-we lettered CDOT (along with Rep. Dillon) and requested a traffic study/calming improvements at this location. It is a state road.

DOT got an email too from this site. We should leave it open until they resolve it right?

Neighbors rejected a suggested solution. Alders were looking into an alternative solution. I guess it's going to take another death to bring this back to the front burner.

What was the suggested solution and why was it rejected?

I was told the solution included making West Elm one way for a block so nobody could exit West Elm onto Forest Road. As to why it was rejected by the neighbors, you'd have to ask them.

This problem was the subject of stories in the New Haven Independent (http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/08/back_to_the_dra.php) and on WTNH Channel 8. The city had proposed either creating a one-way street into West Elm from Forest Road, or a no left turn onto Forest Road. The neighbors seemed to favor closing off the intersection altogether. The city is now reconsidering its position and is again appealing to the state for help. As I wrote the Independent story and may do another and want to keep my journalistic objectivity, I will not offer an opinion here. But you are encouraged to do so.

The state's study was poorly designed from a statistical standpoint. They need to rethink whether the lack of funds is a good reason to design a study to fail. Then they need to do an honest study.

In any case, closing the intersection may be the cheapest solution. In the meantime, the owner of 300 West Elm will probably have no objection to the removal of the sight-obstructing tree on the corner at the state's or city's expense (it's a small tree—a boy scout with a Swiss Army knife could saw it down).

Other possible mitigations include warning flashers on Forest northbound; a permanent signal over the intersection flashing yellow on Forest and flashing red on West Elm; a Dangerous Intersection warning sign on Forest northbound; rumble strips on Forest, coming down the hill; etc. There are lots of possible controls that at least don't increase the danger and may reduce it.

As to why making West Elm one-way would be a bad idea, it would force all residents of the block to access their homes from Forest 100% of the time. That would increase the number of turns at the intersection. Bad idea.

I live on the block in question - until next week. Making it a one way is one solution but still causes problems with traffic on Forest. Its difficult to turn down West Elm when traffic is dense and stops all flow from behind.

I have a great solution that I have seen first hand - I think there is plenty of room to accomodate this although homes would lose a very small portion of their yards (which as I see now, is yardage they arent even using)

Solution: Build a small one way circle.

I have seen this work first hand in Maine (where I am from). The circle is only big enough to hold 3 cars at once when in proper use. The solution would accomplish many problems.

1) Keep the flow of traffic moving
2) Slow traffic down
3) Prevent the problem that is in question

Near as I can see there is plenty of room to accomodate one. Yes, it will cost money to build it but the solutions are threefold.

P.S. A 4-way stop sign (I assume you mean a 3 way stop sign?) or a light is not the answer. This will create more issues with traffic on Forest during busy hours. As it stands now, traffic can back up all the way to the light at the top of the hill.

A big opportunity to properly reconfigure this intersection was missed last year. Closing the end of the street, while cheap, would result in even faster traffic along Forest, increase congestion, and be incredibly inconvenient for residents of this and other nearby streets. We should be reconnecting the street grid where possible, not removing it. More traffic signals are not a good choice either.

Angi is correct. A small traffic circle or roundabout would be one of the best solutions here for all the reasons cited above. They are proven to work wherever they have been properly installed, reducing accidents dramatically and allowing even large trucks and emergency vehicles to go through, though at slower speeds. See the attached photo.

How about it ConnDOT?

Thank you for posting this, Leonard. This is a great dialogue and a good webpage to send to CT DOT to prove there's interest in the issue.

Another two-car accident just now. Nobody hurt this time. One last week, too.

Since a one way street and blocking W Elm off from Forest aren't possible, what about installing one of those large convex mirrors to allow drivers on W Elm to see oncoming traffic on Forest. It could be installed without disrupting the street.

Fred,

There are two mirrors there already, thanks to the efforts some years ago of the late Jerry Gross (the neighbor who was killed at the intersection, directly in front of his house). The mirrors are somewhat helpful for those drivers who notice them and can figure out where the reflected cars are approaching from. Clearly they have not solved the problem, though.

The mirrors dont help much at all when the people coming down Forest/RT22 are speeding....which happens A LOT

What about a combination of speed bumps on Forest and a mirror for the cars on W Elm?

Speed humps generally are not considered appropriate for principal arterials.

Either prohibiting left turns from W Elm or installing a full closure of W Elm at Forest would be the standard approach to this issue. I've seen both done in similar situations. A full closure was actually installed right in front of the home of my childhood best friend a little over a decade ago. No widening of the street was necessary. I can ask my mom to take a photo and post it, if you'd like.

School is in session. Noticed First Student bus making the turn from West Elm onto Forest Road northbound. I'm not sure there's an easy way to change the route, but it's worth considering in light of the dangerousness of the intersection. Just posting this to flag it so First Student watcher sees this thread.

