SeeClickFix: Report non-emergency issues, receive alerts in your neighborhood

SeeClickFix Mobile Beta

is Acknowledged 62 People want this fixed

A bike lane is needed between the existing Clinton Ave. and Orange Street bike lanes. If you agree click, "I want this fixed too” and comment. Pictures welcomed. We especially want to hear from folks currently biking from Chatham Square Neighborhood to any place north of the Green or beyond. Come on people we can get this! Here is one proposed route:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=103243076916819646367.000472711c007a83ca13b&t=h&z=15
151 Clinton Ave,New Haven,CT 06513

submitted by Lee Cruz
11 months ago

146 Comments

wrote on 09/28/2009 at 11:36AM
This issue was opened

Jon Doe wrote on 09/28/2009 at 02:23PM
I don't think dropping the speed limit to 20mph is going to help with this problem when the speed limit on our city streets is 25pm. People don't follow the 25mph now what make you belive they will follow the 20mph speed limit. What needs to be done is the NHPD needs to stop doing seatbelt stop in the middle of the streets and get back in there cars and look out for the people that are speeding and putting all of us in danger. I do understand were your coming from on this issue, but before we change laws for speed limits lets enforce the laws we have now. Making new laws and not enforcing the laws we have now is not going to change how our police patrol the streets.

wrote on 09/29/2009 at 08:06AM
Another person wants this fixed!

Hope Metcalf wrote on 09/29/2009 at 08:25PM
I bike this route every day from my home in Chatham Square to the Yale main campus. A bike lane would be extraordinary!!!

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 04:56AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 06:14AM
Another person wants this fixed!

Ben Berkowitz wrote on 09/30/2009 at 09:20AM
Love this idea!!!!

MR wrote on 09/30/2009 at 10:59AM
Anything encouraging connectivity between neighborhoods is a great thing. (Also, you have Upper State Street Farmer's Market listed on the google map...this would also help connect East Rock residents to the Fair Haven City Seed market at Grand and Front on Thurs evenings)

David Streever wrote on 09/30/2009 at 11:06AM
I think this is a great idea--yes please! Thanks Lee.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 11:06AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 11:28AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:00PM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:02PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Erin Pascale wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:15PM
I ride this route everyday as well. Because the street network was destroyed by the one-way conversions and the highways, there are no low-stress neighborhood street choices for cyclists going to Fair Haven. The existing pinch points are narrow and must be shared with cars. Lombard Street is not so bad as the cars don't usually go too fast, but there is a lot of volume. The intersections are scary though, even at low speeds. The highway off ramp at State is terrible during the morning commute. Suburban commuters are hell bent on making the light at State Street or swinging into DD for coffee. They drive like homocidal maniacs. As for Steve's interesting suggestion about a James Street detour around the Lombard train bridge, the convergence of James/State and the I-91 off ramp is far too scary and the light does not recognize cyclists. I sat through 3 cycles before I finally got off my bike and pressed the pedestrian walk signal on the sidewalk.

Jon Doe wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:19PM
Here is what I would like to see the Alderman in this city do, Make a law that bikes need to be registurd and property taxes place on them. So this would generate some cash for all these bike lanes and road improvements that bikers want. Just like done to cars. I pay these fees for my car for the use of roads and so should bikers.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:25PM
With current mill rates, the property tax on a bicycle would be typically be between 50 cents and two dollars. Seems much more of a hassle to collect the fees than it would be worth in revenue.

Lee Cruz wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:27PM
As a resident of Chatham Square I have no vested interest in the route going Lombard to James to State vs. Lombard to Humphrey to East Street. I was just looking for a way to make it as inclusive of as many neighborhoods as possible. This is why I thought it would be better to have the route go by Jocelyn Park. I see the point about the railroad over pass but I would also caution bikers crossing the bottom of the ramp of I91 Exit 6, when the light is green cars come off that ramp fairly fast and this added to the unusual configuration of the intersection makes it a challanging place for an automobile driver to pay attnetion to crossing bicyclist. Someone more expert than I needs to figure that one out. On the other hand if the route continues on Lombard to Humphrey not only would we be including another neighborhood we could make an argument for better lighting and perhaps even a mural on the walls under the railroad tracks. What do other folks think? Pass this on to you friends and ask them to comment.

Jon Doe wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:36PM
I was thinking like a $25.00 fee a year from April 1 to to March 31 the following year. A bright color sticker for a tag attached to the back of the bike so it would be easy to see. A $20.00 fine each time caught on our streets driven with out one. Anyone under 16 would be exampt from this. With all the bikers downtown around Yale the city would generate a cash flow for the wants of all people who communite on bikes. Time for Bikers to pay for there wants and needs. All bikers should want to support this to get what they want. Time to put you money up for your share of the roads.

Mark wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:47PM
If the city were going to charge a $25 user fee for bicyclists, it should also charge fees to road users proportionate to the amount of space they consume and damage they do to the road. I would estimate that a $2,000 annual road use fee for small personal automobiles, and a $10,000-20,000 annual road use fee for each truck or bus entering the city, would be the equivalent to charging a $25 fee for each bicycle in the city. You would have to charge the $2,000 fee for any drivers entering New Haven, since you wouldn't be able to charge only residents. This is known as "congestion pricing," and is widely used in Europe, in both small towns and large cities. If all of this funding went towards improving our transportation system in a financially and environmentally sustainable manner, it might not be such a bad idea.

Lee Cruz wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:52PM
Hi Jon Doe, I hear what you are saying but just want to remind you that as a society and a culture we accommodated to cars way before we started taxing them. Each person on a bicycle is one less person wearing away at the infrastructure for cars that we all pay for whether we own a car or not. It is also one less person running the risk of hitting a pedestrian. Registration and fines, maybe, some day but first let's make it safe for those people keeping the infrastructural (roads) and indirect (air pollution) cost down.

Jamie Fellrath wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:58PM
In most places, road improvements come from the general fund, which is funded by municipal taxes. Highways may be improved using license and registration fees, but bikes aren't usually allowed in such places. An additional tax on cyclists is therefore unnecessary, since they're already paying for such improvements. And Lee Cruz is dead on when he points out that the wear and tear of bikes on a road is inconsequential when compared to trucks and cars.

