Motorists drive 50-60 mph on Dover St between Clinton & Ferry - both ways. Somebody's going to get killed.
the spilling of traffic onto Dover from Ferry and Clinton has been a concern for some time. I have worked with several residents in hopes of addressing the issue. We have had the speed meter out there for awareness and have installed a stop sign at Dover and Atwater which HAS helped a bit. But you are correct, they are people who speed from Ferry to that new stop sign. So in essence we have stopped speeding at one section of the street and not the other. I will see if we can have the Traffic Department look into this further.
There's no reason for travel speeds to be greater than 12-15 miles per hour on Dover Street. This is a common speed limit in European cities because it is so beneficial for the people who live on the street. Children can play outside and property values increase as folks are better able to walk and enjoy their properties.
Speeds in this range can only be achieved by designing the road appropriately, e.g., with narrow lanes, speed humps, chicanes and speed tables.
The City of New Haven should immediately enact lower speed limits and better road designs throughout the city, as has been widely requested for the past several years. What's the delay for?
Thank you Alderman Rodriguez for your actions to improve this neighborhood.
Both the U.S. Traffic Calming Manual and the city's new Complete Streets Design Manual specifically state that stop signs should not be viewed as a traffic calming device. Instead, speed humps are indeed the most appropriate measure for reducing speeds on local (non-though streets). If the neighborhood determines that speed reduction is not sufficient and in fact volume control is also needed, then either a half closure or diverter may be necessary. These measures should be outlined in the city's new Complete Streets manual.
The important rule of thumb to remember is that speed humps are appropriate for local streets and collectors, but not larger “arterial” streets. Since Dover Street is a local street, speed humps would be an appropriate measure to reduce speeds.
Though speed humps should be limited to local streets and collectors, I would argue that raised and/or textured crossings or intersections should be appropriate for arterial streets.
If not, perhaps the manual should be changed -- there are countless examples of these on major streets in other cities, particularly at intersections with signal controls and higher pedestrian volumes.
Walkability for users of all ages and abilities should be a priority as well, not just speed control and traffic flow.
Textured or decorative crosswalks are fine on arterial streets. They just have to be used in conjunction with either a raised median, curb extensions, or some other traffic calming measure (or at signalized intersections).
Raised crosswalks are appropriate on higher traffic streets if you expect speeds to be lower anyway. This is true on neighborhood main streets such as Grand Ave, throughout downtown, and in town centers such as Downtown Westville.
I agree with that analysis, Brian - but wouldn't virtually every street in New Haven be considered (or have the potential to be) a neighborhood main street?
Even abysmal arterials like Foxon should be designed to be assets to the dense surrounding neighborhoods, not "ConnDOT specials."
Thank you in advance for addressing the concern Alderman. It's a matter of time before somebody gets run over. If it's not "commuters" between Clinton and Ferry it is young guys with fast cars showing off. It is really out of control as a matter of fact. I've noticed a greater police presence in the last few days for some reason, but they may as well be driving a pink elephant float. Unmarked (non-Crown Vic) vehicles should be utilized when/if possible, as the residents in the neighborhood are very well atuned to such things. Thanks again.
Some of my neighbors came up with an interesting strategy for reducing cut-through traffic. Whenever their children are out playing, they stick a small orange traffic cone in the center of the street at both ends of the block. Traffic can still pass on either side, but it gets people’s attention and let’s them know something unusual is going on. This is actually a well-established pillar of traffic calming and is known as “creating intrigue.”
Because a stop sign would be better than speed bumps.
The U.S. Traffic Calming Manual explicitly states that stop signs are not a traffic calming measure; they are a traffic control device to be used where a minor street intersects a medium-sized street or where two minor streets intersect. They can also be used when two medium-sized streets intersect when there is insufficient space for a roundabout.
Stop signs are acceptable neither as a measure to reduce speeds nor as a measure to reduce cut-through traffic.
“Speed humps” are the most effective well-established method of reducing overall speeds and are the City of New Haven’s preferred measure.
Various methods for preventing cut-through traffic exist—including half-closures, diverters, and mini-traffic circles; however, few are currently in use in New Haven.
Citizen-created options for addressing both speeding and cut-through traffic also exist. As I mentioned, my neighbors have very effectively calmed traffic by placing an orange traffic cone in the middle of the street at both ends of the block (the street is wide enough for traffic to pass by on either side of the cones).
Just looked at the street. What does the manual say about head-in parking on one side of the street in addition to making the street one-way?? It looks like not wide enough for head-in both ways.
