Bike Lane Brews Controversy

Reached by phone, Hausladen said that the proposed bike lane, which would traverse four New Haven neighborhoods, is still in the design stages. He added that a large outreach effort will get underway once the complicated proposal is complete, and said that studies have shown that bike lanes are generally good for retail business. He looks forward to meeting with Frawley and other stakeholders.

I knew take back New Haven Hausladen was down with this.He would have a bike in every home.Wake up car-owners,We are under attack.

What happens to retail sales after a bike lane is installed?

Up to 400% increase versus control, according to study after study after study in many US cities (including many that are less densely populated than New Haven).

In New Haven, look at retail sales and property values on Orange Street pre- and post-2003. Westville used to be more expensive than East Rock if you look at unit value. After bike lane installation that changed.

Hey Mr Hausladen
Yet one more buisness owner that DOES NOT WANT TO LOSE PARKING SPACES. I do believe your job entails managing parking not eliminating parking. I am all for bike lanes but many businesses need the parking, in fact they need more parking. Meters won't help on State St and changing parking to bike lanes won't help in Westville.
Please start listening to some of the business owners in the city. Believe it or not, they know what's best for their business, not you.

Not everything is a zero-sum game, 3/5. One group getting something does not inevitably involve another group being robbed or hoodwinked. Some things are good for everybody. Sometimes there's even enough to go around.

Parking space occupancy in this area seems to be about 10%.

The reason people travel at 70 miles per hour down Edgewood is because nobody is parked there, which means the "travel lane" each way is 30 feet wide instead of what it should be (10 feet).

These 30' wide lanes need to be narrowed, similar to what was done on Orange with the bike lane. You can't count on parked vehicles to do that because currently, zero parking spaces are occupied on Edgewood near West Rock, even at rush hour. People don't park there in part because it is too dangerous to do- your car will get destroyed.

I always thought it was Christmas that was under attack?

But I digress. Three-Fifths is quite right about this. The real issue is that bicycles don't belong on our roads, since their owners aren't paying property taxes on them, and they aren't registered with the DMV. Now they want a segregated bike lane at the expense of parking spaces? How dare they!

Definitely time to start fighting back, before they take more of our Freedoms away. And to you who think that I may be bat-poop crazy, just remember you're the insane person who will somehow find it necessary to engage me in debate.

Who is going to pay for the new bicycle lanes? Register and tax bicycles, and then let's talk about whether they're entitled to share our roads.

I think it is important to establish that any discussion of traffic calming and bicycle lanes in Westville comes with plenty of goodwill. It is disappointing to see that ignored or rejected.

Kicking off a months-long discovery effort at the site of highest potential impact indicates thoughtfulness!

Any change for a small business is important. However, it is out of bounds to flatly state that "This should never have even been considered." There is nothing wrong with periodic and public examinations of how a community wants to use public space.

There is also nothing wrong with figuring out the physical possibilities before raising the issue in the community. If the lanes were found to be a no-go due to the old CT state law, or bus routes, etc, then meetings would not be necessary. Homework does not equal treachery.

"This is your job to know it would impact me." I have to believe it is the business owner's job to know what the impact is, and to share that with the community. If the community undertakes that effort on behalf of the business, then again this indicates goodwill not bad behavior.

I haven't spoken to Adam Marchand about his choice of venue, but I have to believe he held the meeting at Deja Brew in order to make sure Ms. Frawley and customers would be included. It is just as easy to hold that meeting at the school, or in a home.

I trust that the next six months or so will give us well considered recommendations if we are all allowed to work together.

Roadways and sidewalks are public space; cars, trucks and other motorized vehicles don't own these public spaces. Pedestrians using sidewalks are not singled out as not paying taxes, so why bicycles?
Regarding the threat to retail businesses of lost parking spaces, when the times square pedestrial plazas were proposed in NYC, there was tremendous resistance by area retail business owners about the potential lost sales and difficulty with deliveries. Most studies that I am aware of show increased sales for retail businesses along corridors with protected bike lanes.

I'm all for bike lanes, but the reality is that the city is just not conducive to having them in many places. City leaders want to make New Haven more "bike friendly" like Europe, but there's key differences. Has anyone here been to a city like Copenhagen? When I was there I noticed that there were far bikes than people. The number of commuters in Copenhagen that use a bicycle is 37%, but the key difference is that it's a very centralized population, over a very small area. And the other thing is that owning a car is VERY expensive. It's even expensive to get a license. We just don't have that here, and anyone who can own a car, does. And these store owners NEED that parking for people who come in from Milford, Hamden, and Branford, because we're not all going to just up and move to a "luxury apartment" so we can ride more frequently.

One of the things that they've done in Copenhagen that can work here but somehow doesn't seem to get done (which the Ferry Street bridge repair work seems to illustrate) is that they've timed the traffic lights so that it's a straight shot into the center of town, to keep the traffic MOVING. And they have "pre-green" lights to keep the bicycles moving ahead of cars. This video of what they do in Copenhagen is a great example of how they can accommodate both bikes and cars at the same time.

https://youtu.be/ZtX8qiC_rXE

Not everything is going to work, but some of these things can be with minimal impact. These are things that can have more of an impact than just dedicating a lane for bicycles. New Haven seems to have the same "go... STOP" light patterns from the 70's that haven't changed. That's the first thing that needs to be fixed BEFORE there's any talk of bike lanes.

Can someone explain to this lady that bike lanes actually increase business, statistically speaking... She seems reasonable, I'm sure she'll get it.

Unleash the knee-jerkers and the anti-peddle vampires. Fitness is under attack.

The portion of Edgewood directly in front of Deja Brew is almost exactly the same width as Orange Street where there are bike lanes.

posted by: Theodora on July 24, 2015 12:05pm

Unleash the knee-jerkers and the anti-peddle vampires. Fitness is under attack.

Walking is fitness and does not take parking spaces.Your point?


posted by: Gretchen Pritchard on July 24, 2015 9:57am

Not everything is a zero-sum game, 3/5. One group getting something does not inevitably involve another group being robbed or hoodwinked. Some things are good for everybody. Sometimes there's even enough to go around.

Not in this case.More is being taken away.

Adam holds business hours weekly for Ward 25 constituents at Deja Brew. I cant believe Adam has not addressed this with the owner of Deja Brew in the past.

The older crowd here raves about how nice Orange Street is, then fights against installing a bike lane on a similar street where there is clearly heavy demand for one among both adults and children. Very odd.

It's almost as if their own convenience to park 10 feet closer 2 days per year is more important than allowing safe travel for the more than half of city residents who don't drive in a car to work each day. It's a "my 22 cents is worth more than your entire life" attitude.

I have been a resident of this area for many years. My children attended Edgewood School and I have enjoyed the lovely Deja Brew since it opened. It is a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Carol has always been very generous to the community and has provided employment to many neighborhood kids. While I have no problem with a bike lane, I am adamantly against taking away any parking. Anything that would negatively impact Deja Brew, teachers, parents and visitors to the school, or residents of Edgewood Ave. would be wrong. What about when there are events at Yale Bowl? What happens during snow storms when they limit parking on side streets? Parking would be impossible! Bike lanes are fine, but not of the expense of the school, cafe and residents!

I don't understand why there's a controversy over loss of spaces because a loss of spaces isn't necessary. Why can't we have protected bike lanes at the split portion of Edgewood(retaining a parking lane as illustrated) and then at the unsplit portion of Edgewood do exactly what's done on Orange Street? (cars at the curb and bike lanes between them and the inside lane) Sure no bike rider looks forward to the prospect of being door'd but very aggressive enforcement and a lawsuit or two could help make automobile drivers more cautious.

