Residents press planning commission for clearer CIP priorities on West Haven, bike network and parks

Residents and advocates at Tuesday’s Planning Commission public hearing pressed commissioners and staff for clearer, more accessible information about where capital dollars will go and for faster action on neighborhood needs.

Multiple speakers asked for simpler public documentation — an asterisked breakdown or subcategory list showing which projects that are not labeled as “bike infrastructure” nonetheless will provide bike lanes, striping or other protections. “If you build a bridge that is connected to nothing and then no one uses it, it’s not that bridge’s fault. It’s just it’s not connected,” said Weiwei An, urging the commission to plan for a connected bike network rather than isolated projects.

West Haven residents said existing commitments to redevelopment and maintenance were unclear and appealed for targeted spending on immediate safety and recreational needs. Angela Carr, who said she grew up in West Haven and now represents residents, asked the commission to prioritize the neighborhood’s park repairs and playground safety: “We got kids over there and … the ground falling in. Let’s start with the park.”

Speakers with the Piedmont Ability Alliance and bike‑advocacy groups highlighted safety concerns on Route 29 and the need to translate strategic plans into implemented projects. Peter Krebs of the Piedmont Ability Alliance said the recently built pedestrian bridge responds to recurring fatalities: “Because people keep dying there. In fact, someone died there just a couple weeks ago,” he said.

Advocates and committee chairs urged the commission to preserve momentum on quick builds and to ensure neighborhood transportation improvement funds are visible in the CIP. James Van Vranken, co‑chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, said temporary quick builds cost roughly $500,000 last year and that the CIP shows only $100,000 for next year — a gap he said risks turning 2025 efforts into a “flash in the pan.” Staff replied that quick‑build investments are under evaluation through winter and that neighborhood transportation funds may be available for future phases.

Commissioners acknowledged the public’s concerns and included, as part of the motion recommending the CIP with amendments, direction to “fully fund quick builds to the extent of our capacity for next fiscal year” and to ensure funding is adequate to address time‑sensitive bicycle projects prior to the completion of the comprehensive transportation plan.

The public’s comments also included questions about large school projects and where in‑lieu payments for housing would be recorded and spent. Commissioners asked staff to propose a transparent competitive process for incoming in‑lieu funds and to plan staffing capacity to manage those allocations.

The public hearing portion closed after alternating in‑person and online comments; commissioners then debated and voted to recommend the CIP with the amendments described in the commission’s motion. Staff said it will return a written recommendation, with clarified line‑item details, to the city manager and council as part of the March budget transmittal.

Ending: The commission’s recommendation is advisory; final funding and appropriation decisions will be made by City Council during the budget process.