New Hope For Cross Sound Link

New engineering report released.

Western: I-287/I-95 interchange to Route 135
Hybrid: I-287/I-95 interchange to Sunken Meadow/Sagtikos Parkway
Central: I-95 near Route 8 to Sunken Meadow/Sagtikos Parkway
Eastern: I-95 near I-91 to William Floyd Parkway

In recent months, NY Gov Andrew Cuomo pleasantly surprised countless people by publicly endorsing the addition of a fixed road crossing of Long Island Sound, to finally provide such somewhere to the northeast of the Throggs Neck Bridge.

This is the first major initiative for such a crossing since the 2007 "Cross Sound Link" proposal by developer Vincent Polimeni, for a highway tunnel connecting the eastern end of I-287 in Westchester County at the Rye/Port Chester line, to the existing stub of Route 135 in Nassau County..   As mitigating, the cut and cover transition to 135 would have expedited the construction of the lid with new park facilities in place before the completion of the underground highway underneath. According to the multi-million dollar engineering study that Polimeni organized, the project was estimated to cost $16 billion, and would have had a $25 toll.

2007 Vincent Polimeni Cross Link Tunnel

This Cross Sound Link would consist of a trio of drilled tunnel tubes, with 3 lanes in each of the 55' diameter outboard tubes, flanking a middle 38' diameter tube for a service-way. 

55' outer tubes each with single deck with 3 lanes flanking 38' center tube

It would have flanking connections with I-287 to the west of the I-287/I-95 interchange, perhaps with portals in the vicinity of South Ridge Road.

I-287/I-95 interchange with Cross Sound Tunnel connections

It would have passed under Grace Church Road and the shoreline, and the Port Chester Harbor south of Byram Point and north of Manursing Island and beneath the Sound roughly paralleling the New York-Connecticut line, before turning more easterly to veer entirely east of Cove Neck to land at Laurel Hollow, turning southwesterly and continue about 1 1/2 miles to connect with existing Route 135.

It was to be drilled deeply beneath the Sound and a portion of its land segments to thus significantly reduce impacts to the surface.

It had the support of then N.Y. Governor Spitzer, who took office, January 1, 2007, who was felled March 17, 2008, in a sex scandal involving his patronage as "Client #9" of a brothel apparently established to service the politically powerful - the "Emperor's Club", though notably no other such clients were publicly exposed, and at least one established news source would speculate openly that this expose was meant to derail the Cross Sound Link project, which I reported here.  Spitzer's successor, David Peterson, who served through 2010 supported it, and there was some talk of expanding it to accommodate adding a rail component, but it nonetheless stalled.

The last major study upon the idea of a new vehicular crossing of Long Island Sound was in 1979, initiated by then N.Y. Governor Hugh Carey.  It was confined to possible links between Long Island and the State of Connecticut, plus one to Rhode Island.

1979

A- Port Jefferson Route 112 to Bridgeport CT I-95 near Route 8
B- Wading River (Shoreham) William Floyd Parkway to East Haven CT I-95
C- Riverhead extension from existing I-495 terminus to Gilford CT
D- Old Saybrook extended I-495 to East Marion I-95 near Route 9
E- Orient Point to Watch Hill, Rhode Island Route 78

The 1979 study neglected consideration of any new link further west; however such had been the focus of the previous planning direction, with the idea of connecting Long Island with Westchester County, with three options enumerated in a 1972 Environmental Impact Statement, and with this planning being truncated with N.Y. Governor Nelson Rockefeller June 1973 cancellation of the option found as having the greatest feasibility and benefit: the link between I-287 and Route 135. 

The two other options so considered were a connection from I-287 southward through Rye to Glen Cove Long Island, and another from New Rochelle to Sands Point, owing to matters of fit and feasibility potential with the existing road network, in other words the placement and importance of the area's higher capacity connecting roads.  All three options would include land approaches to connect with the existing such roads.

All three options would ultimately connect I-95 with I-495, each which extended outwards away from New York City, and connect with such by highways that served as circular routes: the Cross County Parkway and I-287 in Westchester County, and the Meadowbrook State Parkway and/or the Wantagh Parkway in Nassau County.  Of these, I-287 is the most important, and extends closest to the shoreline, with its terminus at its interchange with I-95.

I-287 is a major road that extends west through Westchester and beyond to cross the Hudson River via the Tappan Zee Bridge, multiplexing with I-87 to Suffren where I-287 turns southward into New Jersey and I-87 turns northward , an interstate highway with 6 or more lanes total, with its eastern terminus/interchange with I-95 within 300 feet of the shoreline.

The Cross County, Meadowbrook and Wantagh Parkways are important roads, though more locally regional then trans regional, with each confined within its respective county, and each disallowing commercial traffic, hence not serving trucks.


Both the Meadowbrook and the Wantagh are easily connectable to I-495, with an easement in place for the latter and an actual connection already existing for the former.

However, none are relatively accessible to the shoreline.

The Meadobrook and Wantagh would both require lengthy tunnels for the land approach, about 1.7 miles and  4.3 miles respectively, and another 5.3 to extend under the north south length of Hempstead Bay before reaching the mainline Sound. 

The Cross County meanwhile ends about 2 miles inland with its easternmost terminus at the Hutchinson River Parkway, and would require a drilled tunnel of more than 1 mile to connect with I-95 where there is already some space owing to the existing interchange, and where the route would continue towards the shore turning more southerly to pass through the former Sears site and then under the muddy inlet between the Sutton Manor neighborhood and the park.

Long Island's Route 135 is similarly stranded from the nearest shoreline.  Yet it is a more important road.

It has a terminus about 4 miles from the nearest point with the Oyster Bay shoreline; however it has an already assembled land corridor, which then extended about 3 miles northerly, though curbing northwesterly to require continuing about 2 or 3 miles along the Mill Neck peninsula, with this northwesterly portion of this reserved right of way since sold and thus with this strip cut back to about 1 1/2 miles).

Yet it is a modern 6 lane freeway essentially built to interstate highway specifications with 12 foot wide travel lanes with 10-12' right-hand shoulders and approximately 5 foot left-hand shoulders, and can hence accommodate trucks.  It extends southward connecting with I-495 (the Long Island Expressway), and with Route 27, which becomes a freeway about 3 miles east of its interchange with 135.   Unlike the parkways it does not need the same degree of reconstruction.

Hence, connecting I-287 with Route 135, with the latter likelier to thus be re-designated as I-287, is the best option.

Westchester County (mainland)

I-287/I-95 interchange with I-287 Sound Bridge route options

Nassau County (Long Island)

Sound Bridge approach route options

However this plan ran into serious opposition, particularly in Rye and in Bayville.

