Freeways in Business Districts? (26. July 2007, 09:59 by Derek Young) ~ Slow Down!
Here’s a question and a bit of commentary that showed up in our inbox recently – Why are some business districts more successful than others? Is it the affluent residential areas that surround some business districts but not others? Proximity to parks and recreation areas? Or simply—the number of lanes of traffic passing through the business district?
Picture the business districts you think of as successful (Old Town, Proctor, Sixth Avenue and Fern Hill might come to mind). They all have one lane of traffic in each direction. And instead of a second lane of traffic, they have on-street parking instead, which creates a narrower street, slowing drivers. The result is a much friendlier atmosphere for pedestrians.
The situation is much different in Lincoln, South Tacoma, Portland Avenue, and Oakland/Madrona, which don’t feel as accessible. In these business districts, two lanes in each direction are devoted to cars. There is often no on-street parking.
Cars have no incentive to slow down, so they drive down the street as though on a freeway. The result is an uncomfortable environment for pedestrians, and the lack of parking keeps businesses away.
If some of our business districts are indeed hurting because of a structural problem, the solution seems almost too simple. Create on-street parking, two lanes of traffic (with possibly a center turn lane) and your business district starts to look a lot more like a neighborhood.
Would you be willing to slow down?
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
I used to travel through Proctor as part of my commute and often would stop and shop because it was handy. Between the angled parking hazard and 25 mph I avoid Proctor like the plague. It’s the angled parking that keeps me away the most…. nothing like blindly backing into oncoming traffic – or having someone back into me.
Always — something that was covered in the Project for Public Spaces workshop was the narrowing of Pacific Ave. to promote that calming effect. It’s certainly nothing new but doesn’t also work everywhere especially considering Freighthouse.
2 | Posted by KevinFreitas | Jul 26, 10:19 AM
I agree with your suggestions for these areas to succeed.
Create on-street parking, two lanes of traffic (with possibly a center turn lane) and your business district starts to look a lot more like a neighborhood.
Yep. On-street parking (curb parking) is the gold standard. Parking garages are a necessary evil at best and often blightful. Surface level parking lots are blight per se.
And instead of a second lane of traffic, they have on-street parking instead, which creates a narrower street, slowing drivers.
A cheap “traffic calming” measure which creates an “iron wall” making pedestrians feel more same.
Plus, it takes a much more motivated driver to want to go into a parking garage. That’s why it is disconcerning that the city is considering eliminating 200 on-street parking spaces on the Foss to try to force them into garages.
That is an interesting theory. Perhaps this should be a requirement in areas where the zoning has maximum setbacks of 5 feet or less.
In parts of the County, there are areas where businesses virtually have zero setbacks, but are up against major arterials. On-street would indeed act as an iron shield.
4 | Posted by snoopy | Jul 26, 10:55 AM
On another note…
Do you think having a major freeway run through a CBD actually helps it? Seattle has I-5 which goes right through the skyline. You can hardly see the Tacoma skyline from I-5.. maybe if I-5 somehow ran through our CBD, our district would have been improved. eh eh?
5 | Posted by snoopy | Jul 26, 10:57 AM
Here’s the perennial question for businesses seeking customers: If you have swarms of people ie. potential customers all around you at any given moment, then how do you get them to buy your products?
This is same issue of density posed relentlessly on this blog, in this case with people in cars rather than people in condos. If potential customers are literally just feet away then how do you get them in your establisment?
I know that I’m not the brightest spark, but I never associated a lack of parking with a lack of business success.
There are hundreds of ways a business can succeed or fail but I’d like to see a bankruptcy filing that listed a cause such as lack of parking.
Lastly, I agree with others that parking spaces at an angle produce a somewhat risky street environment with regards to awkward driving and visibility challenges.
6 | Posted by Mofo from the Hood | Jul 26, 11:35 AM
I learned recently that in our car-centric society, the hallowed “traffic study” is enough to derail any plans to reduce lanes of traffic in favor of parking.
Studies related to the “traffic calming” initiative for South 12th revealed volumes of traffic “too high” to reduce traffic to one lane each direction. (Actually, the results actually showed that westbound had too high of volumes, but eastbound could potentially be reduced to one lane…this seems strange to me, I wonder if it is related to Hwy 16 construction, or whether eastbound traffic tends to use 19th instead.)
