Here's an example of a best practice crosswalk. The crosswalks themselves are lit up. If it's good enough for Amherst, it's good enough for New Haven:

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

The Amherst crosswalk is in a location with a much lower pedestrian and driver volume, of course (they were recording average speeds in the area that are actually much higher than what we have on Elm Street), so a somewhat different, even more progressive approach is probably needed here.

the mid-block crosswalk would only work if it had the red lights coupled with the white strobes like the traffic signal in front of City Hall. Traffic won't stop for someone in the crosswalk. In New Haven, the car is king. (this must change)

Given the massive volume, I think people would cross anyways, light or not. Traffic calming is probably the only solution, unless volume issues can be addressed, e.g., with some of the other measures I suggested above.

In case someone out there has never seen Elm Street, here's what it looks like (photo).

Another solution would be to run a fence along Elm in the problem areas (from York to College). Though this is less palatable to pedestrians and Yale, it's a solution that works in many other cities in dangerous, crowded, or touristy areas.

A bike/ped consultant came through that area and thought we were being silly with our concerns. He watched the mid-block and said, "This is perfect. It's not jay walking: they have a legal right to cross here, and you don't need a cross walk. There have been no accidents here, & it creates natural traffic calming, because drivers see this behavior & slow down because they have no options."

I don't know that I agree with him, but I thought it worth letting you all know what he said.

That's very interesting, Streever, especially considering the fact that the YPD was ticketing students for jaywalking there just over a year ago (see: http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/25064). So as far as they are concerned, it IS illegal to cross the street there - I wonder why the consultant did not agree!
And I definitely disagree that it creates natural traffic calming. I'm sure some cautious drivers slow down there to avoid hitting people, but if you stood there for a few minutes at a busy crossing time you'd easily see all the drivers that intentionally speed up between High and College as their way of suggesting to potential jaywalkers, "don't mess with me."
I disagree that it's perfect and doesn't need modification. I hope someday the people that paint crosswalk lines will agree there is a need for something here. Either that or the fences, as mentioned above.

And in response to Mark Abraham's post above about lighted crosswalks in Amherst, I add that the same things exist around the campus of Princeton University! They are wonderful - the person wanting to cross hits a button, lights bordering the crosswalk start blinking. Of course, around Princeton campus the drivers are already much more willing to stop for someone crossing the street than in New Haven.
Here is an idea of what this can look like, though this one is from California.

Hmm,
it's hard. I think he was referring to a legal right--in his words, it wasn't legal to ticket there, & the legal right was on the pedestrians--much like at Church & Audubon.

I think it's possible that the police don't always know the law or the way it should be enforced, so I don't find it surprising! Police frequently implement laws concerning pedestrian issues incorrectly.

I'm not saying he's right about his assesment though: just sharing it. I think a fence is probably the worst possible fix, and would work to prevent that at any costs.

He also follows the Northern European relatively new concept of streets as shared spaces: in this model, we reduce signage, & force traffic calming by forcing drivers to... pay attention :) It's working pretty well in other places, but I have no idea how well that would work in New Haven.

Those light up cross walk seem really innovative.
Is there stats to back them up?
Is this something that Yale would want to financially back the city on?

In 2002, in Vancouver, WA, USA (my hometown, just across the river from Portland, OR), a French foreign exchange student was hit and severely inured (major brain damage--she's basically dead) while attempting to cross a busy road that passes through the campus of our community college. Her parents then sued the city. THEY SETTLED THE SUIT FOR $6 MILLION! Vancouver, USA has since installed two extremely well-marked mid-block crosswalks on that road (florescent yellow-green signs and yellow LED strobe lights on the roadway surface and on the signs hanging above the road--though, personally, I'd argue that the crosswalk in front of City Hall here in New Haven is just as good). If there are any stats to back up mid-block crosswalks, Vancouver would have them (though they are understandably touchy about this issue). All of the mid-block crosswalks in the city now have disclaimers and load speakers that say "cross with caution; vehicles may not stop" when you press the button for the yellow strobe lights.

That's certainly valuable information. Lets hope this city does not expose the taxpayers to that kind of liability.
This does seem like one of those situations where the city could loose a lawsuit for looking away from a longstanding safety issue.

