Useful Resources: 

 
• City of Fargo Economic Impact Study. Draft. September 13, 2010. E‐Source: 
http://www.ci.fargo.nd.us/  (excerpt  included in Appendix F) 
 
• Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. “Downtown Streets: Are We 
Strangling Ourselves on One‐Way Networks?” TRB Circular E‐C019: Urban Street 
Symposiu. (Included in Appendix F) 
 
• Hart Jr., Jeryl D “Converting Back to Two‐Way Streets in Downtown Lubbock” ITE 
Journal, August 1998. (Included in Appendix F) 
 
• City of Alma, Michigan: Two‐Way Street Conversion Info Packet. E‐source: 
downtownalma.com/Two‐Way_Street_Project. (Included in Appendix F) 
 
• Local Government Commission Center for Livable Communities “The Economic 
Benefits of Walkable Communities” (Included in Appendix F) 
 
• Meng, Lum Kit and Thu, Soe “A Microscopic Simulation Study of Two‐Way Street 
Network Versus One‐Way Street Network” Journal of The Institution of 
Engineers, Singapore (Vol. 44, Issue 2, 2004). 
 
• Walker, Wade G, et al “Are We Strangling Ourselves on One‐Way Networks?” 
TRB Circular E‐CO19: Urban street Symposium   
 
• City of Kalamazoo, MI: Street Conversion Case Recommendation. E‐source 
www.downtownkalamazoo.org/.../Two‐Way‐Street‐Conversion.aspx 
 
• City of Wichita, KS: Staff Report: Two Way Traffic Flow Conversion Study. E‐
source: http://www.wichita.gov/NR/rdonlyres/80D5F163‐0D05‐41A3‐A731‐
0022BB27075B/0/ParkPlandMarket2way.pdf 
 
 
Directions: Please answer the following questions by replying yes or no to each question. If information or data is
unavailable please respond by indicating UA

Community: Alma, MI
Alma, MI Aeric Ripley, Assistant City Manager
Street Conversion Objectives and Economic Impacts
Question Response (yes, no, UA (unavailable))

1. Part of a larger redevelopment strategy…

It was part of the HyettPalma Study conducted in 1998.
Was the city's one-way or two-way street conversion part of a Changing the environment and culture of a
larger redevelopment plan? community takes more then just changing the streets.

2. Improve the existing traffic and/or transportation systems. . .

Did the conversion improve auto access / traffic flow? Yes. The Conversion took place in our downtown.
Our downtown is on a State Trunkline and our Dail A Ride
Did the conversion improve the public transit system (access, Director does not allow the buses to stop on the main
additional stops, etc.)? street.

Did the conversion support the addition of bicycle lanes? no

Were sidewalks widened through the conversion process? no - we are lucky in the fact we have wide sidewalks.

3. Support/Stimulate Development/Redevelopment . . .
The conversion happened in 2005, there have been
improvments to buildings, but cannot be attributed to the
Did the conversion stimulate the development of new offices conversion. The economy in Michigan has been hurting for
buildings/or tenant build-outs? a long while.
Five apartments were rehabed and four new loft apartments
Did the conversion stimulate the development of new residential are planned. Again can't say it was the street, but can't say
units? the new enviornment hasn't encouraged it.
Did the conversion attract new retailers? no

Did the conversion attract new hotel/and lodging? no

We have completed the riverwalk system, which connects
Did the conversion generate new public investment (e.g. public to
buildings/parks)? downtown to neighborhoods and parks.

4. Direct economic indicators…

Five upper story apartment units have been rehabed and
Did the conversion increase residential occupancy? four new units are on the way.

Downtown Retail has been hurt with more competition of

box and internet. Holding our own. We just had a fire
downtown that took out a popular ice cream/eatery, a
screen/sign shop and a dance studio. The gift and flower
Did the conversion increase retail occupancy? shop is reopening.

Did the conversion increase office occupancy? The number of office space has increased a little bit.
The best way to look at the conversion is we have better
access to all points of downtown. We are a City of 9200
people with a small college, a large retirement Facility
(Masonic Pathways) and Regional Hospital. Three lanes one
way did not make sense in our downtown. The downtown
competition in Northtown and Mount Pleasant all have two
way streets. I am sure they would not want one way street
by their businesses.
Directions: Please answer the following questions by replying yes or no to each question. If information or data is unavailable

Community: Chattanooga, TN
Chattanooga, TN_Ben Taylor, Traffic Engineer
Street Conversion Objectives and Economic Impacts
Question Response (yes, no, UA (unavailable))

1. Part of a larger redevelopment strategy…

Was the city's one-way or two-way street conversion part of a larger
redevelopment plan? Yes

2. Improve the existing traffic and/or transportation systems. . .

Did the conversion improve auto access / traffic flow? Yes, mostly for business,
Did the conversion improve the public transit system (access,
additional stops, etc.)? No

Did the conversion support the addition of bicycle lanes? No

Were sidewalks widened through the conversion process? No

3. Support/Stimulate Development/Redevelopment . . .
Did the conversion stimulate the development of new offices
buildings/or tenant build-outs? No (built but never rented)
Did the conversion stimulate the development of new residential
units? Yes

Did the conversion attract new retailers? UA

Did the conversion attract new hotel/and lodging? No

Did the conversion generate new public investment (e.g. public
buildings/parks)? Yes-walking trail
4. Direct economic indicators…

Did the conversion increase residential occupancy? UA

Did the conversion increase retail occupancy? UA

Did the conversion increase office occupancy? UA

Fargo One-Way Pairs Analysis

A
 Converting One-Way Streets to Two-Way Operation
In the 1950’s and 60’s, one-way streets were implemented across the US, including
Fargo, in an attempt to rid downtowns of traffic congestion. The relative efficiency of
one-way streets in moving traffic did reduce congestion without street widening or the
construction of new facilities. One-way couplets were so effective in relieving
congestion and increasing traffic flow it was also seen as a key economic development
tool to attract businesses to downtown. It is important to note that during this time most
downtown workers did not commute great distances. Rather, most lived within 2 to 5
miles of their downtown jobs. Suburbs had not been invented yet and the transportation
infrastructure did not support long commute distances.

With the construction of the interstate highway system, workers began to move farther
and farther from their places of work. As workers moved to the suburbs, providers of
goods and services followed. Workers no longer patronized small downtown shops since
they could fill their needs closer to home (and often at lower prices). By the 1980’s even
stalwart downtown corporate offices were seeking cheaper land in the suburbs. Many
formerly strong downtowns became blighted and devoid of life after 6 p.m.

During the 1990’s communities began to rediscover the attractiveness of their

downtowns, which never lost their designation as the cultural and government hub of
their community. The ability of downtowns to adapt to the role of entertainment center
has aided in their comeback. Many people now go downtown to seek escape from the
outlying suburbs and office parks. As people return to downtowns, there has been a plea
for a rebalancing of downtown roadways to make them safer and friendlier for all modes
of travel. It is within this context that a trend emerged to convert some one-way streets
back to two-way operation. It is not that the one-way street strategy failed, or that traffic
volumes decreased. However, the prevailing wisdom is that two-way streets can enhance
a neighborhood’s environment, reduce speeds to levels that are more compatible with
pedestrian traffic, and that a “busy” street can be an indicator of a healthy business
environment. There are pros and cons for one-way streets and two-way streets, but one
must recognize that they will differ from one city or one street to another.

This technical memorandum is an attempt to survey available studies and literature

regarding one-way to two-way street conversions in central business districts from
around the country in order to:
1. assess the impacts of such conversions, and
2. try to identify consistent trends in those impacts
It is hoped that some real world information can be brought to bear and made part of a
discussion in Fargo as to the future of the NP Avenue/1st Avenue North one-way couplet.
Not every study examined for this survey included information on all topics reported
here. Therefore, the data has been grouped by topic rather than geographic location, and
references to specific locations will be cited in the text when appropriate.

Capacity & Speed

Among the available literature, there seems to be little doubt that one-way streets have an
advantage in carrying capacity over two-way streets. One-ways have fewer conflicting
turning movements at intersections (or business accesses), successive traffic signals can
be synchronized to provide a continuous “green-band” flow of traffic with little
disruption from counter-flow traffic (also called “signal progression”), and there is more
B
green time for all movements at intersections because there are fewer movements that
need green time.

Not only can a one-way lane have more carrying capacity than a corresponding two-way
lane, but it may be possible to fit more one-way lanes within the available right-of-way
on a one-way street. A two-way street with only one lane in each direction may not have
sufficient width to accommodate two lanes in each direction, but it may have sufficient
width to accommodate three lanes in one direction when converted to one-way operation.
Therefore, the carrying capacity advantage of one-way streets over two-way streets can
be substantial. Studies of one-way couplets in New York City have shown that they
reduce the number of stops along the network by 66%, reduce intersection delay by 50%,
and reduce overall trip time by 22% to 33%. 1 Additionally, planners in Austin, Texas
(pop: 680,000) calculated that converting several one-way couplets to two-way operation
would increase travel delay by 23% overall.

The survey of available studies indicates that when one-way couplets were converted to
two-way operation, in some cases (e.g., Edmonton, Alberta (pop: 900,000); San
Francisco, California (pop: 739,426); Hamilton, Ontario (pop: 662,000)) there was
displacement of traffic onto parallel corridors. This displacement is at least partially a
function of the well-developed grid pattern of streets in most downtowns, and partially a
function of the increased congestion that results from two-way operation on the formerly
one-way corridors. If there is sufficient excess capacity on these parallel corridors, the
increase in traffic could make them more attractive for redevelopment.

Carrying capacity is partially a function of speed, so it should surprise no one that two-
way corridors also tend to experience slower overall travel speeds relative to comparable
one-ways. The slower vehicle speeds are related to the issues stated above as
contributing to the reduced capacity (i.e., counter-flow traffic, more difficult to
synchronize signals, less green time available because there are more movements that
need green time). This would be a disadvantage for through-travelers or for travelers
attempting to leave downtown, but for travelers with a downtown destination,
accessibility may be more important. Overall, it will be important to balance both speed
and accessibility needs across the network. A study for the Journal of The Institution of
Engineers 2 found an average speed differential of 4 to 5 mph when comparing the one-
way and two-way networks, which would equate to an additional 6 minutes of travel time
per half-mile. Edmonton, Alberta reports reduced vehicle speeds along corridors that
they recently converted from one-way to two-way operation. These slower speeds may
be a factor in the economic impacts of the two-way conversions (see “Economic Vitality
& Parking” section below). In some cases (e.g., West Palm Beach, Florida (pop:
1,049,000); Louisville, Kentucky (pop:1,005,000)) post-conversion capacity was not an
issue.

