Keeping Prospect closed has also been appreciated by many pedestrians and cyclists! Do we really need anything more than minimal traffic along here? Where is it all going?

I don't think this issue has been fixed yet.

I agree with the above comment, suggesting that traffic seems to work perfectly fine with this road closed.

Perhaps the city and Yale should consider narrowing the street and adding major traffic calming, so that the Yale campus has a "green spine" that can accommodate all road users, not just vehicle drivers (this was recommended in its planning report).

Certainly, there's no reason to have two lanes on Prospect between Trumbull and Grove. It looks like a highway and vehicles will speed through here when the bridge reopens, discouraging all pedestrian and cycling activity (which limits economic development downtown, since people living north of Grove are more reluctant to walk down a street like that).

Maybe the right hand lane could be converted into a buffered bicycle lane, or the center (left) lane could turn into a beautiful median strip. Either way, the city should rethink having so much of its land area devoted to highways, and think more about turning streets into places that people enjoy spending time in.

I must admit that I hadn't thought of having this part of Prospect made more bike and pedestrian friendly--or even keeping it closed to cars entirely. Having a Yale "green" corridor or spine is a great idea; if the road has to be open to cars, then devoting one lane to bikes is a great idea. Thanks for pointing this out.

Prospect St doesn't need heavy traffic; it's Yale at one end and residential at the other with Albertus Magnus in the middle. It's an ideal street for a pedestrian- and cycle-oriented axis, and will be even more suited to that when pedestrian density increases owing to the new colleges to be build at Prospect between the cemetery and Sachem.

I think it would be enough to have one car lane in each direction, plus a cycle lane in each direction, and a wider, more landscaped sidewalk on the cemetery side.

The main need for the big bridge is obviously the unfortunate Trumbull connection to I-91/95. Maybe stairs can be added to the canal beside the new engineering building on the corner so some pedestrians can cross under the bridge instead of over it.

Keeping road parking space for the food carts along Prospect at Sachem would also help to keep down the sidewalk congestion that used to be very bad especially along Sachem.

It seems to me that drivers are managing just fine with Whitney still open, but they are pushing through Sachem and the residential streets of Winchester and Webster to make up for the closure of Canal.

One downside of this is that Prospect may help to reduce traffic density on Whitney between Grove and Trumbull. I am tempted to suggest closing the Trumbull highway ramps to address the problem at its source but that's not going to happen.

Just to clarify, I wouldn't advocate closing the road completely, just for creating a street hierarchy that balances the needs of all users and especially disadvantaged populations. In the current configuration, the road is geared primarily to high-speed car traffic, even though it is the heart of a densely populated, incredibly diverse neighborhood and also the center of campus activities that require the interaction of different students, staff and faculty in order to form a community.

Yale should be pushing for a campus that really supports the needs of its entire community, including disabled and elderly pedestrians and cyclists. The current policies seem catered just to the most able-bodied pedestrians (i.e., most administrators and undergraduate students, who either drive everywhere or don't have as far to walk).

Narrowing the lanes, as the above poster suggests, and implementing other changes in order to improve overall pedestrian and cycling infrastructure would have been somewhat easier to do before the bridge was reconstructed, but apparently that wasn't a priority at the time.

It would still be very easy to retrofit the street before it reopens, if the city deemed it a priority. I think this could be done without restricting traffic to the I91/I95 off ramp or across town.

Traffic should flow at no more than 15 miles per hour through this area (speed limits are 10 miles per hour in front of the state capitol building, for instance, as legislators' lives are apparently worth more than ours), but that's not how this new bridge and road have been designed. Can the city consider changing that before the bridge reopens?

Great ideas, Mark! I'd love to see them put into place.

Though I can't speak for cyclists and pedestrians, I do know why this bridge is closed: The bridge was made with pretensioned concrete panels (a structural concrete panel made in a factory with steel rebar in them). A contractor who was running a conduit, I'm not sure for what, cut through the steel rebar of all the panels rendering the bridge structurally unstable. So basically they now have to rip it up and rebuild it. Because it was an accident and I assume the contractors insurance company is paying to rebuild it, I doubt that anyone would be receptive to making changes to the general design or traffic flow patterns of the bridge. It would be wise of the city, however, to take advantage of the road closure and install some traffic calming devices, or at the very least new slower speed limit signs.

Bellevue resident, there was also an earlier delay owing to sewerage works in the area. Had they opened the bridge when it was finished it would have been closed again only a short time later for the new sewer lines so the city decided to keep it closed to avoid the extra confusion. People are already confused as it is, driving right past the "bridge closed" signs at Sachem and Grove to find out that it really is closed. Opening it for only a few months was judged to risk making that worse.

I would like to see less traffic on Prospect St, not a total closure, just a reconfiguration to an urban street near an historic cemetery and a pedestrian and cycle friendly university. Before the bridge closed people treated it like a highway and I think it will go back to that if it is left so wide and open as it is now.

Maybe a row of planter boxes down each side to separate cycle lanes from the car lanes could be a good start. Planters would reduce the car lanes to two and introduce clear buffers and barriers between the three kinds of road user, and soften the concrete-intense architecture along this stretch. The Becton building facade is not exactly welcoming.

Agree with the above. Also, this is not really a new issue - see also:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2008/07/new_intersectio.php

http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/letters/2008/07/28/safe-streets-to-levin-improve-traffic-pedestrian-s/

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2009/09/21/fliers-call-traffic-safety-review/

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2008/09/08/residents-push-for-better-street-safety/

http://www.yaledailynews.com/opinion/the-news-views/2008/09/09/news-view-university-must-not-delay-safer-streets/

Everything said here seems to be common sense. Would some Yale person please pass this thread to the people who might take it into consideration?

i agree that this would be an ideal place to have a buffered bicycle lane.

this would be a perfect opportunity for yale to follow through, with one small step, towards their goal of a more environmentally-friendly future.

To the above - if you're concerned about the street and its importance to the long-term economic and human development of our city, you may want to contact 1) The city's transportation department (mpiscite@newhavenct.net) 2) your alderperson and state elected official, 3) the Yale Office of New Haven and State Affairs (bruce.alexander@yale.edu).

More than one person has to speak up before anything will change. There are a lot of other civic priorities, and short-term thinking (like how to get a bridge done quickly) often takes precedence over common sense.

Mark, thanks for the suggestion. I just wrote to Bruce Alexander, the transportation dept., and Greg Dildine, my alderperson. I hope others will write in as well.

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/stupid_sawing_error_delays_bridge_opening/

Yes, Greg Dildene, that sad error is the reason behind this discussion.

Now that the bridge's foundations are nearly repaired, we risk reopening it in a way that would damage the foundations of our city.

Could we have your assistance in ensuring that the bridge's reopening is more farsighted than the man with the saw?

This issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.