I love the light up crosswalk! Very cool. I hate the one that talks though ;-)

I added the police to this, because I do think they should be aware of what Brian posted:

that's basically what the consultant was explaining. The lack of a crosswalk, despite an engineering need for one, means that the police are not really able to ticket there. Anyone could win that case.

I don't advocate we do nothing--I'm not really advocating anything--I'm really just hoping that City Hall realizes this & jumps on it. The intersection of audubon/church is the same situation, and also cited by the consultant as a place where crossing was perfectly legal due to the t-junction.

Aerial photo of location (click to enlarge). Would you walk all the way to west side of High Street (of the frame, to the right), in order to wait for the light at the legal crossing? Maybe some of the time, maybe even most of the time, but not if you're late for class.

Excuse me...I meant to say "off the frame," not "of the frame" in that last comment. I apologize if my spelling mistake created any confusion.

I'm opposed to this, personally. Why don't the students use the crosswalks at the intersections, where it's quite safe and legal?

Greg,
legally, the mid-block crossing IS legal :)!
if someone uses it & their is a death, the city is liable

Streever, I think the consultants were just talking about the east side of the intersection of High and Elm, where there is no marked crosswalk, but you can legally cross there since it's a corner (despite this, some Yale students were given warning tickets for crossing here last fall). This clicket, and I think Greg's comment, have to do with the section of Elm St in front of Durfee's where hundreds of Yale students jay-walk every day.

In response to Greg's bewilderment at the propensity of (supposedly) the best minds of my generation to engage in risky behavior, I must say, Greg, you are not the first to wonder.

Now I must reveal the I myself am a Yale undergraduate. While I manage to take the circuitous route necessary to legally cross Elm St nine times out of ten, I do occassionally find myself late for class. In these situations, the potential risks of jay-walking pale in comparison to the certain costs of being late.

Perhaps the best comparison is with a train station: people will always show up at the last possible minute, basing their calculations of walking time on the shortest possible distance.

Not even a fence could possibly counter such basic psychological tendancies toward running late. What we need is for the psychologically prefered path to be the safe path. This was achieved through mid-block crosswalks throughout the Broadway District and on Temple St in the Green and in front of a certain hotel. A similar mid-block crosswalk, featuring a curb extension on the north side of the street, pavers to mark the the crossing area, and basic crosswalk signs on either side of the street, might very well do the trick.

Typo: I meant to say "the fact that" I am a Yale undergraduate. And sorry for the pretentious tone; I was having a bit of fun, but you'd have to know me to understand.

It seems that the University is encouraging the Jay Walking currently by cutting walkways in the snow midway down Elm Street where there are currently no crosswalks.

On the other hand, how many people have been hit here in the last ten years? maybe the chaos is what's maintaining the peace...just to play a little devils advocate.

In some cases, the curb was kept clear of snow piles to keep the area around storm drains clear. In other cases, it was kept clear to make room for the recycling bins. The clearings confused me for awhile too. Then I happened to go for a walk on trash night. It was very exciting to solve this mystery.

Sorry, Streever, I wasn't 100% clear. I meant to put emphasis on the word and. Safe *and* legal is how I'd like people to walk (and drive, and bike).

It just seems to me that a crosswalk here would be rewarding risky behavior. I'd rather see an automatic walk signal added into the light cycle at Elm and High. People will still cross mid-street, but I'd hope that the walk signal would help them stay safer.

I think a fence similar to a "beach" or "snow" fence should be installed along the right-hand side of the street, and wired to the existing signs and trees, as a deterrent to the illegal (and DEADLY) crossing of pedestrians at this portion of Elm St. I have thought a crosswalk would be sufficient, but it is my experience that a downward-sloping road without a stoplight is not a smart road to jaywalk in!! A FENCE therefore would not allow pedestrians to jaywalk on this very dangerous street (which already has NO shoulder!)

That would have to be a VERY tall fence if you expected it to work. Also, to be safe, it would need to be installed on both sides.

Unfortunately, the existing sidewalks are too narrow to handle the amount of pedestrian traffic that would result from that plan.

P.S. In addition, all street parking would need to be removed (because of the need for a fence on BOTH sides). This would result in a "tunnel effect," serving to greatly increase automobile speeds, in the process dramatically increasing risk to pedestrians.

