What Makes Sense At Union Station?

with Church St South finally gone, now is the time to incorporate that land and transition it from a war zone to the pathway between downtown and the train station

Do the "Twin Towers."

Lovely sketches, but what would the funding source be for these grand visions and how much longer would they delay development?

Garage. Period. The state should not cave to the chronic whiners, the beggar state, the give us all your money mentality that is New Haven. This city always demands that the statewide taxpayers pay for it largesse. Build the garage or build nothing. Do not give these beggars and panhandlers a thing.

I'm with elmcityale - the state, like the city, is broke. Price tags are probably important factors - are all of these options more or less equal to the cost of the parking garage?

I don't vote for the courtyard option because we live in New Haven. We enjoy courtyard weather for a month and a half and then the city slows down as Yale takes a break for the summer. It's obviously not meant for Yale, but it kind of is, so that should be taken into consideration. I see many local high schools with courtyards that are unused 90% of the time, so I think this would be similar. I vote for the two towers by default.

It has always struck me that one of the reasons Connecticut struggles to make coherent progress is the inability of cities and suburbs to work together. The suburbs enjoy the benefits of many of the regional assets located in the cities but contribute nothing to the cost of running the city and in fact make matters worse for the cities by shipping many of their problems to the city.
Here though it appears to me that the city is doing a similar thing in reverse. The railway station in New Haven is an asset for the region. Given the poor state of public transport and the wasteful land use patterns we have allowed to develop the only way many people can use the station is to drive themselves to it. The length of time it has taken to achieve relatively limited improvements (Shore Line East, New Haven to Hartford/Springfield) suggests that a well-integrated system of public transport is unlikely to be built soon. Autonomous vehicles that would somehow eliminate the need for parking are likely to remain in the realm of science fiction for at least the next two decades.
I don't know whether a new parking garage is needed, but it seems to me that it is at least a valid use for the space if the region as a whole is to make the best use of the railway system. If there is indeed a need for additional parking then the demand that the space be used for other purposes strikes me as being as selfish as the suburbs are.

There is nothing wrong with a massive amount of new development. In fact it is probably financially feasible and absolutely necessary to grow New Haven back to the critical mass of activity and population that we enjoyed in the 1950's and must achieve again to survive as a real city. What I do not understand is why everyone is acting like all that very valuable downtown land right across the street from Union Station, the former Church St South parcel does not exist. We need both a parking garage and all that development and it will all fit easily. If the new owner of that parcel across the street does not have the vision or does not wish to cooperate with the city then enlist the New Haven Redevelopment Agency to take whatever parcels are necessary by eminent domain to achieve the city's goals. Pay the owners fair market value and have the new selected developer pay for it as part of the development agreement. Is the only vision New Haven can come up with for Church Street South parcel to build MORE subsidized housing? If it was a bad idea the first time, why is it a good idea to double down on it this time? ALL of the city's desired mixed use development can fit. Relax the zoning and it will all fit easily. Who invented restrictive New Haven zoning? Was it us? The Ninth Square was built that way by the Redevelopment Agency. There were 17 agreeable property owners and 17 more that were taken by eminent domain because they did not want to be part of the project. No big deal. Cannot be done any other way. It is called site control. It did not need that much vision. It was fairly obvious. The zoning made the Ninth Square, as it is now, illegal. We wrote the BD-1 Zone and voila - it was all legal.

Did Orr even talk to anyone at all familiar with Saybrook College? Saybrook currently has the rap as the least desirable of all Yale's colleges. It is simply too dense, with tall residential structures around small courtyards. The courtyards get too little light to be used much. The awkward design is a result of the cleavage of the pre-college Memorial Quadrangle. Branford got the big courtyard, intended for use by all Memorial Quadrangle residents, as well as the lower south side residences. Saybrugians are cut off from the large courtyard, and left with two small, inadequate courtyards. Why anyone would intentionally copy this design is beyond me.

While I have no objection to the idea of turning Union Avenue into a more desirable urban setting, I agree with Brian McGrath that all this focus on that street ignores the emphatic presence of the Church Street South parcel directly across from Union Station.

"Union Station still has the potential to be the heart of our new economy, and the foundation of sustainable and humane urban development," says the new Urban Design League report.

Exactly.

