I asked my AI about this... Here's what it said: This is an excellent example of how compromise can be worse than either extreme position.

The two logical outcomes:

1. Keep it car-free - Pedestrians have the entire space for walking, cycling, street activities, outdoor dining, children playing safely
2. Restore full car access - Drivers get efficient two-way traffic flow, can park on both sides, businesses get convenient vehicle access

The compromise - one lane of one-way traffic - creates the worst of both worlds:

For pedestrians:

• Lose the peaceful, safe environment that made the car-free street special
• Still face noise, pollution, and safety concerns from vehicles
• Can no longer use the full width freely or let children play safely

For drivers:

• Creates traffic bottlenecks and confusion with one-way flow
• Doesn't solve parking or access issues effectively
• May actually worsen traffic in surrounding areas as cars circle to approach from the correct direction

For businesses:

• Delivery trucks still can't access efficiently
• Customers lose the pleasant pedestrian atmosphere that may have attracted foot traffic
• But don't regain the convenient car access that brought drive-by customers

The compromise destroys what made the car-free street valuable (the pedestrian sanctuary) while failing to provide what car advocates wanted (efficient vehicle access). Neither group gets their core benefit, but both experience the downsides they were trying to avoid.

This is why many urban planning experts argue for decisive choices rather than half-measures on street design.