So by trying to solve one problem, you would actually be making the whole situation much worse.

I have written a letter to the Yale Daily News on this issue, which will run in September, pending further developments. Although this letter is intended for a Yale audience, I think it might be helpful in the broader conversation about conflicts between motorists and pedestrians at this location.

Here is my letter:

"We should fix Elm Street. Students rushing to get to class on time dash across the street like hunted animals as frustrated drivers floor it coming out of Broadway in a futile effort to get through all the intersections before the signals change.

To be perfectly honest, I love the bewildered look on drivers' faces when they suddenly find themselves in the midst of a sea of Yalies, and there's definitely something appealing about that moment between classes when—through sheer force of numbers—we, pedestrians, take back the street and remind drivers that they are merely guests in our public space.

These aren't the moments that concern me though. I'm concerned when I see my classmates risking their lives because the nearest legit crosswalk is all the way up at the west end of the High Street intersection. It scares me when my friends run across the street at night because it seems like the right thing to do. It scares me, but I can't blame them. Not just because they're my friends, but because people don't walk in big oxbows; we walk directly where we want to go in as straight of a line as possible. If we behaved any differently, Cross Campus might not be so much muddier than Old Campus.

Still, sooner or later somebody is going to get hurt. I'm not so sure I'm OK with that.

Some people have suggested adding fences, like on Broadway. After all, the fact that the grass on Old Campus doesn't get trampled to death probably has something to do with the fence.

I have some problems with the fence idea, though. First, that would be seriously annoying, like those big corporations who don't like it when people sit on the ledges that make the walls of the planting boxes at the base of their office tower and so they cement pointy rocks onto the ledge and put up signs saying "NO SITTING." Second, people are just going to hop over that fence, like the people who put a newspaper on top of the pointy rocks and sit on the ledge at the bottom of the office tower anyway. Third, I think I have a better idea, inspired by Nicolas Kemper's April 6th op-ed about stop signs and a presentation I attended on April 2nd given by Jeff Rosenblum and Chris Hart of the City of Cambridge, Mass and the Institute for Human Centered Design, respectively.

So far as I can tell, two basic factors make Elm Street an accident waiting to happen. First, drivers think this is a highway, and second, we Yalies prefer to dodge cars rather than wait for traffic signals that work differently at every intersection. In addressing this problem, I suggest we put safety first. Yalies are going to cross Elm Street in the middle of the block no matter what we do. Therefore, to achieve safety, we have to keep vehicle speeds under a certain level (a car driving 12-18 mph is much less likely to kill someone). That said, it would be great if we could do this without bringing traffic to a complete halt (have you ever tried to drive in New Haven?).

Currently average speeds through this area must be around 8-12 mph when you factor in all the time drivers have to spend waiting at traffic lights. When drivers get the green light, though, they floor it in a desperate attempt to make up for lost time. In other words, what we have here is a classic case of stop-and-go traffic. Not good. Much better, both for pedestrians and drivers/cyclists, would be to calm traffic to a slow trickle moving at somewhere around 15 mph.

I have several ideas to help achieve this, which taken together just might solve our problem. First idea: replace the traffic signal at High Street with an all-way stop (credits go to Mr. Kemper on this one). Second idea: build a raised crosswalk midway down the block, right between Porter Gate and Durfee's. (Google "raised crosswalk" if you're not sure what I mean.) Third idea: get rid of all the pedestrian signal buttons and time the lights so that someone driving/cycling at 12-15 mph will cruise right through. Pedestrians should be allowed to cross with the green light. Turning drivers will just have to learn how to yield."

wow - yes that ole Elm street is a main drag a rooskie. You have a continuous of Elm ,a State highway called Whalley, Dixwell Ave. and Goffe street, all filing into a dark alley of a street. Construction there right now is slowing things down a peep.
There's not many an alternative around this bottleneck , York dumps a one way into it,Park street is hidden and leads to nowhere,make Grove a two way. Ask the motorists just where are they going, They might answer "to get away from this rabble as quickly as possible"

I'm going to take back the four-way stop idea. I should have listened to Streever (and Erin S-P, and Rachael P, and everyone else). A four-way stop on Elm would be a complete disaster at current traffic volumes.