As a method of thwarting this link, the Bayville area would be re-designated as a nature preserve.

And years later, in 1991, so was the area immediately north of the Playland amusement park, where 3 out of 4 of the officially considered route options would have passed through, as the Edith Reed Nature Sanctuary.

In light of this history, the new for 2018 report adopts significant modifications to the land and shoreline area approaches as compared to those from previous studies..



This report explores three basic options from the mainland to Long Island:

"Western Alignment": Rye/Port Chester, Westchester County, NY I-287 to Oyster Bay Nassau County Route 135, which was planned to extend to the Wantagh Parkway which ends at Jones Beach.  Options of Bride, All Tunnel, and Bridge/Tunnel combo.

"Central Alignment": Bridgeport or Devon, Fairfield County CT Route 8 to Kings Park Suffolk County Sunken Meadow (Sagtikos) Parkway, extends south to Robert Moses State Park  Options of Bridge and Bridge/Tunnel combos for Bridgeport, and later for Devon.

"Eastern Alignment": I-91 to William Floyd Parkway (New Haven or Branford CT to Shorham LI).  Options of Bridge or Bridge/Tunnel combo.

It also gives preliminary to a "hybrid" alignment respectively combining the Western and Central Alignments'  mainland and Long Island connections, aka connecting I-287 with the Sagtikos Parkway.

Some key facts:

The Western and Central Alignment would have the highest revenue generation potential: 86,400 and 87,600 vehicles daily versus 55,500 for a New Haven area crossing.

The predicted constructions costs are:

- Western- $8.49 to $55.4b:

$8.49b bridge,
$33.4b tunnel with single 58' tube with 2 lanes upon 2 decks,
$55.4 tunnel with twin 58' tubes with 3 lanes upon a single deck,
$43.5b bridge/tunnel combo with twin 58' tubs each with 3 lanes upon a single deck.

- Central- $13 to $31b: 

$16.5B for a bridge (Bridgeport);
$22.7b for a bridge/tunnel combo (Bridgeport);
$16.5b bridge (Devon);
$31.2b bridge/tunnel combo to Devon;

- Eastern- $15.7b to $32b:

$15.7b bridge to New Haven,
$32b bridge/tunnel combo to New Haven,
$15b bridge to Bradford,
$28b bridge/tunnel combo to Bradford.

The tunnel configurations would all have a 58' bore, either proving 2 lanes in each direction with two levels in a single tube, or 3 per direction each with a pair of tubes.

All of the bridge/tunnel combinations indicated would have a pair of 58' bores each with 3 lanes upon a single deck.

The only scenario given cost figures for a single 58' tube with 2 lanes each upon 2 decks is such an option for the Western alignment (I-287).

No figures are given for an all tunnel option for either the Central or Eastern Alignment.

 All of the alignments, Western, Central and Eastern would connect I-95, which runs paralleling the northern shoreline of the Sound, and essentially the major freeways which have interchanges with I-05 and which extend inland, with the north-south freeways in Long Island, each of which have interchanges with I-495 (the Long Island Expressway).  Of these connections north of the Sound, the interchange with I-287 is the closest to the shoreline.  To the south of Sound, the north south freeways extending closest to the shoreline are the Sagtikos Parkway and the William Floyd Parkway- each as "parkway" thus requiring some degree of reconstruction to accommodate commercial traffic such as large trucks, at least for their segment extending to their respective interchanges with the LIE.  Route 135, the north south freeway on Long Island that the Western Alignment would connect with I-287 is already an interstate specification highway that accommodates such commercial traffic and would be re designated as a part of I-287.  But it only extends north to about 3 miles from the shoreline, thus necessitating a lengthier land extension that is seen as most politically feasible as a tunnel.

Regarding each of the three main alignments, Western, Central and Eastern:

Western:

This is the one that is most widely believed which would receive the greatest traffic use, an estimated 86K vehicles daily with a $20 toll or 113k with a $7.50 toll) connecting the existing I-287 terminus at its interchange with I-95, with Long Island Route 135, which would in turn be re-designated as a continuation of I-287.

-  the basic alignment that I have long advocated for the Westchester County side, that avoids the Playland area and skirts the northern edge of Rye.  In other words, it abandons the previous route options that would turn to the south to go through the area just north of Playland (through what has since been designated the Edith Nature Preserve- showing such only as a stub), which were previous options W1, W2 and W3, but rather confines itself to essentially the route through Port Chester Harbor previously known as option W4.

- However, for the Long Island side, it adopts a new alignment to the east of the previously considered options that went through Bayville, though not as far east as that shown in the 2007 Polemeni tunnel proposal that went beneath Laurel Hollow.  This new alignment which would run roughly parallel to Steamboat Road, would run under Oyster Bay to and past Center Island Peninsula and then Turtle Cove before entering the Sound.  This routing would thus clip a corner of the Sound portion of Connecticut, but would be ideally located to permit adding a rail connection from the LIRR rail terminus near the Oyster Bay Marine Center.


- Though including the option of a Sound Crossing via a bridge, this latest study report includes the options of a tunnel as well as a combination bridge - tunnel that would cross the Sound mainly via a bridge, but place the land approaches as well as the shoreline crossing within tunnel, with transition points via newly created off shore islands.

I have long favored the idea of this Westchester approach routing, as well as the idea of a combo bridge-tunnel with the shoreline approach areas within tunnel where the need for mitigation is the greatest.

For the Western alignment, the report recommends against an all bridge option [$8.49b] as politically infeasible, and recommends further study of the options of a bridge/tunnel combo ($43.5b) and and all tunnel ($55.4) options.


Central:

With regards for the Central Alignment connecting Connecticut at Bridgeport or Devon with Long Island's Sagtikos Parkway, which according to this report would receive the greatest traffic demand at 87.6K daily with a $20 toll and 108K with a $7.50 toll).

It gives an option for Bridgeport connecting to I-95, which parallels the shoreline, about a mile from the I-95 interchange with the southern terminus of the nearest freeway that extends inland, Route 8, in order to utilize existing more open space via the right of way of an existing surface road through a largely industrial area, versus a straight-line to Route 8 which would go through the University of Bridgeport and then through Shoreline Park.   This routing would have traffic to and from the bridge with I-95 and provide access to and from Route 8 essentially by adding at least one additional lane to I-95 to the interchange with Route 8.  For this routing the report gives all bridge and bridge/tunnel options.

It gives an option for Devon, immediately to northeast of Bridgeport, with a landing that would transverse a residential area to connect with the existing Devon interchange with I-95, and gives all bridge and bridge/tunnel combination options.

