Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McAvity
I don't know why we ever switched to one-way streets since it often forces people to drive further to get where they're going.
|
Why do people take the freeway to work when surface streets are often the most direct route? Drivers will usually pick a route that takes the least amount of time to get from point A to B.
In this real world example in the video below, an aggressive driver on 3rd Avenue (one-way street) is able to drive 0.5 miles farther than an aggressive driver on Park Avenue (two-way street) in the same amount of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
One-way street systems have already been regarded as generally bad planning for quite a number of years now as they have a detrimental affect on smaller businesses since they encourage increased traffic speeds which not only prevent drivers & passengers from actually realizing what stores are there, but also creates a less friendly environment for pedestrians.
|
Quote:
Enustun N., 1969
Study of the Operational Aspects of One-Way and Two-Way Streets: A ‘before and after’ study of one-way traffic operations in the cities of Lansing and Kalamazoo in Michigan. The study focused on traffic volumes on the streets and did not involve the analysis of any accident data. Analysis of data collected showed average speeds had increased on all the routes converted to one-way. The average speed in Kalamazoo had increased from 18.1 to 23.1 mph and from 25.3 to 28.2 mph in Lansing. Average number of stops in some sections of the study area had dropped from 6.3 to 1.0. Delay in one case dropped from 71 to 11 seconds per mile. Fifteen-minute afternoon peak traffic leaving traffic sections of the study area was observed to have increased by 74%, compared to the 17% increase for the 24 hour total. It was also noted that increased gaps in traffic on the one-way streets made it easier for traffic on side streets to turn unto the one-way streets.
|
Two-way proponents would read the bold line and automatically assume cars speed faster on one-way streets. They don’t recognize that “average speed” includes the time a driver is sitting idle. After the conversion to one-way streets, delay per mile dropped from 71 seconds to 11 seconds, a reduction of 84%. This reduction in delay is what accounted for the increase in “average speed”. Simply put, drivers on one-way streets don’t get stopped at many red lights.
The “moving speed”, which is the speed a driver averages when not stationary, is a more important concept to consider especially in regards to pedestrian safety. This video illustrates how a one-way street can experience a higher “average speed” yet a lower “moving speed” when compared to a two-way street:
• Video Link
The traffic signal timings is the most interesting aspect of the video. The one-way street is set up for smooth signal progression, where a driver experiences a "wave" of green lights and low delays. The two-way street is set up so that all the lights turn green (or change red) simultaneously. This type of progression is characteristic of lots of starts and stops, leading to large delays. Obviously, both drivers in this video are aggressive, but only the driver on 3rd Avenue is forced to slow down (thanks to the traffic light timing).
The concepts of "average speed" and "moving speed" are almost universally misunderstood by two-way proponents. These are really fundamental concepts to comprehend, especially when "average speed" is cited in these one-way to two-way street conversion studies.