I know it technically makes me a troll-feeder and clinically insane to respond to him, but what the hey..


POSSIBLE IDEA: is 3/5 actually the gentrification ARCH-VAMPIRE in sheeps clothing? He complains about a 'problem' (gentrification), but only proposes solutions that serve rich, suburban, whites ( THESE ARE GENTRI-VAMPIRE SHOCK TROOPS PEOPLE, WAKE UP).

But I digress. surely providing easy, healthy, safe, reliable modes of transportation into communities that regularly have hours of their lives sucked away by the inefficiency of our current public transpiration system, is an assault on that very community. What we surely need in communities where some spend hours getting to work and can't afford cars are MORE parking spaces.


The streets, belong to the community. Drivers and bikers alike pay for them (I don't drive but the apple that gets delivered to the store I bike to to buy it from includes in its price the transportation (and yes gas taxes) to the store. We need the streets to be doing the best for ALL in the community. I feel for this store owner, but if theres a better use that privately subsidizing her business with city parking, that needs to be on the table. That also brings up the main takeaway: this isn't zero-sum, everyone can win. It isn't zero parking or zero bikes, the plans look pretty win win for all parties.

Once again it seems Hausladen and the cronies have missed a critical point. Simply creating bike lanes does not solve any problem when this city is crawling with car drivers who don't provide safe travel space in the lane for cyclists on most streets, AND an equal number of cyclists (if you can call them that) who have no concept of the rules they must adhere to when taking their bike on a road. These two factors work against each other for a lose-lose situation. The roads are so wide and under-traveled in that side of town that it's hard to justify all of this nonsense and money wasted on these meetings and these debates until some underlying issues are first resolved.

Cyclists need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and adhering to the rules of the road, and drivers need to allow us cyclists our rightful space in the lanes. The law states that we are all traffic and are meant to use the roads together and in accordance with the same laws. Cars must give us space and not box us out, buzz our towers, or tailgate our back tires. Similarly, bikes must stop at lights, signal for turns, travel the correct direction on one-way streets, and for the love of all things holy NEVER RIDE ON THE ****ING SIDEWALK.

If the city can't figure out how to address these key points, this remains a moot point.

Half of the city residents bike to work? I find that hard to believe. The NAACP recently did a study where they found one in four New Haven families don't have access to a car.

http://www.nhregister.com/government-and-politics/20150116/report-lack-of-transportation-in-greater-new-haven-keeps-people-out-of-workforce

I don't think that translates to half of city residents biking to work. I can't find any numbers to confirm what you're saying. All I can find is that New Haven is the sixth largest city in New England that has "the largest percentage of residents to bike or walk to work", without anyone actually saying what those percentages are.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2015/02/12/bicycle-safety-a-priority-for-state-officials/

Which seems to be a rather nebulous claim and lumps in people who walk to work as well as bike.

RobotShlomo, synchronizing lights makes a lot of sense and the city has been doing this, albeit slowly. But this investment makes the most sense for arterials, such as Whalley Avenue, that are not suitable for bike lanes. Both types of measures are relatively inexpensive and can be done simultaneously.

While new state legislation allows for contra-flow bike lanes (e.g., two-way bike lanes on one-way streets), I suspect that the traffic volumes and speeds along Chapel Street would make it a bad location for this approach.

At one point, there was talk of putting the bike lanes in the median of Edgewood Ave. (something like Commonwealth Avenue in Boston). Is this still under consideration?

Anonymous, I understand you work with data in your day job and suspect you know that most phenomena have multiple causes. The bike lanes in East Rock (where I live) are a good thing and have contributed to the neighborhood's economic health. But they are certainly not the only factor - I would argue that proximity to Yale and downtown have been more important.

The city really needs these cross-town continuous separated bike lanes. This is what will change commuting patterns and what appeals to exactly the kind of person that could be attracted to live, work and drink coffee in New Haven. Westville residents are lucky that the city is putting them at the top of the list.

I don't blame the business owner for feeling caught off guard. Everyone has a huge amount of status quo bias. We understand how things work, even if imperfectly, in the present. We fear change because the effects cannot be precisely predicted.

I think it is pretty obvious that a coffee shop is exactly the kind of business that will benefit from slower-moving traffic and increased biking and walking. I do stop in Deja Brew sometimes, usually when driving on the other side (toward downtown), between 9 and 10. There is always a huge surplus of parking, maybe it is a problem earlier?

On the other hand, let's not get carried away. Business at Deja Breew is not going to increase 400% because of the bike lane alone. The Orange Street bike lanes (which are badly designed, are unsafe and just plain suck) did not cause the divergence between East Rock and Westville housing prices; that is mostly the growth of Yale, the decline in crime and changing commuting preferences. Of course, we need the bike lanes precisely because of those changing preferences, if we want to stay competitive as neighborhoods and as a city.

New Haven Tax Payer,
The State Street parking meter proposal is looking to add on-street parking spaces to State Street, not take them away. In addition to the parking lot being built across from Goodfellas, that would be a significant increase in spaces along the corridor.

robn,
I believe you are correct - bike lanes could be added to the street without removing parking. However, I think the point of the proposed two-way cycle track along the entire length of Edgewood Avenue is to create protected bicycle infrastructure for use by all people including young children and older residents, not just 20 year old males.

Having said that, I would like to see an alternate proposal that places the cycle track on Chapel Street. Chapel traverses nearly the entire city and in the long run will hopefully receive significant transportation improvements. My guess, however, is that Chapel is too heavily traveled right now and too densely populated to accommodate these changes in the immediate future.

Edgewood, on the other hand is relatively low density in Westville, provides significant right-of-way along the Mall, and is less heavily traveled than Chapel. Furthermore, it is centrally located in the west of the city - broadening its user base significantly compared to Chapel Street (yes, one block over matters).

For me, the idea of this proposal is a no-brainer. While it is important to get the details right, my sense is that the biggest problem with this project will be a handful of residents who will have to start parking in their driveway, on the other side of the street, or around the corner rather than directly in front of their house. This is a common activity for lots of residents in more densely populated neighborhoods.

PJPJPJ:
Although there's limited demand for parking in this area except on rare occasions, this project is combined with traffic calming and therefore would dramatically increase the amount of and usefulness of parking in the area:

Edgewood park already has the bike path that runs from wholly down to ella grass blvd.
The city should spent it's money keeping that bikeway and the rest of the park safe, put up some cameras and lights, leave edgewood ave two lanes with it's free parking for park goers.
The snooty self important bike lobby should spend more time educating yalies and yuppies on how to share the roads that were built to accommodate vehicular traffic. Or move to Portland, that works too.

RobotShlomo, according to the most recent Census, there are 37,000 City of New Haven residents who drive to work each day (this includes the 5,000 who carpool). The total population of New Haven is over 130,000. This means that there are roughly 100,000 city residents do not commute to work in a car each day. Nobody claimed that all of them ride bikes, but I agree it is helpful to understand the facts and the pent-up demand for streets that aren't given over entirely to the minority of people living here who drive.

I've noticed the strollers and bikes parked at Deja Bru. Maybe the owners should count them, and realize those people who walk and bike to Deja Bru are their customers too. I've been there a handful of times, and have never driven there. I've also noticed the conspicuous absence of a bike rack. Something the owner should look into fixing.

