www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov

FHWA Safety Program

Road Diet

Informational Guide
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

7. Author(s)

17. Key Words

19. Security Clasif. (of this report)

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

20. Security Clasif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 21. Price

4. Title and Subtitle

15. Supplementary Notes

16. Abstract

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

5. Report Date

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

6. Performing Organization Code

11. Contract or Grant No.

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

18. Distribution Statement

FHWA-SA-14-028

Road Diet Informational Guide

A classic Road Diet converts an existing four-lane undivided roadway segment to a three-lane segment consisting of two 

through lanes and a center two-way left turn lane (TWLTL). A Road Diet improves safety by including a protected left-turn lane 

for mid-block left-turning motorists, reducing crossing distance for pedestrians, and reducing travel speeds that decrease crash 

severity. Additionally, the Road Diet provides an opportunity to allocate excess roadway width to other purposes, including 

bicycle lanes, on-street parking, or transit stops. This Informational Guide includes safety, operational, and quality of life considerations from research and practice, and guides readers through the decision-making process to determine if Road Diets are 

a good fit for a certain corridor. It also provides design guidance and encourages post-implementation evaluation.

Leidos

11251 Roger Bacon Drive 

Reston, VA 20190

Subconsultants: Iowa State University, Sam Schwartz Engineering, University of 

Utah

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Keith Knapp, Brian Chandler, Jennifer Atkinson, Thomas Welch, Heather Rigdon, 

Richard Retting, Stacey Meekins, Eric Widstrand, and R.J. Porter.

Road Diet, four-lane, undivided, three-lane, two-way-leftturn-lane, cross section, safety, operations,

reconfiguration, queuing.

No restrictions.

Unclassified Unclassified 72

November 2014

HSA

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

Informational Guide Book

August 2011 to July 2014

Contract No. DTFH61-10-D-00024, 

Task Order No. T-12-004

Rebecca Crowe (rebecca.crowe@dot.gov), Office of Safety Technologies (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/), served as the Technical Manager for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The following FHWA staff members contributed as technical 

working group members, reviewers and/or provided input or feedback to the project at various stages: Peter Eun, David Morena, 

Tamara Redmond, and Jeff Shaw.

N/A
Acknowledgements

Many State and local agencies made significant contributions to this project. Special thanks to the following:

Location Contributors

Chicago Nathan Roseberry, T.Y. Lin International

Des Moines, IA Mark Parrington, Snyder and Associates

Jennifer Bohac and Mike Ring, City of Des Moines, Iowa

New Hampton, IA David Little, Iowa DOT

City of New Hampton Police Department

Manchester, IA Tim Vick, City of Manchester

Ryan Wicks, TeKippe Engineering

Waterloo, IA Eric Thorson and Dennis Gentz, City of Waterloo

Las Vegas, Nevada OC White, City of Las Vegas

Los Angeles, CA Tim Fremaux and Pauline Chan, LADOT Bike Group

Pasadena, CA Mike Bagheri, Pasadena DOT

Santa Monica, CA Sam Morrissey, City of Santa Monica

Grand Rapids, MI

Genesee County, MI

Lansing, MI

Dave Morena and Andrea Dewey, FHWA

Tracie Leix and Mike Premo, Michigan DOT

Christopher Zull, City of Grand Rapids

Carissa McQuiston, Michigan DOT

Derek Bradshaw and Jason Nordberg, Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission

Ken Johnson, Genesee County Road Commission

Jill Bauer, City of Flint

Tom Svrcek, City of Swartz Creek

Andy Kilpatrick, City of Lansing

New York City Ryan Russo, New York City DOT

Ann Marie Doherty, New York City DOT

Seattle, Washington Dongho Chang and Brian Dougherty, City of Seattle

Reston and Dunn Loring Randy Dittberner, Virginia DOT

Cover Photo Credits

Left: Randy Dittberner, Virginia Department of Transportation

Upper Right: City of Seattle

Lower Right: Virginia Department of Transportation
ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .........................................................................................................1

1 Introduction................................................................................................................3

1.1. What is a Road Diet?.................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 History of Road Diets................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2.1 History of Road Diet Installations......................................................................................... 5

1.2.2 History of Road Diet Safety Evaluations........................................................................... 5

1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Informational Guide ......................................................... 6

1.4 Organization of the Guide.................................................................................................................... 6

2 Why Consider a Road Diet? ......................................................................................7

2.1 Benefits of Road Diets............................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Improved Safety.............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.2 Operational Benefits.................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Benefits ....................................................................................... 9

2.1.4 Livability Benefits.........................................................................................................................10

2.2 Synergies and Trade-offs.......................................................................................................................10

3 Road Diet Feasibility Determination ...................................................................13

3.1 Safety Factors..............................................................................................................................................13

3.2 Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Streets.............................................................14

3.3Operational Factors..................................................................................................................................15

3.3.1 De Facto Three-Lane Roadway Operation..................................................................15

3.3.2 Speed...................................................................................................................................................15

3.3.3 Level of Service (LOS).................................................................................................................15

3.3.4 Quality of Service ........................................................................................................................16

3.3.5 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ..................................................................................................17

3.3.6 Peak Hour and Peak Direction ...........................................................................................17

3.3.7 Turning Volumes and Patterns............................................................................................18

3.3.8 Frequently Stopping and Slow-Moving Vehicles....................................................18

3.4 Bicycles, Pedestrians, Transit, and Freight Considerations...............................................19

3.4.1 Bicycle Considerations ............................................................................................................19

3.4.2 Pedestrian Considerations ...................................................................................................20

3.4.3 Transit Considerations .............................................................................................................20

3.4.4 Freight Considerations ...........................................................................................................21
iii

Road Diet Informational Guide

3.5 Other Feasibility Determination Factors....................................................................................22

3.5.1 Right-of-Way Availability and Cost....................................................................................22

3.5.2 Parallel Roadways.........................................................................................................................22

3.5.3 Parallel Parking...............................................................................................................................23

3.5.4 At-Grade Railroad Crossings..................................................................................................23

3.5.5 Public Outreach, Public Relations, and Political Considerations....................23

3.6 Case Studies: Feasibility Determination Decision-making ...........................................24

3.7 Funding Road Diets..................................................................................................................................28

4 Designing a Road Diet ........................................................................................... 29

4.1 Geometric Design.....................................................................................................................................29

4.1.1 Road Function and Context..................................................................................................29

4.1.2 Design Controls.............................................................................................................................30

4.1.3 Elements of Design.....................................................................................................................32

4.1.4 Cross Sectional Elements........................................................................................................33

4.1.5 Intersection Design.....................................................................................................................37

4.2Operational Design ..................................................................................................................................40

4.2.1 Cross-Section Allocation..........................................................................................................40

4.2.2 Crossing Pedestrians..................................................................................................................41

4.2.3 Intersection Control Changes..............................................................................................41

4.2.4 Pavement Marking and Signing.........................................................................................42

4.2.5 Intersection Design Elements..............................................................................................42

5 Determining if the Road Diet is Effective........................................................... 45

5.1 Safety Analysis of a Road Diet............................................................................................................45

5.1.1 Data Needs.......................................................................................................................................45

5.1.2 Observational Before-and-After Studies of Road Diets.......................................46

5.1.3 Surrogate Measures of Safety for Road Diets.............................................................47

5.2Operational Analysis................................................................................................................................48

5.2.1 Analyzing Vehicle Operations..............................................................................................48

5.2.2 Non-Motorized Operations...................................................................................................49

5.2.3 Tools and Methods to Evaluate Impacts.......................................................................50

6 Conclusion.................................................................................................................51

Appendix A – Road Diet Safety Assessment Studies ............................................. 53

Appendix B – Feasibility Determination Factors, Characteristics,

 and Sample Evaluative Questions...................................................... 59

References ..................................................................................................................... 62
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Road Diet .......................................................................................................................................................................................1

Figure 2. Typical Road Diet Basic Design.........................................................................................................................................3

Figure 3. Focus of Each Informational Guide Chapter............................................................................................................6

Figure 4. Mid-Block Conflict Points for Four-Lane Undivided Roadway and Three-Lane Cross Section......7

Figure 5. Crossing and Through Traffic Conflict Points at Intersections for a Four-Lane Undivided

 Roadway and a Three-Lane Cross Section...............................................................................................................8

Figure 6. Major-Street Left-Turn Sight Distance for Four-Lane Undivided Roadway and

 Three-Lane Cross Section....................................................................................................................................................8

Figure 7. Addition of a Bike Lane Creates a Buffer between Pedestrians and Moving Vehicles..............9

Figure 8. Mid-block Pedestrian Refuge Island.............................................................................................................................9

Figure 9. Pedestrian Refuge Island on a Road Diet Corridor in Chicago..................................................................10

Figure 10. Road Diet in Flint, Michigan, Central Business District....................................................................................13

Figure 11. Four-lane Undivided Roadway Intersection Operating as a de facto

 Three-lane Cross Section ..................................................................................................................................................15

Figure 12. Road Diet Implementation Maximum Volume Thresholds by Agency ..............................................17

Figure 13. Bus Loading Zone in Seattle, Washington..............................................................................................................18

Figure 14. Buffered Bicycle Lanes on Wabash Avenue in Chicago.................................................................................19

Figure 15. Pedestrians Buffered from Traffic in Reston, VA...................................................................................................19

Figure 16. 55th Street in Chicago: Transit and Bicycles Share an Area at the Intersection (left);

 Transit Stop and Bicycle Lane (right);......................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 17. City of Seattle Modeling Flow Chart for Road Diet Feasibility Determination...............................25

Figure 18. Painted Buffer Between Through Lane and Bicycle Lane in Lansing, Michigan ......................... 26

Figure 19. Bicycle Lane on Rural 3-Lane Section, Lawyers Road, Reston, VA .........................................................34

Figure 20. Typical Bike Lane Illustration........................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 21. Paired Parking Cross Sections (Adapted from AASHTO) .............................................................................. 35

Figure 22. Example Parking Lane Transition at Intersection (Adapted from AASHTO, 2011).........................36

Figure 23. Transition from 3-lane to 2-lane Cross Section, Oak Street, Merrifield, VA ........................................37

Figure 24. Offset Driveways Causing Conflict Points in the TWLTL .............................................................................. 43

List of Tables

Table 1. Problems Potentially Correctable by Road Diet Implementation ............................................................2

Table 2. Practitioner Interview Results Summary: Road Diet Installation Observations .............................12

Table 3. Road Diet Implementation Considerations by Agency ............................................................................... 28

Table 4. Quantifiable Characteristics of Land User Contexts (NJDOT & PennDOT, 2008) .........................30

Table 5. Regional Arterial Design Matrix (NJDOT & PennDOT, 2008) .......................................................................31

Table 6. Maximum Allowable Travel Distance in TWLTL ................................................................................................38
v

Road Diet Informational Guide

Acronyms

3R Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADT Average Daily Traffic

CRF Crash Reduction Factor

CSS Context Sensitive Solutions

DOT Department of Transportation

GCMPC Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission

FDF Feasibility Determination Factor

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

HSM Highway Safety Manual

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

KTC Kentucky Transportation Center

LOS Level of Service

MPH Miles Per Hour

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHS National Highway System

PDO Property Damage Only

TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program

TRB Transportation Research Board

TWLTL Two Way Left Turn Lane

VPHPD Vehicles Per Hour Per Day

VPD Vehicles Per Day
1

Executive Summary 

Four-lane undivided highways have a history of relatively high crash rates 

as traffic volumes increase and as the inside lane is shared by higherspeed through traffic and left-turning vehicles. 

One option for addressing this safety concern is a “Road Diet.” A Road 

Diet involves converting an existing four-lane undivided roadway 

segment to a three-lane segment consisting of two through lanes and a 

center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The reduction of lanes allows the 

roadway cross section to be reallocated for other uses such as bike lanes, 

pedestrian refuge islands, transit stops, or parking (see Figure 1).1

Benefits of Road Diet installations may include:

• An overall crash reduction of 19 to 47 percent.

• Reduction of rear-end and left-turn crashes through the use of a dedicated left-turn lane. 

• Fewer lanes for pedestrians to cross and an opportunity to install pedestrian refuge islands.

• The opportunity to install bicycle lanes when the cross-section width is reallocated.

Figure 1. Road Diet 

Photo Credit: Virginia Department of Transportation

Road Diet Definition

Conversion of a four-lane 

undivided road to a threelane undivided road made 

up of two through lanes 

and a center two-way-leftturn-lane.

BEFORE AFTER
2

• Reduced right-angle crashes as side street motorists must cross only three lanes of traffic instead of four.

• Traffic calming and reduced speed differential, which can decrease the number of crashes and reduce the severity of crashes 

if they occur.

• The opportunity to allocate the “leftover” roadway width for other purposes, such as on-street parking or transit stops.

• Encouraging a more community-focused, “Complete Streets” environment.

• Simplifying road scanning and gap selection for motorists (especially older and younger drivers) making left turns from or 

onto the mainline.

A Road Diet can be a low-cost safety solution, particularly in cases where only pavement marking modifications are required 

to make the traffic control change. In other cases, the Road Diet may be planned in conjunction with reconstruction or simple 

overlay projects, and the change in cross section allocation can be incorporated at no additional cost. 

Geometric and operational design features should be considered during the design of a Road Diet. Intersection turn lanes, traffic 

volume, signing, pavement markings, driveway density, transit routes and stops, and pedestrian and bicyclist facilities should be 

carefully considered and appropriately applied during the reconfiguration for appropriate Road Diet implementation.2 As with 

any roadway treatment, determining whether a Road Diet is the most appropriate alternative in a given situation requires data 

analysis and engineering judgment.

Once installed, it is important to monitor the safety and operational effects of the roadway, and to make changes as necessary to 

maintain acceptable traffic flow and safety performance for all road users. Evaluation of Road Diets will provide practitioners the 

information needed to continue implementing reconfiguration projects in their jurisdictions.

Category Problem Rationale

Safety

Rear-end crashes with left-turning 

traffic due to speed discrepancies

Removing stopped vehicles attempting to turn left from the through lane could 

reduce rear-end crashes

Sideswipe crashes due to lane changes Eliminating the need to change lanes reduces sideswipe crashes

Left-turn crashes due to negative offset 

left turns from the inside lanes

Eliminating the negative offset between opposing left-turn vehicles and 

increasing available sight distance can reduce left-turn crashes

Bicycle and pedestrian crashes Bicycle lanes separate bicycles from traffic; pedestrians have fewer lanes to cross 

and can use a refuge area, if provided

Operational

Delays associated with left-turning 

traffic

Separating left-turning traffic has been shown to reduce delays at signalized 

intersections

Side street delays at unsignalized 

intersections

Side-street traffic requires shorter gaps to complete movements due to the 

consolidation of left turns into one lane

Bicycle operational delay due to shared 

lane with vehicles or sidewalk use

Potential for including a bike lane eliminates such delays

Other

Bicycle and pedestrian 

accommodation due to lack of facilities

Opportunity to provide appropriate or required facilities, increasing accessibility 

to non-motorized users

Unattractive aesthetic Provisions can be made for traversable medians and other treatments

Vehicles speeds discourage pedestrian 

activity

Potential for more uniform speeds; opportunity to encourage pedestrian activity

Adapted from Kentucky Transportation Center’s Guidelines for Road Diet Conversions3

Table 1. Problems Potentially Correctable by Road Diet Implementation 
Figure 2. Typical Road Diet Basic Design

Before After

3

1 Introduction

Improving safety is a top priority for the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) remains committed to reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation's roadways through the use of 

proven safety countermeasures, including Road Diets.

Four-lane, undivided highways experience a number of crash types as traffic volumes increase, including:

• Rear-end and sideswipe crashes caused by speed differential between vehicles;

• Sideswipe crashes caused by frequent and sudden lane changing between two through lanes;

• Rear-end crashes caused by left-turning vehicles stopped in the inside travel lane;

• Left-turn crashes caused by mainline left-turning motorists feeling pressure to depart the shared through/left lane by 

following motorists and making a poor gap judgment;

• Angle crashes caused by side street traffic crossing four lanes to make a through movement across an intersection, or 

turning left across two lanes;

• Bicycle crashes due to a lack of available space for bicyclists to ride comfortably; and

• Pedestrian crashes due to the high number of lanes for pedestrians to cross with no refuge.

As traffic volumes and turning movements (at intersections and driveways) increase, more and more four-lane, undivided 

roadways experience the above safety concerns. Additionally, as active transportation increases, communities desire more 

livable spaces, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit options. One solution that benefits all modes is a Road Diet.

1.1. What is a Road Diet?

A Road Diet is generally described as “removing travel lanes from a roadway and utilizing the space for other uses 

and travel modes.” 4 This informational guide will focus on the most common Road Diet reconfiguration, which is the 

conversion of an undivided four lane roadway to a three-lane undivided roadway made up of two through lanes and a 

center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL). The reduction of lanes allows the roadway cross section to be reallocated for other 

uses such as bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, transit uses, and/or parking (see Figure 2).5

Will a Road Diet 

Increase Costs?

“We planned our Road 

Diet installation as part of 

the overlay, so there was 

no additional cost to the 

construction budget.”

- Robert Rocchio, Managing

Engineer, Traffic Management & 

Highway Safety, Rhode Island DOT
4

Other Roadway Reconfigurations

In addition to four- to three-lane configurations, other roadway reconfigurations, such as those depicted below, can also 

provide safety benefits:

4-lane to 5-lane:

In some cases it is necessary to keep two lanes in each 

direction for capacity purposes. Narrowing lane width 

to provide a TWLTL introduces the benefits of separating 

turning vehicles and reducing operating speeds.

2-lane to 3-lane:

If a capacity expansion of an existing two-lane road is 

desired, in some cases a three-lane cross section can provide 

similar operational benefits to a four-lane cross section 

while maintaining the safety benefits of the three-lane 

configuration. 

3-lane to 3-lane:

In some cases practitioners could reduce the width of each 

lane instead of reducing the number of lanes. Converting 

an existing three-lane roadway to a three-lane cross section 

with narrowed lanes can accommodate bicycle lanes or 

parking, and provide some traffic calming benefit.

5-lane to 3-lane

In some cases jurisdictions have reconfigured five-lane 

sections to three lanes, adding features such as diagonal 

parking and protected bicycle lanes with the extra cross 

section width.

Other Combinations: Some cases may require allocating the cross section differently by providing unbalanced lane splits 

(e.g., two in one direction, one in the other), separated left turn lanes for opposite directions, or providing shoulders for other 

uses (e.g., parking, bicycle lanes, sidewalks). The basic concepts of Road Diets still apply, although in some cases there may be 

different safety and operational effects than with a classic 4-to-3 Road Diet.
5

1.2 History of Road Diets

The focus of roadway projects during the 1950s and 1960s was on system and capacity expansion, not contraction. Whenever 

and wherever traffic volumes on a section of road outgrew what a 2-lane road could accommodate efficiently, the next step 

in roadway design in most cases was to increase the cross-section to 4 lanes. No engineering guidance during that period 

encouraged consideration of a three-lane alternative. 

Consequently, four-lane roadways became the norm throughout the country. Some of these roadways accommodated high 

traffic volumes requiring four-lane cross-sections; but many accommodated much less traffic for which a smaller cross-section 

simply had not been considered.

1.2.1 History of Road Diet Installations

Lane reduction projects have occurred for many years; they simply have not been recorded or studied. One of the first known 

installations of a Road Diet occurred in 1979 in Billings, Montana. Here, 17th Street West was converted from a four-lane 

undivided highway to three lanes (including a two-way left-turn lane, or TWLTL). The roadway width was 40 feet, and the 

average daily traffic (ADT) was approximately 10,000 vehicles. An unpublished report referenced in a number of previous studies 

indicated a reduction in crashes with no appreciable change to vehicle delay.6

Road Diets increased in popularity in the 1990s, with installations occurring in Iowa, Minnesota, and Montana, among many 

other states.7 In some instances the appreciation for Road Diets was shown first in urban areas, such as Seattle, Washington, 

and Portland, Oregon. More recently, FHWA deemed Road Diets and other roadway reconfigurations a “Proven Safety 

Countermeasure” and promoted it as a safety-focused alternative cross section to a four-lane undivided roadway.