Comments: If converted to two-way operation, NP Avenue and 1st Avenue

North will have less carrying capacity than they do today. The 2004
Snyder & Associates study indicated (preliminarily) that two-way three
lane roadways (with a common center left-turn lane) may none-the-less

1
Karagheuzoff, Theodore “Traffic Engineering Succeeds in New York City” ITE Traffic Engineering,
(September 1972: 18-72).
2
Meng, Lum Kit and Thu, Soe “A Microscopic Simulation Study of Two-Way Street Network Versus One-
Way Street Network” Journal of The Institution of Engineers, Singapore (Vol. 44, Issue 2, 2004)
C
 have sufficient capacity to accommodate future traffic demands on NP
Avenue and 1st Avenue North in Fargo. Should downtown revitalization
be more successful than anticipated in the traffic forecast model, that may
no longer be the case. Preliminary modeling by Snyder & Associates also
indicated that 3,000 to 4,000 vpd would be displaced to Main Avenue.
The number of displaced vehicles could increase if downtown
revitalization were more successful than anticipated in the traffic forecast
model. It should be noted, however, that a largely successful downtown
revitalization effort is not inherently a bad thing. It is up to the City to
weigh the pros and cons of revitalization versus increased traffic. The NP
and 1st Avenue North corridors range in width from 45 to 54 feet. A
roadway cross-section of 54 feet will provide several different lane
arrangement options, including two travel lanes (two 11-ft lanes and two
12-ft lanes) in each direction and parking on one-side of the street.
Another option would be to provide one lane of travel in each direction
(12-ft lanes) with a center left-turn lane (14-ft lane) and parking on both
sides of the street. Each lane configuration alternative needs to be
evaluated to determine is sufficient capacity exists to handle projected
future traffic. It may be valuable to evaluate a “best case” scenario (i.e.,
a successful high-growth downtown revitalization scenario) to determine
the overall downtown traffic impacts and the approximate levels of
congestion under such a scenario. If conversion is implemented, overall
travel times along the corridors will likely increase.

Directness of Travel & Read-ability

One of the inherent disadvantages of one-way streets is that they force additional turning
movements at intersections and can increase total vehicle miles traveled on the system
because drivers are prevented from taking a direct path to their intended destination. A
study published by the Transportation Research Board 3 indicates that a one-way system
usually yields approximately 120 to 160% of the turning movements of a comparable
two-way system, and the travel distance between portal and destination is usually 20 to
50% greater on a one-way system. Similarly, Meng and Thu 4 indicate that when a one-
way only network is microsimulated and compared to a two-way only network, total
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tended to be about 20% higher on the one-way network.

One-way streets do not pose a major inconvenience for commuters and regular visitors to
the downtown. These people have learned the downtown network and know the “best
route” to their destination. But the occasional visitor to downtown can become confused
and disoriented by a one-way street network. Ironically, it is often these occasional users
that a revitalized downtown is trying to attract. If traffic circulation can be made “easier
to read” and more intuitive, this target market segment may be better satisfied with their
overall downtown experience. One should also keep in mind the general aging of the
American population that is occurring as the baby-boom generation approaches
retirement. Making downtown traffic circulation more easily understandable may
become imperative as this population segment ages. Even among those people who live
and work downtown, no matter what their age or ability, two-way streets may be better

3
Walker, Wade G, et al “Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?” TRB Circular E-CO19:
Urban street Symposium
4
Ibid, above
D
for medium length trips (i.e., too far to walk) because of the higher level of accessibility
offered by two-way operation.

There is also an impact to the directness of transit operations on a one-way network. A

hypothetical transit passenger heading eastbound may disembark on NP Avenue at their
destination, but when that passenger needs to catch the westbound bus back home, they
must walk one block north to 1st Avenue. This may be confusing or inconvenient if the
passenger is a new resident or elderly. If both NP Avenue and 1st Avenue North operated
as two-way streets, this passenger would need only cross the street to catch their return-
trip bus.

The survey of conversions in other communities revealed that in some cases (e.g., New
Haven, CT (pop: 126,000) and Hickory, NC (pop: 36,000)) the conversion of one-way
couplets to two-way operation resulted in less confusion for out-of-town visitors and a
more “user friendly” image for the community.

Comments: Converting NP Avenue and 1st Avenue North to two-way

operation may decrease total VMT on the network and decrease
intersection turning movements as a result of more direct travel
opportunities. Additionally, it may make downtown navigation less
confusing and help create an overall positive downtown experience for the
occasional visitor.

Safety
There seem to be two general schools of thought when it comes to one-way streets and
vehicle crashes (pedestrian and bicycle safety issue will be discussed in a later section).
The first theory is that with fewer conflict points, one-way streets are safer than
comparable two-way corridors. The second theory says that the higher speeds on one-
way couplets lead to higher severity accidents. Considering the two theories together,
one could synthesize the following theory: two-way streets may experience more
numerous accidents, but they will be less severe because average speeds tend to be lower.
Since the risk of death and injury is an exponential function of vehicle speed, a 20%
reduction in speed would result in much more than a 20% reduction in the chances of
death and injury.

We do not know of any studies that consider both crash frequency and crash severity pre-
and post-conversion. However, there is some conflicting data concerning crash
frequency. Post two-way conversion corridors in Lubbock, Texas (pop: 200,000)
experienced a 10% increase in traffic accidents while traffic volumes remained
unchanged. In the city of Edmonton, Alberta, post-conversion vehicle crashes decreased
by 4%.

A related issue deals with emergency vehicles and their ability to navigate on one-way
corridors. The Federal Highway Administration has noted that “emergency vehicles may
be blocked by cars in all lanes at intersections waiting for signals to change.” In a two-
way flow situation, emergency vehicles usually have the opportunity to use the counter-
flow lanes to drive around vehicles stopped at a red light. The Fire Chief of Chattanooga,
Tennessee supported the conversion of their one-way couplets since it would be easier to
access the site of a fire or other emergency when the approach is not limited to a single
direction. Of course, as with any vehicle, this directness of access is at least partially off-

E
set by slower average travel speeds and increased conflicts at intersections. However
these issues may not have as much impact on emergency vehicles which have some
ability to clear the travel-way in front of them with lights and sirens.

Police departments in both Louisville, Kentucky (pop: 1,005,000) and Hamilton, Ontario
(pop: 662,000) report that patrolling on the converted two-way streets is easier than
before, and shop visibility has increased.

Comments: Converting NP and 1st Avenue North to two-way operation

will likely result in a modest change in crash frequency within the
corridors, though it is difficult to tell if the change would be positive or
negative. The crash type history, crash frequency, and speed data for the
NP and 1st Avenue North corridors should be reviewed against
comparable data for existing two-way streets. There may be an
opportunity to study crash severity and crash frequency both pre- and
post-conversion in Fargo if the City chooses to undertake conversion. The
fire station on Roberts Street between NP and 1st Avenue North and the
Fargo Police Department should be consulted as to what they perceive as
the pros and cons of two-way conversion.

F
Pollution
Recall that one of the original reasons for converting two-way streets to one-way
operation was to move traffic more quickly and efficiently through (then) congested
downtowns. In the 1970’s an additional, corollary reason for converting to one-ways was
to reduce air pollution. Thousands of vehicles idling in peak hour gridlock seemed to be
a source of “preventable” hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitric oxides.

Here, again, conflicting theories abound. Do the higher travel speeds and lower delay of
one-way corridors result in less vehicle generated air pollution? Or, do the slower speeds
and more direct access of a two-way network result in less gas being burned and thus less
air pollution? We found only a single study that attempted to determine the answer. In
Meng and Thu’s 5 microsimulation study of one-way networks versus two-way networks,
the higher VMT inherent in a one-way network more than offset the lower emission rates
of vehicles traveling on the network. In other words, while slower moving vehicles on a
two-way network do produce more air pollution per mile and burn more gas per mile, the
lower overall VMT (because of more direct access to destinations) result in overall lower
production of air pollution. These results are important, but may be of only limited
applicability to Fargo. The microsimulation used in the study assumed every street in the
network was a one-way street in the one-way scenario, and assumed that every street was
a two-way street in the two-way scenario. Not every street in downtown Fargo is
currently a one-way, so the any VMT benefit (and hence any air pollution benefit) of
converting one-ways to two-way operations would be much more limited than the Meng
and Thu simulation results.

Comment: Converting NP and 1st Avenue North to two-way operation

would likely result in a very small reduction of vehicle source air pollution
in the downtown area. In any event, technological advances in cleaner-
burning fuels, electric-hybrid vehicles, and alternative-fuel vehicles will
likely have a much greater impact than conversion on vehicle source air
pollution over time.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Environments

It’s hard to imagine a vibrant downtown without pedestrians. Whether it’s people who
walk to the downtown area from surrounding neighborhoods, people who live downtown
because they want easier access to their place of work or their favorite stores, or people
who drive downtown and park their cars in a central location while walking from
business to business, pedestrians are an important component to the success of any
downtown. “Walkability” is often considered a key element of livability and vitality.

In other areas of the country, one of the key objectives often given for converting one-
way streets to two-way operation is to increase walkability and, thus, to increase vitality.
In addition, it is worth noting that one-third of Americans do not drive, and soon half of
our population will be over 50 years old, representing an age group that will in particular
seek more alternatives to driving. Walkability is an increasingly important aspect of any
vibrant downtown.

5
Ibid, above
G
Just as walkability is important, so is bikeability. The ability to move through a
downtown area by bicycle allows for a faster more efficient form of travel than walking
in situation where multiple block trips are involved. Riding a bicycle on downtown
roadways can be more efficient and safer than riding on downtown sidewalks. In this
context, one-way pairs play a significant role in the operational nature of bicycle riding in
the downtown area.

For many years the conventional wisdom said that pedestrians were safer crossing a one-
way street than a two-way street. After all, the pedestrian need only worry about traffic
from one direction. More recently, this conventional wisdom has been challenged. There
do appear to be some key safety features of two-way street operation. For example,
converting to two-way operation allows medians, which can be used as pedestrian
islands. In this way, a pedestrian need only cross one direction of traffic at a time, and
they need cross fewer lanes at a time. The lower vehicle speeds on two-way corridors is
also an enhancement to pedestrian safety since (as pointed out in the “Safety” section
above) the risk of serious injury and death is an exponential function of speed.

Two-way street operations may indeed increase the risk of accidents occurring, even if
the accidents are less severe. In Edmonton, Alberta post-conversion pedestrian accidents
increased 7%. However, the time period of the “before and after” analysis was only nine
months, so the statistic may still reflect the “newness” of the conversion. One needs to
also consider that the number of pedestrian related accidents may indeed increase post-
conversion because there are more pedestrians in the downtown. Recall that one of the
reasons most often cited for converting a one-way corridor to two-way operation is to
make the corridor more attractive and easier for pedestrians. If a conversion is
successful, there may simply be more opportunities for accidents to occur. Broadly
speaking, reducing vehicle speed should reduce accident frequency, all other things being
equal.