Guess how many off-street parking spots Deja Bru has for their customers who drive there? (The answer is zero). They are asserting ownership of public street space, and claiming it belongs to them. No, it does not. It's public space for the public.

I actually agree with Deja Bru about one thing. There is a parking problem near their location. There are too many people who park there all day long, and waste car parking that should turn over more often. I think the owner of Deja Bru should advocate for meters near their business with two hour limits, and let the Edgewood School staff and residents park farther away on neighboring streets. This would allow people who want to drive to Deja Bru to park close and pay a small price for the ability to do so, and keep spots available so people don't have to look so hard for a spot.

Honestly, the section of Edgewood right next to Deja Bru is perfect for the Orange St. treatment, where there are bike lanes right in the door zone. It's not ideal, but it's what the existing road width allows. The paint helps remind cars to park against the curb, and does help slow down cars. The number of parking spots would not change.

The cycle track as shown along Edgewood Park also does not change the number of parking spots, as that section is already one way. It merely removes one travel lane, which is incredibly underused almost all week. That treatment won't work near Deja Bru, and that's what Hausladen is talking about when he says they're still in the design stages. That design works along the Park where Edgewood Ave. is divide with three lane widths in each direction.

Anonymous
I misread part of that, and that's my bad. But here's the thing; I really don't think that there over 100,000 city residents that walk, bike, or don't use a car. Many in fact ride the bus, and as NHI reported that system also needs work.

The other part of that is there are MANY cars in New Haven that either aren't registered, or are registered elsewhere. Let's also consider the number of people who drive INTO the city, and then quickly commute out for the evening, and those numbers you cite become skewed even further. Much of this is anecdotal, I'll give you that. But at the same time when you go out and at 8pm you walk into the pub and the street is lined with cars, and then you walk out at 11pm and the street is quite literally abandoned, and you think you're in a scene from I Am Legend, then I'm expressing doubts about how many people do commute by bike in the city.

Bicycling in the U.S. is still primarily a recreational activity, and considering things like urban sprawl and the majority of jobs migrating outside of the city centers, it has a VERY long way to go before it becomes a mainstream means of commuting. I've said in another topic that the idea of a "freelance graphic designer" riding a penny farthing to work may be in vogue, but I really don't think it reflects the reality of the situation.

posted by: SReilly on July 24, 2015 12:49pm

I know it technically makes me a troll-feeder and clinically insane to respond to him, but what the hey..


POSSIBLE IDEA: is 3/5 actually the gentrification ARCH-VAMPIRE in sheeps clothing? He complains about a 'problem' (gentrification), but only proposes solutions that serve rich, suburban, whites ( THESE ARE GENTRI-VAMPIRE SHOCK TROOPS PEOPLE, WAKE UP).


Did you know that.

Bike Lanes Expressways to Gentrification?

http://www.shareable.net/blog/are-bike-lanes-expressways-to-gentrification

They even have gentrification vampires taking over in London.

Cycling and the gentrification of inner London

Anyone who spends time in the capital, where flocks of cyclists are a feature of life, will nod in recognition at the news that the number of people cycling to work in London has doubled over the last decade.But what's less known is how far this increase has been driven by the gentrification of inner London. House prices have soared in London's poorest urban boroughs as 20-somethings and families have stayed in London, rather than moving out to suburbia.

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2014/03/26/cycling-and-the-gentrification-of-inner-london/



My bad.I fogot.You think we have a problem with parking now.I hearing from some friends in New York that these these Vampires are on the way to New Haven Hartford and Stafford.If this is true.God helps us all.


How Many Parking Spaces Will CitiBike Share Gobble Up?

http://gothamist.com/2012/05/15/facts_and_stats_about_bike_share_in.php

3/5,

Regarding your supposed victimization:
Children of color have higher rates of asthma with a direct causal link to being clustered in in inner cities with high air/auto pollution. And POC are less likely to own a car. So I call BS on your anti-bike stance.

Regarding your claim that presence of bikes is a sign of gentrification:
Your use of the term gentrification is a bogeyman; it has no definition or proof and constantly repeating a vague statement as truth is a Joseph Goebbels tactic so quit it. And I call BS on your linked article. It leads with a complaint from an African American activist who doesn't claim that a bike-able neighborhood isn't safer. She complains that nobody cared 10 years ago because the neighborhood was solely POC. A misery loves company tactic...boo hoo for her and you but no thanks. Better is better period.

Multiple posts from pumped up advocates of anything related to cycling are to be expected for long-time readers of NHI. Manipulation of data through implied - but not always accurate - statements are as well. A small fraction of city residents use cycling for regular transportation, but it's possible more would do so, at least during reasonable weather, if it were much safer. Currently, cycling on many streets in the city is dangerous, and that's leaving out the separate discussion of the high level of illegal behavior (and the various attempts at rationalizing it) of far too many cyclists. I personally know multiple cycling victims of bad motor vehicle operation.

Edgewood Avenue has excellent potential to host a separated cycling lane system, unlike many other city streets. If it can be implemented as a part of a city-wide system, without causing parking and motor vehicle problems, it would be a good investment. Anytime there is discussion of making a two-lane road into a single lane, however, the proposed plans should be checked carefully for components required to eliminate potential problems included stacked traffic behind left-turning vehicles. Keeping proper flow of motor vehicle traffic, just like creating separate cycling lanes and more responsive "walk buttons" at intersections all make for a better experience on the streets for all users.

That part of Edgewood Avenue would have much more space if that huge median wasn't there. I say get rid of it. That way it can free up space for residents who parks on the street, people who parks on the street to go to the park, and bicyclists who will be using the separated bike lane, But the only problem with that is the crosswalks. It would be longer, Therefore pedestrians should have more time to get across the street. Also, There should be a Bus Lane on Edgewood Avenue between Pendleton Street and the Blouevard.

There is a bike lane on my street. It is most often used by cars to pass illegally and by motorcycles to race illegally. It is too dangerous to let my kids bike in the bike lane. This is not an infrastructure issue. It is a law enforcement issue. It is outrageous that the NHPD adamantly refuse to enforce traffic laws. It is equally disgusting that our so-called elected representatives refuse to do anything about it. Why is traffic enforcement (for both bikes and cars) not a higher priority than spending more to paint more dangerous bike lanes?

I honestly can't tell if 7/10 given their name and posting style is serious or spoofing well known commenter 3/5s.

Anyways though, as others have said, from personal experience there's never a parking crises on that area of Edgewood or for that matter West Rock ave or any of the other side streets. This is the same parking conniption that happens every time a bike lane is proposed or new housing is proposed with fewer parking spaces than required cough Star Supply cough*. People throw a fit like there's literally not one parking space left in New Haven because not being able to get a parking space right on the stoop of your home/business in an urban setting is apparently a parking nightmare.

I'd also point out that of course we don't have the density of Copenhagen, there are few cities of our population size that do, in America or Europe. But with 6,500 people per sq mile, New Haven is a pretty dense city. Also the fact we tried a mega experiment all through the 50's to 70's as a nation in making cities as car friendly as possible to attract the suburbanites and it failed miserably(and let's be honest here, how many people are driving in from out of town to go to a neighborhood cafe?)

There's also a study on bicycles, pedestrians and transit users, albeit it only studying Portland
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/12/bicyclists_pedestrians_and_tri.html
The tl;dr is:
-Cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users all outspend motorists at small restaurants and bars in urban areas(they aren't sure why, but prevailing theories are all of the above are more likely to stop at an establishment they hadn't planned on than a motorist driving out to a specific locality and potentially having more disposable income)
-They were also more frequent patrons
-Business owners over estimate the amount of their customers coming solely by car

The only time I stop at Deja Brew is when I am biking to work. A bike rack would be very nice.

