![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)