New Haven Independent

posted by: anon on June 7, 2010  1:16pm

There are 200+ miles of roads in the city of New Haven. 

How come just three of these, and all in the relatively wealthier sections of town?

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on June 7, 2010  1:16pm

I’m not the biggest fan of roundabouts, it would prefer to see this street repaved with cobblestone. But a roundabout is a cheaper way to address this issues, we’ll see if it works.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on June 7, 2010  1:56pm

Ruins one of the last great driving excitements of the city.

posted by: streever on June 7, 2010  2:08pm

Awesome! I suspect drivers will come to love the roundabouts, which move traffic more efficiently (Faster!) and safer than yes/no lights.

Why aren’t there more, Anon? I doubt my answer will matter to you, but let’s be honest, people in New Haven are skeptical. We need to introduce these as quickly as we can & I think we’ll see people embrace them when they get used to them.

posted by: Eli Antonio on June 7, 2010  2:08pm

Good to see the city of new haven has put these “traffic calming” thingies in two of the Whitest (meaning lots of caucation folk) neighborhoods in new haven. also the home neigborhood of the independent’s founder i believe.
Is there no need for this kind of safety device on Quinnipiac Ave or lower chapel st in Fair Haven? are the boulevard and kimberly ave in the hill so safe and free of speeders that they shouldn’t feel left out?  i’m assuming Whalley, Dixwell and Goffe are “judged” to be safe enough?

[Editor’s note: I live near that area, but not in that neighborhood.]

posted by: Pedro Soto on June 7, 2010  2:26pm

anon, I’m rolling my eyes. It’s a START! The bar that you set is apparently so high that even when a ROUNDABOUT APPEARS ON A CITY STREET you are not happy.

Yes, keep pressure to get these elsewhere for the city, but by simply saying “meh, what about x, y and z,” it makes it seem like you won’t be happy until all 200 miles in this city are redesigned to your apparently exacting standards.

It’s got to start somewhere! First it’s 3 roundabouts, then hopefully more. Once people get used to this and their positive benefits , there will be even MORE public pressure to get intersections redesigned this way.

posted by: Pedro Soto on June 7, 2010  2:28pm

Jonathan, take a look at the plans, the roundabout itself is actually textured, stamped concrete, which should also help keep speeds down with the textured change.

posted by: Jon Doe on June 7, 2010  2:40pm

I’m wondering how the city is going to afford roundabouts for every street that need traffic calming?

We just had our community at the police sub station here in Fair Haven and several resident tyred to discuss these issues with the Lt. in charge of our area. He told us in a nutshell he has 10 officers scheduled a week and between answering calls he doesn’t have the man power to address resident complaints of racing, blowing stop signs and illegal ATV’s on our streets.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the $225,000 to spend on police officer patrolling streets of the entire city going after these guys. The city would also make a few bucks with written violations.

posted by: streever on June 7, 2010  2:44pm

Thumbs up Pedro! Good point. I can’t wait until all 200 miles of New Haven have these, but this is a great start.

Actually, to the commentators who are wondering why this is only in the nice neighborhoods, obviously this is a gross over-simplification, but I’ve seen pushback from poor neighborhoods on a lot of improvements. Examples:
Street trees: “Criminals will hide behind them”
Bike Lanes: “People using bikes are usually up to no good”

No joke, this is what I’ve been told by alders & active neighbors in areas which could certainly use traffic improvements & livability improvements. That’s why it’s a slow process. You put it in an area that really WANTS it, that is asking for it, and when you can demonstrate that it works, you start exporting it to the neighborhoods that pushed back.

