Arguments For and Against
Proponents of road diets generally believe key benefits include lower vehicular speeds, reduced crash rates, and improved pedestrian safety. Other benefits of road diets include promoting better land use, reducing induced traffic, promoting greater driving attentiveness, and promoting cycling through the addition of bicycle lanes. Providing dedicated left turn (in countries that drive on the right-hand side of the road) lanes at intersections can improve vehicular safety and can enable efficiency gains along the roadway.
Researchers have found that road diets can be expected to reduce overall crash frequency by 19% to 43%, with the higher crash reductions occurring in small urban areas than in metropolitan areas.
A leading proponent of road diets is former Florida Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Dan Burden, who now helms the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute. Burden and Peter Lagerwey published an article on the topic in 1999 noting that in two cases, 95% of residents were initially opposed to roadway constriction. Additional studies have shown that road diets often achieve these positive effects without reducing traffic volumes.
Among studies now showing that there are safety improvements to driving when lane widths are reduced include a recent report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and work analyzing traffic safety for 14 years in all 50 states by Robert B. Noland.
Road diets can negatively affect the speed and reliability of transit service operating on the roadway, particularly if bus stops are located in pullouts and traffic queues delay buses attempting to re-enter traffic. Constructing bus bulbs can mitigate these effects though this feature results in delays for other vehicles.
Not all multi-lane arterials are good candidates for road constriction. Added congestion can outweigh benefits if vehicle traffic volumes exceed the capacity of the three-lane roadway. This threshold is approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. Burden notes additional characteristics of better candidates for vehicle lane removal.
Read more about this topic: Road Diet
Famous quotes containing the words arguments for and/or arguments:
“Compared to football, baseball is almost an Oriental game, minimizing individual stardom, requiring a wide range of aggressive and defensive skills, and filled with long periods of inaction and irresolution. It has no time limitations. Football, on the other hand, has immediate goals, resolution on every single play, and a lot of violence—itself a highlight. It has clearly distinguishable hierarchies: heroes and drones.”
—Jerry Mander, U.S. advertising executive, author. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, ch. 15, Morrow (1978)
“Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you don’t in the other?”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)