Costs and benefits of a road diet conversion

Noland, Robert B.; Gao, Dongli; Gonzales, Eric J.; Brown, Charles T.

doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2015.09.002

Cited by 27 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The objective of this paper is rather to demonstrate that the costbenefit methodology reported in the case study cannot support a statement that the benefits are 'overwhelming', and does not represent good practice for planning practitioners to follow. While it might be that the proposed full Road Diet in the empirical case study will have benefits in excess of costs, this is not demonstrated by the methodology proposed in Noland et al (2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“… Noland et al (2014a): "Our conclusion is that a road diet conversion for Livingston Avenue would be overwhelmingly beneficial for the City of New Brunswick and Middlesex County." (p.24).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Writing recently in the pages of this journal, Noland et al (2015) proposed a cost-benefit methodology to support decision-making regarding 'Road Diets', along with an empirical case study of an urban arterial in New Jersey (USA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Noland et al (2014b): "The benefits of crash reductions and the costs of increased delay are evaluated based on the value of statistical lives saved versus the cost of travel time. This is done for various different scenarios and includes robustness checks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the non-peer-reviewed version of this study(Noland et al 2014a), a sensitivity analysis assuming a 10% reduction in crashes is reported.4 We note that implementing changes to road geometry and/or traffic control on an areawide basis (in addition to the linear Road Diet corridor) could serve to reduce the negative effects of spillover traffic.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

How overwhelming is the evidence in favor of Road Diets? A note on the cost-benefit methodology proposed by Noland et al. (2015)

Vine

2017

Case Studies on Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing in these pages, Noland and colleagues recently proposed a methodology for cost-benefit analysis of ‘Road Diets’ (re-design of the cross-section of a four-lane arterial). On the basis of the proposed procedures, the authors conclude that a Road Diet of an empirical case study (in New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA) would provide ‘overwhelming’ benefits. The study team has employed similarly unambiguous language in statements in other public fora. In this paper, I do not take a view of whether Road Diets are in general desirable or not (which will depend heavily on local context). Rather, I demonstrate here that the specification of benefits and costs in the proposed methodology is systematically biased (upwards in the case of ‘benefits’ and downwards in the case of ‘costs’). I also show that the authors mis-interpret public opinion regarding the proposed Road Diet; general public opinion cannot be known on the basis of the evidence that is presented to readers. Finally, it has been previously shown that transportation planners tend to, on average, systematically under-estimate costs and over-estimate benefits. While the authors’ motivations during the study at issue cannot be known, the systematic bias in specifying costs and benefits is consistent with Flyvbjerg’s ‘political-economic hypothesis’, in which it is theorized that planners strategically misrepresent costs and benefits in order to increase the likelihood of a politically-preferred project being advanced. Flyvbjerg suggests making independent peer reviews publicly available as part of a strategy to encourage accountability through transparency; this is the spirit in which the present paper is disseminated

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations