Yes, one-way streets result in faster moving traffic. However, you have to look at the big picture. Putting one-way streets through the core of a city encourages people to drive through the core. The actual volume of cars is higher. If driving THROUGH the city was not as easy, people would tend not to choose that option. Two-way streets coupled with decent transit and cycling options would result in fewer car trips altogether. So the net environmental effect could be positive in the sense that, while idling is increased, a lot fewer cars are actually running their engines.

A sensible approach for today’s world is to attempt to reduce traffic flow by making all other forms of transportation more appealing to users. Dedicated bus lanes with signal priority (or preferably rail), sane and safe bicycle routes and pedestrian friendly design: all of these are just as important as the argument over one way/two way.

Perhaps one ways can be shown to result in fewer pedestrian fatalities. But perhaps the reason is that there are fewer pedestrians — because I’ll tell you from first hand experience, being a pedestrian alongside a one way street is a lot more nerve wracking than on a two-way.

The number one reason to convert to two way streets is to make the use of a car less appealing for THROUGH TRAFFIC. Through traffic has no place in a downtown core.

Studies were conducted from the 1930’s to the 1970’s of ‘before’ and ‘after’conditions as cities switched from two-way to one-way streets. Almost universally they found that one-way streets had 10-20% lower accident rates than when previously two-way. Most significantly, pedestrian accidents declined far more, by 30-60% (see pages A-126; A-162, ‘National Highway Safety Needs Study, Appendix A’, Research Triangle Institute, March 1976 (DOT-HS-5-01069); Pages 7-2 to 7-8, ‘One-Way Streets and Reversible Lanes’, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Volume I, Research Triangle Institute, March 1976 (FHWA-TS-82-232), December 1982; Page 28, Dr. Charles Zegeer, University of North Carolina, ‘Pedestrians and Traffic-Control Measures’, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Practice, #139, November 1988; and Chapter 10, Peter A. Mayer, Chapter 10, ‘One-Way Streets’, Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Their Relationship to Highway Safety, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, 1971).

Few cities that have made the mistake of converting one-way to two-way will release accident impact data on this change, Two that have, Denver and Lubbock, both show magor increases in accident rates as a result of reverting to more dangerous two-way trafffic. Typically, studies favoring two-way avoid any real before and after data on vehicle or pedestrian safety or avoid the safety issue altogether. My published writings, the only ones that show this type of data, were described as “ideological” by the UrbanRichmondBlog. I guess they feel people getting killed or injured is an “ideological” issue of little interest. Two-way streets typically have twice the pedestrian accident rate of one-way streets so they are definitely not “pedestrian-friendly”, as is widely being claimed now.

In 1959, the Oregon State Highway Department published a report which summarized the overall impact of converting two-way state highway sections through town and city centers to one-way couplets along several state highways (Oregon State Highway Department, ‘A Study of One-Way Routings on Urban Highways in Oregon’, Technical Report #59-4, April 1959). In twelve small-size Oregon cities which had made these conversions, the traffic accident rate declined 24% while the pedestrian accident rate declined 38%.

Regarding pedestrians crossing one-way streets, one leading safety expert noted: ‘”Conversion from two-way to one-way street systems has consistently been found to reduce pedestrian accidents” (Dr. Charles Zegeer, University of North Carolina, ‘Engineering and Physical Measures to Improve Pedestrian Safety’, from 1988 WALK ALERT Program Guide, National Pedestrian Safety Program).

I also agree that consistency is key. Any minor traffic change will cause a spike in crashes. Primarily, the mix of intersection types also cause the driver andpedestrian to be confused. The best scenario is all one way with the wider streets to continue to be two-way. The City will run out of money soon after it begins so like two streets might be converted. By the way if any federal money is spent they will have a tough time getting approval because they have to prove safety is not compromised and that no additional pollution is created. Very difficult. Also, they have to make sure that the pedestrian is not adversely affected… very difficult.

And another question: one of those articles I linked to suggests that a mixed 1-way 2-way street network is actually dangerous because every intesection has different conflict points. That might suggest why Grace west of Belivedere has accidents. Think about the rest of the fan, however, where every street is 2-way. There’s no confusion about where to look, you look both ways at all times. Could that be a possible explanation for the Grace St. anomaly?

