CBD Traffic Study Becomes Downtown Transportation Plan
From the Downtown St. Louis Partnership:
The Downtown Transportation Plan is moving forward with a public presentation and open house to be held the first week of December. With timely response and feedback, the report is expected to be completed a few weeks later. To meet the objectives of the study, some potential conflicts must be resolved. For instance, conversion of certain one-way streets to two-way may require the elimination of curb-side parking and loading zones on those streets. Better signal timing to make traffic flow go smoothly could conflict with making downtown more pedestrian-friendly. These are some of the issues to be fine-tuned.
I have several thoughts:
Two-Way Streets and On-Street Parking
I’m really eager to see how changing a street from one-way with on-street parking to two-way will mean we have to lose the parking and loading zones. I know some of the city buses have trouble with some corners and some bus routes might need to be rerouted. Fire engines likely have the same trouble. We are probably going to hear a bunch of BS from traffic engineers about traffic counts and how on-street parking impedes flow. I’m fully expecting the worst in convoluted logic.
Traffic Flow vs. Pedestrian-Friendly
Anything would be better than what we have now. Some blocks don’t have pedestrian signals at all. Other blocks simply turn off the pedestrian signal because they aren’t programmed to deal with things such as right turn only lanes. Most blocks take so long to change that people cross against the signal. I’ve been at lights on my bike/scooter/car and waited and waited for the light to change when no other cars are even around.
By the way, are you all aware that it is not legal to make a left from a one-way street onto another one-way street. I was one of the people that thought it was legal to do so. I didn’t get a ticket, just heard it at a meeting at East-West Gateway Council of Governments.
One-Way vs. Two-Way Streets:
We need to eliminate every one-way street in the city of St. Louis. An exception might be a few really narrow streets — those that are under 30ft wide. Otherwise they should all be two-way. Two-way streets are more intuitive when you are unfamiliar with an area. And let’s face it, for downtown to continue the rate of prosperity we need more and more folks that haven’t been downtown in a while to stop by. We don’t need lots of confused suburbanites in SUV’s going the wrong way on one-way streets.
Two-way streets are just psychologically friendlier to pedestrians. With traffic going in two different directions it adds a layer of visual interest beyond one-way streets. With one-way traffic the pedestrian is either walking the entire way against traffic or with traffic. Either way it is boring. When walking with one-way traffic you feel like you are not getting anywhere fast because all the traffic is moving in the same direction much faster. Walking against traffic you feel overwhelmed by all the traffic going in the opposite direction, as if you are going to the wrong way. With two-way traffic these forces cancel each other out.
A Study becomes a Plan
A few months ago this was a study and all of a sudden we’ve got a “Downtown Transportation Plan.” This is the first time I’ve heard this called a Transportation Plan. All prior announcements were simply talking about survey, study and updating signals. I’m not so opposed to a plan but I’m wondering how it became a plan from just a study. Did they finally realize just how messed up the current system is and needs a more comprehensive approach? Let’s hope so.
Downtown Now! vs. Downtown St. Louis Partnership
Yes, they really are two separate organizations. Never mind that each executive director is on the board of the other organization. In a continuing tag-team approach the Partnership continues to announce the study which was funded in part by Downtown Now! Sometimes I think they are deliberately trying to blur the lines between them so they both seem relevant.
Sharing Information:
My last thought has nothing to do with the above quote but how I obtained it. First, a regular reader shared the above as a comment today on a prior post on the topic. It seemed more worthwhile than being simply a comment on an old post. So I went to the Downtown Partnership website to verify the information. It is how the Downtown Partnership shares information that I find so…uh….interesting.
Many choices exist for sharing information on the internet, some better than others. I like information sites that incorporate blog technology to have the most recent updates on the top of the page. These news updates can also be sent out via RSS/XML feeds to people like me that like to monitor hundreds of sources. Other choices include updating the web page, perhaps linking to a page with latest news. PDF documents are certainly popular. When sending emails placing the text in the body of an email is popular as is a more deluxe email in HTML format. Attaching a PDF to an email is also common. What isn’t common, however, is the practice of using a fully editable Word document.
Yes, the Downtown Partnership sends out a weekly email with an attached Word document. If you go to their website and seek information such as their weekly notice or even a list of board members you immediately get a Word document downloaded to your hard drive. I happen to have Word and use my own computer so it really isn’t a big deal for me but I have friends that use the computer at the library or other such places where you can’t save documents to a drive or where Word isn’t an available application. The beauty of PDF documents is that a reader is free and is widely available. Does Bill Gates pay the Partnership to keep Word alive? If the Partnership’s website had this information as a PDF document then more people would be able to read the file. Plus, it would not be editable the way their current Word document is.
But PDF documents as a way of distributing news items is really outdated as well. Unless someone saves every week’s file they really can’t search for information reliably. However, as a blog tech site each post has its own unique web address, is searchable and can be found via search engines such as Google. This is not new but is certainly a long way away from the 1996 era of sending out Word documents. Richard Callow — please go over and help bring the Partnership into the 21st Century.