For bicyclists traveling alongside or among automobiles, reduced auto speeds are also
safer. Higher operating speeds are likely to reduce the sense of comfort for bicyclists
riding on these roadways as well as reducing the safety of making left-hand turns since
preparation for left-turns may require multi-lane changes. Since two-way streets tend to
congest more easily it is safer and more appropriate for a bicyclist to ride within the
roadway lane. Slower operating speeds allow more time for decision making between
motorized vehicles and bicyclists. This is critical in areas where there is on-street
parking and the potential for numerous turn-movements. Additionally, all the benefits of
two-way operations that accrue to motor vehicles also apply to bicyclists, including more
direct access, fewer turning movements, and fewer VMT.

Comments: Lower vehicle speeds and bi-directional travel do appear to

make two-way corridors safer than one-way corridors for both
pedestrians and bicyclists, although the frequency of accidents may
increase. However, the increase in accident frequency may be a
temporary result of the change in operation or it may be partly the result
of increased pedestrian activity. Again, crash data and the accident
histories of the NP and 1st Avenue North corridors should be examined
relative to other comparable two-way corridors. Even if NP and 1st
Avenues are not converted to two-way operation, narrowing driving lanes
while widening sidewalks could improve the pedestrian environment while
providing some measure of traffic calming on the roadway.
H
Economic Vitality & Parking
The other most often cited reason for converting one-way couplets to two-way operation
is to enhance the economic environment of the downtown. Many of the conversions
reviewed for this report were only one part of a comprehensive business revitalization
initiative for the downtown area.

Businesses locate in areas where they will be able to conveniently serve their customers.
A convenience retailer must draw customers in easily with drive-throughs and off-street
parking to capture their share of the market and compete in a blizzard of similar uses with
little differentiation. Specialty retailers may have more flexibility in that customers will
tend to seek them out, but many specialty retailers are not “one of a kind” and so must
also compete for customers.

In general, access, visibility, parking, and an inviting urban environment are considered
key to drawing customers. All of these are or can be functions of the street system. High
traveling speeds may reduce a prospective customers’ ability to discern individual store
fronts. Slower driving speeds and a higher propensity to walk can enhance location
awareness. In addition, two-way operations may increase storefront visibility because
there is less “eclipsing” of storefront exposure. A driver traveling westbound on 1st
Avenue North, for example, has little chance to see any west-facing storefronts. Vehicle
access from all four compass directions can help increase storefront visibility. Mobility
(e.g., higher speed) is still an important consideration for getting vehicles to and from
downtown, but once they are in the central-business district access may be the more
important consideration. If so, an important question to ask would be, “where does
downtown start?” The NP Ave one-way currently ends at 4th Street, while the 1st Avenue
North one-way ends at 2nd Street. If the one-way couplet is deemed to still be important
for reasons of mobility, should they both end at 4th Street? Should they both end at
Broadway? Should they both end at Roberts Street? These are important questions to
consider in the overall traffic circulation patterns of downtown Fargo.

In communities were conversions have been recommended or tried, loss of parking lanes
on formerly one-way corridors is often (at least initially) a contentious issue. However,
in some communities that have made the conversion, store owners who were originally
opposed to conversion based on the loss of parking have since become strong proponents
of conversion.

In reviewing the impacts of one-way to two-way conversions that have occurred in other
cities, it is difficult to find examples where the conversion did not result in increased
business activity. Below are just a few examples of business impacts:

• West Palm Beach, Florida (pop: 85,000) reported a dramatic increase in new retail
shops, restaurants, and residential use. They attribute the change to exchanging
mobility (i.e., vehicle speed) with access brought about by the two-way
circulation as well as livability through streetscape design. Property values did
increase as well.
• Toledo, Ohio (pop: 323,000) reported that long time vacant buildings are now
being occupied or sold to developers for new shops and restaurants.
• Merchants in Lafayette, Indiana (pop: 50,000) were very concerned about the loss
of traffic at first but found that business traffic actually picked up after the
I
 conversion. Some parking was lost to install left-turn lanes. The cities Economic
Development Officer reports that “no one would want to go back to one-way
traffic….”
• Charleston, South Carolina (pop: 95,000) experienced a dramatic increase in new
retail and service businesses in the area.
• Lubbock, Texas (pop: 200,000) reports that the City has not received any
unfavorable comments and the general consensus is that the conversion have been
beneficial to the central business district which is experiencing growth after
several years of decline.
• In Kitchener, Ontario (pop: 209,000) office vacancies declined from 35% to 11%,
new housing units increased 700 units, and street front retail vacancy rates
declined from 12.4% to 7.8%.
• Albuquerque, New Mexico (pop: 678,000) reports that automobiles do not move
as quickly out of the downtown area, but more people seem to be staying in the
downtown after hours.

There are a few issues to keep in mind:

First, in many of these cities, the one-way to two-way conversion took place on the main
historical business street, somewhat akin to what Broadway is in downtown Fargo. But
Broadway is already a two-way street and not the target of this particular investigation.

Secondly, these conversions were almost always a single component of a larger, more
comprehensive business revitalization initiative, and as such, it is difficult to say to what
extent the conversion alone contributed to the improved business environment.
Thirdly, these conversions were almost always accompanied by streetscape
improvements, beautification measures, traffic-calming measures, improved design and
other downtown improvements that could technically be implemented without converting
one-way couplets to two-way streets.

Comments: There is a strong historical record of one-way to two-way

conversions being associated with an improved business environment in
other North American cities. This may be true for Fargo as well. It is
difficult to tell how much the conversion contributed to business
revitalization by itself, since it is often accompanied by other
improvements as well. As noted in the comments for the “Capacity &
Speed” above, a wildly successful downtown revitalization effort may lead
to increased congestion in the downtown area (with or without a
conversion project). Fargo Policy-Makers will need to consider the
benefits of a successful downtown against the potential costs of more
congestion. Logically, it would seem that one leads naturally to the other.
In fact, a one-way to two-way conversion project may be a necessary part
of a wildly successful downtown revitalization effort, and it may lead to
the expansion of the downtown core to the east and west of Broadway.

Conclusions & Recommendations

It is important to balance transportation needs with urban design needs in any downtown.
Access and mobility are both important. Transportation solutions without planning and
design (e.g., one-way couplets) are no better than planning and design solutions without

J
transportation (e.g., pedestrian malls). A more holistic approach can combine the
positive aspects of each.

We believe that there is sufficient evidence of the potential positive impacts of one-way
to two-way conversions, based largely upon the experiences of other North American
cities, to recommend that the City of Fargo convert all or part of the NP and 1st Avenue
North corridors to two-way operation subject to the completion of a traffic impact study
that includes the following:

• A full conversion alternative including streetscape design, pedestrian

enhancements, traffic calming, and other design and safety features
o Additional turn-lane opportunities from Main Avenue to downtown should
be investigated as the conversion will likely displace some traffic to Main
Avenue
• An enhanced design alternative which includes streetscape features, pedestrian
enhancements, traffic calming, and other design and safety features but leaves the
one-way operations in tact. Such an alternative may include so called “road-diet”
features such as narrowing travel lanes or decreasing the number of travel lanes
for each corridor
• A do-nothing alternative
• A downtown “boom” sub-scenario under all three alternatives above in which it is
assumed that revitalization efforts are hugely successful, leading to higher than
previously predicted traffic in the downtown
• Alternative termini points for the one-ways under the “Do-Nothing” and
“Enhanced Design” alternatives above
• A comparison of crash type history and crash frequency of the one-way couplet
with comparable two-way corridors
• Estimated costs for each alternative and sub-scenario as well as the net economic
benefits that would be required for the alternative to “pay for itself”.

Emergency services should be consulted as part of the study.

Further, as part of the study we encourage the city to consider the downtown holistically,
rather than only studying specific corridors. Again, if downtown Fargo is to remain
vibrant, it will need to provide both convenient access and mobility to those who wish to
work, shop, learn, or play in the downtown area, but choose to live elsewhere.

It is difficult to predict what safety or economic impacts such alternatives may have for
Fargo since each city and situation is unique. However, it is worth noting that we did not
find a single case of one-way to two-way conversions being associated with a decrease in
downtown business.

K
 Downtown Streets

Are We Strangling Ourselves on One-Way Networks?

G. WADE WALKER
WALTER M. KULASH
BRIAN T. MCHUGH
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc.
33 East Pine Street
Orlando, FL 32801

ABSTRACT

As many communities are in the process of revitalizing their downtowns, a common issue
is the prevalence of intricate and often confusing one-way street networks. This paper
provides a comparison of one-way versus two-way street systems for downtowns and
presents an evaluation methodology for considering two-way conversion. The analysis
gives equal weight to all modes of travel and includes the non-regular visitor to
downtown. Motorist analysis factors include mobility, vehicle miles of travel (VMT),
number of turning movements, travel time, vehicle capacity, and parking supply.
Pedestrian factors analyzed are number and severity of pedestrian/vehicle crossing
conflicts. Direction and symmetry of routes comprise the transit analysis factors, and
retail factors measure the visibility of street front locations.

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the explosion of automobile use that occurred after WWII, people have moved
their residences further and further from downtown centers, out into new suburban
communities. With this exodus came a daily travel ritual in which suburbanites in motor
vehicles behave as tides do, placing a tremendous strain on the downtown street
network. The historical response to this strain has been to improve the efficiency of
moving vehicles into and out of the city at all costs, without considering other system
users.
We now understand that downtowns that operate predominantly as a place of work
and clear out in the evening are the ones most often struggling to foster new development
and business ventures. The longstanding mantra to seek the greatest speed by which
commuter motorists can flee the city has accelerated the downtown deterioration process.
The sad results are streets congested with fast-moving automobiles and barren of lively
pedestrian, cultural, or commercial activity after the mad evening exodus.
As many communities are in the process of revitalizing their downtowns, a
common issue is the prevalence of intricate and often confusing one-way street networks.
This legacy of one-way streets can be traced back to when the streets’ sole mission was to
move traffic into and out of the downtown employment center as quickly as possible. An
emerging role of downtown as a cultural and entertainment center is now challenging the
F-2 / 1
F-2 / 2 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

embedded mindset that the primary purpose of streets is the unequivocal movement of
commuter automobile traffic.