Jon Doe wrote on 09/30/2009 at 01:07PM
To Mark: Dont small personal automobiles, truck or bus already pay property taxes and DMV fee's to drive our roads already. Would that be double charging them? Where bikers pay nothing but expect a say in the matter and request thing be done for a small group of people. It time to pay for your wants or there is always the bus it's a environmentally sustainable manner. To Lee Curz: Your right cars were not taxed when were started using them,I also dont belive hores and buggies were also. But it came to a point that money was need to make roads and keep them up. Your right when you say (Each person on a bicycle is one less person wearing away at the infrastructure for cars) but if you dont want to pay for bike lanes and road coast to improve them there is always the Bus system here in the city. Also your comment on (It is also one less person running the risk of hitting a pedestrian) well i guess you dont follow the new but bikers have hit pedestrians here in the city. It sounds to me that people who communit on bikes dont want to pay for there wants and expect everyone else too. To ALL BIKERS: Put your money where your mouth is or get on the bus.

Mark wrote on 09/30/2009 at 01:22PM
Very good point, Steve.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 01:27PM
we should register pedestrians and charge them for walking in our city. sidewalks are pricier than roads.

Dave wrote on 09/30/2009 at 01:31PM
Actually, most of the money for installation, maintenance and repair of roads comes from income and property taxes, which *everyone* pays for, whether they drive a car or not. Also, in reality, the money from property, income and gas taxes only covers a very, very small portion of the cost of maintaining roads, which is highly subsidized by the government, which gets its money from other taxes, which means again, that everyone is paying for it. Bicycles are causing a minute fraction of the wear and tear on roads that automobiles are, so actually people who ride bicycles more often than driving should be given tax breaks, if you want to break things up evenly. Realistically though, we should all be paying *way* more for the roads we have, to have an accurate picture of how much they actually cost to maintain. They don't just appear there magically, the government pays huge amounts of money to keep them up. On a bridge that is in the planning process here in Oregon, one single 1 mile interchange (it's a freeway bridge) is forecast to cost 1 billion dollars. That 1 billion dollars doesn't just come from nowhere, it comes from all of our tax money. I will probably almost never use this bridge, but I will pay for it if it actually gets built. Meanwhile, all of the bike-related improvements that Portland has made to over 270 miles of road have cost a fraction of that 1 mile long interchange. The idea that "cyclists" (do you know many people who don't also own/rent cars?) don't pay their fair share for the roads is hardly even worth mentioning, and doesn't hold water anywhere.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 01:41PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Jon Doe wrote on 09/30/2009 at 02:22PM
TO : Steve Brown I have to ask why this debate is totally off topic? I do belive it is because the money for a Bike rout needs to come from some place? Sir your real estate tax bill pays for the schools, NHPD, NHFD, trash removal, snow plowing, parks up keep on and on. Sir do you understand that the city is haven a hard time with debt right now. So are most tax payers. My property taxes last year were around 4,000.00. I dont need or want them increase for this do you? I ask you what services should be cut to fund a bike rout for a small group of people. I also own a car and pay property taxes and DMV fee's to drive that car just like you do. TO Who ever wrote (we should register pedestrians and charge them for walking in our city. sidewalks are pricier than roads.) It might come down to that a some point our law makers are looking for every dime they can get from Us. To: Dave I never said anything about where any of the money comes from. What I said was I pay property taxes and DMV free's to drive my car on our roads. Bikers should also do the same if they want improvements made for them. I dont use the public schools and never will and I'm ok with paying to fund them, just like your bridge. To Most of you it sounds to me that you want bike lanes in our city at everyones coast and for the few who will use it not to have to pay to use it. Sounds to me maybe Portland would be a great place for bikers to move to or Just pay up. Like I said there is always the Buses here in New Haven.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 03:01PM
Another person wants this fixed too!

David Streever wrote on 09/30/2009 at 04:51PM
John Doe: my money is exactly where my mouth is. I'm choking on it right now. The problem with your "opinion" is the lack of information you have. Here you go: 1. All travel is subsidized 2. Car taxes are not directly applied to infrastructure. 3. Bike infrastructure costs are drastically lower than car infrastructure costs. 4. Those of us who DO NOT own cars PAY FOR YOUR ROADS with our taxes already. Yes, that's right. We pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the road system which is deteriorated by the use of heavy vehicles & constant traffic. 5. There is no logic or sense in taxing cyclists at a higher rate than cars. It's unfair, especially when you consider that all of the cyclists in this conversation except for me own homes AND cars and pay taxes on both. Ultimately while you may have good intentions, your simplistic downplaying of economic realities & taxation is off-topic, incorrect, and displays a basic & essential lack of knowledge on the subject. I'm going to flag your comments as inappropriate: They have nothing to do with this seeclickfix, but you are welcome to open your own ticket asking cyclists to pay taxes.

David Streever wrote on 09/30/2009 at 04:52PM
and, additionally, increasing bicycle traffic == benefit for drivers, too, when it decreases the sheer quantity of cars you have to deal with. It also decreases your overall taxes, because it has a demonstrated financial benefit in health. An increase in cycling means a decrease in insurance costs. Seriously man, we got the chess set here, and you're playing whack-a-mole.

David Streever wrote on 09/30/2009 at 04:54PM
And, last one :D (why is there no edit button here) Why didn't you reply to Jaime? As he/she points out, the only infrastructure car taxes contribute to are HIGHWAY--a place where bikes are not allowed.

Alderman Rodriguez wrote on 09/30/2009 at 04:59PM
Lee, I'll be more then happy to participate in the discussion. Perhaps we can organize a meeting with all interested to discuss this further? Let me know.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 05:02PM
Another person wants this fixed!

kerry morrison wrote on 09/30/2009 at 05:05PM
my family and i just bought a home on clinton avenue and my husband plans to continue biking to his job at yale. i definitely support adding a bike lane to connect us to other neighborhoods - it would certainly make his commute safer and more enjoyable and hopefully encourage others in our immediate area and throughout the city to bring themselves, and their bikes, to the beautiful chatham square area. if others get together to work on this, i'd love to be included. -kerry

Jon Doe wrote on 09/30/2009 at 05:24PM
To: David Streever Please point out to me where is said any of the following? 1. All travel is subsidized - I never said travel was not subidized, Point to me where i did say thet? 2. Car taxes are not directly applied to infrastructure.- I nevere said my car taxes pay only for roads. What I did say was I pay for Property taxes and DMV fee's to be able to drive on the roads. I never said any where that car taxes go directly for infrastructer. 3. Bike infrastructure costs are drastically lower than car infrastructure costs.- I agree so you bikers should more then will to pay in for bike infrastructure 4. Those of us who DO NOT own cars PAY FOR YOUR ROADS with our taxes already. Yes, that's right. We pay for the upkeep & maintenance of the road system which is deteriorated by the use of heavy vehicles & constant traffic.- Everyone pays taxes, I dont understand your point and yes roads wear out over time and need upkeep 5. There is no logic or sense in taxing cyclists at a higher rate than cars. It's unfair, especially when you consider that all of the cyclists in this conversation except for me own homes AND cars and pay taxes on both.- OK let call; it a Fee so you'll feel better about paying it. I seems to me some people just dont understand what they read and need to re read it over and over to understand. Last Sir If you are choking on your money you need to get off the computer and call 911 NOW. I hope your ok

Jon Doe wrote on 09/30/2009 at 05:36PM
To: David Streever again I dont think you and others understand my point. I'm not against bike lanes. I also belive that would help with many of the problems on the roads in our city and with the enviroment, health of riders and so on. I never said they were not cheaper or that cars cause damage to the roads over time. My point all along is if you want something you need to pay for it. When was the last time you were given something for free? Com on man and man up and pay for what you want and stop expecting others to pay your way in life. OK I have to get back to playing whack-a-mole now.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 05:45PM
Another person wants this fixed!

