Plan Unveiled To Calm Whitney Avenue

Excellent! Next do Whalley.

The bike concerns are all valid ones. Every intersection should have a bike left turn intersection box to make it easier for bikes to get ahead of stopped vehicles to turn left. The bike lanes should be on both sides of the road, where the bike lane can't be curb level there should be a jersey barrier or iron fence protected lane. There needs to be a way that buses stopped to pick up passengers can pull out of traffic so they don't block traffic lanes, and that vehicles entering the roadway from driveways don't block the bike lanes. There is only a small stretch of on street parking on Whitney Ave, why not eliminate it all together? Having one travel lane in each direction with a shared left turn lane (that can be used by emergency vehicles) will narrow the roadway, combined with raised crosswalks and intersections, will slow traffic speeds naturally and slow turning vehicles entering onto side streets. Having many trees planted next to the sidewalks will also slow traffic and create a neighborhood rather than speedway feeling to the street. Red light cameras and speed cameras will make it expensive to not follow the rules of the road. Get Yale and YNHH and their associated businesses involved and have them encourage and incentivize shuttle and bus and bike use and discourage personal vehicles use for employees and students. They are the major bulk of employee traffic in the city these days.

I completely agree that cyclists must be protected, but that should come with education for them as well to avoid things such as people going up elm street agains traffic on the opposite direction and completely ignoring the bike lane. There has to be a middle point between keeping cyclists safe as well as allowing traffic flow. Has anyone looked at synchronizing the lights to avoid the green red green red effect that causes constant stop and go traffic? Also, as a driver, I have to pay insurance and taxes to be able to use my vehicle; if cyclists want to be treated the same, they should do the same, which takes me back to the education point. I would love to use public transportation and not have a car, but this sucks and/or is inexistente and unreliable. Living in a society means that we have to get to middle point for the benefit of everyone rather than for the Benefit of a few loud ones!

If bikes want to turn onto a side street they can also just ride in the vehicle travel lane like they always have. just because there's a bike lane doesn't mean that people on bikes have to use it at all times. If it's more convenient to ride in the travel lane and make a turn then do that.

for people making turns off of the bike lane, good signals, traffic calming, bike boxes, etc are helpful to make it a pleasant experience.

How does this plan stop the jay walkers.Those who text and walk into the streets and cyclists who cut in front of moving cars and run Red Lights?

Let's hope the Whitney Ave makeover turns out better than The Yale Ave reconfiguration. Yale Ave which includes bike lanes and floating parking has been an unmitigated disaster, and hardly anyone is pleased with the end product.

This comment from the NextDoor app sums it up
The design of the changes to Yale Ave is inefficient and cartoonish. There were already bike lanes before the changes. As a neighborhood resident I can attest to the fact that the narrow lanes and poor sight lines are a danger to pedestrians and drivers. All that Yale Ave needed were speed bumps and/or other devices to slow down speeders using Yale Ave as a raceway and a shortcut. I am a bike rider but this is a wretched design.

We'd love for the NHI to do a follow-up story on Yale Ave so the East Rock folks can avoid enduring some of the same mistakes made here.

anonymous- the whole point of a bike lane is to reduce danger to bike riders from vehicles and the slowing of vehicles from bike traffic. If there is a bike lane on a street it should be illegal to ride in the vehicle lane or on the sidewalk (unless you are riding on the sidewalk because you are under the age of 12 and are just learning to ride a bike.)

By all means create boxes for the elites so they can bypass traffic to cue at the front of travel lanes.

Even small scale suggestions:

Dennis, the new Yale Avenue works great. The previous design, which had unprotected bike lanes inches away from traffic moving at 60 miles per hour, was truly wretched. With the protected bike lane, riders of all ages can now enjoy the road.

@Dennis, I disagree strongly about Yale Ave. I bike it daily to ferry kids for school dropoff, and it is a tremendous improvement from the old design. My novice 5 year old is also happy biking down it, and the cars for the most part have been well behaved in keeping out of the lane. Definitely much safer for bikers than the previous design. My only complaint is that there aren't barriers going the whole length. And I also see people using it as a walking/jogging path every morning, along with kids biking to school on it. Can't wait for them to complete the rest of Yale Ave out to the Bowl.