Anonymous Notes:

"The snooty self important bike lobby should spend more time educating yalies and yuppies on how to share the roads that were built to accommodate vehicular traffic. "

The first segment of Edgewood Avenue was laid out in the 1830s; it barely existed beyond Dwight Street until the 1850s when it was extended to reach the Almshouse just east of the West River. The bridge was built in 1873 and until 1883 Edgewood Avenue was named Martin Street.

The automobile wasn't a practical device until the first decade of the 20th century and it didn't begin reaching a mass audience until the 1920s.

In the 1950s and 60s, New Haven redesigned many of its streets for the sole purpose of circulating vehicles in and out of the city. Most of the one-way streets were created during this time, including the section of Edgewood Avenue east of Winthrop Avenue, I believe.

It appears to me that the efforts in recent years to better accommodate pedestrians and cyclists on roadways represents the balancing of street usage back to the multi-modal model for which they were actually designed. A circa 1830s street completed in the last decades of the 19th century was designed for vehicles? Really? Try pedestrians, streetcars, trolleys, cyclists, and buggies.

I've seen both 2.6% and 4.3% used recently as the number of people who commute to work by bicycle in NH, depending on if you use a national survey or a local survey.

The city does list estimates from 2011
http://www.cityofnewhaven.com /cityplan/pdfs/Draft Databook Narrative/Chapter VI.pdf
(Get rid of the space to view the link. Page 30, you can also see ridership data for different bus routes a few pages before. The branches of the D and B lines are carrying over 1/2 the total traffic in the local system)
with 4% listed. If it was factually 4% in 2010 I imagine its crept up a couple of a tenths of a percentage point since then. And all of this comes with the caveat that if you have X amount of people biking to work on a regular basis, the number using a bicycle to say run errands or go out somewhere generally tends to be higher. To no one's surprise, East Rock topped the list with 14%, followed by Wooster/Mill and West Rock. East Shore, the Annex and Newhallville bottomed out the list. Interestingly enough the neighborhoods this cycle track would run through, namely Dwight and Westville, both have higher numbers than the city average(also if someone would like to comb the city's website to find more recent data that'd be fantastic).

I would have expected every property owner on Edgewood Avenue to be very vocal against the bike lane. When its painted luminescent lime green like the ones downtown it will look hideous. At least $50,000 will be lopped off the value of their houses in an instant.

MC

Thanks for the 411. If you subtract from NHV's 20.1 sqm, 3.44 sqm of parkland (NHV is notably heavy on parkland) and 1.4 sqm of water you're left with 15.66 sqm meaning that our pop density for developable land is actually 8350 per sqm. Still only half as dense as Copenhagens 17700 per sqm but about the same as L.A.

I'm an Alden Ave bike, bus and pedestrian commuter who supports the dedicated bike lane while promising to continue to spend $3.00 every morning at deja Bru.

I am also sympathetic to Carol's concerns for her business. With retail margins any change could sink or float the boat. I am confident that this one will result in the later but again I understand the anxiety.

Unless we want all of New Haven to turn into the mini-rundown-highway known as Whalley Ave between Westville and downtown (constantly filled with smog and cars), then more bike lanes are needed. The future of any liveable city is NOT more cars and more parking spots.

Making it easier for people to bike, walk, and feel safe around the city (maybe including separated bike lanes) should be applauded.

That being said, Edgewood being considered for this bike lane makes sense. The mini mall and 4 lane median offers plenty of space of parking, car lanes and bike lanes. Who uses that grassy median for anything anyway?

Great post BenBerkowitz. Hey Westville bikers, let's show our support for DejaBrew by making an extra effort to go buy a coffee or a sandwich, and let them know you support the bike lane, too.

How about the city do a test run on affected stretches of Edgewood by closing off a lane of traffic with cones for a week and see how it affects things. Would go a long way towards calming fears about adverse effects on traffic and parking. And would allow the city to identify potential problem areas before they invest in building the thing

@Noteworthy

On a personal level I am deeply upset about this proposal. I own a house without a driveway and depend on having parking in front of my house. It creates a significant hardship if I can't park near my house. On a more practical level, it would have a negative impacts on several small businesses and eliminates a large number of parking spaces in a primarily residential area. It also goes through two school zones where parents use the parking to drop off their children, and shares the same road as a major bus route. It also eliminates many parking spaces in an area that is primarily African American and has many apartment buildings and as far as I can tell largely benefits the primarily white and affluent area of Westville by make some people's commute slightly more comfortable. That is without even getting into the fact that the data supporting the safety of a dedicated bike lane on a street with so many intersections suggests that a best cyclists are no safer and at worse are actually less safe. I hope New Haven considers the negative effects of those who live on the street and get our input for once without ramming through a poorly thought out proposal that benefits a small but vocal minority.

Nathan,

"Anytime there is discussion of making a two-lane road into a single lane, however, the proposed plans should be checked carefully for components required to eliminate potential problems included stacked traffic behind left-turning vehicles. "

That isn't an issue on the Edgewood Avenue mall because oncoming traffic is separated so left turning cars never have to wait for oncoming traffic to stop so they can turn. In Westville, the street is already two-way with one lane each - no change there. East of Winthrop, Edgewood is one-way.

Noteworthy Notes

anonymous,

I have no horse in this race, but it does seem to me that the correlation between bike lanes and increased retail sales and property values needs a bit more nuance. To be clear: I think bike lanes are generally a good idea. However, they also largely seem to be a symptom of gentrification, and the complex factors that go into increased retail sales and property values should not be so hastily oversimplified.

New Haven Taxpayer and others are correct to point out that decisions should be made by listening to residents and small business owners. I applaud Marchand for his engagement with the community, and especially for his apology and assurances. How often do we get that from a politician?

The most enthusiastic proponents of bike lanes need to understand that they hurt their efforts by condescendingly implying that people are fools for not understanding statistics. Marchand seems to understand that this is about his constituents' lives and community as they experience it as much as it is about lessons from statistical analysis. Kudos for being open to multiple perspectives on the issue in the interests of the city.

Under no circumstances do drivers need wider streets or parking in the exact spot they desire, it's not a need, it's a want. Moreover, why is this special interest contentiously allowed to act like they have a monopoly on both the paying of taxes and tax expenditures as well as public infrastructure at the expense of anyone who isn't part of their group?

I feel like there are a few straw men being thrown around, nobody who is against this proposal is demanding wider streets for cars, simply that useable and useful parking not be taken away. Most of us who live on the street bought our properties or moved into apartments with the reasonable expectation that parking that we depend on would not removed based on an agenda that, while admirable, neglects the desires of many of the residents who will be most affected. I feel like many of the people responding do not spend much time on the street. To the people who think that cars are not parked on the street, come down the street in the evening, when people are home from work. Also please visit Edgewood school when students are arriving, the issue is not losing a travel lane, but a parking lane where 10-20 cars are parked so that parents can walk their children into school. There simply is no other place for people to park near the school. One must remember that among the sins of earlier periods of urban renewal, one is imposing an agenda on neighborhoods without any empathy or input from those that are adversely affected.

SOA

Not only do you not have any data for NHV to back up your use of the term "gentrification" but your alluding to the term as if it means a negative impact upon poor POC means that you're incredibly under informed on the subject and should be focused on the basic facts rather than nuances.

