And here pictured is the second set--less than a block away from the first--and located near the Chapel St. bridge. (As I stood several minutes observing the traffic crossing these humps, I noticed that this set, with the gaps between sections, was less effective. On Greenwich Ave., where 50% of the speeding involves motorcycles, a set with gaps like this would be totally ineffective since cyclists simply would speed through the gap between the sections.)

This closeup shows how the humps (made of recycled rubber) are fastened to the road: with lag screws, making removal in the Fall a simple procedure--and neutralizing the argument that speed humps are an obstacle to snow plows.
With a quick internet search I found these at www.TrafficSafetyStore.com for $83 per 3-foot section plus $65 for each 3-foot end cap. To span Greenwich Ave. (between Third & Fourth Street, where there is the greatest need) and allowing about 7 feet on each side for parking, the city would need 5 of the $83 sections plus 2 end caps: a total of $545. Quite a bit less than what it costs to transport an accident victim to the hospital.

[This was supposed to be my first post, but seems to have been lost, so read this first to make sense of my 2 previous posts.] The city consistently ignores residents' input on such neighborhood issues as speeding, instead preferring to spend tax dollars on things which the majority of residents don't want, e.g. constructing new school building without fixing what's going on INSIDE the schools. SPe3cifically, we are told consistently that speed humps are impractical, too expensive, blah, blah, blah. But guess what? We HAVE speed humps on Chapel St.--and not just one, but two--across from tiny Criscuolo Park, between East St. and James St. Here pictured is the first set near James St.

speed hump near Chapel & James.

OK, neighbors, to get some attention please go to the top of this page and click "I want this fixed too!"

FYI, there's a technical difference between an speed HUMP and speed BUMP. A hump has a more gradual rise, reduces traffic to about 15 MPH and is appropriate for use on a residential street. A bump has a higher, less gradual rise, reduces traffic to about 5 MPH, and is restricted to use in parking lots, parking garages, etc.

A City employee emailed me the following info: "The reason they [installed the speed bumps] is people
speed up when we start to close [Chapel St. to open the bridge] for boats. So this past November a van decided to run past the stop signal we use, then flew through the wooden traffic gates, then went and got caught up in the steel barrier gates which serve to stop a vehicle from going into the river. The barrier gates cost $1,600 each. The TWO that were damaged this past Nov [=$3,200 total] were also damaged in Aug 08 [= Grand Total of $6,400 in damages!]. So after this past incident the City put in the speed bumps. Now...the cars can't get a running start to beat the gates. It helped out a lot!"

A neighbor emailed me the following: "Maybe 15 or more years ago we were having a series of accidents on Howard Av. One wound up on not the lawn but at the porch across the street: my side of the street.
We asked for a speed bump and it was refused because of the hampering of snow plowing. After a couple of more accidents they decided to put the flashing light on our corner [at Howard & Sea St.]."
See my comment above re. the fact that rubber speed humps can be removed in Winter, so the oft-repeated excuse that they hamper snow plowing is not an excuse. Also, my personal experience with that flashing light at Sea & Howard is that it is utterly worthless. It is very difficult for me as a pedestrian to cross the street here due to the speeding cars that ignore both the stop signs & the flashing light.
Howard & Sixth is likewise one of the more dangerous intersections for pedestrians in City Point. The incline of the Howard Av. bridge makes it impossible to tell if cars [which invariably are speeding] are coming over the bridge, so one literally must run to cross Howard at Sixth to avoid being hit.

It seams the city employee has no price for a death. He knows all the costs for gates, and in fact installed the speed humps so the city wont have to spend the money to fix the gates.

I live in the West River neighborhood, and we spoke with our alderman, Sergio Rodriguez, about speeding in the neighborhood at our May block watch meeting. He said that speed humps (which he called speed tables) have reduced speeding in the area of Westville that's west of Forest. He also said that speed tables do not present a problem for snow plows.

Thanks John! Can you give the exact location of the Westville speed tables so I can take photos?
Now we'd appreciate some feedback on this website from Alders Jorge Perez (Ward 5) & Dolores Colon (Ward 6), since the street under discussion here (Greenwich Ave.) lies in both wards.
It also would be appreciated if Dolores would address on this website the issue of using speed tables at City Point's other 2 most notorious speeding locations: Howard & Sea, and Howard & Sixth. (These are located in Ward 6.)