David Backeberg wrote on 09/30/2009 at 07:45PM
So along with Erin who has already commented on this, I bike to work on the Clinton Ave, to Lombard and Humphrey and onto Whitney daily. I reverse the route at night. Having done this trip literally hundreds of times by bike, I'm going to tell you some things that are needed before we go to the stage of a bike lane. Step 1: tow anybody that parks in a no standing zone at an intersection or a bus stop. Until we do this, bikes are invisible in a bike lane when approaching an intersection. New Haven seems to be incapable of enforcing parking compared to the parking ninjas that are employed by the City of Cambridge, MA. People who complain about New Haven parking enforcement have never seen real parking enforcement. I rarely go a day without seeing these violations: intersection of Lombard and Rowe, bus stops and no standing zones intersection of Lombard and Ferry, bus stops and no standing zones intersection of Lombard and Blatchley, bus stops and no standing zones intersection of Humphrey and State, no standing zones near Duncan Donuts, Mobil, and the Asian store As New Haven seems to be unable to make a cost benefit analysis to do thorough parking enforcement, perhaps we can put six inch granite curbs up, and have the no standing zones be self-enforcing? There is one place where it's actually helpful when people park in the no standing zone, and that's the intersection of Humphrey and Whitney, because it forces cars to NOT stand in and block the bike lane. We've asked for it before, and we need a bike box at this intersection, along with a no right on red sign. Also, the pavement at the I-91 overpass between State and East is a nightmare. Can we please repave that? I've broken at least one wheel there. In conclusion, there are several concrete steps we can take to make this a safer route before we get to the point of putting down a perfunctory stripe.

Derek wrote on 09/30/2009 at 08:22PM
Thank you, Lee - an excellent suggestion. There are several steps as David points out that need to happen first - and not just for this part of town. I can't believe that reducing traffic fatalities is really less compelling than other forms of violence that are heavily enforced in this city. Where's the million dollar system of microphones to locate and stop that angry guy in his SUV venting his anger at the slowness of traffic by swerving in front of some poor cyclist just trying to get to work. NHPD please step up and stop the speeding and reckless driving. As for JD I think he might just be trolling this comment thread for giggles - notice that he keeps ignoring the points about how we all pay for the automobile infrastructure with our taxes even if we don't clog the streets and parking lots with our car every day of the week. Heck, we ought to be getting a refund for every day we commute by bike - we decrease traffic, reduce pollution and wear on the roads, all kinds of benefits. John, time for the driving public to pay up, you've got to stop freeloading on Mother Earth with your fossil fuel mobiles.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 11:23PM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/01/2009 at 05:45AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/01/2009 at 06:40AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/01/2009 at 07:11AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/01/2009 at 07:25AM
Another person wants this fixed!

Brian Tang wrote on 10/01/2009 at 07:27AM
I would have no problem paying the $25 for the total impact I have on the ability of others to get around over the course of a years, especially if I received the $35 refund to compensate me for the total impact of all the cars on the road on my ability to get around. My primary concern is that there are two huge logistical hurdles. A) It is very difficult to determine the total benefit one receives from the street infrastructure (and, conversely, it is very difficult to calculate the total impact a particular user has on the system), and B) the figures we are talking about here are so low that an unacceptably high proportion of the revenues would have to go toward administering the user fee. It’s possible that RFID technology will progress to such a level that a total user fee could be efficiently instituted some time in the future, but current technology A) could not effectively do the job, and B) would be prohibitively expensive. Thus, while I have no problem with at total user fee transportation funding scheme in principle, Mr. Doe, I fail to see how such a scheme could be efficiently and effectively administered, given current technology. Your proposal of $25/year flat fee is intriguing, but in this case I feel that it would fail to meet the efficient requirement. In other words, I feel that such a fee would over-charge certain road users, while under-charging others. In addition, even a $25 yearly fee is low enough that the cost of administering and enforcing the fee would be unacceptably high relative to the amount of revenue generated.

MR wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:05AM
The discussion with Jon has gotten circular and repetitive enough that I think we should stop feeding the troll, and advise him to open a separate ticket on this issue for those interested in that debate. I'd rather refocus here on the issue of connecting neighborhoods through bike lanes. It looks like we've got some interesting proposals, valid concerns, and the attention of at least one alderman--what's the next step? Some sort of ersatz working group on the issue to do a little research for a formal proposal?

MR wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:17AM
Correction: make that, the attention of TWO alders: Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Sturgis-Pascale.

David Streever wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:39AM
I agree MR: and because Mr Doe's comments are so far off the mark, and so unrelated to the topic, I've flagged them as inappropriate. Obvious & on-going trolling is not part of resolving issues. If he cares to discuss this specific proposal, that is fine, but my understanding is that he is commenting on a separate and unrelated issue to this particular bike lane proposal.

Lee Cruz wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:48AM
I agreed with Steve and David we need to return to the topic around which the ticket was started. Please forward the ticket number to anyone that currently uses or might use a bike lane from the north end of Fair Haven to the upper State St. and Orange St. area. Please encourage your friends to focus on the need for such a bike lane and where it should be. The people working on bike lane plans and priorities need your input. Thanks. Mr. Doe, not trying to cut you out of the conversation just want to focus it on need and feasibility of this bike lane. Thank you for understanding.

