Converting One Way Streets to Two Way

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Unsure about the circle 10 blocks scenario, generally if you end up on an avenue going in the opposite direction you anticipated, your next turn to get to the adjacent avenue going the other way is 1-2 blocks away. Unless it's rush hour and you need to merge across 3 lanes, but, well rush hour always kind of sucks I suppose.

Remember that the one ways are going both east-west and north south. Nonetheless, the constant detours because of one ways can be a pain and it hurts local retailers. I would imagine any retailer would much rather be on a two-way street than a one way.

[polishavenger]

There also seems to be an intangible negative vibe on a street where all you see is either the back or front of vehicles, and is designed only to move traffic out of the area. It feels like you are on a freeway rather than a cozy urban street.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Timing 2 directions of traffic would be very difficult.

Why is that? I cant see it being any different than one way? On busy roads, the west bound traffic goes first with a left turn signal allowing quick uninterupted turns, and pedestrians on the right turn get to go. Then the east bound traffic goes, same idea, and the pattern repeats as it circulates through all directions. Corresponding intersections down the road do the same thing on an appropriate delay. For intersections with lots of pedestrians, you can do what has been done with the eau clair intersections, pedestrians have a dedicated light and can go all directions, then vehicle traffic goes.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Why is that? I cant see it being any different than one way? On busy roads, the west bound traffic goes first with a left turn signal allowing quick uninterupted turns, and pedestrians on the right turn get to go. Then the east bound traffic goes, same idea, and the pattern repeats as it circulates through all directions. Corresponding intersections down the road do the same thing on an appropriate delay. For intersections with lots of pedestrians, you can do what has been done with the eau clair intersections, pedestrians have a dedicated light and can go all directions, then vehicle traffic goes.

First lets forget the left arrow downtown as most intersections don't have enough space for 5 lanes to accommodate a left hand turn lane. Also having 5 lanes makes the roadway much larger then it needs to be if it was one way leaving less sidewalk space. I would be more worried about someone trying to turn left on a yellow trying to clear the intersection and run down a pedestrian as the driver is more worried about on coming traffic then the person.

I would rather see 40Km/h speed limit with lights time so you could go more then 50Km/h per block without having to stop for a red light.

I would be willing to make a small wager that two one-way streets with 3 lanes have better capacity then two 2-way street with 4 lanes total.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by fusili

Remember that the one ways are going both east-west and north south. Nonetheless, the constant detours because of one ways can be a pain and it hurts local retailers. I would imagine any retailer would much rather be on a two-way street than a one way.

I don't know about the retailers preference but my thoughts are that one way street would have a better chance to have parking on both sides and more through traffic so there is more people seeing my store.

The constant detours also means more people pass by too, more chance they might stop by in the future.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

There also seems to be an intangible negative vibe on a street where all you see is either the back or front of vehicles, and is designed only to move traffic out of the area. It feels like you are on a freeway rather than a cozy urban street.

Okay, I can reverse that and say it doesn't feel like downtown if there isn't one way streets. Most major city's have one way streets in their downtown's.

I don't see it as a negative. But I don't find downtown's cozy as the tall building shadows give it a cold and dark feel outside of midday afternoon.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Why is that? I cant see it being any different than one way? On busy roads, the west bound traffic goes first with a left turn signal allowing quick uninterupted turns, and pedestrians on the right turn get to go. Then the east bound traffic goes, same idea, and the pattern repeats as it circulates through all directions. Corresponding intersections down the road do the same thing on an appropriate delay. For intersections with lots of pedestrians, you can do what has been done with the eau clair intersections, pedestrians have a dedicated light and can go all directions, then vehicle traffic goes.

