New Haven Independent

posted by: Edward_H on January 30, 2009  9:07am

King explained that the parameters of the study had been the center of town. “They said ‘focus on downtown.’”

Who , in the city, is “they”? Who gave the order to focus on downtown and why?

posted by: John Wysolmerski on January 30, 2009  9:39am

I would reiterate my previous suggestion regarding Whitney Ave.  Since it is going to be repaved anyway, at no extra cost it should be possible to paint three lanes instead of four.  Make it two lanes of traffic and one center turn lane.  It would also be possible to alternate the traffic flow of the center lane - two lanes into town for the morning rush and two lanes out of town for the evening.  The extra space could then be used for bike lanes.  This would accomplish 2 goals: slowing traffic on Whitney Ave.  I like that becuase I live just of of Whitney and use that road every day.  Second, it would provide a bike commuter avenue from points North into the center city.  Plus, it should cost very little and would encourage alternate commuting.  Not sure how to contact the “safe streets” guys - but this would be a great practical thing to push for now.

Cheers,
John Wysolmerski

posted by: anon on January 30, 2009  9:55am

Making Downtown better for walking and biking?  Start by building some real crosswalks, especially along deadly streets where they don’t exist - Whitney at Audubon, for example, or Elm Street at the Yale Campus, or York Street in front of the University Theater.

Fix the crosswalk in front of Union Station to prevent buses, trucks and drivers from speeding over it at 50 miles per hour as they currently do.

Let’s fix these situations before someone gets killed.  People have been complaining about these to the Mayor for 10 years, why hasn’t he been able to fix them?

posted by: Streever on January 30, 2009  10:22am

Anon,
if you were at the meeting,
you’d know that that is all part of the long-term plan
unfortunately we have non-standardized underlying systems that are not synchronized. They’ve been added as needed & don’t tie into one network. All of that has to be replaced.

I don’t think the response from cyclists was “where’s the rest?” While I fully sympathize with cyclists who live in areas that aren’t accessible to New Haven by bike easily, I also understand the need to have a set scope or goal. I was at this meeting, and the overwhelming response from cyclists was,
“THANK YOU” as evidenced by overwhelming applause (4 or so separate rounds) and a huge level of community involvement.

I think every attendee at the meeting was openly glad for the plan &  excited—no one was demanding more, although it’s easy for all of us, seeing an exciting proposal, to get ambitious. No one at this meeting was here looking for “Free stuff”.

The point of this meeting, was something mentioned: allowing the people there to draw right on a map, & to give their input.

No one is forcing anyone to accept anything: on the contrary. The public was widely requested to come & to tell the City what to do.

I do understand the need to have a well-defined scope. I think starting downtown makes a lot of sense. Right now, even if you do build up the neighboring areas, you’re going to be taking people to an area where they don’t feel safe biking or walking. We need to do basic things like:
synchronize the downtown lights
no right turn on red (look at NYC—London—anywhere really!)
improve crosswalks
extend the sidewalk to create choke points where things are already too hectic

All of this is in the project & in the scope. They aren’t all phase one—mostly due to financial considerations & the underlying network in place—but I really do want people to have a full impression of what this project entails.

posted by: Chris on January 30, 2009  10:32am

I think this plan is furthering a much needed discussion on use of the public right of way.  I would have like to see the criteria used in the placement of these routes.  My criteria have always been- Safety, directness, and aesthetics in that order.  Did the consultant study user conflict data from the police data to target problem locations?

On the connection to Union Station- Please consider the under utilized land where the old Farmington canal ran along state street.  What strong visual message to train users entering/ leaving New Haven- even just one dip down. Also Union Street is underutilized, has parks, and creates a safer line up for crossing Rt 1

I agree on the need for cross walk at Audubon and Whitney.

posted by: Nan on January 30, 2009  10:35am

Downtown needs to pay attention to Whalley Avenue between Broadway and Westville Village. It is one of the major entrances to New Haven.  It looks terrible.  It needs better stores and restaurants, bike paths, more crosswalks so people don’t jaywalk, and landscaping.

posted by: Streever on January 30, 2009  10:49am

http://newhavenregister.com/articles/2009/01/30/news/a3-necycling.txt
There is quite a bit about the plan itself in this article.