David Backeberg wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:56AM
Steve Brown wrote 9 minutes ago I'd personally like to hear from more people about routing options. (1) Lombard/Humphrey all the way from Clinton to Orange. Pros: passes by Jocelyn Park, shortest overall length. Cons: Treacherous Humphrey RR underpass, severe congestion/aggressive driving at I-91 offramp by Dunkin Donuts. I view this as the best route, mostly because it takes me exactly where I want to go, and also because even including the off-ramp, it encounters the fewest places for motor vehicle drivers to behave dangerously. I haven't had much trouble with the Amtrak underpass, but then again I've memorized the potholes in there. You can safely take the lane because motor vehicles have no choice but to follow. (2) Humphrey/Lombard to East St to State, then connect to Orange St via one of several options. Biggest con here is intersection of State and East. Good luck trying to set off the in-road traffic light sensor when you're on a bike coming from East onto State. I don't know the light from James onto State. Furthermore, motor vehicles do stupid things here: *ignore the no-turns-on-red at State and East *park in the bus stop at Subway and the intersection at State and East *use the right turn onto Edwards lane on State to go straight on State, changing lanes in an intersection. A solid white line doesn't seem to mean anything to these drivers. * making a one lane road into two lanes. State is one lane starting near the I-91 overpass, but try telling that to all the cars who swerve around you. It's impossible for a bike to take the lane because the lane is too wide for a car to control the lane, much less a bike. I could be naive and say that if the right side of State between James and East was painted with bike lanes people will stop using it as a two-lanes-inbound road, but I've seen how the bike lane on Humphrey at Whitney gets used every day. The only way to keep cars out is to put pavement there. Bump the curb in 10 feet or so, and then we'll be ready for a bike lane in that area. Here's where I would suggest we ARE ready for a bike lane, and that's Humphrey between State and Orange. We already have a bike lane between Orange and Whitney on Humphrey. I can't think of a good reason not to extend that bike lane to State. Well, aside from all the potholes on Humphrey. I routinely zig zag around the holes.

wrote on 10/01/2009 at 10:03AM
Another person wants this fixed!

Brian Tang wrote on 10/01/2009 at 10:35AM
While I'm not 100% sure who to ask for schematics of the streets that might actually show widths to a reasonable degree of accuracy (the engineering dept would have them for sure, but I don't know how friendly and open they are to the general public), I do have a 100-ft tape measure. If anyone wants to measure the width of State St, Humphrey St, East St, James St, and Lombard St, I'd be happy to help. When I asked the Transportation Dept for schematics last fall, that's what they told me to do. So now I own a 100-ft tape measure and I'm not afraid to use it.

Ben wrote on 10/01/2009 at 12:36PM
Sounds Kinky Brian. I've measured a road or too with Tang before and it can be pretty fun...these Yalies know how to dodge cars. On a serious Note: As bike lanes would not fit on Upper State North of Humprey South of Edwards I would advocate for Sharrows and for the bike lane to continue to orange on Edwards. Edwards is more than wide enough for bike lanes, was recently paved and is need of traffic control as well. There is also a right turn arrow at Edwards and State that would make the turn convenient. Please Please put sharrows down Upper State as well though.

Mark wrote on 09/30/2009 at 08:10PM
I fully agree with David, but don't see why we can't do all these things at once. It is not a zero sum game in this case. We are talking about the only connection to one of the largest and most important neighborhoods in the entire city. The fixes that you (and others) are talking about are all necessary, and also all relatively inexpensive. Citizens can even go out and do them on their own if the city is not able to take action on all points within a reasonable time frame (e.g., within one month from today). Let's shoot for the moon and just get this done. The property owners, and the residents of the city as a whole, need and deserve this. No more inaction. Do It Now.

Mark wrote on 09/30/2009 at 08:30PM
Cyclists tend to massively overpay while motorists underpay their infrastructure costs. See: Todd Litman (2004), Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM Objectives, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf . Todd Litman (2005), Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf .

Brian Tang wrote on 10/01/2009 at 03:14PM
[menacing photo of 100-ft tape measure]

Mark wrote on 09/28/2009 at 11:49AM
A bike route from Clinton, across Lombard and Humphrey to Orange, is sorely needed. I would consider buying a home in the Chatham Square neighborhood if a safe cycling route from there to Downtown existed. However, I would argue that measures such as bike lanes and sharrows are completely ineffective unless speeds are reduced to 20MPH. Studies show that very few people will feel comfortable bicycling on roads unless speeds are strictly capped at 20MPH -- no matter what kind of paint you have on the road. Though it is true that one of the primary benefits of bicycle lanes, which sharrows do not accomplish, is that they narrow the travel lane, thereby reducing vehicle speeds somewhat. Achieving these average speeds along bike routes can be done through various traffic calming and traffic engineering methods. Berkeley has pioneered this decades ago this with its "bicycle boulevards," and many cities have since followed. It is best to call them "slow streets", since they have a tremendous benefit for pedestrians and property owners as well. I wouldn't bother with more bicycle routes in New Haven until the city understands this basic concept.

wrote on 10/01/2009 at 10:08PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Virginia Bicycling Federation wrote on 10/02/2009 at 11:56AM
I think it's safe to say that simple weathering will cause more wear and tear on roads than any amount of bicycle traffic. Cars, and especially trucks, are another story. The more motor vehicle drivers we can put onto bicycles, the better!

DEZ wrote on 10/02/2009 at 11:57AM
Great idea. the current Clinton Avenue "bike lane to nowhere" needs a little help. This would be it.

wrote on 10/02/2009 at 04:31PM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/04/2009 at 09:49AM
Another person wants this fixed!

halfus wrote on 10/04/2009 at 09:51AM
we are planning to buy a house in new haven, and one of the main reasons why i decided against the chatham sq neighborhood (perfect in lots of other ways) was that it would be so difficult for me to cycle myself to work and my kids to their current school in east rock.

wrote on 10/05/2009 at 11:56AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/05/2009 at 02:11PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Hope Metcalf wrote on 10/05/2009 at 03:39PM
I agree with the Humphrey route. I don't want to bike on upper state--it's terrifying for all the reasons you suggest. If the bike lane detoured, I would just stick with the more direct route. One idea might be to have the bike lane share one or both of the sidewalks, only for the underpass. Another great possible bike lane is Chapel Street. I know it falls outside our area, but it's the widest, most direct route for many people coming from Fair Haven to downtown. There's a problem with drag racing on that street (like there used to be on Clinton), so it's a natural for a bike lane.

Susan Regan wrote on 10/05/2009 at 07:28PM
Hope, I like your idea of Chapel Street as a Bike Lane. I drive it every morning and it is an easy access to so many parts of New Haven. With more frequent use & police patrolling maybe it would become another safe space in our city.

David Streever wrote on 10/06/2009 at 08:16PM
It's so sad to see Upper State is terrifying people--I promise it's mostly safe! Maybe Berkowitz and I should have an outreach event for cyclists on it?

wrote on 10/06/2009 at 09:18PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Ben wrote on 10/07/2009 at 01:20AM
I was surprised to hear this too David. The speeds are generally low and the narrow roads don't allow cars to pass you. Wide sidewalks encourage sidewalk riding but I would love to help encourage people to get in the road on Upper State. Lets open a separate issue on encouraging safe biking on Upper State.