For some time now, I have been advocating the idea of creating, on the former housing project land, an avenue that would lead directly from in front of the train station over to the intersection of Church Street South (roadway) and Columbus Avenue--and which thus would provide the missing link to form the much desired direct connection between the station and downtown. It seems to me a no-brainer--a once-in-60-years opportunity (since the land was leveled during redevelopment), and the fulfillment of a 110-year-old vision first suggested by the Olmsted and Gilbert plan of 1910. The potential for economic development along this route would be substantial.

In contrast, Union Avenue essentially leads from nowhere to nowhere.

I agree with Mr. McGrath also in thinking that this could be a basis for negotiation with Northland Corp. as it makes plans for redeveloping the land. Apparently the city already owns parcels within the tract, which used to be playgrounds or parks. An equivalent acreage could be the starting point for an avenue. And through some combination of zoning/density relief (and eminent domain?) the rest of the necessary area (and cost?) could be worked out. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I recommend that people go over to the intersection of Church and Columbus right now--and just look. Most of the project buildings are now demolished, leaves are off the trees, and you can see that the train station is right there. Its civic presence is unmistakable. It is just asking to be taken advantage of.

I really like the "Twin Towers" idea the most. I feel that the city should aim towards having more mid-rise and high-rise buildings around the Downtown area. I think having another parking garage would be depressing for area— especially knowing that lots of other development would be better for the city in the long term. I believe that the best approach would be to transform the area into an urban neighborhood where people can live, work, shop and spend time. It would likely make Union Station more attractive for commuters.

DerbyRam54, you make several cogent points. But while fully autonomous vehicles are years in the future, Lyft and Uber are here now, while they were not when the garage was originally planned. If you are coming from the nearby suburbs and will be away for more than a day, they are probably cheaper than driving to Union Station and parking there. I think there is a real question whether the garage, as currently designed, will generate sufficient revenue to pay off the bonds that would finance it.

Elmcityyale, that is an important question. I think there is a strong political as well as economic case for building a substantially smaller garage plus housing and retail. But doing a straight economic development project without a garage would be a tough sell in a legislature that is overwhelmingly suburban.

Brian, the post-Kelo changes to the redevelopment agency statutes (notably CGS sec. 8-127a(a)(1)) mean that eminent domain cannot be used primarily for economic development. FWIW, I staffed the legislature's Planning and Development Committee, which wrote these changes.

At the pace this is going it will take at least 15 yrs before a shovel goes into the ground. Build the "garage". At least by then, we won't have to worry about the state of the economy and possibly adding more empty apartments and stores.

Kevin

"Sec. 8-127a. Limits on redevelopment agency's use of eminent domain under a redevelopment plan. (a)(1) No real property may be acquired by a redevelopment agency by eminent domain pursuant to section 8-128 under a redevelopment plan under this chapter for the primary purpose of increasing local tax revenue."

This section has not been amended. It has been this way for as many tears as I have been using it.. We will not claim in any way to be doing the project strictly for tax revenues. By the way, "local tax revenue" is not synonymous with "economic development." No one will stop the city and if they try, they will lose in court.

It blows my mind that Union Station was up for demolition under 'Urban Renewal'.
That is a great 'historical starting point' for development in New Haven, and this discussion.

Sure, there is bound to be a semblance of a 'pedestrian mall' somewhere at some point in one of these 'new developements', or at least something touted as such. After all, it is at the core of all of these feel good 'charettes'.

These developers just pretend to be listening to the people. It worked so well for Randy Salvatore and the Novella.
We are going to be stuck with a bunch of his crappy buildings until his sells them and they are not 'his' anymore.

A Five Star Fantasy???

If there is a future 'tax break', there might be 'something' classified as 'pedestrian mall-ish' in one of these projects, especially if that is the grant funding buzzword of the hour.

'Innovation' is the latest one.

Ben Berkowitz is even sitting on a cache of money to give out to 'connect' things that aren't 'connected yet'.

We are now in the middle of the insider do-gooding crisis in New Haven.
Don't take the money or believe the 'hype'.

Kind of like Randy's new Boutique Hotel Experience.....
Kind of like the 'bike share' turning into a 'scooter share'.....

Kind of like the current lie that will presently be the unexpected future!

Just cause you say it's five stars don't make it so.
Repeat to yourselves, people.

When you think about, Dick Lee & Co screwed City development over for generations.

As a tried and true New Haven Pedestrian, I will say 'We don't need no stinkin' Pedestrian Mall'.
Close down some streets occasionally for public events.

Especially during the Summer.
We have plenty of open spaces.