@Rocks: congratulations on paying insurance and taxes. You pay those because you own a 5000-pound vehicle capable of causing extreme destruction and death, and your vehicle damages the roads over time and takes up a large amount of finite space. Bicycles on the other hand, do virtually no damage to the road, extremely rarely cause injury/death as compared to vehicles, do not pollute the environment, and are not much larger than the person riding it itself. Roads are funded by general taxes which everyone pays and all the extra payments that come attached with cars are due to their inherent externalities imposed on the environment - this is a common argument and it falls flat every time.

@3/5: Did you look at the plans? The bike lanes are completely separate from vehicular lanes, so you won't have to worry about the ever-menacing cyclists which apparently are your biggest fear on the roads. And from the looks of it, a bunch more crosswalks are being added which may help corral pedestrians into marked crossing locations. As always with your tired arguments, we can address "distracted pedestrians" once the actual danger, distracted drivers, is taken care of.

Plans look like a massive improvement to the Whitney speedway. Let's get it done.

ThreeFifths, the changes will help address some of these problems a bit. Cyclists tend to use bike lanes, rather than other parts of the roadway, when they are available. This will reduce, to some extent, cyclists cutting front of cars. And the safer pedestrian crossing will encourage people to use them rather than crossing mid-block. On the other hand, the design won't affect some of the issues you raise, such as pedestrians texting while crossing the street.

My experience is that New Haven has a disproportionate number of idiot drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Design changes, by themselves, will not eliminate the city's traffic problems. (And Giovanni Zinn has never said they would.) But these changes will make Whitney Avenue safer for all of its users.

@Robert Moses, I used to be an avid cyclist until an accident caused me to break my jaw and my knee, so instead of saying that my argument "falls flat" why don't you actually say something that helps. I would like cars to not exist and be able to walk and rely on public transportation, but reality right now makes that impossible. Education is important for everyone. Also, most of us have one job or two that, believe it or not, are not close to each other and rely on vehicles to go to, so while it's unreasonable to drive at 50 mph down Whitney Ave, driving at 15 mph is also unreasonable. It all about a middle point, not a few loud ones who care only about their needs.

Rocks, synchronizing traffic lights would be a real help on many arterials. But it is really not a big issue on this stretch of Whitney. The lights are widely spaced and it is easy to maintain the posted speed limit at most times. The proposed design is unlikely to affect this.

And no one, to my knowledge, is advocating an 15 m.p.h. speed limit for Whitney. By law, local traffic authorities generally cannot set the speed limit below 25 m.p.h.; under no circumstances can they set it below 20 m.p.h. And in the case of multi-town streets such as Whitney Avenue, New Haven cannot reduce the speed limit more than 10 m.p.h. below Hamden's limit. The design changes will not get everyone to drive the speed limit but will reduce the number of drivers going 50.

I think it would make more sense to place a cycle track right in the center of Whitney.. With there being a travel lane in each direction for cars and buses.

I think at certain points throughout Whitney there should be flashing yellow lights or flashing yellow crosswalk signs to give pedestrians the right of way.

In my opinion, it probably would be best to completely eliminate parking off of Whitney and have residents or anyone in the area with a car use driveways or nearby streets for parking..

Also, there should be bike signals and bus signals at every signalized intersection.

Lastly, I love the idea of having raised intersections installed, but I would like to see some pedestrian islands be installed as well.

Anyone who rides their bike on Whitney is taking their life into their own hands because there is no shoulder. I support the right of people to ride bikes on city streets but I also think risking your body to make a political statement - that people should be able to ride bikes on Whitney - is foolish.
Flame away!

Limiting parking to one side of Whitney Avenue will generate a ton of U-turns. Which would be fine if the street weren't so heavily trafficked. As the plan stands new set of hazards will be created.

