Two way Streets

[stick n move]

Old article but it got me thinking about Boston. Boston has notoriously bad streets, but I think if we reevaluated many of the streets in the city we could make what we have much better. Theres plenty of times that you will be going down a street only for it to turn into a one way going the other direction. I honestly think that even though there is no rhyme or reason to our streets we would greatly benefit from making a lot of streets two ways. I think there needs to be a comprehensive look at Boston as a whole to determine better ways to utilize the streets we already have.


http://curbed.com/archives/2015/04/13/one-way-to-fix-our-cities-is-to-eliminate-the-oneway.php

 

[Matthew]

Pretty much all but the narrowest of streets should be 2-way. And even those should be 2-way for bikes as much as possible. One-way systems of of multi-lane streets are just an overengineered nightmare for everyone.

 

[Arlington]

I think there needs to be a comprehensive look at Boston as a whole to determine better ways to utilize the streets we already have.
http://curbed.com/archives/2015/04/13/one-way-to-fix-our-cities-is-to-eliminate-the-oneway.php

Agreed. If people want less traffic on their street, they should support congestion charges (to reduce it universally), parking charges (to make finding a spot easier with less circling), and 2-way streets (to promote more-direct routings).

 

[JeffDowntown]

Many of the one-way streets are single direction to prevent commuter cut through of residential neighborhoods. There is some real purpose to forcing the circuitous routing.

 

[Scipio]

Two-way streets are great for traffic calming in the residential neighborhoods. Right now you’ll have a 24-26 foot one-way street with parking on both sides leaving plenty of room for people to comfortably bomb down a street at 30+ mph. Stop signs, speed bumps, chicanes etc slow people down at one point, but I see people slam on the brakes then mash the accelerator and so spend most of their time traveling at high speeds anyways.

Making the streets two way while retaining parking on both sides means that drivers have to go slowly to watch for oncoming traffic, then slow way down to creep past an oncoming car. Boston and Somerville are both doing some more neighborhood-led traffic calming over the next year and so hopefully we get to see some one to two-way conversions. Many Seattle neighborhoods are set up like this, narrow two-way streets with small traffic circles instead of stop signs. It’s nearly impossible to travel through a neighborhood like this any faster than 15 mph but still easy to navigate.

Pretty much all but the narrowest of streets should be 2-way. And even those should be 2-way for bikes as much as possible. One-way systems of of multi-lane streets are just an overengineered nightmare for everyone.

Everett has this on one of the streets coming off of their part of the bike to
the sea trail:

Contraflow lanes like in Brookline and Cambridge are a great option on the busier one-way streets, but all you really need is to put a sign up on a street is reasonably wide enough with reasonably low traffic. We trust people driving to travel down a two-way street without a yellow line down the middle and so should be able trust people on bikes to do so where it’s safe.

 

[cden4]

Boston was planning a two-way cycle track on Boylston St in Back Bay, but that project seems to be dead.

I would like to see many of the wide streets in Back Bay converted to two way for everyone: Boylston, Beacon, Tremont, and Charles especially.

 

[stick n move]

I agree they serve their purpose in residential neighborhoods, but in downtown and streets like boylston in the back bay and a few others I think two way streets would be a huge benefit. Not to mention Tremont street, that would be one of the first I would change. I honestly think this needs to be taken into consideration and I was surprised I could not dig up one article anywhere about getting rid of a lot of the one ways in Boston. We are a notoriously hard city to navigate through and I think this deserves consideration.

 

[Arlington]

Many of the one-way streets are single direction to prevent commuter cut through of residential neighborhoods. There is some real purpose to forcing the circuitous routing.

The motive of disincentivizing commuting trips during 6 hours of commuting, 5 days a week might be OK, but the solution of permanently crippling the grid 24/7 is a sucky one (but which seemed OK to streets-are-for-cars planners of the 50s to 80s)

The mistake was to not find some way of discouraging the objectionable commuting / congesting trips, other than imposing the costs of circuity on them (which only meant more VMTs for all users, commuter and local, and stuff like garbage trucks).