For the Central alignment the report recommends further study of the all bridge ($16.5b) and the bridge/tunnel combo ($22.7b) for Bridgeport and the bridge/tunnel combo ($31.2b) for Devon.
Eastern:

This is the one, which would connect I-95 in Connecticut with the William Floyd Parkway in Long Island.

The connection with I-95 would be in the vicinity of its interchanges with I-91, which extends north, and with Route 34, which points to the west, that was long planned to eventually extend west to the Bear Mountain Bridge and hence the NY Route 17 Quickway (which is being re-designated as I-86), but which has been stymied by a horrifically misguided plan to block its underground extension beneath the Yale area "Air Rights" garage (which had been designed to accommodate this freeway's extension underground) for an ill advised real estate development scheme to further truncate this freeway and channel its traffic loads upon its existing parallel service roads, altogether overlooking the benefits of at least continuing this freeway a few additional blocks beneath any such new buildings in order to better disperse its traffic.

As such, this crossing could serve to extend I-91 to and into Long Island, with the William Floyd Parkway reconstructed as such at least to its interchange with the I-495 Long Island Expressway.
I do not understand the consideration of either the Devon nor Branford options.  Both the Bridgeport and New Haven alignment would each respectively work better with reduced costs.  IMHO either would be fine as bridges.  I would though explore the idea - not mentioned in the report - of an above ground or shallow "tunnel" (enclosed roadway) for the approach om Bridgeport between the bridge and near I-95.  That area is industrial and could conceivably adopt to perhaps even such an enclosed roadway of the existing grade of 113 (Lorship Boulevard) between perhaps from Access to Honeywell Roads, with the adjacent areas built up with landfill and or even new real estate development for what would be a relatively low cost tunnel segment involving no new excavation (or limited excavation with a shallow tunnel).

The report recommends against a Western All bridge option ($8.49b), and all of the Eastern Alignment options ($15.7b and $32b respectively for bridge and bridge/tunnel options with New Haven, and $15b and $28b bridge and bridge/tunnel options with Bradford.

It recommends further study of the Western Alignment options of an all tunnel ($55.4b for a 3x3 tunnel) and bridge/tunnel combo ( $43.5b), and of the Central Alignment with Bridgeport as a Bridge ($16.5b), Bridge/Tunnel combination ($22.7b), and with Devon as a bridge/tunnel combo ($31.2b).

The recommendation are basically sound, though there are clearly outstanding issues that would further this process, as well as provide a direction for further refinement.

PIRG's Continuing Reactionary Opposition to Freeway Network Expansion

Places ideology over needs via opposing seriously needed road projects,
such as widening I-95 in Connecticut, and a Tunnel in Pasadena, California
to establish a continuous I-710   

http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/highway-boondoggles-2

The report lists a series of highway projects which it deems as questionable, based more upon ideology against any highway capacity expansion projects than an understanding of local and regional needs.

Two particularly egregious examples of this is their opposition to widening I-95 in Connecticut with one additional lane in each direction from its existing 3 lanes in each direction configuration that it was originally built with during the 1950s, and to the idea of a tunnel to eliminate the I-710 gap in Pasadena, California as the least locally impactive method, following the past rejection of conventions surface and cut and cover designs.

About Connecticut I-95

Connecticut I-95 is that state's sole grade separated open to mixed traffic highway in the densely populated  20 mile wide band along the coastline along the Long Island Sound, with the nearest such parallel highway I-84 being some 20 miles inland, with the 2 lane per direction Merit Parkway (closed to trucks and commercial traffic) some 4 miles or so inland the sole such other grade separated highway option between, and is paralleled by the Northeastern railroad corridor that carries rail cars from New York to Boston.

I-84 would be the physically easiest to widen, but is the furthest from the densely populated coastal area.

The Merit Parkway is significantly closer to I-95, but is politically difficult to widen owing largely to its iconic bridges which would have to be realistically either reconstructed or twinned, and would still not be suitable for large trucks.

The parallel railroad should be upgraded to permit improved rail service. 

But I-95 should still be widened.

Favoring one mode of transport should not mean neglecting capacity improvements to the other.  Highway and rail can relive each other to varying degrees more than they can altogether substitute for one another.  Rail is more adaptable to absorbing longer distance trips, while highways are more suited to many other trips owing to the time savings of direct door to door service.  Expanding both provides for future growth and increased human activity within a given developed area thus somewhat relieving pressures to expand development into more pastoral rural areas.

I-95 in Connecticut should ideally it should be 12 lanes with a 3/3/3/3 or so separate carriageway configuration, akin to that of much of the New Jersey Turnpike, at least from the New York line to past New Haven, as it would accept and distribute traffic to the sole east-west interstate highway just south of the N.Y. line in Westchester County (and conceivably from a bridge and or tunnel crossing of the Long Island Sound to existing Route 135 in Long Island)- I-287.

As such a "duel barrel" configuration would have relatively high right of way requirements, a more feasible option would be widening it from a 3/3 to a 4/4 or 5/5 configuration, designed with a long term staging plan for parallel carriageways, with segments built in spots where more needed and more physically practical in an outboard configuration, designed to be later made continuous with added segments that would tuck underground beneath the existing carriageways to reduce local impacts.  Such a staging would be financially more practical, with the design including the road substructure to permit the later excavation of the underground segments without having to tear out the road.

To further reduce impacts, portions of this widened I-95 should be designed to accommodate various decked segments, with local overpasses made wider to include better pedestrian and bicycling connections, and with some provisions for future air rights development.  Perhaps certain elevated I-95 segments, as that in New Haven could be reviewed for reconstruction in a fashion via enclosures through new buildings, with access ramps reconstructed via a center rather than a side loader configuration for better accommodating vehicular and local pedestrian traffic.
 
To help relieve Connecticut I-95, particularly from I-287 in New York to past New Haven, the eastern portion of Westchester I-287 should be widened to at least a 5/5 configuration to I-684, which itself should be widened from 3 to 5 lanes in each direction.

About CT I-95
http://www.nycroads.com/roads/ct-turnpike/

About Pasadena I-710

This is a longstanding gap in the highway network in need of filling.

It initially resulted form the physical reality that the area of Pasadena, California is largely older more historically significant architecture built well before the mass freeway era, and from poor planning decisions to permit mass real estate development construction in a band to the west, particularly without any consideration there for the idea of doing such atop a cut and cover-box tunneled freeway.

Past plans for a conventional surface cut freeway through the long established Pasadena residential neighborhoods would die political deaths owing to popular revulsion over the demolition and/or moving requirements.  Likewise with later plans for a tunnel via the cut and cover method for that would have likewise involved surface displacement though without such permanently, particularly if the existing buildings were replaced or re-situated atop.