I heart Zinn, but this solution feels unduly complicated. Instead is there something wrong with routing bicycle traffic down Livingston, Orange, Edgehill/St Ronan streets? I suppose most of the bicycle traffic is electing those pathways already.

So...we'll be fixing our roads in descending order of income level and not risk level?

@THREEFIFTHS I look forward to seeing the statistical evidence you've gathered that validates your contention that "jaywalking" is the problem. Mine shows that more than half of my street crossings incolve a driver ignoring traffic kaws In fact, I've watched a First Student schhol bus and a CTTransit bus blow through red and walk lights and was on the Whalley Ave bus when it did the sane thing. While "jaywalking' may have been involved in the two accidents last week, we live in a place where school buses run ted lights.

Not using a crosswalk is " jaywalking' but after having drivers run "no turn on red" signs while looking left to make sure they can make it a few times, you cross farther up the street because you'd be crazy not to.

See, in other parts of the world, there is this thing called the "right of way.." I realize that this is unknown in New Haven but if you step into a crosswalk in southern California or Western Massachusetts, parts of Europe or in many other places, this magical thing happens - drivers stop!

When drivers obey traffic laws, pedestrians can too. Funny how that works Visit Northampton or Newport Beach or Iowa. You'll see how it works.

If the sole reason for ganging two bike lanes on one side is that it can't be raised on the other side, then don't raise them. Snow obstruction is a tiny portion of an entire year and shouldn't guide the 99% useability of the system. Keep it simple.

-quinnchionn-_putting the cycletrack in the middle of the road would cause real problems for drivers and cyclists. Drivers turning left routinely hold up traffic if there is no turn lane. And drivers don't expect to see cyclists in the middle of the street and aren't looking for them there. (The latter is part of the reason why adult cyclists are prohibited from riding on sidewalks.)

Sometime after the sceond time I was hit by a driver arrogant and self-important enough to think that they have a right of way behind a wheel, it occurred to me that drivers here are nothing but so arrogant and self-important that they think they have a right-of way behind a wheel.

You can tell who above will run a red light, make an illegal left, pull an ilkegal u-turn. later in the day. They're angry at people walking, pushing baby-strollers, riding bicycles or wheelchairs.

Arrogance and self-importance knows no bounds.

Heather C should be our new city planner / engineer!

AverageTaxpayer, there are tons of streets where parking is allowed only on one side, most commonly because there is not room for two parking lanes. You do see people making illegal U-turns in order to park on such streets, but it is not common. People park as close to their destination as possible. You're not going to park at Whitney and Edwards if you are going downtown, regardless of whether there is parking on one or both sides of the street.

And New Haven is not an island. While I would welcome bike lanes on the streets you name, Orange and Livingston do not go up to Hamden, and St. Ronan does so for only a couple of blocks. The Whitney Avenue project got funded in part because it benefits a broader area.

Lifer, biking on Whitney is in fact scary now (I think it is worse in southern Hamden than in the city). But that is because its current design encourages drivers to go well over the posted speed limit. The street can be redesigned to reduce this, while still carrying the volume of car it does today.

This design is an improvement but it's not perfect and could/should be better. Most of the issues that I (and others) had with it are quoted in the article so I'll address this problem here: <blockquote>During a 20-minute breakout room session, community members added that a two-way cycle track would require bikers to cross over the opposing lane to turn and have difficulty moving to other side of the road once they cross over the Hamden town line. </blockquote>
The clear solution is a regional transportation plan that doesn't treat two adjoining towns as completely separate fiefdoms.

I hope that Hamden's mayoral candidates are paying attention.

It's very funny to see how people have devolved since I was a kid - and riding my bike all over my city literally from one of town to the other and back. During all those years, I was never hit by a car, didn't ride through a light unless I could do it safely - and most amazingly, had the common sense and decency to avoid riding my bike on four lane streets with no shoulder, on and off again parking spots. I was smart enough to use the next street over. Why? Far less traffic and a much more pleasant ride. Arrogance and self importance casts a large shadow even from a tiny group, and somehow for some reason, a handful of bike devotees are demanding millions of dollars in construction costs and employee time so they can have a more pleasant ride on one of the busiest streets in the region. Because it's their "right."