posted by: l on January 30, 2009  11:07am

This is great news - potentially. However, I’d like to reiterate the need for real enforcement w/ all of
this. I do love the idea of these traffic calming measures, so we can
psychologically, subconsciously slow drivers down, BUT New haven needs more
police enforcement. There has been some action already, but we need more aggressive enforcement/ticketing as part of all of this.
Telling drivers they can’t make a right on red or stay out of bike lanes means nothing when some New
haven drivers don’t even stop for a
red light, period! Also, if you go 25 in town or are careful around a cyclist, you get tailgated and cursed
at by the guy behind you; it’s really something. So, thanks for what you’re doing, and I hope good
things come of it. This could be an even better place to live.

posted by: City Hall Watch on January 30, 2009  11:13am

Where exactly are the dollars coming from? In this budget year, how? Why? Why do we have to always go to the extremes for a solution to these issues? We really need bike boxes so bike people will feel free to sit in the driving lane? Why can we not just paint bike lanes or when we can, realign the lanes to create the sharrows? How do you arrive at $5 million? That’s a stunning number (that only a consultant would call small) and I fear we are about to embark on a program just like school construction. Overbuilding our schools with luxuries has has created extraordinary debt with huge payments. Practicality went out the window just like the traffic calming on the Eastern Shore too. Folks, the city is broke and while I support bike routes and lanes, and reasonable measures for walkability, I want it to be practical, efficient and effective.

And by the way, people will fly to New Haven (Tweed) from overseas just to walk around New Haven? Gotta love the dreams.

posted by: Streever on January 30, 2009  11:27am

CHW
we need bike boxes (and more) because people like you call it the “driving lane”. Sorry,
bikes are part of the street, as are walkers/runners/etc.

The goal is to share the streets—people need to cross to shop at downtown merchants & to create a thriving city—and right now, playing “dodge the speeding car” is not a great way to get around.

Unfortunately, the poor behavior of New Haven drivers has led us to a point where we feel the need to restrict & restrain & retrain them, because they do things like stop their cars (at a red light) and scream & threaten to beat you up for crossing in a cross walk.

Drivers in New Haven are really out of control, & if they won’t wake up to increased enforcement (40% increase in 5 months) then we really do need to “Waste” this money on engineering & structural improvements in order to prevent the incredible cost of the many people who will die or be injured in an auto accident this year.

Few people plow their car into another car (or bike or walker) due to a desire to hurt someone & cost taxpayers money in rising insurance costs. They do it due to poor design & engineering & education. Without this, we can just spend tons of money on police overtime to ticket drivers—all of which money goes to the state except for 10 dollars per ticket.

posted by: anon on January 30, 2009  11:31am

City Hall Watch, New Haven already attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists and visitors for being a walkable and interesting place, not to mention being a top choice for students.  You might be surprised by the numbers.  If it looked like Tucson or Bridgeport, it wouldn’t. 

I agree with the dreams that the city can use this as a platform for economic development in the future.  Not to mention the fact that people who can walk everywhere spend a lot more money because they use their car less, and shop more locally. 

The city has realized this for a long time, which is probably why they are investing so much into this. 

High-speed barriers like Route 34 and Church Street, planned in the 1950s automobile age, just end up killing our economy. They need to be changed.

posted by: Jonas Maciunas on January 30, 2009  11:39am

The parameters of the study were to focus on the downtown.  Very well, but, as brought up throughout the article, various arterial routes in and out of the downtown will need to be addressed if cycling is to be a truly viable option for New Haveners (I include our friends in East and West Haven and Hamden in that grouping).  Introduction of bike lines on major avenues like Kimberly, Whalley, Whitney etc (Grand might be narrow enough to share the street slowly) are excellent ideas, and elimination of one-way streets will not only help calm traffic, but the increased flexibility will actually ease congestion!

However I would like to submit that some restraint be exhibited in a few arenas.  Clearly, changing the width of a street is a major undertaking and some serious need to do so would need to be exhibited.  That said, There seems to be a desire by some to eliminate parking on streets to make room for cyclists.  Especially in the downtown, and neighborhood commercial districts, I would advise against this. 

According to The National Main Street Program, each lost on-street parking space lost costs adjacent businesses about $10,000 a year in sales (Retail on Chestnut Street, here in Philadelphia, nearly went dead a couple decades ago when the street was converted into a bike/pedestrian/transit way).  This loss of parking would, consequently, push up demand for off-street parking, which would further inhibit a pedestrian friendly urban environment. 

Rather, I suggest to look at the street sections and narrow down the travel lanes to 9 or maybe 10 feet at the most.  Conversely, perhaps a travel lane can be eliminated. Additionally, not all streets need to have bike lanes to be bike friendly.  If traffic can be slow enough, sharrows present an excellent option.  Flexibility is critical, and its all dependent on the existing right of way.

