Pet Peeve - Parking on Washington Ave

buckethead · PostJul 11, 2005#12005-07-11T19:45+00:00

Since when did the second lane of Washington Ave between Tucker and 10th St going east become a parking lot??!

For the past 3 or 4 weeks cars have been parking there... and I'm not talking about delivery trucks, courier cars, or pulling over and putting your blinkers on (another pet peeve). It's like it's metered pubilc parking. And here's the most ironic part. Since it's actually a driving lane there are no parking meters. And since there are no parking meters, the parking meter maids (sorry not sure what the politically correct term is) do not give them tickets!

Sorry for the rant....

cityboy · PostJul 11, 2005#22005-07-11T19:56+00:00

Street parking on Washington east of Tucker is an absolute necessity for a variety of reasons. See http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000210.php for many of them.

We do not need a high speed thoroughfare on Washington. If anything, there DO need to be meters to not only collect revenue, but to alert the public that, yes, you should park here.

buckethead · PostJul 11, 2005#32005-07-11T20:06+00:00

Thanks for posting that link - very interesting read. My annoyance was more that it needs to be either parking or no parking... not what it is now.

However, I travel up and down washington multiple times every week day and during the morning and afternoon rush to or from work, I'd argue for a need for both lanes of traffic... especially when we have a convention in town and the streets are lined with buses.

Expat · PostJul 11, 2005#42005-07-11T20:13+00:00

I am glad to hear they are parking on Washington Avenue! A friend of mine was in St. Louis a few weeks ago. I suggested she walk up Washington Avenue from the convention center to find a good restaurant. She saw there were no cars parked on the street and was afraid no one was around --- therefore, became afraid to walk up the street. I was really disappointed and felt she got the wrong impression. Later I learned via urbanreviewstl that cars are not allowed to park on Washington and that is when I figured out what happened. Parked cars are a sign of life.

steve · PostJul 11, 2005#52005-07-11T21:01+00:00

I agree that there SHOULD be parking. I too noticed that people began to park in front of the Merchandise Mart, and it made the street feel more alive, more active. One feels protected from the street itself too. For example, I'm often forced to walk close to the curb because of a pack of slow walkers. Buses and cars FLY down the street, and having a buffer of parked cars makes me feel more safe.

Parenthetically, I like the aesthetics of the street improvements, but they seriously limit the flow of large numbers of pedestrians. Especially in front of the MM where they have those stairs projecting far into the sidewalk. As development continues and the numbers of people on the street increase, there are going to be serious problems.

As far as the legality of the parking goes, it appears to be ambiguous. Yes, there are no meters, but there are no signs forbidding parking either.

southslider · PostJul 13, 2005#62005-07-13T15:59+00:00

If four lanes is needed for rush hour and parking needed for streetlife, why not a compromise?

Simply install meters but post one-hour limits and parking restrictions between 7-9am and 4-6pm, with meter-maids enforcing the new rules.

cityboy · PostJul 16, 2005#72005-07-16T12:08+00:00

Downtown Now's Jim Cloar Takes Action to Keep Parking off Washington Avenue: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000221.php#more

I will reiterate; for Washington Ave. to live up to its potential there must be street parking east of Tucker. There was a time when parking was prohibited on Delmar in the Loop during certain hours. Can you imagine what a mess that was? I understand Joe Edwards saw the folly in such a ridiculous policy and inisted it be corrected. With him opening a bowling alley in the 1100 block of Washington I hope he insists on the same here. People seem to listen to him...

10-intuition · PostJul 16, 2005#82005-07-16T23:02+00:00

I prefer to take Metrolink whenever I goto downtown.

markinlondon · PostJul 17, 2005#92005-07-17T12:39+00:00

Allowing parking might be better than four lanes of traffic, however in the future, I would rater see two lanes for traffic and the other two lanes eliminated and used for wider sidewalks. This would allow restaurants and cafes to have more outdoor seating and create a more inviting atmosphere. Or perhaps a better area for street cafes would be the POS. What I have in mind is something like La Rambla in Barcelona where you have outdoor cafes, street performers/artists, fruit and flower vendor and kiosks all along the street. Maybe something like this would be possible as the population increases.

Expat · PostJul 17, 2005#102005-07-17T16:05+00:00

Adding parking to Wash Ave is something they can do immediately and with little cost. There is no need to keep Washington Avenue empty 24 hours a day just because some delivery trucks are going to arrive in the morning. Besides, when they built the convention center, didn't they consider this type of traffic - don't they have a loading dock in the back?? Certainly, they didn't think the whole neighborhood should be held hostage. If so, the problem is with the original planning and should be corrected.

