John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way system, even
though when all of the roads in and out of the square are one-way,
an anti-clockwise one-way system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better view of
vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Many squares, such as St James, have roads which are wide enough
to be two-way, and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around for no
reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide, but it does
allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking a parking space, to be
overtaken. Two-way traffic would make that hazardous, and would also
lead to lots more conflicting movements at junctions. Forcing you to go
the long way round is a well-known technique for discouraging through
traffic from a residential area that is not a main traffic artery.

Belgrave Square in particular has a phenomenal width of tarmac for
no reason, leading cars to speed up noticeably as they circuit the
square, when making the grassed area a lot larger would lead to a
safer and more pleasant environment while only adding a few seconds
to car journeys.

I think the wide road is a deliberate design feature intended to
impress. I'm not sure whose environment you are trying to improve here.
Drivers are presumably happy. The "grassed area" that you want to make
larger is already 4.5 acres and contains not just grass but "large plane
trees... pergolas with wisteria, roses and passion flowers. There is a
quiet garden, a play area for children, a tennis court and a collecttion
of statuary reflecting the international nature of the square."*
Extending this historic garden just to snarl up the traffic seems
pointless.

*from advance publicity for Open Gardens Square Weekend, 11/12 June 2005
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/london.ga...res/index.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way
system, even though when all of the roads in and out
of the square are one-way, an anti-clockwise one-way
system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better
view of vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Why would traffic already on the square need to have a view of traffic
joining it, over whom they have prority?

Many squares, such as St James, have roads
which are wide enough to be two-way,
and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around
for no reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide,
but it does allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking
a parking space, to be overtaken.

I can't think of any non-square which has been made one-way just to aid
overtaking of parking cars.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
John Rowland wrote:
Hi all,

Nearly all London squares have a clockwise one-way
system, even though when all of the roads in and out
of the square are one-way, an anti-clockwise one-way
system is superior (because drivers have
better visibility when curving to the left).

I think that's a very marginal advantage, offset by the better
view of vehicles joining the roundabout from the driver's left.

Why would traffic already on the square need to have a view of
traffic joining it, over whom they have prority?

To avoid collisions? (Priorities are not always observed.) I was merely
pointing out that the very marginal disadvantage from clockwise
circulation was offset by an equally marginal advantage.

Many squares, such as St James, have roads
which are wide enough to be two-way,
and the squares are large enough that you don't
particularly want to be forced to go the long way around
for no reason, so I don't know why they one-way at all.

The road around St James's Square is not all that wide,
but it does allow a slow car, whose driver is seeking
a parking space, to be overtaken.

I can't think of any non-square which has been made one-way just to
aid overtaking of parking cars.

It's one of the main advantages of a one-way street that a very slow or
stationary vehicle can be overtaken without waiting for oncoming traffic
to clear. The improvement in traffic flow is the main reason why
one-way streets were introduced. If two-way traffic was introduced as
you suggest, I suspect that you would lose more time from disrupted
traffic flow than you would gain from shorter journeys.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)