One-way streets in South Boston (major, compared, green, community)

[impala096]

Originally Posted by nei

Though for a residential street, that could be a plus. It discourages thru-traffic and keep traffic speeds low.

The speed of traffic along an urban street is largely dependent on how much street friction is present. Southie has on-street parking, a mature tree canopy, short crossing distances and regularly spaced pedestrian crossings; all which increase the amount of street friction. Here are some examples of one-way streets that have lots of friction which may lead to slower speeds:

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/r...pst7l2mzdd.jpg

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/r...psgd0kokyv.jpg

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/r...psxlq7p7ah.jpg

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/r...psegygqljn.jpg

[impala096]

Many urban planners have an irrational disdain for one-way streets. They seem to focus entirely on 1960s style one-ways and fail to recognize what a complete one-way street of today looks like. What's so bad about this street?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by impala096

Many urban planners have an irrational disdain for one-way streets. They seem to focus entirely on 1960s style one-ways and fail to recognize what a complete one-way street of today looks like. What's so bad about this street?

That's a complete falsity and terrible misunderstanding of urban planners. Context is critical. A narrow complex multimodal tree lined street with on street parking (though they should move the parking to outside the bike lane) you show would be greatly favored by urban planners. When one-way streets become an issue are on the broad thoroughfares through many CBDs that were converted in the 50s and 60s to be high speed auto dominated vomitoriums to the suburbs. Those are a travesty and should be converted back to the two-way streets.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by Komeht

That's a complete falsity and terrible misunderstanding of urban planners. Context is critical.

It’s not a ‘complete falsity’ to claim that many urban planners have an irrational disdain for one-way streets. Take a listen to the disparaging statement about one-way streets in this video (listen at 58:25):



In this case things like one-way streets, which we also hate, are your friends here.

This was said in a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, a prominent urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans. He is the director at the FAU School of Urban and Regional Planning and for him to have such a negative view of one-way streets is concerning. I realize this is just one example, but if you read enough articles about this issue you will inevitably hear urban planner speaking of one-way streets in a similarly disparaging manner.

Originally Posted by Komeht

When one-way streets become an issue are on the broad thoroughfares through many CBDs that were converted in the 50s and 60s to be high speed auto dominated vomitoriums to the suburbs. Those are a travesty and should be converted back to the two-way streets.

You sound biased when you suggest that auto-centric one-way streets should be converted back to two-way streets. Is that really the only option? Why can’t auto-centric one-way streets be converted to non-auto-centric one-way streets? Take a look at what NYC did with 1st Avenue:

1st Avenue (pre-2010):


1st Avenue (post-2010):

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by impala096

It’s not a ‘complete falsity’ to claim that many urban planners have an irrational disdain for one-way streets. Take a listen to the disparaging statement about one-way streets in this video (listen at 58:25):



In this case things like one-way streets, which we also hate, are your friends here.

This was said in a webinar by Dr. Eric Dumbaugh, a prominent urban planner spearheading the removal of the I-10/Claybourne Ave freeway in New Orleans. He is the director at the FAU School of Urban and Regional Planning and for him to have such a negative view of one-way streets is concerning. I realize this is just one example, but if you read enough articles about this issue you will inevitably hear urban planner speaking of one-way streets in a similarly disparaging manner.



You sound biased when you suggest that auto-centric one-way streets should be converted back to two-way streets. Is that really the only option? Why can’t auto-centric one-way streets be converted to non-auto-centric one-way streets? Take a look at what NYC did with 1st Avenue:

1st Avenue (pre-2010):


1st Avenue (post-2010):

Can't tell if you're running schtick or not. So not going to continue the debate except obviously, and again, context matters as it did when he is speaking (positively about one-way streets in a certain context). And again - there are lots of different ways to deal with streets - the one in NY added a lot of complexity back into the street. You have protected bike lanes, pedestrian shelters, a transit priority lane, lane width reductions, reallocated two traffic lanes to other modes. All of those are good things and obviously improvements.

