nothin Panel Urges Downtown Crossing Re-do | New Haven Independent

Panel Urges Downtown Crossing Re-do

Allan Appel Photo

Elm City Cycling’s David Streever lobbies Alderwoman Arlene DePino before her committee’s deliberations.

Would narrowing the Frontage roads to two lanes save the lives of cyclists, pedestrians and asthmatics — or pose a deadly traffic jam when ambulances need to get through?

Such life and death prospects were the subject of an hour and a half of tense agonizing Thursday night as the members of the aldermanic Community Development Committee discussed a non-binding resolution urging the city to produce a less car-centric design for its Downtown Crossing project to overhaul Route 34.

By a vote of 4 to 3, the committee approved the resolution, which now heads to the full board for deliberation later this month.

While there is widespread approval for an evolving plan to link downtown to the medical district and the Hill turning the Route 34 corridor into urban boulevards” and connecting streets, critics say the city’s plan is too committed to wide roads that carry vehicles, causing serious safety concerns for cyclists and pedestrians.

The resolution (read it here) was penned by East Rock’s Justin Elicker and co-signed by, among nine other aldermen, the Hill’s Dolores Colon and Beaver Hills’ Claudette Robinson-Thorpe, who are also committee members. It calls for narrowing the Frontage Roads from four to two lanes, which has become the most controversial aspect of the request.

Hill Alderwoman Dolores Colon

Thursday’s approval came after a four-hour-long public hearing last month, where job-seekers and safe streets activists clashed over the merits of the plan. At that meeting construction workers warned that delays in design for Downtown Crossing might result in job losses and Elicker whipped out a tape measure to show that the proposed Frontage Road crossings in sections were not safe.

In the end, the committee decided on Sept. 29th not to decide.

Thursday’s continuation was a deliberation only among the aldermen, with no more public testimony allowed, except those messages that could be conveyed by signs.

The dozen sign carriers represented the Urban Design League, Elm City Cycling, the Safe Streets Coalition, and the Yale Graduate Student Assembly’s Transit and Safety Committee.

As sign carriers filed in and took seats on one side of the Aldermanic Chamber, City Hall staffers huddled on the other side.

The hall became hushed as it became clear there was a sense of deep urgency on both sides.

Dolores Colon: I’m up to my neck in buildings and garages. We need to bring down the number of cars and put in residential [too]. We’re not stupid. We want developers coming in. But in a way for a new century.”

Committee Chair Paca and Vice Chair DePino

After gently chiding Colon by asking her if she wanted to put all that into an amendment to the resolution, the committee’s chairman Marcus Paca said the resolution’s specific reference to a two-lane Frontage road was highly problematic.

If I’m rushing in an ambulance, and it’s only two lanes … we have Gateway College,” he added, indicating that congestion would be the consequence of urging the city to down-size the number of travel lanes.

I’m not comfortable with this resolution,” said East Shore’s Arlene DePino. I really want to get this right. I know we need more than two lanes. Cars are coming in. We need to deal with them,” she said.

Paca asked if Elicker would be willing to alter the language of the resolution. Elicker said that accompanying the resolution but not included in it were other specifics, but as to the two lanes, he held to the importance of that to the language. I urge you: it’s a resolution, guys. It’s not a contract. It’s a statement of a vision. It’s not the end of the world.”

Are you willing to change language?” Paca repeated.

I think the current plan is dangerous, so I’m not taking that word out [either]. Short answer: No,” Elicker said.

You put me in a bind,” said Paca.

You put me in a bind,” said Elicker.

Downtown’s Alderwoman Bitsie Clark noted the tension between the two sides — one that feels deeply that public safety and more human-size development are at risk, and the other concerned about missing historic economic opportunity if funding and other submission deadlines are compromised by re-designing. She posed the central question before the committee:

How do you get from a win-lose to a win-win? What can this committee do to get to a win-win?”

To table or to vote?

Clark and Elicker confer.

Maybe we need to bring in Community Mediation?” she said. She wasn’t joking.

From [Economic Development Administrator] Kelly [Murphy’s] memo, it seems like they [the two sides] are not so much on different pages. The dialogue has started. There should be more,” said Dixwell Alderman Greg Morehead.

So the question became to table or to vote. Paca said, Maybe the people who support this resolution should have a formal role in the process.”

By that he meant be at the table when the city meets with developers and with the state. I am willing to amend to call the lobbying group for the resolution to be a part of the process. Maybe attend the Community Development Committee staff meetings,” Paca added.

Clark wondered if tabling would guarantee each side would listen to the other and give a little. She also rued that she did not have the facts from the city if a delay for re-design would jeopardize funding. We’re being asked to make a decision without all the facts,” she said.

Paca’s idea did not gain traction.

Elicker urged a vote be taken. It’d be disappointing to the public if a decision isn’t made tonight,” he said.

Although East Shore’s Arlene DePino was against the resolution, she was against delaying it further in committee. She made the procedural suggestion to vote and it was agreed to.

In the end Colon, Robinson-Thorpe, Morehead, and Clark voted for it. Paca, DePino, and Fair Haven’s Ernie Santiago voted against.

Economic Development Administrator Murphy said, We share a lot of tonight’s [concerns, but] two lanes is too prescriptive.”

Greg Morehead & Kelly Murphy

She said meetings with Elicker and the critics have been ongoing and intense and she expected they would continue. Would tonight’s vote have an impact on the scheduling of final design submission deadlines for the state, which are required by 2012? Would it affect other pressures on the process such as getting ready for the construction season?

I’m not sure it will have an impact at this point.”

As to going back to the drawing board for a two-lane Frontage Road, deputy economic development chief Mike Piscitelli said that they are working with Elicker and others to address concerns, but added, Our technical analysis now doesn’t allow us to pursue a two-lane structure.”

Elicker said the vote was a very positive development. It’s at 30 percent. It’s important to move it ahead and to move our vision ahead and get these things in now. Look at the state of the economy. There might not be more [federal] money, so why not move the city to get these things in now.”

Murphy said her team has already achieved exceptions to state Department of Transportation and even some federal design standards to accommodate the cycling and other critics. She pointed to the inclusion of bike boxes as one example.

As to the number of lanes on North and South Frontage roads, she said the plan establishes curb to curb distances, but they might not always be travel lanes, depending on how conditions develop in future phases.

Murphy said the city had just engaged another engineering/design firm, Nelson Nygaard, to explore whether absent big hunks of new money, we can break out smaller pieces” that the city can do its own.

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for streever

Avatar for THREEFIFTHS

Avatar for Salty

Avatar for email@email.com

Avatar for email@email.com

Avatar for rnarracci@pcparch.com

Avatar for westville man

Avatar for Carlos R. Galo

Avatar for rnarracci@pcparch.com

Avatar for streever

Avatar for nh_townster24_4884@yahoo.com

Avatar for westville man

Avatar for streever

Avatar for Steve Harris

Avatar for streever

Avatar for Salty

Avatar for westville man

Avatar for newhaventaxpayer2010@gmail.com

Avatar for streever

Avatar for streever

Avatar for newhaventaxpayer2010@gmail.com

Avatar for eddiej28970@yahoo.com

Avatar for Steve Harris

Avatar for westville man

Avatar for Icarus

Avatar for Steve Harris

Avatar for anonymous

Avatar for Vanessa Fasanella

Avatar for Steve Harris

Avatar for westville man

Avatar for masec@aol.com

Avatar for streever

Avatar for loustratler@gmail.com

Avatar for westville man

Avatar for anonymous

Avatar for HhE

Avatar for Kevin M

Avatar for streever

Avatar for HhE

Avatar for Icarus

Avatar for westville man