Yes, it’s a process. It takes time & patience. That’s what a democracy is, though. It’s only dictatorships that have no problem getting anything done—checks & balances & community involvement mean that we get a better result in the end, although yes, it at times is frustrating to wait.

posted by: alexey on June 7, 2010  4:11pm

Jonathan,

I know you pine for a return to the 18th century.  But, cobblestone streets.  Really?  I hope the roundabout works, as the closing of West Park Avenue between Pendleton and Edgewood did not (at least insofar as slowing traffic).  I don’t believe the neighborhood is as white or wealthy as some people seem to believe.  And, more (or really, any) traffic enforcement anywhere in the city would be welcome.

posted by: Eli Antonio on June 7, 2010  4:36pm

Pedro & Streever, the point of the matter is that the only street islands or whatever we’re calling them are in probably the two most overwhelmingly white neighborhoods in new haven - aside from maybe east rock, which has really the only viable bike lane in the city.  These are 100% pure facts.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on June 7, 2010  6:35pm

Eli,
West Park Avenue was laid out around 1910 as a gracious street to separate the private residences of a new subdivision from the public park. The Edgewood neighborhood was developed relatively late in New Haven’s history and only did so because of trolley lines that made it viable land since a major waterway or rail line was not close. Closer to the center of the city it is working and middle class, while closer to the park it was built as quite an elite development of extremely high quality homes.
As the automobile became more accessible to lower and middle income families, the width of West Park Avenue went from being a form-based aesthetic benefit to being another misused street in the city with high speed driving.
Woodward Ave in the East Shore Area is so wide because it originally had a trolley line that ran to the beach. Once that was torn up in the 50s, cars were given much more space which translated to much more speeding.
If we look at the lower income areas of the city, they are typically in the older working class neighborhoods were streets are relatively narrow, blocks are short, parking is on the street, and there are many more cues that slow traffic down than there are in the more spaciously designed upper class neighborhoods.

Also it is too soon to bring this up. If after 30 or so roundabouts have been put in and there is a clear problem, then we can talk about it, but right now there are only 3-not enough to tell us anything.

Alexey,
My neighborhood was designed in the 20th century and I like it very much. Sure there are some great design tips we can learn from that came out of the 18th century, but that’s about it. The reason I say cobblestone is because a couple years ago when the city was milling the streets, they left the old cobble stone road exposed for a couple weeks before they repaved it with asphalt and during those two weeks cars slowed down noticeably and actually stopped in the correct place for the stop sign. With the road paved with asphalt, a new stop sign and the new crosswalk and stop line painted (finished 2 weeks ago) there have already been two accidents within just 1 week. Cobble stone may be old, but it works just fine. It is also a permeable paving material, which means water is adsorbed into the ground instead of funneled into the sewer system.

Pedro,
I prefer the clean, simply lines of traditional street design over the complicated and aggressive aesthetics of contemporary traffic calming design. I would rather address the issues of speeding, dangerous driving, etc through other means and not change the character of the city’s streets and if possible actually restore them to their pre-1930s appearance. I don’t really care for the curb bump outs, concrete pillars, painted lines, etc it looks over-designed to me.
I would rather try to first provide more viable transportation alternatives, less oneway streets, mandatory on-street parking, fewer curb cuts for driveways and some other measures before changing the streets themselves.

posted by: Sharon Lovett-Graff on June 7, 2010  6:48pm

Has anyone thought more about adding speed bumps to some of our streets/raceways? There are two in Edgewood Park, near the parking lot of the tennis courts and it has really helped. I would think that these are probably cheaper to add to busy streets than the concrete circles. I’d love to offer West Rock Ave, going into Whalley, as a place to start. It a very fun street to speed on, of course,  until someone gets hurt. By the way, yes snow plows can get over speed bumps, the city of Chicago has speed bumps on almost every side street, and they get a lot more snow than we do.

posted by: Chicwa on June 7, 2010  7:58pm

They didn’t mention the roundabout that is going to be deployed on Edwards and Livingstone St in East Rock (it’s already marked). So I guess East Rock is covered after all.

It seems they wanted to introduce them in neighborhoods where there would be little resistance. As far as trends go, it’s a good place to start.

Coming from a city that went roundabout and speed hump crazy years ago, I can tell you that, while roundabouts have their place, they are not ideal at every type of intersection.