HOW WE GOT HERE: A BRIEF HISTORY OF ONE-WAY NETWORKS

One-way streets in downtowns were not an overnight occurrence; rather, their

proliferation was the result of a series of events that occurred over a number of years.
The development of one-way downtown networks can be traced through four very
distinct periods of evolution.
The Pre-Freeway Era encompasses the time from prior to the development of the
automobile to just after the conclusion of World War II. Cities were at the height of their
development, and downtowns not only served as the seat of the local governments, but
were also the hub of all social, civic, and cultural activity within the surrounding region.
Downtown streets were home to not only motor vehicles, but also streetcars, trolleys,
buses, and most importantly, people. Movement of each of these travel modes was
equally balanced, with cars and pedestrians coexisting peacefully in a controlled, slow-
speed environment. Retail business activity was at an all-time high, with most goods and
services available in the core of the downtown.
It is important to note that during this era most downtown workers did not
commute great distances; rather, most lived within 2 to 5 miles of their downtown jobs.
Suburbs had not yet been invented, as the transportation facilities of the day did not
support long commute distances. However, all this was about to change, in the name of
progress.
America learned several important lessons during the course of World War II.
Perhaps one of the most profound was the example that Nazi Germany provided through
its impressive system of limited-access highways, by which expedient movement of
troops and goods across the country was possible. With the passage of the Federal
Highway Act of 1956, the Freeway Proliferation Era had begun.
The construction of the freeways did exact many benefits for commerce; however,
it also opened the door for downtown workers to move farther from their place of work.
As downtown workers began to seek out less expensive, more desirable housing in the
suburbs, the mode balance on downtown roadways that had been prevalent for many
years began to shift toward facilitating the speedy entrance and exodus of commuters.
Downtown streets began to be converted to one-way travel to facilitate this expedient
movement into the city in the morning and out in the afternoon.
As downtown workers continued the flight to the suburbs, providers of goods and
services soon followed. Small downtown shops were recreated in the suburbs as regional
shopping malls, supermarkets, and discount stores. Workers no longer patronized the small
shops downtown since they could fill their needs closer to home, often at lower prices.
Many of the small, family-owned businesses that had been located downtown for years
either moved to the suburbs with their market or succumbed to closure as the market
dwindled.
This Post-Freeway Era reached its peak in the 1980s, when even traditional
downtown corporate offices sought out the cheaper land in the suburbs. Many formerly
strong downtowns were reduced to blighted, empty streets and boarded-up storefronts,
devoid of life after 6 pm.
Walker, Kulash, and McHugh F-2 / 3

Downtowns have seen a resurgence, beginning in the 1990s, as communities

began to rediscover the attraction of the downtown as a location. Most downtowns never
lost the designation of the cultural and governmental hub of their community; however,
the ability of the downtowns to adapt to a new role as entertainment centers has aided in
their comeback during this, the Reemerging Era.
Many people are returning to downtowns as residents and workers now seek to
escape the outlying suburbs and office parks. Since most suburban developments rely on
one or two major arterial roadways, the traffic impacts associated with these areas have
become much worse than ever imagined in the downtown, with its well-defined street
network grid. As people return to downtown, there has been a plea for a rebalancing of
downtown roadways, to make them safer and friendlier again for all modes of travel. It is
in this context that many cities are contemplating the conversion of one-way streets to
two-way travel.

CONFLICTING OPINIONS

The return of one-way downtown street networks to two-way travel is a relatively new
phenomenon associated with downtown revitalizations. Opinions about the feasibility of
two-way conversions vary widely, according to the interest group polled. Three of the
most prevalent groups in communities that are investigating the possibility of two-way
conversion are discussed in the following paragraphs.

A Traffic Engineer’s Perspective

For many years, traffic engineers were mandated to “move as much traffic as possible, as
quickly as possible,” often resulting in degradation of movement for other modes of
travel. The unequivocal movement of the motor vehicle through a downtown network
was of paramount concern; all other modes of travel took a back seat. Effectiveness of the
network was measured by the amount of delay a motorist would encounter on a given
street segment or intersection during either the morning or afternoon peak hours.
Given this context, one-way streets do make sense; the Transportation and Traffic
Engineering Handbook reports that the conversion to two-way operation generally increases
capacity by about 10 to 20 percent. The case is also often made that one-way streets help
facilitate good signal progression through a downtown network. One-way streets also offer
the opportunity to control their traffic flow at signalized intersection approaches by a
single signal phase, freeing up green time for intersecting street movements. One-way
streets also have fewer conflicting turning movements at their intersections, reducing the
chance for a through vehicle to encounter a turning vehicle. Finally, curbside activity
such as service vehicle loading and unloading is less disruptive to the traffic flow on a one-
way street, where only one travel lane is usually blocked by this activity.
In traffic engineering circles, however, the operational disadvantages associated with
one-way streets are becoming increasingly recognized. The system often forces drivers to
follow out-of-direction routes to their destinations, causing an increase in both the number of
turning movements required and vehicle miles of travel (VMT). The direct result of this
recirculation is an increase in traffic volumes on a given segment or intersection within a
one-way system, with a corresponding degradation in air quality within the downtown.
F-2 / 4 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

Signal progression can often be maintained on two-way streets to favor the peak
direction movement during the morning and afternoon peak hours with minimal effect on
through-vehicle delay or the capacity of the network.

The User’s Perspective

Another group with a vested interest in what happens to downtown one-way street networks
is the users of those facilities. Users can be grouped into three general categories: the
motorist, the transit rider, and the pedestrian. Each group views the street network in a
different way, as discussed below.

Motorists

Motorists use the street network as a means for navigating the downtown to get to their
destination. In most cases, a downtown motorist’s destination is someplace to park the
car, namely a garage, lot, or on-street parking space; upon parking, the motorist leaves
the vehicle as a pedestrian to access the final destination. It is well known that people
attempt to park as close to their ultimate destination as possible, in an effort to minimize
walking distance.
One-way streets do not pose a major inconvenience for commuters and regular
visitors to the downtown; these motorists have learned the downtown network and know
the “best route” to their destination. Rather, it is the occasional visitors to downtown who
are often confused and disoriented on encountering a one-way street network. Often, these
motorists are able to see their destination but are shunted away from it by the one-way
streets. But these occasional users are in fact the customers that revitalized downtowns
are trying to attract. If circulation in the downtown can be made easier by converting
one-way streets, people in this target market segment may be better pleased with their
overall downtown experience and become more regular downtown patrons.

Transit Patrons

A one-way street network exacts a similar toll on the downtown transit system and its
users. In a one-way network, stops on the same route for opposite directions are forced
to be located on two different streets. Again, the most affected users are the occasional
downtown visitors, who are not familiar with the system. For instance, a visitor who is
dropped off at a stop downtown on a one-way street may not realize that the transit stop
for his return trip is actually located one block away on a different street. Regular transit
users can even become victims of this system in sections of downtown with which they
are not familiar. In a two-way system, transit stops for a particular route can be located
across the street from each other, eliminating this confusing situation.

Pedestrians

As stated previously, at some point every downtown visitor becomes a pedestrian.

Whether one arrives by private vehicle, taxi, or rail or bus transit, it becomes necessary at
Walker, Kulash, and McHugh F-2 / 5

some time to navigate the street system on foot. One-way streets present challenges to the
pedestrian due to the speed and direction of adjacent vehicular traffic and pedestrian
expectations at intersections.
On a two-way street, pedestrians always have the choice of walking facing the
oncoming traffic or with their backs to it. This choice does not exist on a one-way street,
where pedestrians moving in the same direction of the vehicular traffic will always have
adjacent traffic coming behind them regardless of which side of the street they choose to
walk on.
At intersections of two streets that are each two way, pedestrians have an
expectation of potential vehicular conflicts with their path as they cross the intersection.
This sequence reverses itself for the opposite movement across the intersection, for a total
of two conflict sequences that the pedestrian should expect. When a one-way street is
included in the intersection, the number of potential conflict sequences increases
dramatically. This phenomenon will be discussed in greater detail in the evaluation
section of this paper. Suffice it to say, a pedestrian who is crossing an intersection of one-
way streets must pay particular attention to the direction of both through and turning traffic
to avoid a conflict.
It is also important to remember that a one-way street system always has a greater
magnitude of vehicle turning movements compared to a two-way system. Any turning
movement, regardless of street configuration as one- or two-way, creates exactly the same
potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflict, namely, one legally turning vehicle crossing the
path of one legally crossing pedestrian. Thus, aside from the complexity of conflict
sequences, there are simply more (typically 30–40%) vehicle/pedestrian conflicts within a
one-way street network than in a comparable two-way system.

Downtown Community Perspective

Much attention recently has been given to downtown vitality and redevelopment efforts.
One-way street conversions to two-way are part of a much bigger effort to make downtowns
more livable and economically successful. City leaders, both political and business, are
becoming increasingly concerned with the quality of the outdoor environment experienced
by downtown visitors.
Some national chains are beginning to develop downtown locations, with an
emphasis on service industries such as office supplies, bookstores, and coffeehouses. In
our experience, most of these retailers prefer the exposure and accessibility offered by a
location on a two-way street. This fact is supported by examples such as Vine Street in
Cincinnati, where 40% of businesses in this economically depressed downtown corridor
closed after the street was converted from two-way to one-way.
As retail and entertainment activities begin to increase downtown, cities today are
experiencing an influx of new downtown residents not seen in decades. Young professionals
with no children, looking for an urban lifestyle, as well as “empty-nesters” who are tired of
the big house and yard (with a corresponding big commute) are beginning to return to the
housing areas within and immediately adjacent to downtown. For these people, livability is
of paramount importance. As shown in Figure 1, large gains in overall livability can often
be accomplished while exacting only a slight increase in vehicular delay.
The cost of living in downtown neighborhoods is relatively high compared to
suburban neighborhoods. Downtown residents expect the high cost of living to be offset
F-2 / 6 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

FIGURE 1 Livability index.

by better services, close proximity to public facilities such as parks, walkable streets, and
being close to the center of activity. Being able to walk to these attractions is very
important to urban residents.
A high level of auto accessibility in a downtown is more important to urban residents
than access to regional roadways. By requiring less out-of-direction travel and fewer
turning movements, a two-way street network is better for short trips to local
establishments than a one-way street network. Livable streets benefit all users of a
downtown whether they are using transit, an automobile or walking.

ONE-WAY VERSUS TWO-WAY: EVALUATION MEASURES

In order to effectively evaluate the impacts and benefits of converting a given one-way
street network to two-way travel, it is proposed that a combination of evaluation
measures be used. As summarized in Figure 2, these measures include traditional travel
service impacts such as capacity and vehicular delay, but also take into account livability
issues within the downtown street network such as transit routing, pedestrian mobility
FIGURE 2 One-way vs. two-way measures of effectiveness.
F-2 / 8 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

and safety, and retail business street exposure. These measures are defined in detail
within this section.