David Backeberg wrote on 10/07/2009 at 10:27AM
There's upper state, and then there's upper state. State between Edwards and say Audubon isn't so bad. It would be nice to have an official bike crossing to continue straight near the cleaners and I-91 on ramp when travelling northbound on State. The part we're calling scary for bikes is between Edwards and perhaps Ferry, where there are actually two lanes of travel in each direction, or there is wide enough pavement that in practice there are two lanes of travel in each direction. For instance, the intersection of Edwards / East / State is frightening for anybody not ensconced in a metal cage with airbags. People use the right turn lane for Edwards on southbound State as a merge lane for high speed travel, people generally go two wide on southbound State between James and Edwards though it's striped as one lane, etc. If you haven't seen this first-hand, rent a Zipcar and try to travel south on State from Ferry to Humphrey during morning rush. Drive at or below the speed limit, and stop for all the reds. It's an effort in anger management in a car, and I wouldn't do it on a bike unless I really had to.

Erin Pascale wrote on 10/07/2009 at 12:56PM
I'd like to second David's comments about upper state, especially Edwards/East/State. When on my bike, I always cut over to Fair Haven on Humphrey to avoid this area. I was there last night with my daughter and could barely get across the street as a pedestrian. There is no walk light and SO much asphalt there. Luckily, we made the Majorlaine to Chestnut Fine Foods run without incident, but It's very intimidating. There are cars coming from six different directions and there is general confusion about who gets to go when the light is green. This is a decidedly unsafe intersection.

Mark wrote on 10/07/2009 at 11:35PM
These posts are extremely helpful. Keep them coming! If you know anyone who regularly rides in this area, forward the link so they can add comments as well.

MR wrote on 10/08/2009 at 08:25AM
Regarding Upper State, the real problem is, as noted, UPPER Upper State. Anything above Willow--and esp. above Ferry--is frightening and unsafe, in both directions. I've always ended up dismounting and walking the bike on the sidewalk until I'm back down by the retail/restaurant district. Lanes are narrow and cars travel too quickly and aggressively.

DEZ wrote on 10/08/2009 at 08:58AM
As someone who's "Priusing" it to Groton daily, I've tried to keep my comments to a minimum. I agree with the route down Lombard/Humphrey as the street is largely residential, wide, and direct. I rarely DRIVE the upper State route because the intersection of Ferry/State is a nightmare of ill mannered drivers with varying degrees of repect for the law. I would feel safer on Lombard, or for the maritime route, Chapel for that matter.

Brian Tang wrote on 10/08/2009 at 10:48AM
This summer, when I was living off-campus and therefore had to learn how to cook for myself, I would make a trip (on my bicycle, since I've apparently lost the will to look up the bus schedule now that I've discovered that I can go anywhere I want anytime I want on my bike) at least once a week up to AM Supermarket on State Street in Hamden. If I had my act together (i.e. got myself out of bed at a reasonable hour) I would go between the hours of 7 and 8 in the morning. More often, however, I'd go after work, usually between 5:45 and 7ish. So I have a fair amount of experience riding on State Street in heavy traffic. Oddly enough, I had no idea that this part of State Street had such a bad reputation, and in my blissful ignorance, I actually found it to be one of the more pleasant streets to bicycle on in the city. The lanes were narrow enough that I felt free to turn the right-hand lane into my own personally bike lane, and drivers seemed quite happy to just pass me using the left-hand lane. My favorite section of the entire ride was actually the part where they crammed all four lanes onto that tiny little road (between the Mill River and Ferry Street). After Ferry, you do have to worry about the occasional parked car, and the glass and debris on the shoulder can get pretty bad, but for the most part I encountered very moderate speeds and cautious, courteous drivers. There were a few dump truck drivers who scared me a bit by how close they passed me in the northbound direction at that curve just beyond Ferry, but that's the only incident I can remember. I think it helps that I'm the type of bicyclist who rarely feels the need to jump to the front of the line at red lights (I figure those same cars are probably just going to pass me on the other side of the intersection, so what's the point?) so the only problem I ever had at the intersection of State and Ferry was not making it through before the light changed. I would caution that you should watch out for turning drivers trying to jump the gun and turn onto Ferry from SB State w/out yielding to oncoming traffic, but that's only an issue if you are at the front of the line waiting at the red light. Like I said, overall, I found my morning trips to AM Supermarket in particular to be some of the most pleasant trips I made the whole summer, much better than the time I rode out Whalley, just to see what it was like, or the time I attempted to bicycle back from IKEA via Sargent Drive to the Church St So. Ext. Drivers on Sargent are insane! For a second I thought I must have accidentally merged onto 95. Steve, are you available after the FERP cleanup at the Street St Playground in Cedar Hill? I'm not sure what I'm doing for lunch on Saturday, but that cleanup event would put us right in this general area.

Melinda wrote on 10/09/2009 at 07:07PM
This discussion is reminding me of the difference between biking for enjoyment, exercise, economy and the environment ("the 4 E's, as I once wrote in a column for the Advocate) versus worrying about my safety every minute. I ride on State Street not regularly, but often enough to have an opinion, and my opinion is, it's just a road -- not the most scenic and not my route of choice most of the time, but a pretty good way to get from the eastern parts of New Haven to my home in the eastern part of Hamden. I haven't considered it particularly dangerous.

NudeHaven wrote on 10/12/2009 at 11:05AM
That's really charming. Where's the PR friendly Police Chief these days? Things sounded so much better for a little while... So is it, in fact illegal to measure the road? Maybe you need a 'permit' from City Hall and a union police officer to stand there making overtime while you do it.

wrote on 10/13/2009 at 12:42AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/13/2009 at 05:40PM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/14/2009 at 09:47AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/14/2009 at 02:16PM
Another person wants this fixed!

lk wrote on 10/14/2009 at 06:41PM
My husband rides through FH to downtown every day, and I am terrified for his safety. People drive really recklessly in this neighborhood. A bike lane would be great, one on Chapel St., too!

wrote on 10/14/2009 at 08:11PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Brian Tang wrote on 10/14/2009 at 11:13PM
Hey Steve, do you think you could post the road width measurements we took when you have a chance? This way, they will be—Heaven forbid!—public knowledge from now on. Thanks.

wrote on 10/15/2009 at 11:03PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Brian Tang wrote on 10/20/2009 at 09:41AM
The lights under the Humphrey Street RR underpass have officially been fixed! See video.

Brian Tang wrote on 10/20/2009 at 09:42AM
another video

Brian Tang wrote on 10/20/2009 at 09:44AM
Now we just need to figure out what to do to get the lights under the James St RR underpass fixed. (See 2-second video—yeah, I know, I should have just taken I photo)

Erin wrote on 10/20/2009 at 09:55AM
Yes, it's wonderful at night now that the lights have been fixed. Now, we need to convince Amtrak to keep the lights on during the day as well. Even on a bright and sunny day, that underpass is really dark.