Roundabouts work under the principle of yielding to vehicles already on the roundabout, thus slowing traffic, but keeping it continually moving. However, if one of the roads is substantially busier than the other there will be a constant stream of vehicles, exacerbated by the fact that the roundabout is also a traffic calming measure, that will constantly occupy the roundabout, making it very difficult for cars trying to enter from the less trafficed road.

In these cases a 4 way stop sign is more effective, in my opinion, but try telling that to city official who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on roundabouts. Once these things are in, they will never be removed. So, lets think about where they could best work, instead of just plonking them down where we think they might work.

posted by: anon on June 7, 2010  8:24pm

If you think that 3 roundabouts in a city this size is acceptable, why have you not considered that our neighborhoods—and not just East Rock, Westville, Wooster Square and East Shore—have been clamoring for roundabouts for years?

Look at the Dwight Neighborhood Plan from several years back, or the work Fair Haven has done.  Roundabouts have been requested and drawn into neighborhood plans for decades. 

Just because one Alderperson said something doesn’t mean you can generalize about every low-income neighborhood in the entire city. 

Just because the city seems to think that advocates only live in our city’s rich neighborhoods (e.g., the ones who mostly use SeeClickFix or have the resources to show up at City Hall at 7PM on a Tuesday) doesn’t mean that people in our working-class neighborhoods don’t clamor for the same things.

Do you ever leave your neighborhood?

On a related note, I noticed a beautiful roundabout (with a ped median) was striped in East Rock today, at the corner of Edwards and Livingston. 

Great, but when will the city start doing something to make our African American and Latino neighborhoods more livable? Why do neighborhood plans that have been sitting out for years get ignored while our upper middle class neighborhoods get fancy roundabouts, while all along the traffic activists (who are not from those neighborhoods) defend the city for moving so slowly (i.e., doing nothing)?

Also, the new roundabout at West Park is a big improvement over the current situation (where traffic regularly flows at speeds of over 50 miles per hour—stand out with a radar gun if you disagree), but it isn’t going to reduce traffic speeds as much as the neighborhood would like. When will our city start using 21st century road design principles that balance the needs of all road users?

posted by: East Rocker on June 7, 2010  9:39pm

oh please, people.  “white neighborhoods”?  Welcome to the 21st century, New Haven Independant readers.  It’s not all black and white anymore.  There is that thing called economics and class, which more often than not trumps race.  So why not say “middle class neighborhoods”.  And a “middle class neighborhood”  in an urban area is a specific species, most often led by progressive and clever people who have a strong and deep backing among constituents who share, whether you like it or not, progressive ideas about government, their community, and the environment.  All of which is a good formula for good things happening in those neighborhoods:  bike lanes, roundabouts, etc etc.  Leaders advocate, the people support, and the resources are there.  Maybe fair, maybe not.  But it’s mostly economic, not race.  Scratch the surface of East Rock, and you’ll find alot more than a bunch of white people (writes the korean-german-irish guy).

posted by: nfjanette on June 8, 2010  2:07am

Good to see the city of new haven has put these “traffic calming” thingies in two of the Whitest (meaning lots of caucation folk) neighborhoods in new haven.

The WEB area, where this project is located, may be the one of the most integrated areas of the city in terms of race/ethnicity, income, and religious identities.

posted by: streever on June 8, 2010  9:10am

Anon, why do you keep sticking to talking points? Pedro and I are saying, “It’s a start, relax,” The reality is that all the plans for lower-income neighborhoods are great, but often times do not include a majority of the people living in the neighborhoods in the drafting.

Generalizing? I’m not generalizing. I’ve spoken to dozens of residents, ward chairs, and aldermen from lower income neighborhoods who were completely left out of the planning process for street trees/traffic calming/bike lanes & were understandably upset when a bunch of white people showed up to put them in.

Don’t create a false argument here. Neither Pedro nor I are arguing to maintain this status quo. We’re just saying, try to have some understanding & don’t be so harsh in your judgments. It’s not all or nothing. We’re pointing out the reality—improvements tend to go where there is more clamor & less barriers to access.

What you are ignoring is that while round-abouts and cobblestones are already accepted in many cities, they simply are not yet widely accepted here. I’m not talking theory. I’m not looking at facts. I’m talking about the conversations I have with people every day.

