Good/Bad is lazy thinking
In any urbanism topic, it's important (and rewarding!) to explore trade-offs, rather than treating a decision like the answer is either all good or all bad.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs.
—Thomas Sowell
Any decision worth discussing has trade-offs: choosing an employer, eating dinner at a restaurant, sewing your own clothes, and naming your child. And for our purposes, any urbanism topic has trade-offs: abolishing zoning, repurposing street space to fit bike lanes, putting traffic calming up for a vote, and charging for parking. (I prefer to avoid using “pros and cons” because that assigns moral judgment.)
Talking about trade-offs is exceedingly difficult for people. I don’t pretend to know why. Maybe it’s because human nature likes easy answers or clear right/wrong binary answers. Maybe it’s because we go through 12+ years of conformity training where we’re told what to think and rarely how to think. Anyway, whatever the reasons, here are three simple questions to use starting points for a trade-offs brainstorm:
Compared to what?
At what cost?
What data is available?
Compared to what? Understanding what we're comparing to helps frame the conversation not just in terms of benefits but in the context of what is being sacrificed or gained. This framing is crucial because it sets the stage for understanding the relative value of each option.
At what cost? Every decision, whether it’s implementing traffic calming measures or changing zoning laws, comes with costs. These include financial, social, psychological, environmental, health, and time costs.
What data is available? Decisions should be informed by data, but data can be both a beacon and a blind spot. This question pushes for evidence-based discussions but also highlights where we might need to rely on judgment. There isn’t always a before-and-after case study.
I’ll use a favorite engineering treatment as an example for exploring trade-offs: a road diet.
Quick refresher. A road diet, or road reconfiguration, rearranges the public right-of-way to give more space to people traveling by some means other than a car. It might shift the street from 4 car lanes to 2 car lanes plus 2 bus-only lanes, or from 4 car lanes to 2 car lanes plus 2 protected bike lanes. In every case, a road diet calms vehicular traffic because when street space feels narrower, humans naturally lift their foot off the gas a bit.
Example: Trade-offs associated with installing a road diet
Don’t worry about getting everything absolutely correct the first time. Just start writing a list of responses to each question. This is much easier if you do with a group.
(1) Compared to What?
Installing a road diet is often met with resistance due to fears of increased congestion or inconvenience. Start by comparing installing a road diet to leaving things as they are.
Without a road diet, the corridor speeds remain high, making conditions less safe for all road users (especially pedestrians and cyclists). This perpetuates a car-centric environment, discouraging alternative transportation and community interaction.
Instead of a road diet, some might propose widening roads or adding lanes to reduce congestion. This would induce demand, leading to more vehicular traffic.
Compared to a road diet, leaving a road as it is prioritizes vehicle speed over safety and multimodal accessibility.
Today, there’s enough space for all the rush hour vehicular traffic.
Today, there’s not enough space for bike lanes, so people use the sidewalk and crowd pedestrians.
Today, the bus gets stuck in traffic because it doesn’t have designated lanes.
(2) At What Cost?
Every urban planning decision has costs associated with it, even my beloved road diets.
Without road diets, it’s much more time consuming and financially costly for a local government to expand bike and bus infrastructure on a project-by-project basis.
Converting traffic lanes into bike lanes or wider sidewalks requires investment in design, construction, and sometimes community engagement.
With a road diet, some drivers may have to wait a few more seconds at a light.
With a road diet, some drivers may choose to drive on other streets instead.
Wide, high-speed roads are significantly more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists, and even drivers, leading to higher rates of severe and fatal crashes.
Because they smash into each other less frequently after a road diet, drivers cause fewer delays.
Health and social savings from reducing life-altering crashes after a road diet.
Fewer 911 calls following a road diet may cause emergency response teams to feel their jobs are threatened.
Streets dominated by cars discourage foot traffic, reducing potential business revenue and limiting property value growth.
Road diets help boost economic growth from safer, more livable streets.
(3) What Data Is Available?
The status quo is not neutral. Road diets are supported by robust evidence:
Research shows that road diets can reduce crashes by 19% to 47%, particularly benefiting vulnerable users.
Lane width reductions can dramatically reduce speeds and crashes.
Calmer traffic speeds decrease the severity of crashes and create safer conditions for all road users.
"Right-sized" streets often see better traffic flow due to reduced lane-changing and calmer driving speeds. This is particularly true when roundabouts are incorporated.
Road diets frequently enable the addition of bike lanes, creating safer, connected cycling networks that encourage more people to bike.
Narrower roads and added crosswalks make it significantly easier and safer for pedestrians to cross streets, particularly for children and seniors.
Cities that install road diets frequently report increased retail activity and property values along the corridor.
Status quo car-centric streets discourage physical activity, contributing to public health challenges like obesity and cardiovascular disease. Communities without bike lanes and walkable spaces lose out on healthier, more active lifestyles.
Safer streets (post-road diet) encourage walking and cycling, leading to better mental and physical health outcomes, not to mention reduced healthcare costs.
See where the questions take you.
Humans are emotional creatures, so this exercise won’t completely eliminate the highs and lows of passionate debate. But speaking in terms of trade-offs makes it much easier to ground-truth anyone’s claims about policy or physical changes to the built environment.
Do you wonder how NIMBYs manage to keep ruining the neighborhood? It’s because they’ve been following the daily affirmations in my latest book, Neighborhood Character.
All paid subscribers get a complimentary digital copy. The paperback is available here.
Always enjoy your pragmatic thinking Andy!