I would assume the “other” traffic calming studies for North 21st, North 30th, and South 72nd(?) have similar results.
The traffic engineers state that if you reduce volumes on one road, it just goes somewhere else. I would contend that if we reduce capacity on all of our surface streets, maybe people will be less likely to drive their cars, not to mention be more likely to park (or get off of the bus) and visit a store in one of our business districts. If they want to drive fast, they should use the freeway.
7 | Posted by jamie from thriceallamerican | Jul 26, 11:44 AM
I guess I should add that it’s not necessarily that I support more parking along roads that are currently 4 lanes, rather that I support increased use of 2 lane roads. Provide parking as necessary, but nice wide sidewalks with some green strips are nice, too…
8 | Posted by jamie from thriceallamerican | Jul 26, 11:46 AM
I learned recently that in our car-centric society, the hallowed “traffic study” is enough to derail any plans to reduce lanes of traffic in favor of parking.
How true. Here’s what happens from what I see. The output measure for success is seen as the number of cars that move through an area…the “traffic count” even if the area is depressed, empty and vacant. There is no perceived “problem” unless traffic is backed up.
The proper goal should be to primarily revitalize the area. Thus, the question should always be what is the effect on local businesses which usually goes hand in hand with pedestrian friendliness.
“Traffic count” can still be a factor. However, it is not be a significant one unless it is a major arterial.
Yet, it is often given far too high of priority and the roads become essentially long highways to places no one wants to visit or stop at and which are essentially dead.
Yet, some traffic engineers, who often dominate the process, see this as a “success.”
An excelent book to read for people who are interested in this dillemma is James Howard Kunstler’s The Geography of Nowhere. He does a good job of explaining what happens with various traffic patterns and streetscapes, etc. He is pretty adament about what he beleives is right, but a reader who can close read and interpret for themself the varying levels of significance in an argument can really learn a lot from that book.
This is a good campanion post to the measuring-walkability post: http://www.exit133.com/1983/measuring-walkability
Why does the city only measure auto traffic? It would seem like foot traffic counts would be invaluable.
11 | Posted by ma | Jul 26, 01:46 PM
As I recall, this reduction of travel lanes in exchange for parking is what happened on Pacific between 7th & 9th a few years ago. If I recall correctly it used to have parallel parking w/ two lanes each way and a turn lane. Today it has one lane each way, a turn lane & back-out angle parking. So the question is, “Does it work?”
I’d say yes based on the increased number of pedestrians on this portion of the street, the slower traffic and the more readily available parking.
As a side note, I don’t like the back-out angle parking either (per Jane in #1 ). The back-in angle parking ends up being much safer and disrupts traffic less.
12 | Posted by DavidS | Jul 27, 10:11 AM
Whenever I tell people that I’m an urban planner, they always say, “oh, we really need you to come and work in our city because the traffic is so bad.” Well, sorry to disappoint, folks, but the truth is, more traffic and congestion is actually a sign of prosperity and is (in my opinion) much better for the city. It shows that people want to be there.
Tacoma Avenue rarely has any traffic, even during peak hours, and hardly anyone touts it as a sought-after place to be. Around UWT, there is much more traffic congestion, but it’s a magnet for cars and people. Which do you prefer? Bombed-out neighborhoods with no traffic or safe, prosperous (and congested) neighborhoods?
Well, sorry to disappoint, folks, but the truth is, more traffic and congestion is actually a sign of prosperity and is (in my opinion) much better for the city. It shows that people want to be there.
How true.
13th Street downtown is a good example of a street transformation that the city did successfully.
It used to be a three lane one way street that funneled into the freeway down the hill. Extremely precarious and dangerous to cross.
The city added bulb outs on the sidewalks for pedestrians, made the street two way and added a stop light. Much friendlier and easier to cross and I don’t see huge traffic jams. Allows people to easily walk now from the Sheraton to the restaurants on Broadway.
I don’t really see the sense of making city streets one-way only. They promote confusion and frustration from a drivers’ perspective, especially if one is driving in an unfamiliar area.
From the perspective of a pedestrian, nothing is worse than facing down drivers’ that are confused and frustrated—-the big car always wins.
If the recent traffic pattern changes noted above are the result of a shift of perspective toward pedestrian safety needs, then I see that as a win for pedestrians.
Who would argue against a safe environment?
15 | Posted by Mofo from the Hood | Jul 28, 12:13 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