I lived in the Hill on a street that resisted improvements for 3 years. It’s not like I’ve never been there. I met the neighbors—nice people who just hadn’t been reached out to, which is unfortunate. Do I think that is how it should remain forever? Obviously not.

I just realize that even in affluent upper-class neighborhoods not everyone wants these. Look at Everitt street which fought students walking to school. Get out of your academic theory bubble & talk to people face-to-face & get off the internet for a minute and you’ll realize that round-abouts are not some universal maxim in this city. We need some baby steps to introduce them & then I am positive that we can start moving them into other neighborhoods.

posted by: Rob Smuts on June 8, 2010  9:25am

There are currently three roundabouts in the city, with the West Park/Elm due to be the fourth.  The first was on Frances Hunter Drive in Dixwell, and the second two installed on Woodward Avenue.

Frances Hunter was an example of what is possible when a street is designed from scratch (something almost unique in New Haven), as it was a new street associated with the HOPE VI project at Elm Haven.  The Woodward roundabouts were an effort (successful, it seems) to end drag-racing on that street.  Woodward was in response to an acute and specific complaint as one of four roads where there were on-going problems with drag-racing: Woodward, Long Wharf, River Street and Rt 80.  Rt 80 is a state road, but the city also made concurrent design changes to Long Wharf and River Street.

Roundabouts are currently being studied in several other potential locations: Edwards Street at Livingston, Blatchley Avenue (at a couple potential intersections), Sherman Avenue (at a couple potential intersections), etc.  They will not be appropriate at all places.

They will also not fit at all places.  Roundabouts generally need at least 60 feet diagonal at an intersection.  “Mini-circles” can be put in at smaller intersections, but are still being studied by the city, as well as other traffic calming treatments many of which are already being deployed.

For the benefit of commenters who were curious, the demographics of Ward 17 in 2000 were: 64.4% white, 20.2% Latino/Hispanic, 12% African-American and 1.7% Asian-American.  Ward 24 (where West Park is, not Ward 25 where Paul Bass lives) was: 60.1% African-American, 25.1% white, 8.2% Latino/Hispanic and 2.1% Asian-American.  Dixwell is in Ward 22 (which had a population about half-Yale student and half-Dixell resident), which was 42.8% white, 33.5% African-American, 12% Asian-American and 7% Latino/Hispanic.  I don’t have income data broken down by ward (as it is not a likely source of litigation that must be checked for potential exposure).

- Rob Smuts, Chief Administrative Officer

posted by: anon on June 8, 2010  11:03am

Rob, what are the chances of doing tabled intersections in areas that don’t have room for a roundabout?

Tabled intersections are probably a lot cheaper than roundabouts and are being widely used in a lot of other cities as well, even places that are much snowier than New Haven.  They are also extremely effective in reducing speeding, if used properly.

Is there a reason why New Haven is resisting them? 

Good to see that the city is looking at demographics when considering street improvements by Ward, but I don’t think that negates the general argument about the types of neighborhoods and streets these are going into.  Yes, Ward 24 is heavily African American, but if you break it down, West Park Avenue has a different demographic than most of the Ward.  There are other intersections in Ward 24 and adjacent wards where citizens really want roundabouts and calmer streets, but they are near the lower-income areas with public housing, etc.

However, it’s good to know they are being considered for some of the less-wealthy streets in New Haven.  I agree with streever that once a few more of these go in, it will be easier to make a case for them, but am just pointing out that 1) the distribution may not be fair and 2) the pace of improvement is very slow, and that based on my recent discussions with several dozen residents, the general agreement is that it is much too slow to make apologies for.