Model the 'future' you want, don't make up fantasies and expect outside developers to carry out 'the vision'.

I would think that most of want thoughtful, well-designed future.
However, New Haven is giving away the farm, and the developers know it!

So where is the affordable housing in any of these plans? Church Street South is gone so where are they going to be replaced? In the suburbs? I don't think so. Lets be realistic about cars, they aren't going anywhere soon build the garage.

What makes sense at Union Station?

You can't really answer that question without a fair evaluation of how badly the trains in the backyard impact the alternative uses being proposed. Are any of them commercially viable, and are any genuine developers wanting to build residential or office on the site?

What is clear is that additional parking is needed, and the current situation will only get worse if and when the Coliseum site gets developed and all those surface spots are lost. If we want a healthy regional economy, we shouldn't make train station parking into a royal pain in the ass.

Forget the damned garage. This money is needed by our collapsing school system. See above article.

Brian, the section I cited was adopted as section 2 of P.A. 07-141 in the wake of Kelo. It was not on the books when Ninth Square was redeveloped. And it bars using the redevelopment chapter primarily for raising tax revenue, not strictly for this purpose. There is a substantive difference between the two terms.

P.A. 07-141 made many other changes to eminent domain law. (I have a clear memory of the adoption of this legislation - the hearings and debate were really, really long.) The city could use eminent domain, under other statutes, to take land for a parking garage. But in the wake of P.A. 07-141, I doubt the Redevelopment Agency could do as you suggest.

I'd like to see any sort of analysis of where trips to the new garage would be originating from across the region: where are the people coming from who'd use the new garage? Because, after all, if someone's trip is starting anywhere near a Hartford Line or Shore Line East station, or a local bus route that goes Union Station, then that trip aught to start on said transit and then connect to Metro North or Amtrak at Union Station (instead of the alternative of driving and parking).

But the even bigger issue here is that the land where the new garage is proposed should be taken off the state ledger, sold/transferred to a private land owner, developed appropriately (urban development), and put back on the tax rolls in order to grow the City of New Haven's Grand List. That's the bottom line = the city budget is under water and needs more land on the tax roll.

For Union Station to thrive for anything other than being a train station a few things must be addressed. First linking both the green and the hospital pathways. Tearing down Church St. South was a start. Before any development begins the roadway around the station must be widened allowing easy drop off and pick up of passengers. I don't care if today's urban designers believe that they will be living in a city apartment and commuting by bicycle forever New Haven and other cities will not become "The Villages" or U. Cal. Berkeley. Part of the failures of city train stations was that they where built on the outskirts of town and the expected commercial real estate expansion never materialized; see Buffalo and Michigan Terminals, even New York's Penn Station never had the real estate boom Grand Central Terminal enjoyed, New Haven managed to isolate its station all by itself. Beware this generation, Lee & Company's Urban Designers where considered "The Best and Brightest" of their time, we've spent the last twenty years repairing those designs.

There are obviously two sides to the issue. Of course, like everything else in today's society, everyone sees it as one way or the other - no compromise.
We need more parking for this regional station. Don't mistake the Hartford Line or Shoreline East for Metro North, they are not as convenient or timely. In fact, Amtrak runs more often than the Hartford Line between Hartford and New Haven. The development proposal would add 180 spaces. What? That's a negative when you already need hundreds more and are adding development.

We could use additional development in this area as well. What's wrong with trying to leverage the train station with new stores and housing and trying to revitalize the community?
In an ideal world we would accommodate both sides with a little give and take on each side. More parking, and an opportunity for additional development. Take the state's money for parking, which is what they have designated it for, and take a developers money for development.

Wow, someone can live next to the train station. They can avoid using a car. What's next Amtrak can take(allow) motorized wheelchairs

Cities not wastelands. I don't know what time capsule the state DoT is living in, but they need to step out of it, perhaps with some help from local activists to stop this getting steamrolled through (the list is long of features we owe to those who stood up to moronic planners).

Who in their right mind could look at this stretch of Union Avenue and think "Looks good, let's have more of this!" A coherent vision linking the station to the downtown for pedestrians is as old as Olmstead, there's nothing controversial about it. The B-W plan is ok, but also bland and will age poorly. The Orr plan looks like a real city, and sounds like it has a coherent vision behind it. Imagine either connected with the elusive former Colosseum rebuilt and you have a credible vision for a town you arrive at and feel good about it.

Let's leave the city for future generations as we'd like to enter it on the train.

Pilay: Most people using Union Station aren't using it as a point of entry to New Haven. New Haven is primarily a point of departure and return, not a destination. Hence, peak fares are charged for travel from New Haven in the morning, and returning to New Haven in the evening. The place people need to go is NYC, or Stamford, or, for some on Amtrak, DC. If we want people to use mass transit, we nee to make it convenient and practical for them to get to mass transit stations. The lack of parking at New Haven pushes commuters off Metro-North and onto I-95. Personally, when I go to the city, I drive to Fairfield Metro because of the ample parking there, something that doesn't exist in New Haven. Moreover, the journey is long enough as it is. I am not going to make it longer by taking a local bus (90 minutes from my Branford house?) or wait for an Uber or other taxi. With my car, I can leave when I want to, and return when I want. More parking at New Haven would mean less congestion and less pollution as fewer folks take the Turnpike and more take the train.

If you live in Branford, take Shore Line East from Branford Station to NHV Union Station and transfer train to train there (obviously don't take local bus). If that's not convenient, then demand that the state put money towards more frequent Shore Line East train service. Don't demand more parking, more automobiles, more emissions in New Haven.

I predict the new buzzword for free 'development' money will be 'green-spacing'.
As far as I can tell, you heard it here first!!!

Cove'd: Our broke state loses enough money on Shoreline East as it is. Frankly, Malloy replaced most of the trains with buses so he could open the Hartford Line before he left office. Moreover, even if Shoreline East were more frequent, for me, it would mean backtracking and take much long than driving. As it is, I can drive to Fairfield faster than Metro-North. If we are going to get people to use mass transit, we need be realistic about what we can afford and how much inconvenience people will tolerate. BTW, last time I went to the city, I didn't get out until the 2330/11:30 pm train. There's no way it would make sense to run trains or buses to the shoreline after midnight. Heck, there aren't even that many GCT to HVN trains after 9 pm. As it was, my car was waiting for me at Fairfield Metro when I got off at about 1 am.

I take issue w/ the idea that New Haven is not a point of destination. It is - mostly for Yale affiliates. People come in for academic conferences, to interview at the med school, reunions, graduations, etc. People exit Union Station and are and were scared to death - a decrepit housing project across the street w/ drug dealers and prostitutes welcome you, and then a wasteland of concrete expanse into the downtown which is easily walkable. And as someone who takes the train daily, I do walk it, but it is CREEPY. So many world class scholars come in, and what do they see when they exit Union Station? What would make them want to walk around, wander around, explore, and come back? Not a parking garage. The fees are likely to be too high anyway.

This area should be integrated with downtown. I have for years tried to have the State Street Station be used more with more frequent trains, but learned there is no room for trains to turn around. The idea that the city would a) build another concrete jungle of a garage and b) perhaps another housing project to greet visitors is nuts beyond words.

When one exits Union Station, just like South Street Station in Boston, one should feel among, amidst and already in the downtown of the city - not separated from it by poor planning, dark underpasses, and lonely, creepy walks into town under underpasses. And where is Yale in all of this? Isn't our Mayor an alumnus of like, the Yale School of Architecture or something?

All of Ninth Square could be revitalized because then that would be connected, as well as Wooster Street, so there would be a walkable neighborhood feel. I personally think the Bekrad Wies plan is optimal, but def not another concrete wasteland of a garage or housing project. For the "smartest city" in America (okay, we lost to Boston again this year) we don't seem to know much about Urban Planning. I agree w/ Brian M by all means and by all means necessary. This is the gateway into New Haven.

Derby: "The suburbs enjoy the benefits of many of the regional assets located in the cities but contribute nothing to the cost of running the city ...."
Not true. The suburbs contribute half New Haven's budget, likely more when state bonding of local expenses is included. Malloy and Barnes made it their mission to suck money out of the suburbs and give it to the decaying, wasteful cities. I recognize that the cities deserve some help, but deeply resent the abject waste, frivolous spending and corruption of the cities. (Think mayoral drivers, China trips, etc.) Moreover, when it comes to land use, New Haven is refuses to help itself, preferring land and tax abatement giveaways to development that would add to its revenue.

1644: frankly, highways and roads don't pay from themselves either. Gas tax doesn't cover it. Hence, why tolling is coming down the pike. The other option I'd back is no state money for more parking, leave SLE alone, you park in an existing garage a few blocks north of Union Station (they have the capacity). But back to my first point - CT highways don't pay for themselves. In other words, car travel is subsidized too.