Refer to the exhaustive Vigdor study for a reality check,

The gentrification myth....
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/the_gentrification_myth_it_s_rare_and_not_as_bad_for_the_poor_as_people.html

SOA: The many studies from many different cities are easy to find, and none show business decreasing due to traffic calming and bike lanes. Gentrification is a long term trend; the studies that are being referred to are about immediate and sudden short-term increases in retail business after such improvements are put in. I agree there are other considerations, but the evidence that traffic calming and bike lanes can dramatically boost business, by up to 400%, in a variety of contexts is pretty solid.

Case in point, much of the cycling traffic currently bypasses Deja Brew because Edgewood is too dangerous to ride on. Local residents bike on Yale Avenue, a block over. Changing that situation would bring many more customers past Deja Brew, both cyclists as well as drivers who will be more likely to stop for a coffee if 1) the street is slower enabling drivers to see the business and 2) the street is safe to park on without getting your car totaled.

"largely benefits the primarily white area"
Folks who write stuff like this need a reality check. Spend some time at our local workforce agencies dealing with young men and populations of people returning from prison. Ask them 1) how they get to jobs and 2) whether they ever expect to be able to afford a car.

The "small, vocal minority" in this case are older homeowners and married couples with several cars and a net worth that is 50-100 times higher than that of the typical city resident. They are ignoring the needs of their over 90,000 (out of 130,000) city resident neighbors who don't drive a car to work each day, who don't have the access to transportation or the time to go out to public hearings.

posted by: robn on July 25, 2015 5:08pm

SOA

Not only do you not have any data for NHV to back up your use of the term "gentrification" but your alluding to the term as if it means a negative impact upon poor POC means that you're incredibly under informed on the subject and should be focused on the basic facts rather than nuances.

Refer to the exhaustive Vigdor study for a reality check,

B.S.Read this reality check.

Gentrification May Be Complicated, But It's Not a Myth and Neither Is Displacement By Kim Velsey

In a recent Slate article, John Buntin, a correspondent for Governing magazine, argues that gentrification is a myth, a claim that we've certrainly heard before. And much like his predecessors, Mr. Buntin bases this claim on two premises: that displacement is a fiction and that gentrification, or what we erroneously call gentrification, is not only incredibly rare, but a good thing for poor minorities living in bad neighborhoods. It's a contrary position, and like many contrary positions, it claims to add nuance when in fact it elides it. And perhaps most importantly, Mr. Buntin's argument is simply wrong.

http://observer.com/2015/01/gentrification-may-be-complicated-but-its-not-a-myth-and-neither-is-displacement/


Who says gentrification is a myth?
John Buntin wrote in Slate last month that gentrification is a "myth,


http://grist.org/cities/who-says-gentrification-is-a-myth/



Trending Topics:

more..
dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors


Part one.

Part two.

Gentrification is no myth

Paul Moses

Slate's recent article "The Myth of Gentrification" is the latest journalistic attempt to argue that gentrification is not really displacing the urban poor from their homes. The claim: "It's extremely rare and not as bad for the poor as you think."

You will not actually see poor people quoted in these stories because, well, that's anecdotal. So let's look at the data.

This school of thought relies heavily on work by Lance Freeman of Columbia University, who found that residents of low-income, gentrifying neighborhoods were statistically less likely to move out than were residents of poor communities that were not gentrifying. It's not surprising because the poor also want to live in neighborhoods that are safe and attractive.

But there is more to Professor Freeman's work than that. In one talk I attended, he said he also found that poor households living in gentrifying neighborhoods "had an average rent burden of 62 percent," which he said was "astronomical." He added: "The people who were staying were paying exorbitant amounts of their income toward rent." His work is no remedy for upper-middle-class guilt over gentrification.

Eventually, poor people paying exorbitant rents or doubling up in overcrowded apartments will often be forced to move to less costly housing or seek shelter for the homeless. In gentrifying neighborhoods, wealthier people will replace them. That's no myth. It's gentrification

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/gentrification-no-myth

Like I said New haven is next.

I, too, am a homeowner on Edgewood Avenue. I am also a car owner who pays vehicle taxes. I believe in public transportation and opportunities for folks of all ages to ride their bikes safely for transportation.

I am all for these bike lanes.

Deja Brew is a wonderful cafe that is knit seamlessly into the Westville neighborhood. I frequented the cafe when I lived in New Haven up until 2011, and I have missed it in the years since I left. Deja Brew is a New Haven gem, and I haven't found anything like it in the city where I now live.

I lived in Downtown New Haven and often biked to Westville. While it is a decent ride overall, it would be greatly enhanced by adding bike lanes on Edgewood. The lanes would make a greater proportion of people feel safe riding on Edgewood while also helping reduce traffic speeds, making the street feel safer for all users. Vehicles tend to drive too fast on Edgewood, especially in the areas near the park. This is especially troubling given the speeds at which vehicles blow past Edgewood Elementary School at the corner of Edgewood and Yale Ave. Bike lanes are a proven way to reduce traffic speeds.

Bike lanes also tend to raise property values and contribute to neighborhood desirability, two trends which seem as though they would work in Deja Brew's favor.

I appreciate the need for adequate parking near businesses, particularly for customers who are mobility impaired, have small children, etc. However, I think it's important to bear in mind the large proportion of customers, such as myself, who reach Deja Brew by foot, transit, or bicycle.
If anything, the customers who spend less on driving and maintaining cars are the ones who have more spare money to spend in the shop. Personally, I would definitely have been enticed to visit Deja Brew even more often had there been a bike lane on Edgewood back while I still lived in New Haven.

Giving up a few parking spaces in order to achieve a Complete Street on Edgewood is a net win for the neighborhood. It will make the blocks around Deja Brew more attractive, safe, kid-friendly, and accessible, which can only be good news for boosting business at the cafe.

3/5,

There you go again. The MYTH of gentrification is not that it exists, the myth is that it is, in all or a majority of cases, bad. You cite the Freeman research; did you ever stop to think that a poor person might pay 62% of their modest income to live in an improving neighborhood because they really want to live in a nice safe place? not a slum? Besides, in terms of safety nets, New Haven has one of the highest percentages of subsidized public housing in the nation; the city provides that option for the poor.

The Vigdor study spanned several decades and showed clearly that poor people moved away from so called gentrified neighborhoods at a lower rate than they did from other neighborhoods.

Bottom line

When bleeding heart liberals use misnomers like "gentrification" in a falsely negative way to resist property improvement in the city (and corresponding value increase) they're hurting poor people, not helping them because poor people need jobs and jobs come from prosperity.

New Haven is improving, not gentrifying. Get with the program.

Tbh at the moment I'd say bike lanes probably do benefit white people more. There's some kind of cultural difference at play. Part of it is income, wealtheir neighborhoods have more cyclists, arguably people are more attracted to cycling when its a personal choice, not a forced requirememt. Part of this is probably stigma(a lot of people view cycling as for those who are in poverty or got a DUI), a stigma you're less likely to worry about the better off your life is. Part of it is probably cultural, bicycling for commuting is definitely seen as a super white people thing outside of maybe NYC. And there's truth in that. I mean look at the city's own data, Newhallville, a very poor section of town where many people don't own cars(or only have 1 per family) had the lowest rate of cycling to work in the city. A statistical 0, even the suburbs were listed at 1%. Part of its probably practical, a lot of people probably don't want to bike to work in the summer or winter to in turn trudge away at their $9.75/hr where they're on their feet all day then in turn bike back home if a bus is available.