William Kurtz, ironically transportation planning is one of the few areas where regionalism exists in CT (although it definitely could be improved).

I think there is much you would like in the current regional transportation plan https://scrcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/SCRCOG_MTP_Final_4_24_19.pdf.
Multi-town councils of governments are major players in deciding which transportation infrastructure (roads and public transit) projects get federal funds. In order to be eligible for funding, a project must be included in the COG's Transportation Improvement Program. New Haven's COG consists of the chief elected officials of 15 towns in the region. (Mayor Elicker serves on its Transportation Committee,) It also develops state-funded Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program.

@noteworthy I could not agree more! It's just common sense! Use those funds to have better maintained streets for EVERYONE to use, education and police enforcement as it happens everywhere else, and there would be no need to do any of this and we can go on with our lives.

Thank you to those who attended the meeting and provided all the valuable insights! If you were not able to attend, or have further comments, please click on the link for the plans near the top of the article and you'll find staff emails on that page.

Noteworthy, I suspect we are similar in age (I'm 67). I have similar childhood memories.

The world has changed since I was a kid, and New Haven is very different from the suburb where I spent most of my childhood. As you note, there was far less traffic then (and there were no SUVs). In addition, about 30% of New Haven households do not have a car - I don't remember any family being carless growing up. As a result, adults routinely bike here, to work and other destinations. The road system needs to serve all users - drivers, bus riders, cyclists, and pedestrians. The current system does a poor job serving the latter three groups.

"So…we'll be fixing our roads in descending order of income level and not risk level?"

The city's first protected bike paths are the Farmington Canal and Crescent Street cycletrack, which go through or alongside Dixwell/Newhallville, the poorest neighborhood in the city.

The second to be built is the Long Wharf cycletrack and the new Columbus Avenue cycletrack, which goes by the Hill, which is arguably the second-poorest neighborhood.

The third is the (soon to be) the Edgewood Avenue cycletrack, which is about 2-3 miles long and mostly goes through Dwight/Edgewood, the third-poorest neighborhood.

I hear there might be a plan for Fair Haven soon.

Did you mean to write ascending order of income level? It's nice that the city has been focusing on low-income neighborhoods more than, say, the State of Connecticut has. It's embarrassing that Connecticut is funding gold-plated bicycle paths through towns like Simsbury, Farmington, and Cheshire even as there's practically nothing in Hartford or Waterbury.

Why do cars have more of a "right" to public space than people alone or on a bike?

And not for nothing but in aggregate, cars are the largest single contributor to climate change in the U.S. Any and all actions should be taken to make alternatives to driving viable and appealing to as many people as possible.

Enough with the paint and plastic posts on the streets! None of it would be needed if the existing laws were enforced. The PEOPLE that need "CALMING" either ignore the paint and posts or use it as a shortcut to get around traffic. It does nothing but ignore the real issue; NO ONE IS WILLING TO CONFRONT THE POLICE UNION. I am Pro Union and Anti Abuse of Power. It is impossible to drive anywhere in this city without seeing multiple dangerous and potentially lethal violations of the motor vehicle law. We should all be seeing at least one vehicle ( including bicycles, scooters, j-walkers) pulled over every trip we take in town. That's real traffic calming!

It's time to stop deifying police officers. IF THE FIREMEN ONLY RESPONDED TO THE FIRES THEY CHOSE OR THE SANITATION WORKS ONLY PICKED UP HALF YOUR TRASH EVERYONE WOULD BE OUTRAGED. (Both occupations are at about as statistically dangerous mortality rates as being a police officer, if not more so). The only way to ensure safe streets is if the police start taking public safety (and their obligation to the law) seriously. They don't care, because they don't think anyone can make them do anything they don't want to do, whether it's specifically their job or not. The officers in my district are not that busy most of the time, I often see 2 or 3 patrol cars parked together chatting. The weekly reports from the Sub-station rarely have more than 5 incidents for the entire week (and 5 is rare). If the police continue to make excuses and refuse to perform ALL of their duties; WE SHOULD START DISCUSSING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF POLICING, using successful models from other countries as a guide.

I've often wondered, when I've visited other places.

"WHY ARE NEW HAVEN DRIVERS SUCH BLABJETY-BLANKS?"

Reading their comments answers that question. It's all they know.

Anonymous, I think part of the issue is one of perception. The organized bike community is a highly visible constituency for improvements such as these. This community, which includes many my friends, is largely white and middle class (it is trying to diversify its ranks).

The traffic calming measures described in the article will benefit many other people, including parents of young children and people with mobility impairments crossing the street. (I believe you once fell into the former group.) But these individuals tend not to show up at public meetings, in part because of real world realities such as kids' bedtimes. But this does not mean that the benefits of traffic calming are limited to 20-something cyclists wearing Spandex (a group that includes a number of my friends)..

DEVAGHOST,/Will Waite, a slightly more nuanced take.

We all place a value on our time, which is generally correlated with our incomes People routinely do a subconscious benefit/cost analysis while driving, e.g., is my value of getting to my destination five minutes earlier worth the expected value of the cost a ticket? (The expected value is the cost of the ticket times the probability of getting one.) Given the relatively high incomes of CT residents (particularly suburbanites), the answer is often yes.

Increased enforcement only slightly affects this calculus. Let's say that the odds of me being ticketed while driving over the limit are one in one thousand. (Like many drivers, I regularly drive 5-10 miles over the limit, rarely more. In 50 years of driving, I've gotten three speeding tickets. Divide the number of times you have been ticketed for speeding by the number of times you have driven over the limit. If the result is greater than one in a thousand, please don't drive in East Rock.)

Let's say the police double their enforcement efforts. The odds of me being ticketed go up to 1 in 500, which is unlikely to change my behavior. The same would be true if speeding fines were doubled.

There are all sorts of non-economic reasons for driving safely. I was shaken the one time I hit a deer; I would be devastated if I hit a person. But most of us make decisions based on economics most of the time. Which is the reason ldesign changes like this are necessary.

@KevinMcCarthy I understand that you consider your time to be more valuable than other people's lives. That is the problem.

Come show my left hip some "nuance."

There's a scene in Robert Heinlein's <i>Starship Troopers</i> in which a military cadet is facing some kind of corporal punishment for an infraction of the rules. If memory serves, he struck his sergeant and in another scene, the sergeant is chewed out by his own superior officer for failing to prevent the cadet from having the opportunity to commit his misdeed in the first place.

A similar principle should apply in traffic calming. It's better to prevent misbehavior than it is to punish it after the fact. If Mr. McCarthy's estimates are correct, we can sit back and expect the police to write expensive tickets for a small fraction of the people who speed, or we can call upon our local and state governments to design a transportation infrastructure that makes it difficult if not impossible to speed and prioritizes the safety and well-being of vulnerable users.

I am not going to analyze the specifics of this plan because I am not a traffic engineer but I can make the observation that in NYC the bike lanes are a disaster. There is no place for the ubiquitous UPS and Amazon trucks to pull over, people ride in both directions in the bike lanes and now I see electric scooters running in and out of traffic. Any plan that does not account for trucks and other vehicles pulling over is bound to tie up traffic instead of calming it. The reality is all these vehicles and bikes need to coexist. We have city buses, school buses, shuttles, cars, trucks and delivery vehicles as well as bicycles. If these factors aren't taken into account the plan will not work.

