Sidewalk On Way For Perilous Pearl Street

They really should have just turned this part of Pearl into pedestrian only and made that part of Lincoln a dead-end. The only reason people used it (besides local residents who could still use it to park if done with resident access only) were people speeding through trying to beat traffic. I'm a very careful pedestrian and was nearly run over there countless times by people who blew threw the stop sign at full speed.

@scriptus is absolutely correct - i walked this route around six times a day every day for many years. there's essentially zero reason to keep lincoln open on both ends. the ONLY people who use it for thru-traffic are absolutely TEARING down that road. it's not even just during rush hour.

In my opinion, that part of Pearl Street would probably be best as a "shared street" and would maybe do even better as a one-way. I think that Drivers should not have access to Pearl from Lincoln. (Except for bicyclists, pedestrians or residents)

I think in this case it would be safe to say that Lincoln Street would technically be a "No Outlet" type of street if Pearl was to be converted into a one-way that goes in from Orange. But I see that as an interesting idea..

Motorists are part the blame....but careless pedestrians not paying attention and using common sense is the bigger issue here. Can't tell you all the times I see walkers not adhere to crosswalk lights (whland instances where the pedestrians focus is there cell phone and not there surroundings.

This was a quiet area before Yale built SOM. Now it's busy with their students, and a sidewalk is needed. It's outrageous that Giovanni Zinn has volunteered $40,000 of city money for this. Yale should pay the complete cost. Let's hope he uses minority contractors for the work, something he has been unable, or unwilling to do for the Q-house.

Several speed humps would probably be a better use of funds. Shared street would be nice but likely more costly.

Cove'd, I've two blocks from the site for 29 years. The issue is not speed, it is a lack of a sidewalk.

If the city is spending $40,000 to make Pearl Street safer for Yale pedestrians, how much do they plan on spending to make Whaley Ave safer for non-Yale pedestrians?

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/crash/

Kevin, people are saying that speed is an issue, especially when drivers use Pearl and Lincoln as a cut-through. The first two comments above say as much. So traffic calming should definitely be part of this. And I love sidewalks, and am not necessarily speaking against this one, but these couple blocks of Pearl Street west of Orange Street see heavy use by people on foot such that I wouldn't be surprised if some people still walk in the street after the new sidewalk goes in. Which gets back to the first point - that traffic calming is necessary.

"Perilous Pearl St", give me a break. The first sentence of this article tells me why this is happening.

How about putting a round-about, real speed bumps or bump-outs on Russell St, now that street has of road it perilous. I have seen vehicle going so fast it literally looks like I-95

Jenna M., excellent point. Can NHI and/or the City provide any status on this: https://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB-5038 ?

also, call me naive maybe, but i'm frankly pretty puzzled as to how in the heck a VERY short stretch of sidewalk could possibly cost $90k? and actually, not for nothing, but ALL of pearl street between state and orange is lavishly sidewalked, and on the stretch between orange and the med school, there IS a sidewalk before the lincoln intersection. once you cross lincoln, there's only a dead-end street that really only runs about the length of the single house that's on it, and that portion doesn't really see any motorist activity. how is a sidewalk even the answer here? the issue, i think, is almost entirely the peril in crossing lincoln street on foot, which a sidewalk isn't going to address at all. the pearl/lincoln intersection really just needs to be closed off. there's no compelling reason to allow cars passage there. again, the vast majority of vehicles that do this are trying to avoid traffic on orange because they're running late, & they're HAULING. lincoln just needs to be a dead end.

Yes, speed is absolutely the issue on this street. I walked this route twice a day for five years, and have witnessed the way drivers treat the area. Some of them speed wildly. They don't stop at the stop signs. They don't yield to pedestrians. FlyinLuchador says that careless pedestrians are to blame, but that's not what I saw. The sidewalk on the left side of the street (come from Orange) is only a single person wide, and is perpetually icy during the winter as neither the homeowner, apartment block owner, nor the city salt the sidewalk. There's quite literally nowhere to walk and it's a very high traffic area and now with social distancing, people will be forced to move into the streets sometimes.