I hate to come off sound like some car enthusiast, opposed to Mark Abraham’s pedestrian mecca (which I whole heartedly agree with), but we still need to see cars as very much a part of our environment, and we mustn’t cut our nose just to spite our face.

(just for credibility’s sake, I walked or rode my bike to work every day when I was in New Haven)

posted by: JP on January 30, 2009  11:44am

Here’s a great video on the bike box. I didn’t know what it was so I had to Google it. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/portland-bike-box-video.php It looks nice! I think people have to remember that while people flying here to walk around downtown is not realistic Downtown is a tourist destination. Very few people actually live here so I think anything we can do get people to want to come down from the burbs is great.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on January 30, 2009  12:33pm

There is a dearth of public parking for downtown business and offices.  Now parking may be further constrained to make way for bikes?  Of course, they can park in pay lots.  Throw the cost on them.

It’s time for a tax levied on bikes in New Haven specifically to help defray the cost of construction and maintenance of these lanes. 

Bike riders, especially those who live outside of New Haven, should be especially willing to contribute.

posted by: robn on January 30, 2009  12:54pm

CHW,

Although I wasn’t at the meeting I suspect that line painting can’t be done without some road repair. I wish it were so easy but the buses leave very deep ruts and potholes near the curb.

Theres obviously pent up demand in new haven for safe roads for bicycling, so if some sensible budgeting could be done and bike lanes prioritized, it would take cars off the roads, make downtown safer, and leave more spaces in downtown garages for visitors who come to events and spend money.

posted by: William Kurtz on January 30, 2009  1:18pm

I think the story accurately represents the range of views among people at the meeting, at least in my observation (I might not have characterized the general reaction as “where’s the rest?”, however!)

Mr. Piscitelli has been a sincere advocate of sustainable transportation and has sought input and support from concerned citizens at every step of this process.  But this plan is just what the consultant called it: baby steps.  That’s not a bad thing, just an observation.  You have to start somewhere and yes, you need to limit scope at first to have things get moving. 

In my opinion, however, the scope has been limited in extent in the wrong areas; connecting downtown New Haven to both the more outlying neighborhoods and the surrounding communities has to be a priority to make cycling and walking more viable options.  Perhaps there’s not as much political demand for it—as David pointed out, you might be taking people to areas where they don’t feel safe, but the larger point is that people need to be brought in from those areas. 

I imagine many of the people working at the large downtown employers—Yale, the Omni hotel, bars, restaurants, shops, delis, coffeeshops, diners, etc.—live in areas with limited safe routes to downtown.  I also suspect that those areas where average income tends to be lower see a higher percentage of unlicense, unregistered and uninsured vehicles and drivers.  So it’s not just about taking people out of downtown, but bringing them in.

Overall, though; congratulations to Mike Piscitelli and city hall for taking these progressive steps.

posted by: Beansie's Mom on January 30, 2009  1:57pm

I for one can’t wait until we use the STATE funds to repair the damage done to the BIKE paths on Route 17.  AKA Middletown Avenue.  A State Road we should be able to bike all the way to Middletown,Connecticut.  Do you see how skinny it gets in parts of North HAven. 
Of course if we are going to make Route 17 friendlier for Bicycles we should also be able to provide SIDEWALKS for the pedistrians and the moms pushing strollers and the Wheelchair users to use. 

Unfortunately the STATE DOT has no plans with the Revised Exit 8 nonsense to make Middletown Avenue in Connecticut save for anyone but DRIVERS.

posted by: JP on January 30, 2009  2:07pm

Streever, While i fully support everything to do with bike lanes and making the city more walkable.
I do think its the bikers that are out of control.
For instance If you look at the bike boxs they make it legal for bikes to ride around drivers and to the front of the lane. Obviously without the bike boxs every biker in new haven does it anyway even though its not legal.

posted by: Pedro on January 30, 2009  3:04pm

I received the following from a friend who visited New Haven for the first time in a while!
“the more time I spend in New Haven the more I like it. It’s compact and walkable and even, in some places, kind of pretty.”