1.2.2 History of Road Diet Safety Evaluations

Numerous studies have examined the estimated safety effects of converting four-lane undivided roads to three-lane cross 

sections with TWLTLs. The majority of treatment sites and crash data in these studies come from California, Iowa, and 

Washington, with additional analysis of Road Diets in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. Several studies used 

the same, or virtually the same, treatment sites in Iowa. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for treatment sites in these studies ranged 

from 2,000 to 26,000, with most sites having an ADT below 20,000. 

In the late 1970s, Nemeth conducted a research study focused on TWLTLs that included one field study location that was a fourlane undivided highway converted to three lanes in a commercial district. Results included a reduction in operating speed and 

increased delay.8

The safety analysis methods and the reliability of the findings vary widely. Some studies considered multiple treatment sites 

and used advanced statistical techniques such as the empirical Bayes methodology to estimate the change in total crashes and 

crash rates. Other studies were conducted using simple before-and-after analysis without controls, did not account for potential 

regression-to-the-mean effects, and examined crash data at a single treatment site for only several months following Road Diet 

implementation. 

Pawlovich, et al., (2005) conducted a Bayesian data analysis of 15 Iowa Road Diet treatment sites and 15 control sites over a 23-

year period. Traffic volumes ranged from approximately 2,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day. The study concluded that a Road Diet 

produced a 25.2 percent reduction in crashes per mile of roadway and an 18.8 percent reduction in the crash rate.9

A study by Noyce et al. (2006) first analyzed data using traditional approaches, which involved a comparison of before-and-after 

crashes. Crash data were analyzed by yoked-pair comparison analysis and the empirical Bayes approach. The traditional beforeand-after approach estimated a reduction in total crashes of approximately 42 percent. A yoked-pair comparison analysis found 

a 37 percent reduction in total crashes and a 46 percent reduction in property damage only (PDO) crashes (both statistically 

significant). The estimated reductions in crash rates (per vehicle mile traveled) were 47 percent for total crashes and 45 percent for 

PDO crashes (both statistically significant), and the empirical Bayes approach estimated a 44 percent reduction in total crashes. 
Chapter 2:

Why consider a

Road Diet?

Chapter 3:

Should a Road 

Diet be used 

here?

Chapter 4:

How do I design a 

Road Diet?

Chapter 5:

How do I know if 

the Road Diet is 

working?

Figure 3. Focus of Each Informational Guide Chapter

6

In 2010, FHWA conducted an empirical Bayes evaluation of total crash frequency before-and-after Road Diet implementation. 

Results indicated a statistically significant reduction in crashes due to the Road Diet treatment in two separate data sets (one data 

set for 15 sites in Iowa and one set for 30 sites in California and Washington), as well as for the results of all 45 sites combined. 

The Iowa data indicate a 47 percent reduction in total crashes while the California and Washington data indicate a 19 percent 

decrease. Combining both data sets results in an estimated 29 percent reduction in total crashes.10

The FHWA report indicated that differences between the Iowa sites and those in California and Washington may be a function 

of traffic volumes and characteristics of the urban environments where the Road Diets were implemented. Annual average daily 

traffic (AADT) for the Iowa sites ranged from 3,718 to 13,908 and locations were predominately on U.S. or State routes passing 

through small towns; AADT for the sites in California and Washington ranged from 6,194 to 26,376 and were predominately on 

corridors in suburban environments that surrounded larger cities. Sites with lower crash modification factors (CMFs) generally 

had higher traffic volumes, suggesting the possibility of diminishing safety benefits as traffic volumes increase. The authors 

recommended that the choice of which CMF to use should be based on characteristics of the site being considered. If the 

proposed treatment site is more like the small-town Iowa sites, then the 47 percent reduction found in Iowa should be used. 

If the treatment site is part of a corridor in a suburban area of a larger city, then the 19 percent reduction should be used. If the 

proposed site matches neither of these site types, then the combined 29 percent reduction is most appropriate. 

Based on the history of safety studies presented in this section, installing a Road Diet can lead to an expected crash reduction of 

19 to 47 percent. Variables affecting safety effectiveness include pre-installation crash history, installation details, traffic volumes, 

and the urban or rural nature of the corridor.

Appendix A provides summaries of the key findings from Road Diet safety assessments and additional detail about the individual studies.

1.3 Purpose and Objectives of the Informational Guide 

The Road Diet Informational Guide provides safety, operational, and quality-of-life considerations from research and practice that 

may impact all users along a corridor – motorists, commercial vehicles, and non-motorized traffic. This document will guide 

readers through the decision-making process to determine if Road Diets are a good fit for a certain corridor. The guide will also 

discuss Road Diet feasibility, design, and post-implementation evaluation.

1.4 Organization of the Guide

The Road Diet Informational Guide is organized in the following manner, as illustrated in Figure 3 and described below:

Chapter 2 presents a high-level overview of how a Road Diet can improve safety and maintain operations for motorized and 

non-motorized road users along a corridor, enhance the quality of life and livability, and be implemented at a low cost.

Chapter 3 takes an in-depth look at impacts that a Road Diet may have on safety and operations for motorists, pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and transit along a corridor. This chapter includes feasibility determination factors that assist practitioners with 

selecting corridors that may be candidates for Road Diets and presents guidance for discussing Road Diets with a community. 

Chapter 4 leads practitioners through the Road Diet design process. This chapter provides geometric design, operational 

design, and both Complete Street and system-wide considerations. The intent of this chapter is to walk a practitioner through 

the design process for the corridor that will be converted to a Road Diet design.

Chapter 5 details post-implementation evaluation processes to measure Road Diet performance. Several evaluations exist for 

determining the effect a Road Diet has on safety, operations, non-motorized transportation modes, and transit.
Figure 4. Mid-Block Conflict Points for Four-Lane Undivided Roadway and Three-Lane Cross Section (Adapted from Welch, 1999)

Four-Lane Undivided Three-Lane

7

2 Why Consider a Road Diet?

Road Diets have the potential to improve safety, convenience, and quality of life for all road users. Road Diets

can be relatively low cost if planned in conjunction with reconstruction or simple overlay projects since applying 

Road Diets consists primarily of restriping.11

2.1 Benefits of Road Diets

For roads with appropriate traffic volumes, there is strong research support for achieving safety benefits through converting 

four-lane undivided roads to three-lane cross sections with TWLTLs. Operational and design changes associated with Road Diets 

that promote safety include reduced vehicle speeds, reduced vehicle-pedestrian, -bicycle, and -vehicle conflicts. For detailed 

information about the research behind the safety impacts of Road Diets, see Appendix A.

2.1.1 Improved Safety

As noted previously, Road Diets reduce vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts that contribute to rear-end, left-turn, and sideswipe crashes 

by removing the four-lane undivided inside lanes serving both through and turning traffic. Studies indicate a 19 to 47 percent 

reduction in overall crashes when a Road Diet is installed on a previously four-lane undivided facility as well as a decrease in 

crashes involving drivers under 35 years of age and over 65 years of age.12,13

Road Diets improve safety by reducing the speed differential. On a four-lane undivided road, vehicle speeds can vary between 

travel lanes, and drivers frequently slow or change lanes due to slower or stopped vehicles (e.g., vehicles stopped in the left lane 

waiting to turn left). Drivers may also weave in and out of the traffic lanes at high speeds. In contrast, on three-lane roads with 

TWLTLs the vehicle speed differential is limited by the speed of the lead vehicle in the through lane, and through vehicles are 

separated from left-turning vehicles. Thus, Road Diets can reduce the vehicle speed differential and vehicle interactions, which 

can reduce the number and severity of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. Reducing operating speed decreases crash severity when 

crashes do occur. 

The figures below illustrate conflict points and safety issues related to turning movements for four-lane undivided roadways and 

three-lane cross sections.
Figure 6. Major-Street Left-Turn Sight Distance for Four-Lane Undivided Roadway and Three-Lane Cross Section 

(Adapted from Welch, 1999)

Four-Lane Undivided

(Outside Lane Traffic Hidden by 

Inside Lane Vehicle)

Three-Lane

(No Hidden Vehicles)

Figure 5. Crossing and Through Traffic Conflict Points at Intersections for a Four-Lane Undivided Roadway and a Three-Lane Cross Section 

(Adapted from Welch, 1999)

Four-Lane Undivided Three-Lane

8
Figure 8. Mid-block Pedestrian Refuge Island 

Photo Credit: Jennifer Atkinson

Figure 7. Addition of a Bike Lane Creates a Buffer between Pedestrians and Moving Vehicles

Photo Credit: Jennifer Atkinson

9

2.1.2 Operational Benefits

Additionally, a Road Diet can provide the following operational benefits:

• Separating Left Turns. Separating left-turning traffic has been shown to reduce delays at signalized intersections.

• Side-street Traffic Crossing. Side-street traffic can more comfortably enter the mainline roadway because there are fewer 

lanes to cross. This can reduce side-street delay.

• Speed Differential Reductions. The reduction of speed differential due to a Road Diet provides more consistent traffic flow 

and less “accordion-style” slow-and-go operations along the corridor.

On some corridors the number and spacing of driveways and intersections leads to a high number of turning movements. In 

these cases, four-lane undivided roads can operate as de facto three-lane roadways. The majority of the through traffic uses 

the outside lanes due to the high number of left-turning traffic in the inside shared through and left-turn lane. In these cases a 

conversion to a three-lane cross section may not have much effect on operations.

2.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Benefits 

Road Diets can be of particular benefit to nonmotorized road users. They reallocate space from 

travel lanes— space that is often converted to bike 

lanes or in some cases sidewalks, where these facilities 

were lacking previously. These new facilities have a 

tremendous impact on the mobility and safety of 

bicyclists and pedestrians as they fill in a gap in the 

existing network. Even the most basic Road Diet has 

benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists, regardless 

of whether specific facilities are provided for these 

modes. As mentioned above, the speed reductions 

that are associated with Road Diets lead to fewer and 

less severe crashes. The three-lane cross-section also 

makes crossing the roadway easier for pedestrians, 

as they have one fewer travel lanes to cross and are 

exposed to moving traffic for a shorter period of time. 

Uncontrolled and midblock pedestrian crossing 

locations tend to experience higher vehicle travel 

speeds, contributing to increased injury and fatality 

rates when pedestrian crashes occur. Midblock 

crossing locations account for more than 70 percent 

of pedestrian fatalities.14 Zegeer et al. (2001) found 

a reduction in pedestrian crash risk when crossing 

two- and three-lane roads compared to roads with 

four or more lanes.15 With the addition of a pedestrian 

refuge island – a raised island placed on a street to 

separate crossing pedestrians from motor vehicles 

(see Figure 8) – the crossing becomes shorter and less 

complicated. Pedestrians only have to be concerned 

with one direction of travel at a time. Refuge islands 

have been found to provide important safety benefits 

for pedestrians.16
Figure 9. Pedestrian Refuge Island on a Road Diet Corridor

 in Chicago 

Photo Credit: Stacey Meekins

10

Road Diets often include either on–street parking or a bike lane, which create a 

buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. This is especially beneficial in 

central business districts if officials desire to improve the pedestrian experience. 

For bicyclists, the biggest benefit of Road Diets is through the addition of bicycle 

facilities. A Road Diet can transform a street that was formerly difficult for a bicyclist 

to travel along to a comfortable route that attracts many more bicyclists. When 

bicycle lanes are striped, bicyclists are more visible and motorists know where to 

look for them, speeds are reduced, and bicycle safety can be improved. In some 

cases, buffered bicycle lanes are added by providing a visual or even physical barrier 

between modes of travel (e.g., adding flexible delineators on the lane line between 

motor vehicles and bicycles.) This further enhances the comfort of the route and 

may encourage increased usage. 

Even without a dedicated bicycle lane or buffer, a motorist on a three-lane roadway is able to move over closer to the center lane 

on a three-lane roadway when approaching a bicycle. A motorist on a four-lane undivided roadway will have less opportunity to 

move over to the left as it is an active travel lane.

2.1.4 Livability Benefits

Added to the direct safety benefits, a Road Diet can improve the quality of life in 

the corridor through a combination of bicycle lanes, pedestrian improvements, 

and reduced speed differential, which can improve the comfort level for all users. 

Livability is, “about tying the quality and location of transportation facilities to 

broader opportunities such as access to good jobs, affordable housing, quality 

schools, and safer streets and roads.”17 Road Diets can help achieve desired livability 

on certain roadways.

2.2 Synergies and Trade-offs

Interviews with agencies that have implemented Road Diets found many synergies 

between improvements for one mode and their impacts on another. The City of 

Chicago found that the addition of pedestrian refuge islands, as illustrated in Figure 9, 

was a significant benefit of their Road Diets. In some cases, improving pedestrian safety 

was the main objective of the Road Diet, but in other cases, the original intent was to 

add bicycle lanes or to simply address general traffic safety and/or operations issues.

Table 2 summarizes the positive and negative potential impacts of various features of 

Road Diets based on findings from researcher field visits and agency interviews.

Some of the treatments for one mode have obvious synergies with other modes, 

such as bicycle lanes that not only provide added comfort for bicyclists, but also for 

pedestrians by increasing their separation from vehicles. Other relationships are not as 

obvious. For instance, Road Diets in Iowa and Chicago generated increased vehicular 

traffic on the corridor, indicating an increase in demand after installation. In Pasadena, 

the unexpected benefit of a Road Diet to a pedestrian crossing (the pedestrians were 

able to safely cross more easily) eliminated the need for a pedestrian traffic signal, 

resulting in cost savings and the potential impacts of the traffic signal on traffic flow.

Lessons Learned

In one case in Grand 

Rapids, Michigan, the 

transit agency moved a bus 

route that had become too 

slow and unpredictable 

after a Road Diet.

Pedestrian Refuge

Pedestrian refuge islands can 

reduce pedestrian-related crashes 

by up to 46 percent.18
Benefits for Buses

A Road Diet on Ingersoll 

Avenue in Des Moines, 

IA provided a benefit to 

buses: instead of stopping 

in a through lane and 

blocking traffic as they 

had done before the 

reconfiguration, the new 

design accommodated 

transit buses with a bus 

turn out.

11

The impacts on transit varied among the Road Diets studied. In some cases, the 

Road Diet was seen as a positive by the transit agency. In other cases, particularly in 

less urban areas, the reduction of travel lanes caused congestion as traffic backed up 

behind buses loading and unloading at the curb. A similar consequence as a result 

of mail delivery was also found in less urban areas. Prior to the Road Diet, vehicles 

were able to pass stopped buses or mail carrier vehicles using the inside lane. The 

back-ups that occurred after the conversion resulted in some vehicles making illegal 

maneuvers to pass the bus in the two-way left turn lane (TWLTL). Some Road Diets 

include measures to address this issue, such as shoulders or dedicated pull-outs that 

allow buses and mail trucks to make their stops outside the travel lane. 

Road Diets can also introduce some traffic safety concerns. One concern is the use 

by pedestrians of TWLTLs as a refuge, which could make pedestrians vulnerable to 

being struck by vehicles traveling in the TWLTL. However, as evidenced in published 

assessments of Road Diet implementations, pedestrian safety is generally enhanced 

by this type of roadway reconfiguration, especially if a pedestrian refuge island is 

included.

Some impacts are seen as a positive by some agencies and a negative by others, 

which may be dependent on the context and users of the roadway. In Iowa, a 

Road Diet along a truck route narrowed lanes from 13 feet to 10 feet; these seemed 

too narrow to commercial vehicle drivers. Meanwhile, in Chicago and Michigan, 

shoulders and buffers between bicycle lanes and travel lanes were added primarily 

to keep travel lanes to 12 feet wide or less. In these cases, the wider lanes were 

undesirable because they encourage faster speeds.

In addition, a common concern in implementing Road Diets is that drivers on crossstreets or driveways may have difficulty finding a suitable gap in traffic to enter the 

main roadway because through traffic is now using a single through lane. However, 

in Chicago it was found that some side street traffic had an easier time crossing the 

corridor after the Road Diet was installed because the traffic patterns were simpler 

and gaps were easier to find.

In some States maintenance funding can be affected. Lane-miles are sometimes 

used as the measurement to calculate budgets for maintenance activities, defined 

only as those miles used for motor vehicle traffic – not bicycle lanes, parking, or 

other uses. When a Road Diet is introduced, one-quarter of the motor vehicle lanemiles are removed, which can equate to a similar reduction in maintenance funds. 

Discussions are underway in affected states to address this situation. 
12

Road Diet 

Feature

Primary/Intended 

Impacts

Secondary/Unintended Impacts

Positive Negative

Bike lanes • Increased mobility and safety 

for bicyclists, and higher bicycle 

volumes

• Increased comfort level for 

bicyclists due to separation from 

vehicles

• Increased property values • Could reduce parking, 

depending on design

Fewer travel lanes • Reallocate space for other uses • Pedestrian crossings are easier, 

less complex

• Can make finding a gap easier for 

cross-traffic

• Allows for wider travel lanes

• Mail trucks and transit vehicles 

can block traffic when stopped

• May reduce capacity

• In some jurisdiction, maintenance 

funding is tied to the number 

of lane-miles, so reducing the 

number of lanes can have a 

negative impact on maintenance 

budgets

• Similarly, some Federal funds may 

be reduced

• If travel lanes are widened, can 

encourage increased speeds

Two-Way Left Turn 

Lane

• Provide dedicated left turn lane • Makes efficient use of limited 

roadway area

• Could be difficult for drivers to 

access left turn lane if demand 

for left turns is too high

Pedestrian refuge 

island

• Increased mobility and safety for 

pedestrians

• Makes pedestrian crossings safer 

and easier

• Prevents illegal use of the TWLTL 

to pass slower traffic or access an 

upstream turn lane

• May create issues with snow 

removal

• Can effectively increase 

congestion by preventing illegal 

maneuvers

Buffers (grass, concrete 

median, plastic 

delineators)

• Provide barriers and space 

between travel modes

• Increases comfort level for 

bicyclists by increasing separation 

from vehicles

• Barrier can prevent users entering 

a lane reserved for another mode

• Grass and delineator buffers 

will necessitate ongoing 

maintenance.

Table 2. Practitioner Interview Results Summary: Road Diet Installation Observations 
Figure 10. Road Diet in Flint, Michigan, Central Business District 

Photo Credit: Jennifer Atkinson

13

While Road Diets can improve safety and accommodate motorized and nonmotorized transportation modes along a corridor, they may not be appropriate or 

feasible in all locations. There are many factors to consider before implementing a 

Road Diet. Agencies should consider the objective of the Road Diet, which could 

be one or more of the following:

• Improve safety 

• Reduce speeds

• Mitigate queues associated with left-turning traffic

• Improve pedestrian environment

• Improve bicyclist accessibility

• Enhance transit stops.

Identifying the objective(s) will help determine 

whether the Road Diet is an appropriate 

alternative for the corridor that is being 

evaluated.

Driveway density, transit routes, the number 

and design of intersections along the corridor, 

as well as operational characteristics are 

some considerations to be evaluated before 

deciding to implement a Road Diet.

Other considerations include roadway 

function and access control, turning volumes 

and 85th percentile speed, crash type and 

patterns, pedestrian and bicycle activity, and 

right-of-way availability and cost.19

3.1 Safety Factors

One of the primary reasons for a Road Diet installation is to address an identified crash problem. Four-lane undivided highways 

have inherent design aspects that make them susceptible to crashes. Left-turning and through movements sharing a single 

lane contributes to rear-end crashes, left-turn crashes, and speed discrepancies. In most cases, current four-lane undivided cross 

sections do not include accommodations for bicyclists, and most have no refuge for pedestrians to cross four lanes of traffic. 

When a Road Diet is considered for safety reasons, practitioners must determine if the crash patterns are those that can be 

addressed with this alternative.

Overall, the statistical analyses of Road Diet conversion safety impacts have shown a range of positive results, with differences 

often related to whether the installation occurred in a rural or urban area. As such, this difference should be considered when 

determining Road Diet conversion feasibility. A more detailed discussion of expected safety improvements from a Road 

Diet conversion is contained in Chapter 2. The reduction in conflict points at intersections, improved sight distance, easier 

maneuverability for vehicles turning left, and the elimination of weaving are also contributors to the safety improvements at 

case study Road Diet conversion locations. It is speculated in the Iowa Road Diet guidelines that the only crash type that might 

increase with this type of conversion would be those related to the additional stop/start conflicts occurring between through 

and right-turn vehicles and due to the potential increase in congestion.20

3 Road Diet Feasibility Determination

Low-Cost Solution

The vast majority of Road 

Diets are installed on existing 

pavement within the

right-of-way.
14

3.2 Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Streets

FHWA defines a context sensitive solution (CSS) as a “collaborative, interdisciplinary 

approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that 

fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental 

resources while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS is an approach that considers 

the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist.”21

The topic of CSS comes into play when determining whether or not a Road Diet 

is “right” for a specific location. FHWA and the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have directives and strong policylevel support for context-sensitive design. According to FHWA, CSS includes the 

following seven qualities of design excellence: 

1. The project satisfies the purpose and needs as agreed to by a full range of stakeholders. This agreement is forged in the 

earliest phase of the project and amended as warranted as the project develops.