Network Capacity Comparison

The first evaluation measure is a comparison of the total east-west and north-south street
capacity for both the existing one-way and proposed two-way travel conditions. To make
this comparison, traffic counts on the street segments must be obtained for the a.m. and p.m.
peak hours. These existing volumes must then be reassigned on the converted network to
allow for the redistribution of traffic that will occur when the one-way restriction on certain
streets is lifted. This reassignment can be accomplished through the use of a manual
reassignment for small street networks or by using a traffic modeling software package for
more detailed networks. Once a set of traffic volumes has been established for both the one-
way and two-way scenarios, screenlines can be established to account for all of the east-
west and north-south lane capacity through the network. Capacity volume thresholds can
then be established for the desired level-of service on the streets contained in the screenline.
Since it is acknowledged that a one-way lane does have a slightly greater capacity that a
corresponding two-way street, a 10–20 percent reduction in lane capacity is taken for the
two-way facilities. Volume-to-capacity ratios (v/c) can then be established for each of the
facilities along the screenline in both a one-way and two-way configuration. Aggregated
v/c’s can be obtained by summing the volumes and capacities for each travel direction,
giving an indication of the total available system capacity in both the east-west and north-
south travel corridors. An example of this application as used in New Haven, Connecticut,
is illustrated in Figure 3.
Most downtowns have a well-developed street grid; this abundance of alternate
routes is the inherent advantage that downtowns have over their competitors, suburban
office and retail parks, where all traffic is generally forced onto the one or two
available arterials. This corridor capacity approach assumes that as one facility begins
to approach its capacity, some traffic will divert to other parallel, less-used facilities.
This diversion begins to animate some of the downtown roadways that were previously
forgotten in the one-way system, making them more visible and attractive for
redevelopment.

Out-of-Direction Travel

As stated previously, one of the inherent disadvantages with one-way streets is that they
force additional turning movements at the intersections caused by motorists who must
travel “out-of-direction” to reach their destination. These additional turning movements
increase the chance of a vehicular-pedestrian conflict at any given intersection, and also
result in a systemwide increase in VMT over a comparable two-way system due to the
amount of recirculating traffic.
The magnitude of these measures can be quickly estimated using the following
approach. By choosing several downtown “portals,” typically used entry and exit points
from the downtown street network, and several major downtown “destinations,” usually a
high concentration of parking, supply, or office use, vehicular paths can be traced from
origin to destination and back assuming both a one-way and two-way street network. This
Walker, Kulash, and McHugh F-2 / 9

FIGURE 3 Screen lines and traffic volumes New Haven, Conn. (proposed).

method will give a comparison of the number of turning movements and total travel
distance for each street configuration. Our experience shows that a one-way system
usually yields approximately 120 to 160% of the turning movements when compared to
a two-way system, and the travel distance between portal and destination is usually 20 to
50 percent greater in a one-way street system.
An additional measure of this comparison can be made by simulation modeling of
both the one-way and two-way networks with TRAF-NETSIM. The simulation program
would yield system VMTs and delays for each case, which could then be compared.
F-2 / 10 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

Travel Speed Comparison

It is true that overall average through-travel speeds are lower for a two-way street
configuration than for a one-way system. However, to achieve a rebalancing of the
system, it is important to consider all users of the downtown street network, not just the
through traveler. Slower vehicular speeds are safer for crossing pedestrians, as they allow
longer gaps in the traffic stream for crossing. Additionally, for those travelers with a
destination downtown, accessibility and mobility are usually more important than
through vehicular delay.
In most downtowns, the delay penalty will be small for the through traveler. For
instance, a decrease in average arterial travel speed of five miles per hour over a one-
quarter mile segment of network yields an additional three minutes of travel time. This
delay incurred by the through traveler must be weighed against the other objectives of the
community to determine the acceptability of the impact.

Pedestrian Measures of Effectiveness

Pedestrian measures of effectiveness such as sidewalk capacity and pedestrian LOS will
not be covered in this discussion since they do not pertain specifically to the one-way
versus two-way argument. Concerns for downtown pedestrians with regard to one-way
streets center on convenience, safety and the quality of the walking environment.
The convenience to pedestrians is a key element to the livability and vitality of a
successful downtown. A prosperous downtown contains many more offerings of goods
and services than a blighted one and is therefore far more attractive to the pedestrian.
The conventional wisdom has always assumed that one-way streets were safer and
more comfortable for pedestrians to cross than two-way streets. Superficially, it would
seem that crossing the single direction of traffic on a one-way street is always preferable to
crossing a two-way street.
As is often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, crossing a one-way
street presents greater difficulties to the pedestrian than crossing a two-way street. The
explanation lies in the greater number of different vehicle/pedestrian conflict sequences
(hereinafter “conflict sequences”) that are encountered in crossing the one-way street. Any
given conflict sequence consists of: (1) the kind of turning movement that the vehicle is
engaged in, (2) the direction (left-to-right or vice versa) in which the vehicle path intersects
with the pedestrians and (3) the location of the vehicle with respect to the pedestrian’s field
of view, at the beginning of the vehicle movement. Figure 4 illustrates the conflict
sequences for both one-way and two-way intersections.
There are only two possible sequences (sequences #1 and #2 in diagram) that
pedestrians can encounter in crossing a two-way street. Regardless of what leg of the
intersection they cross, they will never encounter other than these two conflict
sequences. Further, these two sequences are closely related, essentially the mirror
image of each other.
On one-way streets, by contrast, there are 16 different conflict sequences that
pedestrians can encounter, depending upon which leg of the intersection they are crossing.
Further, these sequences vary widely in their component parts. For example, some
sequences have only a single conflict, while others have two or even three. Further, the
Walker, Kulash, and McHugh F-2 / 11

FIGURE 4 Sequence of conflicts created by one-way streets.

F-2 / 12 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

sequences involve a wide variety of directions of vehicle flow and pedestrian views of the
vehicle. The conventional view of the safety of one-way street crossing usually focuses on
crossing the upstream leg of the intersection, in which only a single turning movement is
encountered (sequence #11 and #12 in the diagram). However, this situation comprises
only 2 of the 16 possible conflict sequences. The complexity and variety of the other
14 are typically overlooked when discussing the merits of one-way streets.

Eclipsing of Storefront Exposure

One-way streets have a negative impact on storefront exposure for those businesses
highly dependent on pass-by traffic. As a vehicle stops at or enters an intersection the
driver has excellent visibility of the storefronts on the far side of the cross street. On
one-way street networks, precious storefront exposure is lost when one direction of
travel is removed, causing one side of every cross street to be partially “eclipsed” from
view, as illustrated in Figure 5. “Eclipsing” occurs on cross-street storefronts along the

FIGURE 5 Retail eclipsing a diagrammatic summary.

Walker, Kulash, and McHugh F-2 / 13

nearside of the intersection relative to the direction of travel, and where downtown
street networks contain many one-ways the accumulated negative impacts are
significant. A methodology was developed to calculate the loss of exposure to first
floor commercial property.
The quantity of eclipsed store frontage is a function of the quantity of one-way
street approaches in the intersection, block perimeter size, building setback and street
width.
As block perimeter size increases, assuming the store frontage eclipsed remains
relatively constant, the percentage of impacted property decreases. The opposite is true
when block perimeters decrease, exacting an unfair disadvantage to the downtown with
a superior small-block size street grid. Building setback and street width combine to
determine the storefront footage visible across the street from the corner to the range of
sight limited by the glancing angle. The greater the sum distance from building setback
to building setback on the cross street, the more the store frontage eclipsed. An
application of the eclipsed frontage analysis is shown in Figure 6.
Once the evaluation measures have been quantified using the presented
methodology, they can be summarized in a matrix similar to the one presented in
Figure 7. In this way, a clear comparison is readily available for review by all
interested parties.

GETTING IT DONE: NEXT STEPS

By carefully evaluating the results of an analysis using the methodology described above,
a community can make a better-informed decision about converting one-way streets to
two-way travel. Decision makers can weigh these quantitative criteria against the vision
and goals a community has for its downtown and determine if the through-traffic impacts
are acceptable in gaining livability within the downtown. Once the decision is made to
convert to two-way networks, several implementation strategies are available to make the
transition as simple and cost-effective as possible.
Figure 8 graphically depicts five options that can be used to implement a
systemwide downtown network conversion from one-way to two-way streets. The
strategies allow communities to undertake as much or as little conversion as they desire
in each phase and provide a systematic approach to deal with specific financial concerns
or skeptics. As can be seen from Figure 9, a conversion plan as dramatic and far-reaching
as the one recommended for New Haven, Connecticut, can entail significant costs and
time and is therefore a candidate for phasing.
Many communities are in the process of converting their one-way streets to
two-way networks. Table 1 summarizes some of those communities as well as where
they are in the process.
In conclusion, it is important to note that converting the street network from
one-way to two-way will not by itself guarantee an immediate resurgence of growth
and activity downtown. Most communities have come to this recommendation as a
part of a greater vision or urban design plan for their downtown. The conversion of
one-way streets is most often accompanied by other initiatives designed to attract
additional downtown development or redevelopment and make downtown a more
livable community.
FIGURE 6 Retail /commercial properties eclipsed by one-way streets, New Haven, Conn.
FIGURE 7 Sample evaluation matrix.
F-2 / 16 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

FIGURE 8 Strategies for restoring “two-ways”.

 FIGURE 9 Sample conversion plan - New Haven, Conn.

TABLE 1 Communities Undertaking One-Way Conversions

City Chief Supporters of Reasons for Conversion Current Stage in Primary Contact
Conversion Conversion
Albuquerque, City transit system Create a pedestrian-friendly City council will Robert Dourte, Transportation
NM and council member environment near a new approve conversion this Development, (505) 924-3990
intermodal facility and reduce year.
confusion for visitors
Berkeley, CA Neighborhood Accommodate buses and bikes Final draft of Charles Deleuw, Traffic
association and reduce neighborhood cut- conversion plan now in Engineering, (510) 644-6540
through preparation.
Cincinnati, Local business Calming traffic and attract A city council Judith Osbourne, Over the Rhine
OH community (Over- new neighborhood businesses resolution has called for Chamber of Commerce, (513)
The-Rhine Chamber conversion. 241-2690
of Commerce)
Edmonton, Business community Increasing retail activity A majority of one-way Frank Perich, Transportation and
Alberta downtown streets to be converted Engineering (403) 496-1787
in August, 1998.
Norfolk, VA Planning office, local Completion of boulevard Conversion of two Brian Townsend, Planning,
residents, traffic system surrounding downtown streets to be complete (757) 664-4752
engineering and traffic calming in by mid-July 1998.
department residential area
Toledo, OH Business and Create a pedestrian- and Two streets were Joe Moran, Downtown
government leaders visitor-friendly downtown converted in 1997, and ToledoVision, (419) 244-3747
(Downtown plans call for the entire
ToledoVision) downtown network.
Waukesha, Traffic engineering There is no longer a need for a Several streets have Don Martinson, Southeastern WI
WI department/ business one-way network been converted, and Regional Planning Commission,
community more on an ad hoc basis. (414) 547-6721
F-2 / 18 TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Jonathan Hoffman, student at the
Georgia Institute of Technology and Glatting Jackson intern during the summer of 1998,
for his assistance in compiling data and studying the effects of retail frontage eclipsing
in New Haven, Connecticut.

