Increasing parking on Ridge Avenue in East Falls

[billy ross]

Tomorrow night at 7pm at Falls Pres (Midvale and Vaux) there will be a vote on a controversial initiative to add parking to East Falls' riverfront business district. There are people who feel very strongly that this is a good proposal (I am one of them) and there are people who think it's an awful idea. I call them the 'not one blade of grass' people. Essentially the plan, as I understand it, is to move the curbline in at the Inn Yard park to create parking where people used to park on the sidewalk before the bike racks and trees were installed to block this. There would still be a footway for pedestrians. I'm hoping that the travel lanes would shrink (they're overly wide now) so that the curb doesn't need to be set back the full width of a parking space, but honestly I'm not sure. Either way, I find it to be incredibly frustrating that when I am driving south on Ridge and I need to run an errand, I need to turn my vehicle around in order to park legally, then if I need to continue south I need to turn the vehicle around again. Having parking on both sides of Ridge needs to be something that we build into our plan, so that whenever anyone wants to redevelop a parcel along that stretch of Ridge, the curblines are adjusted to allow for parking on that side of Ridge. That is the plan for the Rivage site, and I'd like it to be the plan for the stretch where the Inn Yard is, and for all of the Ridge in our commercial district. Existing buildings would be grandfathered in, of course.

[Malloy]

I really don't understand why one would fight this. I guess I need to show tomorrow to see what the big fuss is all about.

[Hypebeast]

I'm all for this. It will be a necessity once onion flatts is completed.

[Speedbump]

Tomorrow night at 7pm at Falls Pres (Midvale and Vaux) there will be a vote on a controversial initiative to add parking to East Falls' riverfront business district. There are people who feel very strongly that this is a good proposal (I am one of them) and there are people who think it's an awful idea. I call them the 'not one blade of grass' people. Essentially the plan, as I understand it, is to move the curbline in at the Inn Yard park to create parking where people used to park on the sidewalk before the bike racks and trees were installed to block this. There would still be a footway for pedestrians. I'm hoping that the travel lanes would shrink (they're overly wide now) so that the curb doesn't need to be set back the full width of a parking space, but honestly I'm not sure. Either way, I find it to be incredibly frustrating that when I am driving south on Ridge and I need to run an errand, I need to turn my vehicle around in order to park legally, then if I need to continue south I need to turn the vehicle around again. Having parking on both sides of Ridge needs to be something that we build into our plan, so that whenever anyone wants to redevelop a parcel along that stretch of Ridge, the curblines are adjusted to allow for parking on that side of Ridge. That is the plan for the Rivage site, and I'd like it to be the plan for the stretch where the Inn Yard is, and for all of the Ridge in our commercial district. Existing buildings would be grandfathered in, of course.

I believe the legal minimum width for travel lanes is 11 feet and parking is eight feet. That would mean a total width of 38 feet for the street (without bike lanes) from curb to curb. Narrow travel lanes encourages most ( not all) folks to drive at reasonable speeds and close to (or at) posted speed limit. It's good to see parking going in here as it means better accommodation for folks patronizing businesses and seeking access to playground and park.

[billy ross]

I believe the legal minimum width for travel lanes is 11 feet and parking is eight feet. That would mean a total width of 38 feet for the street (without bike lanes) from curb to curb. Narrow travel lanes encourages most ( not all) folks to drive at reasonable speeds and close to (or at) posted speed limit. It's good to see parking going in here as it means better accommodation for folks patronizing businesses and seeking access to playground and park.

I think the travel lanes are now 15 feet, which is far too wide. If so we may only need to move the curb 3 feet to accomodate the parking; right now the curb-to-curb distance isn't enough to have travel in both directions and parking in both directions. This is of course the problem at 4800 Ridge, where Ali Baba is, and it should have been fixed with the redevelopment of Gustine Lake and the addition of Arthur Ashe.

This adding of parking at the Inn Yard isn't a done deal. There are people who are vociferously opposed to it who will be out in force tonight. I don't think there are many of them, but their voices will be loud. To be honest, I expected more people on this board to be on the fence or to be anti-parking. Maybe I didn't do a good enough job of giving the other side's position. They feel that this will be a taking of a piece of the park, since the park will shrink by somewhere from 3 to 11 feet to enable this to be accomplished. Moreover, trees were removed to put in the playground - which went in over strong opposition, if I recall correctly - and more trees would need to removed in order to be able to effect this adding of street parking. Of course, none of those trees are particularly old, and of course they can be replaced, but they feel put-upon that their park is being usurped while at the same time mass arborcide is going on. I think that even after the recent tree removal at the Inn Yard it still resembles more of an arboretum than a city park, so I'm not sympathetic to their hysteria. I am extremely pro-tree, but if some need to be removed I'm not going to lose any sleep. We'd just need to come up with a good landscaping plan and implement it, so that we can have a gorgeous park there. I've already pointed out to people that if you were to observe the trees on both sides of Ridge, the ones on the side with no parking have been horribly abused by maniacs intent on destroying their cars, while the ones on the side of Ridge with parking are growing straight and true, protected by the parked cars. As a pedestrian, the terribly abused condition of the street trees and bicycle bars on the side of Ridge with zero parking makes me extremely uncomfortable and I look forward to being protected by a row of parking separating me from the maniacs who continually veer their automobiles out of control.

[Kensolaw]

I will be unable to attend the meeting tonight but I really hope that this proposal passes this evening. As a resident of Stanton Street I understand the need for increased parking for the current and future businesses on Ridge Avenue. The parking spaces could be added as Bill has already commented without damaging Inn Yard Park.

