Clearly, you go by the "Complete Streets" hype and propaganda. I go by the numbers, and the numbers tell me these road diets increase fuel consumption from increased stop and go congestion, and since the chemistry tells me that CO2 emissions are a "function" of increased fuel consumption. And, since I do agree that we are heating the climate with excess CO2 emissions from human causes, the nut cases, who "believe" on the other fringe hate me, too. Oh well...

So "show me" the data on pedestrian and bike safety that supports these road diets? I can't find much. What are the actual causes of bike accidents, injuries, and deaths? Do lanes prevent those causes? Do you know that 40% of bike fatalities were legally intoxicated at the time of the event that killed them, as opposed to only between 25% and 30% of auto fatalities, so maybe better bike DUI enforcement would be a better solution?

You seem to want to "believe" this is "Complete Streets" road diet scheme is somehow axiomatically good for the environment, and/or's the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. When I did analysis of transportation issues to make an actual living from it, that wasn't what they paid me the big money to do, they paid me to prove and/or disprove those claims, using actual observation, experiment, data collection, and modeling. And, so far the evidence I've seen doesn't support your "belief" that these road diets improve the environment in any way, nor save either pedestrian or cyclist's lives. On the other hand, it is a statistically provable "fact" that spending this money on traffic signals with pedestrian crossings does save lives.

So you are advocating "feel good" nonsense that has no scientific merit, because you hate what the evil car has done to our cities... Woulda, shoulda, coulda, and a way back machine to go back in time and fix it all would make your world complete, right? We start from here, now, not from some alternative abstract alternative universe. So we measure effects against the known realities, which we can observe and measure.

Given your strident reply, I take it that you don't drive ever or take any other mode of transport that is using our roads and thus destroying our environment or threatening our lives? Or are you just one of those, "do as I say, not as I do" "cars are evil" hypocrites, like the ones I knew who drove their cars to every No 710 tunnel protest meeting? Folks who like to talk a good show, and promise that they only use their cars only when they absolutely "need" to?

As someone who has actually founded a local transit system and dial a ride, and pushed for some of the first traffic calming measures in my own community over 30 years ago, helped a little bit with getting the Gold Line built (and a few others..), and funded air quality technology programs for 20 years of my career, I love being lectured to about my lack of caring for our environment, or transport safety, because I have the temerity to question the latest "flavor of the week" planning dogma. Maybe, that's why I seem to be so politically incorrect and unpopular with both of the fringes? That's because I use observable confirmable facts and math, not hyperbole, emotional rhetoric, political dogma, or my own preconceived bias or "beliefs", to make assessments of the efficacy of things like these "road diets".... Poor ignorant me.... My BAD!