New Haven Independent

Posted by: Sean Matteson | February 12, 2009 8:26 AM

Great job by all! I cannot tell you the difference that is made by citizens directly lobbying the General Assembly.

Posted by: Bill | February 12, 2009 8:29 AM

It's unrealistic to think that bicycles will ever be a significant portion of commuter traffic. China once touted as an example of bicycle usage has recently surpassed the U.S. in car sales. In Paris an experiment to provide public bicycles has failed with most bicycles either stolen or broken. I ride a bicycle about 5,000 miles per year so I am not against bicycle usage, just realistic.

Posted by: Joe Rodriguez | February 12, 2009 8:34 AM

Great work !

Joe Rodriguez
Alderman, Ward 15

Posted by: Streever | February 12, 2009 9:03 AM

Bill,
what percentage would you define as "realistic"?
Complete Streets is also about pedestrians.

In New Haven, the percentage of commuter trips by bike/foot is actually very significant already.

Please speak to Alder Erin Sturgis-Pascale if you are curious about the actual bill or want to know what it's advocating.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 12, 2009 9:10 AM

Bill,

It seems unrealistic because there's never been a concerted attempt in this area to reform infrastructure to make it practical.

One hundred years ago, there was no infrastructure to support the personal automobile and it was considered a luxury item--a novelty for the rich and silly. No gas stations, few paved roads, no highway rest stops or drive-through bank tellers. The decisions that have been made in urban planning, highway construction, and suburban expansion have all made the evolution of car-centric culture possible--maybe inevitable.

There's no logical reason to assume that paying similar attention to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure won't make those choices more appealing.

What's-his-name in Field of Dreams said it best: "If you build it, they will come."

Posted by: Nan Bartow | February 12, 2009 9:17 AM

Call or write your state senator. Ask him or her to support Senate Bill 735. We need roads that are friendly to pedestrians and bike riders as well as to cars.

Posted by: downtown | February 12, 2009 9:26 AM

Bill, I believe your logic is flawed. Here's what I'm thinking off-hand.

First, China has 5 times the population of the US (rough estimate obviously). So of course they will beat our population in car sales. Second, their economy is growing and more people have incomes that can afford cars, so of course more cars will be sold. Third, currently China has 100million fewer cars on the road. Fourth, car population does not correlate strongly with bicycle riding. Bicycle population does. Fifth, Paris isn't the only experiment with bike-sharing; not all are failing. Sixth, this bill is not only for bicycling, but also for pedestrians. Seventh, "significant portion" is rather arbitrary -- currently 45% of commuters do not drive themselves to work (a little juiced including 'carpooling', but I can't find the data behind these numbers at the moment, or else I would have broken them out) which leaves 55% of commuters to work from home or drive themselves. I don't consider 55% to be significant either.

I'm glad you ride your bike so much; I currently don't have one (I'm one of the 14% that walk to work), and that doesn't prevent me from making smart policy decisions on safe, healthy, equitable design solutions to our roads.

After rereading your comment, it's rather unclear whether you like the bill, don't like the bill, or just want to be Bill. Anyways, there are serious health and quality of life issues behind this bill, and it would be amazing if more people could sit back, let it sink in, and have their own 'a-ha' moment. Copenhagen... Portland... Seattle...

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 9:59 AM

Policies need to focus on improved pedestrian design/walkability, especially around bus stops and schools.

I believe there is a bill that requires new school construction projects to spend money on walkable streets. That should be incorporated into this new Senate Bill 735.

Look at some of the streets around our new schools - they are horrible places to walk. Blake Street near the Beecher School has drivers zipping along at 50 miles per hour and no crosswalks. Crossing Grand Avenue near the new Fair Haven Middle, or new Columbus School, is practically suicidal. And then we wonder why kids get driven a few blocks to school.

Posted by: JP | February 12, 2009 10:02 AM

Bill I think you are correct. It works in a place like Amsterdam because so many people live in the city limits. In the US everyone lives in the burbs. The flaw in the model is that people live to far from where they work. We should stick to making downtown more bike friendly and maybe have a greenway up to Westville and that's about it. We should be thinking about tourists and people who live local to the area. No one will bike from Madison to New Haven but people may drive down and bike along longwarf and come downtown for lunch.

Posted by: Pedro | February 12, 2009 10:11 AM

I'm primarily a pedestrian, although I'm also a driver. I actually see complete streets as not being "anti-car." Since an orderly and safe flow of traffic in pedestrian/bike heavy areas makes sense for all who use the road.