I think that we should make W. Elm into a cul-de-sac. Now that the house blocking the view from oncoming traffic is in foreclosure the city should by the house and close it in.

5-car pileup tonight.

T-bone just now. Looks like nobody was hurt.

Another crash. Cop hurt.
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/11/cop_hurt_at_kil.php

I don't understand what problem closing off West Elm at Forest would pose. They closed off the road in front of my childhood best friend's house (mostly to prevent cut-through traffic) and it seemed to work out just fine:

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rm6t394s9phm&scene=5550770&lvl=2&sty=o

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=vancouver,+wa&sll=49.263588,-123.138565&sspn=0.126362,0.308647&g=vancouver&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vancouver,+Clark,+Washington&ll=45.643793,-122.670314&spn=0.008461,0.01929&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=45.64543,-122.670709&panoid=lBLd4h4lUe4oagIEto0M1A&cbp=12,192.93,,0,13.11

You could definitely close off West Elm at Forest without needing to widen the street or build a cul-de-sac.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=new+haven+ct&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.184175,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+Haven,+Connecticut&ll=41.324835,-72.968013&spn=0.000127,0.002755&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=41.324326,-72.968687&panoid=EDUZ5ElIrQxJ2RFZL1L6qQ&cbp=12,290.59,,0,11.19

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that all dead-end streets have to end cul-de-sacs. The street is plenty wide to turn around, especially since there's a driveway right there to pull into if necessary.

Brian,

"A driveway to pull into if necessary" is private property. The city could not legally depend on its availability for that purpose. I'm sure there are specific engineering requirements for the dimensions of a turnaround. It has to be wide enough for delivery trucks and moving vans to negotiate, for example. Maybe no widening would be required, as you suggest, but I don't think we can assume that.

Some of the most beautiful streets in the world do not end with massive truck turning circles.

Photo: Typical end of a street, New Haven, versus typical end of a street, Paris.

I don't disagree with your point about the driveways, Dick (even though there are many examples like the photo shown here that also have driveways), I'm just saying that "engineering requirements" have resulted in the destruction of American cities. Rebuilding our cities today would be literally impossible if we were forced to use the current guidelines.

In reality, guidelines are flexible and context-sensitive. Communities have not been nearly vocal enough to challenge the authority of our traffic engineers. And even worse, the traffic engineers themselves lack any kind of metric to measure what makes a livable community.

Typical of you Mark, to compare a dead end in the industrial Port of New Haven to an alley in Paris.

No idea if it's typical or not but it sure was a funny statement!

Glad the humorous example caught your eye, westend -- the point is just to question what you see, and never to blindly accept design manuals or city standards as the "final word" in what can or can not be done here.

Although this example is intended to be funny, the fact that AASHTO and other traffic design guidelines have destroyed thousands of neighborhoods in the United States over the past 60 years, running roughshod over the wishes of local communities (in effect, declaring traditional buildings and streets "illegal"), is not very funny!

Drive around the state and you'll see countless examples of this -- direct destruction of property, public health, safety and long-term municipal tax revenue in the name of the traffic manual.

For some great sources on this topic, see http://www.cnu.org/emergencyresponse and http://www.newurbannews.com/CompleteDec07.html . A local example is Schiavone's proposal to rejuvenate the Quinnipiac River -- even though it was designed to basically replicate the existing development, "fire codes" initially would not allow it. Too much hassle with the code means it is easier for developers to just move on and build more strip malls like the new ones all along Whalley Avenue.

ok ok! breath Mark - breath! You're preaching to the choir and I get exactly what is NOT funny about this. Sad as it is the USA is, in SOME ways, one huge ugly strip mall from one end of the country to the other. We know this and honestly I think it's a lost battle, Capitalism came and came to stay a long long time ago. Only for the fact that I remember what city I landed in (well most times I remember ha! ha!) I have been at what seems (in every way) the exact same intersection from Maine to Ca.

sorry did not intend to say that a solution for this particular intersection is a lost cause, of course not! Communities can -and we should- come together and be involved, if not shape, solutions to these problems. I was just talking about strip malls.

This is an aside, westend, so let's discuss elsewhere -- though I agree strip malls are a lost cause, I don't agree that Whalley Avenue is. The WAR Committee, WASSD and other folks over there have been working on improving it and doing new design guidelines for decades. They are up against great resistance, but I'm confident that their community vision will ultimately prevail. What is the alternative?

Guys, if you are not directly involved with the problem on West Elm and Forest, could you please move your discussion thread to another forum and let us try to solve the pressing life-and-death issues in our own neighborhood, with the cooperation of the city and state?

Your points are interesting and undoubtedly worth pursuing, but the immediate need to engineer a solution for this intersection. Let's address the education of traffic engineers in modern urban planning concepts somewhere else. Okay?

Thanks!