People like FlyinLuchador need to take a step back and remind themselves of the personal responsibility they take on when they drive a 2 ton automobile in a residential area. Pedestrians will occasionally do dumb things, but is it worth to be careless, roll through stop signs, and drive 10 miles above the speed limit, all so you can get to Stop & Shop 2 minutes faster? Give me a break--stop thinking of yourselves and start thinking of others.

It's interesting to me that Pearl St gets a sidewalk makeover, when people in multiple occasions have been seriously injured, hit or killed on multiple locations on Whalley, Route 80, Dixwell, Ella Grasso Blvd, Route 34 Connector (Both sides.) The only difference I can see is that Pearl Street is in a neighborhood with mostly white, wealthy or upper middle class, Yale connected or other professionals. The other areas have been in areas that are in mostly poor, minority neighborhoods, and are State roads which require the cooperation of the State of CT.
Isn't it time to ask the State to help with traffic calming and pedestrian and bike safety on State controlled roads in the city l? Isn't it time to put the city's money into improving the streets with higher traffic and pedestrian accident incidents? if the city had "park and ride" lots on the outskirts of the city on these major traffic arteries, with reliable and frequent shuttles or buses that took you from the border suburbs to downtown and back, at early am to late pm hours, would it cut down on traffic in the city?

I drive that street regularly. Pedestrians just walk out into to traffic all the time with no regard for their own safety usually looking down at a phone. They don't even look when walking off sidewalk to street. Bicycles come up the wrong way on Pearl and use the crosswalk on Orange without stopping like they are pedestrians. The stop signs were a good idea, but as proven this morning, a bicycle coming from SOM went speeding through his stop sign with no regard for traffic rules or safety and almost hit him. Pedestrians are always standing in the middle of the street (usually with their backs to traffic) or at the stop sign blocking traffic. When you tap the horn they yell at you or flip you off and refuse to move, because "traffic has to stop for us" . Its called sharing people. THE PROBLEM HERE IS NOT TRAFFIC, its the entitled attitudes of the pedestrians who are primarily Yale Students. Putting a sidewalk doesn't mean they will use it !!

TOWNIEE, I also drive that street regularly. I used to live on it until a few months ago. I used to walk it every day. I've seen both sides of the equation, and it's definitely weighted more to drivers being the problem. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen entitled pedestrians staring at phones at not paying attention--although I give you kudos for using entitled Yale students as a way to raise other people's ire, nice rhetorical move. The issue in East Rock, especially here and on Orange Street are people treating it like it's a major arterial for high speed traffic. Speeding is rampant on all of Pearl and on Orange and very very few drivers observe the crosswalks, which pedestrians do have the right of way at. Maybe if entitled townies would stop staring at their phones and pay more attention to their speedometers and the crosswalks, we could have a more livable city.

I also agree with Heather. We need a city-wide emphasis on redesign. This city has been designed around cars...it lost its waterfront to I-95...it has major arterials bisecting pedestrian areas. People are struck and die regularly, and yet we have people complaining about entitled Yalies...absolute insanity. If you're a town, take some civic pride and make this city a place people want to live, rather than having to fear for their lives every time they walk somewhere. I'm so sick of having to wonder if some idiot is going to stop at the crosswalk for me this time or if I'm going to be mowed down because he needs to get home 1 minute faster.

Cove'd, thanks. I suspect that the people who say that speed is the issue don't live in the immediate area. Speed is a real issue in all sorts of locations; it is not the primary issue here.

With regard to your question about the bonding bill, it died. After staffing the legislature's Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee about 10 minutes, I learned that individual bonding bills die. And as a matter of practice, the vote on the bond package is held till the end of session to maximize leadership's leverage over the rank and file members. Traffic calming Whitney Ave. makes sense. But in light of the urgent need to make capital investments in schools to make them safe for students and staff, the Whalley Avenue investments will not happen soon.

