Complete Streets...going overboard?

[Mergingtraffic]

In my state CT, the DOT's new focus is bike/ped/mass transit. OK fine, but it seems to be overboard as it seems the DOT can't advertise a project without some bike/ped aspect to it.

Take the following excerpt from a traffic study in New Haven, CT, where there are currently some free-flow movements from I-91 to Foxon Blvd (CT-80) See map here: https://goo.gl/maps/EnrP1


Elimination of Slip Ramps at Middletown Avenue and the I-91 Interchange 
As discussed with the City of New Haven, a redesign of the existing I-91 off-ramp to eastbound Foxon Boulevard is currently being investigated by the Connecticut Department of Transportation.  Based on discussions at the Foxon Boulevard Study stakeholder meetings, it was suggested the existing slip ramps on Foxon Boulevard to and from I-91 and Middletown Avenue be eliminated in lieu of a potential reconfigured design of the ramps/roadway intersecting Foxon Boulevard.  The purpose of this potential redesign is to reduce the speed of traffic exiting/entering I-91 and Middletown Avenue via the existing slip ramps and to provide shorter, more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly crossings at these intersections.  Removal of the existing slip ramps and their associated acceleration/deceleration lanes on Foxon Boulevard would also aid in calming traffic on Foxon Boulevard, in particular the movement at the I-91 off-ramp to eastbound Foxon Boulevard.  Based on the number of rear-end accidents in the eastbound direction between Middletown Avenue and Quinnipiac Avenue as well as the observed speed of vehicles exiting the ramp to eastbound Foxon Boulevard, removal of the existing slip ramp and deceleration lane would slow vehicles that would otherwise continue traveling at near interstate-level speeds on the approach to the New Haven Plaza shopping center.

SO, they want to take away the free-flow movements for bike/peds?  Really??!  Locals know there aren't that many cyclists around there or peds.  Why is it so bad for traffic to move at higher speeds? or better yet: why is it such a crime for let traffic flow through smoothly?!   Some places it is warranted.  I'm not saying traffic should race through this area but soon every road is going to be 25mph.   How about adding some turn-lanes?!? I didn't see anything on that.

In East Hartford, 4-lanes roads are now 2-lane roads with bike lanes in spots.  I see traffic bunch up a bit as the right lane ends (for the bike lane) 

There ARE places where bikes/peds don't belong or aren't necessary.   Meanwhile there are quite a few bike trails around the area. 

There's other plans in the state that downgrades the easy-flow or movement of vehicular traffic for bike/peds.  (US-6/CT-66 intersection, the end of I-384 for you locals)
How is it where you are?

[froggie]

Not knowing the specific details of the situation you describe, here's a couple more generalized comments:

- Yes, slip ramps allow traffic to make the turn faster.  But faster turning traffic both makes it harder for that traffic to see bikes/peds that may have the right-of-way, and also results in more severe injuries and a higher likelihood of death in the case of a crash involving bikes/peds.  As a general rule, slip ramps do not belong in an urban area.

- There may not be very many bikes/peds because road design and land use decisions over the past half-century have been so predominantly automobile-oriented that there's very little infrastructure for them, even (especially?) if the demand exists.  Wholesale reconfiguration would be expensive, so one needs to start small with little bits here and there.

[jeffandnicole]

Looking at the aerial view you described:

There's no place for bicyclists/pedestrians to go west of I-91.  It appears to be an industrial area consisting of a junk yard, maintenance yard, and other industrial stuff.

There's no or very limited shoulder area in the area around I-91, meaning there's no place for pedestrians to walk anyway. 

Your quote includes a line that mentions numerous rear-end crashes.  Is that from the speeds of vehicles coming off the ramp, or is it due to the left turns that are permitted from Foxon into that parking lot?  That movement could be better executed by forcing traffic to turn left at the existing traffic light.

I get what the ped/bicyclist community wants.  And yes, I get that some people will say there aren't that many peds/bicyclists because the roads aren't safe for them.   But they definitely go overboard in my opinion when the likelyhood of them bicycling or walking in the direction of an industrial park is nill.

[Pete from Boston]

Middletown Ave. west is a through route over the Quinnipiac River, of which there are not very many.   The cyclists are surely not wasting energy looking for better access to industrial sites.

[SectorZ]

As a cyclist and driver I have no problem with that current configuration. I cross plenty of slip ramps and just learn to try and time in with approaching cars to 'slip' behind them as they enter the road. It's not rocket science, and part of this encouragement of the gov't to get people out on bicycles puts new bicyclists out there who aren't fearless enough to deal with traffic.

[Revive 755]

In the CT case cited, I might lean towards being overboard with the traffic calming.  If there's a problem with speeding vehicles, let the locals have a cop out there and collect some revenue.  But looking at Streetview, it appears that traffic exiting NB I-91 and going EB on Foxxon doesn't see a single speed limit sign until a decent distance after the ramp.

As for crossing distances, as a ped, I prefer dealing with right turners separately from the through traffic.  And if they remove the deceleration lanes before the slip ramps, there is a risk of increasing rear-end crashes and probably also an increase in liability.

I think the better question is should CT being calming traffic, or just putting bikes and peds on a separate path in the area?

[vtk]

Why shouldn't there be bike traffic in an industrial area? Industries have workers, and those workers may want to bike to work.

[realjd]

It's the Department of Transportation, not the Department of Automobiles. They should absolutely be obligated to consider pedestrians and cyclists in their new designs.

[jeffandnicole]

Consider, Yes. Obligated to rebuild an intersection without any studies whatsoever that pedestrians or cyclists would use it? No.

If a group of people that works in the industrial complex approached the town saying they want better ped/bike access, it should be taken seriously. If an organized group of people that simply wants better ped/bike access at every intersection came to the town saying that they should make the intersection ped/bike friendly for the workers in the industrial park, it should be considered with hesitation.

[roadfro]

^ I don't know about this situation, but sometimes there is a regional plan that will make use of existing streets to connect bike lanes/trails. It's usually something that is vetted out by local government planners with input from citizens and interest groups.

Both Reno and Las Vegas have similar regional plans. Reno, in particular, has done several "complete street" / "road diet" transformations in the last 5-10 years. This usually involved taking a 2+2 lane street with on-street parking and turning it into a 1+1+1 (one lane each direction plus center turn) and adding bike lanes. In these cases, the roads were not so congested that they could afford to lose the travel lane. Afterwards, the vehicle speeds tend to lower a bit as well, so it is safer for bikes, peds, and vehicles using the on-street parking.

[Duke87]

I will agree that ConnDOT is showing a disheartening tendency to solve problems with downgrades instead of upgrades.

But I agree with their point in this particular case. It is rather crazy to have an acceleration lane that continues through a signalized intersection. That merge is designed like a merge onto a freeway and isn't really appropriate for a merge onto a suburban arterial. Even neglecting bike/ped considerations, it's not the best from a car safety standpoint since it encourages unduly high speeds.