I looked to see if this topic has already been covered on this forum - if so then I'd appreciate a link.  Otherwise, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the subject.  Dayton is currently looking at converting our downtown one-way streets to two-way.  Arguements for the idea (from an urban planning point of view) include:

- Two-way streets will slow traffic down and thus create a more pedestrian-friendly environment

- Two-way streets are less confusing for people not familiar with downtown

- Two-way streets will provide street-level businesses with better exposure (from traffic going both ways as opposed to one)

 

On the contrary, here are some arguements against two-way conversions:

- One-way streets move traffic more efficiently and result in less pollution (because of less stop-and-go traffic)

- One-way streets are actually more pedestrian-friendly since pedestrians only have to look one way before crossing

- One-way streets have less auto accidents

- One-way streets make it easier to enter downtown

 

I am personally against the conversion because it appears that it would result in lost street parking, which would be a disaster for the revitalization of downtown.  We've been going back and forth with the MVRPC and the hired consultants to determine what is actually going to happen, and we've been told that there would be a reduction in street parking anywhere between 22% and 66%.  That would have an obvious negative effect on street-level businesses.  I would much rather see the one-way streets kept, but let's get rid of a lane or two and convert some parallel parking to angled-parking.  That would have the same desired effect of slowing down traffic (we have several mini-expressways that go thru downtown), but would actually help to attract people to stop, park and walk.  This might also make some of our many vacant buildings more attractive for developers if parking in front of them is both increased and made easier.

 

Having lived in Chicago, I am used to parallel parking, but in the suburban-minded Dayton region there are plenty of people that aren't comfortable with parallel parking and will simply drive by an open meter in search of a parking lot.  (or go home and complain that there isn't enough parking downtown).

 

Here are some related links I've found:

http://www.walkinginfo.org/de/curb1.cfm?codename=13b&CM_maingroup=Roadway%20Design

http://www.ti.org/vaupdate30.html

http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/72

 

What do you guys think?  Do you have any links to study results for cities that have already done the two-way conversion?

In Dayton's case...good idea.

This has been an ongoing study for a few years now and I believe may have been or is close to being finalized. Supposedly, the conversion is scheduled to coincide with the I75/R4 interchange reconstruction beginning next spring.

 

Dayton needs to go with a two way conversion. A lot of people just simply do not want to go downtown because of the one way street grid. It's confusing, harder to get where you are going and simply just an outdated concept. Heck, even I sometimes have a brainfreeze remembering what goes where, and I have been working downtown on and off for 15 years now.  :weird:

 

I really don't agree with any of the negatives listed, especially the pollution one. I cannot see how a one way street system can have anything to do with less pollution, especially since a it can make you drive endlessly in circles trying to get where you want to be, which in my eyes would actually be creating more pollution. As far as making it easier for pedestrians to cross the street, if you cannot cross a two way street as easy as a one way street, then you shouldn't be crossing the street to begin with.

 

I have not heard of anything as far as losing parking spaces for the conversion, but I'm sure that was considered during the study. In all honesty, if Dayton was really smart about this, they would cut off some of the sidewalk widths downtown, add angled parking and along with this 2-way conversion, we would have one hell of a downtown driving AND parking solution!  :speech:

I'm not necessarily against the proposed two-way conversion - as long as it does not require loss of street parking. 

 

In all honesty, if Dayton was really smart about this, they would cut off some of the sidewalk widths downtown, add angled parking and along with this 2-way conversion, we would have one hell of a downtown driving AND parking solution!  :speech:

 

I don't agree that we should cut sidewalk widths - our wide sidewalks promote walking.  If you consider all of the development on Brown Street near UD, the sidewalks on Brown are extremely narrow and thus don't see much walking traffic.  In my opinion that is simply poor design.  I understand that the sidewalks were never wide to begin with, so it is what it is.  But we should not narrow our wide downtown sidewalks to add parking, even if it is for the angled parking I am for.  Downtown's walkability is its competetive advantage over suburban retail centers (which are typically 100% geared toward the automobile).