It seems to me that New Haven should have a lot more public space for people rather than for vehicles. I also agree that it would certainly be better to have that end of Pearl Street become a "shared space" with ONLY pedestrians and bicyclists having access. That would basically be a win-win situation completely because if Lincoln becomes a dead end then at least cars won't be able to speed through the neighborhood.

Heather, your description of the neighborhood is accurate and relevant. But this is also a well defined problem that is relatively easy to fix. Public officials like problems such as these. In contrast, the issues you raise are substantially more complicated and costly to fis.w

There have been park and ride facility for years, some with decent bus service. The difficulty is the "two-seat" problem. Travelers are deeply allergic to having to change vehicles, whether this is car/bus or train/bus.

JULES,

The proposed stretch of sidewalk is about 400 feet long which, for a 4' wide sidewalk, comes out to about $56/sf. Not bad considering that there's trees to clear, existing asphalt to be cleaned up, and probably 400 linear feet of granite curb.

@robn, i guess i just don't understand why it needs to be that long at that much expense. the city could save a hell of a lot of money if it would just occasionally salt the existing sidewalk, as someone mentioned above. what drives people into the street is the poor condition/maintenance of the existing sidewalk, which runs almost the full course of pearl street. is the proposed sidewalk going to get some regular salt action? because otherwise I can foretell plenty of folks back in the street in the winter, causing all the same issues. they really ought to just close off that end of lincoln. can't repeat this enough.

Scriptus's suggestion makes sense and could be completed for less than $2,000 (a couple of cement planters or metal posts to block cars at each end). Why not save $40,000, try that out for a year and see if it works? You could always come back to the sidewalk plan later if people don't like it.

(sorry, planters only at Orange & Lincoln, not at both ends)

This is exactly the kind of project that Yale should pay for, and actually be volunteering to do. The SOM building has changed pedestrian and vehicle traffic flow tremendously.

Robn,

IDK $56/sf still sounds too high. $90k total sounds too high unless I'm missing something

COVD

...asphalt repair, street lighting adjustment, Utility poles, signage, water management (plumbed drains), tree removal, safety management (police)....

Robn, not to belabor the point, but removing tree(s) and moving utility pole for this is overkill. Police traffic management here on such a relatively small street also overkill. Thinking more about this, the original goals would be better achieved at less price by just blocking these streets off to through-traffic or by putting in a bunch of speed humps.

Good point Cove'd about it being more cost efficient, possibly, just to block the streets. It's worth noting too that the area's alder, Abby Roth, lives at this intersection and so this is in her front yard. I'm sure her opinion on the matter has carried a lot of weight, and I'd be curious what she views as the right option. On a broader note, it's incredibly hard to get this city to make traffic changes. I tried for years to put in some sort of speed control (stop sign or hump) at Pleasant and Clark as drivers absolutely fly down Clark to get to Orange and there are tons of children and pedestrians walking down pleasant...it seems like there should be a stop sign at the intersection and so people often step off the curb not realizing that cars don't even have to slow down there.

Just to say, Pedestrian safety and planning in this city is still abysmal, and every time I bring out-of-town visitors, they all said "this is a beautiful neighborhood, but the drivers are terrifying." Is that the kind of city we want to live in?

Scriptus, stop signs are almost always the wrong answer in low vehicle traffic settings such as this. Drivers frequently blow through stop signs installed to address neighbors' concerns, which is no one's interest. Speed humps make sense in some situations, but end up annoying the immediate neighbors.

Lest I sound unduly negative, I do think there are real opportunities to make the streets safer through better design and policy changes. I am part of a group called the Safe Streets New Haven Coalition, which welcomes new members.

Hi Kevin, thanks for your reply and I don't think that's unduly negative at all. I actually used to work for a transportation unit in a research group, so I realize every solution comes with drawbacks. That intersection is a tough one--neighbor complaints about speed humps don't tend to bother me very much...likewise the stop sign doesn't seem a particularly bad idea at this one as it would at least compel street users to slow down somewhat at the intersection. Even if you don't get a full-stop from 100% of users, you'll reduce the speed. It's a difficult intersection to work with...the street is already narrow, which should slow things down, but that does not seem to be borne out in use. Likewise, the city seems to have moved away from installing the tables as they did at Edwards and Livingston (why was this? The outcry over price?). I think we're in a no-win situation until CT begins to actively look at stop-light cameras, which are shown effective as compared to speed cameras in many studies...

