Talk:Road diet

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging Lane diet into Road diet

Yes, as the original contributor, I agree that this properly belongs under "Road Diets" I do not know how to do this, and hope that an editor can assist.

References for Lane Diets and their effectiveness include recent research publications by Robert B. Noland (2006) and Eric Dumbaugh (2006).

Dan Burden 75.202.233.80 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Sometime when I have time I'll merge them. It's not a highly technical process -- click "edit this page" on Lane diet, copy what's there, click "edit this page" on Road diet, and add the information in. Preferably edit the content so it flows well. --Alynna 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the claimed benefits of lane diet is more turning radius. This is a negative for fans of traffic calming who want tighter turns to force drivers to slow more when turning. I rewrote much of the paragraph for being too awkward and non-specific. Countries don't drive. Mark Kaepplein (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

confusing paragraph

Can someone with a knowledge of the subject reword this?

Road diets do not displace traffic, unless they have exotically high numbers. Road diet ranges typically start at 8,000 vehicles per day, and climb to 19,000 vehciles per day. At 20,000 vehicles per day the diet is called a "Super Road Diet." These diets range from 19,000 on up to about 23,000 vehciles per day. They are undertaken by replacing signals with roundabouts, and other means to keep traffic moving smoothly and uniformally.

I'm not sure what the first sentence means at all. I also have no idea what a "range" is in relation to a road diet. --Alynna 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate paragraph could be:

Lane reduction is more appropriate to roads with fewer than 20,000 vehicles per day, above that, congestion and drivers diverting to alternate routes increases. A "Super Road Diet" may be applied up to 23,000 vehicles per day, where efficient intersections can keep traffic moving smoothly and uniformly. Roundabouts can achieve this and are more efficient than signals where most traffic turns right or goes straight.

Mark Kaepplein (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entry thoroughly biased, starting with the term Road Diet

"Road Diet" is a euphemism for narrowing and capacity reduction on arterial roads. If the subject were transport capacity reduction of blood vessels, it would be termed arteriosclerosis or coronary artery disease, not "artery diet". Alternate labels for road constriction could be "less is more" and "coronary roadway disease". The major proponents of "road diet", Dan Burden included, are professional bicycle activists and lobbyists, thus may also be biased.

Mark Kaepplein (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a four lane undivided road, in a dense suburban or urban area with medium to high driveway density, the two inside lanes become de-facto left turn lanes. As a result, only two lanes can be used as through lanes anyway. So, as stated pretty clearly in the article, below a certain traffic volume, reallocating the existing width to a three lane cross section usually results in no decrease in level of service.

The staff of the Turner Fairbanks Highway Research Lab are not bicycle lobbyists. National Cooperative Highway Research Program publications are peer-reviewed by a wide spectrum of professional civil engineers before publication. On the other hand, your terms, such as "Coronary roadway disease" are hardly NPOV.

--Triskele Jim (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burden, who is an author of this page is a professional lobbyist/advocate with links here. Urban Planning departments at Universities are disproportionately populated with bicyclists and their work reflects it. The vast majority of road users are motorists, yet they are given the least consideration - tail wagging the dog. "Coronary roadway disease" would only be appropriate in the opposition section and is certainly strongly biased. The re-framing was used to show how "road diet" is biased. "Diet" is misapplication of a word pertaining to nutrition, where "narrowing" is not convoluted and perfectly describes the action. "Narrow" is the only neutral term, while "constrict" has about an equal and opposite bias as "road diet". How about using one constrict for every diet?

"On a four lane undivided road, in a dense suburban or urban area with medium to high driveway density..." is one of the most appropriate applications of road constriction, unfortunately bicycle activists desiring exclusive space (bike lanes) seek application to roads far less well suited. This is the infectious disease aspect.

An important fact the editor of this page doesn't want readers knowing is that Burden in his paper referenced here, encountered 95% public opposition to a road narrowing proposal. That can be balanced with his crucial advice that public participation and education need start early in the process to convert opponents. Other references are biased in not specifying initial public opinion, but do show post construction positive opinion, if an advocate wants to track down citations.

Mark Kaepplein (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition before a project isn't really relevant, unless compared to opinion after. A lot of people oppose things that are new. Burden wrote that paper 11 years ago, when the idea that removing travel way width can have positive results was still new. If you can find a significant sample of projects where most people thought it was a mistake a year after completion, then it should be included in the article.--Triskele Jim (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]