 

The ultimate solution may be in the form of a combination of all of these - maybe some streets converted to two-way, but not all (like maybe all north-south streets, or all east-west streets).  Maybe some sidewalks in front of buildings that won't likely have street-level business can be cut off to make room for angled parking while other sidewalks in front of existing or potential street-level business are preserved and enhanced with trees, etc.

 

Check out http://ummedia04.rs.itd.umich.edu/tcaup/URPAAvideo384K_Stream.mov to see an interesting take on what makes for a vibrant downtown (including wide sidewalks).

 

The MVRPC is having a meeting on December 13th at 11:30am and 5:30pm to present the proposals for the two-way conversion at the RTA Main Office (Wright Stop Plaza).  I plan to attend and will follow-up on this post....

For me it seems like a bad idea.  This is going to cause what traffic there is downtown to become a bit more confused and congested, due to left-turns at intersections causing back-ups, or even if there is some sort of "no-left-turn" rule.  I don't see how this helps pedestrians, as when crossing a one-way street one has less turning traffic to keep an eye on. If the arguement is that this is going to "slow traffic", then that will make donwtown more of hassle for people who drive downtown.

 

I wasn't aware that this proposal was going to drive a reduction in on-street parking, which is a real bummer as I usually park on-street, not in lots or garages (if I can help it).

 

Seems like another one of those "urban planning" fixes that is just going to screw things up more.

 

 

I have not seen anything that proposes less street parking on this issue that would have a significant impact on parking. I am regularly fixing computers for MVRPC and I see a lot of things while I am there. While there are a few parking changes on major arteries like Patterson and Monument, the smaller roads like 2nd, 1st, etc. would not see hardly any changes as far as parking is concerned.

 

And I just don't see how this could make crossing a street any harder. It is not rocket science to look both ways before crossing a street, and what crosswalk downtown is NOT controlled by a crossing signal?? This should not be an issue as long as people are obeying the crosswalk signals. It is not a problem for people to cross Main or 3rd, so I don't think crossing 2nd or 4th would be any different. The 2-way street system is in use in a few smaller cities like Dayton and is working ok.

 

When people wonder why nobody likes to go downtown, one way streets are part of those reasons. People simply do not like to drive them. You need to consider a great majority of people in and around Dayton just DO NOT go downtown very often and when they have to, a one way street system to them is scary and confusing. They would just assume not put up with it.

People don't go downtown because they have to pay to park and theres nothing there.  One or two way streets have nothing to do with it.

 

 

People don't go downtown because they have to pay to park and theres nothing there.

 

I love the way this mentality works. People leave the city for dead and contribute nothing to it and then complain that there's nothing there. Therefore, it's the city's fault, not theirs. On the topic, Gay St in our downtown is going to be undergoing a one to two way conversion along with a number of other streets, if I remember correctly, at the end of the year. It's an exception to downtown in that it's doing rather well and there are plenty of cars parked in the angled parking despite it costing 25 cents for 10 minutes. I guess we'll see how things will change, but I'm not sure how +/- one is over the other.

I love the way this mentality works. People leave the city for dead and contribute nothing to it and then complain that there's nothing there. Therefore, it's the city's fault, not theirs.

Amen!

Vine Street in OTR, Cincinnati converted a few years ago, and in my opinion it has been a disaster for the following reasons:

 

-parallel parking spaces were lost to turn lanes and sidewalk bump-outs

-trucks cannot load and unload without causing lots of backups (this contributed to loss of a business or two)

-one person turning left or parrallel parking backs up the whole street

-all the other streets remained one-way, and this anamoly is just more confusing

-not any safer for pedestrians.  We usually end up crossing the street between gridlocked cars now.

 

I think the better solution would be to change the smaller streets to four-way stop signs, and install traffic calming devices, like bump-outs and textured sidewalks at all intersections.