On a side note, I don’t think it’s “academic theory bubble” when thousands of other cities have been installing hundreds of these.  Let’s stick to the facts and policy ideas, and cut the silly personal attacks which don’t advance anyone’s argument.

posted by: anon on June 8, 2010  11:38am

Within the Edgewood neighborhood, which closely corresponds to Ward 24, Census Block Groups 1, 2, and 3 have poverty rates ranging from 25-27%.  Block Groups 4 and 5 (where the new roundabout is located) have poverty rates of 5% and 8%, respectively.

posted by: Rob Smuts on June 8, 2010  11:47am

Quick clarification on my previous post: potential litigation referred to 2002 redistricting not placement of roundabouts.  Redistricting has many best practices and court rulings to consider, some of which involve race.

The city is not considering race in placement of roundabouts.  Placement is based on traffic/accident data, which roads are seeing other work happen, and a desire to have public improvements spread out with some reasonable degree of evenness across the city.  Race and income are not considered, though the last factor I mentioned indirectly addresses them.

Speed humps, bump-outs, chicanes, speed tables, etc are all either already implemented in some area or are part of designs working their way through the process.  I haven’t looked at the latest design for Congress Avenue, but I believe it will have speed tables at intersections.  We would all love public improvements to happen faster, but there are constraints of money and design time.

- Rob Smuts

posted by: anon on June 8, 2010  1:31pm

Rob:

A lot of folks are glad to hear they are rolling out and that speed tables are being considered.

Many would argue that poverty should be a major consideration in the placement of city resources.  However, poverty and neighborhood empowerment are factors that are closely related to race and systematic discrimination. These are known as racial disparities. So it’s good to look at both.

Our lowest-income neighborhoods will never improve (which translates into residents finding jobs, decent housing, etc.) until factors like noise, injuries, glass on the street, chaos and violence are reduced.  Investments and jobs flow to livable neighborhoods, allowing the residents of those neighborhoods to improve their well-being and family security.

We are pouring literally billions of dollars into our city school systems to try to improve our neighborhoods, but it seems doubtful that this will have an impact on our neighborhoods unless the physical environment is also improved.

In addition to publishing its school investments, the city should publish a list of its capital improvements overall, so that residents can see if lower-income neighborhoods are getting at least their fair share. 

A good principle to follow is this: City/state policies that treat neighborhoods “equally” have the result of reinforcing existing inequalities.

posted by: eli antonio on June 8, 2010  7:22pm

wards and neighborhoods are not the same.  ward 8 encompasses both wooster square and the franklin st. projects/ as well as influencial east rock and poor grand ave.
ward 24 is black near sherman, white near the traffic circle.
do not, do not, tell me that - even if its a coincidence, that the NEIGHBORHOODS that have these fancy traffic calming thingies, are predominantly white, in a minority city.  just don’t do it. hey, i’m a big old white guy, and i live in a white neighborhood because it’s where i feel safe, but don’t tell me it’s not an issue.  just don’t

posted by: Caqrolyn Kone on June 9, 2010  1:29pm

I live near the roundabout on West Park Avenue. Our neighborhood is diverse; in fact next to the roundabout is a house owned by the New Haven Housing Authority under the scattered site program. I have witnessed numerous accidents in the 29 years that I have lived in my home, including fatal accidents. West Park Avenue is used as a speedway by those who live throughout the City and elsewhere, so hopefully the roundabout will save lives of individuals from evert type of economic, racial and ethnic background.

posted by: anon on June 10, 2010  1:59pm

Agree with C. Kone. This will be a major plus for everyone, whether or not they even live in New Haven (improved safety and lower statewide health care and other social costs down the road). By addressing these broader social concerns, New Haven is taking on some of what should be the state’s responsibility.

But that doesn’t take away from the way the distribution of improvements is perceived, or the fact that a number of nearby lower-income neighborhoods have also requested for years, but not yet received, any roundabouts or other improvements to neighborhood livability.  The lack of investment shows.

posted by: anon on June 10, 2010  8:18pm

Agree. My neighborhood requested, in 2008 directly to Mike Piscitelli, speed humps (like those on Perkins) on seven streets and bike lanes on 5 streets, plus improved sightlines on others.

There has been no progress on any of these requests and no reports back from the city, despite the fact my neighborhood association meets at a regular time every month.

Is it because it’s a low income area? The city regularly sends reps to East Rock, Wooster and Downtown.