quinnchionn- a center bike lane would not make sense for many safety reasons, but the shared for both directions center left turn lane that can be used for emergency vehicles will make a huge difference in not blocking vehicle traffic in the travel lane. The raised crosswalks and intersections with proper striping and signs to remind turning vehicles to yield to bike riders and pedestrians will slow down turning vehicles onto side streets. Having a bus pull out standing lane for drop offs and pick ups at bus stops coordinated with the bike lanes with yield signswill also help buses not block the travel lane traffic. Having good transitions for driveways vehicles that enter Whitney so they don't block the bike lanes will help. Bike lanes should be on both sides and on the side where it can't be curb level they can put in a metal fence or Jersey barriers to protect the bike lane from vehicle and snowplows.
Noteworthy -bike left turn boxes at intersections is so the bike riders can safely exit the bike lane on the right to get across to the left side of the intersection to make a left turn onto a side street. it's not about bikes over cars, it is about sharing the intersection in a way that allows bikes to safely make a left turn. But I agree with you about no on street parking on Whitney because it's only a short stretch of parking anyway.
Rocks- Whitney Ave doesn't have a bad synchronization of red lights, but Whalley and Dixwell really do, because as soon as one block's light turns green the next block of lights go red, causing you to idle at red lights almost every block. If they did shared center left turns lanes, bike left turn boxes, bike lanes, and bus pullouts, and raised crosswalks or intersections on Whalley and Dixwell with synchronized lights to enforce the speed limits, and traffic circles at Ella Grasso & Whalley and West Rock/Fountain/Whalley and Whalley/Amity Rd, then all modes of traffic would move smoothly and not conflict with each other.

Grumble grumble! I think everything should stay exactly the same, because it's working out SO WELL. More lanes for CARS everywhere, no accommodations for people! Turn the streets into Philly, where we can just park in the middle of the road if we feel like it! I should be able to drive 55 mph with impunity down Whitney Ave and every other street in this city, because people who walk or bike are WORTHLESS! And when I was a kid, I rode a bike uphill both ways to school in the snow on the INTERSTATE and I TURNED OUT FINE so your five year old should too! Any cyclist who chooses to ride on Whitney and not divert their route by MILES is FOOLISH and should be publicly ridiculed and stoned!

Do you people even hear yourselves?

God forbid we change anything to accommodate PEOPLE, not just people who choose (or are able) to drive cars.

Noteworthy: When you were a kid, were you riding recreationally or with a purpose? My impression is that, today, many bicyclists ride as part of their daily commute, and, like most drivers, want to get to their destination as quickly as possible, and therefore join drivers in reckless behavior on the main thoroughfares. Overall, I am with you. It is futile to try to make main arteries like Whitney and Whalley bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Livingston and Edgewood follow much the same route, but don't carry the traffic rushing to suburban Hamden and Woodbridge, and therefore are much quieter, and traffic slower. When I lived downtown long ago, and wanted to go to Edgerton or East Rock, I would walk or run on Edgehill and Livingston, not Whitney.
Kevin: slowing cars will reduce capacity. A car going 25 mph will be on the road twice as long as one going 50 mph, and therefore occupy the road twice as long.

@1644 What "pedestrisn and bicycle friendly" says is "motor vehicle operators have a special privilege to transportation routes that my or not be granted to users of other modes of trandportstion."

What is it that you think grants you that soecial privilege?

Here's my two cents worth

@1644: Your 25 mph vs 50 mph "capacity" argument is not true. While slower cars will be on the road for longer, 50 mph cars need more space between them, so it's a wash. And cars should not be going 50 down Whitney anyways. The speed limit is 25, and if things get a bit backed up going the legal speed LIMIT, then so be it.

Whitney Ave is what, less than 2 miles long? So if now you, as a driver, have to actually obey the speed limit due to this redesign and can't illegally and unsafely go 50 anymore, you add about 3 minutes to your trip. What a tragedy! Who will think of the poor car drivers?

@Ann: New Haven is not NYC. The bike lanes proposed are adjacent and bi-directional so there's no "wrong way" bikers. Because this is not NYC, many Whitney properties have driveways for delivery drivers to use. Everyone will figure it out, and because bikes are separate from cars, there is less conflict than now.

posted by: DEVAGHOST on October 27, 2021 1:16am

@THREEFIFTHS I look forward to seeing the statistical evidence you've gathered that validates your contention that "jaywalking" is the problem. Mine shows that more than half of my street crossings incolve a driver ignoring traffic kaws In fact, I've watched a First Student schhol bus and a CTTransit bus blow through red and walk lights and was on the Whalley Ave bus when it did the sane thing. While "jaywalking' may have been involved in the two accidents last week, we live in a place where school buses run ted lights.

New Haven Had a program to education pilot project sponsored by Watch For Me CT, a nonprofit promoting pedestrian, cyclist, and motorist safety, through the Connecticut State Department of Transportation. Their mission: to pass out flyers on the basic state laws drivers, cyclists, and especially pedestrians need to follow, or face enforcement.

The question is why did the police stop?

My bad.Here is why.

Update: Police Chief Otoniel Reyes Friday, in response to this article, ordered officers on this specific details to hand out warnings instead of tickets to pedestrians.

You see NYPD is not playing around.

NYPD to Ticket Jaywalking Queens Pedestrians for Their Own Safety, Pols Say

NYPD officers plan to increase ticketing against jaywalkers — a move supported by local politicians who say pedestrians who violate the rules of the road endanger themselves and others.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20151110/flushing/nypd-ticket-jaywalking-queens-pedestrians-for-their-own-safety-pols-say/

See, in other parts of the world, there is this thing called the "right of way.." I realize that this is unknown in New Haven but if you step into a crosswalk in southern California or Western Massachusetts, parts of Europe or in many other places, this magical thing happens - drivers stop

I am Glad you said other parts of the world, there is this thing called the "right of way.

Part One

PART TWO

Other parts of the world use Vision Zero.

Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries,.It takes cooperation of Cyclists Pedestrians and Vehicle Operators. while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero has proved successful across Europe — and now it's gaining momentum in major American cities.

https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/

Notice .It takes cooperation of Cyclists Pedestrians and Vehicle Operators.And by the way.The Connecticut statute against jaywalking stipulates that any pedestrian who "negligently or recklessly" disregards traffic signals or the signals of an officer, or who "recklessly disregards" their own safety will be fined between $35 and $55. I believe in equal enforcement of motor vehicle laws.

@Chernobyl: Did you read the article? It's not just "stripes on a road." It looks like a new curb, paving, and speed humps / raised intersections, plus some islands, trees, and sidewalks. That stuff adds up, especially on a longer stretch like Whitney is. You can have your two cents back.

It's truly amazing how all the negative, car-worshiping, individualistic suburbanites come out of the woodwork to spew their false info and bad takes about equitable transportation projects because they think they own the road in their vehicles only after the fact, yet based on the quotes from public meetings like these for road redesigns, systematically fail to show up and voice their opinions when it's actually being actively solicited. If you feel strongly that roads should be only for cars driving 50 mph and you should have your choice of 5 lanes on every street, why not attend the meetings and say something? Or is it because you know your opinions are outdated and you'd only feel comfortable hiding behind your keyboard to put it out there since you'd be laughed out of the room otherwise? It's always the same tiny group of anonymous username commenters saying the same old stuff. I'm glad this comment section isn't actual feedback.

DEVAGHOST; Yes, cars should be privileged on some routes, and bicycles and pedestrians on others. We don't even allow pedestrians and bicyclists on limited access highways. To the extent that we can separate cars and bicycles, everyone, especially bicyclists, will be safer. Few New Haven streets are truly wide enough to accommodate separate bicycle lanes as Copenhagen or Ottawa have, so it would be best to prioritize cars on some roads and bicycles on others. For example, leave Whalley to cars, but close Edgewood and Goffe to all but local car traffic and make them bike roads. Leave Whitney to cars, but close Livingston and or Orange to all but local cars. When I say local cars, I mean residents of a particular block would have access to the street on their block, but no other section of the street.

@1644 Yes. We have "limited access highways" that pedestrians and bicyclists cannot use. Other than that, you are leagally, moorally and ethically wrong.

You are not special and have no special rights.

Thanks for ckearly demonstrating the arrogant self-importance of New Haven drivers that makes this expenditure neccessary.

DEVAGHOST: I never claimed any special rights, nor, do I claim to be an arbiter or what is legal (the legislature and courts do that) or what is moral or ethical. If you study human societies, you will see that what is legal, moral, and ethical are variable, not constant, values. Personally, as both a pedestrian and driver, I try to watch out for the anarchical behavior of other pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.