Subsequently, the official planning has turned to completing the I-710 missing link via a tunnel that would be moled (IOW drilled or bored) hence not disrupting the surface for almost all of its length, with the exceptions being for its relatively brief cut and cover transition segments at each of its ends, and for any ventilation components.

Current planning is for either one or two tunnel tubes, each with 2 levels, each with 2 lanes and a shoulder, providing a total of 4 or 8 lanes in total.

The 710 Tunnel project is a vitally important project for Pasadena and for the Greater Los Angeles area, for providing local relief for 710 traffic that must now detour to local streets or to parallel regional freeways as I-5, 170/101, and I-405.  It would be about 4.9 miles long, connecting freeway stubs each with 3 or 4 lanes per direction.  It is estimated to have construction costs of $3.2 to $5.6 billion, and would receive funding from tolls of about $15 for trucks and $5 for most other automobiles while providing savings in time as a relatively continuous high speed route.

LA's north-south freeways are particularly badly congested largely owing to the east-west mountains to the north separating LA from the San Fernando Valley, blocking the construction of capacious parallel routes via the local street grid.

A continuous 710 is particularly important for the port of Long Beach, with 710 already a major truck route.

LA's transportation problems also stem from a lack of a comprehensive passenger rail network, caused by the foolish decision to rip out its rail car transit system during the mid 1900s.  And 710 completion opponents may well be right in their prescription for various additions to the region's sorely in need of expanding rail transit system.  But they are wrong in outright opposing the 710 completion project for a drilled tunnel link, and would be better in asking for a broad transportation planning vision for rail and highways, perhaps one via splitting the 710 project into stages with the initial construction of a single double decked tunnel tube with the extra funds diverted to the transit projects before the future construction of an addition tube or tubes.

Perhaps there might be better economy to replace the double-decked 2x2 tube design with a larger diameter accommodating a 2x3 lane configuration?  Or perhaps one featuring the former to accommodate trucks, accompanied with a lower height version of the latter for accommodating most other vehicles?  Such would provide a total of 10 lanes with 4 for trucks and 6 for smaller vehicles, and should be evaluated together with options for staging either 2x2 or 2x3 double level tunnels so staged to ultimately provide 2 or more separate tubes.

With the LA region so starved for north-south cross mountain road capacity, throwing away any capacity for future additions, whether via highway or via railway should be viewed as criminal.

PIRG would do so much better by eschewing its reactionary ideological opposition to future highway capacity expansion to a more balance view that would instead debate how projects should be staged, permitting some highway expansion together with rail transit additions, rather than simply the latter.

Likewise, various DOTS need to include the idea of future staging into their basic designs allowing future capacity additions with minimal demolition of existing construction.   For instance, the recent I-405 widening project should have been designed to accommodate future capacity additions, if not for continuous outboard or elevated carriageways, should have taken advantage of any space for access into parallel tunnelways, either directly beneath the existing mainline with the necessary substructure to permit excavation beneath without having to rip out the road/and or for such as a moled tunnel.  Consideration of such staging should likewise not reflect the narrow transit only ideology prevalent in PIRG, via not excluding designs to help facilitate adding a future transit line.

Pro I-710 Tunnel Site
http://www.710coalition.com/

Anti I-710 Tunnel Site
http://www.no710.com/

Wikipedia I-710 article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_710

New Haven CT Funny Handshake on Rt.34 Giveaway

Outgoing U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd flanked by New Haven Mayor and Congressman making fools out of themselves with the Route 34 Giveaway.

See more at:

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/16/news/new_haven/doc4cb931277aa4d627218579.txt

Route 34 Giveaway Continues

New Haven elitist driven Mayor continuing his mission to subvert transportation so a few developers -- such as big pharm Pfizer which took the right of way for a $1 sweetheart land deal -- don't have to pay for the beams for their buildings to span rather then fill New Haven's below ground level Route 34 freeway

According to an article in the New Haven Independent:

The developer is Carter Winstanley.

The name of the project is 100 College Street.

It will close the segment of the route 34 freeway with its exits 2 and 3.

The Mayor intends to take this to the New Haven alderman for their approval sometime in 2010, with ramp demolition starting in late 2010 or early 2011.

This has already received $5 million in Federal funds, plus State of Connecticut approval, and is awaiting a decision upon a request for $40 million in stimulus funds.

Public response to this, from the comments section to this article, appears to be growing more negative then that to such right of way blockage projects to te west of the Air Rights Garage, given its application to an existing segment of highway.

posted by: Our Town on February 2, 2010 9:29am

To all of you who may think this is a good idea (removing Rt. 34), good luck to you getting around in New Haven in the future. This “re-knit the city” jargon is crap. Johnny is blindly pushing ahead without a care about how it will work. Even with the highway in place and without the development, there is gridlock in this area daily. Now we’re building more in this tight corridor adding thousands of trips, and we’re going to reduce capacity to serve it. Gateway College alone will overwhelm the street system. There is no transit component to this. There will be MORE cars on WIDER streets around the hospital. I just hope some of the “traffic calming” groups see through this and realize that conditions around the hospital will get worse, not better. Build over the highway. DO NOT REMOVE IT. You will regret this if it is built as planned.

posted by: Pioneer on February 2, 2010 11:08am

It is not wise at all, as Our Town said to remove Rt. 34. This isn’t so much of a highway to nowhere as everyone thinks. It connects downtown and the highway to Westville, Edgewood, Whalley, yadyyadyaya. It is always crowded, it cannot be removed. This road must stay, somehow. So while we are tearing up the highway and we’ve got a big hole, lets fill it! Lets put a tunnel going from where Rt. 34 will leave off, going to the other end, towards the other end where it will leave off.

posted by: Scot on February 2, 2010 12:43pm

I love the idea of reconnecting those parts of the city and having a nice-looking, pedestrian friendly way for people to walk around. Also love the idea of building some new office space and residential to increase tax revenue and make it more vibrant. First and foremost I want the city to be walkable and safe. That said, I’m also realistic and realize many people commute, and we need to accommodate cars, bikes, and buses too. The idea of building over the corridor, and creating a tunnel sounds logical, as long as it could be done attractively. You could build almost anything you want over the tunnel -walkways, a park, condos, offices, etc. People needing to drive from across town to the interstate can zip through without endangering any pedestrians. A tunnel would actually remove a lot of cars from the walkable parts, rather than just slowing them down. Does anyone know if the city is looking into that? Of course if they have other plans that could truly accommodate the traffic without a tunnel, even better. But definitely dont want more gridlock, which creates more smog, etc.