So we’re doing something right!  To anyone at the meeting, I missed it because I was home sick! Was there any mention of implementing decent crosswalks like the ones I always mention are in place up in Amherst, MA?
https://www.amherst.edu/offices/facilities/capital_projects/project_archives/crosswalks_college
and
https://www.amherst.edu/offices/facilities/capital_projects/project_archives/crosswalks_spleasant

posted by: anon on January 30, 2009  3:18pm

No, Pedro, they didn’t talk about improving crosswalks. Surprising considering that there are so many more pedestrians in New Haven than cyclists.

Hopefully they’re thinking about this as a priority - making the city more walkable would help it compete for suburban tax dollars with places such as Downtown Guilford, Greenwich and NY City.

posted by: William Kurtz on January 30, 2009  3:23pm

Pedro—improvements to the crosswalks were suggested at the meeting such as raising them and making them more frequent, as well as increasing the time allotted to cross the street.  It was interesting; I suppose I never bothered to think about it but there is a formula for determining how long to make walk lights, expressed in feet-per-second. 

JP—regarding out-of-control bikers, I don’t disagree with you that lots of people riding bikes in town show a flagrant disregard for law, courtesy and safety, but as we all know, so do many people driving cars.  The line shouldn’t be drawn between ‘motorists,’ ‘cyclists,’ and ‘pedestrians,’ but rather between safe, courteous responsible road users and reckless, inconsiderate and dangerous ones.

posted by: City Hall Watch on January 30, 2009  3:24pm

Streever:

Why do you need a bike box in addition to a bike lane? Do you want lanes for runners, walkers too? Why not just have a series of one way, one lane streets and then you would have plenty of room for everybody to have their own lane.

My point was a bike box, in addition to a bike lane is unnessary, especially if you are going to use sharrows next to the sidewalk.

Having said that, you wrote: “unfortunately we have non-standardized underlying systems that are not synchronized.”

What underlying systems are you talking about and why is that necessary for travel lanes for bikes?

posted by: City Hall Watch on January 30, 2009  3:30pm

I also agree drivers are out of control in New Haven - and I’m glad there is increased enforcement. At the intersection of Davis and Whaley this morning, the same intersection where that little girl was killed, a car clearly ran the red light. Last weekend, a tow truck ran two lights on the 34 extension..so have at it.

But at the same time, I really don’t believe in spending millions of dollars to calm or to set up bike boxes in front of car traffic at a stop light. There has to be effective and efficient ways to do this. I hope we find it without going off a cliff with irrational exuberance.

posted by: Streever on January 30, 2009  4:42pm

CHW,
that’s a reference to the comment re: ped signals

those (and the traffic signals) are not properly synchronized

the scope of services they want to do is pretty large: that’s probably the most crucial element to this, and probably also the most expensive element

a little paint isn’t going to be that pricey
it’s things like re-wiring the traffic signals & ped crossing signals that is going to be expensive

posted by: JP on January 30, 2009  4:47pm

City Hall Watch, It looks to me like the bikebox gives a group of riders a place to stop at the red light also it stops drivers from makeing a right turn directly into them. Check out the video I think its a great idea.

posted by: Streever on January 30, 2009  4:49pm

Hey JP,
yes, I agree, a lot of cyclists do break the law. However, for every cyclist I can find riding incorrectly, I can find 2 drivers doing the same: and 1 terrified new biker who is hugging the right hand lane & about to get doored.

Eliminating the right on red & making a bike box legalizes and standardizes behavior: I think that increases safety for everyone, really. It’s not an issue of who is or isn’t wrong, but how we can productively improve safety.

Bill, I agree, it would be nice to have some of those things: I think in this case though, the COG has offered us money for one thing, so it’d be foolish to not take it!

I do think the headline is misleading. I was at the meeting, & while I know a few cyclists weren’t happy about the lack of out of town connections, I don’t think that should be the focus of an article on a meeting which wasn’t about that.

If the article was lengthier & involved research on the history of biking in New Haven, it would make perfect sense to focus on those things: but to lead in with what seems to me a bit of a tangent is odd. I feel like if the meeting is going to be reported on, it should accurately reflect the wide variety of views presented: I don’t see much here about how positively on the whole the plan was received! And while I won’t disagree that it’d be great—and deserved even—to see so much more being done, I’m willing to be pragmatic & accept the level of work we are currently getting, which seems like quite a bit compared to what we’ve gotten in the past.

posted by: William Kurtz on January 30, 2009  6:31pm

The purpose of a bike box is to codify what people on bikes are generally already doing to ensure their own safety.  It’s easier and safer to move through an intersection in the center of the travel lane, get through ahead of the first couple of cars, and then move to the right side of road (when possible—where there’s a shoulder or a second travel lane) than it is to wait patiently behind three or four cars at a light, and ahead of three or four more.  Typically, then, by the time the cyclist gets through the light, there’s a gap in front and a line of impatient drivers behind.

