Thursday, February 16, 2023

Short Segment of Court Street goes Two-Way, Small Part of 2013 Plan

The City's announced work on Court Street downtown for a conversion to two-way traffic between Commercial and High.

via FB

The work arises from the old Downtown Mobility Study (formally "Central Salem Mobility Study"), adopted by Council in August of 2013.

Adopted recommendations, August 2013

This is a partial completion, as the recommendation was for the full length of Court Street between Commercial and 12th, and for completion by 2028. So theoretically there is still time to meet the target, but that does not at the moment seem very likely.

The project also assumed bike lanes on State Street. These seem distant yet.

Concept drawings from June 2013 (click to enlarge)

In June of 2013, the City presented concept drawings. The project may have developed since then.

In the City announcement, they reference medians and islands plural. The concept drawing showed only a modification of the existing one on the west side of Commercial Street, at what is now Isaac's Room. So it will be interesting to see where they are locating additional ones. That could be positive.

The concept drawing also showed very wide auto travel lanes, and the City could tighten them up.

This will be a real incremental improvement, but there is far to go yet on all the improvements; and as best practices continue to evolve, and our climate crises goes on, designs could continue to be refined and improved to prioritize walking and other non-auto travel.

Previously:

Addendum

The piece in Salem Reporter quoted the City:

Court street used to be a two-way street around the 1980s, but was then converted to a one-way, city spokesman Trevor Smith said. The project aims to increase pedestrian, biking and other alternate transportation options to cars while maintaining parking in both directions.

This dating does not seem right.

A piece from 1979 talking about a five year old proposal suggests Court Street had been one-way eastbound for some time.

January 12th, 1979

Three years later Council was close to adopting the plan. It is clear that "Court Street, now one-way to the east, would become one-way westbound."

January 19th, 1982

A switch from eastbound to westbound, but not from two-way to one-way, appears to have been completed in the mid-80s. (There might be more to say, as it also involved the transit center, at that time on High Street.)

Additionally, a Public Hearing Notice from September 1981 mentions the prospect of bike lanes on Chemeketa and Winter Streets. The piece from January 1982 says "council picked a version of the plan that doesn't include bike lanes." That was a renunciation we continue to pay for today.

As for the City's claim that this current project "aims to increase pedestrian, biking and other alternate transportation options," well, it helps biking a little bit, but only if you are confident enough to take the lane and ride in auto traffic on downtown streets.

In other media, the SJ has a photo of a median going in at High and Court, in front of the Grand Theater. So that would be a new one.

3 comments:

Salem Breakfast on Bikes said...

Updated with a little bit of 1970s/80s history, quibbling with some dating from the City cited by Salem Reporter.

MikeSlater said...

One of my frustrations is that we don't invest resources to connect 12th street on the east with Commercial/Front streets on the west in our core area. It's pretty clear from an urban design standpoint that the area bounded by Mission, 12th Street, Union, and Commercial/Front Street should be treated as a whole. Because of the downtown and south waterfront urban renewal districts, the City has the resources to make improvements in the area west of Church St., but the east side increasingly languishes.

Salem Breakfast on Bikes said...

You are right to point out Church Street as a real boundary, either terminating projects or splitting them in half with the east side, like the Union Street bikeway projects, needing a fully separate funding source. I do not highlight that enough. Thanks for underlining it.