posted by: westviller on February 2, 2010 5:25pm

While I appreciate the Utopian sentiments of those who want to do away with rt. 34, we cannot simply ignore the prospect for gridlock that these plans create. The potential for even more impediments to access to YNHH is not just a philosophical matter about privileging automobiles or bikers/pedestrians. It is a public safety issue. Any plan to redesign this corridor must absolutely assure that emergency access to the hospital is not impeded. I have not seen a word in any of these discussions about this public health issue. Apparently, it is okay for patients to die in ambulances stuck in traffic, as long as we have nice bike lanes and the cars all move slowly, if at all.

posted by: Chris O on February 2, 2010 9:22pm

Boston downtown (I93?) works fantastically well in the tunnels exiting onto pedestrian oriented streets with ground level retail. Keep 34, fill the side, build over it and give us a tunnel. Tunnels, bridges and cities go together. We need higher density in the city and this is the right place. Over the next century the city will probably grow in two directions from downtown; South to the Harbor( Longwarf) and North of YNHH along 34 to and along the Boulevard. We need to build a smart network of roads to handle traffic volume and easy and expensive parking.

posted by: Joe H on February 2, 2010 9:47pm

What is it? New Haven doesn’t have enough vacant land, so it’s forced to incur expensive projects and build over an existing highway?????
What about the former site of the Colosseum?

I think it’s a major mistake messing with the current Route 34. It will tighten a major artery into the city and limit options in the future. The city should have continued the highway under the air rights garage and under the Pizer building. It would have alleviated some of the traffic congestion. But it’s too late for that now. Don’t make another mistake. Bridge to the Hill neighborhood? Big woop-de-doo?!

New Haven (Yale's) Idea of "Reconnection"

New boondoggle demolition special
that blocks the extension of the Route 34 Freeway's underground path
just past the Air Rights Garage,
placing corridor traffic instead all upon surface S Frontage Street,
so dividing the area, though
with skybridge for Yale people to cross over

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/05/rubiks_cube_ris.php

Posted by: anon | May 28, 2009 10:40 AM

Seems like this $500M+ development would have been a great opportunity for the hospital/city/state/developers to fix the situation on Route 34, which currently creates a "wall" between the Hill and the rest of New Haven.

Since the DOT didn't push any serious improvements to Route 34 or the Frontage Road areas, now we're going to see the place open, thousands of new people in the area, hundreds of new parking spaces for cars, with the streets just as deadly as they were before. Cars are still going to be zipping by the front of the hospital (with its literally hundreds of thousands of elderly, blind, deaf, disabled and child visitors every year) and running reds at 50 miles per hour -- even though other hospitals around the country are trying hard to limit vehicle speeds in their area to 15-20 miles per hour tops, and narrow crosswalks, which saves lives and encourages people to walk more. There's no real plan for mass transit either.

The state DOT and the hospital should be ashamed for holding improvements up in paperwork and refusing to push more progressive, immediate actions that would prevent serious injuries and reinvigorate the city's economy.

Some additional links on this planning:

An article from Feb 7 2002 where the Mayor (who is the same Mayor who today supports killing the highway) promotes the sensible idea of a short underground extension built with footings to support air rights development.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2002/02/07/mayor-wants-biotech-put-in-connector-plan/

An article dated March 17, 2003, with the info that Phizer got the land for, get this, $1

http://www.conntact.com/archive_index/archive_pages/4118_Business_New_Haven.html

Yet that same Mayor now seeks federal $$ to destroy much of the existing operating freeway:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2009/04/22/plans-for-route-34-demolition-are-revealed/

http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/04/yale-and-pfizers-transportation-treason.html

I really don't get it. You concentrate economic activity to the downtown area and the Route 34 "Corridor", and then you restrict access to the area by choking its main artery? Let's not be silly. We do not have alternate transportation; we do not even have near the population density to support mass transit without massive subsidies (a much larger subsidy than required for the roads). You talk of pedestrians and safety, and I can think of nothing safer than keeping the vehicles away from the people in limited access cuts or covered roadways. Just think, a limited access roadway can handle approximately 1200 cars per lane per hour, a surface street can handle about 600 under ideal conditions. You need twice as many surface lanes for the same amount of traffic, and that traffic which now moves at a steady flow would have to start and stop at traffic lights, a major source of air pollution. Pedestrians that now cross the Rt. 34 roadway on bridges would now have to cross twice as many lanes in a crosswalk.

If the purpose is to reduce the traffic in the "Corridor", which is not what a developer wants to hear (one of the comments about Yale's purchase of the West Haven site was "Access to I-95"), where will the traffic go? Onto an adjacent local street, exacerbating traffic conditions on those nearby streets to the point of gridlock? Or maybe not come to New Haven at all, as Yale has shown us with their West Haven site.

This isn't an issue of cars vs. pedestrians and bicycles. Cars and trucks are and will be the transport of choice for a long time. It is safer and better for pedestrians and bicycles to keep as many cars and trucks as we can off the local streets. This idea that a "Boulevard" is more pedestrian friendly than an expressway is a crock.

The problem with Route 34 is that Henry Fernandez and JD gave it away to Pfizer when they didn't demand that their building be built on a platform, and JD has now let Yale build in the Rt. 34 right-of-way also. Now JD is cramming Gateway College into the mix, Yale is continuing to build, and the Hospital continues to grow. All this traffic in two surface lanes...What ARE you thinking?

Thank God I've lived long enough to see someone else understand the problems with those decisions. If that one block next to the Air Rights garage had been built differently, the connector traffic could at least continue under the garage and surface up ramps into that block, or even better, the next block. Look at the snarled traffic in that area during any rush hour - New Haven traffic engineering at it's finest.

'New' Urbanism Threat to Pedestrians?

Route 34 Freeway Chock:
new development
that could have accommodated subterrain freeway extension
but which does not
thanks to Yale University selfishness

Official planning claims to to seek a more pedestrian friendly New Haven Route 34 corridor, particularly in the area around York Street which crosses over the freeway beneath the Air Rights garage.

Yet such planning truncates the freeway to the east, placing the full direct stream of freeway traffic upon the frontage road along this garage in the area with the greatest need for pedestrian cross connectivity.

It can not turn back the clock to eliminate I-91, I-95 and their connecting interchange.

Yet it blocks a short extension of the subterranean freeway that would allow a greater dispersal of traffic and allow it to continue below ground to the west of this area of proposed pedestrian connectivity.

And it seeks to attract even greater amounts of vehicular traffic with massive new real estate development (far larger than the pre-existing residential neighborhoods) with large amounts of parking.