It is not safe for my three year old to play, or ride her bike in front of our home. The speeders have no consideration of the children that are playing outside, or the time of day that they come speeding down the street. I live in between 4th & 5th and have owned my home for three years. My neighbors are great, and we help each other out with the up-keep of our area. It is just a shame that when the weather breaks we know that the noise and speed levels are going to increase. I wouldnt mind if my tax paying dollars went to a speed hump, and I'm sure that my neighbors wouldn't mind either !!!!!

I agree speed humps are needed at this location.

In 2008-2009, the Safe Streets Petition was endorsed in a vote by all 12 of New Haven's Community Management Teams, plus about 100 other businesses, elected officials, neighborhood groups, churches, and over 2,000 residents. It specifically called for a program of reduced speed limits on all residential streets in New Haven to be rolled out within a short timeline.

Unfortunately, very little progress has been made by the city on this requested timeline. Speed tables seem to be one of the ways to have an impact on multiple residential areas and allow for reduced speed limits to be rolled out.

Cambridge, MA, which has similiar demographics and climate to New Haven, has installed these types of measures in residential zones and has proven the following results: 1) incidences of speeding reduced from about 60% to less than 10% of vehicles, and 2) feelings of safety among neighborhood residents dramatically improved.

Please continue to ask your Alderpersons and state elected officials about the slow progress on these policy items, and continue to request smarter traffic policies in your neighborhood. A phone call is usually a great way to make contact.

I contacted Alderman Sergio Rodriguez about the speed tables in his ward, and he told me that they won't be installed for another month or two. He said that you should feel free to contact him at ward26@newhavenct.net.

An opportunity to fix these chronic problems! Next Wednesday, Jan. 26th, 2011 Mike Piscitelli and Jim Travers from the City's Traffic, Transportation and Parking Department and Douglas Haslauden and Mark Abraham from Safe Streets will meet with residents to discuss the pros and cons of the various traffic calming measures available for our neighborhood and to provide an overview of the Safe Streets program. TIME:
5 pm: MEET ON THE NEW HOWARD AVE. BRIDGE over I-95 for a quick walking tour with city officials, where we residents can explain our specific concerns. THEN at 5:30 PM AT THE SOUND SCHOOL LIBRARY, 60 South Water Street, a meeting to discuss traffic-calming options that we can pursue. I hope to see many neighbors there!

Due to the snow storm that is scheduled for this Wednesday/Thursday, we are going to reschedule the Traffic Calming Meeting (and walking tour). We are working to reschedule for February, 2011. I will let everyone know.

The TRAFFIC CALMING meeting has been RESCHEDULED for Wednesday, February 23rd. Mike Piscitelli (Traffic, Transportation and Parking Dept) and Douglas Haslauden (from Safe Streets) will discuss the pros and cons of the various traffic calming measures available for our neighborhood & provide an overview of the Safe Streets program. (Mr. Piscitelli also will provide an overview of other transportation projects happening in the city.) 5 PM: Meet on the Howard Avenue Bridge (over I-95) for (optional) walking tour with city officials, where residents can point out specific concerns. 5:30 PM: Pequonnock Yacht Club, 100 South Water Street (second floor of the Sage restaurant building) for the regular meeting.

[The following letter was just sent to the Mayor:]
Dear Mayor DeStefano:

We would like to thank your administration for its significant work since 2008 to advance the goals of the New Haven Safe Streets Coalition and the Complete Streets Order, passed unanimously by the Board of Aldermen in 2008. At the same time, we also call on you to renew your commitment to many of the Coalition’s requests that have not yet received sufficient action from City government.

Over 40 local elected officials and candidates for city office, in addition to more than 2,000 residents, all 12 of New Haven’s Community Management Teams, and dozens of local organizations and businesses, signed the Coalition’s Petition for Safe Streets in 2008. Building upon many previous efforts, this movement was forged upon a widespread concern about the need for improved public safety and quality of life, and the direct relationship of these factors to job creation, public health, crime prevention and social justice.

