Why Aren't There More One-Way Streets In LA?

[mrsman]

https://laist.com/2019/03/25/dear_laist_why_arent_there_more_one-way_streets_in_la.php

[EDITED on 5/11 to fix link.]

-------------

Comments:

Good article with a lot of historical perspective, including Downtown LA and Olympic/Pico plans that were discussed in 2007 (but not implemented).

However, they did not discuss at all the issue of using one-way streets on the residential steets in many neighborhoods in the older part of the city like Hollywood.  These streets are simply too narrow and busy to allow two-way traffic with parking on both sides.  When driving down, you have to slow to a crawl (and maybe pull aside into a parking space or driveway) just to be able to pass.   On some of the busier streets, parking is removed on at least one side to make things easier, but it is surprising that they never implemented a grid of one-way streets for these narrow streets, as i have seen done in countless cities in other parts of the country with narrow streets (Chicago, Washington DC, and of course New York).

Another positive with one-ways is that they allow more room for bus lanes and bike lanes.  If traffic were to move more smoothly, you can pass more traffic through with fewer lanes.  Those lanes can be repurposed.

[jdbx]

I happen to live on a very narrow residential street.  It was built in the first half of the 20th century and if a car is parked at the curb on just one side, there is only room for 1 car to get past comfortably.  If a car is parked on both sides, it's a struggle not to hit your mirrors on the cars on either side.  I consider this a benefit, however.  It forces people to drive much more slowly and cautiously, which is something I believe is desirably for a residential street.

Now main boulevards like those discussed in the plan, I think couplets of one way streets are a much more efficient plan.  You get benefits of improved signal phasing, fewer traffic conflicts, and it even makes it a bit easier to integrate things like bike lanes.

[skluth]

Correct link

[The Ghostbuster]

Probably because urban planners and city officials believe (incorrectly, in my opinion) that two-way streets are superior to one-way streets.

[jakeroot]

I happen to live on a very narrow residential street.  It was built in the first half of the 20th century and if a car is parked at the curb on just one side, there is only room for 1 car to get past comfortably.  If a car is parked on both sides, it's a struggle not to hit your mirrors on the cars on either side.  I consider this a benefit, however.  It forces people to drive much more slowly and cautiously, which is something I believe is desirably for a residential street.

I totally agree. I see a lot of really narrow streets like that (in Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver, etc), where one direction will dominate until every car is through, due to there being only one lane for two directions of traffic. But in practice, it slows traffic way down and deters people from using the street as a detour. Plus, it allows for plenty of parking, which residents love. Win win win!

Probably because urban planners and city officials believe (incorrectly, in my opinion) that two-way streets are superior to one-way streets.

That's the case now, but not when LA's streets were initially setup. Check out the story!