Filters don't increase contrast in the normal sense. They alter the tonal rendering of certain colours by making them lighter or darker
relative to other colours, which can sometimes look like an increase in contrast (eg, red filter darkens blue skies, but white clouds stay the same - increased contrast in the sky, but any number of odd changes in the rest of the scene depending on what colours are there). In street photography, the subject colours are rather unpredictable apart from skin tones, and you might get blue skies (but one filter won't enhance both unless your streets are full of people with blue faces).
I've never used coloured filters for street photography (or any filters, come to that). I tend to go for a fairly normal contrast, but if I wanted more, I'd do it in post on the scan (scan at 16-bit to give the room for manipulation and avoid banding on continuous tones). For street, I use Tri-X at the metered aperture for 1/400th or apply sunny 16 for 400asa, but I shoot at 1/250th, and then develop normally. I don't use a meter much - usually take a few readings at the start to get an idea of what the light is like (what aperture for the bright bits, what to use in the shade), and then wing it for the most part. For subjects with a fairly normal brightness range, Tri-X copes with sloppy exposure very well and can still stand contrast boosting in post if the exposures are sensible.
Have a look at this neg...
The first shot is badly underexposed - I had just reloaded and must have moved the aperture ring to the smallest setting without noticing until after the shot. This would have been early afternoon in f11 light in the bright bits, but was looking south in the shade at a fairly dark wall - more like f5.6, and I exposed it at f22. Oops. The second shot would have had whatever was close to the proper exposure. All negs on the roll were scanned with the same settings (starting from a 16-bit tiff).
Here's the first one after processing...
A bit muddy, but I was surprised at how much detail could be extracted from the darker tones - only the darkest bits go flat.
Here's the second shot with my normal level of contrast...
That looks like a grade 2 print (from what I can remember of actual printing in a darkroom). With more contrast...
That looks like somewhere between grade 3 and 4. The highlights seem to have survived, and the dress she's wearing has more emphasis.
Unless you want to achieve a particular shift in the relative rendering of colours, I would say that a filter isn't needed for street photography. If you want increased overall contrast, film and processing should be able to do it.