 

BTW I prefer parallel parking to diagonal, as it is dangerous backing out of a diagonal space onto a heavily travelled street.

 

I would like to see diagonal parking that you have to back into, then pull out head first.  Since you have to back into parallel parking anyway, it would be harder

A few of the main streets in Bellevue recently switched to two-way from one-way about a year or so ago.  The results have been good, especially since the traffic in downtown Bellevue is often congested.  US 20 and a few state routes with heavy semi-truck traffic, combined with a strange layout of streets and the railroad, really bottlenecks that town.  I have noticed on the few occasions I drive through Bellevue that traffic is not backed up as much as in the past.  Downtown Bellevue, by the way, isn't in the greatest shape.

I would like to see diagonal parking that you have to back into, then pull out head first.  Since you have to back into parallel parking anyway, it would be harder

 

this has been done successfully on 18th st in Adams Morgan in DC.  Works very well.

 

As for conversion to 2-way, every street in every city is different, so it's not a one size fits all solution although it does calm traffic.  I fully support it for Vine St. in Cincinnati, but don't know Dayton well enough to know if it'd solve the problems or not.

The only downside I personally see to Dayton's one-way streets is the potential confusion such as Ronnie mentioned (although it's not a problem for me).  On the whole, I like the one-way system in Dayton as it is- it's pretty easy for pedestrians, left turns and parking don't back up traffic, it flows well (drive 20 mph and you'll likely hit all green lights), and--although I admit to not often being downtown during any kind of peak hours--I've never noticed a particular need to "calm" the traffic there.

some of the columbus streets are just too wide to be one-way. and the lights are timed for going 35mph!

some of the columbus streets are just too wide to be one-way. and the lights are timed for going 35mph!

 

Ditto for South Bend, and in my limited experience, I haven't seen enough cars on them to justify that much capacity in one direction. A pedestrian has to be fleet of foot to make it across some of them in the time that walk signals stay lit. They could put landscaped medians in the middle, make them two-way, and still have plenty of capacity and a more attractive downtown.

 

Fort Wayne doesn't have quite so much a wide-street problem as Columbus, but most of the lights are timed for 35mph, and even at that most drivers don't comprehend that they can set a steady speed and drive clear across town without having to stop for very many lights. They sprint from one stoplight to the next, get there while it's still red, brake hard to a complete stop, and then lag before dashing for the next one. It increases aggression, pollution and traffic noise, jams up the traffic flow and wastes fuel.

 

Some cross-streets in downtown have been cut by the expansion of the libary and the convention center, and on the advice of consultants the city council recently announced plans to make some of the downtown streets two-way instead of one-way to ease navigation. There was so much protest from the leadfoot drivers and the we've-always-done-it-this-way folks that they dropped the idea.

 

I'd like to see them make my one-way street into a two-way, and perhaps even return parking to one side of it. I live on a one-way outbound street at the edge of downtown, and there are no stoplights downstream for more than a mile. Despite the 35mph speed limit, most drivers are running 45 or better, and accelerating, when they pass my place. Traffic enforcement is an unfamiliar concept in Fort Wayne.

some of the columbus streets are just too wide to be one-way. and the lights are timed for going 35mph!

 

I think the city realizes this and recognizes the need for a comprimise.  They are converting Front and Gay to two way traffic, while leaving 3rd/4th and Spring/Long as one way mini interstates for traffic flow purposes.  I think they also need to look at converting 3rd/Summit/4th to two way north of I-670.  I always feel wierd zipping through that residential area.

 

Also, the collector/distributor streets that come from the reworking of the 70/71 split should allow for the conversion of all downtown streets to two way traffic (except for the collector/distributors of course).

Switching over from 1 to 2 way streets immediately does the following:

 

-reduce traffic capacity

-damages pedestrian safety

-increases congestion due to confusion over left turn lanes etc.

 

I am a big proponent of 1 way streets especially in gridded areas and in older cities that were built that lend themselves to this better than a 2 way street.