RESOURCES

Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual (1994 update). TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
Harwood, D. W. NCHRP Report 330: Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban
Arterials, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990.
Converting Back to Two-Way Streets
in Downtown Lubbock
THIS IS THE FOURTH WE ARE ALL AWARE THAT ONE-
way streets carry traffic more efficiently
OF FIVE FEATURES than two-way streets, and they produce
fewer conflicts at intersections. However,
ON DOWNTOWN one of the main functions of streets also
is to provide access. The purpose of this
CIRCULATION. feature is to present one city’s experience
in converting some of the downtown
LUBBOCK CONVERTED streets back to two-way streets from one-
way streets.
ONE SET OF ONE-WAY Lubbock, Texas, USA, is home to
Texas Tech University, located one mile
STREETS TO TWO-WAY west of the central business district
(CBD), and to approximately 200,000
STREETS IN THE CBD AND people proud to be residents of this
medium sized city. Of the households
IS PROCESSING ANOTHER in Lubbock, over 80 percent own at
least one vehicle and 50 percent have
PAIR. THIS CHANGE HAS two or more.1 Mass transit, walking
and bicycling are other modes of avail-
BEEN BENEFICIAL TO THE able transportation, but the majority of
the population travels in privately
BUSINESS COMMUNITY, owned vehicles.
Conventional beliefs for smaller cities
AND DOCUMENTED have been to follow the transportation
methods of larger cities, but times are
TRAFFIC AND COLLISION changing. Small towns are taking pride
in their livability, accessibility and desire
DATA INDICATE ONLY A for the “small town” feeling to remain.
To facilitate this approach, city govern-
MARGINAL IMPACT TO ments are modifying existing facilities to
encompass changes in everything from
THE TRAFFIC FLOW AND parks to utilities and community services
to street landscaping. Traffic patterns and
SAFETY IN THIS AREA. street usage are changing along with
these developments.
The CBD for Lubbock is mixed with
one- and two-way streets which range
from two to five lanes
BY JERE HART (see Figure 1). In
recent years, citizens
have requested some of the existing one-
way streets to be converted back to two-
way streets. Main Street and 10th Street
are primary examples. These two streets
were established as one-way streets in
1960 as the retail and commercial busi-
ness was thriving and traffic was increas-
38
ing. However, in the early 1970s much
of the retail business began moving to
the major shopping areas in the south-
west part of the city, and a major tornado
in March 1970 destroyed a portion of
the downtown area after which some
businesses did not rebuild.
THE PROCESS
In August 1994, a group of 32 citi-
zens petitioned the mayor and city coun-
cil for the conversion of Main Street to a
two-way street. The mayor forwarded
the request to the Citizens Traffic Com-
mission (CTC), a nine-member citizen
panel which serves as a buffer for the city
council in its role of reviewing traffic
congestion, parking and traffic safety
issues. In September 1994, one of the
major property managers on Main Street
presented this petition to the CTC. He
cited the inconvenience of downtown
travelers to be required to go several
blocks out of the way to drive in the
direction of their choice and that over
100 people in his building alone were
affected daily by the direction of the
street. The CTC requested the Traffic
Engineering Department to evaluate this
request and respond at the next meeting.
An initial investigation of the eastbound
Main Street (Avenue F to Avenue Q)
revealed that it was installed as a couplet
and any conversion to this street should
require the conversion of its westbound
partner, 10th Street. Traffic counts (see
Table 1), collision data (see Table 2) and
existing infrastructure were evaluated as
to the impact that this modification
would present. The effected streets are
highlighted on Figure 1.
An inventory of existing signals
revealed that 11 signal locations would
need to be relocated partially to accom-
modate the two-way traffic. This trans-
formation would include reboring
Continued on page 45
ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1998
Continued from page 38

conduit crossings (some of the existing

conduits were crushed) and replacing

AVE M
AVE N

AVE G
AVE K

AVE E
AVE L
and/or reusing existing signal poles, arms
and heads. An important consideration 4TH (US 82)
5TH
was to maintain low costs; therefore, 6TH
7TH
using existing or in-stock materials was a 8TH
primary consideration. 9TH
10TH
Our initial review was presented at a MAIN
BROADWAY
public hearing before the CTC in Octo- 13TH
14TH

AVE F
ber 1994. Letters were hand delivered or 15TH
16TH
mailed to all the addressees on these two 17TH
streets advising of the possible change. 18TH
19TH (US 62)
Several citizens attended the CTC meet-

7
I-2
TEXAS

BUDDY HOLLY

AVE E
AVE Q
US 84
DIXIE

AVE O

AVE N

AVE M

AVE L

AVE K

ing in favor of the conversion. Citizens
opposed to the conversion were con-
cerned about the perceived narrow width
of the streets and the possible removal of
available parking spaces. Staff presented
the following factors for consideration.
For two-way conversion:
¥ Less confusing to motorists, espe-
cially visitors;
¥ Improved access to properties; and
¥ Reduced travel distance to destination.
Against two-way conversion:
¥ Costs: Approximately $50,000
(reusing existing material and city
labor);
¥ Increased congestion (only one lane
in each direction in some blocks);
¥ Poorer two-way signal progression;
¥ Small town look; and
¥ Unlikelihood to convert back to
one-way streets if additional capac-
ity is needed in the future.
AVE J
Two-way street
One-way street w/direction of travel
One-way street converted to two way
One-way street in process of conversion to two way
Signalized intersection
Signal removed 1996
Figure 1. City of Lubbock CBD.
After much discussion among the the two-way volume was below 1,000
CTC members, the issue was tabled vph. This data indicated that adequate
until a scheduled construction project capacity still would exist even if only
which would require use of one lane one lane in each direction was available
was completed within six to nine thus negating the concern for the reduc-
months. tion in lanes near the proposed building
One of the major property managers construction. Prior to the November
was dissatisfied with the CTC s deci- 1994 city council meeting, staff learned
sion and appealed it to the city council. that the majority of the council proba-
Following this appeal, staff analyzed the bly would favor the appeal; and with the
traffic data and found that the highest capacity analysis, staff recommended
peak hour volume on either street was the conversion and identified where the
below 600 vehicles per hour (vph) and funding could be obtained as well as

Table 1. Daily traffic volumes.

Location Year EB* WB Two-Way Streets

Main Street (EB)/10th Street (WB) east of Avenue Q 1994 5912 4355 10287
Main Street east of Avenue Q 1998 1742 1982 3724
10th Street east of Avenue Q 1998 1825 2019 3844
Total: Main Street/10th Street east of Avenue Q 1998 3567 4001 7568
Main Street (EB)/10th Street (WB) east of Avenue M 1994 4083 2845 6929
Main Street east of Avenue M 1998 2140 1984 4124
10th Street east of Avenue M 1998 1404 1549 2953
Total: Main Street/10th Street east of Avenue M 1998 3544 3533 7077
Main Street (EB)/10th Street (WB) east of Avenue J 1994 3781 2942 6723
Main Street east of Avenue J 1998 1929 1633 3562
10th Street east of Avenue J 1998 1302 1576 2878
Total: Main Street/10th Street east of Avenue J 1998 3231 3209 6440
*EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound.

ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1998 45

 CONCLUSIONS
Table 2. Number and cost of collisions. Lubbock’s experience so far in con-
verting one-way streets to two-way streets
MAIN STREET has been beneficial to the CBD’s busi-
Year Total # of collisions Total cost of collisions Average cost per month of collisions nesses. These businesses have been expe-
1993 19 $412,000 $34,000
riencing a minor growth rate after several
1994 26 $292,000 $24,000
years of decline and have been very inter-
April 1, 1995
ested in any changes which may help
through
their business. This conversion has had
Oct. 31, 1995 22 $369,000 $53,000
only a minor impact to the public on the
1996 19 $262,000 $22,000
collision rate in this area. Staff’s willing-
1997 33 $284,000 $24,000
ness to work with the business commu-
nity also has helped to foster a good
public image of the city and its Traffic
10TH STREET
Engineering Department as the “small
Year Total # of collisions Total cost of collisions2 Average cost per month of collisions town” look in the CBD is proving benefi-
1993 17 $218,000 $18,000 cial to this medium sized city.
1994 31 $407,000 $34,000
April 1, 1995 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
through Special thanks to the City of Lubbock
Oct. 31, 1995 15 $212,000 $30,000 Planning Department and Traffic Engi-
1996 28 $490,000 $41,000 neering Department staff and especially
1997 36 $757,000 $63,000 to Kimberly Dalton, David Evans and
James Young for assembling and collect-
ing the data and producing the figure for
the approximate construction schedule COMPARISON—BEFORE AND AFTER this feature. ■
needed. The project was approved, and Staff collected follow-up data on
construction was completed the week- Main Street and 10th Street. Table 1 References
end of March 30, 1995; the street was indicates that the total two-way volume 1. U.S. Census data. Lubbock, Texas, USA,
open to two-way traffic by Sunday has remained approximately the same in 1990.
afternoon. most locations. The west end of these 2. Motor Vehicle Accident Costs. Federal
streets (east of Avenue Q) has seen a sig- Highway Adminstration Technical Advisory
RESULTS nificant decrease from 1994 to 1998. T7570.2, Oct. 31, 1994.
Since it was changed, the staff has This decrease is probably due to the
not received any unfavorable comments amount of traffic that formerly circled
except one request to improve the two- the block to access the drive-in banks at
way signal progression. An indication the corners of Avenue Q with both Main
of how popular these changes are with and 10th. Table 2 shows a comparison of
the business community is reflected by the collisions at the intersections on these
the next request being processed. The two streets for two years before, seven
city currently is reviewing converting months immediately after and two years
Buddy Holly Avenue (formerly Avenue after the change. As expected, the num-
H) and Texas Avenue between 19th ber of collisions has increased by a small JERYL D. HART
Street and Broadway Street to two way margin, but it has been no greater than JR. (JERE),
also. Letters from 38 out of 86 affected the fluctuation from year to year. The P.E., has been the City
properties have been received with higher cost of collision in 1997 is due Traffic Engineer for
33 in favor of the conversion and primarily to one incapacitating injury at Lubbock, Texas, USA,
five opposed to it (see Figure 1). The Avenue Q (US 84) and 10th Street at an for the last four years,
process again will include a public hear- estimated cost of $200,000.2 The city prior to which he was a
ing before the CTC with letters sent to also removed four traffic signals on 10th consulting engineer for
all property owners and public notice in Street in 1996 (see Figure 1) which may over 20 years. He received his B.S.C.E. from the
the newspaper, and if approved by the have caused an increase in the number of University of Texas at Austin and his M.C.E. from
CTC it will proceed to the city council collisions. Eighteen out of the 36 colli- Oklahoma State University. He is a registered Pro-
for their final approval. Projected com- sions occurred at these four intersections fessional Engineer in Texas and Arizona and a
pletion of this new project is the fall of vs. nine out of 31 for these intersections registered Traffic Engineer in California. He is
1998. in 1994. a Fellow of ITE.