As to your group, now that I'm less overwhelmed, I'll look into joining your group! Would be nice to have some like-minded people to work alongside rather my usual perturbed letters to the alder and city!

Scriptus, thanks. The problem with speed humps is that idiots drive over them at 30+ mph, creating noise that can be heard hundreds of feet away. Speed tables are an effective alternative. But as you suggest, their problem is cost, often $10,000 or more per location.

Having lived around the corner from the section of street in question for about ten years I must say I'm surprised by the the misrepresentation of the problem by some commenters. I walk, cycle and drive frequently on the street in question.

Slinging the ugly specter of personal responsibility politics into this discussion is uncalled for as is the self-righteous rejection of any sense of institutionalized acculturation typical of the demographies of the area playing a part. They do play a part: drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are all guilty of entitlement here and as a result passive-aggressive, sometimes openly adversarial relationships have developed between them.

When Yale classes begin/end high pedestrian traffic volume occurs. Class times are most likely at issue, though it occurs at other times too. Traffic increased markedly when the SOM building was completed and Yale should pay the full boat for a problem it created.

Landowners responsible for sidewalk maintenance should be fined for non-compliance!

Pedestrian awareness has not been raised adequately regarding the extant sidewalk. They should use it, not the street. They walk with supreme inattention all over the street and it is a wonder more haven't been hit by bikes or cars. If any group could be singled out for being problematic it is pedestrians.

Cyclists proceeding downhill from SOM proceed far too quickly and endanger motorists, pedestrians and themselves. Of course they should observe all pertinent laws, but they don't. Their poor habits endanger all.

Motorists are in a bind. Pedestrians have no business walking in the middle of any street in America, Pearl St. included. On the other hand, cars do proceed too quickly and adequate awareness hasn't been raised about the new stop sign. Given the circumstances, motorists are a very real danger.

Let's hope the new sidewalk helps. There is no need to close Pearl and every need for everyone using it to use common sense and consideration.

Hannibal, please see: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/residential-shared-street/

Kevin, with enough speed humps on this stretch of Lincoln/Pearl, even the occasional nutty driver wouldn't be able to get up to 30+ mph.

@ Cove'd, I agree in principle with he shared street concept.

Since SOM's expansion, pedestrian volume has increased greatly. With that in mind, three things come to mind with pedestrians, in descending order:

1) The existing sidewalk is underutilized. The geographic objective of most walkers seems to be to move northeast on Orange Street. This makes the sidewalk on the southwest side of Pearl St less attractive.

2) Not only is it less attractive, the sidewalk is less visible due to parked cars.

3) Sidewalk maintenance has been substandard, particularly in winter. Only two property owners are in play; both should be alerted to their civic responsibilities. I get why pedestrians don't use that sidewalk much, despite the fact that they should - in every instance.

Apart from rush hours, vehicular traffic is quite moderate. Nevertheless, cars do speed, though how often is a problematic issue chiefly due to pedestrians hogging the roadway thereby impeding vehicular progress.

Cyclist behavior is a real issue, particularly westbound. As a cyclist, it's embarrassing to note their casual attitude towards the law and to other travelers in this area, particularly the two intersections.

The second sidewalk, something I have wished for since daily witnessing how the new SOM affects traffic patterns will be most welcome. If that doesn't work, investing in a shared street as you suggest makes great sense.

Closing the road as some suggest would choke traffic at rush and other hours. People avoid Trumbull like the plague. South and west bound traffic on Orange already diverts to Grove or Whitney. Choking the valve will redirect traffic to Humphrey (and southbound Whitney near Trumbull is a rush hour nightmare) and possibly to State.

It seems the most sensible solution is iterative. Let's see how the new sidewalk works and if it doesn't we can invest in the model shown in your helpful link. Yale caused this issue. Yale should pay for it.