City Promises:
Veto Will Vanish

Asthma among minority children living around this area is up to 10 times higher than asthma among children from Connecticut's white population. Look at the hospitalization rates.

Do we seriously need more very large parking garages, wider roads, and dense development with no mass transit options, that will funnel even more traffic through West River and the Hill?

I thought that Holmes and Morrison cared about children's health, asthma and infant mortality?

I wonder how the connector traffic will be affected by this change. Already, the three exits get backed way up every morning -- sometimes all the way back onto I-91. Won't closing exits 2&3 just increase usage of exit 1? Seems like this will send more highway commuters onto the crowded city streets.

Bruce- other cities have actually ripped out highways (not pretended to, like in this case). Traffic inevitably declines and congestion decreases dramatically.

The reasons for this are very well known, but unfortunately the officials at Yale and YNHH who essentially have control over this project are still stuck in the "more roads = less cars" mindset of the Lee era.

Here, we are widening the highway and making part of it a private Yale (including Winstanley as its tax-paying proxy organization) driveway. The Aldermen really helped kill the project when they voted against a streetcar, which is pretty much the only thing that could have kept our declining bus system afloat. Bus service, which is already of limited use to commuters trying to reach this new development, will continue to suffer service cuts.

Given the City has already spent roughly $5 million planning and lobbying for 100 College, it is a surprise that they didn't spend more towards a plan for transit in the area.

Maybe we'll rethink this when our black & Hispanic asthma rates are 20X the suburbs not just 10X higher.

Murphy says the tax estimate is just as estimate. Given the history of 360 State and the current lawsuit, what is the estimated tax Winstanley will pay? Is it going to be phased in? Is it going to be market rate or special circumstance? The same with personal property? Will interim taxes be assessed while the building is under construction? Any extra gimme(s) besides our $7 million?

Anonymous is right on.

New Haven, congratulations, you have been listed as the 2nd worst city in America for asthma.

THE SECOND

and our alders sit here and talk about how much they care about "everyone" in New Haven, while literally cramming a highway expansion through.

I did not think I could be more disappointed in our municipal government but find myself growing more disappointed over time.

Last night, Elicker demonstrated why he should not have been forced off of the City Plan commission to pave the way for a successful campaigner to take the helm. He asked substantial questions, stood up for citizens and residents, and shared the concerns that have been raised at the public meetings he attended.

He gave an excellent example of leadership on a sensitive and tricky subject. Thank you, Justin.

The City states it is "closing a highway and knitting Orange and Temple Streets across Route 34 again." [see article]

This is not what the plans for Phase One say. The BOA is being asked to approve a Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) and create a new zone, B3, for the public land being transferred to Carter Winstanley in Phase One. In the Phase One plans there is no new street connection across Route 34 on either Orange Street or Temple Street. In fact, there is no new street connectivity across Route 34 at all in Phase One.

It is important to keep this in mind because as of now there is no Phase Two, which the City also refers to as "Full Build". The City would like to do a Full Build, but at this time there is no funding for it, and there are no plans for it.

The $16 million TIGER II grant was awarded to the City for work to be done in Phase One, work that should include removing the highway and reconnecting the streets. There are no plans for additional street connections in Phase One. Also, the highway is removed in name only --the structure will remain. The highway is mostly a trench, and that trench is being left in place to serve as a driveway to the new garage servicing 100 College Street, and for service lanes to the Air Rights garage and the hospital loading dock. There will be arterial roads of up to five lanes on either side of the trench, and the overall configuration of trench and arterials will divide the neighborhood in the same way the current highway does.

Co-Chair Holmes expressed the dilemma succinctly: "What happens if we don't go to Full Build...if, much like the current situation,...we end up with the rags of an abandoned dream?"

I would add another question: What happens if the facts on the ground, literally set in concrete in Phase One, impede moving forward to the fulfillment of the vision promised for the Phase Two Full Build?