Could the 'planners' ' responsible of failing to require these new buildings to be built with subterranean passages for the highway extension be somehow held liable by the families of pedestrians injured or killed in the area around the garage?


http://cos-mobile.blogspot.com/2008/04/yale-and-pfizers-transportation-treason.html
http://www.tstc.org/press/2008/052708_Rt34_signon.pdf

CNU Mis describes New Haven 34 Freeway

Congress for 'New' Urbanism mis-description avoids mention of depressed grade permitting buildings and park land atop freeway

http://www.cnu.org/highways/freewayswithoutfutures

4. Route 34, New Haven, CT

(excerpt)

The Oak Street Connector, or Route 34, begins at the junction of Interstates 95 and 91 and extends on columns into downtown New Haven for 1.1 miles before dropping to grade and continuing as a pair of one-way streets. Built in 1959, the Connector was an urban renewal project, occupying 26 acres of land between downtown and the nearby neighborhood. The original plan was to extend the road another 10 miles, but that long section was never built. As a result, 600 families and 65 businesses were displaced to make room for a highway that was never completed. As of 2005, 73,900 vehicles traveled on the Connecter per day.

Route 34 looking east

http://blog.tstc.org/2008/03/27/new-havens-road-to-revitalization-re-creating-a-community-from-the-route-34-connector/

Note from the photos above that the Route 34 Freeway has an elevated segment crossing over railroad tracks that connects to an interchange with I-91 and I-95 , yet the segment closer is depressed (below grade) with overpasses visible for Church and College Streets. Although the freeway was built further in, beneath York Street to the western edge of the Air Rights Garage, traffic is forced off of it to the east, denying the freeway use beneath the Air Rights Garage.

The proposal would eliminate the depressed segment, even though that could accommodate air rights development, while likely preserving the elevated segment.

http://blog.tstc.org/2008/04/22/route-34-connector-piece/

Route 34 development proposal looking west
with depressed freeway segment eliminated
but retaining elevated segment crossing over railroad

TSTC Big Mistake on Rt. 34 Freeway

http://blog.tstc.org/2008/03/27/new-havens-road-to-revitalization-re-creating-a-community-from-the-route-34-connector/

Check out the following spin, which fails to mention idea of buildings atop subterranean freeway:

http://www.designnewhaven.com/2008/08/route-34-hospital-projects-update.html

New Haven Hospital Projects May Heal City’s Route 34 Rift
Commercial Record (Boston), May 16, 2008, By Jeff Haynes, Reporter

The so-called connector route was anything but. After decades of division created by New Haven’s Route 34, efforts to start punching through pedestrian links between downtown and the Yale-New Haven Hospital are coming. Two mixed-use developments ready to break ground have the city’s residents, planners and real estate professionals waiting to see if the trend will move westward, bridging the gap the connector route filled with heavy traffic and vacant land.

Separated by a block, the two developments along Route 34 will serve the hospital in different ways. The $40 million Park Street building, with its groundbreaking scheduled for May 27, is designed to provide laboratory and support space to the hospital. A little farther west, Boston-based Intercontinental Real Estate Corp. is slated to break ground in September for a mixed-use project that will include an 845-unit parking garage for the hospital.

But it’s the other functions of those sites that have everyone watching.

“Urbanistically, [the Park Street building] is a linking piece,” said Barry Svigals, of New Haven architectural firm Svigals & Partners. His firm and Behnisch Architects of California designed the building. The structure is intended to connect pedestrians to the Air Rights garage, the street, and Yale-New Haven’s $470 million Smilow Cancer Hospital, now under construction.

To help draw in people, the Park Street space includes retail – “things that will involve activating the street,” Svigals said. “There is an atrium – a public atrium – that people will be able to walk through and go to the shops down in the lower level.”

The Intercontinental project plans include 57,000 square feet of office space, 15,560 square feet of ground-floor retail and 29 residential housing units in a “wrap” structure around the garage. The housing component is something residents on both sides of Route 34 have been seeking in hopes that new housing will help recreate neighborhood ties severed long ago by the highway.

Getting the housing units included in the plan took some negotiating, however, as the hospital’s original proposal for the site was a 1,400-car garage.

“So while 29 units may sound like a small number of residential units for a whole city block, we’re very pleased that we were able to convince the hospital to reduce the size of the garage to 845 [spaces] and include these other uses on the block,” said Karyn Gilvarg, executive director of city’s planning department. “We think they are key to healing this gap between the neighborhood that has been there for 40 years.”

The mixed-use style is consistent with redevelopment plans for the area drawn up two years ago, in part by Svigals and Maura Cochran, chairwoman and chief executive officer of Hartford-based Bartram & Cochran, which specializes in adaptive reuse of functionally obsolete properties.

“Part of the plan was to take the area closest to [the hospital] and make it a garage with a facade of residential [uses], putting retail on the first floor,” Cochran said. “There was also a strong need for retail. The retail market right around the hospital is – no surprise – the strongest in the area. You have both the commuters and all the people coming to Yale. So it could support new development.”

.... more high-density, mixed-use developments could be coming, depending on the success of the Intercontinental project.

“I think it’s a big factor,” Gilvarg said. “The [neighboring] Pfizer development was, to a great deal, driven by the state Department of Economic and Community Development. So to my mind, they let Pfizer get away with building a 3-story building and surface parking. And we need much denser development in this area.”

“Hopefully the next site, the balance goes the other way [toward] the commercial, the retail and the residential uses,” she added.

The broker community feels the same way.

“For us, that’s 20 to 25 acres of prospective retail and commercial space,” said Rich Guralnick, senior commercial broker for North Haven-based H. Pearce Commercial Real Estate. “My guess is that is going to ultimately wind up being a good mix of medical office and retail.”

In addition to its proximity to the Yale-New Haven Hospital, the land also is close to the St. Raphael Hospital.

“We’re in unbelievable proximity to both the major hospitals in the city,” Guralnick said.

A lot of the area doctors are now located in offices that are either converted older homes or outdated medical buildings, he said, so “there’s a pent up demand both from Yale-New Haven and St. Raphael for doctors to have their private practices in close proximity to the hospital.”

Whatever development goes in likely will have a residential component, too, he said. “I think there’s going to be a demand for residential and affordable housing in that strip as part of the mixed use,” Guralnick said.

For Svigals, the development potential is there.

“With the hospital and the medical school on one side of this connector and the city on the other, you have two very strong generators that will easily fill in that space in between,” Svigals said. “There are two concepts here. One is a stepping stone concept that if you can create – without having to do an entire redevelopment – if you can begin to build upon what’s there and create stepping stones from one place to another, that’s one concept.”

“The other that’s really important is that any urban development has to be synergistic,” Svigals said. “There is no independent piece that can solve an urban problem. You need to be firing on absolutely every cylinder in concert.”

.... “Mixed use is really where the trend has been – how to recapture what got sent out to the suburbs in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s with the urban mall spread,” Guralnick said. “Everyone is coming back into the city. So this is a fun opportunity for the city of New Haven to recapture and reposition itself against suburban sprawl.”