Through the Petition, our citywide alliance demanded a broad array of policy actions that can result in a 75% decrease in citywide traffic injuries and fatalities by 2012, and a 90% decrease by 2015. Following on this, the city’s Complete Streets Order required the “prioritization of walkability, inter-modal transit, traffic calming and pedestrian-based urban economic development over competing goals,” and created a new Design Manual for local streets. The Order stipulated that the city’s “standards will require that the target speed for streets around schools, hospitals and business districts that depend on pedestrian traffic be a maximum of 15 miles-per-hour.”

Although not meant to be an exhaustive list, please consider the following section of this letter to be a progress report highlighting your administration’s degree of responsiveness to our Coalition’s major requests. Since 2008, we have been present at dozens of public meetings related to these issues, some of them organized or attended by City staff. When it comes to creating opportunities for the long-term economic success of our neighborhoods, the presence or lack of an equitable and safe transportation system is as fundamental as any other concern.

We thank your administration for its progressive work in the following areas, in direct response to our requests:

1. The City has undoubtedly increased levels of traffic enforcement in some neighborhoods. As a result of policies set by your administration and the New Haven Police Department, the number of moving violation tickets issued in New Haven more than doubled in the year following the release of our Petition, and has remained there since. Specific campaigns were launched around illegal vehicles, DUI, and drag racing. Increased enforcement of the laws that protect our quality of life, catch many illegal firearms and stolen vehicles, and may help to reduce the hundreds of serious injuries occurring on our streets each year, is a significant accomplishment. We will detail below how there is major room for improvement in this area.
2. The City has installed dozens of in-street “yield to pedestrian” signs throughout the city. These are a proven, cost effective way to promote pedestrian comfort at intersections, and have benefits for drivers and cyclists too. Although we would like to see the signs begin to remain in place as year-round installations, as they are in other towns, the signs have had a major impact.
3. The City published the first version of its Complete Streets Design Manual. Neighborhoods now have a guide for creating more livable streets. Many have begun submitting “request forms” from the manual. Elected representatives and citizens will track these requests over time, with the help of semi-annual public reports from the Engineering Department, and ensure that they are adequately addressed.
4. The City has initiated and led a “Street Smarts” public information campaign, which has involved various media, public outreach and “walking school bus” days throughout New Haven. We thank Mike Piscitelli and Jim Travers at the Transportation Department for showing extraordinary initiative in launching and sustaining this campaign, despite their minimal staff.
5. Within the Engineering Department, a large number of new road projects are currently underway. We commend the Department staff for their hard work to attract federal and state funding for these projects. As a result of the Complete Streets Design Manual, some of them are incorporating traffic calming features, enhanced crosswalks, bicycle lanes, and other features designed to balance the needs of all road users. The Department has also maintained traffic signals and installed new “countdown” signals with extended crossing time for pedestrians.
6. The Transportation Department has been responsive to the “Bike Plans” submitted by Elm City Cycling over the past three years. City staff have installed new bicycle parking areas, including many new covered racks at Union Station, and have coordinated more than 10 miles of new sharrows and bike lanes throughout New Haven. In 2009, the Department also worked with citizens to complete an analysis of the Downtown pedestrian and bicycle circulation system.
7. The City has adopted a “Government 2.0” system known as SeeClickFix in order to better track and respond to citizen requests. This software allows a larger degree of transparency not just between citizens and government, but among citizens themselves. The City has worked with neighbors to resolve hundreds of issues including dangerous potholes, malfunctioning signals, missing in-street signs, and blocked sightlines. In fact, many of the issues reported on the SeeClickFix website have to do with traffic safety. New Haven Safe Streets has been tracking 1,771 traffic-related issues reported within New Haven. Although 862 of these (49%) have been addressed and “closed” on the site, there remain a large number of outstanding requests.