Cove'd: Do you have the figures on the transportation fund/gas tax. In recent years, the transportation fund has been raided to cover general fund expenses, and even when it isn't raided, it is still expected to subsidize little used SLE, CT Rail, and the bus system, as well as Metro North. Of these, Metro North is the only one that comes close to covering its costs, at about 80% of operating budget from fares. On the federal level, too, a lot of the gas tx revenue is diverted from roads to mass transit. I don't really object, but again, if we want people to use mass transit, we have to make it reasonably convenient. A garage blocks away isn't. Moreover, as far as cost, the garage will likely cover its cost through charges, so no tax subsidy will be needed.
https://www.yankeeinstitute.org/2018/08/connecticut-legislature-short-changed-transportation-funding-by-650-million-since-2011/
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0088.pdf
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/OPM/Budget/2018_2019_Biennial_Budget/BudgetDocs/021SectionBpdf.pdf?la=en
Nearly 200 million for rail, $170 million for buses, from DOT funded by Transportation Fund.

Shadow: The garage isn't between downtown/Medical Center and the station. It's off to the side. If New Haven cared about its appearance to outsiders, it would have cheered Northland's plan to bulldoze the Jungle, and not obstructed Salvatore's plan for the St Anthony's area. Some street level retail might be called for, although brick & mortar retail is not in demand and the street there doesn't have much foot traffic because it doesn't lead to anything but an electrical station and an underpass.Yes, a vista pathway should be opened from downtown to Union Station, although that would likley mean razing Wolfe as well as the departed Jungle/CSS.

1644: pardon my hyperbole, I should not have said "contribute nothing". But neither is the equation as simple as you would have it. Residents of the suburbs derive a significant benefit from the various tax-exempt institutions in New Haven whether it be from using the services or employment. The PILOT scheme intended to make New Haven whole does nothing of the kind.
On the other side of the ledger I think it's fair to say that through various means (zoning laws, obstruction of low income housing and so on) most suburban towns leave the burdens of coping with the less fortunate or able to the cities.
New Haven very probably could be more effectively run, but I don't think it would make a lot of difference to the financial predicament of the city. One can hardly blame New Haveners from wanting to see the area around the station developed to suit their needs and generate some tax revenue even if the needs of the region might be better served by more convenient parking (a point on which I agree with you.)

Although a gigantic 692 space parking garage does not really fit the definition of "Transit Oriented Development" (TOD), the need for additional parking for rail users should not be casually dismissed. New Haven has suffered the negative consequences of urban planning fads for the last three quarters of a century, with each new fad trying to eradicate the last one, at great expense to the taxpayers. The latest "new urbanist" fad is to make believe that private automobiles are going to magically disappear. While all modes of movement need to be adequately and safely accommodated, it is mistake to favor the neglected modes at the cost of other modes in use. If we want the rail system to increase in ridership, people coming to the train station need to be able to reliably find quick and close parking, or their next choice will be to stay in their car and get to their destination by automobile. However, I believe that we can adequately solve the parking need without creating a half a block monolith of parking garages. Mixed use on that site must be pursued with caution however, because there are marketability issues with residential uses on a island between a train yard, elevated highway (rt. 34), and a busy city street. On the new New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail line, the state is installing crossing gate sirens to warn motorists instead of using the train horns, because of complaints from people living nearby. Lots of noise is not desirable in a residence. Train yards are noisy places 24/7, and may get busier and noisier as ridership increases.

I take the train frequently and notice the continuous water damage in the walkway and stairs to the multiple platforms. When will this fix happen or will the building just rot and fall apart. We, disabled, elderly, or overburdened travelers are lucky the elevators still work.

I'm not so sure the garage would cover it's costs over the next few decades. It's definitely not the best land use to add to the city's grand list. I'm sure walking a few blocks in NYC is par for the course, but here it's too much to ask? And we all know the STF has been raided many times to the total tune of say $2B? going back decades. At this moment there are over $10B in highway maintenance/rebuild projects that DOT says are needed. If all moneys used for transit in the state we're instead diverted to roads perhaps it would shore up said deficit. But, where would we be if all transit trips were instead car trips added to congestion we already have? Houston Katy Freeway?