Gay street no longer a one-way street! Oh the irony.

Gay street no longer a one-way street! Oh the irony.

 

:roll: :lol:

Gay street no longer a one-way street! Oh the irony.

 

That is a good one! :D

Switching over from 1 to 2 way streets immediately does the following:

 

-reduce traffic capacity

-damages pedestrian safety

-increases congestion due to confusion over left turn lanes etc.

 

I am a big proponent of 1 way streets especially in gridded areas and in older cities that were built that lend themselves to this better than a 2 way street.

 

I don't know if it decreases pedestrian safety across the board.  Calhoun and McMillan around UC, having them as one way streets essentially makes them extentions of the highway on and off ramps which really increases the speed of the traffic.  In a downtown area I agree with you, but if there are only a few one way streets which have much faster traffic than the rest of the area, it might increase pedestrian saftey to convert them.

 

 

^ I agree, the one-ways in Columbus are closer to mini-interstates than anything. 

 

Also - the other two points that were brought up (reduced capacity and increased congestion) work in favor of adding more efficient forms of public transit.  If we keep catering to cars (adding lanes, converting streets to one way, etc...) we only push out the date where good mass transit can be justified.

I don't know if it decreases pedestrian safety across the board.  Calhoun and McMillan around UC, having them as one way streets essentially makes them extentions of the highway on and off ramps which really increases the speed of the traffic.

 

Yeah thats what I was saying about one-ways being best for gridded areas...Clifton/UC area, has lost much of its gridded street network  :|

I would like to see diagonal parking that you have to back into, then pull out head first.  Since you have to back into parallel parking anyway, it would be harder

I have never seen this done, but it does sound interesting.  It would be no different than parallel parking in that you still have to back into a space - it is just easier.  And it would be safer than pull-in angled parking because you wouldn't have to back out into traffic. 

 

Here is a paper done on this implementation in PA: http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume%202/Nawn.pdf

 

Does anybody know of this being done elsewhere?  And if you've experienced it, what are your thoughts?

 

 

I would like to see diagonal parking that you have to back into, then pull out head first.  Since you have to back into parallel parking anyway, it would be harder

I have never seen this done, but it does sound interesting.  It would be no different than parallel parking in that you still have to back into a space - it is just easier.  And it would be safer than pull-in angled parking because you wouldn't have to back out into traffic. 

 

Here is a paper done on this implementation in PA: http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume%202/Nawn.pdf

 

Does anybody know of this being done elsewhere?  And if you've experienced it, what are your thoughts?

 

this has been done successfully on 18th st in Adams Morgan in DC.  Works very well.

I would like to see diagonal parking that you have to back into, then pull out head first.  Since you have to back into parallel parking anyway, it would be harder

I have never seen this done, but it does sound interesting.  It would be no different than parallel parking in that you still have to back into a space - it is just easier.  And it would be safer than pull-in angled parking because you wouldn't have to back out into traffic. 

 

Here is a paper done on this implementation in PA: http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume%202/Nawn.pdf

 

Does anybody know of this being done elsewhere?  And if you've experienced it, what are your thoughts?

 

this has been done successfully on 18th st in Adams Morgan in DC.  Works very well.

 

Yeah, but has it been done anywhere successfully?  Does it work well?

I would like to see diagonal parking that you have to back into, then pull out head first.  Since you have to back into parallel parking anyway, it would be harder

I have never seen this done, but it does sound interesting.  It would be no different than parallel parking in that you still have to back into a space - it is just easier.  And it would be safer than pull-in angled parking because you wouldn't have to back out into traffic. 

 

Here is a paper done on this implementation in PA: http://www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume%202/Nawn.pdf

 

Does anybody know of this being done elsewhere?  And if you've experienced it, what are your thoughts?

 

What village near Sandusky Bay did I see that at.....

From the 12/11/06 Dayton Daily News...