The following requests continue to demand immediate attention:

1. We continue to request public information on the amount and specific types of traffic enforcement conducted within each neighborhood. This information has not been forthcoming, except in a few cases where District Managers report it at monthly Community Management Team meetings. Publishing this information each quarter and in a machine-readable format is the best way for neighborhoods to collectively monitor and advocate for improved traffic enforcement in areas that they know are prone to dangerous behavior such as speeding and red light running. Related to this, the City and State should also find ways to report locations that experience frequent crashes.
2. The construction of Downtown Crossing Phase One must be done in a way that truly promotes multi-modal transportation in our city, and is in line with the Complete Streets Order legislation. Arguably the most important development project in decades, the conversion of Route 34 from a highway right-of-way into a livable neighborhood has strong support overall. However, major questions have been raised about the current plan, such as its incorporation of sidewalk-to-sidewalk crossing distances that are, somewhat astonishingly, planned to be in excess of 60 feet, as well as bike lanes that share the street with enormous highways. Recently, an Aldermanic resolution has been introduced which requires a very different approach. Specifically, it is time for the City to end the rhetoric about long-term plans for the area, and instead ensure that in all phases, it designs a place that is truly safe and accessible for our most vulnerable citizens. The Petition requested speeds of 15-20 miles per hour in areas such as the Hospital district, which are home to many pedestrians of all ages. The creation of lower MUTCD “area speed zones,” which can be geared to Hospital districts, can help accomplish this goal if combined with appropriate designs for the road system. The challenges of this project within Phase One can only be solved by the most progressive, out-of-the-box thinking. The recent reconstructions of Whalley Avenue in Amity and Whitney Avenue lacked this approach, and have left many residents and local elected officials feeling quite disappointed and vulnerable.
3. The City needs to greatly expand its routine use of traffic calming measures. The City’s 2011-2012 Consolidated Action Plan for Housing and Community Development lists a goal of one traffic calming project per year. Particularly given the number of Complete Streets requests, we must be frank that this is not an acceptable pace of improvement within a city of our size, as it will never enable the City to meet its economic development and health goals. Due to budget limitations, other cities have begun looking into lower cost measures such as so-called “temporary” curb extensions and bollards similar to the ones used around many construction sites (which in many cases may be seen as semi-permanent, not temporary), as well as modifications to striping and signage policies.
4. The Petition demanded the urgent study, and enactment, of speed reductions within residential zones and core commercial districts. Slower streets promote business, and are the key to healthier enjoyment of our neighborhoods by people of all ages. New York City is enacting 20 mile per hour speed zones in 75 neighborhoods. After London enacted 20 mile per hour zones, injuries and fatalities there dropped by more than 50%. Within Connecticut, many places including Hartford, Darien, Greenwich and the New Haven suburbs have speed limits posted at between 10 and 20 miles per hour. New Haven needs to immediately begin realigning these types of streets along the model of “Living Streets” and “Twenty’s Plenty.”
5. The City should accelerate its work to create a citywide, interconnected system that makes cycling accessible for all residents. The city’s primary west-to-east travel routes of Whalley Avenue and Elm Street are among many key “gaps” in the system that have been mentioned in the Transportation Department’s published plans for nearly 10 years, but remain unaddressed. The Tomlinson Bridge (even after the minor improvements made last month) continues to be highly inadequate for cycling, even though it is part of Connecticut’s official cross-state bicycling route and the only realistic connection between Downtown and the east side of New Haven. The city should look not only at bike lanes and sharrows, but at some of the more progressive bicycling facilities suggested by the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, which are now seeing widespread adoption throughout North America. After similar facilities were installed in Seville, Spain between 2007 and 2010, the number of cycling trips increased dramatically, from 6,000 per day to more than 60,000 per day.
6. The City must improve the maintenance of key facilities for walking and bicycling, particularly during winter months. The recent bill to protect municipal liability, P.A. 11-211, takes effect on October 1st and means that there are no longer any excuses to making facilities like the Farmington Canal Trail available for commuters during the winter months. In addition to better plowing, sidewalk enforcement is needed. The snowstorms of 2011 – which forced children and elderly residents to walk in the middle of busy streets like Whalley Avenue, and resulted in many ice-related falls and injuries – demonstrate that new policies are needed for key walking routes. Finally, throughout the year, City departments must pay more attention to property enforcement, pothole repair and street sweeping along the city’s busiest cycling routes, such as Chapel Street where it passes several scrap metal yards.
7. The City must continue to push aggressively for statewide legislation that will help meet the goals of the Complete Streets Order. Although the City and Police Department have made efforts over many years to support legislative campaigns, such as one that would allow intersection safety cameras in large municipalities and one that would ensure pedestrian safety receives its fair share of funding from highway funding streams, some of these proposals have been thus far unsuccessful. The City has supported new laws that improve safety, like the State’s award-winning 2009 “Complete Streets” Law, but more work is needed.
8. The City must strengthen its efforts to promote parking and transportation demand management (PTDM). The overwhelming majority of jobs located in New Haven are not held by City residents, resulting in very large traffic volumes that have become a significant health hazard to many of our core urban neighborhoods. The City and Rideworks have worked extensively with employers to increase carpool and transit use, resulting in a small but significant mode shift. However, this mode shift is not likely to improve more until the city incorporates PTDM into all of its zoning ordinances, and shifts its system of direct and indirect subsidies away from cars and garages and towards transportation alternatives.

