Recent comments in /f/newhaven

kamaone t1_j87fldq wrote

New Haven is a great town. I'm not sure why everyone's telling you to only consider the most expensive neighborhoods and suburbs. If you're single and young you will find good people living all over the city. There's also alot of slum lords, so beware. That's probably the worst aspect of renting. And rent is not cheap anywhere around here . East rock is getting really expensive these days. Wooster square is great, but also pricey. Spot of areas are sprawling. Edgewood and West river are probably the most affordable and right between downtown and westville. There's parts of westville and beaver hills near southern where there are affordable apartments and houses as well. alot of little neighborhoods all over the city worth looking into. It depends on what you're going for, can adapt to, and afford.

8

yakayaka456 t1_j878z2v wrote

Welcome! I moved from OK to New Haven around 5 years ago. New Haven’s a great town, is there a reason why you don’t want to live in NH Proper? I felt it was a good “transition city” and not a huge shock coming from the south. East rock, Wooster Square, and Westville are the great neighborhoods to be in. I think some other good towns you could consider are milford, Woodbridge, hamden, guilford, and these seem to be more “family” towns than to someone who is young and single (if that’s you). I can’t speak to the community aspects of those towns, but I’ve spent some time in each and have found charm in all of them. You would definitely need a car if you were to live outside of New Haven. For nearby hiking theres of course east rock, west rock and sleeping giant. Popular beaches are Hammonasset state park in Madison or Silver Sands in Milford. New Haven has a ton of entertainment at College St Music hall / Westville Music Bowl if that’s your thing. Food and drink are really great, but honestly too many to list!

22

awebr OP t1_j878olu wrote

I appreciate the different perspective you’re providing but i have to disagree that bike safety was only marginally approved as you say. The previous road had unprotected, door zone, paint only bike lanes that dropped out at a historically very dangerous intersection. Now, there is a 2-way bike facility that is off road, set back, and grade separated, with one crossing of chapel street split into two separate crossings with a median island and physical infrastructure that will force drivers to slow to 15-20 mph.

I’ve been biking through this to test it out frequently and I really don’t feel like there’s a noticeable difference in speed (maybe a few seconds) between taking the bike path around vs using the vehicle lane. I would encourage you to ride through it in all ways that you are able to, maybe experiencing it in person will provide some clarity compared to looking at a still photo.

11

Lice_Queen t1_j876u49 wrote

A lot will depend on your budget, rental housing is quite expensive in CT, and certainly on the shore. Smaller communities in CT also have a LOT less rental housing than our cities. When you say smaller, it doesn't clarify if you mean more rural, suburban, or village- CT has them all within driving distance of New Haven, but housing availability will vary. When you get here, take a lot drives around to get a feel for what appeals to you! There's hiking, beaches, train to NYC, all kinds of stuff to do. Avoid Waterbury and honestly get out of Bristol quick too, one reason is that it's 45-60 min stressful commute to new haven. For some reason out of staters are always moving to bristol and it's such a dreary little city. Also I-95 in CT is one of the most congested highways in the country, so maybe also consider living where you don't need to commute on it every day, or where you can take the train!

12

buried_lede t1_j868aq7 wrote

Wow,I like it but would really like to see roads like Frontage and Ella Grasso subjected to that. Would that be feasible? (Not frontage before the hospital though - I guess that is ambulance route)

4

beaveristired t1_j866ax3 wrote

The one in Beaver Hills has definitely improved traffic safety. Witnessed a lot of accidents there before the roundabout was put in. Now occasionally someone will misjudge and hit a curb or a sign, but better a minor one-car accident at slow speeds than a multi-car accident at 60 mph. Still a lot of work that needs to be done to slow speeds approaching the roundabout, but it’s been a major improvement imo.

Eta: the bike lane in BH also need work, same with pedestrian crossings.

8

tholdawa t1_j860nyk wrote

Reply to comment by awebr in The Chapel/Yale peanut is finished by awebr

Sure, yes, bikes can use the vehicular lane to go around this, but this design has actually made that transition wildly more dangerous to do so, at least in one direction, than just having two unidirectional unprotected bike lanes (having to cross two lanes of traffic in an unpredictable way in order to enjoy the efficiency benefits of this intersection). This design has actually removed infrastructure that would've made that transition safer. Even fewer bike riders probably feel comfortable and confident doing this kind of maneuver than just taking the lane. The location of the yield line seems moot, since bikes will be required to stop for cars?

This design seems well-intentioned but ultimately still regressive, giving efficiencies only to cars, and adding marginal safety for bikes (maybe more for pedestrians?). I'm really curious to see how this intersection will work in practice.

Curious if you know, will there be follow-up studies of use and safety?

0

awebr OP t1_j85xhj8 wrote

Yeah the stop for bikes was not part of the original design, the traffic dept made us put them in. There’s some proposed legislation that would allow bikes to treat stops like yields though.

But for cyclists who are comfortable riding in mixed traffic, they are absolutely free to leave the cycletrack and bike through the vehicle lane if they want to be quicker, as they are legally allowed to. This crossing is an option for those cyclists who aren’t comfortable riding in traffic yet and want a crossing that moreso resembles a pedestrian crosswalk (because it’s also that). US design manuals for bike crossings at roundabouts are pretty lacking but in general, the crossings are always set back from the vehicle yield line by one car length so that a car waiting to enter the roundabout won’t block the crosswalk/crossbike.

9

tholdawa t1_j85ukaz wrote

Reply to comment by awebr in The Chapel/Yale peanut is finished by awebr

Of course I'm not an urban planner or traffic engineer, but I am a frequent road user (as I believe you are :). There's a yield for cars and a stop for bikes is one thing that makes this intersection much slower for bikes than cars. Honestly it seems like it'd be safer and faster to have unidirectional protected lanes on either side of the road that maybe merged with vehicular traffic before the intersection. This also is a pretty unfamiliar pattern for drivers, who will not be watching for bikes at the crossing here (at least until this design becomes widespread).

That said, I think this is definitely an improvement over what was here before.

5

tholdawa t1_j85qqkn wrote

Looks like this uses the same design for the cycle track to cross the road as the roundabout on Crescent. I don't understand this design, it seems dangerous and really inconvenient for bikes.

3

awebr OP t1_j85lknz wrote

Was that you out there on thursday? I was with the group doing our final inspection and a onewheeler was out doing some laps

Big tractor trailers will be able to get through going straight on chapel but really shouldnt be making those sharp turns as other more suitable routes exist like 34. And the boulevard road diet is a CTDOT thing, illegal drag racing was going on along with continuous pedestrian deaths

14