Devaghost, re. your 10/27 1:15 post, I've biked year-round in New Haven for years. I share your view of clueless drivers - I was doored while biking on Whalley two weeks ago

A $100 ticket is a more significant cost, and deterrent to speeding, for a person making $20,000 than one making $100,000. It represents 0.1% of the latter's income. The calculus I described applies to all drivers, but particularly higher income ones. The implicit economic value of a minimum wage worker's time is $12. Saving 5 minutes by speeding is worth $1. For someone earning $100,000 per year the economic value of 5 minutes is a bit more than $4. (Obviously there are other ways of valuing time.) If a driver faces a one in one thousand chance of getting a $100 speeding ticket, the expected cost of speeding is 10 cents. It is economically rational for a minimum wage worker to speed; a fortiori for someone earning $100,000. The fact that CT is a relatively high income state is part of the reason why speeding is so common here (which does not make it any less wrong).

I was hit while crossing with a walk light at the southernmost intersection of this project by a woman who was texting. If you object to this project, you can kiss my...cane after it hits your car. (I've hit seven so far. I broke it on a Honda and need a new one but will be taking volunteers for #8 soon.)

I do want to thank the drivers on here for making the arrogant self-importance and complete disregard for anyone but yourselves that makes these projects necessary so obvious.

The victim-blaming of pedestrians here is much like "she was asking for it." New Haven drivers think you have the same right to the roads that some men think they have to grab a butt cheek.

A driver took the right at that intersection through the walk light. I spread my arms to express WTF to the NHPD cop on a motorcycle behind him and the cop said "we have a green," which is true. Light timing design done while taking LSD (the only exlanation for that) doesn't render State law void. Nor does a PD that doesn't give a blank.

Later, I watched a different NHPD officer sit and wait patiently for thr driver who had run the red and blocked the intersection, to move out of it. Not only do you all not believe in traffic laws, NHPD doesn't believe in them. Evidence indicates that if you put NHPD officers far enough away, they'lll get drunk, flup cars over and kill one another, does it not? Why do you think there's such a focus on blaming pedrstrians?

Some people may be stupid enough to use that crosswalk. I jaywalk.

Friday before last, I watched a First Student school bus run a red through a walk light . On Satirday, a CTTransit bus did it on Whitney. On Sunday, the Whalley Ave. bus I was on did the same. Why? Because they're New Haven drivers, just like you are and have no concern for anyone but themselves, just like you don't

Go to your rooms, think about what you've done and grow up.

@Kevin-McCarthy If the economic condition of someone who hit an elderly, didabled pedestrian -or wilk on the future matters to to tou, your barometer of social consciousness needs some calibration.

DEVAGHOST,

It's not really for me to speak for Mr. McCarthy but I suspect you are misinterpreting what he's saying. If I understand his point correctly, he's arguing that depending solely, or even primarily, on police enforcement to keep vulnerable users safe from speeding inattentive drivers won't work because the penalties aren't enough of a deterrent, especially considering the long odds against facing them.

I didn't see anything in what he said that suggests " the economic condition of someone who hit an elderly, disabled pedestrian" should matter.

WK, exactly, thank you.

AnnW, I'm in Manhattan nearly every weekend, routinely walking on streets with dedicated bike lanes (most commonly 8th and 9th Avenues). UPS, Amazon, etc. make deliveries there all the time. The world has not come to an end.

Mike, since I am now officially a geezer, I need to take curmudgeon lessons. Now I know where to go. 🤓

These changes are much needed, not only on Whitney but just about all streets in New Haven. And while these will clearly make bicycling safer and more attractive, as well as make crossing Whitney on foot safer, these improvements will primarily calm traffic/reduce speeding thereby increasing safety for everyone (including folks in automobiles). Just need to also put speed humps on all the side streets nearby too.

Safer streets and walkability, not fast free flowing vehicle traffic, is what will truly propel New Haven forward as the economic beacon and place to be in Connecticut.