That also makes me nervous about the half-way conversion of downtown- if we make our street network even more confusing than it is already, people will have NO idea where to look when turning or walking. Which streets are 2-way, which are 1? I think perhaps consistency is more important than anything else for the sake of motorists and pedestrians.

By the way, anyone see Sunday’s op-ed piece calling for bike lanes? And not just bike lanes, but phyiscally separated bike routes? Good stuff, though print only, as far as I can tell.

My beef is that this whole discussion takes us off focus from the true issues of pedestrian barriers (ie interstates, freeways) and takes us from the city center project concept found between Marshall and Grace 5th to 7th. Intersection curb extensions and narrower streets in a one way system creates a safer and more inviting pedestrian experience with the right urban form that was absolutely the forte of D&K.

It seems that most conversations here are centered on pedestrian safety. Over the time I was with the City, pedestrian crashes went from 150 crashes to about 90 per year. (Don’t confuse the MSA statistics with the City proper, the city is much more pedestrian friendly than the sub or exurbs) There is also a Richmond Regional Bike /Ped Plan at their website. One of the big reasons for this drop in ped crashes is a fundamental philosphical change in how we timed traffic signals to encourage pedestrian activity. Since 2000, the downtown has experienced tremendous growth. At the same time we adopted a policy at every downtown traffic signal, a pedestrian can get across the street usually in less than a minute wait. There is no need to push a button and their are no long waits.

It’s time to further this positive achievement to incorporate even slower progression speeds. The only mistake I made in 1999 was when I set the progression speed to 31MPH (figuring correctly that most vehicles travel 5-6 MPH faster than the posted speed limit; I did not know the now widely held fact about the biomechanics of the human and survivability of pedestrians at even 30MPH as they were not widely known. It is also widely now known that the more pedestrians or cyclists that are present, the safer that all non-motorized users are (see netherlands studies). Drivers expecting to see pedestrians modify their behavior appropriately. The worst areas in the downtown for pedestrian crashes are generally the wider streets of Belvidere and Broad Street. Curiously they are also high on Grace Street west of Belvidere and Main Street in Shockoe Bottom. Some are because of exposure (as in the wider streets). Some are alcohol related (see the Bottom). But the one that stands out, is Grace Street in the VCU section (not wide) Franklin Street does not have the pedestrian crashes that Grace Street has. Franklin is one-way. Grace is two-way.

What most folks don’t understand is that pretty much every time a motorist turns, they see a red light because of how the lights are timed. In addition, one way streets also allow for separation of decisions for the driver. Instead of 32 conflict points in one spot, the driver only has to deal with 8 and it is easier for the driver to focus on pedestrians and where they are instead of the oncoming vehicle and what they may do. There are also ways to control the speed at which turns can be made (see city center example). Most drivers yield at 15MPH. In addition, Richmond has very short, walkable blocks. Two way streets on our short blocks will not be able to support the current land use density.

Over time, most traffic engineers have come to see the error of their ways about the now defunct policy of seeing how many vehicles they can move through a certain point and have become more balanced from what is taught in most civil engineering curriculums. The really good ones can build a transportation system that is safe and effective in creating the perfect mixed used community. Let’s focus on making improvements that we know will work with real benefits instead of focusing on this red herring issue of one-way vs two-way.

While Bear makes many sound arguments for maintaining one-way streets, his dismissal of planners as having any value to add to the debate is dubious. The bottom line is that planners, policymakers, traffic engineers are residents were involved in the Dover Kohl discussion on one-way vs. two-way, and there seemed to be general agreement about converting most one-way streets into two-way streets.

The ultimate outcome — as I understand it — is to move commuter traffic away from certain neighborhoods; increase the cohesion of some neighborhoods; and reduce confusion among tourists and some-time visitors. (Just yesterday, I watched a SUV from New York turn right from Franklin onto 9th Street (which is starts its one-way restriction at Bank Street) and come close to getting t-boned as he headed the wrong way across Main Street.)

I think converting to two-way just for the sake of change is stupid. Converting with an ultimate goal of adding more public transit, better bike access, smoother transitions into pedestrian spaces makes sense. As an urban planning neophyte, my views aren’t rooted in one school of thought versus another — just in seeing downtown Richmond become more vibrant and multi-purpose.