The city should be doing everything in its power to provide the atmosphere MarkinLondon is describing. Street life is better for the tourist/convention/hospitality industry than high-speed thruways. I hope the traffic study the city is doing isn't just about moving cars in and out of downtown the fastest way possible. I hope they are planning to move cars while creating an environment for street life. Everyone wants downtown to be a destination instead of a launch pad for the freeway. Let's hope the folks in power understand this.

buckethead · PostJul 17, 2005#112005-07-17T16:33+00:00

OK, I'm definitely in the minority here, but I still believe east of tucker on washington needs 2 lanes each way for traffic. I drive up and down washington multiple times a day and it's often congested when there wasn't even people parking on the street.

There is a stop light at every corner so traffic is never "flying" down the street. And I'm not sure I understand how parked cars equals a busy area... it's people that give me the impression of a busy downtown.

Maybe in a few years when the lofts are all full it might be a different story, but right now we're trying to get people to come into downtown to visit the businesses, restaurants, shops, etc... if downtown traffic is a mess they'll just stay out in the county. And the more restaurants and shops there are the more traffice washington is going to get. I don't want it to be a freeway, but I think it is important for the traffic to flow smoothly.

It's not just the delivery trucks either and they don't just stop in the mornings. It's the delivery trucks, the couriers, the buses, the UPS and FedEx trucks, that need to be able to stop throughout the day. Some places, but not everywhere have an alley for deliveries.

xing · PostJul 17, 2005#122005-07-17T16:55+00:00

The traffic is only bad during club hours, which I think looks pretty cool. For now, I think one lane each way is fine. It's 2 lanes on the eastern half. When the area grows, maybe in 5-10 years, then they should remove the parking and open it up to traffic.

urban review st. louis · PostJul 17, 2005#132005-07-17T21:23+00:00

Buckethead I'd ask that you have dinner at Wasabi's sidewalk tables around 5pm any week night. It is quite pleasant even when traffic is backed up. People are coming to the area because of the vibe. Then spend a half hour sitting in one of the benches East of Tucker and report back how it feels.

The loop tried the no parking 4-6pm during rush hour. The traffic certainly moved faster - no question. But it also killed the businesses. They wisely change the parking so it is allowed all the time and it has a much better vibe because of it. Washington Avenue should be the same way - as it is West of Tucker.

As a cyclist I can tell you that traffic moves much faster East of Tucker, despite the signals at every corner. The feel as a pedestrian & cyclist is quite different on each side of Tucker.

We are trying to get people downtown. The trick is an area that looks vacant is not attractive. Without on-street parking the street will not look active and interesting. It will remain stagnant. We need the parking to attract people. Congestion because an area is happening is good (unlike congestion on Manchester at 141 where it is just too many cars in sprawl).

I've added a new post to Urban Review St. Louis with a poll on this issue. Please take the time to vote in my poll: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000222.php

Thanks, Steve

buckethead · PostJul 18, 2005#142005-07-18T00:59+00:00

Urban Review St. Louis wrote:Buckethead I'd ask that you have dinner at Wasabi's sidewalk tables around 5pm any week night. It is quite pleasant even when traffic is backed up. People are coming to the area because of the vibe. Then spend a half hour sitting in one of the benches East of Tucker and report back how it feels.

The loop tried the no parking 4-6pm during rush hour. The traffic certainly moved faster - no question. But it also killed the businesses. They wisely change the parking so it is allowed all the time and it has a much better vibe because of it. Washington Avenue should be the same way - as it is West of Tucker.

As a cyclist I can tell you that traffic moves much faster East of Tucker, despite the signals at every corner. The feel as a pedestrian & cyclist is quite different on each side of Tucker.

We are trying to get people downtown. The trick is an area that looks vacant is not attractive. Without on-street parking the street will not look active and interesting. It will remain stagnant. We need the parking to attract people. Congestion because an area is happening is good (unlike congestion on Manchester at 141 where it is just too many cars in sprawl).

I've added a new post to Urban Review St. Louis with a poll on this issue. Please take the time to vote in my poll: http://www.urbanreviewstl.com/archives/000222.php

Thanks, Steve

I eat there all the time. Great sushi....

Anyway, it's not when I'm sitting or walking outside - it's when I'm stuck in the traffic that I wonder how reducing the lanes will help. I know it's not always like that, but there are times it does get backed up. And when there is a conference downtown forget about trying to drive anywhere.

PostJul 18, 2005#152005-07-18T01:45+00:00

Hey Steve,

Just checked out your UrbanReviewStl site - very nice and well done!

framer · PostJul 18, 2005#162005-07-18T02:05+00:00

OK folks, I've thought about this for a few days now, discussed it (argued?) with a friend, and have changed my mind back and forth a few times. I think I have decided in favor of adding metered parking east of Tucker. All of you using the Loop's experience as an example have convinced me. Also, Urban Review's comparison of "the vibe" east vs. west of Tucker is dead on.

But I am still concerned about the awkward area where Washington meets Eads Bridge/Memorial Drive/Laclede's Landing. How can that area be improved?

urban review st. louis · PostJul 18, 2005#172005-07-18T02:18+00:00

Framer wrote:But I am still concerned about the awkward area where Washington meets Eads Bridge/Memorial Drive/Laclede's Landing. How can that area be improved?

I personally think on-street parking is a good start to improving that connection. Let's get the vibe running the length of Washington Ave all the way to Eads bridge! Before you know it loft dwellers will be routinly walking to the river. Activity on the sidewalk stops when the parking stops. Don't we want a vibrant downtown?

framer · PostJul 18, 2005#182005-07-18T05:09+00:00

Actually, I meant the awkward VEHICLE access to Memorial Drive and Eads Bridge. Yes, I agree we don't want to let people get away from the city TOO easily, but we don't want total gridlock either. That intersection really confuses me.

After reading all of the posts on the Urban Review STL site, I am now totally convinced, and strongly support metered parking east of Tucker, except perhaps a drop-off lane in front of the Convention Center. I promise I won't change my mind again. Probably.

urban review st. louis · PostJul 18, 2005#192005-07-18T13:11+00:00

Framer wrote:Actually, I meant the awkward VEHICLE access to Memorial Drive and Eads Bridge. Yes, I agree we don't want to let people get away from the city TOO easily, but we don't want total gridlock either. That intersection really confuses me.

Oh yeah, that really is messed up! The access to Northbound I-70 is odd. I believe part of the solution is to bury I-70 or remove it completely.

Framer wrote:After reading all of the posts on the Urban Review STL site, I am now totally convinced, and strongly support metered parking east of Tucker, except perhaps a drop-off lane in front of the Convention Center. I promise I won't change my mind again. Probably.

The convention center has its very own drop off drive - that is part of why the front of the building is curved. With a dedicated drop off drive and a dedicated taxi lane in front of the building I see no reason to not allow parking on the street. With thousands of people crossing Washington Ave at the Convention Center I think we should make that as pedestrian friendly as possible.

southcitygent · PostJul 18, 2005#202005-07-18T14:37+00:00

You would have to bury 70 pretty deep to avoid running into the Metro tunnel.

urban review st. louis · PostJul 18, 2005#212005-07-18T14:46+00:00

southcitygent wrote:You would have to bury 70 pretty deep to avoid running into the Metro tunnel.

True, and that is the real killer. It would be easier just to remove the highway all together and create a nice boulevard. Redirect I-70 on I-270 or I-64 and then connect with I-170 by the airport. Remove the rest.

Expat · PostJul 18, 2005#222005-07-18T15:02+00:00

After the Big Dig fiasco in Boston, I doubt if we will be seeing any Big Digs in St. Louis for awhile.

debaliviere · PostJul 18, 2005#232005-07-18T15:15+00:00

I think that on-street parking should be available on Washington as well, perhaps with the exception being in front of the convention hotel's conference facilities between 9th and 10th - it seems like that lane is needed for unloading people and supplies for events at the conference center.

urban review st. louis · PostJul 18, 2005#242005-07-18T16:05+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:I think that on-street parking should be available on Washington as well, perhaps with the exception being in front of the convention hotel's conference facilities between 9th and 10th - it seems like that lane is needed for unloading people and supplies for events at the conference center.

I can see there being times when the hotel's conference facilities would need to have some quick access there. I could see having a couple of 15 minute space or a commercial loading/unloading space. You'd still have room for a couple of regular spaces. Regardless of configuration on that block, it is better than buses going by at 30mph. For special events they could have valet permits to use the spaces in front of the entrance. But for those other times why not let people going to restaurants or shopping at Niche (in the corner of the building) park in front? - Steve

southslider · PostJul 18, 2005#252005-07-18T16:06+00:00

Traffic really only back up east of 7th street, so I don't see how on-street parking west of here would impede traffic flow. At the very least, parking could be added with reduced lanes west of 9th street, if ultimately worried about the convention center. But its cab/shuttle loading bay (curved drive in front) appears to easily handles its needs.

As for why traffic backs up east of 7th, the problem isn't Washington but other streets.

The Federal Reserve made the City vacate Locust between 4th and Broadway, such that numerous buses now turn left onto Washington from 4th, only to turn left again onto Broadway, on a short block with minimal turning bays for left-turning traffic.

The development of superblocks with St. Louis Centre, the Convention Center, and the Dome have restricted the capacity of a grid by limiting the number of through-streets between I-70 and 9th.

Then, you have the problem of I-70 itself. You have the only through north-south arterials of 4th/Broadway in close proximity to the Memorial Drive outer-roads and MLK and Eads bridge all right there.

So, it's not Washington that's the problem, but other streets being changed such that Washington, east of 9th, is used as the only remaining east-west arterial for much of the non-PSB bound Illinois rush-hour commute leaving the CBD.