According to Gilvarg, the redevelopment of the lots will be concrete evidence of progress.

“When that starts to happen, I think people will recognize that within five years, two blocks will have been redeveloped after 40 or 50 years of nothing,” Gilvarg said.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The "Tri-State Transportation Campaign" Apparantly Looses It

A beautiful thing about the internet is its ability for people of differing opinions to communicate openly.

The "Tri State 'Transportation' Campaign" (TSTC) has an article about a real estate development/right of way violation scheme for New Haven, CT's Route 34 freeway: a short spur from the I-95/I-91 interchange that crosses over a railroad corridor before dropping down to pass beneath several cross street overpasses and truncated beneath an Air Rights Garage that as its name implies, respects this segment of below grade freeway. A right of way for this freeway's unbuilt segment continues further west to West River Memorial Park, where the freeway extension was to rise up as an elevated structure to cross over as a bridge, with earlier plans having the western continuation as a divisive earthen berm through the Horseshoe Lagoon- an area near the Yale University Athletic Center. Later plans deleted this westerly extension, and would have continued the freeway for only a few blocks as a below grade facility to rise up only to connect to the existing surface street, North Frontage Road. However, that would be blocked by the sale of the already cleared right of way, with Pfizer placing a $35 building immediately to the west of the Air Rights Garage, irresponsibly without a platform to preserve the freeway extension's subterranean right of way. This Pfizer building is envisioned as the first of a series of new buildings to be so constructed upon both the unbuilt extension's right of way, and upon the existing below grade highway- not as platforms, but rather by dumping tons of dirt to eliminate this highway and to relocate its traffic upon the existing parallel service roads.

To their credit, the TSTC article has a comments section, which I used (excerpts below)

#5 Douglas Willinger

Posted April 21, 2008 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

The positive benefits sought can be achieved via new buildings that respect the Route 34 freeway’s subterranean right of way.

What was done with the Pfizer building fiasco should not be allowed to hold this public right of way hostage.

#6 Chris H

Posted April 27, 2008 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

Douglas,

I don’t know if you are going to check this because it was awhile ago but experience has shown that your scenario hasn’t really played out in practice.

#7 Douglas Willinger

Posted April 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

Chris:

The plan adds large buildings that will attract people. These are far larger buildings then those displaced by the freeway decades ago.

Are these buildings to be all mixed use, with most or all of the people having both their residences and jobs in these buildings?

I then check out the link in #6 , "From Induced Demand to Reduced Demand" by Charles Siegel, before attempting to make the following post:

Chris:


Your link talks about under-grounding existing freeway corridors via complete reconstruction, such as Boston's Big Dig.

But it says nothing about the far, far easier and inexpensive task of constructing platforms over existing below grade freeways.

I looked forward to an enlightening discussion/debate. For instance the Siegel article states:

In Great Britain, where there is a very active anti-freeway movement, transportation planners are no longer allowed to count reduced travel time as a benefit of building a new freeway. The Department of Transport has adopted a guidance document saying that cost-benefit studies on new freeways must assume that elasticity of demand may be as high as 1.0 with respect to speed - which means that average trip length increases as much as speed increases, so building freeways and increasing speeds just lengthen trips and does not save any time.2

Interestingly, this anti freeway movement lies to itself and others by prohibiting a consideration of time savings, instead submitting to a parochialist doctrine against allowing people a choice to travel further increasing choice over such things as jobs.

I write attempting, because the TSTC comments page then refuses to allow this to be posted, giving me a single word message:

discarded

Apparantly someone at the TSTC site could not handle this discussion.

Harvard Defeats Yale!

While Yale seeks parochialist means for blocking public right of way,
the Harvard community seeks cosmopolitan solutions to actually reconcile human needs.



http://www.cityminustraffic.org/newsite/introduction.htm
http://www.cityminustraffic.org/fgt/model.html

Yale's Parochialist Messiah John Norquist'

Norquist, a proponent of removing unsightly locally divisive elevated urban freeways, was recently in New Haven calling for removing that city's Route 34 Oak Street Connector: a below-grade freeway which opened in 1959, and since truncated beneath an Air Rights parking garage, but with a cleared right of way -- asides from Pfizer's 2005 demolition special -- extending to just before the also uncompleted West River Memorial Park, initially created as a WW1 monument to be lined via promenades.

"I [John Norquist] Say, 'Tear It Down'"

by Allan Appel | April 17, 2008 1:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Allan Appel Photo

John Norquist tore down a “connector” in Milwaukee more than twice as long as New Haven’s lamentable Mayor Richard Lee Highway — and a viable and prosperous streetscape arose in its place. He came to New Haven to tell us how to do it.

More than 100 people came to the Career Regional Magnet High School auditorium Wednesday night, many thinking they were there to hear from a kind of transportation messiah. As with messiahs in general, Norquist, who served as Milwaukee’s mayor from 1988-2004, didn’t bring many details, but he did provide hope.

Calling the Route 34 connector, the “Disconnector,” Norquist also provided some concrete advice: “First, don’t contemplate the project to death. It’s not going to be extended, it doesn’t justify itself by carrying much traffic. So get on with it, build the pressure, and get it done, so it can be an example to other cities, especially Hartford.”

Mayor John DeStefano wants to build over the Route 34 Connector and redevelop all the land once planned for an extended highway there.

But a co-speaker of Norquist Wednesday night, state Deputy Transportation Commissioner Albert Martin said the removal of Route 34 is by no means a done deal with his department.

Speaking with consummate diplomatese, he said, “Governor Rell’s vision of livable communities calls for an objective study of the removal of 34 to see if it’s in the best interest of New Haven.”

“I say tear it down,” Norquist replied in his remarks. “The state built it, let the state get rid of it. If you want to be nice, maybe the city can pay for the utility reconnects. But otherwise, not a dime.”

He also advised that the road should be taken down as close to I-95 as possible. “Get those off ramps tucked right next to the highway,” he said, “the way it’s done on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago. So that when you get off the highway as soon as possible you’re on a viable urban grid of small streets.”

Except perhaps for Martin, Norquist was preaching to the choir about the removal of 34. It was the nature of the new space to be created, that viable urban grid to follow the removal, that was really on the minds of the audience members.

“I didn’t come here because I needed convincing to take down 34,” said East Rock Alderman Allan Brison of the Green Party. (Only two other alders, Dwight’s Gina Calder and Fair Haven’s Erin-Sturgis Pascale, were present.) “I hoped to hear what’s going to go in there. From what I heard from the city at previous meetings and the current construction makes me think it’s going to be high-end tall buildings with lots of parking.” ...