The likelihood of being ‘right-hooked’ means it’s absolutely unsafe to try to ride through an intersection on the far right side, with traffic passing you on your left.  That’s how the young man was killed on Derby Avenue in May of 2006.  He was struck by a truck driver who had no idea he was there and really, no reason to expect him to be.

posted by: juli on January 30, 2009  7:31pm

on the subject of better routes from greater distances into downtown:

i interpreted the message to be that we need to take smaller, more immediate steps towards making a dense, downtown area a more viable option for all types of road users first.

from there, with more strength in numbers, we collectively make the roads safer while simultaneously helping more cyclists gain the confidence and awareness needed to make longer trips. the focus would then be on longer commutes into downtown.

posted by: robn on January 31, 2009  11:05am

Whatever we do, even if it means focussing on something immediately achieveable like starting with downtown, we shouldn’t forget the rest of the city. Bike lanes on major ateries will make transportation safer for the many people who cannot afford cars, or who choose to bicycle to work and will be an economic generator (better, safer transportation always is to some degree). Theres enough space for bike lanes on major ateries like Whitney, Whalley, Dixwell. Columbus, Blvd and Grand might also be good candidates.

posted by: Greg on January 31, 2009  10:03pm

I wish that there had been a bit more discussion about pedestrians, the meeting seemed quite bike-centric to me.  I strongly support making New Haven a more bike friendly city, but was rather surprised at the sheer number of specific intersections that were discussed in terms of making things safer and easier for bicycles.  That was particularly remarkable due to the practically nonexistent specific intersections discussed in terms of pedestrian improvements.

posted by: Jude on February 2, 2009  8:59am

I’ve commented on this before & I will comment again.  While it is true that drivers need to be more conscious & respectful of cyclists, cyclists also need to be more respectful of drivers by obeying traffic laws & by wearing reflectors at night.  Wearing dark clothes without reflectors on either the bike or the person is so dangerous.  Just last night, I was driving down Quinnipiac Ave. & almost ran into a cyclist who was dressed totally in black & riding against traffic.  This happens all too frequently.  Even when one is keeping to the 25mph speed limit, it is often difficult to see cyclists until they are right in front of us when there are no reflectors.
Let’s help each other remain safe.

posted by: pierre_lallement on February 2, 2009  10:54am

”& almost ran into a cyclist who was dressed totally in black & riding against traffic.”

A bicycle does not a cyclist make.

posted by: William Kurtz on February 2, 2009  11:05am

Good point, Jude. 

There are a lot of people using bicycles for basic transportation who probably don’t consider themselves ‘cyclists’ as such, an ride with a dangerous disregard for basic safety and the rules of the road.  This group includes a lot of children and I imagine that they do this for a variety of reasons, including a basic ignorance about what the rules are. (I know several parents who explicitly taught their children to ride against traffic, for example).

In conjunction with neighborhood groups and schools, Elm City Cycling has given away a couple of hundred lights and helmets to area young people.  Admittedly, we’re not always seeing the impact we hope for. 

We are always on the lookout for more effective ways to reach people so if anyone has any suggestions on how to better educate about safe cycling and sharing of the road, please feel free to either attend the ECC public meeting each month (on the second Monday at 6:00 p.m.), join the conversation on our listserv (http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/elmcitycycling), or email me directly (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) and I will be happy to pass along any suggestions.

posted by: Greg on February 2, 2009  11:46am

Of course some people on bicycles need to be safer and follow the law, but the same goes for folks in cars, on feet, and riding segways.

posted by: 7773214 on February 2, 2009  5:56pm

Sharrows, bicycle boxes, bike paths and fixing the timing of traffic lights?  I would have gladly offered these glib solutions for the mere price of a pint of a beer.  These consultants should be fired and ECC should take over the project.

posted by: DingDong on February 3, 2009  8:22am

To 7773214:

Community involvement?  Who needs it?  Let’s just leave government to the experts who can rule with us without our input.  Government also knows best.

posted by: Bruce on February 3, 2009  10:22am

AC, No problem.  Bicyclists already pay lots of taxes that end up being used for motor vehicle-specific infrastructure. 

I think it’s a little preliminary to discuss removing parking spaces.  A lot can be done without affecting parking, so hopefully we can target that first.