46 ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1998

 Traffic Circulation
October 2003
Alma, Michigan
Public Process Looking Toward A People Friendly Downtown
Nearly 80 different stake-
holders of downtown
Alma, the college and area
residents took part in a
series of events during the
first week in October to
reach a common ground
and consensus on shifting
downtown Alma to two-
way traffic operations.
Most people taking part
realized there are far more
positive gains to converting
from one-ways. These in-
clude slower traffic, pedes-
trian safety, improved busi-
ness climate, increased
ONE-WAY TO TWO WAY STREET CONVERSION
access and less confusion
produced by two-way traf-
fic operations.
Dan Burden and Paul
Zykofsky, with Walkable
Communities, Inc. served
as key facilitators of the
process. During the process
Downtown Traffic
Management Plan
they pointed out that his-
toric downtown circulation
Two-Way Streets Move Traffic
Alma residents voiced con-
cern that two-way streets
may not move traffic effi-
ciently. Today the combi-
nation of 6 traffic lanes
used on two one-way
streets (Superior and Cen-
ter Streets) handles a total
of 11-12,000 vehicles
daily. The potential carry-
ing capacity of this many
Principle Streets Current Vehicles Per Day
Valencia Street, San Francisco,
Valencia Street, San Francisco,
B Street, South of 5th, Davis, California, Before
B Street, South of 5th, Davis, California, After
Fifth from F to G, Davis, California,
Fifth from F to G, Davis, California,
patterns nation and world circulation to two-way report
wide include slow speeds, positive gains on overall
two-way street operations, satisfaction with returned
maximizing on-street park- place making, association,
ing, minimizing crossing people friendly downtowns
distances for pedestrians. and business. The most posi-
tive comments come from
“Every effort to speed up
communities where speeds,
traffic in downtowns,” they
aggressive driving and traffic
reported, “has resulted in a
noise had become problems.
loss of security, safety,
Alma fits well into the ideal
place making, association
conversion pattern.
among people, and eventu-
ally deterioration of busi-
ness.” Towns that are
switching from one-way
Study team takes stock of existing
conditions and behaviors in the
Gateway Area Right An example new
typical street section 16th Street.
lanes is above 50,000 vehi- roadway lane reductions with
cles. In the future two-way much higher traffic numbers.
streets will handle a split of
Each of the conversions is
5-6,000 vehicles daily on
with two-way streets. Most
each of the two streets.
have third lanes, some do not.
This will be done with two
In all cases traffic is handled
fewer overall lanes.
efficiently, with greater safety,
Will this work? Yes. Eas- reduced speeding and strong
ily. Shown in the chart community acceptance.
below are some recent
Before 22,188
After 19,997
13,804
15,527
Before 15,100
After 15,704
Roundabouts Create Gateways to Success
Walkable Communities, Inc. recom-
mends reconstruction of two to six inter-
sections to smooth traffic flow, reduce
crashes, create attractive downtown en-
tries and help green up key portions of
downtown. Under one scenario all signals
would be removed.
Roundabouts — Proposed Areas
Wright and Superior. Wright at Supe-
rior handles the greatest volume and com-
plexity of traffic. This intersection is also
the natural town/gown link to Alma Col-
lege. Its potential to “pay for itself”
makes this roundabout a first choice for
construction. A roundabout here creates
an attractive new gateway into down-
town, eliminates confusion, delay and
highly unfriendly pedestrian features.
Pine and Superior. Short and long term
development of a riverfront trail connect-
ing to other communities will draw many
people to Alma’s key attractions, includ-
Increased Parking Proposed
As photo modeled here, it is possible to
increase on-street parking in downtown
Alma through use of angled parking or
back-in parking. Both methods of park-
ing are encouraged to help control
speeds, especially on State Street, and to
provide added convenience parking to
this important street. In time off-street
parking requirements can be reduced and
two-hour time limits can be dropped.
Gateway Building and Roundabout
Today the intersection of Superior and
Wright is taxing to the eye and a chal-
lenge to both those afoot and in autos. A
redesign of this key intersections allows
for an attractive town/gown connection.
New stores, public plazas and other fea-
tures here should emphasize the connec-
tion and warm invitation between stu-
Shown to the right, an aerial perspective showing the
scale, conceptual dimensions and details of a round-
about and land development at Wright and Superior.
Page 2
ing shopping. This roundabout will
include the trail, library and city ser-
vices connection to downtown. The
roundabout will be designed to provide
choice between an attractive down-
town shopping experience and a by-
pass onto Center Street for those wish-
ing to maintain their pace around the
shopping district.
Superior and State. Careful place-
ment of a roundabout here will create
an attractive center while maximizing
potential for diagonal parking.
Center and State. Key features of
this roundabout include making the
connection between downtown, the
post office and an eventual new water-
front development. Increased parking
is feasible on Center Street, especially
in key locations such as near State and
the post office.
Roundabouts direct drivers to streets giving them the greatest
beauty, destinations, or smooth flow. Today there is no choice.
for all Side Streets
State Street can increase parking 30-80%
dents and towns folks. Once a roundabout
is proven to handle all existing and poten-
tial traffic significant land holdings can
be converted to attractive and useful
mixed use buildings. These buildings
should provide many “eyes on the street”
and create a sense of arrival to those
drawn toward either the campus or the
downtown shopping experience.
D O W NT O W N T R A F F I C
 Vision of the Future
State and Superior Streets
Superior and State Street. A roundabout in this location creates an attractive center
and slows traffic speeds sufficiently to allow diagonal on-street parking on both sides
of State Street, and a shallower angle parking on Superior Street, if desired. The
proposed intersection creates a strong center of attraction and can move far more
traffic than is needed today, while reducing injury related crashes up to 90%.
Pedestrian Crossings
Superior Street can be upgraded to a highly pedestrian friendly street, returning its
former elegance. Diagonal parking is an option if roundabouts are used. Diagonal
parking benefits the street by slowing traffic and adding convenience parking.
Emergency Responders Respond
Emergency responders are trained to respond in a variety of settings. The proposed two-
way street circulation plan improves the number of points of access to all properties.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Diagonal Parking On State
State Street Diagonal Parking. State Street and each side street connecting Superior
and Center have an opportunity to make use of diagonal parking within existing curb
lines. Use of diagonal parking increases available convenience parking, and reduces the
tendency for motorists to speed along the street and into intersections. Most significant,
diagonal parking can be added largely by simply remarking existing paving.
Center Street Curve
The steep bend shown here can be modified allowing speed controls through medi-
ans, improved neighborhood access and safer entry/exit movements.
Back-In Parking
Side streets and perhaps Superior and Center can have back-in angle parking. Over
time Alma folks will determine many ways to park with greater ease. Shown here, when
given the need trail users avoid challenging back out parking into high speed traffic by
reversing into unmarked off-road spaces along California’s Scenic Route 49.Page 3

Contact: Aeric Ripley
Downtown Development Association
City of Alma, Michigan
989-463-8336
For more information, contact us 24 hours a day
on the web www.alma.ci.mi.us.
or call the above number
Getting Started
Six year’s of discussing the future of down-
town and the impacts of one-way to two-way
street conversions appears to be enough. With
a nearly unanimous voice more than forty of
forty-three diverse and leadership participants
in the closing session voiced their interest in
going forward with needed changes to calm
speeds, eliminate the confusion one-ways and
go forward with a new streetscape plan that
includes two-way streets, more parking and
improved intersections. The positive energy of
the many people who participated can now be
tapped to address this and many other steps
needed to breathe life in downtown and to
further strengthen the town/gown connection.
Bringing Change: Downtowns are
living, organic places central to the life
and success of any village, town or
city. Lively, vital downtowns are about
consistency in historic patterns and
features. They are also about adapta-
tion and change to new conditions and
needs of people. As modern events
lead us to understand that life is less
about speed and more about associa-
tion, choice, ownership, partnership
and community spirit; dropping tempo-
rary patterns of the past can only be
seen as a willingness to address the
common good and the making of place.
The City of Alma is about places for
people their activities and the success-
ful today’s and tomorrow’s businesses.

Question: Won’t the loss of lanes cre- gateway aesthetics pleasing. Several living, shared parking and lots of on
ate congestion? roundabouts can pay for themselves by street parking will meet the area needs.
freeing up land and making it possible for
Questions and Answers

Response: Some, which is beneficial —
narrowing lanes and even dropping ap-
propriate lanes in Alma’s downtown
does not reduce auto carrying capacity.
Superior and Central are only operating
at 15-20% of their potential capacity.
There will be times when motorists are
delayed a few seconds on up to a few
minutes during peak periods. This is
healthy for downtowns, where momen-
tary congestion and reduced speeding is
normal and desirable.
Question: Why are roundabouts pro-
posed?
Response: Roundabouts are powerful
urban tools built for keeping traffic flow-
ing uniformly while providing safety for
all street users, and simplifying pedes-
trian crossings. Effective use of round-
abouts and elimination of unwarranted
traffic signals will keep traffic moving at
low speeds, making trip times shorter and
Question: How soon will these changes
key new building investments.
come? The City of Alma should immedi-
Question: How can roundabouts at ately test added diagonal and back-in
lower speeds allow sufficient traffic parking on some key side streets, and
movement? consider it for Superior. Conversion to
two-way operations can proceed once
Response: Roundabouts are superior to
details and funding are secure. Funding
signals. They keep traffic moving be-
one or more roundabouts will need to be
cause people can enter without stopping
budgeted over time.
most of the time. Less stop and go driv-
ing produces happier customers and more
pleasant business environments.
Question: If we can only afford several
roundabouts at first, which are the most
essential ?
The intersections of Pine and Superior
and Wright and Superior are the two most
essential intersections to improve.
Response: More on-street parking and
municipal lots fit the village format. Just
as downtown Sacramento is a popular
place for shopping, entertainment and
 Focus on

Livablteies The Economic Benefits

u n i
Co m m of Walkable Communities

People Pay
A Premium
to Live Where
It’s Walkable.
A 1999 study by the Urban
Land Institute of four
new pedestrian-friendly com-
munities determined that
homebuyers were willing to
pay a $20,000 premium for
homes in them compared to
similar houses in surrounding “First fix the streets, then the
areas.1 people and business will follow.”
Each of the four communities, —Dan Burden, Walkable Communities, Inc.
including Kentlands (right),

C ity and county leaders in California are most motivated

in Gaithersburg, Maryland,
promoted transit and pedes-
trian access. Design features
included systems of intercon-
nected, often narrow streets,
sidewalks, a mix of residential,
retail and office land uses, and
features such as street trees,
short front yard set-backs,
front porches, and rear
garages accessed by alleys.
to push for pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and
land uses when there is a clear economic benefit to their
communities.2 There are solid connections between
walkable environments and economic viability. This
brochure highlights some aspects of that nexus.
Walkability Is A Good Investment.
A ccording to a 1998 analysis by ERE Yarmouth and Real Estate Research
Corporation,3 real estate values over the next 25 years will rise fastest
in “smart communities” that incorporate traditional characteristics of suc-
cessful cities including a mix of residential and commercial districts and a
“pedestrian-friendly configuration.”