 

Downtown's new traffic flow proposal due Wednesday

 

By Ken McCall

Staff Writer

 

Monday, December 11, 2006

 

DAYTON — Expect some gasps Wednesday when consultants unveil design alternatives for eliminating downtown Dayton's one-way streets. Of the two new designs, one calls for eliminating a quarter of the parking spaces, while the other would do away with three quarters of the parking, said Matt Selhorst, project manager with Tetra Tech Inc., the consultant hired to study traffic flow downtown.

 

For more information, please click the link.

www.daytondailynews.com

 

Seems like they could've done this a little better without losing so much parking. Apparently, the best thing for them to do now is just not do it. Unless they build a few parking garages to make up for the loss.

don't make the change.  Onstreet parking is crucial to having pedestrians.  Look at Atlanta, no onstreet parking, no one walking around.  Chicago, has onstreet parking, has pedestrians. 

 

the cars provide an important psycological and physical barrier for peopel on the sidewalks.

Seems like they could've done this a little better without losing so much parking. Apparently, the best thing for them to do now is just not do it. Unless they build a few parking garages to make up for the loss.

I agree Ronnie - though I don't think replacing street parking with a parking garage is the answer.  There are several street-level businesses that rely on the metered parking in front of their establishments.  People use those parking options if they need to run in and out of somewhere quickly (restaurant take-out, retail, etc.).  They are not likely to take the extra time to park in a garage and then walk a block or two - they'll simply keep on driving until they get to their more "convenient" suburb stores.

 

It is worth noting that the lifestyle malls like Easton and The Greene are mimicking real downtowns with their metered street parking.  This adds to the "downtown" feeling that they are trying to recreate.  It would be unfortunate (and ironic) if our real downtown did away with this important feature.

Eliminating parallel parking is the WORST decision a city could make.  People do not feel safe on a sidewalk next to speeding cars. 

 

Aren't the streets in Dayton 4 lanes wide?  Why can't you have one lane each direction with parallel parking on both sides?

I just got back from the MVRPC meeting in which a consulting team discussed their proposed two-way conversion options.  They have posted a series of pdf's that show what streets would look like with each of the following scenarios:

 

Alternative One: No Build (nothing is changed)

Alternative Two: Minimize Parking Impact (311 out of 1180, or 26% of street parking spaces eliminated; less traffic flow)

Alternative Three: Maximize Traffic Flow (977 out of 1180, or 83% of street parking spaces eliminated; more traffic flow)

 

http://www.mvrpc.org/daytonGrid/gridMtgMaterial.php is where you can find the maps.  It is kind of confusing the way they have the pdf links, but basicaly Maps 1,2,3 & 4 represent each respective quadrant of downtown.

 

These guys are ABSOLUTELY INSANE to even think about proposing a solution that would eliminate 83% of street parking spaces.  The meeting was interesting - I thought for a second there was going to be a riot and I think the consultants may have feared for their safety!  Another one today at 4:30pm at the RTA center if you'd like to see some fireworks....

 

    The thread is drifting a little, and that's ok. On street parking is definitely a big factor, but is somewhat independent of whether a street is one way or two way.

 

    Street widths and setbacks are also factors. It has been mentioned several times that one way streets encourage higher vehicle speeds. Maybe so, but I think street width, curves, and grades are bigger factors with regard to speed. You can have a narrow one way street and the speed will still be low.

 

    Sidewalk widths, street furniture, storefronts, and all of that are important also.

 

    Traditionally, the advantage of one way streets are lower congestion and fewer accidents. This applies to pedestrians as well as vehicles. The heart of it is that one way streets have fewer conflicting traffic movements at intersections.

 

    Calhoun and McMillan is a classic example of a pair of one way streets. However, those streets are not living to their full potential because the cross streets are two way.

 

   

    The thread is drifting a little, and that's ok. On street parking is definitely a big factor, but is somewhat independent of whether a street is one way or two way.

 

The two issues are directly related because in order to convert one way streets to two way, the proposals call for the elimination of between 26% and 83% of on-street parking spaces. 

 

I agree that changing to two-way would slow down traffic and thus increase pedestrian safety, but if it means giving up that many parking spaces then it makes absolutely no sense.  The consultants that came up with these proposals wasted an opportunity to develop a realistic solution (not to mention a lot of tax dollars)...

^pedestrian saftey goes down with a switch to two way traffic, think about it a car jumps a curb, dead pedestrian.  having a two thousand bound barrier in front of all the sidewalks helps pedestrian saftey.

 

  Just to clarify, I mean that in general whether a street has parking or not is somewhat independent of whether it is two way or not. I didn't look at your project specifically. If the curb lines or building lines are fixed, the yes, you only have so much space to work with and you must distribute that space between sidewalks, parking space, and driving lanes.

 

  There is no magic formula for distributing the space. The design should be balanced. There are lots of examples of streets that don't work well.

Norquist was one of the first mayors to promote more two-way streets. He led a campaign to convert several downtown Milwaukee streets back to two-way. He says the increased traffic means that neighborhoods flourish: "I think people started to realize that the city was more important than the road that runs through it."

 

I don't know this just doesn't seem to make sense...he states that increased traffic will make neighborhoods flourish, but then says that people are realizing that the city is more important than the road that runs through it...hmmmmm

 

  ^--- I don't agree with everything he says, but I think his point was that the more accessible local businesses are, the better the local economy is.

 

    A high speed motorway doesn't do anything for local business if people can't stop to shop. This could be an interstate with no access at all, or a local street with no parking.

 

    High speed and local access are conflicting items. You can't have both. The standard procedure of most DOT's has been to promote high speed at the cost of local access. Now, some DOT's, especially cities as opposed to states, are going the other way.

A former ODOT engineer wrote an letter to the editor of the Delaware Gazette several weeks back claiming that ODOT suggested that the City of Delaware make US 36 (William St) & OH 37 (Central Ave) each one way from their merge on the east end of town to Houk Rd (on the westside of town).

 

This concerns the latest economic development controversey in Delaware (Evidently there are plans afoot, again, for some mini mall out on 36/37 east, and city council is against allowing it to happen because traffic is a pain out there twice a day)

Two-way street conversions are a good idea in that they do slow down traffic (as opposed to the one-way mini-expressways that go through some downtowns that simply don't have the traffic to necessitate 4 lanes of one-way traffic), and they provide street-level businesses with higher visibility (by both traffic flowing both directions as well as slowing traffic down and allowing drivers to better notice their surroundings).

 

However - if street parking must be eliminated in order to convert streets to two-way, then any benefit gained by converting to two-way is lost; businesses don't care if more people can see their business if there is no way for people to park nearby for a short visit.  Pedestrians won't feel any safer by the slow-down of traffic if there are no longer parked cars that seperate them from speeding traffic.  And drivers will not find navigating downtown any easier with two-way streets if they can no longer find a parking place.

 

In Dayton, they are suggesting eliminating between 26% and 83% of all street parking in order to convert all the one-way streets to two-way.  This would destroy any chances of downtown becoming the vibrant space it once was.

Billy, what happened at the last meeting you went to? Did people voice their opinion against this? Are they going to do one of the proposals or look at other options? When is this supposed to be finalized? I haven't been down to MVRPC in awhile.

Billy, what happened at the last meeting you went to? Did people voice their opinion against this? Are they going to do one of the proposals or look at other options? When is this supposed to be finalized? I haven't been down to MVRPC in awhile.

At the meeting I attended, the audience was very combative about the idea that this much parking would be sacraficed, and the consultant that was running the meeting was lucky to get out of there alive.  So no, I don't think there is much chance that either of the proposed solutions will stand any chance at being implemented (unless the city commission wants to be run out of town).

 

They are supposed to now meet with the many stake holders that this decision will affect before bringing it in front of the city commission.