BetterCities: Are our streets too wide?

WormtownNative

Active Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
492
Reaction score
215
Over-wide streets? You may regret it
Blog post by Robert Steuteville on 07 Aug 2015

A clear body of evidence has accumulated that narrower lanes are safer on major urban thoroughfares that also include pedestrians.

Another study recently published supports 10-foot travel lanes over the 12-foot common practice on medium- and high-volume urban thoroughfares. Planner and Walkable City author Jeff Speck wrote an article last fall stating that state DOTs and county road commissions "have blood on their hands" for building over-wide lanes in urban areas. He called for a 10-foot-wide standard, citing a history of studies demonstrating that the Big Asphalt approach is dangerous.

Speck's words are strong, but imagine the engineer who specifies 12-foot lanes on a major urban thoroughfare with anticipated pedestrian activity and someone is killed. Given the current evidence, does the question emerge as to whether that person's life was put in unnecessary danger? Indeed.

Speck challenged engineers to present evidence that he is wrong--instead, research is confirming Speck's position.

This new study, presented to the Canadian Institute of Traffic Engineers in June, compares Toronto and Tokyo and shows that 10-foot lanes have the fewest crash frequencies and can handle just as much traffic for both cars and large vehicles (trucks, buses). The maximum traffic volume is shown in streets with lanes 3 meters wide (slightly less than 10 feet). "Wider lanes introduce unstable maneuvering and higher interactions, particularly curb lanes," the authors write. Plus, narrower lanes handle greater pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Given the empirical evidence that favours ‘narrower is safer’, the ‘wider is safer’ approach based on intuition should be discarded once and for all. Narrower lane width, combined with other livable streets elements in urban areas, result in less aggressive driving and the ability to slow or stop a vehicle over shorter distances to avoid a collision.

If anything, the paper understates the safety advantages of narrow lanes by treating the crashes at lower speeds as the same as crashes at higher speeds. One would much rather have 10 or 20 minor fender benders than one severe accident with a disabling injury or death.

Narrower lanes reduce vehicle speed, which has a big impact on fatalities in urban places. The average speed at collision in Toronto, with wider lanes, is 34 percent higher. That is likely to result in accidents of much greater severity. Although accidents appear to go up with lane widths narrower than 10 feet, these accidents are also likely to be less severe. Tokyo has a lot of streets that are narrower than those deemed "safest," yet that city has by far the safest roads while maintaining the highest capacity. That question deserves further study.

FULL ARTICLE

As someone who isn't an urban planner, but with a background in public safety, the notion of reducing the width of lanes to reduce risk is fascinating to me.
 
The article/headline could do a better job of asking whether *lanes* are too wide (they are) or whether the width exclusively reserved for car lanes and parking is too wide (it is)

The real error the article makes is equating "street" with "space for cars"(which has only applied for the last 100 years) instead of the real (millennia-old) definition, which is "way for going"

Meanwhile, People are much smarter and more interactive than engineers give them credit for: they slow down, they pay more attention, they make eye contact, they acknowledge the humanity of the other users, and jointly and socially optimize.

All kinds of great examples:
- people naturally give wider berth to cyclists without helmets
- throughput and safety improved at Poyton England's curb-less, no-hub rotary with single-lane approaches (see video below)
- Google/ YouTube Woonerf and "Shared Space" too.
- 10' lanes safer than 12' (link to older Citylab article)
- chaotic pedestrian flows and colliding pedestrian streams result in few collisions.
- Airplanes want to bust of of their ancient navigation lanes and do free flight

So not only are *lanes* too wide, it is likely that streets are too wide curb-to-curb or we're wrong to have curbs at all (we have hard topped places that are 100%!devoted to static storage of private objects..but only if they are carsi) instead of making public ways that work for making way (across the full diversity of modes, which might even validly include Segwyas and skateboards, not just car bus bike walk)

Curbs were developed at a time when the "wheeled" streets were made cobbles covered with horse crap, and you needed a hardtop sidewalk. Rather than question the continuing value of curbs, we let people either static-park or drive ever-faster.

Same goes for traffic lights. It is pretty clear (I'll look for a source) that they are often much worse than rotaries, or 4-way-stops, or plain old calming/sharing.

But traffic lights seem to "go" with streets that have 2-lanes in a direction (in which we need to force people to stop next-to each other at the same time, instead of asking them to line up single file and slow down). We have to question street-width (number of lanes) and traffic lights at the same time.

Poynton England
"woonerf"
 
Last edited:
I've seen 5 or 6 foot-wide lanes in the UK, FWIW. Pretty funny.
 

Back
Top