I visited home and was walking around Portland State University and noticed that they also have a high-speed, 3-lane, one-way street running through campus (named Broadway, ironically enough). There is a small street on PSU's campus that comes to a T-intersection at Broadway (ironically with the street closed on the other side, just like High St). What they did there was just set the traffic light so that instead of going to green for the small cross street, it goes to blinking yellow. This encourages drivers turning onto Broadway to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. This allows them to put crosswalks on both sides of the intersection.

So now I have a different idea: forget about getting rid of the High Street signal. Instead, stripe the crosswalk on the east side of the intersection. Then reprogram the signal to give High Street a blinking yellow light instead of green when it is their turn to go.

Further down, between Durfee's and Porter Gate, I still recommend a mid-block raised crosswalk. This could be engineered to be very wide so that buses and emergency vehicles will not have a problem.

In the mean time, I would like to reiterate that the east side of the intersection of High and Elm IS a legal crosswalk, even though there is only a striped crosswalk and ped signal on the west side. In order for pedestrians crossing with the green light on the east side of the High St intersection to be jaywalking, the city would have to post a sign explicitly stating that the crosswalk is closed.

This all seems very silly to me. There are crosswalks at both ends of the block (at High and College), and it's not a very long block. Should cars stop speeding and yield when pedestrians are in those crosswalks? Yes. Should the lights be timed better so the traffic isn't as bad and cars that make it to Elm St. aren't gunning it to make the next light? Yes. Should we make traffic worse so Yale students don't have to walk half a block to cross the street legally? No. It's 250 feet. Pedestrians who cross between High and College should be ticketed.

If we need a crosswalk anywhere, it's on Prospect on Science Hill. There's technically no legal place to cross Prospect between Sachem and Edwards, which is over 1500 feet.

Full disclosure: I'm a Yale student.

Valid points, anonymous Yale student!

I’m starting to think that timing the lights on Elm Street for 12–15 m.p.h. really should be the top priority, far and above going for a mid-block crosswalk. Now that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act has freed up funds for the City purchase a new central control system for the city’s traffic signals, timing the lights in this high-traffic corridor should not be particularly difficult (relatively speaking, of course).

I read that the status of upcoming traffic signals (red, yellow, or green) has a measurable, statistically significant effect on the speeds of drivers approaching that intersection. I often see situations here where the light at High Street is green, but the road is completely deserted because the upstream (York Street) light is red. By the time the York St light changes and cars get to High Street, the signal turns red after just a couple of cars get though, and the rest have to wait. The current situation rewards people with lead feet (dangerous for peds) and punishes people who attempt to slowly coast through (not particularly dangerous). Instead, the City should time the lights on Elm Street from Broadway to State Street such that they are CONSISTENTLY red until just before the moment when a vehicle moving at 12 m.p.h. would reach the intersection. This will punish aggressive drivers (by making it impossible to make it down the street any faster than the rest of us, regardless of their speed), and will permit operators of vehicles traveling at 12–15 m.p.h. to sail through without hardly touching the gas (or breaking a sweat, as the case may be).

I agree with Brian, for the most part. There are many examples of the situation he describes in other cities. Typically, speeds are painted on the roadway surface to alert drivers, and a combination of narrow lanes and chicane treatments are used.

Though speed reduction clearly must be the top priority, I would still argue that other "complete streets" treatments are required here. Either 1) the mid-block crossing needs to be recognized and regulated as such, or 2) pedestrians have to be accommodated in other ways (e.g., through signal changes, shorter crossing distances, and pedestrian obstructions such as parked vehicles, bollards and/or fences).

I think #2 would ultimately fail, because the "desire lines" are so strong, and therefore the only solution is to accommodate the mid-block situation.

ConnDOT and New Haven need to realize that 30MPH traffic through the center of a busy pedestrian-rich environment is not at all an acceptable situation.

I personally don’t have any problem with the current lane geometries between Broadway and College (though a curb extension at the NE corner of York and Elm certainly wouldn’t hurt). However, I agree that lane widths (and number of travel lanes) are completely excessive between College Street and Church Street. Curb extensions at the NW and SE corners of the intersection of Elm and Temple would be quite helpful (though much more of a long-term goal than an immediate priority). I would be happy if the City could just time the lights on Elm Street to stop rewarding aggressive drivers (which means timing the lights for 12–15 m.p.h., NOT 25 m.p.h.), sit back, and then determine if further changes are necessary.

