awebr

awebr t1_jdyfjix wrote

Within about 500-1000 feet of highways is some of the worst air quality. This is also why cities that have highways ripping through their centers have much higher rates of residents with asthma. Not to mention the noise pollution would be incredible and noise also contributes to reduced health.

Sorry but your proposal is basically another NIMBY idea. Build affordable housing even if it makes rich people sad

3

awebr t1_jdqw4e0 wrote

Reply to comment by mynameisnotshamus in MANDATORY HELMET LAW by stu8163

I know it was an incredible sight! It's actually happened a few times at the new intersection of the route 34 connector and orange st. There's red light runners essentially every single cycle of the signal because people are flying off the highway and not following the reduced speed limit signs in advance of the signal (although I don't fully blame them, nothing was done to change the design of the road to make it feel less like a highway) so there's been some targeted enforcement there.

2

awebr t1_jdom8bf wrote

Repeal seatbelt laws! This is a loss of our freedom of choice!

There's also no such thing as a "green light camera" and nothing in the bill is wholesale banning right turn on red. In dense downtown areas with a lot of pedestrian traffic, restricting right on red absolutely makes sense, in rural areas, not so much.

And regarding automated enforcement, do people really think stationing armed officers at a couple intersections around town to catch red light runners is the best means of enforcement? A camera works 24/7 and frees up officers to attend to actual police matters and not just traffic duty. I've watched officers pull people over for a couple days at a big problem intersection in New Haven - the issue is that once an officer is busy issuing a ticket, the intersection is completely unenforced for the next 10 minutes. Traffic duty is a strain on our officers and we have the technology to fix it. For the most part, the people scared of automated red light / speed enforcement are the ones who have enjoyed breaking the law to save 30 seconds on their commute.

0

awebr t1_jbvbkhp wrote

+1 for milford, although the rent might not be that much cheaper as the land use is mostly single family homes and not too many apartments. Lots of great spots to hang out in town with different vibes and it would probably be best for your fairfield/new haven situation given the metro north line. Some new apartments just went up by the train station but if you need to go out further, there are covered bike lockers.

9

awebr t1_ja4fj1w wrote

You can absolutely guarantee that on any post regarding a car driver hitting a person in the road, whether it's on reddit, the new haven independent, on scene media, local news, etc; there will *always* be victim blaming without knowing a single detail. Drivers love to project their roadway dominance onto every situation because they're the same people that get annoyed when someone crossing the road delays them by 3.9 seconds in racing to the next red light.

22

awebr t1_j9zl322 wrote

There's a security gate at either end. I've only ever seen city or government vehicles able to go through the whole tunnel. But the State St entrance is how you get to the 360 State / Elm City Market parking garage, you have to turn before the security gate.

5

awebr t1_j9rh3ke wrote

Reply to Non yale spots? by rx11wg

I'm in my late 20s and I walk around downtown proudly wearing UConn gear head to toe lol. Never got the sense that anyone really cared, I think everyone is too busy to be passing judgement

2

awebr OP t1_j8s1hrq wrote

Thanks for the concern, Pete. It was designed to handle larger vehicles as well, so I just checked it again with a 57' tiller in AutoCAD Vehicle Tracking, which is a very conservative program, and it makes it through just fine in the directions that would make sense for a responding vehicle. The sharp movements (Yale S to Chapel W, Chapel W to Yale S) would not be logical routes given the location of fire stations in the city and availability of more suitable parallel roads.

2

awebr OP t1_j8dsi8q wrote

The cycletrack is elevated with a retaining wall there because that area was an existing small hill to begin with. Since it's under the drip line of the overhead trees, there were concerns that cutting down the hill would severely damage the roots of the trees, so the cycletrack was graded in a way that it would sit on top of the hill and not require excavation in the critical root zone.

1