Hence, the idea of congestion charges: using price to dissuade commuter/congesting trips while actually leaving the streets to function as complete streets. Instead of stealing peoples time with circuitous routings we just ask them to pay a small, transparent fee. Much more efficient, and produces revenue for the city, not just making driving painful.

There's a hidden benefit of a 2-way grid with congestion charges: city service vehicles are suddenly WAAY freer to take direct routings.

 

[stick n move]

It would help a lot with tourists/non locals who spend a lot of extra time driving in circles until they find a way to get to where they are going. It would keep a lot of cars from unnecessarily wandering around on many different streets to get to somewhere.

 

[Arlington]

It would help a lot with tourists/non locals who spend a lot of extra time driving in circles until they find a way to get to where they are going. It would keep a lot of cars from unnecessarily wandering around on many different streets to get to somewhere.

That's where I'm coming from: No matter how complicated a fee system, its got to be easier than finding the one secret entrance to each neighborhood (which is always outnumbered about 6:1 by one ways leaving each neighborhood)

That was my introduction to Boston: that Beacon Hill has about 20 streets that flow out but only about 3 that flow in. That's nuts.

 

[BuilditDenser]

Boston was planning a two-way cycle track on Boylston St in Back Bay, but that project seems to be dead.

Does anyone know why this project never moved forward? It looked like a fantastic way to humanize an oversized road.

Hopefully the city will use the Vision Zero (http://www.visionzeroboston.org/)as a way to start making these roads into better places for walkers and bikers. Given the track record of Marty, I'm not holding my breath

 

[Matthew]

Here in the UK they eagerly use lots of 'extreme' traffic calming measures: speed bumps ("humps"), tabled intersections, lane-narrowing (to 6-feet wide) sections, single-'tracking' sections (forced yield), filtered permeability up the wazoo, 20-is-plenty, etc. Bicycle contraflow has been expanded since last year in Cambridge, even on streets that you would not believe.

It's not always successful. 'Rat-running' is still a big problem in many spots.

 

[CantabAmager]

That was my introduction to Boston: that Beacon Hill has about 20 streets that flow out but only about 3 that flow in. That's nuts.

The old adage is that that arrangement was by design. The developers (I guess they would've been termed speculators back then) behind Beacon Hill were grandees that supposedly didn't want increasingly crowded areas to the east encroaching on their sophisticated investment. I don't know how true that is - there were certainly topographical limitations - but I guess you can see remnants of an intention to exclude people. The original plans were drawn up by Bulfinch, but he left the project before a layout was agreed upon; the architecture and sub-neighborhoods are quintessential Bulfinch, but he also favored grids and "ordered" street layouts which aren't really present in the area. Maybe somebody else can give a definitive yay or nay to 18th century get off my lawnism.

I would like to see many of the wide streets in Back Bay converted to two way for everyone: Boylston, Beacon, Tremont, and Charles especially.

For fuck's sake do BEACON first. It's always blown my mind that a street that both is both obviously dysfunctional, all too often fatally, manages never to see any change. Three lanes that induce speed, two lanes of parking induce double parking on both sides, double parkers that induce swerving, split traffic signals that aren't easy to see during daylight, high foot-traffic....I mean there's no good reason Beacon should have any more than 2 lanes. Fucking hell, that place is a mess.

 

[underground]

Studies have actually shown speed bumps aren't great traffic calmers. Drivers slow down to go over the bumps, but then speed up faster than they'd normally drive to race to the next one (which is also bad for fuel consumption and general wear and tear).

 

[Arlington]

I would make Beacon and Boylston and Tremont all 2 way in one grand gesture and get them all real bus routes and bike lanes. This whole "must loop around the park" (Common or Public Garden) is particularly insane.

All three, today, function analogous to limited access highways: in exchange for a more-circuitous routing and the exclusion of "local" traffic, they dangle the promise of higher-speed, one-way, multi-lane travel.

Just like Rutherford Ave is being calmed and returned to the use of its near-neighbors, and "local" trips (on bike, foot, and bus) so should these other core streets.