2. The project is a safe facility for both the user and the community.

3. The project is in harmony with the community, and it preserves environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, and natural 

resource values of the area.

4. The project exceeds the expectations of both designers and stakeholders and achieves a level of excellence in people's 

minds.

5. The project involves efficient and effective use of the resources (time, budget) of all involved parties.

6. The project is designed and built with minimal disruption to the community.

7. The project is seen as having added lasting value to the community.22

When considering whether to implement a Road Diet, part of the practitioner’s evaluation process should include whether it will 

meet these qualities.

The concept of Complete Streets is similar to CSS in that it suggests that the street network should be planned, designed, 

maintained, and operated in a way that accommodates all road users and those who use the surrounding environment; not 

doing so will result in “incomplete” streets. The concept impacts the planning and design phases of a roadway as well as the dayto-day operations. 

What it means for a street to be complete is inherent to the context and will differ depending on how the street is intended to 

function, what types and volumes of road users it should accommodate, the destinations it serves, and the right-of-way available. 

Many communities have embraced this concept by adopting Complete Streets policies, establishing the expectation that all 

future roadway projects will adhere to the principle that streets should be designed with all users in mind rather than simply 

providing enough capacity for vehicle through-put. To aid in implementing the policy, many communities are also developing 

Complete Streets design guidelines, which address the examples listed and other intricacies of how the design of a roadway 

should relate to the surrounding context.

Complete Streets 

Commitment

More than 600 State, 

regional, and local 

jurisdictions have adopted 

Complete Streets policies 

or have made a written 

commitment to do so.
Figure 11. Four-lane Undivided Roadway Intersection Operating as a de facto Three-lane Cross Section 

Photo Credit: Tom Welch

15

3.3 Operational Factors

Consider the following common operational issues when determining the feasibility of a site for a Road Diet. 

3.3.1 De Facto Three-Lane Roadway Operation

The traditional definition of a roadway function is based on vehicular mobility and access. The functional goal for a potential 

Road Diet corridor should consider impacts on the mobility and access of all road users. Practitioners should also consider the 

adjacent land uses along a corridor. For example, a Road Diet is likely to succeed operationally if the roadway is already operating 

as a “de facto three-lane roadway.” A de facto three-lane roadway is one in which the left-turning vehicles along the existing fourlane undivided roadway have resulted in the majority of the through traffic using the outside lanes (see Figure 11). The overall 

objective of the Road Diet is to match the design with the intended or preferred function of the roadway for all road users.

3.3.2 Speed

When possible, match vehicle speed to the context of surrounding land uses, such as through central business districts and 

neighborhoods, and to all road users. Sometimes this means that lower vehicle speeds are more desirable. These areas often 

have higher pedestrian and bicycle volumes in addition to younger pedestrians and bicyclists. The need to “calm” or reduce 

vehicle speeds is often cited as a reason for Road Diet conversions.23

Road Diets can reduce speed differential. The case study and simulation results of operational analyses from Converting FourLane Undivided Roadways to a Three-Lane Cross Section - Factors to Consider show that 85th percentile and average speed along 

conversions are likely to decrease by 3 to 5 mph.24 Anecdotal evidence from several case studies has shown that this type of 

conversion can result in lower vehicle speed variability. 

If speeding was documented in the four-lane undivided configuration, a Road Diet can be a useful tool for reducing speeds, 

especially high-end speeders. Studies have shown a reduction in 85th percentile speed of less than 5 mph 25,26 and in reducing 

the number of vehicles speeding excessively—defined as those going over 36 mph in a 30 mph speed zone.27 Another study 

also reported a 7 percent reduction in vehicles traveling over the posted speed limit.28 A greater reduction in speed was 

observed on corridors with higher traffic volumes.29

3.3.3 Level of Service (LOS)

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure 

of traffic conditions using a quantitative 

stratification of a performance measure or 

measures. Consider LOS for two components: 

intersections and arterial segments. Corridors 

with closely spaced signalized intersections may 

have a larger impact on the Road Diet operation 

due to queuing affecting adjacent signalized 

intersections. This impact could be mitigated by 

signal timing and coordination between adjacent 

signals, allowing the corridor to be “flushed” with 

each green cycle. The City of Lansing, Michigan, 

goes a step further, considering updates to 

everything along a new Road Diet corridor, 

including potential changes to traffic control (e.g., 

signal removal, roundabout installation). 
The LOS on urban arterials would provide a more accurate view of conditions for 

roads with longer distances between signalized intersections or no signalized 

intersections in the corridor. The arterial LOS as measured by vehicle speed is 

affected by signal spacing, access point frequency, number of left turning vehicles, 

and number of lanes. 

The difference in delays and queues should also be considered when determining 

the feasibility of a Road Diet conversion. After the conversion, the through vehicle 

delay due to turning traffic should typically decrease. The delays for left-turning 

vehicles, however, may increase because a similar through volume is now using 

one through lane rather than two. Through-vehicle delay and queuing along the 

main line and minor street approaches may also increase and should be considered 

during detailed analysis of this type of conversion. Once again, the difference in 

these measures can be small if the existing four-lane undivided roadway is generally 

operating at or close to that of a de facto three-lane roadway. Several measures 

that also can be used to mitigate and minimize these operational impacts include, 

but are not limited to, signal optimization and coordination, turn lane additions, 

and driveway consolidation. Of particular interest and focus should be minor street 

delays and queues at signalized intersections and the available gaps at unsignalized 

intersections or driveways. Practitioners should consider the mitigation of any 

negative impacts during the more detailed alternative analysis and evaluation and 

weigh them against benefits for non-motorized road users. 

3.3.4 Quality of Service 

Quality of service is defined as a "quantitative indicator of the operational conditions 

of a facility or service and users' perception of these conditions."30 Agencies 

have used a number of objective and subjective measures, including "perceived 

level of safety and comfort" in Florida's bicycle and pedestrian level of service 

methodologies.31

Practitioners should consider user quality of service for individual intersections and 

arterial segments as well as the overall facility. New methodologies for urban street 

facilities in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) allow analysts to determine 

quality of service measures for automobiles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit.

The HCM 2010 notes that automobile mode quality of service is based on 

performance measures that are field-measurable, while the pedestrian and bicyclist 

qualities of service are based on traveler-reported scores based on perceived quality 

of service. Transit quality of service is based on changes in transit patronage that 

come from changes in service quality. In this context, a multimodal LOS (MMLOS) 

analysis is included to evaluate the LOS of each travel mode simultaneously (note 

that a combined LOS is not calculated). Strengths of the MMLOS analysis include the 

ability to quantify and assess quality of service trade-offs between modes and to 

help prioritize possible improvements that may impact each mode differently.32 

What about 

Capacity?

There is often concern 

about apparently reducing 

the capacity of a four-lane 

undivided roadway in half 

by converting it to a threelane cross section with a 

Road Diet. Practitioners 

have found some cases of 

the four-lane undivided 

road operating as a de 

facto three-lane roadway 

due to turning movements 

and driver behavior. 

Therefore, the effective 

capacity reduction is much 

less than the theoretical 

reduction assumed before 

implementation..

16
Figure 12. Road Diet Implementation Maximum 

 Volume Thresholds by Agency

25,000

18,000

15,000

Maximum Volume for Road Diet (ADT)

Seattle, WA

Lansing, MI

Pasadena, CA

17

Some of the following general trends are expected. 

• Pedestrian LOS scores are likely to improve due to the lane reduction, speed 

reduction, and the reallocation of traveled way width to bicycle lanes and onstreet parking. 

• Bicycle LOS scores will improve as a result of some of the same factors, as well as 

the addition of a bicycle lane. 

• Applying a Road Diet configuration on a corridor with frequent signalized 

intersections will have a larger impact on automobile operations than it would 

on a corridor with more infrequent signal spacing. Frequently spaced signals are 

more likely to have queued traffic back up into adjacent signals’ effective areas, 

causing congestion issues at multiple intersections. In some cases this impact 

can be mitigated by optimizing the signal timing and coordinating between 

signals. The arterial automobile LOS will provide a more accurate view of 

conditions when there are longer distances between signalized intersections or 

only unsignalized intersections in the corridor. 

• The following factors will affect automobile LOS, as measured by vehicle speed: 

signal spacing, access point frequency, number of left-turning vehicles, and 

number of lanes.

One study conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine at what hourly volume the arterial LOS would decline. It found that 

a two-way peak hour volume of 1,750 vehicles per hour (875 each direction) was the threshold when a decrease in LOS was 

observed.33 It also found this could be mitigated by signal timing optimization.34

3.3.5 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 

The ADT provides a good first approximation on whether or not to consider a Road Diet conversion. If the ADT is near the upper 

limits of the study volumes, practitioners should conduct further analysis to determine its operational feasibility. This would 

include looking at peak hour volumes by direction and considering other factors such as signal spacing, turning volumes at 

intersections, and other access points. Each practitioner should use engineering judgment to decide how much analysis is 

necessary and take examples from this report as a guide.

• A 2011 Kentucky study showed Road Diets could work up to an ADT of 23,000 vehicles per day (vpd).35

• In 2006, Gates, et al. suggested a maximum ADT of between 15,000 and 17,500 vpd.36

Knapp, Giese, and Lee have documented Road Diets with ADTs ranging from 8,500 to 24,000 vpd.37 The FHWA advises that 

roadways with ADT of 20,000 vpd or less may be good candidates for a Road Diet and should be evaluated for feasibility. Figure 

12 shows the maximum ADTs used by several agencies to determine whether to install a Road Diet. Road Diet projects have 

been completed on roadways with relatively high traffic volumes in urban areas or near larger cities with satisfactory results. 

3.3.6 Peak Hour and Peak Direction 

The peak hour volume in the peak direction will be the measure of volume driving the analysis and can determine whether the 

Road Diet can be feasibly implemented. This is the traffic volume that would be used in calculating LOS analysis for intersections 

or the arterial corridor. 

Peak-hour volumes along urban roadways typically represent 8 to 12 percent of the ADT along a roadway. The Iowa guidelines 

suggest, from an operational point of view, the following volume-based Road Diet feasibility conclusions (assuming a 50/50 

directional split and 10 percent of the ADT during the peak hour):38

• Probably feasible at or below 750 vehicles per hour per direction (vphpd) during the peak hour.

• Consider cautiously between 750 – 875 vphpd during the peak hour. 

• Feasibility less likely above 875 vphpd during the peak hour and expect reduced arterial LOS during the peak period.
Figure 13. Bus Loading Zone in Seattle, Washington 

Photo Credit: City of Seattle

18

3.3.7 Turning Volumes and Patterns

The volume and pattern of turning vehicles influences roadway safety and operation. Practitioners should assess turn volumes 

and patterns when considering the feasibility of a Road Diet conversion. In general, four-lane undivided roadways begin to 

operate in a manner similar to a three-lane roadway as the number of access points and left-turn volumes increase. In this 

situation the four-lane undivided roadway begins to operate as a de facto three-lane roadway and the operational impacts of 

a Road Diet conversion may be smaller. This type of situation, if expected during the entire design period, would be more likely 

to define a feasible Road Diet conversion location.39 If it is determined that the four-lane undivided to three-lane conversion is a 

feasible option along a roadway corridor, a more detailed operational analysis of the existing and expected through and turning 

volumes is necessary (see Chapter 4). 

The operation of each corridor is unique and requires an evaluation to determine if a Road Diet cross-section conversion is 

feasible. For example, if a major driveway exists along the corridor, it could change the potential impacts of a Road Diet by 

introducing another (often closely-spaced) opportunity for additional vehicular turning movements. If motorists are trying to 

turn into driveways opposite each other, opposite-direction vehicles could end up in the TWLTL and have potential conflicts.

Offset intersections can cause a similar problem, as vehicular left-turning traffic can enter the TWLTL from opposite directions, 

desiring the same space from which to make their turn. Depending on the design of intersections and driveways, along with the 

volume of left turning traffic, this can result in potential conflicts.

3.3.8 Frequently Stopping and Slow-Moving Vehicles

The number and frequency of slow-moving and frequently 

stopping vehicles using a roadway corridor is a factor to 

consider when evaluating the application of a Road Diet 

conversion. Some examples of these types of vehicles include 

agricultural equipment, transit buses, curb-side mail delivery, 

trash pick-up, and horse-drawn vehicles. These types of 

vehicles have a greater impact on the operation of a three-lane 

roadway than a four-lane undivided roadway. The primary 

reason for this increased impact is the inability of other vehicles 

to legally pass frequently stopping or slow-moving vehicles. 

When determining the feasibility of a Road Diet conversion, 

practitioners should take into account the number and 

duration of vehicle stops along the corridor (particularly during 

peak hours), as well as the enforcement levels needed to deter 

illegal passing. One potential mitigation measure to minimize 

the impact of frequently stopping vehicles is to provide pullout areas at specific locations along the corridor. Another 

potential mitigation is to use some of the existing cross section 

for these types of vehicles (e.g., a transit lane). Improvements to 

intersection and driveway radii or pavement markings to serve these types of vehicles should also be considered if the Road Diet 

is selected as a feasible option. 

Simulated comparisons of a quarter-mile, four-lane, undivided roadway with a three-lane roadway, each having different 

percentages of heavy vehicles, one to two bus stops, and various headways and dwell times (with a set amount of entering 

volumes, number of access points, and turning volumes) showed that the impact of these vehicles on average arterial travel 

speed was much higher along the three-lane cross section than that of the four-lane undivided roadways.40 Vehicles illegally 

passing stopped or slow-moving vehicles in the TWLTL did not appear to be a regular problem in the Iowa case studies. If this 

does occur, consider enforcement and education about the use of TWLTLs as appropriate.
Figure 14. Buffered Bicycle Lanes on Wabash Avenue in Chicago 

Photo Credit: Stacey Meekins

Figure 15. Pedestrians Buffered from Traffic in Reston, VA

Photo Credit: Richard Retting

19

3.4 Bicycles, Pedestrians, Transit, and Freight Considerations

Embarking on a Road Diet presents an opportunity to dedicate more space to other roadway users and create a more balanced 

transportation system. For bicyclists in particular, Road Diets often include adding bicycle lanes to a street with little or no 

accommodation for bicyclists. The bicycle lane makes that route an option for many who would have been too intimidated to 

use the street previously. For pedestrians, Road Diets help reduce vehicle speeds and speed discrepancies midblock, making 

crossings easier and safer.41 Transit vehicles may find more space available for bus stops but may also face new challenges, such 

as blocking the single through lane along a corridor when stopped. Freight operators have special needs, especially for delivery 

of goods to businesses, that should be accommodated along the corridor.

Community members feel Road Diet conversions improve their quality of life. Iowa case study results found that pedestrians 

and bicyclists, along with adjacent land owners, often preferred the three-lane cross section. Conflicts between bicyclists, 

pedestrians, and vehicles can be reduced and the complexity of crossing maneuvers decreased. Road Diet effects on quality of 

life are discussed in more detail in Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets.

42

If corridors have existing or planned transit routes, the interrelation between transit operations (e.g., number of dedicated stops 

and frequency of trips) and other roadway users (i.e., vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians) should be assessed before determining 

whether or not to implement a Road Diet. The following sections present considerations and examples of how Road Diets may 

be implemented with pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and freight operations in mind.

3.4.1 Bicycle Considerations 

Bicycle routes should be part of an overall network. One of the things to consider when determining whether a street is 

appropriate for a Road Diet is whether it fills in a gap in the overall network, or if it is part of a planned network. Many agencies, 

including the Los Angeles, Seattle, and Chicago DOTs, have sought out potential locations for Road Diets to complete the 

networks identified in their bicycle master plans. 

If a formal bicycle network has not been identified, the roadway in question may still benefit from bicycle facilities. The street 

should first be studied to determine if there is any existing bicycle activity along it. If bicyclists are already using the roadway 

without a facility, significantly more bicyclists will likely use the route after a Road Diet. Whether or not there is existing activity, 

demand for a bicycle facility should be estimated. In cases where there are already bicycle facilities, a Road Diet may be an 

opportunity to further enhance the comfort of bicyclists by adding buffer space or converting a standard bicycle lane to a 

protected bicycle lane. Adding buffers may have additional benefits to other users as well. For instance, where the goal is to lower 

speeds, adding buffers to narrow travel lanes may accomplish that, which would be a benefit to pedestrians as well as bicyclists 

(see Figure 14).
Figure 16. 55th Street in Chicago: Transit and Bicycles Share an Area at the Intersection (left);

Transit Stop and Bicycle Lane (right);

Photo Credit: Stacey Meekins

20

3.4.2 Pedestrian Considerations 

The primary items for consideration 

for pedestrians are similar in nature 

to those for bicyclists – is there 

already a sidewalk available; what 

is the level of pedestrian activity; 

could the activity be expected to 

increase with the addition of facilities? 

If there are no sidewalks currently 

lining the roadway, designers should 

consider adding them with the Road 

Diet. In rural contexts, a sidewalk 

may not be necessary, but in these 

situations, a paved shoulder should 

at least be considered as a pedestrian 

accommodation. Along a section of 

Soapstone Road in Reston, Virginia, a 

Road Diet converted the road from two travel lanes in each direction to one lane of travel and a bicycle lane in each direction, 

separated by a TWLTL. Pedestrians can be observed walking in the road at locations that lacked sidewalks near the transition 

into the three-lane section, as shown in Figure 15. In this case the Road Diet treatment provides a safety benefit by increasing the 

separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles.

The history of pedestrian crashes should factor into the decision as to whether to implement a Road Diet and what the 

components of the Road Diet ought to be. Crashes can be reduced by adding sidewalks or a shoulder, adding pedestrian refuge 

islands, and simply by slowing cars and reducing the number of lanes pedestrians must cross.

Pedestrian refuge islands should also be considered. The land use and the intended pedestrian environment will also factor into 

the decision as to whether to implement a Road Diet.

3.4.3 Transit Considerations 

It is important to consider transit operations along a corridor being evaluated for a Road Diet, and also to consider the impacts of 

new transit needs that affect all road users. The conversion should not result in transit causing undue additional delay to general 

purpose traffic, though in many cases buses that stopped in the rightmost through lane before the conversion will stop in the 

only through lane after the Road Diet is installed. Bus stops are typically located along the curb with on-street parking removed, 

although some corridors may include pull outs to prevent buses from blocking through traffic. Pull-outs are often not preferred 

by transit operators due to difficulties with ingress and egress from the mainline.

Agencies should work with transit providers in the corridor to make sure their needs are being addressed. This is also a good time 

to have the transit provider look at bus stop spacing and location. Some stops could potentially be eliminated or moved from 

either near-side or far-side locations at intersections to provide a better pedestrian connection or to prevent buses from blocking 

the line of sight between pedestrians and motorists. If buses end up partially blocking the through lane after a Road Diet 

conversion, then vehicles may end up passing the bus in the two-way left turn lane. This issue can be remediated by applying 

physical barriers (e.g., channelizing devices along the outer edge line of the TWLTL) to prevent the maneuver, depending on the 

frequency and severity of the violation. 

On 55th Street in Chicago, the City installed a Road Diet from Cottage Grove Avenue to Woodlawn Avenue. This corridor served 

as an existing transit route, and the City also wanted to incorporate bicycle facilities. Significant coordination with the Chicago 

Transit Authority was necessary to address the needs of the transit providers, while also accommodating the new bicycle lanes. 

Figure 16 shows how transit and bicycle lanes are both accommodated on 55th Street.
21

The City of Seattle works closely with transit providers in corridors where Road Diets are proposed. The transit agency reviews 

the proposed geometry and comments on needed changes to accommodate buses. In addition, Seattle has developed transit 

priority corridors with the following attributes:

3.4.4 Freight Considerations 

There are instances where a corridor proposed for a Road Diet will need to accommodate truck movements. Freight operations 

on corridors are largely driven by demand-induced truck volumes, the proximity of alternative or parallel corridors, and the 

land use characteristics along or near the corridor. Freight operations can range from routine deliveries along the corridor to 

throughput of freight generated within and outside a region. When evaluating a corridor for a Road Diet, current and future 

freight operations should be considered.

While there is limited information available on freight considerations when compared to other areas addressed in this section, 

the Complete Streets guide published by The New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NYSAMPO) 

notes that, “Complete streets are often used to stimulate economic development, ideally as compact mixed-use with retail, 

commercial, and residential spaces. Designers must consider how stores and restaurants will receive deliveries, and where visitors 

and residents will park their cars without interfering with the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, or transit. Concepts include rear 

delivery access and strategically placed loading zones with time restrictions.” 43

Road Diets can appropriately accommodate freight movements while also serving other transportation users if some key factors 

are considered during the planning process. The NYSAMPO has identified the following considerations that should be factored 

in when addressing truck movements in complete streets settings.44

1) Current Land Use. Different uses generate different volumes and types of large truck movements. For example, 

restaurants may generate relatively high volumes of trucks, while lower density residential typically will not. Keeping the 

land uses along a corridor in mind will help agencies appropriately design Road Diets to meet local needs.

2) Truck Size. Corridors that serve or connect to larger industrial properties may serve larger trucks that cannot easily 

maneuver on narrower roads. By contrast, commercial retail stores and offices are often served by smaller unit delivery trucks.

3) Delivery Parking Areas. Some urban areas can accommodate deliveries via alleys or side streets, thereby avoiding trucks 

stopping on the main street to deliver. Other options include dedicated curbside delivery parking areas or off-street 

parking lots. Still other urban areas lack dedicated truck delivery parking areas, making it more difficult for delivery trucks 

to find parking and increasing conflicts for all users. 

4) Intersection Design. Intersections where large trucks are often making turns should be designed with wider curb radii 

to accommodate truck movements. Intersections that experience few truck movements, few truck turns, and/or almost 

exclusively serve smaller trucks have lesser intersection turning radii requirements.

Road Diet Effects on Seattle's Electric Buses

The City of Seattle has a fleet of electric buses that use overhead wires to provide eco-friendly and costeffective services. For a proposed Road Diet project on Myrtle Street, King County Metro asked if the 

bus could continue using the same overhead wires with the new lane configuration. If so, then the Road 

Diet would be a low-cost solution. If not, it would be very expensive to move the wires. After testing the 

situation they determined that the buses could reach the wires, so the Road Diet project was installed.

• Bus priority at traffic signals.

• Queue jump lanes for buses at signalized intersections.

• In-lane bus stops for transit efficiency.

• Pedestrian safety treatments for transit users and on-time 

bus service.
22

Engaging freight stakeholders early in the project planning and development process provides an opportunity to align freight 

mobility with the goals of a planned Road Diet. Outreach to stakeholders such as business owners, commercial and industrial 

property owners, and local carriers can be useful to identify potential issues with a Road Diet implementation. While engagement 

with freight stakeholders does not guarantee all conflicts will be resolved, it increases the likelihood of agreement on a Road Diet 

approach that balances freight mobility, safety, economic growth, and community needs to enhance quality of life. 

3.5 Other Feasibility Determination Factors

The feasibility of converting a four-lane, undivided roadway to a three-lane cross section as a possible alternative along a 

particular corridor can be evaluated, at least partially, through the consideration of several feasibility determination factors (FDFs), 

as discussed earlier in this chapter. If the existing or preferred characteristics of the FDFs match the objectives or goals for the 

corridor under consideration, the Road Diet configuration should be included as one option in a more detailed alternative crosssection analysis and comparison. 

Overall, Road Diet feasibility is tied to the ability to design the facility within the existing roadway cross section or right-of-way. 

However, in some cases, the corridor FDFs may require some mitigation to achieve a desirable outcome after a Road Diet 

conversion. The acceptability and impacts of this type of mitigation should be considered in general when determining the 

feasibility of the Road Diet option. A more detailed analysis would need to be completed when all feasible corridor cross section 

alternatives are evaluated and compared. Planning/policy, geometrics, safety, and operational details for Road Diets are discussed 

in other sections of this guide.

The factors discussed in this section include the following:

• Right-of-Way availability and cost. • Parallel roadways.

• Parallel parking. • At-grade railroad crossings.

• Public outreach, public relations, and 

political considerations.

The content of the discussion that follows was generally derived from Converting Four-Lane Undivided Roadways to a ThreeLane Cross Section: Factors to Consider. Other information has been added based on more recent research efforts and agency 

experience with Road Diet implementation and evaluation. Appendix B includes a summary table of feasibility factors, their 

characteristics, and a series of sample evaluative questions. 

3.5.1 Right-of-Way Availability and Cost

Practitioners frequently consider the conversion of a four-lane, undivided cross section to three lanes when additional right-ofway or project funding is limited. Many Road Diet conversions can be completed within the existing curb-to-curb or roadway 

pavement envelope. However, changes in width at specific locations and occasionally additional right-of-way may be necessary 

(e.g., at intersections for right-turn lanes). A Road Diet conversion may be less feasible when these types of activities increase. In 

many cases a Road Diet conversion may only consist of changes in pavement markings. The inclusion of a Road Diet conversion 

as a feasible option for further consideration is more likely if there are limitations on available right-of-way.

3.5.2 Parallel Roadways

Road Diets can cause some diversion of traffic to parallel routes. A determination will be needed to establish whether the parallel 

routes would be desirable by through vehicle drivers on the corridor of interest. This can be established through discussions 

with those that travel the roadway or the application of appropriate simulation software. The distance between parallel arterials 

should also be considered. It is less likely that vehicles will divert to parallel routes that are farther away or that are just as 

congested. The other consideration is vehicles shifting to parallel non-arterial streets as “cut-through” traffic. Collecting beforeand-after traffic data can inform the practitioner if this is occurring. Some community members may be more sensitive to this, so 

having data can help clearly define whether this is a problem. If there is an increase in cut-through traffic, traffic calming or other 

mitigation measures on parallel streets may be warranted. 
23

3.5.3 Parallel Parking

The existence of parallel parking (full-time or only during part of the day) and 

its impact on the feasibility of a Road Diet conversion should be evaluated. The 

difference in the impacts of the parking maneuvers on the four-lane undivided 

versus the three-lane cross section need to be compared. In addition, if a bicycle 

lane is added after the conversion, the interaction between bicyclists and vehicles 

being parked should be considered. Parallel parking can be and has been included 

along three-lane roadways.

3.5.4 At-Grade Railroad Crossings

An important consideration in the feasibility of converting four-lane, undivided 

roadway to three lanes is the existence of railroad crossings. Vehicles queued at an 

at-grade rail crossing will need to be served by one through lane after the Road 

Diet conversion. This could result in queues that are approximately twice as long. If 

this type of queuing is not acceptable along the three-lane cross section, it could 

affect feasibility. It is also important to consider at-grade crossings for railroads that 

closely parallel the corridor of interest. In the case of a nearby parallel railroad, the 

additional queuing due to a train would occur in the TWLTL in one direction and the 

through lane in the other direction. If operation of the converted corridor is needed 

while a train passes, the addition of a right-turn lane with adequate storage may be 

necessary for mitigation. The consideration of the signalization at these intersections 

(if it exists) also requires special attention both before and after the Road Diet 

conversion (if it occurs). 

3.5.5 Public Outreach, Public Relations, and Political Considerations

According to the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission’s Regional Road 

Diet Analysis Feasibility Assessment, “Education and outreach play a critical role in the 

success of a Road Diet. Many projects have demonstrated that public opposition can 

be strong in the early stages of a project. However, with committed stakeholders 

and an organized education and outreach program, the public can be better 

informed about the advantages and disadvantages of Road Diets.” 45

Road Diet conversions have been implemented for more than three decades. Their 

implementation, however, can still be very challenging. This type of conversion is 

relatively unusual and new to most transportation professionals, local jurisdictions, 

and the traveling public. In some cases the consideration of or proposal for a Road 

Diet can lead to some concern due to unfamiliarity. 

A temporary trial basis implementation of a Road Diet conversion has been used 

to address public concerns. This approach requires the restriping of the pavement 

within the proposed Road Diet area for a period of time before a determination is 

made to continue with a permanent Road Diet installation. Temporary pavement 

marking materials similar to those used in construction work zones can be 

considered for this purpose.

3D Visualization

The use of 3D visualization 

may serve as an effective 

tool to help local 

stakeholders visualize a 

proposed Road Diet and 

assess impacts associated 

with the installation. 

Design visualization 

allows viewers to see 

the corridor from several 

vantage points, such as 

a commercial vehicle, a 

motor vehicle, a bicycle, or 

a pedestrian.

23
24

Consider signalization adjustments and any potential issues related to turning vehicles. During the trial basis time period, a series 

of before-and-after operational studies can be completed; some preliminary crash analysis can be performed; and surveys can 

be conducted among adjacent land owners, first responders, etc. If the trial yields positive results, consider implementing a more 

permanent Road Diet conversion. If it is determined that a Road Diet is not the best option for the corridor, the roadway can be 

changed back to its original lane configuration. 

Michigan DOT (MDOT), with support from FHWA, has implemented Road Diets using the trial basis approach to appeal to 

communities where Road Diets may be feasible but are not embraced locally. In a few localities where citizens or local officials 

have objected to an MDOT-proposed Road Diet, MDOT has tempered its proposal with a guarantee: the agency will install the 

Road Diet on a trial basis, and will return the road to four lanes at the end of the trial if the community requests it. The evaluation 

criterion in this case is simple: what does the community want? As a result, many corridors have retained their Road Diet 

conversion with only two corridors being returned to four-lane undivided sections in Michigan. MDOT and FHWA believe that 

this is an effective approach to demonstrate the safety countermeasure to a community.

3.6 Case Studies: Feasibility Determination Decision-making 

Several agencies apply general “rules of thumb” when first considering Road Diets. This section summarizes the factors and 

design parameters agencies should use when considering a Road Diet.

Seattle DOT considers the following facets of transportation operations, mobility, and safety in the selection of a

Road Diet corridor: 46

• Volume of traffic – up to 25,000 vehicles per day • Number of collisions – all modes (motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle)

• Vehicle speed • Number of lanes

• Freight usage • Bus stops and routing

• Travel time • Accessibility.

To guide Road Diet implementations, Seattle DOT developed the flow chart shown in Figure 17 to support its Road Diet 

decision-making process. First, the city calculates the ADT of the roadway segment in question, combined with signal spacing. 

In some cases this will lead to additional operational analyses of the entire corridor or key intersections. Depending on the results 

of this additional analysis, further modeling may be required (e.g., via Highway Capacity Software or Synchro). Those results may 

require modifications to the design to accommodate traffic. Once the simulation results are satisfactory, the Traffic Operations 

Manager and Signal Operations Manager must formally approve the Road Diet project to move forward. 

Chicago DOT (CDOT) has started developing guidelines for when and where to implement Road Diets at the time of this 

writing. Crashes are the most important reason for them to consider a Road Diet, followed by traffic volumes that do not warrant 

the current number of lanes.

CDOT considers a roadway up to 15,000 – 18,000 ADT to be a good candidate for a Road Diet. However, the agency believes that 

the design hourly volume (DHV) may be a better parameter to use than ADT. A Road Diet would be feasible with a peak hourly 

volume of 1,000; at higher volumes, signal modifications may be necessary, and implementing left-turn phases is important 

where the traffic volumes are high.
ADT

<10K

YES

NO

16K+

Or �1⁄8 mile spacing 

between signals

10 - 16K or 

1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile 

signal spacing

25K+

Corridor 

Analysis 

Required

Key Intersection 

Analysis Required

Synchro

Model

30%+ Travel Time

2+ LOS Change

<30% TT Change

Corridor LOS = D or better

�LOS E at critical approaches

Synchro

Model

LOS & Critical 

Approach � E 

LOS F or Critical 

Approach F

Modify Design

>700 vphpd

>200 vphLT

<700 vphpd

<200 vphLT

No Model 

Required

NOTES: vphpd = Vehicles per hour per direction

 vphLT = Left-turning vehicles per hour

 ADT = Average Daily Traffic

 LOS = Level of Service

Tweak

Modify Design

TO Manager Approval

SO Manager Approval

YES

Proceed with 

Community Process

TO & SO Manager 

Approval

Modeling Flow Chart for Road Diets

[from 4/5 lanes to 3 lanes]

Figure 17. City of Seattle Modeling Flow Chart for Road Diet Feasibility Determination

25

Michigan DOT gives the following outline for guidance related to reducing lanes when considering implementation of a Road Diet:

1. Planning and Policy – Includes information on the purpose and need for the Road Diet, planning considerations for the local 

community and regional planning agency, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) processes, etc.

2. Feasibility Determination Factors – Includes information regarding traffic volumes, traffic modeling, turning movements, level 

of service, crash analysis, etc.

3. Operational Criteria – Includes information regarding acceptable Level of Service (LOS) and improvements related to certain 

crash types.

4. Geometric Design Criteria – Describes maintaining proper geometrics using major road standards.

5. Systems Considerations – Includes considerations regarding parking, pedestrian and bicycle issues, school routes, etc.

6. Project Costs – Describes financial arrangements for cost-share projects.

7. Public Involvement – Describes the communication process prior to implementation.47

Michigan DOT has chosen to view all existing four-lane, undivided roads as potential implementation sites. Many local Michigan 

agencies believe that a three-lane cross-section is the desirable road section compared to two-lane and four-lane undivided 

sections, and they actively work to identify which four-lane undivided roads are good candidates for Road Diets.
Figure 18. Painted Buffer Between Through Lane and Bicycle Lane in Lansing, Michigan 

Photo Credit: Jennifer Atkinson

26

The City of Grand Rapids, MI takes a holistic view of Road Diet implementations by first identifying all four-lane, undivided 

facilities within their jurisdiction. For each road or segment identified, the agency then records and tracks traffic volumes, 

corridor use (whether a commercial route, incident bypass route, neighborhood traffic, school bus/transit route, etc.), and how 

the corridor operates under existing conditions.48

The City of Lansing, MI has established the following minimum post-implementation lane width guidance:

• 11-ft. through lanes

• 5-ft. bike lanes49

• 10-ft. turn lanes (left and right).

This guidance was established based on the 

city’s experience; at some vehicle lane widths 

the roadway encourages side-by-side traffic, and 

some bicycle lane widths can encourage parking. 

Where undesignated pavement width exists, 

the city paints a buffer zone between the travel 

lane and bike lane, as shown in Figure 18. This 

provides a buffer between vehicles and bicycle 

traffic and helps allocate unused pavement 

without creating wide lanes. 

The Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission (GCMPC) in Michigan is both progressive and aggressive in its 

approach to installing Road Diets. Although the first Road Diet in the GCMPC area occurred in 1990, the real boost to widespread 

implementation of Road Diets within this area occurred in 2009. The catalyst was the completion of a technical study in which 

the GCMPC assessed more than 140 miles of four-lane undivided road in its jurisdiction for potential conversion to three lanes. 

This study provided a summary of operating features and crash results for eight completed Road Diets in the area and offered a 

comparative assessment ranking the desirability of all remaining four-lane sections for Road Diet consideration.50

The local agencies within the region first targeted routes with low ADTs that would allow for easy conversion and result in safety 

benefits; routes carrying 6,000 – 8,000 AADT were selected for the first conversions. After several conversions and positive public 

opinions of Road Diets, GCMPC began selecting implementation sites with higher volumes – up to 15,000 AADT.

Each year, GCMPC selects competitive road improvement projects submitted by its 32 local agencies. Potential Road Diet 

locations are scored and prioritized on criteria such as the following:

• Existing level of service;

• Lane width (existing and proposed);

• Number of driveway approaches within the Road Diet segment; and

• Crash types that may be mitigated by installation.
27

The GCMPC involves representatives from all modes of transportation, elected officials, and local agency partners. These 

stakeholders are involved from the beginning of the planning process and collaborate through the Road Diet installation. 

GCMPC feels that working together with these stakeholders gives a sense of project awareness and buy-in. It also helps to 

overcome obstacles or concerns that arise along the way, leading to smoother implementation. GCMPC encourages local 

agencies within their jurisdiction to restripe existing four-lane undivided segments as three-lane Road Diets as a part of their 

ongoing annual or bi-annual restriping plans. During the Road Diet study, GCMPC looked at several parameters to determine 

conversion suitability. Using these criteria, a 4-scale rating system was developed to measure compatibility of each road 

segment. These included:

• Crash data. Rates of traffic crashes for sideswipe, head-on, head-on-left-turn, angle, rear-end, and rear-end-left-turn crashes 

that are higher than the average for roadways with similar functional classification can be a good indicator for compatibility.

• Lane width. Four-lane roadways with lanes widths less than 12 feet may be good candidates as the narrow lanes can cause 

conflicts for passing vehicles.

• Speed limits and operating speeds. A Road Diet may be beneficial where traffic calming is needed.

• Surface type. A road that has concrete on the inside lanes and asphalt on the outside lanes (or the other way around) may 

be a poor candidate as the difference in pavement color may be used to distinguish travel lanes rather than the painted lane 

markers. This is especially true during inclement weather events or evening/morning driving as a result of sun glare.

• ADT. GCMPC considers ADT less than 10,000 feasible, between 10,000 and 20,000 potentially feasible depending on sitespecific conditions, and more than 20,000 likely not feasible.

• Number of traffic signals. This is one of the many factors used to determine compatibility and is site specific.

• Land use. A Road Diet may be beneficial on corridors that have a lot of turning movements such as a block-style street grid, 

shopping areas, school zones, etc.

Overall, the efforts of GCMPC to install Road Diets have resulted in a number of installations. Four years ago, a Road Diet 

proposal from a local agency would have been unusual, but they are common now in GCMPC’s annual call for projects. From the 

local agencies’ standpoint, they feel that the extraordinary efforts of the planning agency and subsequent educational follow-up 

by GCMPC have facilitated implementation at the local level.

Based on recent interviews with practitioners, agency considerations for Road Diet implementation are shown in Table 3.
28

3.7 Funding Road Diets

Road Diets can be funded from a number of different sources based on the needs of the agency. Road Diets are typically 

eligible for Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) or other Federal-aid funds where 

data support the expenditure.

However, there are other benefits of Road Diets and other reasons for their installation, so the other funding sources available 

vary widely from Federal, State, and local sources. For example, the Seattle DOT (SDOT) has used funding from such sources as 

Safe Routes to School grants, Washington State DOT pedestrian and bicycle funds, and transit grants. The agency also monitors 

the city’s road resurfacing projects to see whether upcoming streets scheduled for upcoming roadway overlay projects are good 

candidates for Road Diets. This allows Seattle DOT to use the annual paving program funds for some installations. 

Road Diet Implementation Considerations

Maximum Volume, ADTMaximum Peak Volumes, DHV

Minimum Lane 

Width, ft.

ThroughLeft/RightBicycleCrash HistoryVehicle SpeedNumber of LanesTurning VolumesFreight UsagePresence of TransitPresence of BicyclesTravel Time or LOSAccessibility

Chicago DOT          

Seattle DOT        

City of Lansing, MI    

Michigan DOT     

Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission   

City of Las Vegas, NV   

Genesee County (MI) 

Metropolitan Planning 

Commission

     

Table 3. Road Diet Implementation Considerations by Agency 
29

As with any project development process, practitioners designing a Road Diet should take into account the 

principles and practices that guide design decisions, including geometric design and operational design.

4.1 Geometric Design

Geometric design includes identifying details of the project in plan, profile, and cross section. It is necessary to apply the 

standard principles and practices of geometric design. Geometric designers are guided by standards and policies that include 

design criteria. The criteria serve as a guide to design and provide uniformity, but are not intended to be inflexible. Designers 

need flexibility to achieve context-specific needs and objectives. This is particularly true for Road Diet implementations. FHWA’s 

Flexibility in Highway Design illustrates the different methods available to highway engineers and project managers to design 

roads that move people and goods in a safe, efficient, and reliable way while at the same time fully considering community 

values for the corridor and broader location.51 AASHTO’s A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design also shows how 

community and environmental issues can be integrated into decision-making throughout the project development process.52

Additional information about design flexibility pertaining to pedestrian and bicyclist facilities can be found in FHWA’s August 

2013 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility memo.53

The practice of designing roads geometrically is evolving towards more performance-based approaches to analysis, where the 

expected transportation outcomes of geometric design decisions are quantified and used to support informed design decisionmaking. Performance-based analysis complements the ideas of design flexibility, context sensitive design, and practical design. 