With all that being said though, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change the status quo. The bus can still eat a decent chunk of cash if you're using it frequently, meanwhile all income and ethnic groups across this country are being ravaged by the health effects of being overweight(which is also collectively costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year) which is in part due to our lack of exercise

anonymous,

I have no doubt that those studies exist, and I have an immense amount of respect for the statistical work you do. What I took issue with was a very specific statement in your first comment:

"In New Haven, look at retail sales and property values on Orange Street pre- and post-2003. Westville used to be more expensive than East Rock if you look at unit value. After bike lane installation that changed."

What year did the Yale Shuttle begin Orange St. service? What neighborhood changes pre-exist the Yale Shuttle & bike lanes? How do the Yale Shuttle & bike lanes respond to and further those changes?

Again, I bring this up not to oppose the bike lane plan (I think it should be up to the neighborhood, not me), nor to dispute the national statistics you cite in your response. I bring it up because it is a misleading insinuation based on an oversimplified comparison.

I would also be curious to know what other streets in the city are being looked at for bike lanes. If the statistics in New Haven on bike commuters cited in other comments are correct, are there also bike lane proposals in the works for Davenport, Goffe, Dixwell, Grand, and Chapel?

In general, I think it would be good to acknowledge that bike line proposals have been a lightning rod issue in many cities around the country. I think this bike proponent in Portland does a good job doing that in this article from back in 2011:

"As a white male who uses a bike as my primary mode of transportation, my initial reaction to these reports was one of reflexive defensiveness. After all, the health and environmental benefits of cycling are well-documented and universally beneficial. But it's worth reconsidering our assumptions. The pet causes of affluent whites have long received more attention than immediate issues affecting those in disadvantaged communities. And while making bicyclists safer on the road might seem to benefit everyone, such city infrastructure initiatives have complex political, race and class components."

(http://www.shareable.net/blog/are-bike-lanes-expressways-to-gentrification)

There are plenty of other perspectives out there that also do more than just dismiss bike lane skepticism. I'm not a big fan of this one, but others may find it useful:
https://urbanful.org/2014/11/17/do-bike-lanes-gentrify-neighborhoods/

Like I said in my initial post, bike lane advocates in New Haven can do a lot better of a job communicating beyond "There's no such thing as gentrification so your concerns are invalid," or "Let's bring our money into the neighborhood so we get our way." I think there are some problems with this report by PeopleForBikes and the Alliance for Biking & Walking, but it is certainly something I think other commenters might want to take a look at:

"Building Equity: Race, Ethnicity, Class and Protected Bike Lanes"
http://b.3cdn.net/bikes/60e4ef1291e083cada_8ym6ip7pw.pdf

Most people's comments seem to based on the assumption that this proposal would make bikers safer, but that is a dubious assumption. If you look at the results of studies the conclusions are that bicycle lanes make bikers safer under certain conditions. On hIgh speed roads with few intersections they make bikers much safer.
However, the proposal for Edgewood is likely to make bikers much less safe. With dedicated bike lanes bikers are safer on the parts of the road with no interchanges and significantly less safe at interchanges due to the fact that both bikers and motorists are less aware of each other and bike lanes make bikers feel safer and there are more instances where bikers are less adherent too the rules of the road. Edgewood ave has 26 intersections in approximately 2.5 miles. Studies also show that when on street parking is taken away due to a bike lane it means significantly more turning due the the fact that people have to turn onto side streets to find parking. Remember, these are largely residential areas, people's cars will still exist and they will have to be parked somewhere. The proposal will almost certainly increases the number of people using bikes, but will likely make them less safe and lead to a number of collisions at intersections. I am not against bike lanes, but I feel like people are stating with the idea that we have to put in bike lane and that they are always good without asking critical questions of the specific proposals. If we only are looking to promote biking, sure, this will do that, as long as we don't care that many of these bikers will end up on the hood of cars turning right or under the wheels of busses that have to veer into the bike lanes to pick up riders.

posted by: robn on July 26, 2015 8:07am

When bleeding heart liberals use misnomers like "gentrification" in a falsely negative way to resist property improvement in the city (and corresponding value increase) they're hurting poor people, not helping them because poor people need jobs and jobs come from prosperity.

New Haven is improving, not gentrifying. Get with the program.

Get your facts.Bleeding heart liberals that you talk about are a part of Gentrification along with the heartless One percenters

Liberalism and Gentrification
Gentrification isn't a cultural phenomenon — it's a class offensive by powerful capitalist


https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/liberalism-and-gentrification/



And New Haven is not improving.It will get worse before it will get better.So you better get with that program.

Eventually, poor people paying exorbitant rents or doubling up in overcrowded apartments will often be forced to move to less costly housing or seek shelter for the homeless. In gentrifying neighborhoods, wealthier people will replace them. That's no myth. It's gentrification.

Lance Freeman

@noteworthy: turns out I my haste I did make a mistake. I read the quote as "It is your job to know HOW it impacts me". So to correct myself of course any intelligent person would know that any change would impact Déjà Brew. The questions are in how many ways and what is the delta, positive or negative. The Alder arranged a meeting because there would be impacted parties if the plan goes through as-is. So that job is getting done.

The circular path here, which may be a result of the article making hay with a moment of conflict, is this: folks are piling on for not being included, when does this get expressed? As feedback collected at the kickoff of a long inclusion process. The follow up fails to recognize that public opinion is being sought, but that doesn't matter because we should scuttle the plan anyway, so here is some grief for even having a discussion of your horrible plan. Now make sure we aren't left out of any discussions about topics which impact us yet should never arise because of our assumption that things go our way without discussion.

As for me, i am grateful for the back and forth. I am learning that the school situation is probably the biggest challenge, but one that seems crying out for improvement no matter what. So yes, let's get a good discussion going and get the best ideas we can, and act on them.

My reason for including bike lanes into any conversation about traffic calming: Any person using the roads outside of a vehicle will probably contribute to safer streets everywhere, no matter the point of origin. How many people, even those I salute for taking the bus, notice that there are some intersections that are in dire need of walk lights for kids and strollers, walkers etc? If we accept that change is needed for multiuse then good things will happen, even if compromise is needed.

3/5,

Here's the two competing scenarios

Yours: Keep convincing poor people that their neighborhood will improve via govt assistance via other taxpayers because otherwise there will be no capital expenditure and therefore no improvement.

Mine: Embrace outside investment because widespread housing stock improvement does all sorts of things like increases the grand list to pay for schools; create service micro economies such as house maintenance, renovation, cleaning, lawn care (the things people with limited education can do); creates need for local businesses such as food and bev, retail, auto maintenence, etc.