Of course it's different for two way traffic. One way streets work very well because every light is timed to turn green about 30 seconds after the previous one, this can't work with 2 way streets. You can't have the light red in both directions then turning green as the cars approach, the timing just doesn't work. If you have 2 cars, one going east and one going west, one direction will be timed and the other not. For example, when the west bound car gets to the next light, it turns green just as the car approaches, that means that the cars that were waiting at that light going east are going to catch a red light at the intersection the westbound car just came from, and if they make it through that one, they will definitely catch the next one. There would be ways to time the lights to be as efficient as possible, but they will never be as efficient as the one way was.

As for the scramble intersections, they are proven to be very inefficient at moving traffic quickly, the city even admits this. The reason they use them is to improve safety for pedestrians at high traffic intersections.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Okay, I can reverse that and say it doesn't feel like downtown if there isn't one way streets. Most major city's have one way streets in their downtown's.

I don't see it as a negative. But I don't find downtown's cozy as the tall building shadows give it a cold and dark feel outside of midday afternoon.

The argument can be reversed, but then you are essentially arguing for an empty unpleasant streetscape. If thats what you want, then all the power to you. I would like to see a downtown that has more of a first street vibe than an 5th ave vibe. I know it will take more than converting the streets to two way, but its a start.

Tall buildings are far more inviting when the streetscape and first few floors are designed for people, which unfortunately is not the case in calgary.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Of course it's different for two way traffic. One way streets work very well because every light is timed to turn green about 30 seconds after the previous one, this can't work with 2 way streets. You can't have the light red in both directions then turning green as the cars approach, the timing just doesn't work. If you have 2 cars, one going east and one going west, one direction will be timed and the other not. For example, when the west bound car gets to the next light, it turns green just as the car approaches, that means that the cars that were waiting at that light going east are going to catch a red light at the intersection the westbound car just came from, and if they make it through that one, they will definitely catch the next one. There would be ways to time the lights to be as efficient as possible, but they will never be as efficient as the one way was.

Timing lights doesnt mean you can avoid reds all the time, its just makes flow better on the primary routes at the expense of the secondary routes. Timing with east and west shouldnt be any different, because as the west bound is moving the east is stopped, so the westbound timing can be on a green wave while the east is on a red wave, and vice versa.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

First lets forget the left arrow downtown as most intersections don't have enough space for 5 lanes to accommodate a left hand turn lane. Also having 5 lanes makes the roadway much larger then it needs to be if it was one way leaving less sidewalk space. I would be more worried about someone trying to turn left on a yellow trying to clear the intersection and run down a pedestrian as the driver is more worried about on coming traffic then the person.

No additional space is necessary. All you need to add is the light to the overhead signal. The inner lane can either go straight or turn left, no additional turning bay is needed since the left turn arrow would go for as long as the green is on for people going straight. This eliminates the problem of one car holding up everyone behind them when they are trying to turn left across on coming traffic, and the problem of trying to clear a yellow light and hitting a pedestrian.

The parking capacity would stay the same as it currently is, all that would change is you would paint a yellow line down the middle of the road, put in some green arrow lights, and change the timing/order of the lights. The biggest change would be at the entry points into down town where one ways would meet with two ways. I will try to put together a diagram for how I would solve this.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

Timing lights doesnt mean you can avoid reds all the time, its just makes flow better on the primary routes at the expense of the secondary routes. Timing with east and west shouldnt be any different, because as the west bound is moving the east is stopped, so the westbound timing can be on a green wave while the east is on a red wave, and vice versa.

That's exactly my point, while one direction is moving, the other is stopped, and then you have to factor in that both will be stopped at times while the other street has the green. I'm not against the 2-way idea, I'm just saying the one ways are far more efficient at moving traffic.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

No additional space is necessary. All you need to add is the light to the overhead signal. The inner lane can either go straight or turn left, no additional turning bay is needed since the left turn arrow would go for as long as the green is on for people going straight. This eliminates the problem of one car holding up everyone behind them when they are trying to turn left across on coming traffic, and the problem of trying to clear a yellow light and hitting a pedestrian.

The parking capacity would stay the same as it currently is, all that would change is you would paint a yellow line down the middle of the road, put in some green arrow lights, and change the timing/order of the lights. The biggest change would be at the entry points into down town where one ways would meet with two ways. I will try to put together a diagram for how I would solve this.

You would also need to install lights that are facing the other direction. Example, right now on 11th Ave there is only lights for west bound traffic, not for east bound since there is no east bound traffic.

Also, the east bound would not be stopped while the west bound is moving, both need to move at the same time at some point (might be slight phase shift to allow for turn arrows, hence where the inefficiencies start). They both have to run at the same time, because when they are stopped, the N-S traffic will run. If you run each direction one at a time, you get huge inefficiencies, and at the volumes those roads will experience gridlock all the time.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

You would also need to install lights that are facing the other direction. Example, right now on 11th Ave there is only lights for west bound traffic, not for east bound since there is no east bound traffic.

Also, the east bound would not be stopped while the west bound is moving, both need to move at the same time at some point (might be slight phase shift to allow for turn arrows, hence where the inefficiencies start). They both have to run at the same time, because when they are stopped, the N-S traffic will run. If you run each direction one at a time, you get huge inefficiencies, and at the volumes those roads will experience gridlock all the time.

Im not sure I understand how running each direction at a time is less efficient that having an entire lane blocked because some has to turn left and has to deal with oncoming traffic? For intersections that have enough traffic to warrant it, I would think this would make a lot more sense, it only seems to make more sense to have both directions moving only if left hand turns are minimal, or opposing traffic is light enough to have lots of gaps to make the left turn.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Unsure about the circle 10 blocks scenario, generally if you end up on an avenue going in the opposite direction you anticipated, your next turn to get to the adjacent avenue going the other way is 1-2 blocks away. Unless it's rush hour and you need to merge across 3 lanes, but, well rush hour always kind of sucks I suppose.

Dizzy, Im eggagerrating, I think it is closer to fusili's 7 block estimate......but the area around stephen ave and the train line make it quite difficult to maneuver downtown with all of the one ways.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

I don't know about the retailers preference but my thoughts are that one way street would have a better chance to have parking on both sides and more through traffic so there is more people seeing my store.

The constant detours also means more people pass by too, more chance they might stop by in the future.

Oh yay, stuck in a car circling round and round........how fun!

sarcasm

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

The argument can be reversed, but then you are essentially arguing for an empty unpleasant streetscape. If thats what you want, then all the power to you. I would like to see a downtown that has more of a first street vibe than an 5th ave vibe. I know it will take more than converting the streets to two way, but its a start.

Tall buildings are far more inviting when the streetscape and first few floors are designed for people, which unfortunately is not the case in calgary.

Yes, and before we make our minds up maybe we can look at how other cities handle downtown traffic. Serely there has to be a more attractic option than our 5 one-way lane freeways (with no bike lanes).

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

No additional space is necessary. All you need to add is the light to the overhead signal. The inner lane can either go straight or turn left, no additional turning bay is needed since the left turn arrow would go for as long as the green is on for people going straight. This eliminates the problem of one car holding up everyone behind them when they are trying to turn left across on coming traffic, and the problem of trying to clear a yellow light and hitting a pedestrian.

So your saying only one direction can go at a time? Either west or east. Your system can not give a left arrow to traffic in both directions at the same time and therefore only one direction can go at a time.

This would half if not more reduce road capacity.

I can't support the idea that we need to create a traffic jam so that it's pedestrian friendly and make it seem like a popular place because there is people there. The this isn't a win-win or even a win-somewhat neutral proposal. This could completely backfire and make people avoid downtown completely outside of work adding to the problem.

Think of it this way, how many people enjoy driving 17th ave (Red Mile) on a Saturday night. A few, they like to see whats going on and people watch but most will steer clear of that area as it's ridiculously more dangerous to drive down then alternatives. Those few I know agree that it's "white knuckle driving" as anything from some one running in front of you or another car sideswiping you is fairly possible.

As for parking, I doubt that your 4 lanes could accommodate 24 hour parking but instead have to be vacated during the rush. With only 3 traffic lanes in one direction, it will depend completely on how wide the sidewalk is and how the curb extensions at each intersection is. With 4 lanes curb extensions would likely be out of the question.

[Koolfire]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

The argument can be reversed, but then you are essentially arguing for an empty unpleasant streetscape. If thats what you want, then all the power to you. I would like to see a downtown that has more of a first street vibe than an 5th ave vibe. I know it will take more than converting the streets to two way, but its a start.

Tall buildings are far more inviting when the streetscape and first few floors are designed for people, which unfortunately is not the case in calgary.

Who said I was arguing for an empty or unpleasant streetscape. I don't find downtown unpleasant at all. Everyone has different views of what they like and dislike. That's why we don't all live in skyscrapers, or out in suburbia.

Painting a yellow line down the middle of the street isn't going to make the streetscape better. It will take more then that. The two things that come to mind is more walking space and a denser downtown. Yes denser. Calgary has a nice downtown but relatively the density (SQ not people density) of downtown is smaller. You look at New York, Toronto, and Chicago. Their buildings are significantly taller.

Changing roads to two way I think is the wrong approach. I'd be happier with the roads being 2 lanes wide for traffic one way and parking on the side then to have 4 lanes with 2 way traffic.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

Who said I was arguing for an empty or unpleasant streetscape. I don't find downtown unpleasant at all. Everyone has different views of what they like and dislike. That's why we don't all live in skyscrapers, or out in suburbia.

Painting a yellow line down the middle of the street isn't going to make the streetscape better. It will take more then that. The two things that come to mind is more walking space and a denser downtown. Yes denser. Calgary has a nice downtown but relatively the density (SQ not people density) of downtown is smaller. You look at New York, Toronto, and Chicago. Their buildings are significantly taller.

Changing roads to two way I think is the wrong approach. I'd be happier with the roads being 2 lanes wide for traffic one way and parking on the side then to have 4 lanes with 2 way traffic.

Arguing for the status quo in downtown is arguing for an unpleasant streetscape. I do however agree that conversion of the one ways to two ways would only be a starting point, a lot more needs to be done.

Density is not the most important factor, usage and design are. You can go to any major city in the world where you have 100 story skyscrapers in the CBD, and you will find them dead after working hours. I've been to Hong Kong, Shanghai, New York, London, Beijing, Manila and its the same everywhere. If you have only a single use in any given area, it will have extended times when no one is around. Mixing up the uses keeps a place vibrant for longer periods of time during the day, and building structures that are welcoming and easily repurposed allow for an active streetscape.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by Koolfire

So your saying only one direction can go at a time? Either west or east. Your system can not give a left arrow to traffic in both directions at the same time and therefore only one direction can go at a time.

This would half if not more reduce road capacity.

I can't support the idea that we need to create a traffic jam so that it's pedestrian friendly and make it seem like a popular place because there is people there. The this isn't a win-win or even a win-somewhat neutral proposal. This could completely backfire and make people avoid downtown completely outside of work adding to the problem.

Think of it this way, how many people enjoy driving 17th ave (Red Mile) on a Saturday night. A few, they like to see whats going on and people watch but most will steer clear of that area as it's ridiculously more dangerous to drive down then alternatives. Those few I know agree that it's "white knuckle driving" as anything from some one running in front of you or another car sideswiping you is fairly possible.

As for parking, I doubt that your 4 lanes could accommodate 24 hour parking but instead have to be vacated during the rush. With only 3 traffic lanes in one direction, it will depend completely on how wide the sidewalk is and how the curb extensions at each intersection is. With 4 lanes curb extensions would likely be out of the question.

I cant see how that would halve the capacity, or create traffic Jams, but only a traffic study/model would put that questions to rest.

17th Ave is a slow route because it has only 1 through lane in each direction (outside lanes taken up by parking) and because all the intersections except for 14th street dont have turning arrows.