Past Posts and Final Thoughts:
New St. Louis CBD Traffic Study, July 3, 2005
Mayor’s Office Shares Details About the CBD Traffic/Access Study
, July 5, 2005Downtown Partnership’s Jim Cloar Takes Action to Keep Parking off Washington Avenue, July 15, 2005
Given the whole secrecy around the initial survey I’m suspicious about the results. We’ll know more, hopefully, in a few weeks.
– Steve
Another benefit of two-way streets in urban areas is that they naturally slow traffic. Traffic Engineers hate this, of course, and that is why they’ve switched as many streets as possible to one way. They slow traffic for two reasons. First, while driving, if traffic is moving in both directions drivers don’t feel as safe and slow naturally. Second, traffic signals tend to be longer in order to accommodate more left-hand turns. Both of these things “impede traffic flow”.
An added benefit in slower traffic speeds on two-way streets is that it makes it easier for drivers to see stores that they may which to stop at and then actually stop at those stores – or near enough where they may park and walk to them. As speeds increase in urban areas, those driving through will be less likely to spot interesting places they may wish to stop at.
For these reasons, two-way streets in urban areas actually work toward increasing the internal capture rate of the area. This decreases traffic congestion since the fewer people end up using the streets as through streets and tend to only go there if that is their final destination.
Why did I know that anything good coming out of these guys (making one-way streets two-way) would have to be accompanied by a new problem even worse than the one they are fixing (eliminating on-street parking)?
The blurring between the organizations make them seem completely useless salary engines.
While I agree with most of your thoughts for the CBD, I have a problem with the blanket statement that all one-way streets should be eliminated in St. Louis. One, in the southwest residential areas, a lot of one-ways are there to accomodate on-street parking on narrow streets with some long blocks. Two, as with all things traffic-related, it’s like a balloon. If you restrict flow in one area, it just forces it somewhere else. Making the CBD more pedestrian-friendly will either a) force traffic to the perimeter, b) encourage people to use mass transit, or c) avoid the area completely!
[REPLY – My blanket statement did have an exception for really narrow streets. The really long one-way streets in the SW part of the city really annoy me because when I’m on my bike I have to go out of my way to get around. As for the CBD changing from one-way to two-way this should not restrict flow at all. That is, the number of lanes should remain the same. Take any two one-way streets that are in opposite directions. If each have two travel lanes and you make both two-way you still have two lanes in each direction. They are just split up. – SLP]
As for the concept that slower traffic encourages business, it only works up to a point. Make congestion too great, either real or perceived, and/or reduce on-street/free/low-cost/close-in parking and you drive potential customers away. While scooter boy can park pretty much anywhere and enjoys the slower pace of traffic, he’s a distinct minority. The suburban yuppie in the SUV/minivan (that most retailers crave) is intimidated by parallel parking and places a higher value on speed and convenience. Strip malls, big boxes and lifestyle centers thrive because that’s what the market votes for with their dollars.
[REPLY – Scooter boy, I like it! People in suburbia vote with their dollars simply because they are not given a choice of candidiates. Their environment has no alternative. The only congestion downtown is a brief period during morning & afternoon rush and during games. Othewise you can stand in the middle of most intersections. – SLP]
Older areas walk a fine line when it comes to retail. Make it unique, and people will deal with the added challenges in accessing it. But for the majority of the mundane, daily life chores (like the cleaners, dentists and barbers), newer and convenient usually trumps dated and inconvenient. Retail services will grow in the CBD as the residential population increases. Expecting a return to the urban retail of the 1950’s simply ain’t gonna happen!
[REPLY – Downtown already has dry cleaners, several if I’m not mistaken. And it is quite convenient to simply walk a couple of blocks to pick it up. Granted, I’m not going to scoot six miles to a dry cleaners. Malls are failing, suburbia is failing. I can envision a return to the 1950s with downtown being the retail center of the region. – SLP]
Downtown, as in most cities, will continue to be a place primarily to work, transact government business and to be entertained. Most retail, and especially the retail of items that can’t be easily carried (groceries, electronics, clothes, cars, gas), will continue to grow in suburban areas where people can park easily. Ideally, the inner-ring suburbs and the suburban-like parts of St. Louis will (continue to) reinvent themselves to address these realities, as hopefully will the CBD.
[REPLY – I don’t know about you but I can easily carry groceries home. When I lived in the CWE I enjoyed my walks to Straub’s to get my groceries. Grocery shopping is split from that huge SUV size trip once a week to stopping at the store more often. Remember the old days when you could send the kid a couple of blocks to the store to get a few things. Suburbia has killed that but urban areas have that as an option. Trying to hold onto the SUV lifestyle in the middle of the city is pointless. The lifestyle is different. – SLP]
This one of the major achievements of what the chief planner from Toronto set to change in St. Louis and it really is a big one. Granted we need on street parking.
I love the phrase “objectives of the study.” This is cause for concern about the study-to-plan evolution.
As a property owner in the CID, I’ve been a part of a few DTSLP events and meetings, and respect the work Jim Cloar and company have been doing. Granted, they need to take a cue from the RCGA on web site design.
Downtown Now!, as far as I’ve seen evidence, serves no purpose beyond self-perpetuation.