Also, when we talk in the NSRL and GLX threads about the need to off-load trips from the core subway lines, buses that work on Tremont, Boylston, and Beacon would be a huge way to off-load short "half-corridor" trips between Kenmore-Seaport and South End - North Station.

PS-I doubt Beacon Hill's 1-ways go back to Bullfinch. Though exclusion and 1-way alleys are both ancient Boston things, the idea that Charles or other "normal" streets should be one-way only arose once there were auto commuters arriving from the 'burbs on roads like Storrow and Memorial.

 

[cden4]

I think people complained that double parking in both outer lanes is common on Boylston St now, leaving the middle lane free, but without a middle lane, the double parking would cripple everything. (Gotta love how we design our streets around illegal parking instead of actually managing the curbside properly.)

 

[JeffDowntown]

The old adage is that that arrangement was by design. The developers (I guess they would've been termed speculators back then) behind Beacon Hill were grandees that supposedly didn't want increasingly crowded areas to the east encroaching on their sophisticated investment. I don't know how true that is - there were certainly topographical limitations - but I guess you can see remnants of an intention to exclude people. The original plans were drawn up by Bulfinch, but he left the project before a layout was agreed upon; the architecture and sub-neighborhoods are quintessential Bulfinch, but he also favored grids and "ordered" street layouts which aren't really present in the area. Maybe somebody else can give a definitive yay or nay to 18th century get off my lawnism.



For fuck's sake do BEACON first. It's always blown my mind that a street that both is both obviously dysfunctional, all too often fatally, manages never to see any change. Three lanes that induce speed, two lanes of parking induce double parking on both sides, double parkers that induce swerving, split traffic signals that aren't easy to see during daylight, high foot-traffic....I mean there's no good reason Beacon should have any more than 2 lanes. Fucking hell, that place is a mess.

But you pointed out the fundamental flaw. Beacon does not DRIVE as 3 lanes. It drives as one lane, with double parking lanes on each side. That is why it is a mess.

Make it two lane, two way, without super aggressive towing parking enforcement, and your get zero flow.

Charles Street through Beacon Hill is another example of a three lane wide one-way that drives as only one travel lane (and double parking on each side).

By the way, I am fully supportive of making many of the wide one-way race tracks into two way streets (as mentioned above), but you also need to add really serious parking enforcement.

 

[Shepard]

To me, Charles Street in Beacon Hill is particularly egregious. Traffic coming off the Longfellow gets to the Back Bay via Charles Street in seconds. The reverse trip either involves a painful cross-street detour towards Storrow and through Charles Circle, or a bizarre circuit around Government Center. The street configuration is awful for cars, bikes, pedestrians... everyone.

The quintessential Boston FML driving moment is Boylston after Arlington, where Boylston splits with almost no signage or direction. One way diverts to the Charles-Street-Between-The-Parks superhighway because - hey, I might get to Beacon Hill or the Longfellow this way! - nope. The other way forces you into the congested heart of Chinatown, which makes sense only if you're going to South Station. Logically the best way to get to much of the Financial District from here would be a left on Tremont, but of course that's going in the wrong direction. In other words, Boylston, the most major through-conduit from Back Bay to Downtown, doesn't work.

 

[stick n move]

Exactly. Its crazy that we have the roads already laid but refuse to just paint yellow lines on them to solve this mess.

 

[Arlington]

This also ties back to the "who (really) pays for roads?" issue: City streets are paid for by city property taxes. The current one-ways maximize the value of commuting by car, and hurt:

1) Pedestrians (in a city that walks to work more than most)
2) Commericial deliveries (that circle the block)
3) Buses that could be delivering more tenants

We talk about the core subway nearing max capacity, but one great way to relieve it would be to overlay some buses that, though a little lower average speeds, tie O/D pairs together directly. Two way streets would allow:

Bus: Longwood-Boylston-South Station-Seaport
Bus: MGH-Bowdoin-Tremont-(wiggle)-Tremont-Ruggles

(and either mix or parallel bike lanes)