Derby: Half New Haven's budget, or $250 million, is far from nothing.
Yes, suburbanites benefits from the many well-paid jobs at Yale and YNHH.
As far as being "made whole", as Bill Clinton would say, it depends on what you mean by "whole". If Yale's property were fully taxed, at the present mill rate it would owe about $200 million, or less than the current state aid to New Haven. As it is, Yale pays $12 million directly to New Haven, calculated to cover fire service plus a "voluntary" payment which, I suspect more than covers other ancillary city services. Note, in 1950, it was possible to argue that if Yale were not occupying the land it does, that land might be filled with lots of revenue positive developments like gun factories. Today, a look at Bridgeport or Hartford tells us that the center of New Haven would be vacant if not for Yale.
YNHH also pays a voluntary PILOT, although I don't know how much. As it is, YNHH functions as a income redistribution agency, overcharging mostly suburban, well insured patients to subsidize mostly urban, underinsured (Medicaid) and uninsured patients, providing them with below cost and free care.
The university indirectly stabilizes New Haven's Grand List the city through its investment in commercial New Haven properties, as well as its homebuyer program.
con't.

Derby, part 2.:
New Haven's mill rate is about the same as Woodbridge's, while Hamden and West Haven's are higher. To me, that's an indication that the non=profits aren't hurting New Haven too much. What does hurt New Haven is its aversion to revenue positive development, i.e., commercial and industrial. North Haven and Branford once had mill rates of 50, but then became proactive in seeking industrial development to offset the cost of residential development. Instead of embracing industrial development, however, New Haven often opposes it. Prime examples would be the English Station, the clock factory (Onofrio's offer rejected), and the current recycling operation by the port. Land use drives revenue and the financial ledger. Industrial uses have the best ratio of revenue paid to cost of services. Most multi-family housing has the worst. If New Haven wants more revenue, it should encourage industry and commerce.

What makes sense at Union Station? Two things: (1) another garage and (2) the CT Transit bus hub. End of story.

We need to think about the problem here: Patrons of the rail system need more parking. These patrons are from towns other than New Haven. Solution: Build another garage. Charge a fee to recover costs. End of story. Make it sufficient visually appealing to offset the brutalist monstrosity that is the Police HQ. No one wants to live near the train station. No one. So long as there is any chance that low income housing will return to Church Street South, no one is investing in that area.

Another problem: NH's bus system is broken, it doesn't interface well with the rest of the regional transit system. CT transit needs a hub for New Haven that isn't the Green. A totally bankrupt city, Bridgeport, managed to get a bus terminal built down town proximate to the train station there. From its website, "It was envisioned as not only the hub of the region's bus services, but a safe, clean and hip place to make connections." http://gogbt.com/rider-information/the-terminal. Hip? Isn't that what we want here in New Haven. Bus stations, homeless and drug dealing and use on the Green isn't hip, it discourages investment.

While I applaud the dreams of the planners to create a village around the train station, it makes me think this is just another potemkin village. Looking around downtown new haven, there are many many empty store fronts, business are closing, demand just doesn't exist to fill upscale storefronts those planners fancy.

The coliseum site is dead, a victim of many things. Whatever potemkin village these planners are trotting out, it will remain so until the coliseum site is developed which won't happen any time soon. More nimble investors put in millions in to New Haven while LiveWorkPlay fiddled.

A few other thoughts. What really needs to be addressed are the trains. Bad weather seems to snarl our train system just as much as our highways. High-Speed rail needs straight tracks or at least a dedicated line. How many press conferences will Sen. Blumenthal have before the safety devices be installed? We may see autonomous cars before that. Face it people who use the trains in areas on the east or west sides of town will drive or Uber no one wants to add an hour to their commute when you can get there in less than 10 minutes from east shore. I'm sorry people who do not live downtown use your station. Improving the traffic flow will cut down on emissions around the station and get cars of the highways.

Again, this is a bit silly. All I seem to hear is people who don't live in New Haven dumping on New Haven. Here is another idea: for that $60M to build the garage you could instead build basic train 'stations'/platforms in East Haven for SLE, in Hamden and North Haven for the Hartford Line (already in the works), and add a handful more trains running along those lines so train service would be more frequent and thus easier to make convenient transfers to MN or Amtrak at NHV Union Station. Now that would take cars off the highways.

cove'd: No, because you can drive to New Haven in less time than a train would take, so few would take the train. Plus, one has to add the never-ending subsidy costs of running the train.

