5 ms·

I've seen one instance where homeowners in the neighborhood vetoed a proposal to have a centerline painted on a broad street through the neighborhood. Total wid

by drauh 10y ago

I've seen one instance where homeowners in the neighborhood vetoed a proposal to have a centerline painted on a broad street through the neighborhood. Total width was probably about 3 lanes, and many people used it as a "cut through", and going pretty fast. However, painting a centerline would have made property values go down, the homeowners argued, as that would have meant that the street was no longer a residential low-traffic street.

jchrisa 10y ago
Centerlines encourage faster driving, so lately the fashion is to remove them where possible.
driverdan 10y ago
Studies have shown that traffic is slower on roads without lines. If your goal is to slow down traffic you don't want a line.
- drauh 10y ago
  Ah, I was not aware of it.
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  Conversely, painting lines, and narrowing the "american standard" lane width will slow drivers down, as the more narrow lane makes drivers feel like they are going faster. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668160 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668160 http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/lane-width/ http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/stree...
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    Of course it also makes collisions more likely at a given speed because there is less margin for error in estimating how much space you need on either side of your vehicle. I still can't understand this logic of "let's make the roads safer by making them more dangerous" as if the only factor is how fast people are going. Wouldn't it be better to make roads that are safe at the speeds people want to drive? Build sidewalks so pedestrians don't have to be walking in the street etc., and let bicycles use them because a bicyclist is clearly more like a pedestrian than a car?
    - bostonvaulter2 10y ago
      Have you looked at any studies, many point to wider lanes being more dangerous because people drive faster on them. Don't just assume that 'wider == safer' without any data. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/05/27/compelling-evidence-that-wider-lanes-make-city-streets-more-dangerous/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/05/27/compelling-evidence-th...
      - tgb 10y ago
        Admittedly, he claimed only "for a given speed" so that's a different point, albeit probably the more important one.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        The flaw is thinking that the improvement comes for free. You're basically gaming human behavior. The narrower lanes eat most of the safety improvement of people driving slower. You only get the tiny bit that was left over by mistake because people slightly overcompensate for the danger you put them in. But to get that tiny bit you're still paying the entire cost of slowing vehicles down. It takes longer to get where you're going, including for emergency vehicles. The most fuel efficient cruising speed for most vehicles is at or above 40MPH, which you're diverging from. You're paying full costs for fractional benefits. You would be better off putting some cops on the side of the road with an EMP cannon to disable any cars that show up. Sure, it sounds crazy, but it improves safety by slowing people down so we should do it, right? Except that there are other, better ways to improve safety. Like building sidewalks, and making sure there is enough capacity on the highways that people don't come down to surface streets to avoid it, and improving mass transit so there aren't as many people driving to begin with.
        24gttghh 10y ago
        Making the lane more narrow does not have to equal putting two lanes of opposing traffic closer together. We can make the dividing line(s) wider to compensate. To wit, this conversation revolves around residential neighborhoods, where cars frequently park on the street, where the speed limit is likely not 40MPH. Making the lanes narrow is meant to get people to follow the speed limits, I'd say at 30MPH or less.

by drauh 10y ago

jchrisa 10y ago

Centerlines encourage faster driving, so lately the fashion is to remove them where possible.

driverdan 10y ago

Studies have shown that traffic is slower on roads without lines. If your goal is to slow down traffic you don't want a line.

drauh 10y ago
Ah, I was not aware of it.
24gttghh 10y ago
Conversely, painting lines, and narrowing the "american standard" lane width will slow drivers down, as the more narrow lane makes drivers feel like they are going faster. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668160 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14668160 http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/lane-width/ http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/stree...
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  Of course it also makes collisions more likely at a given speed because there is less margin for error in estimating how much space you need on either side of your vehicle. I still can't understand this logic of "let's make the roads safer by making them more dangerous" as if the only factor is how fast people are going. Wouldn't it be better to make roads that are safe at the speeds people want to drive? Build sidewalks so pedestrians don't have to be walking in the street etc., and let bicycles use them because a bicyclist is clearly more like a pedestrian than a car?
  - bostonvaulter2 10y ago
    Have you looked at any studies, many point to wider lanes being more dangerous because people drive faster on them. Don't just assume that 'wider == safer' without any data. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/05/27/compelling-evidence-that-wider-lanes-make-city-streets-more-dangerous/ http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/05/27/compelling-evidence-th...
    - tgb 10y ago
      Admittedly, he claimed only "for a given speed" so that's a different point, albeit probably the more important one.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      The flaw is thinking that the improvement comes for free. You're basically gaming human behavior. The narrower lanes eat most of the safety improvement of people driving slower. You only get the tiny bit that was left over by mistake because people slightly overcompensate for the danger you put them in. But to get that tiny bit you're still paying the entire cost of slowing vehicles down. It takes longer to get where you're going, including for emergency vehicles. The most fuel efficient cruising speed for most vehicles is at or above 40MPH, which you're diverging from. You're paying full costs for fractional benefits. You would be better off putting some cops on the side of the road with an EMP cannon to disable any cars that show up. Sure, it sounds crazy, but it improves safety by slowing people down so we should do it, right? Except that there are other, better ways to improve safety. Like building sidewalks, and making sure there is enough capacity on the highways that people don't come down to surface streets to avoid it, and improving mass transit so there aren't as many people driving to begin with.
      - 24gttghh 10y ago
        Making the lane more narrow does not have to equal putting two lanes of opposing traffic closer together. We can make the dividing line(s) wider to compensate. To wit, this conversation revolves around residential neighborhoods, where cars frequently park on the street, where the speed limit is likely not 40MPH. Making the lanes narrow is meant to get people to follow the speed limits, I'd say at 30MPH or less.