[Malloy]

Remove the basketball courts and fill the space with trees?

[PhillyTex]

I think comprehensive parking would be a tremendous benefit to East Falls in general. It would get more passers-through to patronize the businesses, and it would alleviate some of the stress on the homeowners in the surrounding blocks who compete against visitors for parking near their homes. I can't see why anyone would oppose this. Maybe some people have no car and also prefer so see empty retail spaces in the most visible part of their community?

[friendlynerd]

I also can't be at the meeting but I think moving the curb and adding parking is a fine idea.

[dukeboards]

As long as they maintain a sidewalk I'm for it.

The problem I see with it is not so much losing park space as the traffic congestion it could cause. That strip is already a mess, always backed up. Having bad drivers try to parallel park on both sides will further clog it up. It doesn't really bother me since I avoid it as much as possible, but I can see it becoming gridlocked.

[Naveen]

Sheesh. Another important meeting and I won't be able to get into town early enough. I do think we need parking on both sides of Ridge for all of the above reasons. I think (hope) with the Rivage project, there will be new life for at least part of the empty slots on Ridge, and that parking will be needed.

[Malloy]

Gridlock is better than cars speeding through IMO.

[Naveen]

Gridlock is better than cars speeding through IMO.

Agreed. Now if we could just get some gridlock on Henry!

[Juntonian]

I believe the legal minimum width for travel lanes is 11 feet and parking is eight feet. That would mean a total width of 38 feet for the street (without bike lanes) from curb to curb. Narrow travel lanes encourages most ( not all) folks to drive at reasonable speeds and close to (or at) posted speed limit. It's good to see parking going in here as it means better accommodation for folks patronizing businesses and seeking access to playground and park.

The street right-of-way in this section of Ridge Avenue is 60', with the roadbed (width between curb lines) being 34'. Facilitating parking on the south side of Ridge would then seem to necessitate reducing the width of the footway on the south side from its current 13' to 9' (roughly by a third), or alternatively maintaining a 13' wide footway by encroaching upon the park footprint. Keep in mind that in actuality the usable sidewalk would be narrower than 9' (perhaps more like 6', which is just enough for two people to walk side-by-side or past one another in opposing directions) when trees, utility poles and eventual PPA kiosks are installed. The road as currently configured provides two travel lanes 13' in width (provided the parking lane is the minimum 8' in width).

Is this proposal limited to the area immediately adjacent to Inn Yard Park (meaning would it in effect create a curb indent on Ridge only between the extant houses on the north and the fire house on the south)?

[Naveen]

Is this proposal limited to the area immediately adjacent to Inn Yard Park (meaning would it in effect create a curb indent on Ridge only between the extant houses on the north and the fire house on the south)?

Here's the proposal:

[Juntonian]

So it would be a localized indentation, and the roadbed and traffic lanes would remain as wide as they are presently. An 8' wide footway is not particularly commodious when one takes into account any future utility installations, trees, etc. The drawing notes the location of existing bollards, utility poles and trees, but not any proposed relocations, unless I'm missing something. By way of comparison, the footways on the Walnut Street bridge over the Schuylkill are currently being widened to 12' from their original 8' width. Nobody who has ever walked across that bridge would say that 8' is particularly wide or comfortable. Granted, there will be parked cars acting as a buffer between vehicle and pedestrian traffic on Ridge which is not the case on Walnut and heightens the level of discomfort there, yet Ridge is a major artery that cuts straight through the heart of our business district. Generous accomodations should be made for pedestrian traffic. If this stretch ever does become more developed, I think 8' wide sidewalks will prove insufficient. I am, however, very much in favor of that pedestrian crosswalk at Stanton Street. Outstanding idea and glad to see it included if this proposal moves forward.

[Mike D]

How did things turn out?

[eldondre]

So it would be a localized indentation, and the roadbed and traffic lanes would remain as wide as they are presently. An 8' wide footway is not particularly commodious when one takes into account any future utility installations, trees, etc. The drawing notes the location of existing bollards, utility poles and trees, but not any proposed relocations, unless I'm missing something. By way of comparison, the footways on the Walnut Street bridge over the Schuylkill are currently being widened to 12' from their original 8' width. Nobody who has ever walked across that bridge would say that 8' is particularly wide or comfortable. Granted, there will be parked cars acting as a buffer between vehicle and pedestrian traffic on Ridge which is not the case on Walnut and heightens the level of discomfort there, yet Ridge is a major artery that cuts straight through the heart of our business district. Generous accomodations should be made for pedestrian traffic. If this stretch ever does become more developed, I think 8' wide sidewalks will prove insufficient. I am, however, very much in favor of that pedestrian crosswalk at Stanton Street. Outstanding idea and glad to see it included if this proposal moves forward.

tehre are simply tradeoffs if the space the city has to work with is capped on 34'. what if you widen the sidewalk to 13', taking the land from the park but then expanding the park on the riverside by taking the parking area that exists there...essentially, moving the parking from the river side of the park to the business district of the park?
one could go further and ask whether you need that stretch of east river at all or if the whole section out to kelly could be made park. (not something I feel qualified to take a stab at)

[Naveen]

How did things turn out?

I wasn't able to make the meeting, but I was told the proposal passed with overwhelming support.

[genius5432]

The proposal passed by a vote of 46-17. Although no one mentioned a time frame for this project. Are they going to start construction immediately? Next month? Next year?