Wideband has a slight advantage (3dB) over narrowband when it comes to sensitivity. Cutting the bandwidth in half requires 6dB more power to get the same signal-to-noise ratio, but 3dB comes from having the noise power on the narrower receive IF filter. On business radio systems, this may not matter; but on GMRS, the users tend to be dispersed further as operating area isn't constrained by the license and minimal frequency coordination takes place. This effect also causes mobile flutter to be more pronounced. On modern commercial radios designed for narrowband use, the strong-signal voice quality doesn't take much of a hit when moving to narrowband channels. We can't get any more pairs because FRS is already authorized for the 467 MHz interstitials. We'd need to go to 6.25 kHz ultra-narrowbanding (NXDN48 or dPMR) and use some odd channels (462.546875, 462.553125, 462.559375, ...), which won't happen anyways because digital voice isn't allowed. Adjacent ultra-narrowband channels would also interfere unless frequency accuracy is well-controlled, which raises equipment cost considerably (particularly for portables) and requires realignment during the equipment's service life. Additionally, wideband users would take interference from any of four ultra-narrowband channels, and narrowband users would take interference from any of two ultra-narrowband channels. The end result is even less voice capacity than before, unless everyone goes ultra-narrowband and maintains their equipment to high standards. The repeater operator always has the option to narrowband should they want to, but there's no benefit unless there's significant adjacent-channel interference, all of the radios are properly configured for narrowband (travelers are probably not), and the radios used on the system have proper 12.5 kHz IF filters (the GMRS-V1 does not). A narrowband mandate would also screw up equipment certifications and cause the FCC to get a big headache over something that is not really a problem at all.