Bottom line is that, given the volumes of pedestrian traffic along Yale's busiest campus axis, if any engineer thinks that this situation can be solved by redirecting pedestrians to the intersections, they need to have their heads examined.

A new light pattern plus traffic calming, similar to what was done on Broadway/Elm between TYCO and Park Street, is desperately needed here.

As is probably pretty clear from the record of my comments, my opinion on this issue has evolved pretty dramatically over time. My current thinking is that a fully signalized crosswalk, just like the one in front of City Hall would be a good solution provided it is synchronized with the signal at Elm and High.

yes. i agree with that point brian.

Crosswalk, please. And less downtown traffic in general. It makes no sense to keep major traffic corridors in heavy pedestrian zones. Heavy traffic is downtown New Haven's biggest detraction by far.

I agree with Brian's assessment. It's crucial to balance the needs of all road users, and the current situation most certainly does not.

The main temptation to cross here is to go between Old Campus and Cross Campus. So how about closing the Old Campus gate in the middle of the block, in addition to properly marking all three crosswalks at High?

Closing that gate could redirect a lot of the pedestrian traffic to the ends of the block where the crossings already exist. There are times when that gate is closed for security or construction and no one seems much bothered by it. No one seems to mind that its counterpart at the Chapel St end is also closed.

It would also not hurt to slow traffic all the way from Broadway to Church.

A deterrent to walking to the ends of the block is the high stone walls squeezing pedestrians up against fast traffic plus loitering and trash around the gates of Trumbull college especially near the dining hall's back entrance. This block's sidewalks are noisy and crowded. In summer there is hardly any shade. In winter the narrow sidewalks are made even narrower by plowed snow. So of course people will think about crossing straight over from Cross Campus to the Old Campus gate and Durfee's. I know I think about it. And Yale put those gates in those places, so they define a natural crossing point much more so than the Wall St intersection.

Can we do anything to make this more pedestrian friendly like generally slowing the traffic, widening the sidewalk, removing one car lane, adding planter boxes and increasing the tree cover?

Marking the crosswalk on the east side of the High St intersection and giving it a crossing light should do a lot to help this. I feel that the absence of explicit markings there encourages pedestrians from finding another route of their own, and they follow cues like the gate between Lanman-Wright and Durfee.

Marking the missing crosswalk at Elm and High would be good for its own sake but there is a natural crossing point at the gate between Berkeley and Calhoun.

PLEASE HAVE BEEN SUGGESTING IT FOR YEARS- I BET YALE WOULD EVEN PAY FOR IT. another light on Elm would suck, but it beats hitting a Yalie walking out in the street while reading a book lol

When will this be addressed?

This issue was recategorized from Uncategorized to Signs / Bus Shelters / Pavement Markings.

Sooo . . . this has been open for 5-1/2 years. I honed my traffic defying chops on this same block in 1989, when we filed our traffic complaints on papyrus, and it was likely an issue long before that. Surely there's data that can inform this situation a little. How many people have been injured? How many vehicle accidents arise from avoiding hitting a pedestrian? What's been the experience of Church between Chapel and Elm during this same time period before and after the crosswalk went in? A map of 2012 New Haven crime includes traffic incidents (http://ramcdougal.com/nhvcrime2012/index.html#0#6#24#15) and suggests that Elm and High is bad, but not as bad as, say, Temple and Elm, Whalley and Sherman, or Goffe and Orchard. If a private citizen can use Leaflet and Data Haven data to make a map for 2012, can Livable Streets do the same for a larger dataset? (Or, perhaps, the city gov?)

Its good to know this was reported in 2008 and still remains unaddressed.

I'm opposed to a mid-block crosswalk. Strengthen the crossing at Elm and High, please, but no mid-block crossing between High and College.

We are trying to delineate issues that are current and need the city's attention to resolve and as a result a number of historical issues are being closed. If your issue persists and needs to be addressed by the city please open as a new See Click Fix issue. Thank you.