There are two ways to reduce congestion. One is to expand capacity and enact a permanent moratorium on all future building and development. The other option is through mixed-use development and multi-modal transportation planning.
The first option may involve adding lanes, reducing intersections, limiting access onto the roadway, etc. That alone, however, will not permanently reduce congestion, because capacity expansion projects are always followed by development, which draws in more users and takes up the newly created capacity, resulting in congestion again. So the only way that roadway expansion works at reducing congestion is if a permanent moratorium on new development in the surrounding area is enacted so that there is not new demand to take up road capacity. Unfortunately, this results in insolvency due to an inability to fund long-term maintenance obligations such as repairs on the roadway. In other words, capacity expansion is not a viable option. Furthermore, capacity expansion is impossible for Route 34 since the Pfizer building and Lot E have been constructed.
The second option - mixed-use development and multi-modal transportation planning - allow you to use your existing infrastructure more efficiently while also allowing you to actually reduce capacity, in some cases. This usually involves adding dedicated bike lanes, transit lanes, adequate pedestrian networks and pleasant street design that can act as the setting for shopping, working, living, recreation and congregating.
The city's and Winstanley's current plan seems to be to maintain the same capacity, while increasing demand through new development, and not investing in multi-modal transportation planning. It's a surprising approach considering that its impact, which will not be good in many ways, can be easily predicted. It's also a difficult situation where funding is limited for a project - the redevelopment of Route 34 - that costs enormous amounts of capital and is not aided by a Federal transit planning grant because the BOA shot it down. If there were a way to generate funding for comprehensive transportation planning and serious mixed-use development through coalescing the Coliseum Site, Union Station TOD, Church Street South Redevelopment, and Amistad Park/Yale Nursing School building projects, it might be possible to get Temple Street bridge built and some kind of connection at Orange Street sooner than waiting for Phase 2 of Downtown Crossing.

Bruce offered the following thoughts:

"I wonder how the connector traffic will be affected by this change. Already, the three exits get backed way up every morning—sometimes all the way back onto I-91. Won't closing exits 2&3 just increase usage of exit 1? Seems like this will send more highway commuters onto the crowded city streets."

My reply: unfortunately, you are exactly correct, and no amount of hand waving by the new urbanist crowd can change that reality. As they have already discovered, bringing all that traffic away from the dedicated connector road means... that all the traffic now requires more lanes on Frontage Road. Add in the new traffic generated by Gateway students and staff and there will be a nightmare of traffic congestion in that area.

There is still, however, hope. Note that the original proposals included a single lane for traffic in each direction under the new building, but now that has grown to two lanes each - exactly what I proposed at one of the public work sessions. Instead of both lanes terminating in the garage, per the plan articulated by Mike Piscitelli, both lanes should also use the existing ramps to continue to provide passage to and from Frontage Lane. I write "also", because the basement level entrance modification is a great idea.

By leaving the connector road function intact, all of the current traffic will not be diverted onto Frontage Road. That would enable the possibility of some real improvements in pedestrian routes across that road - something badly needed and that could have been improved upon long ago without this project - but wasn't.

nfjanette,
"As they have already discovered, bringing all that traffic away from the dedicated connector road means… that all the traffic now requires more lanes on Frontage Road."
This is certain true, but only if you accept a particular assumption. That assumption is that the exact vehicle road capacity that currently exists must continue to exist in the future. It's a reasonable assumption - one that the city has been working with throughout this process. The scenario you describe, while accurate in one way, represents only one possible scenario out of several.
Another scenario would be one in which the highway is brought up to street level AND the Frontage Roads are kept relatively narrow. This may sound ridiculous, but that's just because it is based on a different assumption from your scenario, but nevertheless it is an assumption that has a sizable amount of evidence to back it up.

"6 Case Studies in Urban Freeway Removal"
http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/docs/ump/06 SEATTLE Case studies in urban freeway removal.pdf

"The Impacts of Road Capacity Removal"
http://tinyurl.com/bvfktry

"Freeway Destruction and Urban Regeneration in the United States"
http://www.uctc.net/papers/763.pdf

An effective urban street grid, which is currently lacking around Route, can absorb a large amount of redirected traffic through dispersion. However, an effective street grid could be achieved for Route 34 if connections could be made at Temple and Orange Streets. The second integral part of reducing capacity is investing in multi-modal transportation planning and infrastructure, such as dedicated bike lanes, transit only lanes, pleasant pedestrian amenities, expanded bus service, etc. The final integral part of reducing capacity is to require that all new development contribute to the creation of semi-autonomous neighborhoods that contain a range of housing types, places of employment, shopping areas, recreation facilities, and congregation spaces within a walkable, transit-connected area.

Jonathan is right to point out that a comprehensive outlook for the wider area is needed.

All too often the City only looks at the project of the moment when it should be looking down the road 20-30 years. New Haven needs to get ready for a different economy, one much more regionally and locally based.

The next plan of development, due in 2013 I believe, should be a serious attempt to plan for that new economy. The city has good rail service and a working port. Build off these strengths and replace the current code with a modern one.

Smart planning and zoning can set an attractive table for developers, companies and people.

Nathan, pedestrian improvements could be improved in either scenario. They aren't precluded by anything you suggest, as shown by the cases of the many other cities which have removed highways.

