One-way streets and property values

I did a little bit of Googling tonight on the issue of one-way streets and property values. It seems that many sites say that one-way streets likely decrease property values:

From the University of Louisville comes Matt Hanka, ABD; and John Gilderbloom, Ph.D.’s paper entitled How One-Way Thinking is Hurting Historic Downtown Neighborhoods (a short but informative read):

One-way streets pose many threats for pedestrian and motorist safety, make city streets seem less safe, disproportionately impact poor and minority neighborhoods, hurt downtown businesses, reduce the property values of homes, and negatively impact the environment and contribute to global warming. Conversions to two-way have already happened in more than 100 cities around the United States.

These one-way streets also constitute a kind of “environmental racism,” where speeding motorists on one-way streets increase the levels of exhaust, noise, and pollution. One-way streets are predominately located in older downtown neighborhoods in
minority, poor and working-class neighborhoods. Engineers claim that “one-way” is the best way because it moves traffic quicker, but they don’t understand the sociological, ecological and economic impacts of a one-way street.

From the Lelend Consulting Group, real estate strategists:

One-way streets, in and of themselves, are not seen as harmful to retail, however people usually associate them with speed. There are many examples of successful one-way downtown retail streets, but none have more than two moving lanes and most typically
have on-street parallel parking. In surveys of retailers, the consensus seems to be that two-way streets are preferable to one-way streets largely because of the increased “friction” they provide.

… and this (emphasis mine):

Arguments for two-way streets include: enhanced businesses perform better; a favorable pedestrian environment; increased storefront exposure; and, fewer service disruptions.

Research has proven that businesses on two-way streets have a comparatively elevated tax base, command stronger commercial rents and net higher real estate values, versus businesses on one-way streets. This same research suggests that the improved pedestrian safety and comfort afforded by a two-way traffic environment encourages shoppers to patronize adjacent businesses by foot, creating economic synergy.

Additionally, vehicle travel is slower on two-way streets and more complicated, making drivers cautious and more inclined to reduce speeds. For those businesses highly dependent on passer-by traffic, two-way streets are essential. In the case of one-way streets, one side of every cross street is partially “eclipsed” from view, a conditions absent in the two-way street configuration. Curbside activity such as service vehicle loading / unloading is also less disruptive to traffic flow in a two-way street, as only one lane is blocked. In the case of a revitalizing urban corridor, the most important benefit afforded by the two-way street is the priority given to the pedestrian. Two-way streets tend to promote a sense of pedestrian dominance that contributes to the tax base, creates an environment that encourages urban residential development and contributes to a compact city form.

Here’s an excerpt from an urban design blog, quoting a few studies:

Harm to Retail and Residential Neighborhoods. Long-standing one-way streets seem to lose residences and businesses due to the more hostile, noisier, higher speed conditions. For a residence, in addition to the perceived increase in danger and noise pollution, the higher speeds create the impression of excessive traffic volumes, even if volumes are modest. Businesses are harmed, in part, due to the lower storefront exposure the business now experiences on the one-way street, as one direction of travel (and the exposure of the lost direction) is eliminated. Storefront exposure is also reduced by the increased speed of motor vehicles, whereby the motorist has less time to “read” a storefront or sign. In addition, businesses are also harmed because delivery trucks can be inconvenienced.
As of January 2000, Ecologically Sustainable Design Pty Ltd (2005) reports that “22 cities across the USA that have converted one way streets back to two-way. …[the] vast majority reported the conversion was very positive, particularly for business development.”

The loss in residential quality and commercial value causes a decline in property values. As the resulting abandonment of property goes up, signs of decline such as drug activity or prostitution tend to increase. These behaviors tend to go up in a more abandoned “no man’s land” created by the above-cited impacts of one-way streets. The decline in pedestrians and bicyclists can increase crime rates on the street due to loss of “citizen surveillance.”

On the other hand, the right-wing Independence Institute says one-way streets are the only way to go:

Planners sometimes say that two-way streets are
superior to one-way because they are slower. In fact, traffic speeds are independent of whether the streets are one-way or two-way and can most easily be controlled on one-way streets through the use of coordinated signals that can be set for almost any desired speed. Two-way streets suffer more delay and therefore have slower average speeds than one-way streets, but not necessarily slower top speeds. It is questionable whether slower average speeds is a real safety improvement if top speeds
remain the same.

Planners also sometimes argue that two-way streets are better for businesses on those streets because it is easier for patrons to reach those businesses. But traffic flows on one-way streets can be significantly higher than on two-way streets. So it is no surprise that numerous studies have shown that businesses actually do better on one-way streets than two-way.

There’s this 1953 traffic report commissioned by the City of San Diego:

Fresno Questionnaire

In 1949, the Traffic Engineering Department of the City of Fresno,
California, made a nationwide survey of experience with one-way streets. Two questionnaires were sent out. The first went to traffic engineers and police traffic officials in 100 cities and the second to merchant associations in 90 cities. The second questionnaire was sent because the replies to the first indicated such a preponderance of favorable reaction to one-way streets that it was feared the replying officials might have been
prejudiced in their viewpoints, However, the replies from the merchant associations confirmed those from the traffic engineers and police traffic officials.

A summary of the replies to the Fresno questionnaires is shown on
Plate F. Usable replies were received from officials in 56 cities and from merchant associations in 50 cities. All of the officials reported that the one-way streets were successful. Eighty per cent of the merchant associations replied that the merchants in their city favored one-way streets, ten per cent were opposed and ten per cent were neutral. In five per cent, of the cities, the officials reported that one-way streets were harmful to business and property values. The corresponding per cent for the merchant associations was four. Eighty-four per cent of the replies from officials reported that merchants were “for one-way streets” or that there was “general acceptance.” Seven per cent indicated they were opposed.

There two issues with this report. One is obviously its age. American planners had different goals sixty years ago, especially when oil supplies seemed infinite. The other issue with the report is its own admission that little actual research has been carried out.

And finally, the folks at the Straight Dope weighed in on the topic. I found this comment from a user known as “Lunar Saltlick” particularly apt:

In San Jose, we have several three lane one-way streets that lead to 280. They have become virtual freeways, lots of fast moving traffic. These streets are not pedestrian friendly, and have cut off some neighborhoods, from others. They are considering changing some back to two-way traffic.

This is absolutely key. If the one-way turns the street into a semi-highway, that’s bad. My street is one way, and everyone uses it as an access road to get to a highway. They’re already gunning it up on my street before they get to the highway entrance. I hate it, and I wouldn’t buy another house in a similar situation.

I think that’s what … er, drives me on this issue. As the above comment states, if one-way streets are creating “semi-highways” where the streets were once calmer, I believe that’s bound to have a negative impact on the properties.

There’s a lot more to learn on this issue but I’m fascinated with what I’ve read so far!