Why one-way streets are bad for everyone but speeding cars

[M II A II R II K]

Why one-way streets are bad for everyone but speeding cars


April 17, 2015

By Emily Badger

Read More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...are-the-worst/

PDF Study: http://sun.louisville.edu/pdfs/love%...y%20street.pdf

In John Gilderbloom's experience, the notorious streets are invariably the one-way streets. These are the streets lined with foreclosed homes and empty storefronts, the streets that look neglected and feel unsafe, the streets where you might find drug dealers at night.

- "Sociologically, the way one-way streets work," he says, "[is that] if there are two or more lanes, a person can just pull over and make a deal, while other traffic can easily pass them by." --- It's also easier on a high-speed one-way road to keep an eye out for police or flee from the scene of a crime. At least, this is the pattern Gilderbloom, director of the Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods at the University of Louisville, has observed in San Francisco, in Los Angeles, in Houston and Washington where streets that once flowed both directions were converted in the 1950s and '60s into fast-moving one-way thoroughfares to help cars speed through town. The places where this happened, Gilderbloom noticed, deteriorated.

- In 2011, Louisville converted two one-way streets near downtown, each a little more than a mile long, back to two-way traffic. In data that they gathered over the following three years, Gilderbloom and William Riggs found that traffic collisions dropped steeply — by 36 percent on one street and 60 percent on the other — after the conversion, even as the number of cars traveling these roads increased. Crime dropped too, by about a quarter, as crime in the rest of the city was rising. Property values rose, as did business revenue and pedestrian traffic, relative to before the change and to a pair of nearby comparison streets. The city, as a result, now stands to collect higher property tax revenues along these streets, and to spend less sending first-responders to accidents there.

- Gilderbloom and Riggs have also done an analysis of the entire city of Louisville, comparing Census tracts with multi-lane one-way streets to those without them. The basic pattern holds city-wide: They found that the risk of a crash is twice as high for people riding through neighborhoods with these one-way streets. The property values in census tracts there were also about half the value of homes in the rest of the city. --- Some of these findings are more obvious: Traffic tends to move faster on a wide one-way road than on a comparable two-way city street, and slower traffic means fewer accidents. The rest of these results are theoretically connected to each other in complex ways.

- To the extent that vice flourishes on neglected high-speed, one-way, getaway roads, two-way streets may be less conducive to certain crimes. If they bring slower traffic and, as a result, more cyclists and pedestrians, that also creates more "eyes on the street" — which, again, deters crime. A decline in crime and calmer traffic in turn may raise property values — which may also increase the demand of residents to police and care for their neighborhood.

- The argument that he makes with Gilderbloom isn't so much that all one-way roads are bad, or that they contribute to these problems in every context. One-way roads can be narrow and quiet, conducive to cycling and pedestrians. Plenty of them aren't wide enough for two-way travel anyway. It's also possible that wider, faster one-way roads might achieve some of these same goals without converting them into two-way streets but by installing other traffic-calming fixes. --- Their point is that many cities decided to change these roads in the post-World War II era when we broadly re-engineered cities around the car — and that change over time came at a cost to the neighborhoods that we enabled cars to speed through.

- "The argument from a traffic engineer's perspective was that roads should be designed to get you quickly from Point A to Point B to Point C," Gilderbloom says. "That might be important in theory. But mothers don’t want that with their children. Fathers don't want that with their sons who want to play football out front like I used to do as a kid." --- This argument also implies that street design can be an unlikely — and relatively cheap — tool to help revitalize neighborhoods. Those two streets Louisville converted a few years ago cost the city about $250,000.

.....

[10023]

One-way streets make sense in areas with lots of traffic, like Manhattan. They don't make sense in suburban areas like the one in those photos.

[fflint]

One way streets are not entirely nonsensical, but that doesn't mean they are the better choice. It makes just as much, or more, sense to better protect the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists by utilizing two-way streets, which slow traffic down. One way streets induce higher automobile speeds, which in turn lead to more harmful injury collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists).

[McBane]

In my neighborhood, it's the lack of one-way streets that tends to annoy people, especially those not from the area.

https://goo.gl/maps/QdqIV

https://goo.gl/maps/EIxIt

https://goo.gl/maps/3WfMu

[Doady]

Montreal needs to take a long look at this article and convert Rue Ste-Catherine back into a two-way so that it can become a vibrant street again. And also the thousands of one-way side streets throughout the city. The abandonment and neglect of inner city Montreal can by stopped, they just have convert all those streets to two-way streets.

[M II A II R II K]

Also in Downtown Hamilton it's a pain with just about every street being one way because if you pass your destination it's not like you can turn back on the same street.

[NorthernDancer]

In Toronto one-way streets are used almost exclusively for narrow residential side streets (one moving lane, and parking on either one or both sides of the street). Multi-lane one-way streets are extraordinarily rare here. Some examples are York Street north of Front Street, and the Adelaide/Richmond Streets couplet.

One-way streets are not only terrible for pedestrians and cyclists, but for bus riders as well. This graphic from Human Transit makes it obvious why:

[Doady]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

In Toronto one-way streets are used almost exclusively for narrow residential side streets (one moving lane, and parking on either one or both sides of the street). Multi-lane one-way streets are extraordinarily rare here. Some examples are York Street north of Front Street, and the Adelaide/Richmond Streets couplet.

One-way streets are not only terrible for pedestrians and cyclists, but for bus riders as well. This graphic from Human Transit makes it obvious why:

That graphic is very misleading. You move the westbound lanes to the north, that means that people to north will have shorter walking distance while people to the south have proportionately longer walking distance. The net result is 0.

Hamilton's King and Main streets have such high ridership they are considering LRT... That's the busiest transit corridor in the city. The effect of one-way on ridership seems minimal, if any.

I think the real argument against one-way street is that force drivers to drive longer distances. The affect on walking distance is nothing. If anything, one way streets give pedestrians the advantage compared to drivers, because the streets are still two-way for pedestrians.

The speeding argument makes no sense either. Whether one-way or two-way, narrower streets with parallel parking are better than wide streets with no parallel parking. That's Hamilton's problem. Main and King are too-wide, narrow sidewalks, and no parallel parking.

The fact that every side street in Downtown Toronto is one-way shows how beneficial one-way streets are for downtowns. To convert all those streets to two-way would be devastating. The streets would have to be wider, there would be less space for parallel parking to calm traffic and provide a buffer for pedestrians, and less space for sidewalks too. It would basically be like Mississauga.

[animatedmartian]

In Detroit, a majority streets on the east side of the city (including Hamtramck) are one-way. There's no obvious differences between them and two-way streets.

Most people only seem to have issues in the downtown area where the street grid is kind of irregular and streets can be partially one-way for a few blocks, but are two-way on either end and vice-versa. Other than that, I can't see the correlation between crime and speeding because that seems to occur regardless of whether it's one-way or two-way.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by Doady

That graphic is very misleading. You move the westbound lanes to the north, that means that people to north will have shorter walking distance while people to the south have proportionately longer walking distance. The net result is 0.

You're not understanding what you're looking at. The graph shows the 400m coverage area for three different conditions, access along a 2 way street, access along two one-way streets separated by 200m, and then by 400m. It's not an example map, its an example of the concept that segregating one-way stops along one-way streets doesn't extend the coverage range of the transit service (as is often depicted), it reduces it. Which is of course correct.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

You're not understanding what you're looking at.

Doady's objection is correct.

In the rightmost image, you'll have people living in the white zone who are 10m from one direction and 410 m from the other direction... If you average it out (considering that people take transit in one direction in the morning and arrive in it from the other direction at the end of the day), the rightmost image is a lot less bad than it seems compared to the leftmost one. (Same logic applies to the middle image too.)

Someone in the leftmost image who walks 380m to public transit in the morning and 380m from public transit in the evening is still in the bluegray area, while someone in the rightmost image who walks 10m to public transit in the morning and 410m from public transit in the evening is outside the bluegray area, even though he actually is CLOSER to transit (when averaged, i.e. total time spent walking to and from public transit daily) than the guy who walks 380m each time.


The graphic would make sense if there was a solid 400m psychological or physical threshold that was strictly upheld by most people. "I will walk 390m without problems anytime, and as often as needed, but if it's 410m, no way, I'll find another alternative, like taking my car". It's not the case at all in the real world.

[Nouvellecosse]

Some transit agencies make loop routes in order to increase coverage using one way service and as long as the loop isn't too big and time consuming, then this works (although it has its own issues). But normal routes on one way streets service definitely aren't helpful.

What I find odd in my own community of Halifax NS is that the busiest bus route - which is definitely not a loop - splits itself onto two different streets for a significant section when neither street is one way. I guess it was intended to provide service to a street that didn't otherwise have any, but the service being only one direction seems pretty useless.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Doady

That graphic is very misleading. You move the westbound lanes to the north, that means that people to north will have shorter walking distance while people to the south have proportionately longer walking distance. The net result is 0.

No, the net result is not 0 at all. On the far right, EVERYONE is at least 400m from the eastbound and westbound directions combined. Whereas on the far left, one can live 30m from both eastbound and westbound stops (not counting the distance to cross the road). One the far left, the north-south distance of the span within 400m of both directions is 800m. On the far right, it is only half that distance, at 400m.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by lio45

Doady's objection is correct.

In the rightmost image, you'll have people living in the white zone who are 10m from one direction and 410 m from the other direction... If you average it out (considering that people take transit in one direction in the morning and arrive in it from the other direction at the end of the day), the rightmost image is a lot less bad than it seems compared to the leftmost one. (Same logic applies to the middle image too.)

Someone in the leftmost image who walks 380m to public transit in the morning and 380m from public transit in the evening is still in the bluegray area, while someone in the rightmost image who walks 10m to public transit in the morning and 410m from public transit in the evening is outside the bluegray area, even though he actually is CLOSER to transit (when averaged, i.e. total time spent walking to and from public transit daily) than the guy who walks 380m each time.


The graphic would make sense if there was a solid 400m psychological or physical threshold that was strictly upheld by most people. "I will walk 390m without problems anytime, and as often as needed, but if it's 410m, no way, I'll find another alternative, like taking my car". It's not the case at all in the real world.

You're not understanding the graphic either. On the left, one can live very close to transit going in BOTH directions. That is impossible on the right.

[Nouvellecosse]

Actually lio is right in that the divided bus route provides the same coverage if you take the average of the walk to and from the route. As he said, the diagram is only correct if the transit rider refuses to walk more than 400m on either trip. Someone who lives 400m from the combined route on the left would have to walk 800m to get there and back, while someone who lives 200m into the top or bottom unshaded zone in the far right would have to walk 600m to access one bus direction and 200m for the other so the return trip would still total 800m of walking.

In other words, the graphic is right that dividing the route doesn't increase the transit coverage, but wrong because it doesn't actually decrease it when considering the total walking distance.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Actually lio is right in that the divided bus route provides the same coverage if you take the average of the walk to and from the route. As he said, the diagram is only correct if the transit rider refuses to walk more than 400m on either trip. Someone who lives 400m from the combined route on the left would have to walk 800m to get there and back, while someone who lives 200m into the top or bottom unshaded zone in the far right would have to walk 600m to access one bus direction and 200m for the other so the return trip would still total 800m of walking.

In other words, the graphic is right that dividing the route doesn't increase the transit coverage, but wrong because it doesn't actually decrease it when considering the total walking distance.

No, you're still not understanding the graphic. On the far left, one can live right next to the bus going both east and westbound. On the far right, EVERY POINT is AT LEAST 400m combined from westbound and eastbound.

The comparison of someone living 400m on the left to someone living 200m from the right is the wrong comparison to make. The correct comparison that should be made is either the minimum combined distance from both directions (0m vs 400m), or the north-south span that is within a minimum distance from both directions (800m vs 400m at minimum 400m distance).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

You're not understanding the graphic either. On the left, one can live very close to transit going in BOTH directions. That is impossible on the right.

You're the one who doesn't understand your own graphic...

The "correct" graphic would be a heat map where the intensity of the color (the gradation being strictly north-south) is in a linear proportion to the sum of the distance required to walk to one direction plus to the other direction.

That would be the fair way to treat the rightmost (and middle) graphics.

Right now, you're treating the situation as if 400m is the threshold universally and strictly separating "walkable" from "impossible to walk".

If it was the case (for example, in a fictional world where humanoids instantly drop dead after 401m of walking) then your bluegray areas as they are would be correct.

It's not, so they should be heat maps. That way, it would be visible that someone who lives in the white area a hair outside the bluegrey area is much closer to transit in the rightmost graphic (that person is just a hair over 200m away from transit on average) than someone who lives in the white area a hair outside the bluegrey in the leftmost graphic (that person is a hair over 400m away on average).

And FYI, in a heat map, your apparently beloved fact that the leftmost graphic is the only situation where you'd find the very darkest hue (people with a combined nearly 0m distance from both directions of transit) would be clearly showing. But the catchment area wouldn't be any wider.

If you don't want to make a heat map, then at least change your question to "What area is within 800m combined of one direction of service + the other?" It's more relevant to people in the real world (who, when they take transit to leave their home in a direction, have to take transit again in the opposite direction to return home). The bluegrey area would stay the same in the leftmost graphic, and extend in the other ones to become exactly as large as in the leftmost graphic in the other two. All three areas showing who walks less than 800m to use transit daily are equally large.

Right now your bluegrey area stops and instantly turns into white at the threshold "having to walk >800m to use transit daily" in the leftmost graphic while it stops and instantly turns into white at the threshold "having to walk >400m to use transit daily" in the rightmost one. Not a fair depiction.

[mousquet]

Surely trivial and I apologize for that, but to me, it simply mainly depends on the width of a street. I can think of a crazy amount of rather narrow streets with very annoyingly narrow sidewalks that are still bidirectional whereas they should be one-way to be more pedestrian friendly over here.

Now when you have to drive and park a car in an ancient European maze, one-way streets are certainly often upsetting.

[sbarn]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

One-way streets are not only terrible for pedestrians and cyclists, but for bus riders as well.

It's funny because in Manhattan this isn't true. The crosstown buses that usually run on two-way streets (e.g. 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, etc) are all notoriously slow, whereas the buses that run north/south on one-way avenues are generally notably faster. This is partly to do with the ability to synchronize traffic signals on one-way streets. I think changing all the avenues in Manhattan to two-way traffic would result in gridlock, slower bus service and have no impact on the pedestrian experience (other than perhaps increased exhaust fumes). So while generally, two-way streets are better, I think one-way streets can be effective in certain urban environments. Certainly one-way streets in low-density neighborhoods like the one shown in the OP are no good.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by sbarn

It's funny because in Manhattan this isn't true. The crosstown buses that usually run on two-way streets (e.g. 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, etc) are all notoriously slow, whereas the buses that run north/south on one-way avenues are generally notably faster. This is partly to do with the ability to synchronize traffic signals on one-way streets. I think changing all the avenues in Manhattan to two-way traffic would result in gridlock, slower bus service and have no impact on the pedestrian experience (other than perhaps increased exhaust fumes). So while generally, two-way streets are better, I think one-way streets can be effective in certain urban environments. Certainly one-way streets in low-density neighborhoods like the one shown in the OP are no good.

Obviously a very good point... but personally I kinda considered it already implicitly included in the article's title: "Why one-way streets are bad for everyone but speeding cars (and speeding buses full of riders)".