It makes more sense for traffic to be able to move smoothly even if it's at a slower pace. Having decent intersections and clear crossings with variations in texture and adequate lighting make it much easier for drivers and pedestrians to coexist. I think that most of the problems are in areas where who has priority at any given time is unclear.
I'll keep on pulling out my old chestnut of redone street crossings from my alma mater Amherst college in discussions like this, just to remind people of things that aren't necessarily bike centric.
https://www.amherst.edu/offices/facilities/capital_projects/project_archives/crosswalks_spleasant

https://www.amherst.edu/offices/facilities/capital_projects/project_archives/crosswalks_college

It was a win-win for pedestrians and drivers, since it made crossings crystal clear, slowed traffic down naturally and reduced jaywalking.

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 10:15 AM

"In Paris an experiment to provide public bicycles has failed with most bicycles either stolen or broken".

That is not true at all. Yes, there is some vandalism, but the Paris bike share system has over 42 million uses and bikes traveling 10,000 km in a year. The system is rapidly expanding beyond Paris and into the suburbs.

Even in cold weather, there are 78,000 average daily usages on the system. At the end of January 2009, a city wide transportation strike resulted in the doubling of Vélib' usage from the week before.

The Paris bike share system costs money to maintain and money to replace bikes, but compared to the cost of running a subway system or 78,000 more cars on the road per day, it is a huge bargain.

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 10:17 AM

Pedro, those crosswalks are great!

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 12, 2009 10:51 AM

JP said,

The flaw in the model is that people live to far from where they work. We should stick to making downtown more bike friendly and maybe have a greenway up to Westville and that's about it. We should be thinking about tourists and people who live local to the area.

Actually, that's not true, either. I live in West Haven and work in Durham. Door-to-door my one-way commute is 22.5 miles; it takes about 30 minutes to drive (although in the afternoon, particular on Friday, it can easily be an hour) and about 75 minutes to ride, as I like to do when schedule and weather permit. During some periods, that was as often as 3 times a week.

In my experience, the main obstacle to riding more is lack of infrastructure: I have to take state route 17, which is fairly narrow for a major road and poorly-lit which means that during the winter months, even on unseasonably warm days, it's an unpleasant proposition.

Build something similar to the Farmington Canal trail, or even a dedicated bicycle lane with a little separation from traffic and light it up and I, for one, would ride a lot more. Oh, and please plow it, too; the FC is unrideable long after the snow is completely off the roads.

Posted by: nfjanette | February 12, 2009 11:33 AM

I also agree with Bill and JP. Improving safety AND compliance (with heavy ticketing for jay walking) for pedestrians as well as automobile operators (red light cameras would fill the city's "budget gap" quickly) should be the primary focus fo safety efforts. A limited but high-quality greenway/bikeway effort to connect downtown to certain areas (e.g. Westville, East Rock) would be expensive, but perhaps justifiable after the primary goals have been met. I would even support banning bicycles (gasp!) on certain heavy volume streets that lack dedicated bike lanes - they create too much potential hazard for themselves as well as other traffic. Then again, I think it's fine for kids to ride bikes on sidewalks in lower density areas (non-downtown).

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 11:36 AM

NFJanette, banning bicycle use on "certain high volume streets" would be a recipe for a very expensive lawsuit.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 12, 2009 11:39 AM

NFJ,

Unfortunately, Connecticut municipalities only keep a small fraction of the money from tickets for moving violations. I think it's $10, so it would take a lot of tickets to make up any budget shortfalls.

How about this for a trade? For every mile of road on which we ban bicycles, let's have a corresponding mile for which we ban motorized traffic. We can start by measuring the interstate highway system and getting the greenway equivalent.

Posted by: JP | February 12, 2009 11:48 AM

NFJANETTE,
You are dead on.

William Kurtz,
Thanks for proving my point. You are exactly the problem i am referring to. There is no way the tax payer should have to pay for you to make that ridiculous 22 mile trek across the state on a bike. If you want to bike to work live within 5 miles and travel on city/town roads only. Next people will want a bike lane on 15.

Cars made it possible to live far from city centers and now bikers want to continue that way of life but without the cars. The problem isn't with the roads its with people. That being said I fully support downtown being more bike and pedestrian friendly but if a road has a speed limit over 25 mph bikes have no place.