Yours = wishful thinking

Mine = actual potential improvement

At over 60 comments, the constructiveness of this conversation is probably waning. However, here are my two cents:

Deja Brew is great! It is a wonderful neighborhood institution. And the reaction of the owner and some of her other patrons is pretty typical, if the experience of other cities is any indicator. When infrastructure projects like this are proposed, there are often many people who worry about the loss of parking; often many retail businesses fear loss of sales because of parking spaces are taken out. However, this usually never happens. A good primer on this can be found at Citylab, covering 12 different studies. It can be found here:

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

I have looked at this issue a lot and I've never seen any studies in which bike lanes actually make bikers less safe, particularly protected by clients like the ones proposed here. Statistically speaking protected bike lanes reduce injuries big time. See:

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/protected-bike-lane-statistics

At over 60 comments, the constructiveness of this conversation is probably waning. However, here are my two cents:

Deja Brew is great! It is a wonderful neighborhood institution. And the reaction of the owner and some of her other patrons is pretty typical, if the experience of other cities is any indicator. When infrastructure projects like this are proposed, there are often many people who worry about the loss of parking; often many retail businesses fear loss of sales because of parking spaces are taken out. However, this usually never happens. A good primer on this can be found at Citylab, covering 12 different studies. It can be found here:

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-converting-street-parking-into-bike-lanes/387595/

I have looked at this issue a lot and I've never seen any studies in which bike lanes actually make bikers less safe, particularly protected by clients like the ones proposed here. Statistically speaking protected bike lanes reduce injuries big time. See:

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/protected-bike-lane-statistics

But this project isn't just about making biking safer. It isn't just about increasing the number of people who feel comfortable biking, and thus increasing those who bike, which protected by claims often too. It isn't just about reducing the gender disparity in biking, which would protected bike lanes often do. It isn't just about promoting public health or helping the environment, which these all do.

The project has great safety benefits for pedestrians, particularly children and the elderly who have to cross Edgewood. Cars coming off of Forest Rd. or go way too fast. Adding the protected lane is what some people call a "road diet," narrowing the with of the road, which tends to slow speeds and makes the road easier to cross. Here is the highway administration on the benefits of road diets:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/ch2.cfm

Finally, as usual, bike infrastructure is being maligned as the province of the elites, without any factual basis whatsoever. In fact, the data is exactly the opposite. The US Census Bureau has a pretty good blog post on "who bikes" here: (Hint: it's disproportionately lower income individuals.)

http://blogs.census.gov/2014/05/08/who-bikes-to-work-in-america/

@3/5s: gentrification is the new RMS luxury rent building at Chapel and Howe and Yale's investment in Science Park. It is not bicyclists or biking lanes.

@Robn: trolling for more development to grow the tax base is a failed strategy. Taxing our billionaire "non-profits" would bring instantaneous tax relief.

DS,

You wrote, "trolling for more development to grow the tax base is a failed strategy".

Except when its not. I'm not even talking about chasing development...I'm talking about a future in which our city culture doesn't resist development by rote (look no further than your last comment about Chapel and Howe as proof).
The resuscitation of East Rock during the 90's was done by many individuals and it brought in enough property tax value, combined with East Shore and Westville to essentially subsidize the rest of the city during the last 15 years. The only reason why other neighborhoods don't follow with prosperous redevelopment of the excellent housing stock is the knee jerk mistrust of outsiders (its a toxic mix of poverty, racism, and constant overtures by bleeding heart liberals that "programs" will solve everything.) (Note : I exclude from my criticism the amazing efforts of Newhallville residents because I think they are the next great hope for neighborhood redev in NHV)

Edgewood Resident:

It's OK to have your own opinions, but here are a few facts:

I feel the need to respond to anonymous ant the attempt to educate my about the "facts" to inform my "opinions." I admit I have bias. If this goes through as proposed I will likely have to sell the home I love and move elsewhere. This is not a theoretical issues for me. However, in the interests of intellectual honesty I feel like one must understand that you can have facts that exist on both sides and as far as I can tell there are no studies that address the unique problems of edgewood ave as a location for a cycle track. To respond:

Edgewood Resident: Edgewood is similar to the tens of thousands of other streets that have protected bike lanes. Like the other cities, New Haven also has schools, intersections, and buses. I appreciate your concern that the bike lane is designed in a way that will dramatically increase the overall level of safety and comfort for people whether they drive, bike, or walk. That's precisely the reason why virtually every other city is installing so many of them.

EDGEWOODRESIDENT,

Honest question; is the sole reason that you're considering selling your house based on your belief that parking in front of your house will no longer be available?

Yes, I have been very clear in every post that I have a vested interest in this. I have been honest in where I'm coming from. Losing parking is my primary, but not only concern. I am not against bike lanes, I would be happy to have one on Edgewood so long as it is safe and does not adversely affect parking for the residents. Remember, it is the main concern of the residents to protect their interests, no one who lives on another street really cares, because it won't affect them. I think it would be fine to have a one way bike lane on Edgewood, preserve all of the parking and have a return loop down Chapel. Problem is, I've been told people on Chapel don't want a bike lane either. Part of my issue is finding out that plans have been in the works, and the only way was because it accidentally came up in a meeting and was covered in the NHI. It seems like people automatically assumed the a bike lane is good, found the widest street and started to work. My hope is that there is enough conversation that they have to get input in the planning stages rather than having it completely designed and then selling it it to residents. I just want them to think about the human cost, because even if the bike lane is wildly successful, it still only will be beneficial to a small minority of people.

Re: benefitting a small minority
The same could be said about parking spaces on most stretches of Edgewood

Elmwood resident-

This didn't "accidentally come up" at the meeting. Alder Marchand alerted people through his email & Facebook that he was going to discuss this issue. He gave advance notice. He also posted on Facebook about the proposal & asked constituents to weigh in.

Traffic & Parking spoke to the Independent about this proposal months ago & the Independent ran a story on that too. City leaders have worked to alert people to the project.

We all have interests in the streets that we don't live directly on. They are our common property, although I understand how it affects you in a unique way. I live around the corner & the neighbors I have spoken to all think this is a great project. However, losing parking directly in front of your home is something the rest of us are not dealing with. There are two key factors that may offer some consolation: first, wherever projects like this have been processed, they almost always improve property values. Some statistics here:
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/economic-statistics

Second, the block Central Ave. between West Elm and Edgewood is actually much more tightly packed with many more multifamily homes. It only has parking on one side of the street. It's still manages to accommodate everyone's parking needs. That is a direct comparison.

Finally, you are incorrect that this only benefits a minority of people. This benefits everyone who uses Edgewood Avenue. It is true that it uniquely benefits cyclists & people who would like to bike, but feel threatened by the traffic. However, it also benefits drivers & other pedestrians. My kids walk to Edgewood school and Deja Brew all the time. They bike around the neighborhood & have to cross Edgewood. Tragic on Edgewood is dangerous to them an other pedestrians. These lanes will help reduce the traffic speed, which will protect their lives and the lives of all people who cross the street. Nothing is more important than that.

It would be interesting to hear how Alder Marchand would feel if this bike lane was proposed on West Elm where he lives- he has no driveway and is not allowed to park on the other side. Would he be ok with parking on Central or Marvel and giving up the space in front of his house? Perhaps so, but I'm curious.

Madcap- except one small minority owns the house adjacent or near the parking space. A much different situation.

If homes without driveways are losing their parking because of the cycle-track, the City could always help them through zoning, and the process of a special exemption for front-yard parking. (Properly landscaped.)

That could end up being a win-win solution.

Back to the issue of lost parking...the illustration shows preserved parking on the divided portion of Edgewood. Can somebody clarify whether the plan would remove parking on the undivided part and why? And if so, why can't the bike lanes just go external in that case? The undivided portion is the same width as Orange Street. And like Orange Street, if one of the residents doors a cyclist they can deal with the repercussions of a lawsuit (note that cyclists already have the right of way to ride down that street whether the project moves forward or not...it shouldn't take the specter of a lawsuit to promote it.)

From NHI's previous story:
"Assuming everyone signs off, we're constructing it in May," Hausladen said."

• interesting comment
  
  "The bike lane would be six feet wide, beside a four-foot buffer marked by the delineators and striping. Next to that would be an eight-foot-wide parking lane. Next to that would be a larger single lane for car travel."
  
