Montgomery Alabama is the latest to replace its one-way streets with two way. Studies have shown that one-way streets are safer and, because they move more traffic, are actually good for the businesses on the streets.
Both one-way and two-way streets are visible in this view of downtown Montgomery. Click to see a larger view.
Flickr photo by Brian Esquire.
One-way streets were a huge success in reducing traffic accidents when cities installed them in the 1950s. Those cities that have restored two-way operation that have bothered to check found that the number of accidents increased on two-way streets. So why are cities changing them back?
The ratio of this raindogscine.com viagra in india online problem has increased in the past few years, the condition has emerged up as prevalent issue for males’ sexual failure. Without doctor’s consultation, do not increase the frequency in which the dose is viagra soft tablet taken without consulting the physician. Despite being so beneficial, viagra active effective and safe, kamagra oral jell y needs to be taken as prescribed for safer results. And if you want maximum readership some studies have shown that releasing your post generic super cialis at about 11am will give you the best results. 3.
As the Montomery city engineer says, “The city hired some planners, some urban planners…” Two-way streets are part of the latest planning fad, which is really an anti-auto agenda. “Cities should be for people, not cars,” planners will say, ignoring the fact that every car on the road has one or more people in it.
The Montgomery planners say that two-way streets will be better for business because they will provide “traffic facing each of the four corners on a daily basis.” Maybe, if downtown streets are not congested. But if they are congested, converting to two way will only increase the congestion and discourage shoppers and others from going downtown in the first place.
Montgomery expects to spend a lot of money on each street. If it follows the practice of other cities, it won’t bother to evaluate the results after installing the first street to see if it should do more. Instead, it will just keep converting one-way to two-way streets regardless of the effects on pedestrian safety, businesses, and other concerns. That’s the planning way.
It is happening in downtown Vancouver, USA, also. I am trying to write an article for the Vancouver Business Journal on how to build our way out of congestion by building infrastructure that overcomes transport barriers instead of building more barriers. One way is safer because it eliminates head-on and left turn collisions unless people go the wrong way.
I like improvement and progress. Changing one-way to two-way is going backwards and is like bringing back streetcars, which haven’t been economically competitive against buses since the 1930s.
In Portland the planners want to turn two-way West Burnside and NW Couch into one-ways…go figure. Of course the change includes a new streetcar line and fewer lanes.
Tampa is doing the same thing to its downtown. They’re caught up in the “walkable” mantra and are pushing condo development downtown, which is currently a residential dead zone. They even went so far as to turn down a bridge between two high-rise towers because they want to force occupants to go down to ground level before entering the other building, in an attempt to force people to “walk the streets”. The congestion is increasing fast and the new two-way streets make it much worse, as does the mandatory limited parking.
The study provided is very interesting, and will be of great interest to my colleagues.
Here in the UK, we also have one-way streets and pedestrian malls. Our experience, however has been the exact opposite.
One-way streets are being removed and very successfully converted to 2-way operation. The pedestrian malls are very successful, with busy shops, and the support of traders.
2-way operation has some drawbacks for us. In the UK one-way systems are more dangerous for pedestrians – this is probably because pedestrians are entitled to cross at any point, not just at pedestrian signals, hence they have to cross two lanes of traffic which are moving faster – and they do move faster! Also, a lot of our towns and cities are built on the original confused pattern (not at all a grid pattern), and one-way systems are thus confusing. It is possible that you have to go round several times before you find the road you want – even if you live in that town or city!
Pedestrian malls have proven very successful. The UK experience is that the way to get people into the shops is to get them out of their cars. Usually only one or two streets are pedestrianised, allowing the cars to park up nearby in multi-storey car parks. There is a continuing tension between the cost of car parking, and the need for the town or city centre to compete with out-of-town retail developments. I don’t know why this doesn’t work in the USA. Possibly our towns and cities are more compact, and thus more walkable, and less car dependent.
The only place I know of where the pedestrian mall has worked ok in the U.S. is in Boulder, CO. Eugene tried it and is now removing theirs. I’m sure there are other attempts that failed as well. Even the large enclosed malls of the 60’s-80’s are being converted to “power centers” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_centre
where people can pull the car up to the front door of the store they want to shop at.
Excellent study.
I have often noticed how in Houston, the area with the least traffic congestion is downtown, which is on a 5-lane, one way grid system. It is a shame that most two-way arterial streets outside of downtown are likely too far apart to reap the one way reward.
One-way to two-way conversions are happening in Sacramento also, along with reducing 3-lane one-way streets to 2 lanes. What never gets mentioned is that because these practices increase congestion, fuel use is increased, which in turn increases greenhouse gas emissions (and pollutant emissions also). Same goes for adding stop signs and other “traffic calming” measures. With so many of our cities striving to be “green,” why are they doing things that accelerate global warming?