Not necessarily true for stations in Hamden and North Haven. Depends on the transfer time between trains, the time of day in terms on whether or not there is any highway/road congestion, etc. cost decisions by travelers may change if tolls are put in. And as I've said, highways are subsidized. A new garage would be subsidized especially when taking into account long term maintenance costs of a multi-story structure. The fallacy that automobile infrastructure pays for itself while only transit is subsidized is just that, a fallacy, especially when taking into account underpriced parking across the region.

cove'd: If garages needed a subsidy, we would not have privately owned and run garages. Moreover, in considering subsidies, not all subsidies are equal. Metro-North is subsidized for only about 20% of its costs, while SLE and CTRail, and CT Transit, cover only about 20% of their operating costs. The main reason it has taken so long to build the garage is that the city and state were arguing about who would operate it, precisely because it would generate revenue. The parking along SLE is free, as is, I presume CT Rail. As for your parking comment, I don't understand how my driveway or employer's parking lot are subsidized. No government funds maintain them, and property taxes are paid on both. Local roads are funded primarily through property taxes, but we have needed them since long before automobiles were invented, and would need them even if we didn't have automobiles. State highways are funded through user fees on automobiles, which also cover many mass transit costs, as well as things like bike paths.

Ok this is my last post on this article. Parking garages can be profitable in the beginning but not so much over the long run under current user pricing when taking into account structure maintenance. As an example, why do you think the city is asking the state (state tax payers) to fund over $11M in repairs to 3 downtown parking garages (NHI article from 1/15/19)? Your driveway not subsidized, but as for your employers parking that's another issue. Chances are the municipality in which you work required/mandated a minimum parking supply at that property per zoning regulations. Your employer isn't eating the cost to provide and maintain that parking - they are passing it off to consumers through higher prices for goods and service. Consumers who do not drive are paying for parking in this roundabout way nonetheless. This is convoluted, and I don't know where you work, but it is the case across the board. Local roads back before the dawn of the automobile were less costly to fund since they weren't widely paved. CT highways and state roads are not fully funded through user fees hence why CTDOT wants tolls.

Cove'd: Outside of New Haven, (and even in much of it) the number of consumers who don't drive is pretty much zero. Providing free parking is a cost of doing business, but not government subsidized. New Haven is asking for money for its parking garages as a backdoor way of getting more operating funds for its general funds. This year, for instance, the city had the parking Authority transfer funds to the city operating budget, then ask got Malloy to replenish the transferred funds with state bonding. The tolls are wanted because for make-work projects for union construction buddies like widening I-95 (absurdly expensive), further expansion and subsidies of mass transit. Take out the mass transit, and the unneeded road projects, and the gas tax, registration fees, etc., would be enough for the roads. (BTW, now paying an extra $50/year in car registration fees, $40 to parks, $10 the general fund (5 cars).)

@1644: It's a fair point and you're right that making the rail system work for more is a good idea. On this level I absolutely agree. I also agree that starting where we are (not where we want to be) makes sense.

The problem is precisely that past infrastructural choices limit our ability to balance accommodation of the present with the change we need. Highway systems encouraged suburbanization discourage densification, or something like that. What we build now will cast a shadow over future choices in a similar way, so if we build to accommodate the car culture of yesterday then we lock its problems in for another two or three generations. I absolutely sympathize with your transit headaches, truly, and part of the problem here is the interface of so many levels of infrastructure and investment (or lack of). But I can't help but wonder if it's exactly the convenience of avoiding the headaches you describe that makes city living (and hence apartments here) seem more attractive. I'm saying that we also need to build for what we want rather than what we have, and that creates a self reinforcing dynamic. City living is rising again, so let's work with that.

But ultimately there's no lack of land here. Why can't we have a real city scape to arrive to, a better bus hub off to the other side of the station, and ample parking out back (i.e. around Ikea) linked by a foot bridge. Cars can then park directly from the highway, no need to clog up the town; arrivals actually arrive rather than having to take an extra trip to get to New Haven itself; we move one step closer to a revitalized city.

Is this all pie in the sky? I think not. The land exists. There's surely demand for decent sit-down coffee and food options near the station (lunch outside in summer would be nice), so the empty shop worry is moot. Would people live there? Today not willingly, but if changed then why not? You could put the long awaited Colosseum hotel in one tower and make the other residential.

Hard as it is to believe, the reason people go to train stations is to...get on a train!.

The City and Yale can bring downtown all the way to the station, it's not incompatible with the State's plan to make it as convenient as possible for people to use rail.