Hope Metcalf wrote on 10/20/2009 at 11:59AM
This is so great--a HUGE improvement!

wrote on 10/25/2009 at 06:10AM
A bike lane would be ineffective. Instead, we should create a "slow street" here. The URL http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/8864 has a detailed description and photo of what this means.

wrote on 10/25/2009 at 09:05AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/25/2009 at 01:02PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Brian Tang wrote on 10/25/2009 at 10:54PM
Point A: The narrow width of the street will mean sharrows, not bike lanes. Point B: Bicyclists who do not feel comfortable riding on Lombard can take English/Peck. Point C: Lombard/Humphrey is not a dangerous place to bicycle so long as you maintain a safe position on the roadway (i.e. “take the lane” at intersection approaches and the tunnel roadway). If you do this, you will probably get yelled at, but you won't be in any physical danger. I believe that sharrows can help to address this (the yelling). Point D: Lombard performs an important function as a neighborhood collector and Humphrey serves an important role as a minor arterial. Converting these streets to slow streets would limit their effectiveness in this capacity.

David Backeberg wrote on 10/25/2009 at 11:29PM
I doubt Humphrey between State and Orange is any narrower than Humphrey between Orange and Whitney. Can we do the same one-side bike lane treatment there? How about a bike box at Whitney and Humphrey? Sharrows would be nice. Paving the street would help even pedestrians. Under the 91 overpasses. On some rough spots between State and Whitney. On some rough spots between James and Blatchley, although the worst spots were fixed this summer. There's still a long bad patch between Blatchley and Ferry where somebody did a below-grade fill job for about three blocks. It can catch your tire if you're not careful. Finally, it is impossible to actuate the light at Lombard and Clinton unless you are accompanied by a few tons of steel. I've seen motorcycles having this problem too. I have to treat it like a four-way stop because the light is never going to change unless car traffic is there at the same time. My complaints about lack of enforcement of vehicle parking in crosswalks, on sidewalks, in bus stops, and in intersections still all apply, as they reduce visibility for bikes to be noticed when approaching intersections.

wrote on 10/26/2009 at 04:07AM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 10/26/2009 at 04:15PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Mark wrote on 10/26/2009 at 06:21PM
If you think that these streets would be "less effective" as slow streets, please explain: 1) What is your alternative plan for making these sections of New Haven immediately accessible to road users of all ages and abilities? 2) What you mean by "less effective," exactly, considering that the median age in New Haven is under 30, the properties along this route are currently suffering from major disinvestment, and most New Haven residents (especially in the neighborhoods near this route) do not drive to work every day?

wrote on 10/26/2009 at 09:37PM
I think we should have the slow streets conversation as a separate issue. This digresses from the current topic at hand which is a bike lane.

Brian Tang wrote on 10/26/2009 at 10:17PM
[Just as an aside: Technically, the topic at hand is not a bike lane because Humphrey from State to James and Lombard from James to Clinton are not wide enough to add bike lanes. Humphrey between Orange and State might be wide enough for a bike lane on one side. As I implied in my last comment, the issue on this route is not that it is impossible, or even difficult, to safely ride on Humphrey and Lombard (taking the lane at intersection approaches and tunnel roadway); the problem is that you are liable to get yelled at/honked at/cursed at if you do. Our infrastructure solution should aim to resolve that problem (the yelling). The best way I know of to do that is through shared lane markings (a.k.a. “sharrows”).] Mark, my point was that we (you and I) do not live on Lombard Street. For all we know, the neighborhood may value the role of this street as a neighborhood collector. After all there is a fire station located on Lombard and there are quite a few businesses who benefit from the road in its current form. I suppose there is some chance that they could derive astronomically more benefit from a bike boulevard—and that is certainly a valid argument to make and something that the neighborhood should consider in its long-term vision for how it wants to look in twenty years—I just really want something on the ground next year. And in that sense, the last commenter was right in that the issue at hand really is “what can we do right now, without creating a public controversy?” To me the answer is very clearly sharrows from Clinton to Orange.

Mark wrote on 10/26/2009 at 10:40PM
Brian, I think you are being presumptuous if you claim that a bike lane is impossible here (or is something that can't be done "right now"), since the person who created this issue clearly called for a bike lane, NOT sharrows. I don't see any problem with debating the issue of what type of markings / infrastructure would be most effective, since the point here is clearly what can be done to finally make Fair Haven and Chatham Square accessible to Downtown by bike. Whether sharrows are the way to do that is one point of debate but isn't the only solution just because you say it is. I agree with you that sharrows may be a good short-term solution for reducing the yelling and providing additional comfort to cyclists. Sharrows haven't been tried elsewhere in the city, so this would be a "test" -- perhaps the neighborhood and visitors to it could try them out, while leaving this issue open so we/they can continue to discuss the best way to make Chatham Square/Fair Haven a viable neighborhood in terms of access to sustainable transportation for users of all ages, abilities and comfort levels.

Erin wrote on 10/27/2009 at 09:02AM
Lombard is certainly a neighborhood collector, but it sees the volume that it does because of the tangled maze of one-way streets through the rest of the neighborhood. From upper State, you cannot get to the Chatham Square neighborhood any other reasonable way except through Ferry and Lombard (the Peck and Ferry dogleg is out of the question). The resulting uneven traffic flow makes the roads feel unsafe, especially for cyclists. Converting the neighborhood streets back to two way traffic flow would spread traffic more evenly through Fair Haven and would make sharing the road with bicyclists on Lombard Street easier. A damaged street network is similar to funneling stormwater through concrete culverts--even a minor traffic event can lead to alarming levels of raging motorists.

Mark wrote on 10/27/2009 at 11:08AM
Steve: A couple of questions -- 1) I'm not sure how SCF is more "short-term": Why can't it be used for long-term visioning? 2) I don't necessarily agree that a safe bike route has to be a "long-term" project. If the neighborhood and residents mobilize, it can happen sooner rather than later. We can all agree to disagree -- I'm just pointing out that we should be deferential to different viewpoints on what is needed here, and not assume that our ideas are the only valid ones. The person who started this issue clearly called for a safe bike lane that would provide access from Downtown to his/her neighborhood -- presumably including comfort and access for all users, including those less comfortable riding in the middle of traffic. A "sharrow" system, which has never been used before in New Haven, is just one of several possible solutions.

Ben wrote on 10/27/2009 at 12:01PM
Would like to get feedback from City Hall on this. Traffic and Parking?

Lee Cruz wrote on 10/28/2009 at 08:04PM
The outcome that we seek is better and safer biking options for neighborhood residents as soon as possible. I agree with Ben -- can we please get a City of New Haven Traffic and Parking perspective on this?

wrote on 10/29/2009 at 09:57AM
Another person wants this fixed!

Frank wrote on 10/29/2009 at 11:42AM
When the City official replies, can they also address similar concerns from west river / westville? In particular the issue of ? how to pay for these badly needed improvements: http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/8864

wrote on 11/28/2009 at 01:41PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Steve Brown wrote on 09/30/2009 at 11:24AM
Count me in, this is my route to work as well. One comment/question for the group though. The Humphrey underpass under the train tracks, which is divided (one portal for each direction of Humphrey) is very narrow and rather treacherous (dips down, not lit, poor pavement and lots of debris). This would be far too narrow for a lane and I think even a sharrow is pushing it. I ride that way, but I can see why others would steer clear especially at night. One alternative would be to route the lane (from Clinton Ave) west on Lombard St, north on James St, west/south on State St, and then north to Orange St via Edwards or Humphrey. That would have the added advantage of passing through more of the Upper State neighborhood, and the section of State St used would be right where it drops from two lanes per direction to one, so it's quite wide there. Just a thought, I'm curious others' opinions of this alternate routing. I've attached a jpg of this alternate route.

wrote on 09/30/2009 at 11:25AM
Another person wants this fixed!

Steve Brown wrote on 09/30/2009 at 12:13PM
Pic of the underpass. It's a must-"take the lane" situation and it's awfully dark under there. Doesn't help that the "curb" is a concrete wall.

Steve Brown wrote on 09/30/2009 at 01:16PM
Aside from the fact that this debate is totally off topic, if Mr. Doe thinks cyclists don't pay for road infrastructure in New Haven perhaps he should take a look at my real estate tax bill. Real estate taxes dwarf vehicle registration fees when it comes to paying for city streets, so every last resident of New Haven, driver or not, has a stake in this matter. Furthermore, I own a car and I doubt I'm the only one here that does. I would therefore further assert my right to "expect a say" in the matter. Let's get a bike lane from Orange St to Clinton Ave.

Steve Brown wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:17AM
ECC has already started researching the topic for this year's Bike Plan. Some route to Fair Haven is definitely a top priority infrastructure-wise this year, and given the amount of support for the connection to East Rock it seems like a good place to start. Other corridors under consideration (not necessarily mutually exclusive) include Grand Ave - Downtown and Chapel Street - Downtown - East Shore. I think the plan is to get more information on the specific route proposal(s) to determine feasibility and then bring that information to ECC, the city, and other stakeholders for thoughts.

Steve Brown wrote on 10/01/2009 at 08:34AM
I'd personally like to hear from more people about routing options. There are at least three possible routes between Clinton Ave and Orange Street that have been suggested and all have their pros and cons: (1) Lombard/Humphrey all the way from Clinton to Orange. Pros: passes by Jocelyn Park, shortest overall length. Cons: Treacherous Humphrey RR underpass, severe congestion/aggressive driving at I-91 offramp by Dunkin Donuts. (2) Humphrey/Lombard to East St to State, then connect to Orange St via one of several options. Pros: Jocelyn Park, East St residential area, also passes through more of Upper State corridor, including farmer's market. Cons: underpass, more circuitous. (3) Lombard to James or Blatchley to State, then connect to Orange St via one of several options. Pros: Probably wide enough for lanes throughout without taking parking, passes through all of Upper State corridor. Cons: circuitous, safety concerns at James and State intersection. There are of course many more options and tweaks, but if folks want to debate about routing these are several that come to mind.

Steve Brown wrote on 10/08/2009 at 08:35AM
Agreed. But since the majority of respondents seem to strongly favor the most direct route to town, via Lombard/Humphrey to Orange St, perhaps any routing up (or down) State Street should be in the form of a spur off of the Humphrey/State intersection? Since conditions on State seem to get harrier the further you stray from that intersection (91 onramp and multi-lanes to the south, Edwards/East intersection and multiple narrow high-speed lanes north), this would allow folks to "choose their own adventure" when exploring Upper State. Incidentally, Brian are you interested in taking some measurements this weekend? It would be good to be able to put together a more concrete (asphalt?) proposal.

Steve Brown wrote on 10/12/2009 at 09:46AM
Took measurements on Lombard and some cross streets this weekend. While out on Lombard on a beautiful sunny Saturday afternoon we were stopped by a rather testy NHPD officer who declared that by attempting to make improvements to cycling infrastructure and encourage cycling in Fair Haven, we were "advocating for people to get killed out here." Yet another instance of the PD discouraging cycling because it's "too dangerous."

Steve Brown wrote on 10/20/2009 at 10:17PM
As requested, I've attached a JPG of the measurements Brian and I took a couple Saturdays ago. The long and short of it is that Lombard/Humphrey are too narrow for proper bike lanes, but not by much. Sharrows would be feasible as a road marking, and lanes might be possible closer to State and between State and Orange. I agree about keeping those lights on all day. It's a huge improvement already though

Steve Brown wrote on 10/27/2009 at 10:13AM
Couple comments... (1) Let's not get all bent out of shape. There are competing opinions but the goal is the same, better cycling options between Fair Haven and downtown. (2) The question of short versus long term improvements is an important one but I'd argue that short-term is more see-click-fix oriented, and long-term is a discussion that needs to be initiated/continued with our friends at City Hall. Short term I agree with Brian and others that sharrows are both effective and feasible, and coupled with better enforcement of both moving and parking violations we can boost the perceived legitimacy and driver deference toward cyclists. I support painted lanes on one or both sides of Humphrey west of State and sharrows to Fair Haven. I'd also like to see share the road signage, especially around the RR underpass. (3) I don't think surrounding one-way streets really have much to do with the high volume on Lombard/Humphrey. What makes that street appealing to cars is the same thing that makes it appealing to bikes: it crosses the Mill River, and is the only road that does so between State and Grand. And for the record, I use the Peck/Ferry dogleg all the time on bike and in car, though I don't really like riding on Blatchley.

wrote on 12/23/2009 at 04:10PM
Acknowledged By the Transportation, Traffic and Parking Department.

sharrows wrote on 01/13/2010 at 07:18AM
sounds like the city will be painting sharrows here, this year, even though posters have called for a bike lane. something is probably better than nothing, though. do you all agree? can the city confirm this rumor?

David Backeberg wrote on 01/14/2010 at 08:29PM
I rode this just today, will be riding it home tonight, and I can say I would prefer sharrows to a bike lane. Sharrows suggest a bike can use the entire lane (which is correct) whereas motor vehicles can get the mistaken impression that a bike lane means a bicyclist is no longer allowed full use of the lane.

Steve Brown wrote on 01/14/2010 at 08:33PM
I agree with David -- and I also rode this morning and will ride home tonight on this route. A painted lane on a road that isn't really wide enough to support one can do more harm than good. I support sharrows here as an important step to granting legitimacy to cyclists in this area. That outcome became all the more important to me after our encounter with the NHPD officer who told us we were "advocating for people to get killed" by encouraging cycling on Lombard. Ironic, because what we're really advocating is for people to NOT get killed.

wrote on 01/15/2010 at 03:28PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Carlos R. Galo wrote on 01/26/2010 at 04:37PM
Sorely needed. Whether "sharrows" or lane. One of the worst places to bike in New Haven--yet one of the most direct links between Fair Haven and East Rock/Downtown.

Brian Tang wrote on 02/06/2010 at 07:48AM
The creation of a new bike route along Humphrey-Lombard St between Orange St and Clinton Ave was a key recommendation of the recently released 2010 Elm City Cycling Bike Plan for New Haven: http://www.elmcitycycling.org/2010bikeplan

resident wrote on 02/10/2010 at 11:45PM
Can the city confirm that the sharrows will be installed by April this year?

Mark wrote on 03/02/2010 at 04:38AM
Out of the 2010 Bike Plan recommendations, Mike Piscitelli, Transportation Director, said that "Howard Avenue and Fair Haven are the ones I think we can do this year", in addition to the recommendations from 2009 (Westville). That's good news for this ticket. Mike said he doesn't foresee the signed routes on Chapel Street, into Fair Haven and beyond, happening this calendar cycle but will ask David Moser to begin scoping out the work in more detail.

Brian Tang wrote on 03/02/2010 at 05:04AM
What about the bike box on Prospect Street and the sharrows for Prospect and Sachem? Those streets are going to be resurfaced anyway. You'd think this would be the ideal time and place to do a bike box. Ethan, what gives?

Carlos Galo wrote on 03/02/2010 at 05:56PM
This is good news for those commuting to Downtown from Chatham Square/Front Street area :P.

wrote on 03/02/2010 at 09:23PM
Another person wants this fixed!

MeAgain wrote on 03/03/2010 at 05:56PM
If bicycles want access to the streets they need to do several things. Demonstrate they can abide by ALL traffic rules. Pay a road tax. (Contrary to previous replys, our roads are financed by gas taxes and license fees.) Carry proof of liability insurance. Be restricted to the right most 2 feet of the pavement. Run single file. Demonstrate they are at least 16 years old. Learn what it means to be courteous and practice it. Wear a helmet.

Steve Brown wrote on 03/03/2010 at 06:13PM
I'd like to reply to the utterly silly post by "MeAgain": 1. Local roads are NOT funded by gas taxes. They are funded by property taxes. Sorry. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. 2. Last time I checked, speeding was a crime, and one that results in thousands of needless fatalities every year, including the deaths of many cyclists and pedestrians. If you want to talk about road users abiding by ALL traffic laws maybe you should start by looking in the mirror. 3. Bicycles already have "access to the streets" and if you don't like it, call your legislator. I'm sure they'll enjoy listening to your nonsensical rantings almost as much as I did.

alycia wrote on 03/03/2010 at 06:24PM
Just as some cyclists could learn to use the roads more wisely, so can many drivers. If cars want access to the streets, they need to do several things: Demonstrate they can abide by ALL traffic rules. Carry proof of liability insurance. Learn what it means to be courteous and practice it. Wear a seat belt.

Greg wrote on 03/03/2010 at 07:33PM
MeAgain, Your requirements for cyclists run from reasonable to absurd. I'll tackle a few: -Demonstrate they can abide by ALL traffic rules. Cars violate traffic rules constantly. -Pay a road tax. As stated, above, property taxes fund the roads. Also, if cyclists are required to pay an additional tax, then drivers should at a greater rate than bicyclists, since cars require more asphalt and they case more wear on the road. -Be restricted to the right most 2 feet of the pavement. Not only is this impractical, it is often quite unsafe. -Run single file. Riding two abreast can provide more safety than riding single file. Of course, holding up a line of traffic is not the goal. If that occurs, cyclists should move to single file. -Learn what it means to be courteous and practice it. Wow. Few drivers are courteous, so this should apply to all of us using the roads. -Wear a helmet. I agree, a helmet is of great importance.

MeAgain wrote on 03/03/2010 at 07:34PM
Yes, Steve I talk to my legislators. Thats why Colorado bicyclist are now restricted to the right most 2 feet of the pavement and are required to ride single file. Connecticut is next, get used to it. Colorado went from hysterical car drivers and out of control bicyclist to a system that both sides now agree was a good decision. Sounds like you have no respect for authority or the rules of the road.

MeAgain wrote on 03/03/2010 at 07:36PM
Alycia, I agree totally with your comment. its the law. If you don't follow them you SHOULD be arrested. We passed these laws and the police should enforce them.

Steve Brown wrote on 03/03/2010 at 07:40PM
MeAgain, no such law exists in Colorado nor in any other state. Good luck with your crusade though.

resident wrote on 03/03/2010 at 07:53PM
Given that roads are funded by property tax, I agree there should be a special tax on drivers (based on miles traveled), and an even higher one on truckers, since these two groups cause by far the most wear and tear on the road. Raising special taxes on drivers and trucks could help lower the property taxes for the rest of us, freeing up our household incomes for better things like education, health care and entertainment. The vast majority of New Haven residents do not drive a car to work every day so it's only fair that taxes would be structured in a more fair way.

wrote on 03/11/2010 at 03:07PM
Another person wants this fixed!

Mark wrote on 03/16/2010 at 12:29AM
When will the city have a specific schedule for these improvements? April would be preferable to August.

wrote on 04/17/2010 at 04:30PM
Another person wants this fixed!

wrote on 04/18/2010 at 02:22PM
A watcher was added to this issue.

Mark wrote on 06/04/2010 at 06:01PM
According to NH Independent, bidding has been completed on the sharrows for Downtown and Westville, and they will be installed within a few weeks. Anyone know when bidding will start for the sharrows to Fair Haven? Why is Fair Haven going to be done so many months behind Downtown and Westville (if at all)?

Mark wrote on 07/14/2010 at 02:58PM
According to this article as well as our earlier conversations with the City, some of the planned bike routes (which had already been delayed by a year) were scheduled to go in last week. Does anyone know what is causing the delay? Does anyone have an updated schedule for the Fair Haven route or know if it will be happening at all? http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/prepare_to_share/