In real-life terms there are a few problems implementing speed-bumps: 1. Police vehicles seem to use this street when pursuing whatever it is they're pursuing. I doubt they'd be willing to go that speed over speed bumps. Personally I rather have them catch somebody. 2. Speed bumps are a great way to do a really fantastic burnout as opposed to a flat surface. The vehicle pulls up to the leading edge of the speed bump which "holds" the vehicle as it spins its wheels. This wheel-spinning/rubber burning is already a problem here we don't need to add to it. 3. The real problem here is not your miscellaneous commuter (although that's part of it), but neighborhood morons showing off to their friends. 4. The people in #3 seem to always heed the stop signs.
In light of these special circumstances, it's probably a better idea to have stop signs placed eastbound and westbound on Dover @ Rowe.
I wonder if head-in parking would slow traffic any?? It certainly would narrow the street. I willing to bet Dover St. is wide enough.
As an alternative to "head-in parking", you could stripe an outer lane to narrow the street, like what has recently been done on Sherman near Whalley and Goffe (the bike lane on Orange Street is another example).
That would narrow the travel lane, which really should be no wider than nine feet in an area like this, and slow traffic.
Sounds good to me. Whatever is cheapest and most effective without being asthetically unacceptable. BTW most of the speeding traffic goes from Clinton to Ferry. It would be great to frustrate this practice by making Dover ONE-WAY in the direction Ferry to Clinton.
Many cities are moving to adopt narrow, two-way streets where vehicles have to go slowly in order to pass. Keep in mind that one-way streets can actually increase traffic, by up to 60%, because people have to circle around the blocks a lot more.
I think the striping might help, by narrowing the travel lane. You can even add stripes on both sides (some other countries often do this) and drivers have to yield to one another and shift slightly into the striped area when passing. This helps reduce speeds.
A temporary chicane or temporary mid-block curb extension (or "choker") could also be interesting to try out - inexpensive but very effective.
I think ideally the speed shouldn't be greater than 15 miles per hour on a neighborhood street like this where kids often play outside.
We're not going to close this issue. Dover St is still used as a dragstrip and there is nothing to control speed except useless speed limit signs and A stop sign on one end of the road.
Have you considered applying for a complete street under the city's new policy? It's just a one page form.
PS You may view it at http://www.ctdatahaven.org/newhaven/index.php/File:NewHaven_CS_Manual_040510_NoMapsDiagrams.pdf
Mark, that is a 117 page manual. The "one page" (75) is obviously for somebody who knows what they are doing. Do you know of a way a layman can approach this? I guess it was Traffic & Parking had silver boxes with (1/2 in) hoses protruding into the street next to the stop signs located at Atwater & Dover back in August/Sept - don't know what that was for. Counting traffic? Does somebody have the ball rolling here already? Traffic still goes crazy fast on this street for no reason - I don't see what the attraction is. It's dangerous. Some of those pictures in the manual look like exactly what we need.
Drove on Front St from Grand to Chatham yesterday, speed bumps seem to work quite well.
Good to know. I haven't been over there recently. Where are they located now?
Probably about every 100 yards or so apart. I could be off on the number, but it made me drive slowly that's all I know! Whoever was instrumental in that good job!!
Still would like to see speed bumps. Traffic has not slowed any since first reported the issue.
I agree that the speed humps on Front Street seem to be working well, having been over there a couple times now.
This article describes how investments like these can prevent crimes from happening within neighborhoods: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=3970
Has anyone considered completing a "complete streets" request form? Forms are available at http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Engineering/completestreets.asp and I would be happy to help with a draft if a group of residents in this area wanted to make a request for traffic calming.
Mark, I printed the project request form. I could think of at least a couple of other neighbors that would probably be on board with a street improvement project with at least part of the end result being slower traffic. Are there funds available someplace for any of this before we go to the trouble and anticipation of preparing for this?
Yes, there are funds available for these types of projects. A number have been completed around the city already over the past five years.
I would recommend filling it out so it is in the system, because as they come in the city will be prioritizing them with the help of the public (since the public / Aldermen will monitor which forms come in and when).
Same problem 9 months later.
Did you ever complete a form? Contact newhavensafestreets at gmail dot com, or the City's traffic department if you need advice or help in filling it out. It would be great to get a request in soon.
Problem is getting worse again as the weather gets warmer. The form for the referenced by Mark is for an engineer for the traffic department to complete, not a layman. Alderman Rodriguez is this project in the works??
Yeah, I can't figure out that form either, yet everyone keeps referring to it as the place to go to request traffic calming: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2011/05/24/news/doc4ddc3877a2579688030040.txt?viewmode=fullstory
Very confusing. You'd think anyone needing to be informed of requests for traffic calming would have everything they need simply by looking at this seeclickfix issue.
Sure, while I'm out there doing all those measurements of the roadway I'm going to get hit by a car and killed. Problem solved, no more speed bumps needed!
The New Haven Traffic & Parking Dept is more in favor of installing moveable speed limit signs. I will bring this issue up to #15 Alderman and see if it can be approached a different way.
Sorry, this issue does not have any images or videos.