We again thank the City for its work on behalf of this vision, and request that you take the additional steps that are needed to bring it to reality.

Best regards,
[46+ signatures of various aldermen, community management team members & various community leaders were included]
The authors of this memo kindly request a reply. Contact: Mark Abraham, Coordinator, New Haven Safe Streets Coalition, newhavensafestreets@gmail.com, (203) 500-7059.

Go to YouTube.com and type in "better block project" in the search. Then check out do-it-yourself safe street transformations like this one: http://youtu.be/18bfh--Tq6M

Has the speeding here been addressed? If not, has the Alderperson been contacted about their support for submitting a Complete Streets Request Form?

We just had bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalk signs installed [via a grant] along Howard Ave, one block over from Greenwich Ave. I suspect that's going to be it for this area for awhile due to cost. I'd be happy just with more police presence to stop the chronic speeding on Greenwich, between 1st & 5th.

Have there been any tickets given out? See Request Item #1 in the letter that was posted in the comments below.

I have not seen the NHPD take any action on this request yet, despite numerous requests and in person meetings about the subject.

I post the police log for this street every month. As you can see, people rarely are ticketed on Greenwich Ave.: http://www.citypointnewhavenconnecticut.net/monthly_police_log

Thanks Chris. Glad you are sharing that type of info. I agree the number of tickets in certain areas is too low and/or intermittent.

The request for more is because it would be helpful to know which of those tickets are for speeding or running lights during the daytime when people are out, versus just things such as unregistered vehicles, DUI, etc., that may make up the majority of tickets overall.

PS Without information like this there is no way to have accountability or action. If you want to see change on this, please call the Mayor (203) 946-8200 and Rob Smuts (203) 946-7900, as well as your Alderman, and ask them why there has been no action taken on request #1 within this letter, which was written by representatives of all 12 of the Community Management Teams (and many other neighborhood groups), and many Alderpersons, one year ago:
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1101479047374-39/Safe+Streets+Letter+to+Mayor+DeStefano+082411r.pdf

I'll back you up on this issue, the speed bumps are an excellent idea. Would do double duty by curbing illegal street bikes as well. Senator Toni Harp brags on her website that she secured 2 MILLION dollars to renovate, (not build) 17 units in the middle on Frank Street. She says she has a "homeless initiative" and wants to end homelessness in 10 years. That's kinda weird, because several tenants were evicted from those apartments and put out so they could "renovate" the complex. If she can find 2 million dollars (about $350,000 per unit) to "renovate" a new haven housnig authority complex that was never properly taken care of in the first place, why can't she find money to pay for speed bumps? The speeding by cars and bikes is a threat to public safety and a lot of people have gotten hurt, there has also been a lot of property damage. Toni Harp, learn to prioritize! Why don't you keep the spending on Frank street down to $100,000 (ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS) per unit and spend some money on speedbumps.

As of 2013 City departments have begun to review, acknowledge and respond to SeeClickFix issues. Since your issue is in the category titled "No Service Request" and was submitted prior to 2013, we are going to close and archive it. If this issue still requires City attention, please report as a new SeeClickFix issue. Thank you.