Performance-prediction tools, such as the Highway Safety Manual, Highway Capacity Manual and others quantify how geometric 

design decisions impact measures of user accessibility, mobility, quality of service, reliability, and safety. A framework for 

conducting performance-based analysis is provided in the final report for NCHRP 15-34A, Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric 

Design of Highways and Streets. 

4.1.1 Road Function and Context

The functional classification system described by FHWA’s Functional Classification Guidelines and Updated Guidance for the 

Functional Classification of Highways often serves as a basis for establishing design criteria for a Road Diet project. AASHTO’s Green 

Book, for example, includes chapters organized by functional classification, with arterials divided into freeway and non-freeway 

facilities (e.g., Chapter 5, Local Roads and Streets; Chapter 6, Collector Roads and Streets; Chapter 7, Rural and Urban Arterials; and 

Chapter 8, Freeways). Alternative road classifications also exist. These alternative classification systems guide designers towards 

establishing design criteria that are complimentary to location-specific context where the Road Diet is being implemented. 

For example, the Smart Transportation Guidebook,

54 jointly published by the Pennsylvania and New Jersey DOTs, more explicitly 

considers project setting by defining seven context areas from least to most developed:

1) Rural

2) Suburban neighborhood

3) Suburban corridor

4) Suburban center

5) Town/village neighborhood

6) Town center

7)Urban core.

4 Designing a Road Diet
30

The guidebook includes a set of quantifiable characteristics for each of the seven context areas and a recommendation that the 

land use context be identified based on this information. The quantifiable characteristics are summarized in Table 4. Land use 

contexts are broadly defined for road segments greater than 600 feet in length due to practical limitations on the frequency of 

changing the roadway typical section over a short stretch of road. 

Once the context area of the Road Diet is defined, the Smart Transportation Guidebook includes a “matrix of design values” with 

design criteria as rows and land use contexts as columns for five different roadway types: 1) regional arterial, 2) community 

arterial, 3) community collector, 4) neighborhood collector, and 5) local road. An example for regional arterials is shown in Table 

5. This roadway typology is different than the existing functional classification system outlined by FHWA and was proposed to 

capture the actual role of the roadway in the surrounding community. Access, mobility, and speed are considered on the road 

segment of interest as opposed to using only one functional classification for an entire highway. This alternative approach to 

classifying the context area of the Road Diet beyond more traditional functional classification will encourage design criteria that 

are consistent with broader project surroundings and area characteristics.

4.1.2 Design Controls

Design controls are fixed factors outside of the design process, but may dictate the result. Examples include vehicles, environment, 

traffic (non-motorized and motorized), and others, including applicable financial and regulatory influences. Candidate Road 

Diet locations may be identified due to the characteristics of these design controls at that location (see, for example, discussion 

in Chapter 3 of this guidebook). More broadly, designers should understand the intended project outcomes as well as the 

characteristics of the stakeholders that the Road Diet implementation is intended to serve. A thorough discussion of design 

controls appears in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

55 This section summarizes some key points.

Characteristic Rural Suburban 

Neighborhood

Suburban 

Corridor

Suburban 

Center

Town/Village 

Neighborhood

Town 

Center

Urban 

Core

Density Units (DU)a

per acre (ac)

1 DU/20 acb 1-8 DU/ac 2-30 DU/ac 3-20 DU/ac 4-30 DU/ac 8-50 DU/ac 16-75 DU/ac

Building Coverage NAc < 20% 20-35% 35-45% 35-50% 50-70% 70-100%

Lot Size/Area in 

square feet (sf)

20 ac 5,000 - 80,000 sf 20,000- 

200,000 sf

25,000-100,000 

sf

2,000-12,000 sf 2,000-20,000 

sf

25,000-

100,000 sf

Lot Frontaged NA 50 -200 ft. 100-500 ft. 100-300 ft. 18-50 ft. 25-200 ft. 100-300 ft.

Block Dimensions NA 400 ft. wide x 

variable length

200 ft. wide x 

variable length

300 ft. wide x 

variable length

200 ft. wide x 400 

ft. long

200 ft. wide 

x 400 ft. long

200 ft. wide x 

400 ft. long

Max. Height 1-3 stories 1.5 -3 stories 1 story retail; 

3-5 story office

2-5 stories 2-5 stories 1-3 stories 3-60 stories

Min./Max. Setback Varies 20-80 ft. 20-80 ft. 20-80 ft. 10-20 ft. 0-20 ft. 0-20 ft.

a The guidebook does not define a density unit and may instead be referring to a dwelling unit; dwelling units per acre are used in the guidebook to define high-, medium-, and 

 low-density areas.

b acre

c

 not applicable

d The distance measured between points where side property lines meet road right-of-way lines

Table 4. Quantifiable Characteristics of Land User Contexts (NJDOT & PennDOT, 2008) 
31

Design Vehicles. Geometric designers “should consider the largest design vehicle that is likely to use [a] facility with 

considerable frequency or a design vehicle with special characteristics appropriate to a particular location in determining 

the design of such critical features as radii at intersections and radii of turning roadways.”56 Given that Road Diets are 

likely implemented as part of an overlay and restriping project, the design vehicle for the location has likely already been 

predetermined. Design vehicle characteristics are important when considering the new lane and shoulder widths (including 

possible traveled way widening on horizontal curves), storage lengths, and turning radii. Given that Road Diet implementation has 

reduced the number of lanes to one in each direction, design vehicle performance will have a greater impact on overall vehicle 

operations and the grade and critical length of grade may become more influential features impacting performance than for the 

four-lane, undivided cross section. 

Drivers. Considering driver performance remains as critical for Road Diet design as for any other facility type. Road Diet designs 

should be compatible with driver capabilities and limitations and should be laid out to meet driver expectations. Designers 

should consider positive guidance to all road users (e.g., pavement marking, signing, delineation) to make the desired path clear. 

Driver considerations in highway design are covered in FHWA’s A User’s Guide to Positive Guidance and NCHRP’s Human Factors 

Guidelines for Road Systems.

57, 58

Road Diets can be particularly beneficial for older drivers who have slower reaction times and reflexes. According to FHWA’s 

Public Roads, “The safety potential of conversion to a three-lane cross-section (also called Road Diets) was so compelling to Iowa 

DOT officials, based on studies done in Minnesota, Montana, and Washington, that Iowa DOT made this project type a staple of 

its agency's older driver program at the program's inception in 1999.” 59 Additional guidance on highway design, operational, and 

traffic engineering features, including Road Diets, for older road users is available in the FHWA Handbook for Designing Roadways 

for the Aging Population.

Regional Arterial Rural Suburban 

Neighborhood

Suburban 

Corridor

Suburban 

Center

Town/Village 

Neighborhood

Town/Village 

Center Urban Core

Roadway

Lane Width 11’ to 12’ 11’ to 12’ (14’ to 

15’ outside lane 

if no shoulder or 

bike lane)

11’ to 12’ (14’ 

to 15’ outside 

lane if no 

shoulder or 

bike lane)

11’ to 12’ (14’ 

outside lane 

if no shoulder 

or bike lane)

10’ to 12’ (14’ 

outside lane if 

not shoulder or 

bike lane)

10’ to 12’ (14’ 

outside lane if 

not shoulder 

or bike lane)

10’ to 12’ 

(14’ outside 

lane if not 

shoulder or 

bike lane)

Paved Shoulder 

Width

8’ to 10’ 8’ to 10’ 8’ to 12’ 4’ to 6’ (if no 

parking or 

bike lane)

4’ to 6’ (if no 

parking or bike 

lane)

4’ to 6’ (if no 

parking or 

bike lane)

4’ to 6’ (if no 

parking or 

bike lane)

Parking Lane NA NA NA 8’ parallel 8’ parallel; see 

7.2 for angled

8’ parallel; see 

7.2 for angled

8’ parallel

Bike Lane NA 5’ to 6’ (if no 

shoulder)

6’ (if no 

shoulder)

5’ to 6’ 5’ to 6’ 5’ to 6’ 5’ to 6’

Curb Return 30 ‘ to 50’ 25’ to 35’ 30’ to 50’ 25’ to 50’ 15’ to 40’ 15’ to 40’ 15’ to 40’

Number of Travel 

Lanes

2 to 6 2 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 6 2 to 4 2 to 4 2 to 6

Roadside

Clear Sidewalk 

Width

NA 5’ 5’ to 6’ 5’ to 6’ 6’ to 8’ 6’ to 10’ 6’ to 12’

Buffer NA 6’+ 6’ to 10’ 4’ to 6’ 4’ to 6’ 4’ to 6’ 4’ to 6’

Shy Distance NA NA NA 0’ to 2’ 0’ to 2’ 2’ 2’

Total Sidewalk 

Width

NA 5’ 5’ to 6’ 9’ to 14’ 10’ to 16’ 12’ to 18’ 12’ to 20’

Speed

Desired 

Operating Speed 

(mph)

45-55 35-40 35-55 30-35 30-35 30-35 30-35

Table 5. Regional Arterial Design Matrix (NJDOT & PennDOT, 2008) 
32

Non-motorized Users. When appropriately applied, Road Diets have generated benefits to users of all modes of transportation, 

including bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Specific benefits to non-motorized users were covered previously. Pedestrian 

volumes and characteristics will influence the design of sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic control features, curb cuts, bus stops, and 

other locations where pedestrian traffic is expected. Guidance for designing roadways to accommodate pedestrians as well as 

designing pedestrian facilities themselves is contained in AASHTO’s Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities. Road Diets also provide the opportunity to add bicycle lanes to roads on which bicyclists previously shared lanes with 

motor vehicles or navigated between travel lanes and the edge of pavement. Bicycle dimensions and operating characteristics 

influence the design of bicycle facilities, as identified in AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

60

Furthermore, the FHWA supports the consideration of additional design options found in the National Association of City 

Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares manuals in 

addition to the AASHTO bicycle and pedestrian guides to aid in designing safe and comfortable bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 

These resources expand practitioners’ options in how to accommodate these users.61

Speed. Speed is one of the most important and complex factors that both influences and is influenced by road geometrics. 

Drivers select travel speeds based on their perceptions of the road. Sometimes geometric design criteria can lead to operating 

speeds that are higher than design speeds for design speeds less than 55 mph. Road Diets have the potential to reduce 

operating speed differentials, but tend to have a modest effect on the average operating speed of the corridor (i.e., about 3 to 

5 mph). The reduction in the number of through lanes can affect the speed differential by removing the ability to pass slower 

moving vehicles. Changes in the road cross section may also influence drivers’ perceptions of appropriate free-flow speeds. 

Geometric designers should seek to achieve speed harmony, defined in FHWA’s Speed Concepts: Informational Guide, as the 

condition that results when: 

• The designated design speed is within a specified range (i.e., ± 5mph) of the observed 85th percentile operating speed; 

• The 85th percentile operating speed is within a specified range (i.e., ± 5mph) of the posted speed limit;

• The inferred design speed is equal to or greater than the designated design speed; and 

• The posted speed is less than or equal to the designated design speed.62

4.1.3 Elements of Design

Principal elements of geometric design include sight distance, horizontal alignment, superelevation, and vertical alignment. 

Conversions do not generally involve significant changes in sight distance and alignment, but these characteristics may require 

additional assessment due to changes in cross-section allocation and use. 

Sight Distance. Drivers need sufficient sight distance to control the operation of their vehicles and avoid striking unexpected 

objects in the travel way. Stopping sight distance, decision sight distance, and intersection sight distance are most relevant to 

Road Diet locations. Stopping sight distance, or the distance required for a vehicle to stop before reaching a stationary object 

in its path, should be available at all points on the road. Decision sight distance should be provided at complex locations where 

drivers must make instantaneous decisions, where information is difficult to perceive, or where unexpected maneuvers are 

needed. Significant changes in alignment are not expected during Road Diet conversions, so changes in sight distance due to 

the alignment design are likely to be insignificant. Changes in vehicle position due to the cross section changes may have some 

impact on horizontal sight distance (i.e., available sight distance while traversing a horizontal curve, limited by sight obstructions 

on the inside of the curve). Critical sight distance analysis for Road Diet conversions will include pedestrian crossings, transit 

stops, and locations where on-street parked cars serve as possible sight obstructions. 

Road Diets can provide sight distance improvements for mid-block, left-turning drivers at entrances due to the conversion of the 

four-lane, undivided roadway to a TWLTL. Drivers in a four-lane, undivided situation experience negative offset with opposing 

traffic, which can block their view. In a TWLTL this negative offset is removed, so drivers making left turns have improved sight 

distance to make a safe movement.
33

Grade. Designers select grades to provide uniform operation and enable operating speeds near the design speed of the 

roadways. Grades at locations with Road Diet conversions will likely already be determined. Maximum grades typically range 

from 5 to 12 percent and are determined based on functional classification, design speed, and terrain. The effects of grades 

on truck speeds are much greater than effects on passenger cars. Given that Road Diet implementation has reduced the 

cross section to one through lane in each direction, design vehicle performance will have a greater impact on overall vehicle 

operations and the grade and critical length of grade may become more influential features impacting performance than they 

were for the four-lane undivided cross section.

Horizontal Curvature and Superelevation. Road Diet conversions are not likely to involve any significant changes in horizontal 

curvature and superelevation. Basic design speed, side friction, and superelevation relationships apply, and guidance is available 

in AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 

Access Management. Given the operational change that will occur through a lane reduction in each direction of travel as well 

as the addition of a TWLTL, access management should be analyzed during the Road Diet conversion. Driveways are, in effect, 

low-volume intersections.

The re-analysis should consider:

• Operations and efficiency of the intersecting roadway (that underwent the Road Diet)

• Ensuring high-volume driveways are not offset in the “wrong direction” 

• Access to property

• Sight distance between vehicles and pedestrians

• How driveways are used (e.g., backing out vs. forward-out-only)

• Sidewalk continuity for pedestrians

• Accessibility requirements

• Accommodating bicycle lanes

• Potential conflicts with bus stop locations.

FHWA provides additional resources related to access management, including Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections 

Technical Summary.

63

4.1.4 Cross Sectional Elements

There are a number of cross sectional elements to consider for a Road Diet conversion. For example, practitioners need to 

consider the commonly accepted range of lane widths, but the design must also fit within the existing curb-to-curb distance 

using flexibility in commonly used design manuals. The sections below discuss individual cross sectional design criteria. 

Lane widths. Lane width influences operations, safety, quality of service, and the security felt by road users. Widths of 10 to 12 

feet are typically used in practice. Auxiliary lanes (i.e., turn lanes) at intersections are often the same width as through lanes, and 

seldom less than 10 feet. The width of the TWLT lane provided as part of a lane width conversion typically ranges from 10 to 16 

feet. The width for a bus lane along these roadways is usually 11 to 15 feet.64

Median. A median is defined as the area between opposing travel lanes. Its main purpose is to separate opposing traffic. Design 

width depends upon the type of roadway and its location. On urban area arterial streets, a TWLTL can effectively accommodate 

left-turning traffic. When a flush median is used, practitioners should expect crossing and turning movements in and around the 

median.65

Pedestrian Refuge Island. A pedestrian refuge island both shortens the time and distance that a pedestrian is exposed to moving 

traffic while also simplifying the crossing. It provides a protected space in the roadway, allowing the pedestrian to make the 

crossing in two stages if necessary. In this situation, the pedestrian only has to focus on finding a gap in one direction of travel at 

a time. The refuge island should be a minimum of 6 feet wide, in the direction of pedestrian travel, with 8 to 10 feet preferred. The 

island should include detectable warning tiles where it meets the roadway. On streets with a TWLTL, pedestrian refuge islands can 

use the turn lane space where turns are prohibited, such as at an intersection with a one-way street, or can be installed adjacent to 

the TWLTL where space allows. 
Figure 19. Bicycle Lane on Rural 3-Lane Section, Lawyers Road, Reston, VA 

Photo Credit: Virginia DOT

34

Cross Slope. Generally, the crown or highpoint of the converted cross section is located in the center of the TWLTL, with the 

slope of the pavement the same as the adjacent through lanes. Typical cross slopes are 1.5 to 2 percent, and may be as high as 

2.5 percent in areas of intense rainfall. Additional information on minimum accessibility standards is available in the Draft Public 

Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).

Shoulders. Shoulders are the portions of the roadway adjacent to the traveled way. In most Road Diet applications, curb-tocurb widths and the desire to allocate the space to traffic, bicycle lanes, and parking limit ability to provide shoulders. Painted 

buffers are sometimes provided between the traveled way and bicycle lanes, and those buffers offer some similar advantages 

as shoulders. Chapter 3 of this guide includes marking examples for undesignated pavement widths, including painted buffers 

between the traveled way and bicycle lanes.

Curbs. Curbs may already be present at the Road Diet conversion location, as they are commonly used in lower speed urban 

and suburban areas. Curbs have multiple functions, including drainage, delineation, right-of-way reduction, and delineation of 

pedestrian walkways. 

Drainage. Drainage facilities include bridges, culverts, channels, curbs, gutters, and various types of drains. Road Diet 

conversions usually do not require significant changes in drainage design, as pavement widths and slopes remain relatively 

unchanged. AASHTO’s Highway Drainage Guidelines and Model Drainage Manual are two key drainage references used by 

designers.66, 67

Pedestrian Facilities. Road Diet conversions will not typically involve changes to the pedestrian sidewalk facilities outside the 

curb. They do benefit pedestrian performance in a number of other ways that have been noted throughout this document. For 

example, Road Diets may introduce the opportunity for on-street parking, creating a buffer between pedestrians and moving 

vehicles. The change in the roadway cross section also results in fewer travel lanes for pedestrians to cross. Separating opposing 

directions of travel by a TWLTL can provide space for a refuge island at pedestrian crossing locations, if necessary. Adding 

dedicated bike lanes to a roadway can positively impact pedestrians by getting bicyclists off the sidewalk and into the street. For 

any changes to the pedestrian facilities, including the addition of pedestrian refuge islands, designers can reference AASHTO’s 

Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities and the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines.

68, 69

Bicycle Facilities. Road Diets allow the addition or expansion of bicycle facilities. On roads where bicyclists previously shared 

lanes with motor vehicles or navigated between travel lanes and the edge of pavement, the opportunity to provide a separate 

facility arises. Where bicycle lanes already existed, the Road Diet presents an opportunity to provide even more separation by 

adding a painted buffer or a physical separation using parked cars, bollards, or curb. Bicycle lane widths should be determined 

based on context and anticipated use, including the speed, 

volume, and types of vehicles in adjacent lanes. AASHTO’s 

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities covers the design 

of these bicycle lanes.70 Under typical circumstances, the 

width of a one-way bicycle lane is 5 feet. A minimum width 

of 4 feet can be used on roadways with no curb and gutter. 

Wider bicycle lanes should be considered when feasible, and 

especially at locations with narrower parking lanes (e.g., 7 

feet), high bicycle volumes, and higher speed roadways or 

roadways with a significant number of larger vehicles. When 

7 feet or more is available for the bicycle facility, a buffered or 

protected bike facility should be considered. Typical bicycle 

lane cross sections are illustrated in Figure 20. The presence 

of a bicycle lane influences the recommended design of onstreet parking accommodations as well. 
Figure 20. Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections (Adapted from AASHTO)

Width Varies

Parking Lane

Travel Lanes Width Varies

Parking Lane

5-6 ft.

Bike Lane

5-6 ft.

Bike Lane

Optional Normal Solid White Line*

Normal Solid White Line

5-6 ft. Travel Lanes 

Bike Lane

5-6 ft.

Bike Lane

Normal Solid White Line

On Street Parking

Parking Prohibited

20 ft 20 ft 6 ft 8 ft

6 ft

Figure 21. Paired Parking Illustration 

35

On-street Parking. Road Diets provide the 

opportunity for parallel or diagonal on-street parking. 

The desirable minimum width of a parallel parking lane 

is 8 feet, as most vehicles will occupy approximately 

7 feet of actual street space when parallel parked. A 

parking lane width of 10 to 12 feet may be desirable 

to provide additional clearance from the traveled way 

and accommodate transit operations, though some 

jurisdictions have used parking lane widths as narrow 

as 7 feet, particularly where only passenger cars need 

to be accommodated in the parking lane.71 As noted, 

parallel parking lanes may also be separated from 

bicycle lanes by an optional solid white line. Where parallel parking and bike lanes are present, but a parking lane line or stall 

markings are not used, the recommended width of the shared bicycle and parking lane is 13 feet. In addition, practitioners could 

consider “paired parking” to reduce conflicts and delays with vehicle parking (see Figure 21).

The treatment of a parking lane approaching an intersection requires special consideration. If the lane is carried up to the 

intersection, right-turning vehicles may use it in the absence of parked vehicles, potentially leading to undesirable operations. 

However, keeping a parking lane can increase the effective corner radius for large right-turning vehicles. Other options include 

using a parking lane transition (i.e., a “bulb out,” as shown in Figure 22) or prohibiting parking a certain distance from the 

intersection.
Figure 22.Example Parking Lane Transition at Intersection (Adapted from AASHTO, 2011)

Property Line

22 to 26 ft 20 ft 8 ft 20 ft 8 ft

 No Parking

36

Bus Turnouts. One potential concern with a Road Diet installation is that stopped buses in the now-singular through lane block 

all downstream vehicles while loading and unloading. The paved width available with the installation of a Road Diet provides 

space for potential accommodations for bus operations (e.g., stopping, loading, unloading) away from the traveled way by using 

a turnout. Bus stop locations should provide about 50 feet in length for each bus. In some cases, there may be room to provide 

deceleration and entry tapers using a combination of pavement markings. A taper of about 5:1, longitudinal to transverse, is a 

desirable minimum. When the stop is on the near or far side of an intersection, the width of the cross street is generally adequate 

for merging back into traffic or diverging to the bus stop, respectively. 

Keep in mind, however, that most transit operators prefer in-lane stops versus turn-outs due to the difficulties of through lane 

ingress from the turn-out.

Bus stops located at the near side or far side of intersections provide pedestrian access from both sides of the street and 

connections to intersecting bus routes. The presence of curb extensions also facilitates passenger access. Additional discussion 

can be found in Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 19, Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops, ITE’s 

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, and agency guidance on bus stop placement and design. 

Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops provides additional information on the location and design of bus stops.72

Cross Section Transitions. The starting point and ending point of a Road Diet conversion may require a transition from or to 

a different cross section. The design of these locations is typically a function of the width of the lane to be dropped and the 

posted or design speed at the lane drop locations. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides additional detail. Taper 

ratios for lane additions are typically around 15:1, longitudinal to transverse. 

Another important decision with respect to the cross section transitions that are part of the Road Diet is the location of the 

transitions. Overall, continuity of the two through lanes and one TWLTL lane is important, and transition points should occur at 

locations where the only decision a driver needs to make is related to the lane drop or addition. The objective when selecting a 

transition point location is to minimize the complexity of the transition area and the number of decisions or potential conflicts 

that could occur while a driver is merging or diverging. For this reason, transitions should not occur at or near intersections 

or major driveways (within their influence area). The Iowa guidelines further propose that Road Diet conversions should be 

questioned if additional through lanes are needed at the signalized intersections along the corridor. This type of transition may 

have a negative result on safety and lessen the benefits of the Road Diet conversion. 
Figure 23. Transition from 3-lane to 2-lane Cross Section, Oak Street, Merrifield, VA 

Photo Credit: Virginia DOT

37

Some transitions are less complicated 

than others. For example, the transition 

from a two-lane undivided roadway to 

a three-lane roadway is relatively simple 

and straightforward (see Figure 23). The 

general concerns noted above about 

the selection of transition point locations 

should still be taken into account. The 

transition from a four-lane undivided to 

a three-lane roadway requires dropping 

the outside through lanes in advance of 

the complete cross section conversion. 

This type of transition requires closer 

attention and involves the potential 

for through-vehicle conflicts. Overall, 

the lane drop and the introduction of 

the TWLTL should be installed in close 

proximity to each other. The transition 

from a five-lane roadway to a three-lane 

roadway is a similar situation but the introduction of a new TWLTL is not necessary. The same issues will also be encountered 

when transitioning from a three-lane roadway to some other type of cross section. 

Overall, it is also important to look at the roadway cross sections near the end of the “project limits” for a Road Diet conversion. 

The overall objective is to minimize the number of transitions within a short distance. In other words, it may sometimes be 

more appropriate to extend the “project limits” to avoid this situation. Through lanes should also not be dropped as a turn lane 

at an intersection. This type of lane drop is not good design. It will often “catch” vehicles that want to continue through the 

intersection and drivers may then make inappropriate maneuvers.

4.1.5 Intersection Design

Basic principles of intersection design apply to intersections bordering or within the Road Diet area. Given the cross sectional 

change during Road Diet implementation, practitioners should perform a new operational analysis at each intersection (see 

Chapter 5). New lane arrangements and signal phasing are also possibilities, as discussed in other sections of this guide. The 

remainder of this section will include an overview of some design considerations for intersections bordering or within the Road 

Diet area with references to other documents as appropriate. 

Alignment and Profile of Intersection Approaches. Intersecting roads should meet at or nearly at right angles and the grades 

should be as flat as possible. These characteristics are likely predetermined at locations experiencing a Road Diet conversion, 

but designers should be aware of their negative effects on capacity, sight distance, and safety and look for opportunities to 

implement possible countermeasures.

Intersection Sight Distance. Check intersection sight distance at each intersection bordering or within the Road Diet area. 

Drivers of approaching vehicles should have an unobstructed view of the entire intersection as well as sufficient lengths along 

the intersecting road to allow the observance and avoidance of potential conflicts with other vehicles. Drivers of stopped 

vehicles should also have a sufficient view of the intersecting highway to decide when to enter (with a left or right turn) or cross 

it. These design objectives are achieved by providing sight triangles. Approach and departure sight triangles are discussed in 

detail in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. It is likely that the sight distance needs for minor streets 

intersecting the new three-lane cross section decrease following the Road Diet conversion due to entering vehicles needing to 

cross fewer lanes. Other sections of this document also note how available sight distance for vehicles turning left from the TWLTL 

is likely greater than that along a four-lane, undivided cross section. 
38

State Laws Regarding Driver Use of TWLTLs

Several states have enacted traffic laws that define and govern driver use of TWLTLs. The provisions of these laws vary 

widely, and most States do not appear to have enacted such traffic laws. Based on an Internet search of key terms 

related to “two way left turn lanes” and “center turn lanes”, the research team identified laws in 18 States that define and 

govern driver use of TWLTLs. Six types of laws were identified and are labeled “a” through “g” below. More than half of 

the 18 States specify the following:

- (a) Where a TWLTL is provided, motorists may not turn left from any other lane

- (b) Vehicle shall not be driven in a TWLTL except when preparing for or making a left turn/U-turn

Ten States have enacted laws that (c) limit the distance a motorist may travel in a TWLTL – either a specified maximum 

distance, or the shortest distance practicable and safe, as summarized in Table 6:

Table 6. Maximum Allowable Travel Distance in TWLTL 

Distance State

150 Feet Virginia

200 Feet California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island

300 Feet Georgia, Washington

500 Feet Missouri

Shortest practicable distance/safe distance Maryland, Tennessee

Four States have enacted laws that (d) stipulate that TWLTLs shall not be used for passing/overtaking another vehicle.

Tennessee is unique in passing laws that specify the following: 

- (e) When vehicle enters turn lane, no other vehicle proceeding in opposite direction shall enter that turn lane if that 

entrance would prohibit the vehicle already in the lane from making the intended turn

- (f) When vehicles enter the turn lane proceeding in opposite directions, the first vehicle to enter the lane shall have 

the right-of-way

 Arkansas is the only State to enact the following provision: 

- (g) It is permissible for vehicle making a left turn from an intersecting street or driveway to utilize TWLTL to gain access 

to or to merge into the traffic lanes, except not permissible to use the center left-turn lane as an acceleration lane

In terms of guidelines, the six types of TWLTL laws identified in the 18 States provide reasonable instructions to drivers 

and can help promote safe driver actions on corridors with TWLTLs. Although it is unclear what factors or data the 

States used to determine the maximum allowable travel distance in TWLTL, limiting the distance drivers are permitted 

to travel in TWLTLs– if not overly restrictive – can enhance safety by reducing opportunities for opposing-direction 

crashes, as well as crashes involving pedestrians that use TWLTLs as a crossing refuge. One concern about stipulating 

short maximum travel distances is the risk of failing to account for the need for drivers to decelerate from highway 

speeds when entering TWLTLs. 

Regardless of the specific TWLTL laws enacted, it is suggested that State driver manuals define proper use of TWLTLs, 

including information regarding laws that govern TWLTLs. 
39

Right Turn Lanes. With the Road Diet conversion, it may be possible and desirable to provide an exclusive lane for right-turning 

traffic. The delay impact of vehicles turning right should be evaluated and a decision made about whether a right-turn lane is 

needed. Some cases may require additional right-of-way or pavement width. The volume of turning vehicles and the types 

of vehicles to be accommodated govern the widths of turning roadways. Always consider pedestrian safety when deciding 

whether to add a right-turn lane at intersections. If the right-turn lane is free flow, yield controlled, or if right turn on red is 

allowed at the intersection, then pedestrians will be affected.

Turning radii are functions of turning speed and vehicle type. There are three types of designs for right-turning roadways at 

intersections: 1) minimum edge of traveled way, 2) design with a corner triangular island, and 3) free-flow design using a simple 

radius or compound radii. A detailed discussion is provided in AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 

Where pedestrians and bicyclists are present and trucks are only occasionally present, it may be desirable to use smaller turning 

radii to decrease the intersection area and reduce turning speeds.

However, the designer should analyze likely turning paths and encroachments when a larger vehicle does use the intersection 

and its effect on traffic operations and safety. Depending on truck volumes, the typical size of trucks using the intersection, and 

nearby truck traffic generators, practitioners should consider larger radii to accommodate these road users.

Driveway geometrics are also the focus of NCHRP 659 Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways.

73 The inside and outside turning 

radius of design vehicles should also be considered when the corridor being converted is not straight (e.g., the main designated 

route that is converted is two legs of an intersection that are at right angles to each other). Pavement marking and corner radii 

should be designed in combination to serve the left- and right-turn movement of the design vehicle at these locations. 

Roundabouts. A single-lane roundabout can be a good fit geometrically as part of a Road Diet installation. A roundabout will 

provide additional opportunities for improved safety by eliminating most angle and head-on crash types, and by reducing 

intersection operating speeds.

Care should be taken, however, regarding public reaction to installing a Road Diet and roundabout(s) on the same corridor. 

Depending on public sentiment, adding a roundabout to the discussion could create additional concerns from nearby residents, 

business owners, and road users if they are not familiar with navigating roundabouts. 

Bicycle Design Considerations. Where the Road Diet includes on-street bicycle lanes, intersection designs should be modified 

accordingly. The bicycle facility should be carried up to and through the intersection. Where right- turn lanes are added, lane 

markings will be needed to channelize and separate bicycles from right-turning vehicles. Additional considerations include 

provisions for left-turn bicycle movements, use of bicycle boxes, and bicycle-specific traffic signals. 

Details related to these intersection design features are contained in AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and 

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

Curb Ramp Design. Pedestrian facilities must also accommodate all users, including those with mobility, vision, cognitive and 

other impairments. Curb ramps must land within the width of the pedestrian street crossing they serve, and wholly outside the 

parallel vehicle travel lane. A distinct curb ramp should be provided for each crossing direction. Where possible, aligning the 

curb ramp with the direction of the crosswalk is preferred. Keeping the curb radius small, including a buffer space between the 

sidewalk and the curb, and adding curb extensions are all strategies that aid in being able to achieve two distinct ramps at a 

corner that are compliant with the design requirements per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Additional guidance on 

curb ramp design is available from the Draft Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. While these guidelines are still in draft 

form, they and their successors are considered to be the leading guidance on the subject.

Curb Extensions. On roadways with on-street parking, curb extensions at intersections can be added to shorten pedestrian 

crossing distances and make the pedestrian waiting at the corner more visible to drivers. Similarly, it gives the pedestrian a better 

view of oncoming traffic without having to step into the roadway. Curb extensions should only be used where on-street parking 

is permitted and should be slightly narrower than the parking lane, so that the extension is not bumping out into the traveled 

way for either bicyclists or motor vehicles. 
40

Other Pedestrian Design Considerations. Intersection design should facilitate safe and convenient crossings. Curb radii 

should be kept as low as practical in order to slow vehicle speeds as they turn. The radius will also impact the crossing distance, 

making it shorter as the radii get smaller. The addition of on-street parking or bicycle lanes may enable a smaller curb radii at 

intersections as the effective radius of the vehicle path gets larger with the separation from the curb that the parking and bike 

lanes provide. Additional discussion is provided in AASHTO’s Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities

and FHWA’s Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities.

4.2 Operational Design

The success of a Road Diet cross-section conversion is often based on whether the operation and safety of the roadway are 

maintained or improved for all road users. The operational impacts of a Road Diet conversion, as noted in previous chapters, can 

be relatively small if properly implemented in an appropriate location (e.g., a four-lane undivided roadway that already operates 

similar to a “de facto” three-lane roadway). Past experiences with this type of conversion, however, have also shown that there 

a number of decisions that users of these guidelines may want to consider closely before the design and implementation of a 

Road Diet conversion in order to increase its potential success. 

This section includes a brief description of some of the factors to consider in decisions related to:

• Cross section allocation

• Pedestrian crossings

• Signalization changes

• Transition points

• Pavement marking and signing

• Intersection design elements.

The list above should not be considered exhaustive. Each corridor will have its own unique issues and needs. Engineering 

judgment and expertise need to be applied to each corridor design in order to respond to these situations. In addition, not all 

of the situations listed above are applicable to every corridor. The objective of this section, however, is to discuss the subjects 

above; note what has been learned in the past about how or why they need to be addressed; and, if applicable, identify some 

of the resources that could be used to respond appropriately. This section assumes that the Road Diet conversion option has 

already been selected through the input and involvement of all road users, adjacent land owners, and the appropriate public 

agencies and jurisdictions.

4.2.1 Cross-Section Allocation

Road Diet conversions typically require the reallocation of the existing curb-to-curb or pavement-edge-to-pavement-edge 

distance, and the decision of how to allocate these distances can be complex. In fact, in many cases the Road Diet conversion 

option is selected because of its minimal impacts on the general “footprint” of the roadway and because there is typically no 

need for right-of-way acquisition (although spot locations of “widening” may occur). The reallocation of an existing cross section 

should take into account the objectives for the existing corridor as well as the needs of the road users it serves. In addition, 

practitioners must choose the type and width of each “lane.” The lane types along three lane roadways have included, but not 

been limited to, through lanes, TWLTLs, bike lanes, transit lanes, and parking lanes. Each corridor that is being converted should 

be individually evaluated and designed. Before installation, the TWLTL was used illegally for loading due to lack of other available 

space. Seattle DOT added “Load Zones” on Dexter Avenue in Seattle, Washington, to address delivery truck needs.

In NCHRP Report 282, the authors suggest that there are situations with high left-turn volumes and lower through volumes in 

which conversion of a four-lane, undivided roadway to a three-lane cross section might be accomplished without lowering 

“operational efficiency.”74 In NCHRP Report 330 the authors suggest an eight-step process to select curb-to-curb cross section 

design alternatives.75 Both documents discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different cross-section designs.
41

4.2.2 Crossing Pedestrians

In some cases, pedestrians crossing a three-lane (or five-lane) roadway may use the TWLTL as an unofficial refuge area, which 

may result in conflicts with motorists who do not expect to see pedestrians in that travel lane. This issue can be mitigated with 

pedestrian refuge islands. Pedestrian refuge islands should be used with caution, and care should be taken with their design, 

because they introduce a potential obstacle for vehicles in the TWLTL. 

Corner or midblock curb bulb outs can reduce the length of the pedestrian crossing, and this may also allow a reduction in 

signal timing to serve pedestrians. Care should be taken in the design of the bulb out. Bulb outs should not extend into the path 

of a bicyclist and, therefore, are best used in conjunction with on-street parking. Also consider the reduction in turning radius at 

intersections if a pedestrian bulb out is installed.

The addition of a pedestrian refuge island at an intersection may also result in the need for more pavement width. There are 

a number of other measures that can also be applied to improve the experience of crossing pedestrians. One reference that 

includes a discussion of several pedestrian crossing treatments at unsignalized locations is TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562 

Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (a guideline for pedestrian crossing treatments is in the appendix).76 Another 

resource that may be of value is the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities.

77 The FHWA 

webpage for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety also includes many resources – including an article entitled Proven Countermeasures 

for Pedestrian Safety in the March/April 2012 issue of Public Roads.

78

4.2.3 Intersection Control Changes

Re-evaluate traffic signal phasing and timing when converting a four-lane undivided roadway to three lanes. Perform an 

operational analysis to evaluate the acceptability of the potential impacts of the existing and proposed cross section and 

signalization on major and minor street vehicle and pedestrian delay and queue lengths. This evaluation should also consider 

the potential impact of heavy vehicles. In general, signal timing and phasing, along with the type and number of lanes on all 

intersection approaches, may need to be altered to minimize the operational impact of the Road Diet conversion. Specifically, 

mainline traffic may need additional green time due to the lane capacity reduction, especially during peak hours, to maintain 

mainline level of service. This could increase side-street delay during those time periods.

It is also important to adjust the positioning of the signal heads for a Road Diet conversion so the signal heads align with the 

new lane configuration, and there is a minimum of one signal head installed over each traffic lane. The reader is referred to the 

signalization information in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), particularly Part 4, which focuses on highway 

traffic signals and includes a discussion of pedestrian controls. The signing needed for signalized locations is also contained in 

the MUTCD. Another document that may be of value to the readers is the FHWA Signalized Intersections Informational Guide. The 

FHWA intersection safety website also includes a number of resources.

Experience has indicated that it may not be appropriate to complete a Road Diet conversion when new signalization locations 

are needed along the same corridor. This is especially true if a Road Diet conversion is a new option within a jurisdiction. In 

general, it is important for the road users to understand what type of delays, if any, may be due to the Road Diet conversion. The 

source of additional delays is not clear when a Road Diet conversion is implemented along with new signalization location(s). 

Each corridor is unique, however, and the success of a Road Diet conversion is based on the objectives for each roadway. The 

two improvements might also be implemented separately (e.g., the signalization could be done before or after the Road Diet 

conversion). 

Roundabouts can be considered as well. In some cases a mini-roundabout will fit within the existing right-of-way and footprint 

of the previously stop-controlled or signalized intersection. Roundabouts can provide operational improvements to the 

intersection by reducing queues and providing more consistent flow. Additional information is available in NCHRP Report 672, 

Roundabouts Informational Guide, 2nd Edition.
42

4.2.4 Pavement Marking and Signing

The signing and markings for a three-lane roadway should follow the requirements and suggestions in the MUTCD. Many of 

the parts in the current MUTCD apply to three-lane roadways (e.g., Parts 2, 3, 4, 9). These parts focus on signing (e.g., regulatory, 

warning, and guide), pavement markings (e.g., lane lines, edge lines, and the TWLTL), signals, bicycles, and pedestrians. It is 

necessary to provide proper pavement markings and signing for, among other things, the TWLTL, right-turn lanes, pedestrian 

crossings, and refuge islands. 

Pavement markings can also be used to properly position both stopped and turning vehicles so they can safely make turning 

maneuvers. The proper positioning (e.g., at a stop line) and turning radius of the design vehicle should be considered. Edge 

lines and/or parking space pavement markings may also sometimes be used to position through vehicles. Finally, if a Road Diet 

conversion only involves the re-marking of lane lines along an existing roadway cross section, it is extremely important that the 

old pavement markings are completely removed. More than one Road Diet conversion has resulted in unintended consequences 

and driver confusion because “ghost markings” (remnants of paint or other material) remained after implementation. 

4.2.5 Intersection Design Elements

Intersection design guidance may also be found in the AASHTO Green Book and local or State roadway design guidance 

documents. The guidance contained in these documents should be followed when designing a three-lane roadway. Agencies 

considering a Road Diet may want to consider several intersection design elements, including traffic signalization, corner radii, 

and offset intersections.

Traffic Signalization. The signalization discussion in this chapter noted that timing, phasing, and approach lane arrangements 

may need to be adjusted with a Road Diet conversion. Minor street volumes are a critical input to this activity. More generally, the 

potential impacts of the conversion on traffic entering and exiting all minor streets and driveways need to be closely evaluated. 

The delay and queuing changes that may occur due to changes in signalization timing and phasing, and the availability of 

adequate gaps for minor street or driveway traffic (at unsignalized locations), should be well understood. Practitioners should 

quantify and compare any additional delays and queues to what is considered acceptable along the corridor of interest. The 

delay, safety, and through-vehicle impacts of vehicles backing on to the converted roadway should also be discussed. 

Corner Radii. Corner radii and right-turn lanes are both part of intersection design. Right-turn lanes may need to be added 

along three-lane roadways at intersections and major driveways. Evaluate the delay impact of vehicles turning right and decide 

if a right-turn lane is needed. Some cases may require additional right-of-way or pavement width. Practitioners should consider 

the radii or turning radius of the design vehicle at each corridor intersection and driveway. The AASHTO Green Book includes 

information about the proper design of turn lanes and corner radii. Driveway geometrics are also the focus of NCHRP 659, Guide 

for the Geometric Design of Driveways.

79 The inside and outside turning radius of design vehicles should also be considered when 

the corridor being converted is not straight (e.g., the main designated route that is converted is two legs of an intersection that 

are at right angles to each other). Design pavement markings and corner radii in combination to serve the left- and right-turn 

movement of the design vehicle at these locations.
Figure 24.Offset Driveways Causing Conflict Points in the TWLTL 

Source: FHWA-SA-10-002

43

Offset Intersections and Driveways. Lastly, it is important to understand the impact of offset intersections and high-volume 

driveways on turning and through traffic. Operational and safety concerns may be introduced if there is a significant amount 

of “through” traffic on an offset minor street or major driveways. If the offset is oriented so that the minor street or driveway 

“through” vehicles turn right onto the main roadway, there is a greater possibility that opposing vehicles may want to travel in 

the TWLTL for an intersection or driveway offset distance. This situation occurs when one of the minor street vehicles entering 

the mainline may stop in the TWLTL and negatively impact other vehicles or make another unsafe maneuver.80
44
45

Post-implementation evaluation of the Road Diet will determine safety, operational, and livability impacts. Impacts associated 

with roadway conversions include the following:

• Safety (e.g., crash frequency/type/severity, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts)

• Travel speeds (e.g., average travel time, mean/85th percentile speeds, percent of vehicles traveling at high speeds)

• Arterial level of service, delay, queuing

• Intersection operations (e.g., turn delays; v/c ratios; signal operations)

• Traffic volume, including diversion to parallel routes

• Corridor operations including transit operations and similar, the two-way left-turn lane operations, and the ability to evaluate 

“stopped traffic” in one through lane

• Pedestrian and bicycle safety and operations

• Economic impact / livability.

For example, Seattle DOT conducts follow-up studies after implementation to determine the effects on each treated corridor. 

Specifically, the department compares the before-and-after conditions for the following:81

• Volume of the principal street's peak hour capacity

• Speed and collisions

• Traffic signal level of service

• Volume of traffic on parallel arterials

• Travel times

• Bicycle volumes.

5.1 Safety Analysis of a Road Diet

The process of implementing significant (and often controversial) changes in roadway geometry such as Road Diets often 

incorporates a formal safety evaluation plan to assess crash effects and other safety impacts.

5.1.1 Data Needs

Practitioners typically use police-reported crashes for periods before and after changes have been implemented to conduct 

observational before-and-after studies. Typically a minimum of 3 years of crash data before and after treatment is preferred, 

although shorter time periods may be used to assess initial crash outcomes. Crash data can either come from State or local 

police agencies, State or local DOTs, or State DMV offices. In addition to crash data, traffic volume data is desirable to account 

for vehicle exposure, thus allowing the safety analysis to compute crash rates before and after treatment. Beyond crash studies, 

safety analysis can include field evaluations of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and bicycle-vehicle conflicts, in which case the data 

needs include well-defined and reliably collected observational measures of road user behavior. 

5 Determining if the Road Diet is Effective
46

Two basic types of observational evaluations are used to estimate associated safety impacts:82

Before-and-After Studies. Observational before-and-after studies are the most common approach used in safety effectiveness 

evaluation. An observational before-and-after study requires crash data and volume data from both before and after 

implementation. These studies can be conducted for any site where changes have been made; however, if a site was selected 

for an improvement because of an unusually high short-term crash frequency, evaluating this site may introduce the regressionto-the mean (RTM) bias. It is likely that even if no improvement was made, the crash experience would decrease (regress to the 

mean). Thus, RTM effects can be mistaken for the effects of crash countermeasures. Empirical Bayes techniques account for the 

effect of regression-to-the mean, but require appropriate statistical knowledge to apply.83 The Highway Safety Manual has been 

developed to assist practitioners and researchers to conduct robust observational before-after studies that provide results to 

support decision-making.84

Cross-Sectional Studies. Cross-sectional studies involve studying a treatment where there are few sites where a treatment 

was implemented, but there are many sites that are similar except they do not have the identified treatment. In some cases, 

evaluations have been performed only after the fact, and all data were not available for the performance measure during 

the before period. In such cases, cross-sectional studies may be necessary. These studies might also be necessary when the 

evaluation needs to account explicitly for effects of roadway geometrics or other related features by creating a CMF function 

rather than a single value for a CMF. Limitations exist when using a cross-sectional study; for example, confidence in the results 

may not be high since trends over time are not taken into account, and the inability to account for RTM, which threatens the 

validity of the results, especially if treated sites were selected because they were identified as high-crash locations. The Highway 

Safety Manual has been developed to assist practitioners and researchers to conduct robust cross-sectional studies.

5.1.2 Observational Before-and-After Studies of Road Diets

This section focuses on observational before-and-after studies, which are most applicable to State and local evaluations of Road 

Diet implementations. 

A before-and-after study is used to estimate the crash effects associated with implementation of a traffic safety measure such 

as a Road Diet. The change in crash occurrence is estimated from the change in crash frequency between the periods before 

and after the implementation of the Road Diet. Before-and-after safety analyses can also consider changes in crash rates, 

which account for estimated traffic volumes during the before and after periods. Crash outcomes associated with Road Diet 

implementation can include the following: 

• Change in the annual number of crashes on the corridor

• Change in the crash rate per million vehicle miles traveled

• Change in the severity of crashes that occur (e.g., percent of crashes that involve either any type of injury, or serious injuries)

• Change in certain targeted crash type(s) associated with Road Diet implementation

• Sideswipe

• Left-turn related

• Pedestrian-related or bicycle-related

• Right angle

• Changes in the number of crashes occurring during the peak-hours.
47

To account for changes in crashes unrelated to the safety treatment (e.g., overall traffic volume trends, changes in traffic laws, 

weather, economic conditions), a proper before-and-after study should incorporate an untreated comparison group that is 

similar in nature to the treatment group. For a before-and-after evaluation of a Road Diet, the comparison group might be 

comprised of one or more similar, untreated (four-lane, undivided) roads located in the same geographic region. 

When planning a comparison group before-and-after safety evaluation, it is important to include a sufficient number of crashes 

to enable the expected change in safety to be statistically detectable. Four variables impact the sample size requirements:

1. The size of the treatment group, in terms of the number of crashes in the before period

2. The relative duration of the before and after periods

3. The likely crash reduction (CR) value (expected crash reduction or desirable reduction)

4. The size of the comparison group in terms of the number of crashes in the before and after periods.

After the treatment and comparison sites have been identified and the before-and-after crash data assembled, the next step is 

to conduct the crash analysis. A number of methodologies and statistical procedures are available to analyze before-and-after 

crash data. These range in complexity and ease of use. Note that some basic forms of before-and-after studies (e.g., naïve before/

after, before/after with yoked pairs) are not recommended due to issues with the statistical soundness of results. 

Observational Before-and-After Evaluation Using a Comparison Group. Observational before-and-after studies can 

incorporate non-treatment sites into the evaluation by using a comparison group (or control sites). A comparison group typically 

consists of non-treated sites that are comparable in traffic volume, geometrics, and other site characteristics to the treated sites 

but which do not have the improvement being evaluated. Crash and traffic volume data should be collected for the same time 

period for both the treated sites and the comparison group.85

Safety data analysis statistical techniques are available to address regression-to-the-mean and other limitations of before-andafter evaluations. Regression-to-the-mean is the natural variation in crash data. If regression-to-the-mean is not accounted for, 

the conclusions of a before-and-after study could be erroneous. Many of the methods in the Highway Safety Manual account for 

regression-to-the-mean and can result in more effectively identifying the safety effect of installing a Road Diet on a particular 

corridor.86

Empirical Bayes (EB) Before-and-After Safety Evaluation Method. From the Highway Safety Manual, “[This] method can be 

used to compare crash frequencies at a group of sites before and after a treatment is implemented. The EB method explicitly 

addresses the regression-to-the-mean issue by incorporating crash information from other but similar sites into the evaluation. 

This is done by using a Safety Performance Function (SPF) and weighting the observed crash frequency with the SPF-predicted 

average crash frequency to obtain an expected average crash frequency.”87 Recommended data include 10-20 sites at which 

the treatment has been implemented, 3-5 years of before-installation crash and traffic volume data, 3-5 years of after-installation 

crash and traffic volume data, and Safety Performance Functions for the treatment site types.

5.1.3 Surrogate Measures of Safety for Road Diets

In addition to conducting formal safety assessments of Road Diets using data-driven analysis techniques based on pre- and postinstallation crash data, surrogate measures of safety can provide valuable feedback to State and local agencies regarding both 

actual and perceived safety outcomes. A surrogate measure of safety can provide information on the level of safety of a location 

or system using information other than crash data.
48

Traffic Conflicts. One such surrogate measure involves the analysis of traffic conflicts before and after Road Diets are 

implemented. A traffic conflict is defined as a traffic event involving the interaction of two or more road users, at least one of 

whom takes evasive action such as braking or swerving to avoid a collision.88 Examples of pedestrians taking evasive action to 

avoid crashes include pedestrians jumping back or running out of the way of an approaching vehicle. A traffic conflict survey is 

a systematic method of observing and recording traffic conflicts and other events associated with safety and operations. With 

regard to conducting conflict analyses for Road Diets, agencies might focus on before-after changes in the numbers/rates of 

rear-end conflicts, sideswipe conflicts, and motor vehicle conflicts involving pedestrians and bicyclists.

Speed. Both speed magnitude and speed variability can have an effect on safety and, in the absence of observational crash 

data, provide information to determine relative safety of the corridor. Because high travel speeds increase the risk of crashes as 

well as crash severity, it is important to determine whether Road Diets help to reduce speeding. Likewise, because inconsistent 

travel speeds between vehicles can increase the risk of rear-end and sideswipe crashes, it is important to determine whether 

Road Diets help to reduce speed variation.

Level of Comfort. Another surrogate measure of safety involves “level of comfort,” a subjective measure which is especially 

applicable for bicyclists and pedestrians for Road Diet projects. The concept of road user comfort in transportation engineering 

is not new. For example, the parameters used to establish the minimum horizontal curve radius are the maximum side friction 

factor and maximum rate of superelevation. Values for the maximum side friction factor are based on driver comfort, not on 

physical side friction supply and demand relationships. The result is a significant “margin of safety.”89 With regard to assessing 

the level of comfort for Road Diets, options include conducting systematic visual assessments of pedestrian and bicyclist 

interaction with motor vehicles and conducting interviews with sufficient samples of non-motorized road users. 

5.2 Operational Analysis

The operational effects of Road Diets have been summarized to some degree, but the research is limited to a relatively small 

number of publications. The literature shows that a properly located and designed Road Diet can result in maintained traffic 

operations. The general objective of this section will be to discuss ways in which Road Diet operation can be measured. 

5.2.1 Analyzing Vehicle Operations

Traffic Volumes. Before-and-after studies should examine if changes occur in daily traffic and peak hour traffic. Evaluate 

potential changes to determine if there was diversion as a result of a Road Diet installation or if variations from year to year 

may be the result of background traffic changes. A broader downturn in the economy may result in lower traffic volumes, but 

patterns going back several years should also be examined for longer-term trends.

Level of Service. Evaluate the level of service of arterial segments and intersections. The facility type that carries the most 

leverage is based on factors such as signal spacing and segment length. For intersections, the overall LOS should be considered, 

but the analysis should also drill down to determine how LOS changes for individual movements at an intersection approach. 

Consider the LOS guidelines for each jurisdiction when determining whether a certain level of vehicular LOS degradation is 

acceptable. This requires weighing safety benefits as well as improved LOS or QOS for pedestrians and bicyclists. Corridor LOS is 

generally determined by traffic flow. Intersection LOS is measured by average vehicle delay.

Speed. Practitioners should evaluate the actual speed change (if any) as a result of the Road Diet. Data are collected through the 

use of before-and-after speed studies using radar, tubes or a pace car. It is important to collect and compare average speed, 85th 

percentile speed and speed paces in 10 mph increments. This last group is important to determine if the number of high-end 

speeders has been reduced. 
49

Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Operation. The addition of a TWLTL will improve operations for through vehicles by removing 

turning vehicle from the through lane and reducing the uncertainty it causes. Left turning traffic may have additional delay since 

all through vehicles are in one lane, which could result in fewer gaps. This depends on gaps created by traffic signal timing, onstreet parking maneuvers, and vehicles stopping for pedestrians crossing the street. 

Queue Lengths. This measure is closely related to signalized intersection LOS described above. It may increase due to only one 

through lane, but this could be offset due to left turning vehicles no longer queuing in a through lane. Signal spacing needs 

to be considered so that queues do not extend to the upstream intersection. This may only be a concern for higher volume 

corridors with closely spaced signalized intersections. Modeling the before and after conditions can provide guidance as to 

expectations relating to vehicle queue lengths. Signalized intersections in the corridor may need to be re-timed to provide 

optimal progression. 

Trucks, Slow-Moving Vehicles, and Buses. Reducing the number of through lanes from two to one in each direction may 

create an impact if there are grade changes or if heavy vehicles such as buses, semi-trucks or farm equipment are present. Bus 

stop placement and the transit policy for whether or not to stop in-lane is also a consideration for Road Diet operation. Give 

special consideration to these heavy vehicles driving through a corridor and also using the Road Diet corridor circulation to side 

streets. This is described further in the section below. 

Turning Traffic. The Road Diet may make it easier for larger vehicles to make right turns with small curb radii by increasing the 

effective radius due to the addition of a bike lane. The vehicle mix needs to be considered for each location. Some intersections 

may not need to accommodate larger semi-truck traffic as they may only be present at such an infrequent interval that it is not 

an issue. The land use type and demand for smaller single unit type vehicles should also be considered.

5.2.2 Non-Motorized Operations

Non-motorized operations can be measured with respect to pedestrian accessibility and bicyclist use along the corridor. Three 

studies reported increased bicycle and pedestrian usage along the corridor after a Road Diet conversion.90, 91, 92

Pedestrian Wait Time. Study the wait time for pedestrians crossing at unsignalized intersections and pedestrian “comfort” with 

crossing the corridor. A before-and-after study of pedestrian crossing behavior can be challenging because many pedestrians 

may avoid crossing a four-lane undivided arterial due to the level of discomfort or perceived safety issues. Pedestrians may 

choose to cross exclusively at signalized intersections if there are few gaps in traffic. 

Vehicle Yield/Stop Compliance Rate for Pedestrians Crossing the Street. The Road Diet eliminates the risk of the “multiple 

vehicle threat” pedestrians can face when crossing two lanes of traffic traveling in the same direction. The term describes a 

scenario in which the first vehicle stops for the pedestrian but a vehicle in the second adjacent lane does not or fails to see the 

pedestrian in enough time to stop. The prevalence of this problem can be measured in the before and after conditions. 

Increased Bicyclist and Pedestrian Volumes. Pedestrians and bicyclists may avoid traveling on a four-lane undivided arterial 

due to discomfort or perceived safety concerns with no dedicated bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities. They may switch to a 

street that has been reconfigured due to increased comfort or perception of improved safety that clearly delineated bicycle lanes 

and pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, fewer lanes to cross, or pedestrian refuge islands) can provide. 

Some bicyclists may not find a bike lane adjacent to a vehicle lane comfortable enough, which is why the use of a buffered 

bicycle lane or protected lane is advisable when the street cross section provides enough room. The buffering can come in the 

form of either a painted barrier between the bike lane and the vehicle lane, a raised barrier, or, in some cases, by placing the bike 

lane against the curb and placing the parking lane between the bike lane and the vehicle through lane. 
50

5.2.3 Tools and Methods to Evaluate Impacts

Input Requirements. The data needed for this analysis consists of intersection turning movement counts, daily traffic volumes 

by direction, and operating speed information. If these volumes have been observed to create delay in the before condition, 

visually observe delays caused by mid-block, left-turning traffic at driveways. The physical characteristics and complexity of 

corridor determine how detailed the analysis should be; some corridors may only require corridor analysis while others will need 

analysis of signalized intersection operations. The traffic volume along the corridor, transit operations, and the number of access 

points will all help determine whether the analysis procedures presented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual are sufficient or 

whether a macro- (such as Synchro) or micro-level computer simulation (such as VISSIM) is needed to determine the projected 

outcome of a Road Diet. 

Output Provided. The output provided will depend on the tool used for analysis. The factors to consider depend on the type of 

analysis and the questions posed.

Complexities with Analyzing Three-lane Sections. The intersection analysis should be straightforward, but practitioners 

must ensure field conditions are accurately analyzed between signalized intersections, too. Some of the factors to consider are 

parallel parking maneuvers using a through lane, buses maneuvering into and out of a bus stop (whether it is along the curb or 

in the lane), left-turning vehicles (from stopping in the through lane to slowing to enter the two-way, left-turn lane), cross-street 

traffic looking for a gap to turn or cross the arterial, and pedestrians crossing the street at unsignalized intersections. It is helpful 

to observe the corridor operating conditions in the four-lane, undivided configuration to determine a “baseline” condition and 

see where existing conflict points are and what causes them prior to evaluating the corridor in the “after” condition to determine 

how overall conditions have changed.
51

The most common Road Diet involves converting an existing four-lane, undivided roadway segment to a three-lane segment 

consisting of two through lanes and a center two-way, left-turn lane (TWLTL). Road Diets can be used to address safety concerns 

with four-lane, undivided highways associated with relatively high crash rates as traffic volumes increase and as the inside lane 

is shared by high-speed and left-turning vehicles. The reduction of lanes allows the roadway cross section to be reallocated for 

other uses such as bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, or parking.90

The benefits of Road Diets include improved safety, traffic calming, and the opportunity to repurpose segments of the roadway 

to create on-street parking, bike lanes, or transit stops. Based on the history of safety studies presented in this guide, practitioners 

can expect a crash reduction of 19 to 47 percent after installing a Road Diet. Variables include pre-installation crash history, 

installation details, and the urban or rural nature of the corridor.

When planning for or designing a Road Diet, it is important to be aware of the opportunities and potential drawbacks that 

one type of treatment may have on other travel modes. When deciding whether a particular element is appropriate for an 

individual street, or whether a Road Diet in general is appropriate, the surrounding context should be taken into consideration, 

including the extended roadway network. Each decision will have to be made on a case-by-case basis and will depend on the 

desired operation of the street in question. Consider coordinating with non-motorized advocacy groups, transit agencies, freight 

stakeholders, and emergency responders as necessary to understand their needs through the design of a Road Diet. Common 

feasibility factors include the following:

• The need for improved safety for all road users

• A desire to incorporate context sensitive solutions and Complete Streets features

• Operational considerations, such as:

o Whether the existing roadway operates as a de facto three-lane roadway

o The need for reduced speed or traffic calming

o Average daily traffic

o Multimodal level of service

o Peak hour volumes and peak direction

o Turning volumes and patterns

o The presence of slow-moving or frequently stopping vehicles, such as transit, curb-side mail delivery, and others

• A desire to better accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit service

• Right-of-Way availability and cost

• The existence of parallel roadways, parallel parking, and at-grade railroad crossings.

• Public outreach, public relations, and political considerations.