Pedestrian improvements are an economic necessity for our city, as evidence shows that walkability is an overwhelmingly large part of people's decisions about home and business locations, moves, and perceived viability. Transit improvements are directly related to this.

The fact our City has ignored this for so long, and continues to, has placed us at a significant disadvantage versus our peer cities. We clearly need some engineers, planners, and politicians who prioritize this as an economic development imperative.

Prior articles and comments have addressed what is specifically troubling and wrong about the process of Route 34 development and Downtown Crossing in particular. Writing as an active West River resident my concern is and has been that an opportunity to develop New Haven for the 21st century is being short-changed; and it's being shortchanged practically in my front yard.

People often rally around promises of Jobs (for New Haven residents)! Affordable Housing! and Progress! only to learn that short-term construction jobs and a handful of apartments in an upscale development do not Progress make.

What does, and what the Urban Design League, among others, has asked the city and Mr. Winstanley to invest in is a charette. Properly conducted it allows the best ideas of professionals and laypeople to be sculpted into a cohesive whole. A process designed to foster mutual respect and trust, it simultaneously educates all interested parties, and prepares communities and builders for inevitable yet welcomed change. Imagine what Downtown Crossing and Rte. 34 could be if it were a respectful partnership between city government, private developers, and the public?

When the Air Rights garage was being planned in the 1970s, the DEP determined that a garage of this size required an air permit because of its potential impact on air quality in the surrounding area. The City and YNHH lobbied for a rider on an unrelated bill in the General Assembly to exempt Air Rights from DEP regulation. Now we're looking at adding another 800+ car garage in an area that is already in EPA nonattainment for two criteria pollutants, ground-level ozone and PM 2.5. It is a travesty and a shame that this sort of project is not covered under the 2009 state environmental justice law. Just like power plants and sludge incinerators, massive parking garages are an environmental justice hazard and building them in an EJ community should really trigger a robust community benefits process.

abg22 is correct, additional garages in this area ideally should not be allowed given the issues identified. There are already literally hundreds of underutilized parking lots and dozens of other garages.

Instead of subsidizing a garage with tens of millions of public dollars, can we subsidize a better transit system?

Despite what some have claimed about job creation, taking steps that degrade our urban environment never creates jobs. Jobs flock to areas that people want to spend time in, both during the day and after hours. Building parking garages actually causes job losses and encourages more people to flee our city's low income areas in favor of areas such as Westville, East Shore, and the suburbs.

Ann Green puts this whole issue in its true context: What is at stake here is the type of development New Haven will have for the first half of the twenty-first century. We can throw up our hands and say that the plan, as it is, is the best we can get. Or we can insist that our representatives makes sure that this is done right.

Not only does the federal grant and the public money that is being invested in the project (as well as the public land that is to be transferred to the developer) require that it meet certain standards of clean air, safe streets, Transit Oriented Development, and the reconnection of neighborhoods and streets torn apart by the original Highway to Nowhere--common sense tells us that it is absurd to squander a once in a lifetime opportunity to get this right.

We have all the elements in place to get this right: a community conscious developer who has been working on this project for years; a City Hall (also working on this for years) in need of economic development and eager to undo the original errors of the misconceived plans of the 1960s; an informed, engaged citizenry eager to be involved and brimming with ideas and special knowledge, be it of their individual neighborhoods or of the issues that they're involved with; and money coming in from the TIGER II grant and the State. There is a known process, the design charrette process, that--if it is presided over by an independent organization with a proven track record of organizing successful charrettes--can meld all these elements into a workable plan that everyone will support.

We must press our representatives--our Alders, Mayor DeStefano, Representative DeLauro, Senator Blumenthal--to make sure we have the opportunity to get it right this time. It can be done. It should be done. Let's do it.

The train may have left the station on this project, but I think New Haven needs to really have a sit down and decide what kind of city it wants to be by 2050. There is plenty of good will and plenty of smart people all around from City Hall, to Yale, to local activists and residents but no coordinated action to take a good long look at the future.

The default of only looking at the project of the moment with maybe half and eye towards the future is myopic and isn't going to work as we go forward.

The Plan of Conservation and Development has to be updated soon. Now is the time to develop a plan that scraps the boilerplate and acknowledges emerging economic realities. A recent International Monetary Fund working paper: The Future of Oil: Geology versus Technology (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12109.pdf) is yet another signal that business as usual, meaning a globalized economy with an auto-centric built environment, has a short shelf life. For those of you who know me I know I sound like a broken record but trends are trends whether we like them or not.

Rob, Kelly, Mike, Mayor DeStefano, Alders, now is the time to position New Haven to move into this new reality.