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 12, 2009 12:06 PM

JP,

Thanks for returning the favor and making the case for me: since state law in all 50 states explicitly identifies a bicycle as a vehicle and grants cyclists the same access to the roads as motorists, and since yes, high-speed roads are much less friendly to non-motorized transportation, then no local or state road should have a speed limit greater than 25 miles per hour.

I agree completely that the problem isn't the roads, but the people and have said many times before that the line shouldn't be drawn between 'motorists' and 'pedestrians' and 'cyclists' (especially when so many of us are all three at different times) but between safe, courteous and responsible road users and reckless, irresponsible and rude ones.

Posted by: jawbone | February 12, 2009 12:31 PM

I almost got smooshed by the Yale Shuttle turning right on red in front of the Architecture School yesterday. Then the driver slams it to the sidewalk and runs over to the new Willoughbys for coffee.
Gotta get these shuttles in line, people. They are some of the fastest, rule-breakinest drivers on our city's streets.

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 12:38 PM

William, actually, some countries now require that. For every acre of asphalt that a developer creates, he/she needs to create an equivalent acre of brand-new parkland, somewhere from within the existing amount of asphalt. For every new road, an equivalent bike/ped path has to be created.

It changes the equation -- so that it's cheaper for developers to renovate and reuse old buildings, rather than build new big boxes 20 miles out in the 'burbs.

If we don't start thinking creatively and adopting policies like this, Connecticut may be condemned to never-ending sprawl, loss of farmland, decaying towns and existing suburbs, and degradation of existing infrastructure... not to mention obesity, public health and many other problems caused by the fact that nobody will be able to walk anywhere.

JP, you are partially correct that "if a road has a speed limit over 25 mph bikes have no place." You could extend that to say that "pedestrians have no place" there, too, because most people do not enjoy walking along streets when traffic is moving at speeds of more than 25mph. But that's why speeds need to be reduced, through walkable street design, so that they match European cities. For the roads that we do need to keep at 25+, like Whalley Avenue, segregated bicycle facilities, medians and specialized crosswalks, such as what NYC has built along Ninth Avenue, are needed.

Without these types of accommodations, which every other Western nation in the world is now implementing as quickly as possible because they realize what the benefits are, we are basically forcing cyclists and pedestrians to either buy a car (even if they can't afford it, or are too disabled to drive) or risk death. And we're forcing our kids to stay indoors and play video games all day.

Posted by: Bill | February 12, 2009 1:28 PM

Paris experiement:

some 7,800 of the original 15,000 bikes (20,000 in summer) have "disappeared" - presumed stolen - and 11,600 have been vandalised.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4570107/Half-of-Paris-rental-bikes-stolen.html

My point about China, which I thought was obvious, it that car use is growing and people will choose driving over riding a bike in overwhelming numbers when given the choice.

I do love the Farmington Canal bike path which gets a lot of bicycle use. I just don't see putting much effort or money into trying to increase bicycle commuting since it won't do anything to reduce our dependence on oil.

Posted by: JP | February 12, 2009 1:52 PM

Anon, I agree with you. People need to slow down downtown. Most of the problem comes from design I belive there is no clear route in out or around the city so every side street become a freeway.
Like Elm to State to 91 may as well be the East Side Highway.

William Kurtz, I highly dbout bikes are cars in all 50 states but even if they are it dosent chage the fact that if a car cant keep up with the posted speed limit the don't belong on the road. Are we going to let segways drive down 95. No because its not pratical. Nor is riding a bike the distance you do on the roads you want to. Its equally as rude for a driver to get pissed about a bike going slow downtown as it is for a biker to slow down people commuting on major roads.

Posted by: Steve Ross, Captain of Asphalt | February 12, 2009 1:57 PM

JP,

To ridicule someone for riding their bike 22 miles *on any road* is absurd. To then demand that someone should only be allowed to ride a bike within five miles of their destination is baffling. If it weren't for your frequent posts, I'd fully expect an "argument" like yours to be either troll-fodder or a silly prank executed by one of Mr. Kurtz's friends. How can you reread that post and find it acceptable?!

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 2:35 PM

Bill, the company that runs the Paris program (using advertising revenue) has replaced or repaired the bicycles that were damaged. Let's take an absolute worst case scenario and assume that they replaced all 20,000 bicycles in the past year. At USD500 each, that's $10M.

Still an enormous bargain for society when compared to operating a subway line, metro rail, or adding 78,000 cars to the city's roadways every day. NYC is currently proposing a new subway line, just a few miles long, that would cost $20 billion - 2,000 times more money than replacing a bicycle system.

Have you actually been to Paris and seen the program in action? It has dramatically reduced pollution and transformed the city for people of all ages and abilities.

Posted by: juli | February 12, 2009 3:24 PM

bill:
"I just don't see putting much effort or money into trying to increase bicycle commuting since it won't do anything to reduce our dependence on oil."

this statement makes no sense to me. can you explain why reducing the number of trips using gasoline and increasing trips on bike (or foot) does not equal less dependence on oil?

Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 3:57 PM

Bill, it sounds like New Haven could fix its budget problem by introducing a Velib system:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/02/12/reports-of-velibs-demise-greatly-exaggerated/

"Last July, the city of Paris agreed to pay JCDecaux 400 euros for every bike stolen in excess of four percent of the total fleet each year. Given the enormous popularity of Vélib -- users have taken 42 million rides since its debut -- the cost of those payments is minimal. Using the BBC's figure of 7,800 missing bikes, the pricetag for the city comes to less than 2 million euros annually, out of 20 million euros in user fees. [which go directly to the city coffers- making the city a huge profit!]

"It averages out to about 15 stolen per day, out of 80,000 daily users," says Eric Britton, founder of the Paris-based New Mobility Agenda. "It's like skinning your knee."

Not only does the city already pick up a big part of the tab, but JCDecaux reportedly hauls in about 80 million euros per year from its outdoor displays"

"What politician wouldn't jump at the chance to be identified with a program that enjoys 94 percent satisfaction among constituents?"

Posted by: Streever | February 13, 2009 11:49 AM

JP,

the vast majority of commuters actually travel under 2 miles.

Check it out--National Census.

William Kurtz is a shining example of an excellent cycling commuter, willing to travel 45 miles a day for work, but he is certainly in the minority.

The vast majority of commuters simply drive their car under 2 miles to work per day, then under 2 miles back home at the end of the day.

However, you seem to have missed my point when I asked you & Bill what exactly would be signficant. New Haven currently has a vast number of cycling & pedestrian commuters--I don't have the number handy, but I'm sure someone commenting here can let you know.

Posted by: anon | February 13, 2009 2:38 PM

"The vast majority of commuters simply drive their car under 2 miles to work per day, then under 2 miles back home at the end of the day."

Not true. You are confusing commutes (trips to and from work) with # of total trips (which includes things like running to get milk).

That said, many of the TOTAL trips in the system are very short, and by making walking/biking easier for people, many car trips per day could be avoided. This would encourage people to shop locally, meet their neighbors, get exercise, and reduce pollution, among many other benefits.

Having options other than cars is crucial to the success of our cities and towns, even BEFORE you consider the fact that a large minority of people are tunable to maintain and/or drive their own vehicles because of youth, old age, disability, family income or other conditions.

Posted by: JP | February 13, 2009 3:52 PM

Steve Ross,
Steve I'm not saying they cant go 22 miles. You would just have to live in New haven and work in Cheshire and go right up the Farmington greenway.
Other then that i don't see how you can do it without seriously disrupting traffic. I'd love to hear what the route he takes is. Just for example In the local area bikes don't belong route 1, 15, 91, 95, 114, 63, or 34. Being that to get from west have to Durham you go right up 91 yea i think its a bad idea. Also I hope he has a shower at work but that's another topic.

Streever, You must be saying the average biker goes 2 miles. But if that's the case why would we want bike paths up to the burbs like this article is suggesting we desperately need? Put a bike path on every downtown street i think its great but lets not do every street in the state that's silly.

Posted by: anon | February 13, 2009 4:11 PM

JP, I agree you should begin where the needs are - focus the state's pedestrian & bicycle improvements in city/town centers (like fixing Grand & Whallaye Aves) and around transit lines (like bus stops where you don't get splashed with mud), not on random rural roads in North Granburyton.

Posted by: Edward_H | February 13, 2009 4:31 PM

Streever

the vast majority of commuters actually travel under 2 miles.

Do you have a link for this?

Posted by: William Kurtz | February 13, 2009 5:12 PM

JP: I think you misunderstood me; bikes aren't cars in any state, but to the best of my knowledge, all 50 states have provisions in their transportation codes that grant cyclists the same privileges and hold them to the same (generally, with some exceptions) obligations as they do motorists--including the full use of the travel lane in the roadway. Whether you doubt it is as immaterial as the view that I (and probably most other cyclists) hear pretty regularly, that I should "GET OUT OF THE F@#$^%^&*ING ROAD!!!!!!" It's a point of fact, not faith, and easily proven or rebutted.

Anyway, since you seem curious: to get to Durham from West Haven, take Elm Street to Kimberly Ave; turn onto Howard then Spring; continue onto State, turn right onto--I think it's Ferry at that point--and pick up 17 at the intersection with 80. Route 17 is not a bad road to ride; most of the time there's plenty of shoulder although it's sometimes got glass and debris in it.

Interstates 91 and 95 are federal limited access highways and as such, bicycles are prohibited along with horses, scooters, pedestrians and farm equipment. Rightfully so. The same is true of state limited-access highways, like the Merritt and Wilbur Cross Parkways.

Also, since you expressed interest in my hygiene, I'll tell you that I shower before leaving home and wear clean cycling-specific clothing to ride in. Since when I ride, it's on alternating days, I bring a clean set of clothes and leave them at my workplace along with a bag of toiletries--soap, deodorant, a towel, etc. It's a simple matter to wash the typically smelly bits (sorry if this is more than you want to know!) and it's actually a misconception that a little sweat smells bad; the odor arises when you don't clean up or change your clothes and the bacteria get to work. I keep my hair short in the fall, spring and summer so I don't get helmet head. If you doubt me and would like to come on a 22 mile bike ride sometime, I will prove it to you (doesn't have to be on a workday).

I take the time and the space to explain all of this because although we seem to have differences of opinion about the practical application, we seem to agree that in theory, bicycles have a place as alternative means of transportation. I think Anon is wrong in overlooking the routes that connect parts of the state in favor of a limited focus on city centers. Although I live in West Haven, I spend a lot of time in downtown New Haven and the hairiest parts of my commute to work are the roads that lead in to New Haven (Kimberly/Howard/Spring) and the roads that lead out (Upper State-past the business district/Ferry/the tail end of route 80, by the school bus depot).

City governments should of course focus their efforts and money on serving their own populations but state efforts need to take a more holistic approach.

Have you considered that every person riding his bicycle down route 17 to New Haven is one person fewer sitting in the bowel blockage at the 91/95 merge?

Posted by: Josh Smith | February 16, 2009 3:58 AM

Just to throw in my two cents, I used to commute from Westville to Long Wharf each day by bike, and it was a bit unnerving at times. I wish some well-maintained cycle paths existed so I could just ride across the city at my own pace. Trust me, I don't hate cars. I have one, and I drive it way more than I ride my bike, especially in these colder months, mostly because I'm not as brave as some of my friends who ride daily, year-round (God bless their souls, I don't know how they do it, with the way Connecticut's roads are). But I really would enjoy riding across town more, and I wouldn't have to drive constantly, if there were paths going around town so I wouldn't encounter any speeding cars. Personally, I wouldn't ride more than 5-10 miles in any direction from home most times, but some safe cycling infrastructure would definitely get me out riding a lot more.

This bill that's going to the state Senate for consideration is a very good first step towards equality for all road users, so that maybe some day I won't feel like I'm going to die every time I feel like riding my bike to work. Just because you think it's silly or ridiculous for people to ride bicycles as transportation means it shouldn't be an option? You're kidding, right? Shouldn't I be able to choose my method of travel on the roads I help pay for (excluding interstate highways)?

Some people need to look a little further than the "bicycles are recreational toys" mentality and get with the 21st century. People want to go/live green. People want to save money. Bicycles are transportation, and just because YOU don't use them that way doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't be used that way. I didn't buy a bicycle so I could ride it up and down my driveway, or so I could drive it to a park and ride in circles all day. Don't try to tell me how to get to work or run my errands. I ride a bicycle for the same reason I like to take public transportation whenever possible -- to save money on gas, and reduce wear and tear on my car. If the anti-bicycle nutcases and/or general skeptics who think cycling is silly or stupid or whatever had any clue, they'd give it a shot some time (at least try to run errands in the neighborhood or to go get some dinner in town). They'd be healthier in the long run, and even if bike commuting isn't their cup of tea, then with every mile they ride a bike, their precious cars would last that much longer! ;)