The Urban Land Institute recently conducted a study on the traffic flow and parking on some of the main streets in Columbia.
Commissioned last fall from a $12,500 grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the study is focused on bringing attention to the need for a plan to make Columbia more “walkable.”
Fred Delk, the director of the Columbia Development Corporation, claims that Assembly and Gervais are too wide for the flow of traffic. While these streets get full and backed up during football games and rush hour, the average amount of traffic is lower than what they are designed for. For example, Assembly has an average of 35,000 vehicles per day; however, it is designed to carry up to 70,000.
As a part of the plan from the Urban Institute, Assembly Street would go from three or more lanes to two lanes going north and two lanes going south.
While it is understandable that the city should be more pedestrian friendly, it is hard to imagine a functional two-lane Assembly. However, while traffic is bad sometimes, maybe reducing lanes would help. Then opportunities would open up for a pedestrian bridge from the Statehouse to the Vista that was proposed by the study, as well as a park in the middle of Assembly.
Another problem the study unveiled was that Columbia in general has an overabundance of surface parking lots and garages that are not well utilized. The authors only suggest that a way be found to “discourage” this, but did not offer any suggestions on how or how much it would cost.
Delk also says that the underground garages near the capitol building are empty after legislative hours and offered that the garage could park vehicles from nearby garages or lots.
Using the underground garages would be very beneficial because it would clear up many of the meters and lots. Let’s face it, the legislative hours are only Tuesday through Thursday, and the rest of the time the garages are practically empty. If they were opened up to the public, it would help reduce parking problems on weekends.
According to Delk, the study is not “detailed” or supposed to be an “engineering study,” but is “trying to show what could be done.” The study was a good idea, especially since it was funded by a grant. The next step to improve the city would be to actually engineer a plan that puts the study in use. The time and money that would be needed to make these changes would be huge, but a more walkable and pedestrian-friendly Columbia would be nice for residents and students alike.