Comments on: MM: UDO Vote Pushed Back, Trethewey Theater Review, and Atlanta Transit Jobs

By: DEM

DEM — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:27:58 +0000

They can save on insurance! As a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder, I urge you call GEICO right away.

By: DEM

DEM — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:26:25 +0000

Well, I will confess to not knowing much of anything about design speed and mortality generally. It’s possible there is a strong correlation. But certainly as to lane widths, this article didn’t show it. And even if there is a strong correlation, I still want to know: what is the risk in absolute terms? In other words, 12′ roads may be much more dangerous than 10′ roads, while both are relatively safe in absolute terms. After all, it just ain’t that hard to cross the street.

I have nothing against 10′ lanes in the right circumstances — obviously not every road should be designed for 40 mph +. But I do think that major thoroughfares should be designed to get us where we are going at a reasonable speed. This article seemed to almost absolute — i.e., no 12′ lanes at all, save for highways. I’m not on board that train.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful response, Scott.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:47:26 +0000

Agree on the click-baity headline but the correlation between design speed and mortality is, in my estimation, still a very real thing. But never mind that. I accept that DEM doesn’t buy it. But maybe it’s not the only take on the issue.

There’s also an economic angle. For starters, wider lanes in cities equals increased infrastructure cost with no tangible difference in throughput. It’s essentially paying a 20% premium for equal performance (in terms of traffic handling). In an era of limited resources, is it not fiscally irresponsible to shell out extra money for no gain?

Beyond that, I think we agree that lane width correlates with speed. So a municipal investment in 12′ lanes is an incentive for drivers to go faster. That’s an economic issue too, because (in cities, not ‘burbs or rural), the highest land value correlates with walkability which peaks in places where car speed averages less than 25. Wider lanes and higher speeds not only take ROW from ped or bike uses, they also make an environment that’s less pleasant to be in — which means it’s less desirable to build in close proximity to, thus maximizing land (and taxable) value. So, in essence, making street lanes wider, faster and less hospitable to other uses not only fails to create additional taxable value, it actually detracts from it. Again, a poor exercise of municipal judgment, IMO.

Whadaya think, DEM? Can we get you on board the 10′ train?

By: brianc

brianc — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 16:06:55 +0000

I think there’s a reasonable case to be made against 12 foot traffic lanes, but I agree about the sensationalized headline. That kind of click-bait seems to be the norm now, though. The ones that bug me are the articles (or “sponsored content”) in which the content is actually the opposite of the headline. Got baited into clicking on one recently that read “Dire Warning For Those Who Drive Less Than 10k Miles A Year” (or something similar to that). It was actually an article about how those who don’t drive much can save on insurance.

By: DEM

DEM — Thu, 09 Oct 2014 15:54:44 +0000

So this is the essence of the case against 12 foot traffic lanes:

“All of the above data, studies, and pronouncements, collected and disseminated by the mainstream traffic engineering establishment, point to the following conclusion: 10-foot lanes cause no more accidents than 12-foot lanes, and they may cause fewer. These accidents can be expected to be slower, and thus less deadly. Therefore, 10-foot lanes are safer than 12-foot lanes.”

Color me unimpressed. Maybe they cause fewer accidents, maybe they don’t. Proves nothing. And we can “expect” accidents to be less deadly, but we don’t know for sure. Despite this paucity of actual evidence, the headline for this piece dives head-first into hysteria: 12 foot lanes are “disasterous for safety.”