Is that the best of all configurations for that street ROW? IDK, but there's an awful lot of ways to skin that cat. What about a treelined median with slip lanes? What about reallocating more of the ROW towards pedestrians which in NYC is the lion's share of travel? Why not consider a two way conversion? All of these things would depend on context. A concept that seems to escape you.

Many american downtowns suffered greatly by the one-way conversions in the 50s and 60s. We're changing them back because this massive experiment we tried nearly everywhere at once was one of the most spectacular failures of 20th century. The two-way conversions, by and large, have been tremendously successful. As a matter of fact, if you have evidence of failed two-way conversions, I'm sure you'll let us know. In the meantime, I'd sure appreciate it if you stop making assumptions about which you have incredibly limited knowledge about.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by Komeht

And again - there are lots of different ways to deal with streets - the one in NY added a lot of complexity back into the street. You have protected bike lanes, pedestrian shelters, a transit priority lane, lane width reductions, reallocated two traffic lanes to other modes. All of those are good things and obviously improvements.

Is that the best of all configurations for that street ROW? IDK, but there's an awful lot of ways to skin that cat. What about a treelined median with slip lanes? What about reallocating more of the ROW towards pedestrians which in NYC is the lion's share of travel? Why not consider a two way conversion? All of these things would depend on context. A concept that seems to escape you.

The context of 1st Avenue in NYC is already known. Take a stab at your own question. Should the city have converted 1st Avenue to a two-way street? Was there even talk to convert it to a two-way street before the 2009 improvements? Maybe a two-way street isn't the best fit. I'm sure someone who understands what context means would agree with that.

Originally Posted by Komeht

When one-way streets become an issue are on the broad thoroughfares through many CBDs that were converted in the 50s and 60s to be high speed auto dominated vomitoriums to the suburbs. Those are a travesty and should be converted back to the two-way streets.

Wouldn't most of the one-way avenues in Manhattan be considered auto dominated broad thoroughfare? First Avenue was originally converted to a one-way street in 1951. I assume, based on your previous statement, that you believe all the major one-way avenues in Manhattan should be converted back to two-way streets. Good luck with that proposal.

Originally Posted by Komeht

The two-way conversions, by and large, have been tremendously successful. As a matter of fact, if you have evidence of failed two-way conversions, I'm sure you'll let us know.

In regards to pedestrian safety, converting to two-way streets has been a failure. A recent study analyzes the potential impacts of converting one-way streets to two-way streets in Oakland, California. Included in the study is a literature review of twenty-seven different journal articles relevant to the topic (see AppendixD).

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/gr.../oak034137.pdf

Safety Impacts of Converting Two-Way Streets to One-Way Streets:

POSITIVE: Portland, Oregon (1949) - Portland converted most of their downtown two-way streets to one-way streets in the late 1940’s. After conversion, vehicle accidents decreased from 6,127 to 3,361 (-45.1%). The number of pedestrian accidents decreased from 237 to 126 (-46.8%). Volume of traffic in downtown increased from 12,734 to 16,708 vehicles (+31.2%) and average speeds increased from 7.9 mph to 14.2 mph (+79.7%).

NEUTRAL: Olympia, Washington (1950) - The accident rate initially increased from 10.9 to 11.5 and then dropped to 10 accidents per million vehicle miles over the same period. The initial increase in accident rate was attributed to the time it took people to adjust and litigation associated with the business community that delayed installing of appropriate signage in the first year of operations of the one-way system.

POSITIVE: Sacramento, California (1950) - 14% fewer accidents though traffic increased by 17% (Faustman, Improving Traffic Access to the Sacramento Business District, 1950).

POSITIVE: Cincinnati, Ohio (1975) - Cincinnati converted Vine Street between Central Parkway and Mc Micken Ave. from two-way operation to one-way in 1975. After conversion, vehicle accidents decreased from 212 to 128 (-39.6%). The number of pedestrian accidents decreased from 16.6 to 13 (-21.7%). Volume of traffic increased from 24,520 to 28,025 (+14.3%). (Over-the-Rhine/Vine Street Circulation Study, February 2003.)

POSITIVE: Bismarck, North Dakota (1983) - The average daily traffic on 7th Street grew from 2,400 vehicles per day to 10,200. Traffic on 9th Street however decreased slightly from 11,500 to 10,200. The fivefold increase on 7th Street was not unexpected, because it was a local street before the project while 9th Street was an arterial before the project. Despite the increased traffic volume accident data showed both a decrease in the number of accidents per million vehicle miles, and a decrease in the percent of severe accidents for the one-way pair. The number of pedestrian accidents also decreased after implementation of the one-way system. Overall one-way system brought increased flow at higher speeds with a reduction in both delays and accidents.


Safety Impacts of Converting One-Way Streets to Two-Way Streets

NEGATIVE: Denver, Colorado (1986) - Denver converted several one-way couplets to two-way streets in 1986. After conversion, the vehicle accident rates at intersections increased 37.6% while the mid-block accident rate increased 80.5%.

NEGATIVE: Lubbock, Texas (1995) - Lubbock converted a couple of downtown one-way streets to two-way in 1995. Before and after data showed a slight increase in congestion, and accidents increased from 45 to 52 on Main Street and 48 to 64 on 10th Street. The City Traffic Engineer pointed out that four intersections removed on 10th street might be responsible for the increase in accidents on that street.

NEGATIVE: Cincinnati, Ohio (1999) - Cincinatti converted Vine Street to two-way operation in 1999. After conversion, vehicle accidents increased from 75.9 to 164 (+116%). Pedestrian accidents increased from 5.9 to 12 (+103%). Volume of traffic increased from 30,900 to 35,600 (+15.2%) and the average speed decreased from 18.0 to 12.4 (-31.1%).

NEGATIVE: Albequerque, New Mexico (1999-2003) - Albequerque converted most of their downtown one-way streets to two-way streets (62 blocks total). After conversion, vehicle accidents increased from 778 to 824 (+5.9%). Pedestrian accidents increased from 14 to 26 (+85.7%). Bicycle accidents increased from 5 to 12 (+148%). Volume of traffic decreased from 359,430 to 284,180 (-20.9%).

[impala096]

Traffic signals along a one-way street can be timed for steady progression. This progression, known as the “green wave”, can be extremely effective at limiting the speed of traffic. By converting a one-way street to a two-way street, you lose this ability to regulate the speed of traffic as two-way streets are much more difficult to coordinate.

The signals along 1st Avenue are currently timed for 27.5 mph. An aggressive driver is incapable of outrunning the 27.5 mph “green wave”. If 1st Avenue was converted to a two-way street, aggressive drivers may decide to drive 65 mph.

1st Avenue in Manhattan (cruising at 27.5 mph):


West Side Street in Manhattan (cruising at 65 mph):

between 9:57 to 10:57 in the video, the driver travels 5,800 feet and averages 65 mph. The posted speed of West Side Street is 35 mph.

[censusdata]

It's not a one size fits all solution. In heavily traveled city streets such as most in Manhattan one way probably better. But in my neck of the woods 99% of one way streets should be reverted to 2 way. Traffic would be marginally worse during rush hour but otherwise no worse the rest of the time.

[millerm277]

Originally Posted by impala096

West Side Street in Manhattan (cruising at 65 mph):

between 9:57 to 10:57 in the video, the driver travels 5,800 feet and averages 65 mph. The posted speed of West Side Street is 35 mph.

West Side Highway. While it may be a surface boulevard, it's not a normal street and has limited connections with the street grid.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by millerm277

West Side Highway. While it may be a surface boulevard, it's not a normal street and has limited connections with the street grid.

The name of the street is secondary to the discussion. It's a two-way surface boulevard with a 35 mph posted speed limit. On average, traffic signals are spaced 600 feet apart with pedestrian crosswalks present at most signals.

Signal progression along one-way avenues in Manhattan help regulate the speed of traffic and forces aggressive drivers to ride the 27.5 mph "green wave". Conversely, with two-way streets you are at the mercy of aggressive drivers and may encounter some nut doing 65 mph. Do you want to get hit be a car traveling 27.5 mph or 65 mph?