Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1234nameuser t1_j6hw54y wrote

Reply to comment by NICNE0 in House Bill to improve road safety. Testimony starts at 9am Monday, January 30th by rubyslippers3x

If you can afford to live somewhere with NO sidewalks, then you can easily afford to live somewhere with sidewalks.

The issue here is the quality of inner city schools, no?

−8

NICNE0 t1_j6hwd0m wrote

There shouldn’t be residential areas without sidewalks, it’s dangerous for the residents and it’s dangerous for the drivers, that’s my point

10

1234nameuser t1_j6hzgbw wrote

since I'm being downvoted I'm only curious about housing prices.

Where exactly are there neighborhoods with no sidewalks that would still be less expensive than inner city Bridgeport or New Haven?

2

NICNE0 t1_j6i06rq wrote

I am being downvoted too, this is just a very controversial issue, and that is fine. Typically nicer suburban areas don't have any pedestrian infrastructure but in general, you won't find much solidarity with non-drivers throughout the state.

It is very expensive to live here, even if you have the money to buy a house, taxes won't give you a break, so it can be overwhelming this feeling of giving a lot to the state in exchange for nothing, some people get angry when you come out with solutions that imply public spending(I can't blame them), because they know this could incur into more taxation.

3

1234nameuser t1_j6i89ti wrote

I agree it'd be nice for everywhere to have sidewalks, but the density levels throughout CT make that cost prohibitive, both here and around the rest of the world.

Again, I support it and on a local level, the individual towns should be taxing their residents accordingly to support sidewalk build-outs. IF it's a priority for your family's safety, I'd recommend moving to a town that does just that, there are many.

1

NICNE0 t1_j6j56un wrote

How and why should density affect that??

1

threetoast t1_j6j5hbv wrote

If you think density is the problem, then just take away the car-exclusive space. Plenty of room.

1

1234nameuser t1_j6hxbkk wrote

Agreed,but amenities are baked into the price of home purchases. I'm still new to CT, but here in Woodbridge the build-out of sidewalks would cost a large fortune and no way would I want to pay for that.

Cyclists have the right to take the full lane anytime.

−1

NICNE0 t1_j6hyeup wrote

I don't think sidewalks are "amenities". I mean, I know what you are saying. But I think it comes to bad Urban planning, the amount of money and maintenance you give to such a thing is very marginal, I think the urban code should be modified. We waste public money on a lot of nonsense, why can't we use it for something that will benefit the community?

5

NICNE0 t1_j6hyxno wrote

Let me extend it a little bit more. I believe pedestrian infrastructure is just as elemental as vehicle infrastructure, It shouldn’t be seen as an "upgrade" it should be mandatory. The town should guarantee the safety of the residents by providing them with proper designs. If I go for a walk and a car hits me because it is a narrow road with a 35mph limit I didn't do anything wrong, nor did the driver, it was terrible urban design.

5