To get the conversation back on focus:

This article on the City's proposed solutions was in the NHI today:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/11/strategy_may_ma.php

I agree with the city that it is impossible to address just the intersection without also addressing the sightline conditions on Forest.

I like the channeling plan for the intersection, but wouldn't give up on the community's ideas for signals, roundabouts and stop signs. It is possible and perhaps even preferable to do both.

There are mountains of evidence that any of the community's ideas, if properly implemented here, would reduce crashes at this intersection by 90-100%. Signals are expensive, but if combined with other engineering measures in advance of the intersection, would greatly improve safety. Roundabouts are less expensive and, for the reasons Chris points out above, may be preferable to signals. Stop signs would not effective unless combined with significant traffic calming. Any of these would make the road safer, but only if they were done correctly and involved limiting traffic speeds along Forest.

It seems evident that the reason ConnDOT is trying to avoid any kind of change to the intersection is because they refuse to do anything about the level of speeding on Forest.

Barring a realignment of ConnDOT's thinking, real improvement to community safety here is unlikely.

After reading NHI article regarding this particular issue, (where I live, in my neighborhood) was advised about this forum Today, and commented on the Most recent threads - sorry to have gone off track - delete them Dick.

Would appreciate any info re: non-virtual meetings talking place to discuss and be more "directly" involved? What is Sergio saying/doing about this at present?

Though I've only been "tapped" at the intersection I avoid forest completely now. Cars being flashed and beeped at on Forest, Fountain, Central... as though they were driving too slow on I95... is a fairly frequent occurrence.

We have flashing orange - red at Central/Yale intersection - as an example - Woken to sounds of four crashes on that one four times this year. I totally agree that the level of speeding (whether a 4 way stop, drive circle... Forest/Elm - or chpl) has to be addressed. So what are we doing?

keep following this thread -- hopefully neighbors will post here (in advance) the next time an in person meeting is set up, or if they hear about any progress.

Does the new no- left sign render this closed?

My understanding is that the no left turn sign is a temporary measure and that additional changes are planned for the spring (when pavement marking becomes possible). The no left turn sign is an acknowledgment by the city that the intersection is problematic: basically it's a way of averting city liability in case an accident involves someone making what is now an illegal left turn. That is, the sign may not prevent an accident; but it may prevent the success of a lawsuit. It certainly will have no effect on accidents that don't involve a left turn from West Elm.

The more permanent solution that was proposed by the city engineer's office involves paint markings to direct traffic in a safer pattern than currently. At the time it was proposed, it did not involve prohibiting left turns, although the plan may have been refined further after the meeting where it was presented (on the street, last fall). So it's possible the prohibition on left turns will remain. In any case, the issue shouldn't be closed until the planned solution is implemented and we have a few months' experience with it to see if it changes driver behavior significantly.

I'd say we keep this open until more is done. More to come this spring/summer hopefully per the plan discussed with TT&P on Nov. 23, 2009.

Tree that was limiting the sight line southbound has been removed from 300 W. Elm despite the house being bank owned. Thanks to the efforts of LCI & TT&P for addressing this part of the issue.

Although visibility is important, removing trees without making other design improvements is actually likely to improve speeds, increasing the severity of crashes. Sightlines are important for pedestrian safety but those rules do not necessarily apply to high speed roads like Forest.

In fact, more trees and obstructions (like buffered, on street parking - widely used in other countries, often with chicanes) might do a lot more to improve safety on Forest Road than any other measure.

Mark, the sight line improvement benefits drivers attempting to enter Forest from West Elm. It never had anything to do with drivers speeding down Forest. The presumption is that they're typically non compos mentis, but it helps to be able to see them coming.

Next step, I hope, would be to move the stop sign on West Elm out further and to the right where we actually join Forest, for better visibility. Right now, because of the way Forest curves, the stop sign on West Elm is about 15-20 feet or more (I didn't measure) away from Forest.

Hey, about some traffic enforcement to get drivers to adhere to the posted 30mph speed limit? That would help safety, seeing how the current usual speeds are 45-50 mph.

How about the city or state actually giving a damn about our safety?

Agreed on the traffic enforcement side of things to slow down Forest traffic a bit. How about some of those signs that tell people what their speed is and blink when it is above the limit?

How about some guys with smokie the bear hats pulling people over?

Cutting the tree down on the corner helps...now if the city or state buys the house on the corner of Forest and West Elm they can make the needed road change improvements. I believe it is listed online at around $100,000 if anyone is interested in making their own improvements. I still like the speed bump idea and some flashing lights at the curve on Forest between Edgewood and West Elm.

While this intersection is still dangerous. I think we should close this issue for now and add a new one, requesting even more to be done. Thanks to TT&P for adding the no left turn sign and for also working with Parks to remove the tree on private property thus improving the sight-lines along Forest.