6 Conclusion
52

Geometric and operational design features are important during the design of a Road Diet reconfiguration. Geometric design 

includes identifying details of the project in plan, profile, and cross-section. Important issues include overarching principles of 

design, design controls, design elements, cross-section design, intersection design, and consideration for all road users. The 

following list represents just a few of the geometric design considerations one should consider during the Road Diet design 

phase:

• Road functional classification

• Design vehicles, driver characteristics, and presence of non-motorized users

• Corridor sight distance, grade, horizontal curvature, and superelevation

• Cross-sectional elements, such as lane widths, cross slope, presence of curbs or shoulders, access management, and 

presence of on-street parking or bus turnouts

• Intersection design elements, such as alignment and profile of intersection approaches and intersection sight distance.

Practitioners must make a number of operational decisions as well, including cross-section allocation, pedestrian 

accommodations, signalization changes, transition points, and pavement marking and signing. As with any roadway treatment, 

data analysis and engineering judgment are required to determine whether a Road Diet is the most appropriate alternative in a 

given situation.

Once implemented, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the Road Diet. This typically occurs through studying preand post-installation crash data, operating speeds, and operational level of service. Additional tools and methods, both specific 

and general, should be used to evaluate conversion impacts, including the following:

• Safety (e.g., crash frequency/type/severity, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts)

• Travel speeds (e.g., average travel time, mean/85th percentile speeds, percent of vehicles traveling at high speeds)

• Arterial level of service, delay, queuing

• Intersection operations (e.g., turn delays; volume/capacity ratios; signal operations)

• Traffic volume, including diversion to parallel routes

• Corridor operations including transit operations and similar, the two-way left-turn lane operations, and the ability to evaluate 

“stopped traffic” in one through lane

• Pedestrian and bicycle safety and operations

• Economic impact / livability.

In conclusion, a Road Diet can be a low-cost safety solution when the installation is coordinated with scheduled pavement 

marking modifications or planned in conjunction with reconstruction or simple overlay projects. Road Diets have the potential 

to solve a number of traffic operations and safety issues and to incorporate non-motorized users when applied at the most 

appropriate locations.
53

Appendix A – Road Diet Safety Assessment Studies

The following table provides an overview of recent Road Diet safety analyses, including the number of treatment sites, traffic 

volume, and key safety results. Following that are synopses for each reference.

Reference Treatment Sites ADT Key Safety Results

FHWA, 2010 45 sites in California, Iowa, and 

Washington

3,718 to 26,376 Iowa data: 47% reduction in total 

crashes

California and Washington data: 19% 

reduction in total crashes

Combined data: 29% reduction in total 

crashes

Noyce et al., 2006 7 treatment sites throughout Minnesota 8,900 to 17,400 Traditional before-after approach: 42-

43% reduction in crashes. 

Yoked/group comparison analysis: 37% 

reduction in total crashes and 47% 

reduction in crash rates.

EB approach: 44% reduction in total 

crashes.

Pawlovich et al., 2006 15 treatment sites throughout Iowa 4,766 to 13,695 25.2% reduction in crash frequency per 

mile; 18.8% reduction in crash rate.

Li and Carriquiry, 2005 15 treatment sites throughout Iowa 3,007 to 15,333 29% reduction in the frequency of 

crashes per mile; 18% reduction in the 

crash rate. 

Huang et al., 2003 12 treatment sites in California and 

Washington

10,179 to 16,070 6% reduction in total crashes relative to 

control; no reduction in crash rate. 

Lyles et al., 2012 24 treatment sites throughout Michigan 3,510 to 17,020 9% reduction in total crashes (nonsignificant).

Stout, 2005

Stout et al., 2005

Stout (year unknown)

11 to 15 treatment sites in various Iowa 

cities

2,000 to 17,400 21 to 38 percent reduction in total 

crashes; similar reduction in crash rates.

Clark, 2001 One treatment site in Athens-Clarke 

County, GA

18,000 to 20,000 52.9% reduction in total crashes; 51.1% 

reduction in crash rate (first 6 months).

City of Orlando, 2002 One treatment site in Orlando, FL 18,000 to 20,000 34% reduction in crash rate; 68% 

reduction in injury rate (first 4 months).

Preston, 1999 Minnesota Not Provided 27% lower crash rate on three-lane roads 

than on four-lane undivided roadways 

(cross-sectional comparison – not a 

before-after study)
54

The table below provides additional details for these Road Diet safety assessments.

Reference FHWA. 2010. Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes. FHWA Report No. FHWAHRT-10-053.

Location 45 treatment sites in California, Iowa, and Washington

ADT 3,718 – 26,376

Safety Analysis Method The empirical Bayes (EB) methodology was used to estimate the change in total crashes. 

Reported Safety Effects The EB evaluation of total crash frequency indicated a statistically significant effect of the Road Diet 

treatment in both data sets and when the results are combined. The Iowa data indicate a 47% reduction in 

total crashes while the California and Washington data indicate a 19% decrease. Combining both data sets 

results in a 29% reduction in total crashes.

Comments This is arguably the strongest crash-based evaluations of Road Diet implementation. 

Two likely reasons the results differ from the original Iowa results (below) is that the re-analysis involved a 

much larger reference group than was used in the original study, and the re-analysis provided more weight 

to longer sites (while the original study weighted all treatment sites equally regardless of length). 

Differences between the IA sites and those in CA/WA may be a function of traffic volumes and 

characteristics of the urban environments where the Road Diets were implemented. AADT for the IA sites 

ranged from 3,718 to 13,908 and were predominately on U.S. or State routes passing through small towns; 

AADT for the sites in CA and WA ranged from 6,194 to 26,376 and were predominately on corridors in 

suburban environments that surrounded larger cities.

Sites with lower crash reduction factors (CRFs) generally had higher traffic volumes, suggesting the 

possibility of diminishing safety benefits as traffic volumes increase. 

The authors recommended that the choice of which CRF to use should be based on characteristics of the 

site being considered. If the proposed treatment site is more like the small-town Iowa sites, then the 47% 

reduction found in IA should be used. If the treatment site is part of a corridor in a suburban area of a larger 

city, then the 19% reduction should be used. If the proposed site matches neither of these site types, then 

the combined 29% reduction is most appropriate.

Reference Noyce, D.A.; Talada, V.; and Gates T.J. 2006. Safety and Operational Characteristics of Two-Way Left-Turn 

Lanes. Minnesota DOT Report No. MN/RC 2006-25. 

Location 7 treatment sites throughout Minnesota 

ADT 8,900 – 17,400

Safety Analysis Method Crash data were first analyzed using traditional approaches involving a comparison of the before and after 

crashes. Crash data were also analyzed by yoked/group comparison analysis and the empirical Bayes (EB) 

approach. 

Reported Safety Effects The traditional before-and-after approach estimated a reduction in total crashes between 42 and 43%. 

A yoked/group comparison analysis found a 37% reduction in total crashes and a 46% reduction in PDO 

crashes (both statistically significant). The reductions in crash rates (per vehicle mile traveled) were 47% for 

total crashes and 45% for PDO crashes (both statistically significant).

The empirical Bayes (EB) approach estimated a 44% reduction in total crashes. 

Comments This is one of the stronger crash-based evaluations of Road Diet implementation, although the number of 

treatment sites (7) is small. One limitation of the authors’ use of the empirical Bayes (EB) approach involves 

the relatively small group of reference sites (17). By comparison, the EB analysis by FHWA (2010) summarized 

296 reference sites. 
55

Reference Pawlovich, M.D.; Li, W.; Carriquiry, A.; and Welch, T.M. 2006. Iowa’s Experience with “Road Diet” Measures: 

Impacts on Crash Frequencies and Crash Rates Assessed Following a Bayesian Approach. TR Record Issue 

Number 1953

Location 15 treatment sites throughout Iowa

ADT 4,766 to 13,695

Safety Analysis Method A before-and-after study implemented from a Bayesian perspective to assess crash history effects. The 

study used both monthly crash data and estimated volumes over 23 years (1982 to 2004). Crash data were 

analyzed at each site before and after the conversions were completed.

Reported Safety Effects Results indicate a 25.2% (23.2% to 27.8%) reduction in crash frequency per mile and an 18.8% (17.9% to 

20.0%) reduction in crash rate. The values in parentheses represent the 95% confidence interval. 

Comments This is a relatively strong crash-based evaluation of Road Diet implementation. The methodology is a 

refinement from the 2005 study by Li and Carriquiry.

Unlike the use of linear regression models to estimate expected crash frequencies, this study allowed 

for different slopes during the “before” and the “after” periods by including a change-point in the model 

and for the interaction of treatment and slope. As a result, the model allows for a slight increase in crash 

frequency during the months immediately preceding and following the conversion.

The number of comparison sites (15) is much smaller than the number of reference sites (296) used in the EB 

analysis performed by FHWA (2010). 

Reference Li, W. and Carriquiry, A. 2005. The Effect of Four-Lane to Three-Lane Conversion on the Number of Crashes 

and Crash Rates in Iowa Roads. Department of Statistics,

Iowa State University. 

Location 15 treatment sites throughout Iowa

ADT 3,007 – 15,333

Safety Analysis Method The authors assessed the effectiveness of the four to three lane conversion by comparing the average 

expected annual crash frequency per mile during years preceding and following the conversion at the site 

level and also as an average over all sites in each of the two groups (Road Diets and comparison sites).

Reported Safety Effects In general, with elapsed time, the expected number of crashes per mile at each site in the treatment group 

continues to decrease faster than the number at the corresponding paired site in the control group. 

For all treatment sites combined, the frequency of crashes per mile decreased an estimated 34.8%, from 23 

pre-treatment to 15 post-treatment, whereas the crash frequency per mile for control sites decreased 6.2%, 

from 16 pre to 15 post. This would suggest an estimated 29% net reduction in the frequency of crashes per 

mile associated with the Road Diet treatments.

For all treatment sites combined, the annual crash rate per 100MVMT decreased an estimated 43.9%, from 

792 pre-treatment to 442 post, whereas the crash rate for control sites decreased 25.5%, from 652 pre to 486 

post. This would suggest an estimated 18% net reduction in the crash rate per 100MVMT associated with 

the Road Diet treatments. 

Comments While the results suggest that traffic safety is significantly improved by converting four lane roads to three 

lanes, there was significant variability in crash numbers across sites. It is not clear how much of an impact 

the wide range in ADT (3,007 – 15,333) had on the overall safety analysis. The suitability of the control sites 

may be questionable given markedly lower crash frequencies and crash rates at the control sites compared 

with the treatment sites, pre-intervention. 
56

Reference Huang, H.; Stewart, J. R.; Zegeer, C.; and Tan Esse; C. 2003. How Much Do You Lose When Your Road Goes on 

a Diet? Submitted to the 2nd Urban Street Symposium. 

Location 12 treatment sites in California and Washington 

ADT 10,179 to 16,070 pre-conversion

Safety Analysis Method The authors conducted before-and-after analysis using a yoked comparison study of the Road Diet and 

comparison sites. Further analysis used a negative binomial model controlling for possible changes in ADT, 

study period, and other factors. 

Reported Safety Effects After accounting for trends at comparison sites, the number of crashes at Road Diet sites in the after period 

declined by about 6%. Crash rates, however, did not change significantly from the “before” period to the 

“after” period.

Comments Although the authors identified 30 Road Diets and 50 comparison sites in 8 cities, it is unclear why only 

12 treatment sites and 25 comparison sites were included in this paper. ADTs were not available for some 

treatment and comparison sites, and some of the ADTs were of “questionable accuracy.” The selection of 

comparison sites is a key function of the yoked comparison study design, and little information is provided 

regarding the criteria used to select comparison sites. 

Reference Lyles, R.; Siddiqui, M.A.; Taylor, W.; Malik, B.; Siviy, G.; and Haan, T. 2012. Safety and Operational Analysis of fourlane to three-lane Conversions (Road Diets) in Michigan. Michigan DOT Report Number RC-1555

Location 24 treatment sites throughout Michigan

ADT 3,510 – 17,020

Safety Analysis Method Simple before-and-after crash analysis adjusted for trends of an untreated comparison group. 

Reported Safety Effects Average CMFs, adjusted for citywide trends, were calculated across all 24 sites. The result was that the 

overall naïve (unadjusted) CMF was estimated as 0.63, and 0.91 after adjustment. While the best estimate of 

a usable CMF is 0.91, this is not statistically different from 1.0 and is an average across all sites. Perhaps more 

importantly, there is a great deal of variation from site to site.

Comments The analysis was limited by the fact that good/acceptable comparison sites could be identified for only a 

few of the 24 sites. The authors caution that Road Diets should not be “oversold” with respect to expected 

benefits, especially safety benefits. Actual benefits of a Road Diet can vary significantly by site.

Reference Stout, T.B. 2005. Before and After Study of Some Impacts of Four-lane to Three-lane Roadway Conversions. 

Unpublished paper: Iowa State University.

Stout, T.B; Pawlovich, M.; Souleyrette, R.R.; and Carriquiry, A. 2005. Safety Impacts of “Road Diets” in Iowa. 

Unpublished paper: Iowa State University.

Stout, T.B. Year unknown. Matched Pair Safety Analysis of Four-Lane to Three-Lane Roadway Conversions In 

Iowa. Unpublished paper: Iowa State University.

Location Various Iowa cities

ADT 2,000 – 17,400

Safety Analysis Method Before-and-after study using yoked comparison pairs and a comparison to the cities in which the sites were 

located. 

Reported Safety Effects The three sets of analyses examined before-and-after changes at largely the same group of converted sites, 

with some additional locations added with the passage of time. The studies reported reductions in crash 

frequency that ranged from 21 to 38 percent. The studies reported somewhat similar reductions in crash 

rates, as well as reductions in the numbers of crashes related to left turns and stopped traffic.

Comments The studies reported a greater difference in crash reduction between the study segments and the yoked 

segments than was found between the study segments and the citywide data, which the author(s) 

attributed to greater variation in the changes in crashes in the yoked segments. The implied degree of 

effectiveness for the yoked comparison was larger than for the citywide comparisons, and according to the 

author, might be an artifact of the selection of the yoked segments.

The methodology did not account for possible regression-to-mean effects, and no tests of statistical 

significance were provided.
57

Reference Clark, D.E. 2001. Road Diets: Athens-Clarke County’s Experience in Converting Four-lane Roadways into 

Three-lane Roadways. Washington DC. Proceedings of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual 

Meeting. 

Location One treatment site in Athens-Clarke County, GA

ADT 18 – 20K

Safety Analysis Method Simple before-and-after

Reported Safety Effects During the first 6 months after the change in lane configuration there were 40 reported crashes along the 

treated corridor compared with 85 crashes during the same 6 month period for the previous year. That 

corresponds to a 52.9% reduction. Crashes per million vehicles declined 51.1%, from 19.74 to 9.65.

Comments The results of this study support other studies that show safety benefits associated with Road Diet 

implementation, but the relatively short post-intervention period and the lack of robust safety analysis 

methodology limit the utility of these findings. 

Reference City of Orlando. 2002. Edgewater Drive Before & After Re-Striping Results. City of Orlando - Transportation 

Planning Bureau. 

Location One treatment site in Orlando, FL

ADT 18 – 20K

Safety Analysis Method Simple before-and-after

Reported Safety Effects During the first 4 months after the change in lane configuration the annualized crash rate per MVM declined 

34%, from 12.6 (for 3 years preceding implementation) to 8.4. The injury rate per MVM declined 68%, from 

3.6 to 1.2 (for the same time periods). 

Comments The results of this study support other studies that show safety benefits associated with Road Diet 

implementation, but the relatively short post-intervention period and the lack of robust safety analysis 

methodology limit the utility of these findings. 

Reference Preston, H. 1999. Access Management – A Synthesis of Research. Report MN/RC – REV 1999-21. Minnesota 

Department of Transportation.

Location Minnesota 

ADT N/A

Safety Analysis Method This was not a before-and-after study. The author presents a simple cross-sectional comparison using 1991-

1993 statewide crash data.

Reported Safety Effects The crash rate per Million VMT for urban four-lane undivided roads was 6.75 versus a crash rate of 4.96 for 

three-lane roads. This comparison suggests that three-lane roads have a crash rate that is 27% lower than 

the rate for four-lane undivided roadways. 

Comments The number of miles of three-lane roads was small – 14 miles, versus 299 miles of four-lane undivided roads. 

The simple cross-sectional comparison does not take into account many confounding factors such as speed 

limits, pedestrian activity, land use, intersection spacing, driveway access, etc. 
58
59

Appendix B – Feasibility Determination Factors, Characteristics, and Sample Evaluative Questions

Factor Characteristics Sample Evaluative Questions

Roadway Function and 

Environment

• Actual, Expected, and Desired Primary 

Function (Access, Mobility, or a Combination 

of the Two)

• Community Objectives or Goals for the 

Roadway

• Available Right-of-Way

• Current and Expected Adjacent Land Use

• Jurisdictional Plan or Policy for Conversions

• Jurisdictional Context Sensitive or Complete 

Street Policy

• What is the primary current, expected, and desired 

function of the roadway?

• Is the roadway primarily a collector or minor arterial 

roadway?

• Does the current roadway primarily operate as a “de 

facto” three-lane cross section?

• Is the goal for the roadway improvement increased 

safety with somewhat lower mobility?

• Is the right-of-way limited?

• Will the adjacent land use remain relatively stable 

throughout the design period?

• Will the proposed cross section match the desired 

function of the roadway?

• Will the answers to the above questions remain the 

same throughout the design period of the project?

• Does the jurisdiction have a plan or policy related to 

these types of conversions?

• Does the jurisdiction have a context sensitive or 

Complete Streets policy that may apply?

Crash Types and Patterns • Type of Crashes

• Location of Crashes

• Number and Location of Pedestrians and 

Bicyclists

• Parallel Parking Needs

• Can the crashes that are occurring be reduced with a 

conversion?

• Will a reduction in speed and speed variability increase 

safety?

• Are there safety concerns related to parallel parking 

maneuvers?

• Do pedestrians and bicyclists have safety concerns?

Pedestrian and Bike 

Activity

• Number and Location of Pedestrians

• Number and Location of Bicyclist Use

• Characteristics of Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

(e.g., Age)

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Friendliness of 

Roadway

• Cross-section Width

• Parallel Parking Need

• Bus Stop Locations

• What is the pedestrian and bicyclist friendliness of the 

roadway?

• Do pedestrians and bicyclists have safety concerns?

• Will the addition of a TWLTL assist pedestrians and 

bicyclists?

• How will pedestrians and bicyclists interact with parallel 

parking?

• Can a bike lane be added after the conversion?
60

Factor Characteristics Sample Evaluative Questions

Overall Traffic Volume and 

Level of Service

• Total Daily Volume

• Peak-Hour Volume (Morning/Noon/Evening)

• Directional Split

• Intersection and Arterial Level of Service

• Side Street and Driveway Vehicle Delay

• Volume of Frequent-Stop or Slow-Moving 

Vehicles

• Vehicle Classification

• Signal Timing or Phasing

• Arterial Travel Speeds and Vehicle Delays

• Existence of Turn Lanes

• What is an acceptable increase in minor street or signalrelated delay due to the conversion?

• Is a decrease in arterial travel speed of 5 mph or less 

acceptable?

• What is an acceptable reduction in intersection level of 

service?

• What level of daily traffic volume and peak hour exists or 

is expected in the design year? 

• Does the signal timing or phasing need to be changed?

• Does the current roadway primarily operate as a “de 

facto” three-lane cross section?

• What is the potential impact during off-peak hours?

Turning Volumes and 

Patterns

• Number and Location of Turn Volumes and 

Access Points

• Peak Time Period of Turn Volumes

• Existence of Left-Turn and Right-Turn Lanes

• Design of Access Points and Intersections

• Turn Volume of Frequent-Stop or SlowMoving Vehicles

• Minor Street and Access Point Vehicle Delay

• Signal Timing or Phasing 

• Does the signal timing or phasing need to be changed 

or optimized?

• How important is it that right-turning vehicles quickly 

enter or exit the roadway?

• Do the access point and intersections need to be 

redesigned (e.g., radii, approach slopes, location)?

• Are right-turn lanes needed at particular locations?

• Does the proposed marking allow the design vehicle 

(e.g., tractor-trailer) to turn properly?

• What is an acceptable increase in minor street vehicle 

delay and left-turning vehicle delay?

• Does the current roadway primarily operate as a “de 

facto” three-lane cross section?

Frequent-Stop and/or 

Slow-Moving Vehicles 

• Volume, Location, and Time of Frequent-Stop 

and/or Slow-Moving Vehicles

• Type, