A pedestrian-friendlier Washington Street?

Ironically, Tarter’s article (“Destination Downtown,” 7/4/06) is about the push to make downtown more pedestrian-friendly. One could be excused for wondering why this is necessary when there is such a plethora of parking on every block. But leaving that aside for a moment, let’s look at one of the suggestions being floated:

“It’s fundamental that we make (Washington Street) more pedestrian-friendly,” said City Manager Randy Oliver indicating the six-lane road creates a barrier between Downtown and the riverfront.

Okay, that’s not an intrinsically bad idea. But when DPZ Consultants (authors of the Heart of Peoria Plan) looked at our street grid, they designated downtown streets as either “A” grade or “B” grade. “A” grade streets were suitable for slowing down traffic and making more pedestrian-oriented, whereas “B” grade streets were suitable for service entrances and other more automobile-oriented purposes.

Guess what they designated Washington Street? Yep, “B” grade. Their reasoning was that, since so many parking garages open onto it, it was already being used as a service street. Plus, it’s a state route (Route 24), which carries a fair amount of truck traffic through town.

The state route designation adds even more complexity than that. Not long ago, Steve Van Winkle wanted to add diagonal parking along a portion of Washington Street and the state denied his request. When I met with Van Winkle at one of the recent charrettes, I asked him about that, and he stated that Route 24 would most likely have to be moved before Washington could be made more pedestrian friendly.

So, the question becomes, where do we put Route 24 so that it doesn’t “create a barrier between downtown and the riverfront”? Or would it be better to leave Washington as a “B” grade street, but try to do little things (that meet state approval) to make it marginally more pedestrian-friendly?

Cat Logic: If we have too much, then we need more

In today’s installment of “Cat Logic,” we turn to Steve Tarter’s column in today’s business section of the Journal Star titled, “Destination Downtown.” I was unable to find it on the web for linking purposes, but here’s the gist of it:

Caterpillar Inc. hired Walker Parking Consultants (wow, a whole company dedicated to parking consulting — what a fascinating job that must be) to look at “a 13-block Downtown area that includes the former Sears block site for Caterpillar’s visitors center.”

Their findings? There’s a surplus of parking, and it’s anticipated that there will be a surplus of parking in the future:

In an area along the river bounded by Adams, Fayette and Harrison streets, consultants determined there were 5,011 parking spaces available with the highest use coming on a weekday morning when 64 percent of the spots were occupied. The lowest use came on a Saturday morning when only 15 percent of available parking was used.

Now, how would you, Average Joe, interpret those findings? If it were me (and I’m no high-paid executive or parking consultant), I would say we don’t need any additional parking created downtown. If, at the very busiest time of day less than 2/3 of the parking is being used, I’d say — we’ve got this problem licked. We’ve reached a saturation point; no more parking needed. Done.

What does Cat say?

Despite the finding, Caterpillar is looking for more parking at the location. “There’s a great deal of unused parking in that (Downtown) site. But Museum Square will depend on convenient parking of those visitors,” said Mark Johnson, Caterpillar’s project manager; referring to an underground parking garage that will add $3 million to the project cost while providing space for 189 cars.

Huh? Now, think about this a second. At the busiest time of any given week, not more than 64% of 5,011 spaces are being used. That means there are at least 1,804 spaces available within a 10-block area downtown at any given time. But Cat believes that the this site’s success will “depend on” having 189 more spaces (at about $15,873 per parking space) immediately on site. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say a Six Sigma black belt hasn’t been working on this project.

Incidentally, note the central location of Museum Square in the study area:

Downtown Parking Study Area

All the parking in the 10-block area — between 1,804 and 4,259 empty spaces at any given time — is within two blocks of Museum Square. In fact, the majority of it is within one block.  But according to Cat, that’s not good enough.

This is a colossal waste of money on top of an already flawed design for the Sears block. The Heart of Peoria Commission, which has been saying all along that we don’t need more parking downtown, has been vindicated by Cat’s own independent consultant’s study. But it doesn’t matter. Cat will continue on their present course, undeterred by the facts.

District 150 accused of racial discrimination

Kay RoysterThe Journal Star reports today that former Peoria Public School Superintendent Kay Royster is suing the school board (and board members Aaron Schock, Vince Wieland, Sean Matheson, and Mary Spangler individually) for racial discrimination.

Read the case for yourself
(13-page PDF file):
Kay Royster Suit against District 150

Everything I read in the suit can be explained based on performance issues rather than racial discrimination (in my opinion), except for this:

In approximately October 2002, less than three months after her contract period began, a meeting of Board Members was organized to discuss terminating Royster. Board members Allen and Martha Ross were not invited to the meeting. Both Allen and Ross are African-Americans.

If that allegation is true, it certainly is damning. Why would Allen and Ross be excluded if it were a mere performance issue? It will be interesting to follow this case and see the evidence presented during trial, assuming the parties don’t settle out of court before then. Royster has demanded a jury trial.

Meanwhile, the children of district 150 continue to be the ultimate losers in this battle. No matter whose fault it is, money that should be going to provide the best education for the students is instead going to lawyers.

Governor to protect Peoria taxpayers before signing PBC bill

I’m not a fan of Gov. Blagojevich, but I was thrilled to read this in today’s paper:

“We just want to make sure that if there’s going to be any talk about an increase in anybody’s property tax, that it can’t just happen by the School Board (or the Public Building Commission). It’s got to be by referendum,” Blagojevich said Friday.

Thus, he’s going to amend the PBC bill (SB2477) that Sen. Shadid asked him to sign to ensure just that. This is a victory for Peoria County taxpayers. The possibility of the school board being able to get around a referendum to increase taxes was the biggest complaint about the PBC bill. The governor’s amendment will make sure taxpayers are protected.