Walkability Increases Property Values.

Local Government Commission
Center for Livable Communities
1414 K St., Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814-3966
tel (916) 448-1198
fax (916) 448-8246
web www.lgc.org
R educing traffic noise, traffic speeds, and vehicle-generated air pollution
can increase property values. One study found that a 5 to 10 mph
reduction in traffic speeds increased adjacent residential property values
by roughly 20%. Another study found that traffic restraints that reduced
volumes on residential streets by several hundred cars per day increased
home values by an average of 18%.4
 Businesses Are Beginning to Leave
Gridlocked, Auto-Dependent Cities.

T he automobile has offered

San Diego
Walkable
Communities
Will Attract
“New Economy”
Workers.
I n a 1998 report, Collabora-
tive Economics, a Silicon
Valley think tank, profiled the
connections between the
physical design of communi-
ties and dynamic elements of
the new knowledge-driven,
service-oriented economy.5
The contemporary economy –
with its smaller, decentralized
firms – thrives on land use
patterns that harken back to
the towns of early industrial
years, with city centers, corner
stores and streetcar suburbs.
Walkable downtowns with a
mix of restaurants, offices and
housing promote interaction.
Interaction is key since the
new economy thrives on
accessibility, networking
and creativity.
mobility and convenience for
decades, but booming business
centers like Atlanta and the Silicon
Valley are showing how an overde-
pendence on the car can gridlock
economic development. As a
result, major firms around the coun-
try are advocating for pedestrian-
and transit-friendly development
patterns, according to a 1999 report
by the National Association of
Local Government Environmental
Professionals. Businesses are
increasingly concerned with grid-
lock, lack of transportation choices,
air pollution and the overall decline
in quality of life that can make
recruiting and retaining skilled
workers difficult.6
◗ Hewlett Packard halted its
planned expansion in Atlanta’s
Perimeter Center area, according to
the report, because it did not want
to subject 1,000 new employees to
the area’s serious traffic problems.
◗ Regional and national business
leaders say that low-density, discon-
tinuous and automobile-depen-
dent land use patterns can cause
higher direct business costs and
taxes. The federal Office of
Technology Assessment estimates
that a single house built on the
urban fringe requires $10,000 more
in public services than one built in
the urban core.7
◗ The California State Department
of Transportation, cited in another
source, estimated in 1990 that more
than 197,000 hours per day were
being lost due to traffic congestion,
costing California businesses more
than $2 million a day. San
Francisco’s Bay Area Economic
Forum estimates that area business-
es lose $2 billion per year while
their employees sit in traffic.8
◗ The American Highway Users
Alliance estimates that commuters
waste $1.1 billion a year idling in
the Los Angeles region’s four most
congested interchanges. Their cost
estimates account for lost time,
spent fuel, cost to employers, traffic
accidents, and environmental
damage.9
◗ The Southern California region is
expected to spend more than a
trillion public and private dollars on
roads and freeways, including more
than $81 billion in public capital
investment between 2000 and
2020. Yet, a report by the Southern
California Association of Govern-
ments projects that those expendi-
tures will result in a 330% increase
in rush hour congestion because
much of the new growth is expect-
ed to occur in outlying areas.10

Walkability Is A Tourist Magnet.

T ourists coming to Vermont to walk and bicycle in the scenic, human-
scale towns and compact, pedestrian-friendly town centers have proved
to be an economic boon. In 1992, an estimated 32,500 visiting cyclists spent
$13.1 million in Vermont – about twice the amount of money generated by
Vermont’s maple syrup producers in a good year.13
Down on the Farm

Dependence on Cars
CASE STUDY: CASTRO
Is Bad for Agriculture. STREET – THE HEART OF
MOUNTAIN VIEW
A gribusiness in California’s San Joaquin Valley – a primary source of fruits
and vegetables for the entire nation – is a multi-billion-dollar industry.
The region’s growers complain that vehicle-generated smog reduces crop
yields by 20 to 25%.11 In the Valley’s Fresno County – the country’s top agri-
L ike central West Palm Beach
(see back page), downtown
Mountain View, in Northern
cultural producing county – a landmark public-private alliance of farm lead- California, was left behind by a
ers and representatives from the region’s development, conservation, busi- glut of new automobile-oriented
ness and local government sectors, has signed a compact for handling the retail development on the sub-
stunning amount of projected growth, while conserving prime land. Two of urban fringe. As a result, one
the alliance’s three guiding principles are to “develop livable communities 10-story building on Castro
that emphasize pedestrian or transit-oriented design.”12 Street sat empty and unfinished
throughout the 1980s, with
guard dogs visible through the
smoked-glass windows on the
Walkability – It’s Good for Retail Sales. first floor.
In the late 1980s, the city
T here are many models around the country that show clear economic
benefits to improving the environment for walking in residential and
commercial districts. The cities of Lodi and Mountain View in California and
resolved to turn Castro Street
into the heart of the city by
West Palm Beach, Florida, offer three examples of successful strategies for redesigning it to include,
making communities simultaneously more walkable, livable, and prosperous. among features, a flexible zone
where sidewalk café tables
would replace parked cars in
CASE STUDY: PEDESTRIAN RETROFIT FOR DOWNTOWN LODI the summer. The city located a
pedestrian-oriented civic jewel
before after on Castro Street – a new city
hall and performing arts center
complex with an outdoor plaza.
What followed was $150 million
in adjacent private investment
including an office-over-retail
development flanked by hun-
dreds of attractive homes built
at 47 units per acre, and inter-
D owntown Lodi launched a $4.5 million public-private pedestrian-
oriented project, including a retrofit of five main street blocks from
building face to building face.
spersed with pedestrian pas-
sages that link Castro Street to
a city park.
On the main School Street, sidewalks were widened, curbs bulbed out at
intersections and colored paving stones laid in the new sidewalks and Today, downtown Mountain
street. A striking gateway was installed, as well as 140 street trees, lighting, View is a regional draw, with
benches, and other streetscape amenities. bookstores, brew pubs, restau-
rants – and pedestrians.
The city credits the pedestrian improvements, as well as economic develop-
ment incentives, with the 60 new businesses, the drop in the vacancy rate ◗ For more information:
from 18% to 6%, and the 30% increase in downtown sales tax revenues Barney Burke,
since work was completed in 1997. City of Mountain View,
(650) 903-6454
◗ For more information: e-mail
Tony Goehring, Lodi Economic Development Director, (209) 333-6700 barney.burke@ci.mtnview.ca.us
e-mail tgoehring@lodi.gov web www.lodi.gov
CASE STUDY: TRAFFIC CALMING IN WEST PALM BEACH

before after
Focus on
Livable
Communities
Notes
1
Valuing The New Urbanism,The Impact

T raffic calming projects helped West Palm Beach spur a stunning turn-
around in a downtown left behind by new growth on the suburban
fringe and increasingly perceived as dangerous, dirty and empty.
of the New Urbanism on Prices of Single-
Family Homes, Mark J. Eppli and Charles
C. Tu, 1999, Urban Land Institute.
2
“7 Questions for Your Community’s
The city’s first traffic calming retrofit was along 4,500-foot-long Clematis Health,”' statewide survey, 1998, Local
Government Commission (LGC),
Street, a once-lively main street anchored by a plaza, library and waterfront California Department of Health
on one end and a historic train station on the other. By 1993, only 30% of Services.
the building space on the one-way street was occupied. Property values
3
Defining New Limits: Emerging Trends in
Real Estate, ERE Yarmouth and Real
ranged from $10-$40/sq. ft, with commercial rents at $6/sq. ft. Estate Research Corporation, 1998.
4
Evaluating Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs
The city opened Clematis Street (above) to two-way traffic, narrowed the and Equity Impacts, Todd Litman,
street at points, raised intersections, and bulbed out the curbs at intervals in Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999.
a slalom-like pattern to slow traffic. The $10 million project also rebuilt an
5
Linking the New Economy to the Livable
Community, Collaborative Economics,
interactive fountain, restored key buildings, and provided for event spaces. 1998.
6
Profiles of Business Leadership on Smart
Property values more than doubled on the street. In 1998, they ranged from Growth, New Partnerships Demonstrate
$50-$100/sq. ft., with commercial rents at $30/sq. ft., and with more than 80% the Economic Benefits of Reducing
Sprawl, National Association of Local
of building space occupied. The project attracted some $350 million in pri- Government Environmental
vate investment to the area. Professionals (NALGEP), 1999.
7
The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart
In two nearby neighborhoods (below), the city installed mini-traffic circles Economic Development, LGC, 1998.
in some spots, narrowed the streets, and added speed humps. As traffic 8
Building Livable Communities, A
Policymaker’s Guide to Infill
slowed, social links between neighbors increased. Trash along the streets Development, LGC, 1995.
disappeared, and the area lost its abandoned look. Between 1994 and 1997, 9
“Freeway Tie-Ups Cost $1.1 Billion,
the average sale price for homes there increased from $65,000 to $106,000. Study Says,” Los Angeles Times, 4/13/00.
10
The Ahwahnee Principles for Smart
“The city is thriving with an intensity and energy that seems limitless,” said Economic Development, LGC, 1998.
city transportation planner Ian Lockwood. “It’s about reducing speeds, and
11
Ibid.
12
“A Landscape of Choice, Strategies for
safety, but it’s really economic-development driven. It has paid for itself, easily.” Improving Patterns of Community
Growth,” The Growth Alternatives
◗ For more information: Alliance, 1998.
Ian Lockwood, West Palm Beach Transportation Planner, (561) 659-8031 13
Bicycle Touring in Vermont and Vermont’s
e-mail ilockwoo@ci.west-palm-beach.fl.us Scenic Byways Program, Bruce Burgess
for the Vermont Agency of Transpor-
tation, 1995.
before after
This project is funded by the
Physical Activity and Health Initiative,
California Department of Health
Services under a Preventive Health
Services Block Grant from the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Work performed as
part of a UC San Francisco contract.

printed on recycled paper