: What? | November 17, 2009 1:14 PM

Pedro, did you mean a raised divider on West Elm so you can't turn left onto Forest Road? Wouldn't that be a hazard for cars turning left onto West Elm from Forest Road? How about some speed bumps on Forest coming down the hill towards West Elm with a lighted speed bump sign and a traffic light at the intersection?

Posted by: nfjanette | November 17, 2009 3:14 PM

This the answer for now:

http://www.americanconcrete.com/commercial/barriers/jersey-barriers.htm

Deployment time for two units to block traffic: one day, plus the time required to add signs on noting the road closure. Once the immediate threat to life is mitigated, a long term plan can be discussed.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 17, 2009 3:29 PM

Lets address the problems.
1. cars that are capable of going way faster than is necessary (why do speedometers go to 120 +? cars shouldn't be capable of going over 60 mph)
2. too many cars on the road because
a. the way we organize living, working, shopping, and recreational areas is terrible and requires people to go long distances
b. our roads are organized poorly and do not encourage walking
c. cars make walking unpleasant because of noise, pollution and danger which causes people who normally would walk to do otherwise
d. public transit sucks and is not viable in sprawling places
e. etc
3. cars are sealed off from the world:
porches are great because they are enclosed yet still open to the world and allow for interaction between neighbors
http://www.dreamsofyesteryear.com/images/porch-front.jpg
while enclosed porches cut you off from the world and are bad for the public realm when compared to an open porch
http://www.cityislandrealestate.com/%20vf_crs_front.jpg
umbrellas are great because they protect from rain and still allow for high visibility and interaction with people
http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/b/1/6/f/Jennifer_Aniston_looks_6a4d.jpg
a deep sea diving suit will keep rain off you, but it cuts you off from the world and degrades the public realm if worn as a pedestrian
http://www.photodave.net/2006album/08aug/aquar28.jpg
old cars designed in the 20s and 30s went very slowly and had open tops, which allowed for the passengers to still be part of the public realm (less so than pedestrians and cyclists, but better than current cars)
http://dhe.darebin-libraries.vic.gov.au/uploaded/images/90-377.jpg
cars today are mostly completely cut off from the world and degrade the public realm in an awful way. they are sealed off due to the high speed of cars that would create wind and water problems if open to outside elements. if speed were reduces a lot, open top cars would make mroe sense, and they would degrade the public realm much less.
http://www.blavish.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/caravan-9-20-2006.jpg

Posted by: Jay | November 17, 2009 4:23 PM

One more option- turn West Elm into a cul-de-sac.

Posted by: Pat | November 17, 2009 4:58 PM

What is Norton Street smoking and can I get some?

Posted by: streever | November 17, 2009 5:16 PM

I don't think this is actually that tough to figure out. The big thing is to be a little counter-intuitive. I could be wrong, but I think a solid fix would involve squaring off the road that runs into it, so people can't make a quick turn, they have to stop simply by the geometry of the intersection.

Removing the tree to improve sight lines is paramount. Reducing speed on the main street would also be effective.

Design speed is probably 15 mph here--which is great--but the problem is people drive faster than design speed. Deliberately lowering design speed is being billed as a great fix by people who haven't thought these things through--if you deliberately lower design speed, this is the situation you end up with.

Ultimately you actually want to increase design speed here. This is why traffic engineers build intersections with design speeds higher than the speed limit: it reduces the chance of a speeder killing or injuring someone because they can hopefully see them in time to slow down/stop. I think if we reduced design speeds unilaterally we'd see an immediate spike in traffic deaths.

Posted by: Brian35 | November 17, 2009 5:22 PM

Simply put up a "no left turn" sign will just be ignored. Doesnt work @ Whalley/Central.

The street should either be blocked off or made one way.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 17, 2009 7:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGVoxyt7odc

This is what is know as beautiful chaos. No rules, no boundaries, just human instinct in action when provided with moderate technology and capability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm-KNYfBs0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuQ-nOUkfUA

Yep, this is waaaaaaay better. I'm the crazy one.
The problem is too many cars on the road at any given time, and cars the have too much power and capability. Traffic laws have done nothing; they only provide the illusion of order. People will continue to die unless we address the real problem.
Balance is key; when pedestrians, cyclists, buses, trolleys and automobiles all share the street in a balanced way great things happen. When cars completely take over the street, no matter how many laws are made, how many tickets are given, how much money is put into preventing people from using devices that are too powerful, we will still have a degraded, unbalanced and awful public realm.

Posted by: anon | November 17, 2009 7:24 PM

Can you explain that, Streever? If speeds were reduced to 10 miles per hour on Forest Road via design measures, not only would residents finally be able to comfortably use it for walking and cycling, but the chance of a fatal crash would be almost zero.

That's what roundabouts and traffic circles do - cars slow down to 10-15 mph as they traverse them and fatalities drop by 88-100% depending on the intersection (typically 95% system-wide).

We need the same kind of interventions here so that people stop dying.

Posted by: Brian Tang | November 17, 2009 8:40 PM

I don't understand what problem closing off West Elm at Forest would pose. They closed off the road in front of my childhood best friend's house (mostly to prevent cut-through traffic) and it seemed to work out just fine:

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rm6t394s9phm&scene=5550770&lvl=2&sty=o

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vancouver,+wa&sll=49.263588,-123.138565&sspn=0.126362,0.308647&g=vancouver&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Clark,+Washington&ll=45.643793,-122.670314&spn=0.008461,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.64543,-122.670709&panoid=lBLd4h4lUe4oagIEto0M1A&cbp=12,192.93,,0,13.11

Posted by: Reality Check | November 18, 2009 1:08 PM

Streever is right, in this case. The issue is that, despite the speed limit and all the righteous anger in the world, drivers are still going to drive pretty quickly on Forest Road. You could lower the speed limit to 10 mph but people will still drive 45 or higher. The topography of the area is such that drivers have little time to react to obstacles in the road ahead (such as speed bumps), so building obstacles to lower the average speed doesn't do much. There really isn't room for a roundabout at that intersection anyways--roundabouts tend to be about 3 times as wide as the road they're built into, and Forest is already carved out of a hill in the first place.

Additionally, there are some pretty serious obstacles to actually getting anything fixed. This is a relatively important problem for the City, but Forest is a state road, so the mayor and the alderman have no jurisdiction over it. The state representative does, and probably could get something done if she cared, but that would take political capital which she has been investing in widening Whalley Ave. to make it easier to speed on.

On the other hand, the residents of West Elm oppose any solutions that could be implemented by changing their street while leaving Forest alone. They are sort of right--the problem originates from the terrible design of Forest and the fact that everyone speeds on it, and fair being fair, they shouldn't have to pay for that by making their street a dead end or one-way (though, in my opinion, these are simpler solutions that are more likely to be implemented and are probably the best way to go--sorry, guys).

Given these caveats, there is little chance of anything getting done about this. This intersection has been problematic for years, and there have been several fatal crashes here--a minor one in which nobody dies is unlikely to cause changes when major, fatal crashes failed to do so. With that in mind, redesigning Forest to have a higher design speed would probably be logistically and financially easier than installing a roundabout (although the political obstacles will probably keep this from happening as well). In this case, as Streever points out, people will still speed, but the chances of them killing someone as a result will be lower.

It all comes down to a question of where your priorities lie. If you care more about making a point about "safe streets" and declaring war on suburban traffic, go ahead and shout about it until you're blue in the face. Nothing is going to change on that front, not because of a few crashes a year on this intersection at least. If you actually care about trying to keep accidents from happening, and minimizing the damage when they do, designing a road that makes it safer to speed is the way to go. Yes, it's still wrong to speed and yes, the ideal solution would be to end speeding, but that is simply not going to happen here. Pick your battle, try to make some real progress and maybe save a couple lives.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 18, 2009 2:14 PM

Reality Check,
"If you actually care about trying to keep accidents from happening, and minimizing the damage when they do, designing a road that makes it safer to speed is the way to go."
You serious, bro?
If in order to address a problem of hunting accidents in the woods, would you address the conditions that cause the accidents by a) redesigning the woods to increase visibility, or b) change the behavior of hunters?

You and Streever are correct in that Forest Road is deisnged for a much lower speed than it currently handles, but the solution is to cave in to the behavior that kills people? Really? And thats the solution? Forest Road should be a quiet back woods road that has occasional traffic; time, effort and discussion should be focused on how to achieve that condition more than anything else.

Obviously, drastic cultural changes do not happen quickly. What is important, is to have a fully developed long term vision while accepting that short term quick solutions over time are the way to get there. The long term vision serves as something to strive for. A long term vision to have high traffic speeds managed to reduce deaths is an under-developed long term vision. To merely make suggestions that are quick fixes that address specific problems without looking at it in a much bigger picture is a mistake. Possibly creating a cul de sac or a way one might not be too bad if it is seen as being very temporary while the real issues of behavior and the social conditions that breed those behaviors are addressed. If you see increasing the design speed of the road as being very temporary until we can address the problems, then I could back that, but it sounds like you think that its the end all be all of solutions, which is pitiful.

Posted by: Pedro | November 18, 2009 3:54 PM

Thinking about this a little bit more, why don't they just put a 3-way stop sign or stoplight at the intersection, with appropriate warning signs and striping.(e.g. STOP AHEAD flashing yellow signs)

Posted by: anon | November 18, 2009 4:11 PM

Reality check, you can't just lower or raise a speed limit, since that would have no impact -- you have to make other changes as well. That is a given, the key is to step back and like Norton Street says, look at this as an broad urban and human services issue, not a traffic issue. Your solution seems to say that ongoing deaths here per year and "maybe saving a life or two" (coupled with the long-term degradation of the neighborhood in other ways) is an acceptable strategy.

I am not sure that all of the neighbors would agree with that, especially if you polled the kids about what kind of neighborhood they wanted to live in. The goal should be a livable neighborhood and the complete elimination of injuries and fatalities.

Posted by: Carole | November 18, 2009 4:16 PM

Reality Check,

The state representative ... probably could get something done if she cared, but that would take political capital which she has been investing in widening Whalley Ave. to make it easier to speed on.

Can you please explain what the state rep has done to promote the widening of Whalley? I'm aware only of the opposite. Facts, please.

Posted by: Rep. Pat Dillon | November 18, 2009 5:12 PM

Reality Check

It isn't clear why you singled me out, but you misrepresented my position.

1. The state protocol is to work with the town on state roads, not the delegation. Mike P in City Hall has been working on Forest Road with the state.
2. This morning I learned that a traffic study had been done. The aldermen and the city have it. It was never shared with the delegation.
3. Sen Harp and I held a hearing in New Haven to prevent the widening of Whalley Ave. I did support realigning Ramsdell, but felt - and feel - that the $19 million on this project was largely wasting our money and possibly putting us at risk.
So you know, the DOT told us directly that City Hall wanted the Whalley widening and the engineer had signed off on the project. Mike P spoke at
the hearing we held and asked people not to hold up the money for the widening.
If you oppose that project you should call them at City Hall.
I can't divine the motives behind your allegations about my motives, since you did not sign your name. But your claims about my position on Whalley Ave are incorrect.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 18, 2009 7:40 PM

Despite claims to the contrary but those that wanted a different plan, the project to realign the separate sections of Ramsdell and to fix the dangerous 3.5 lane layout of Whalley in that area will result in a safer experience overall. There may have been disagreement about the best planned layout of Whalley, but no one should be under any illusion the existing situation was rational or safe. Just as the project to repave Whitney has produced a better, safer road by fixing multitudes of potholes - despite the claims and predictions of some to the contrary - the project on Whalley will also be a win.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 18, 2009 8:44 PM

"Forest Road is deisnged for a much lower speed than it currently handles"

My comment from earlier isn't actually accurate. Forest Road was created at a time (meaning when it was first paved, not when it was originally laid out as a dirt road) when vehicles were not capable of high speeds. A more accurate statement is that: Forest Road was built at a time when high speeds were not achievable. Also people who first laid out our streets were not the same types of people who do it today; traffic volume, and number of cars/hour, and average travel speeds, etc were not really a part of the discussion until mid 20th century.
It is my opinion that rather than changing the road to fit current traffic patterns, the change should come from how the road is used. To keep up with traffic would mean to constantly have to change every circulation system, which is maintanence hell.

Posted by: streever | November 19, 2009 8:48 AM

nfjanette:
What data did you use to predict that Whitney is safer? I find it safe enough as an experienced cyclist, but the speeds are increasing. As people drive faster, you don't think there is an increase in danger?

If Whitney is safer now it is because it is avoided by pedestrians and cyclists. Show me the crosswalks/signals to get to Edgewood Park with your children and I'll show you a safe crossing.

Posted by: nfjanette | November 19, 2009 12:46 PM

What data did you use to predict that Whitney is safer? I find it safe enough as an experienced cyclist, but the speeds are increasing. As people drive faster, you don't think there is an increase in danger?

I was referring to the improved safety by removing/fixing road hazards. Those hazards could cause drivers to either swerve to avoid them or could cause the vehicle to lose control. I reject the notion that a broken road infrastructure is a reasonable approach to controlling vehicle speed.

If Whitney is safer now it is because it is avoided by pedestrians and cyclists.

It might be that cyclists should avoid Whitney. I'm not shocked by the idea that there may be some routes that are not appropriate for cycling traffic. As for pedestrians, what are the concerns if they cross at legal crosswalks with proper signals?

Show me the crosswalks/signals to get to Edgewood Park with your children and I'll show you a safe crossing.

I'm not clear on your point. There are crosswalks/signals at the intersections around the park, just like at most intersections in the city.

Posted by: Norton Street | November 19, 2009 8:59 PM

nfjanette,
wow. that's got to be the most ridiculous point of view ever.
"Those hazards could cause drivers to either swerve to avoid them or could cause the vehicle to lose control."
Do people control the vehicles or do pot holes control cars, which in turn control people?
Are you so enslaved to the machine that you cannot see that our built environment should be designed around the human being and not a difficult to control steel and glass box? The natural form of transportation is walking; this is the established starting point for designing anything. Cars, trolleys, buses, bikes, scooters, motorcycles, trains, all ground transport must be developed in relation to walking; that is an extremely basic concept. Look at my second post; the youtube videos. While the industrial city's circulation systems had some problems, they were far better than what we have today.
The one thing our streets were meant to do after WW2 was to carry mass amounts of automobiles from suburbs to cities; and they can't even do that! The streets of pre WW2 in America were places that carried some car traffic, mass transit, pedestrians, cyclists and kept them in constant motion, while also allowing for people to enjoy the public realm.
You do not know what you are talking about. "I like cars" is not a sufficient argument.
Accepting the road conditions that we've had since childhood and assuming this is the only way to circulate our environment is short-sighted, historically ignorant, socially negligent, and it represents a complacent attitude towards despicable, destructive and deadly behavior.

Posted by: SLP | November 20, 2009 5:12 PM

Only those who have used this intersection understand how many variables are at play--too many of these suggestions, while well-intentioned, are inappropriate or would worsen the current bad situation.

Yes, people drive too fast on Forest, as they do throughout Westville. And no, as a state highway, it's not going to have a 10mph speed limit. But happily, the state hasn't unleashed traffic engineers to lay it waste and turn it into a government-authorized speedway. Against all odds (not to mention 18-wheelers), Forest remains a residential road as well as CT 122, clearly designed for slower speeds and retaining echoes of its past as a historic scenic byway. The native stone wall on one side, well-kept and architecturally interesting homes on the other, and wooded hillside slope make it one of the more attractive stretches of road in New Haven.

So, along with speeding or unseasoned drivers, here's the problem, and it's hardly the tree at the corner near the red house: Forest is narrow, and it both curves and dips downhill approaching West Elm from the north. In fact, West Elm intersects blindly into the last bit of the curve and dip. As a result the sight lines and safety cushion to make ANY turn in ANY direction to or from EITHER street are poor to impossible. That's why a light won't work, a rotary won't work ... not much will work but to close West Elm at Forest.

As for inconvenience to those on that single block of West Elm (approx. 20 houses plus the condos [?] tucked behind the north side), any cautious driver who lives there probably uses that intersection as little as possible anyway. Those needing to go south on Forest will detour slightly down Alston/Barnett to Edgewood, where they can turn left onto Forest somewhat safely at a light--a far better alternative (though don't get me started on that intersection). Those needing to go north have several easier and safer ways to do so. And don't most people prefer quieter, not busier, streets?

As a longtime resident of Forest Rd. who both loves it and hates it, who has helped many an accident victim, and who has made many a post-crash 911 call, I see closing West Elm at Forest as the only true solution if we want to save lives and property.