Anonymous wrote:
Again, the problem is that these projects are rarely JUST road diets. I realize you want to parse out road diets but when the total project contains more than just a road diet, that is not possible. If you have an issues with that, blame the jurisdictions and staff that feel the need to add in costly extras to these projects while providing limited safety improvements for local, neighborhood roads. In most jurisdictions, the types of traffic calming a city is willing to fund as part of more robust "complete streets" budgets v. a more limited "traffic calming" budget speaks volumes about the the amount of money these projects can cost.

I do not see any tendency to put in hawk lights or costly bulb outs on every "arterial" - perhaps things are different where you live. And I see lots of money going to traffic calming on side streets.

This may be too abstract a discussion, since the jurisdictions are not all the same - but then I would rather not have a debate about any particular local project here on (anon troll dominated) DCUM, either.

Anonymous wrote:I mean unless your point is we should spend $ on local neighborhood streets and not do anything to improve safety on so called arterials. Since the arterials typically have the destinations people need to walk to, including bus stops, schools, shopping, etc, I think that is a mistake. Especially in inner suburbs that are trying to promote walking for transportation.

Oh course not that's not my point. There are many way to promote safety on arterial roads. A road diet is one way that may be appropriate in some cases on some types of roads. For example, connector roads - which more often contain schools, and often contain robust bus routes and local businesses - are typically much more appropriate locations for road diets.

Again, the problem is that these projects are rarely JUST road diets. I realize you want to parse out road diets but when the total project contains more than just a road diet, that is not possible. If you have an issues with that, blame the jurisdictions and staff that feel the need to add in costly extras to these projects while providing limited safety improvements for local, neighborhood roads. In most jurisdictions, the types of traffic calming a city is willing to fund as part of more robust "complete streets" budgets v. a more limited "traffic calming" budget speaks volumes about the the amount of money these projects can cost.

I mean unless your point is we should spend $ on local neighborhood streets and not do anything to improve safety on so called arterials. Since the arterials typically have the destinations people need to walk to, including bus stops, schools, shopping, etc, I think that is a mistake. Especially in inner suburbs that are trying to promote walking for transportation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Reconfigured sidewalks, hawk signals are other forms of traffic calming. A road diet per se is a reduction in the number of lanes, and while it can go along with hawk signals, a hawk signal is not a road diet. You can have either without the other.

Of course, but most road diets projects, at least the ones I have seen implemented, often include these features as part of the overall plan. It is often not JUST re-stripping and thus, the costs of these features can and should be considered as part of a project that includes road diets.

In some places the choices are an option with hawk lights and no lane reduction, vs with hawk lights AND with a lane reduction. So the hawk lights should not be considered a cost of the road diet.

Anonymous wrote:
Reconfigured sidewalks, hawk signals are other forms of traffic calming. A road diet per se is a reduction in the number of lanes, and while it can go along with hawk signals, a hawk signal is not a road diet. You can have either without the other.

Of course, but most road diets projects, at least the ones I have seen implemented, often include these features as part of the overall plan. It is often not JUST re-stripping and thus, the costs of these features can and should be considered as part of a project that includes road diets.

Anonymous wrote:
Road diets only cost less if they include stripping. But many also end up including reconfigured sidewalks, pedestrian islands, hawks signals, etc. those are expensive. Much more expensive than painted curb bump outs or speed humps.

Road diets are typically acceptable on roads with ADTs under 15k. They get somewhat iffy on roads over 20k and very, very iffy on roads over 26k. Many DC area arterials exceeds 15k. Like I said? It depends on many factors. Anyone who denies that is pushing a separate agenda.

Also, narrowing the width of a lane can reduce vehicle speeds. Reducing lanes is not the only way to reduce speed and it’s not always very successful.

Reconfigured sidewalks, hawk signals are other forms of traffic calming. A road diet per se is a reduction in the number of lanes, and while it can go along with hawk signals, a hawk signal is not a road diet. You can have either without the other.

4 to 3 road diets CAN enable pedestrian islands, but don't always. And pedestrian islands can be done with only striping at little cost.

Speed humps are generally not recommended on higher volume roads.

Narrowing lanes is called a lane diet. That is another form of traffic calming that can be appropriate in some locations.

I agree that a 4 to 3 road diet needs to look at local configurations - esp where the volumes are higher, you need to look at local considerations and examine actual changes to delay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the road, traffic volume, current capacity of the road, and the type of traffic it carries or is meant to carry, along with the make up of surrounding roads and potential diversion it may create.

I also think we need to focus funding on local neighborhood roads ahead of spending funds on arterials in suburban areas.

Road diets typically cost little beyond what it would cost to repave a road anyway, and are most impactful on so called arterials (most of which have homes and local businesses and institutions on them), where speeds are the highest.

Road diets only cost less if they include stripping. But many also end up including reconfigured sidewalks, pedestrian islands, hawks signals, etc. those are expensive. Much more expensive than painted curb bump outs or speed humps.

Road diets are typically acceptable on roads with ADTs under 15k. They get somewhat iffy on roads over 20k and very, very iffy on roads over 26k. Many DC area arterials exceeds 15k. Like I said? It depends on many factors. Anyone who denies that is pushing a separate agenda.

Also, narrowing the width of a lane can reduce vehicle speeds. Reducing lanes is not the only way to reduce speed and it’s not always very successful.

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the road, traffic volume, current capacity of the road, and the type of traffic it carries or is meant to carry, along with the make up of surrounding roads and potential diversion it may create.

I also think we need to focus funding on local neighborhood roads ahead of spending funds on arterials in suburban areas.

Road diets typically cost little beyond what it would cost to repave a road anyway, and are most impactful on so called arterials (most of which have homes and local businesses and institutions on them), where speeds are the highest.

I think it really depends on the road, traffic volume, current capacity of the road, and the type of traffic it carries or is meant to carry, along with the make up of surrounding roads and potential diversion it may create.

I also think we need to focus funding on local neighborhood roads ahead of spending funds on arterials in suburban areas.

Here is an example from Pentagon City in Arlington

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8627547,-77.0542337,3a,75y,179.01h,88.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stNQy3JUfUbCtl9hcmFfq8w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtNQy3JUfUbCtl9hcmFfq8w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D172.94052%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Arlington has done it in a few places, and it has made the roads safer, and has not significantly delayed traffic that I am aware of. It makes it easier for pedestrian to cross the street, because they no longer have to worry about one car stopping in one lane, while the car in the next lane cruises on through. It can make it more comfortable to walk along the road, where it creates a new buffer next to the sidewalk. The center turn lane can make it easier for drivers turning onto or off the street.

It has certainly not made it harder for Arlington to attract business - look at Amazon!

DC did this to Wisconsin Avenue in Glover Park and it was a DISASTER.

What are your thoughts on 4 lane roads (2 lanes going both ways) converting to 3 lane roads (one each way and a middle turning lane).
they are supposed to be safer, but they make traffic a b!tch.