New Haven Independent

posted by: anon on November 11, 2011  1:19pm

Great to see public debate is continuing on this at such a high level.  I think it will continue into the next year, as the most important decisions are yet to come.

It’s worth pointing out that, even if the project is built with three lanes, local residents can then lobby for the addition of on-street parking, streetcars, dedicated bus lanes and/or pedestrian bump-outs that will reduce it back to two lanes. 

As evidenced by highway removal projects in hundreds of other cities, two lanes is what it should be if the City doesn’t want to be flooded by more traffic and pollution.

Congratulations to Justin Elicker and others on their victory.  Hopefully this will allow the Mayor to be more aggressive with the state and not allow the state to dictate everything, like what happened last year when Whalley Avenue in Amity was widened from a 2 lane road into a massive highway.

posted by: nfjanette on November 11, 2011  2:27pm

It’s worth pointing out that, even if the project is built with three lanes, local residents can then lobby for the addition of on-street parking, streetcars, dedicated bus lanes and/or pedestrian bump-outs that will reduce it back to two lanes.

It is this example of detachment from reality that has plagued the various groups attempting to craft a rational compromise between the extremely high peak volume of traffic in that area and the desire to experiment with quasi “new urban” design.  As many of those advocates have discovered to their chagrin, moving all of that traffic up from the currently below-grade lanes means… all of that traffic will still exist and now do so at grade level across more lanes.  You can’t wish it away (although those in an alternate reality are certainly trying), which is why I have advocated - from the start - that two lanes be left below grade in each direction to handle the through traffic.  Perhaps now some critics will understand that may indeed be the most “pedestrian and cyclist” friendly design for the main street level.

posted by: Neil on November 11, 2011  2:53pm

Is the traffic study, which would accompany this design, publicly available? 

Given the “complete streets” goal, at a glance it looks like a lot of space(lanes) is devoted for motor vehicles.  Can we be honest with ourselves and accept that in order to create a desirable “complete street” that the number of through lanes should really be limited.  Some of the traffic that currently uses Route 34 as a way to cut ~through~ the center of New Haven should instead be influenced to re-route and travel ~around~ New Haven (e.g. via Grasso blvd). 

Also, why no on-street parking?

posted by: anon on November 11, 2011  3:10pm

NFJ:

Unfortunately, the reality is quite the opposite of what you say.  See http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/06/huh-4-cases-of-how-tearing-down-a-highway-can-relieve-traffic-jams-and-help-save-a-city/. 

The problem is that our engineers are living in the 1950s and completely blinded by outdated and discredited thinking.  The problem is not that our local communities wish to live and work in a place where pedestrians won’t be killed every year, and where children can’t walk to school.

Unfortunately, it can take a generation (or longer) to change discredited thinking—which is why our city may be left with more traffic, unsustainable urban infrastructure, and higher asthma rates as a result of this project.  Although this project still has a long way to go and further changes will be made, it may be up to future generations to correct these mistakes.

posted by: Threefifths on November 11, 2011  3:17pm

The proposal passed unanimously without further discussion.

How about a proposal for a lane for people to use horse-drawn buggies on the same road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CphEm7aShk

Also how about a crack down on Bikers For Not Using Bike Lanes.

http://gothamist.com/2011/04/26/nypd_now_also_ticketing_bikers_for.php

Cops Also Ticketing Cyclists For Ignoring Stop Signs At Empty Intersections

http://gothamist.com/2011/04/08/cops_also_ticketing_cyclists_for_ig.php

posted by: anon on November 11, 2011  3:33pm

Neil: “Also, why no on-street parking?”

Good question. Walk around downtown New Haven and you can see that on-street parking is absolutely crucial in creating a nice environment for children, families and shoppers to walk in. 

It isn’t included because in this phase of work, economic development and walkability is not important to the City - other than the single-minded priority to create a development site for a second-rate structure so that Winstanley can rake in enormous profits.

If you want to see what the road will feel like with no parking and many lanes of speeding traffic coming towards you, try walking from the Air Rights Garage along the south side of Pfizer, towards the new Howe Street parking garage.  Walk it, then ask yourself if that’s a nice place to be, or something that has any relationship to city and state laws.

Hopefully, future generations can add on street parking back in.  Or maybe with continued public pressure we can get this $30+ million project right the first time and add a few spaces now.

posted by: Kevin on November 11, 2011  3:39pm

After looking at the full plan in that link, it has red lines denoting future extensions with orange and temple. Is that another hopeful phase? It seems foolish to spend so much money in that area now, only if it were going to be redesigned later with more money.

And those service lanes will be tunnel-ized eventually to allow development on top?

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on November 11, 2011  3:43pm

Neil,
The Future of Route 34 Corridor Study from 2007 has a traffic count and anaylsis with projected traffic demand.
http://downtowncrossingnewhaven.com/documents/CHARte34_Final.pdf
Chapters 3 and 4 are the most relevant (pgs. 19-44). There was a more recent study completed in 2010 I believe, but I don’t remember if it was released or available publicly or where it might be. I might have it saved somewhere, in which case I’ll look for it and try to post it later if I do have it. The 2007 study is a pretty good reference though.

Nfjanette,
If through lanes were maintained below grade, people looking to park for YNHH, Winstanley’s building, and whatever new development infills eventually would still need to come up to surface streets to access above ground garages. In the city;s current plan, people looking to park would stay below grade and have no need to come up to surface streets and parking garages can be buried underground.
I’m not so sure anymore which condition I think is more desirable - both have advantages and disadvantages.
As for the number of lanes, 3 is a good idea because it will carry an enormous amount of traffic initially and eventually, like anon suggested, could be turned into a 2-lane road when it becomes possible. The idea that we must design for current and projected traffic demand now and forever means that we will never reduce road size, we will only increase it. This is not possible, nor is it good. Something else has to be done so that we can actually reduce the size of many roads in the city. Part of doing that is to acknowledge that conventional traffic engineering is a guessing game that has established standards which are built on a foundation of assumptions and gut feelings about lane widths, turning radii, and number of lanes. The other part is to diversify transportation and attract more employees to live within walking distance of where they work or along convenient transit lines.

posted by: anon on November 11, 2011  3:49pm

Threefifths:

Consider this:

1. Pedestrian death rates in Connecticut:
African-Americans: 1.1
Hispanics: 1.3
Whites: 0.9
65 and over: 2.2
Under Age 65: 0.8
(AARP, 2011)

2. The lowest-earning 25% of Americans make up 31% of all bike trips. (University Transportation Research Center, 2011)

3. 19 percent of Blacks and 14% of Hispanics live in households without a car, versus 5 percent of Whites. (Brookings Institution, 2006)

I know that you love to drive, but why are you constantly hating on low income people, old people, and minorities in this comment section?  They need to get around too. 

The fact is that the vast majority of the the population in our city doesn’t drive a car to work every day, either because they simply can’t afford to, are too young or too old, or don’t want to.

Personally, I care about equal opportunities for all people even if they are not middle aged, wealthy white people (like virtually 100% of people involved in planning the Route 34 development).

Why don’t you?

posted by: Cookie Monster on November 11, 2011  4:15pm

@Neil—The plan actually does include some off-peak on-street parking. You can see it on drawing if you click the link.

posted by: Threefifths on November 11, 2011  5:16pm

@anon
know that you love to drive, but why are you constantly hating on low income people, old people, and minorities in this comment section?  They need to get around too.

Do you drive?Also show me any of my comments were I am constantly hating on low income people, old people, and minorities.Prove It.Show It to me.

The fact is that the vast majority of the the population in our city doesn’t drive a car to work every day, either because they simply can’t afford to, are too young or too old, or don’t want to.

Maybe they should fight to get 24hr Transit system.

Personally, I care about equal opportunities for all people even if they are not middle aged, wealthy white people (like virtually 100% of people involved in planning the Route 34 development).

Why don’t you?

I do.When I write about the crooked two party system.

posted by: juli on November 11, 2011  6:03pm

that computer generated image of 4 cyclists and 20 some-odd pedestrians smiling and strolling about without a care in the world is an impossible fantasy on a FIVE LANE ROAD.

when roads are that large, people fear for their lives. show me any road that wide in CT where walking and cycling is safe and encouraged.

if you want more cars, build bigger roads.
if you want more people walking and biking, make their safety a priority. it is as simple as that.

posted by: anon on November 11, 2011  6:03pm

“The plan actually does include some off-peak on-street parking.”

Yes, it looks like there are about 10 spaces proposed, all concentrated near one intersection (directly in front of Winstanley’s two buildings, of course). 

Not exactly the hundreds that easily could be put here if the street was being designed for local communities.

posted by: streever on November 11, 2011  6:24pm

While certainly an improvement, the improvements are minor, far from what has been requested, and took over 3 years to realize.

3 years to get the city to shorten the crossing distance by what, 5 feet?

I’m sorry, but people will not walk here if the city doesn’t get serious about shortening the crossing distances.

After years of negotiating, talking, and meeting, the city FINALLY agrees to reduce the crossing from 55 to 50?

My main question is why wasn’t it done right from the start? Why was the plan drafted entirely with cars in mind? Why wasn’t the plan drafted to—as the city stated—knit two neighborhoods together and create a vibrant streetscape? Why did you waste hundreds of hours of citizen time to add a few bump-outs?

posted by: Neil on November 11, 2011  6:26pm

Jonathan, thanks for the link.  I look forward to seeing the most current study for the Winstanley application to the state.  Does anyone know when that might become public? 

Cookie Monster, I do now notice 7 possible off-peak on-street spaces.  Seems minimal.  I know its just a mark-up, but they also look like they conflict with the bike lane.  I think all-the-time on-street parking is key, not only to provide added supply, but to importantly provide sense of friction of traffic to help slow motorists and provide a buffer between the street and sidewalk.

posted by: Threefifths on November 11, 2011  6:44pm

They forgot to put in the crooked parking meters.You all know the parking meters you have to pay up to midnight.

posted by: Stephen Harris on November 12, 2011  9:57am

In the future we’ll have the right-of-way width to build a streetcar, assuming there’ll be money to build it.

And to flog a dead horse the incoming Board should replace our antiquated development code along with its tortured language with one based on the Transect.

posted by: Discouraged on November 12, 2011  10:15am

Once again the city took a perfectly good resolution and twisted it to make it useless. With all the bump outs, it is still 5 lanes and not suitable for walkers or bicyclists only cars.  The city manipulated the hill alderman.they made mistakes on the medical PDD and Black panther house. When will they learn. Why can’t the alderman work together. Once again the city wins out and we lose.
Discouraged!!!!

posted by: streever on November 12, 2011  1:31pm

I’m discouraged as well. The city really isn’t capable of playing fairly—they lie and distort intentions behind closed doors.

The resolution was non-binding and had no actual teeth, but they still spent hundreds of paid staff hours to dominate it.

Why do they waste so much money trying to squash toothless resolutions? Simple statements encouraging them to design a street which will preserve and create vibrant life?

posted by: pat on November 13, 2011  9:38pm

The heavy lifting on the redesign and the public advocacy was done by the Urban Design League and Anstress Farwell and her talented volunteers.
  For years this group was working with neighborhood groups to press for a more people friendly design that included reduced traffic, parks, bike lanes, sidewalks and the re-constitution of neighborhoods.
  Before you break open the champagne, I’d like to hear from the UDL on what we could have had, but didn’t get. Remember, this was supposed to help heal the scar created by the destruction of the neighborhoods caused by the creation of Rte 34.

posted by: streever on November 13, 2011  11:21pm

Pat:
Absolutely. I haven’t seen a positive comment from the UDL, and I wouldn’t expect to. This plan falls incredibly short of their work.