More than 100 people came to the Career Regional Magnet High School auditorium Wednesday night, many thinking they were there to hear from a kind of transportation messiah. As with messiahs in general, Norquist, who served as Milwaukee’s mayor from 1988-2004, didn’t bring many details, but he did provide hope.

Posted by: Our Town | April 18, 2008 12:41 PM

Beware false prophets. They talk of destroying one true transportation corridor without thought of how all that traffic will get around, just, it will be absorbed by the grid system. They talk of replacing the highway with buildings in "scale" with their surroundings. They talk of trolleys, but don't want to build to the density that would actually support a trolley system.

This is all poorly thought out. Give me an alternate transportation plan before you start tearing out a major transportation facility.

Some here forget that Rt. 34 is part of a regional system, it's not just for New Haven. Every city could say get your road away from here, but we all rely on the system, and we need to look beyond our parochial interests and see the big picture.

All I can say is that I don't want any of those 80,000 cars a day coming down my street. That's why the Rt. 34 highway was constructed in the first place. All that traffic was on Chapel Street and George Street. And now there's even more. What a relief to the neighborhood was Rt. 34 when it was connected along the frontage roads...Have we forgotten?

Posted by: robn | April 17, 2008 8:57 AM

The Urban Design League needs to show how the daily I-91 traffic back up on the connector (something that Mr Norquist obviously hasn't bothered to examine) is going to be absorbed by that exit. Its completely unacceptable for that exiting to be absorbed into the East Rock neighborhood, where there is already too much traffic. Unless viable, high volume exiting is provided in the current connector location this idea is dead on arrival. Alderman Brison should acknowledge this problem because if he doesn't he is going to be a one term alderman.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | April 19, 2008 3:19 PM

How much was Norquist paid to come to New Haven and say something stupid like:

"If you mean affordable rents," he responded, "the head of our city council, an African- American, said that affordable rents should not be a goal in life."

"Unaffordable rents should be. He meant of course that people do so well, they can afford more. I wouldn't worry about it. Then again, I'm not that familiar with New Haven."

Obviously Norquist didn't do his home work:

According to a NHI article Re: "Pilot Hike Back on the Table"

Forty Seven thousand (47K) New Haven residents qualify for federal Earned Income Tax Credit, that's 47K of 92K persons above the age of 18, with a family of four earning less than 40K a year. (Source U.S. Census Bureau). Almost half of New Haven's residents rely on the so called affordable rent.

Therefore, Vanessa Burns, representing State Sen. Toni Harp, asked Norquist to comment on how the post-highway removal gentrification in Milwaukee affected local minority communities.

This was an entirely appropriate question.

Posted by: robn | April 20, 2008 1:51 PM

This is a stupid idea and I'll reiterate that anyone who thinks its a good one should drive down I-91 into 34 during rush hour and observe the volume of traffic. There is NO WAY that this can be instantly absorbed into a slow city grid without backing up traffic and causing drivers to dump into East Rock.

There is plenty of developeable area beyond Phizer and the reason that rt 3d dempo is being discussed is becuase its a classic triple dip...federal pork barrel funding for road demolition as well as road re-building and surrounding redevelopment.

How about just simply develop where there isn't a major vehicular artery?

Or, just simply build upon platforms to preserve the Route 34 freeway and extension's subterranean right of way to get the benefits of both the freeway and the new real estate development.

More than 100 people came to the Career Regional Magnet High School auditorium Wednesday night, many thinking they were there to hear from a kind of transportation messiah. As with messiahs in general, Norquist, who served as Milwaukee’s mayor from 1988-2004, didn’t bring many details, but he did provide hope.

“I didn’t come here because I needed convincing to take down 34,” said East Rock Alderman Allan Brison of the Green Party.

It's already "down" as its a below grade highway.

Obviously sloganeering here serves as a substitute for independent thought.

Yale and Pfizer's Transportation Treason

Ripping off the public right of way;
New Haven, Connecticut Route 34 Connector

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/06/what_will_happe.php

Posted by: Our Town | June 19, 2007 3:10 PM

I really don't get it. You concentrate economic activity to the downtown area and the Route 34 "Corridor", and then you restrict access to the area by choking its main artery? Let's not be silly. We do not have alternate transportation; we do not even have near the population density to support mass transit without massive subsidies (a much larger subsidy than required for the roads). You talk of pedestrians and safety, and I can think of nothing safer than keeping the vehicles away from the people in limited access cuts or covered roadways. Just think, a limited access roadway can handle approximately 1200 cars per lane per hour, a surface street can handle about 600 under ideal conditions. You need twice as many surface lanes for the same amount of traffic, and that traffic which now moves at a steady flow would have to start and stop at traffic lights, a major source of air pollution. Pedestrians that now cross the Rt. 34 roadway on bridges would now have to cross twice as many lanes in a crosswalk.

If the purpose is to reduce the traffic in the "Corridor", which is not what a developer wants to hear (one of the comments about Yale's purchase of the West Haven site was "Access to I-95"), where will the traffic go? Onto an adjacent local street, exacerbating traffic conditions on those nearby streets to the point of gridlock? Or maybe not come to New Haven at all, as Yale has shown us with their West Haven site.

This isn't an issue of cars vs. pedestrians and bicycles. Cars and trucks are and will be the transport of choice for a long time. It is safer and better for pedestrians and bicycles to keep as many cars and trucks as we can off the local streets. This idea that a "Boulevard" is more pedestrian friendly than an expressway is a crock.

The problem with Route 34 is that Henry Fernandez and JD gave it away to Pfizer when they didn't demand that their building be built on a platform, and JD has now let Yale build in the Rt. 34 right-of-way also. Now JD is cramming Gateway College into the mix, Yale is continuing to build, and the Hospital continues to grow. All this traffic in two surface lanes...What ARE you thinking?

Posted by: nfjanette | June 20, 2007 1:20 AM

The problem with Route 34 is that Henry Fernandez and JD gave it away to Pfizer when they didn't demand that their building be built on a platform, and JD has now let Yale build in the Rt. 34 right-of-way also. Now JD is cramming Gateway College into the mix, Yale is continuing to build, and the Hospital continues to grow. All this traffic in two surface lanes...What ARE you thinking?

Thank God I've lived long enough to see someone else understand the problems with those decisions. If that one block next to the Air Rights garage had been built differently, the connector traffic could at least continue under the garage and surface up ramps into that block, or even better, the next block. Look at the snarled traffic in that area during any rush hour - New Haven traffic engineering at it's finest.

Pfizer's Demolition Special
Route 34- Kurumi Roads
Route 34 Right of Way Violation Scheme - Tri State Transportation Campaign
Route 34 Right of Way Violation Scheme (more) - Tri State Transportation Campaign

New Haven Future Framework 2008 pdf
Route 34 Stump Aerial Photos