• on the separated portion, we're not losing any parking spots
  
  "Conuilstant Balksus, who is working on the Edgewood project for the city, said the lane running eastbound would be separated from cars by delineators and striping for part of the way, but not the whole way. Going westbound—from Winthrop to Yale Avenues— the lane would not be separated from traffic, he said. Part of the road is too narrow for a separate lane, he said, so the city would cotninue relying on painted "sharrows" there."
  
• clearly there are considerations taken for the width of current roadways, sounds like a lot of misinformation in this comment thread
  
  I live half a block from Deja Brew and bike daily to my job downtown NH via Edgewood (the only time parking is limited is pick-up/drop-off times at Edgewood School), I find Edgewood to be one of the safer roads to travel in NH from Westville to Winthrop due to there being ample space.
  
  Once Edgweood becomes a 2-lane, 1-way street (starting at Winthrop, heading eastbound) it becomes quite treacherous. However, I find this to be the case on most 2-lane (or more, I'm looking at you Elm St), 1-way roads in NHV. Speeds increase, concern for cyclists decreases.
  
  I think the (forgotten?) plan to convert NHV's 1-way streets into 2-way would have a much greater impact on all modes of travel compared to protected bike lanes. Since the plans were unveiled, only one block has been converted, right? Can the NHI do a follow-up on this?
  
  Realtor: "Why are you selling your house? Is it the crime? The high taxes? Are you moving out of the area?"
  
  Homeowner: "No, it's this damn protected bike lane"

I own a home on Central Avenue between West Elm and Edgewood Avenue. My family owns two cars. Between the four members of our family we patronize Deja Brew several times a week. I drive most days, but also commute to work downtown by bicycle on some.

I also strongly support the separated cycle track as on element in a comprehensive effort to (1) promote commuting alternatives(The cycle track would encourage me to ride more often); (2) promote safer bicycle riding for resident enjoyment and fitness; (3) reduce traffic speeds through residential neighborhoods in which wide roads with relatively little on-street parking utilization allows cars to regularly hit speeds of 50-60 mph driving on Edgewood Ave and other residential streets; and (4) develop the infrastructure which makes the City attractive to younger residents, supports property values, and encourages families to remain in the City particularly when they have the means and opportunity to move elsewhere.

Agree with Edward. Given the overwhelming shift in commuting modes nationally and in New Haven, providing better bike, pedestrian and bus access is the most critical, if not only, way to maintain property values in neighborhoods like Westville. As Jason Stockmann points out above, improving access and safety would also bring hundreds of customers to Westville businesses and make parking more accessible for those who need it.

Please don't simply support this proposal because you support biking initiatives. Here is an article on a pro-bike website that gives a short and concise argument against this particular type of plan and why many cities have moved away from these types of designs. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
Again, this is not like the bike lanes on Orange Street, I think many people would support something like that. This is a two way cycle-track on one side of the road of a busy two way street. If you travel southbound in a car and cross Edgewood you would first have to look both ways for cycles and then both ways for cars. Maybe people have more faith in the attentiveness and caution of new haven drivers, but I do not. Let's go back to the drawing board and find a solution that works better than this one.

Edgewood - Except that the photo at the top of the page shows a one-way protected cycle track, which is exactly what the author of the piece you linked to is recommending for use in most situations. The author points out that two-way tracks are great to use along parks, which includes much of Edgewood Avenue, of course. As always, the devil is in the details. For example, keep in mind that many intersections along Edgewood involve one-way streets (similar to many cities in the Netherlands he is complaining about), so the comments by the author likely would not apply here in those cases either. In other cases, the route may go through less densely populated neighborhoods where visibility issues are different from those in major urban centers like Amsterdam. Dozens of U.S. cities and towns are installing these each year, and I'm sure New Haven will continue to heed the federal and state guidance on best practices as it proceeds.

The one way protected section only starts where there is a median on Edgewood. The section through Westville is two ways next to one another on one side of the street. There are no parks in that section. Also, I think almost every intersection in Westville is a 4-way intersection. This is exactly what the article addresses. Also, other places are doing it and I'm sure we can trust people to do a good job are not that convincing.

It would seem to me that some amount of compromise could be made on both sides of the issue. Edgewood in this area is around 40 feet in width and should be able to accommodate one lane of travel and one bike lane in each direction, as well as on-street parking on one side. Parking turnover is important for retail, so there should probably be parking meters near stores and coffee shops, with relatively short time limits on parking to encourage turnover.

In the big picture, bike lanes are a harbinger that the city's policy is to be more sustainable. Hard to argue against that when we know non-motorized travel creates virtually no pollution, increases health, consumes less space all compared to automobile travel.

Someone should look into how much parking 'demand' there is currently associated with Deja Brew.

Quick google search finds a bunch of studies on positive impacts of adding bike lanes:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=bike lanes economic impact . Makes sense that adding bike lanes can induce more non-motorized travel. More foot and bike traffic traveling by may perhaps be more inclined to stop in at a shop to spend money as compared to that same person passing by in an automobile.

This thread is exhausted but for the record: I talked with Carol and the meeting in question was about traffic calming for the area. The bike lane issue was not the main reason for calling the meeting, it was an item.

Carol does have insights about the data arguments and the school situation, over and above her own shop's future.

The parking/traffic situation can't go on without improvement. If anything removes the two-lane bike lane from contention, IMHO it will be the fallout from a school with inadequate parking for its staff.

Vision Zero. Carol Frawley is right and Doug Hausladen is wrong. According to retail expert Bob Gibbs, every on street parking space, properly managed, brings in an average of $200,000 in annual retail sales at adjacent businesses, more in shopping districts, less in one-off locations. According to most advanced transportation experts, "complete streets," including separating modes into multiple designated lanes, actually contributes to accident and injury. The effect of the separate lanes makes car drivers feel safer, and when car drivers feel safer, they drive faster, leading to more serious accidents.

Worst of all, all the traffic lanes create nightmares for walkers trying to cross complete streets. If safety is objective, better to start making street safe for the most vulnerable, the walkers. Make streets no more than two lanes and lanes as narrow as possible, never 12', max 10', AASHTO allows 9', push for 8'. The narrower the lane the slower the car speeds, the slower the car speeds the safer the environment. At slower speeds, bikes (and pedestrians) feel comfortable sharing lanes with cars. Everyone feels AND is much safer.

Read Hank Dittmar's post "London Needs a Walker's Charter" (http://m.bdonline.co.uk/5076774.article?mobilesite=enabled), and think how a Walker's Charter could apply to New Haven. Vision Zero.

PS. If one were to get rid of one way streets, including allowing one lane 2-way streets (the safest of all streets), the huge increase in choices for people to select to get to their destinations means that people can get to where they are going quicker, even though they are traveling at much slower speeds. Sometime, take a moment and add up all the hundreds of extra miles you travel and extra $$$ of fuel you waste taking oblique zig-zag routes because of being thwarted by one-way streets. One-way streets were created when gasoline was 25¢/gallon and cars were about muscle and speed. Read up on Vision Zero, then champion the Walker's Charter!

I'd like to see your sources behind the first 2 statements. Complete streets if done right usually entails reducing the number the vehicle lanes and reducing vehicle lane widths to as narrow as possible -allowing space to be converted over for us solely by bikes, peds, and/or as new green space. Totally shared space streets are usually only applicable in very dense urban areas, which Edgewood is not.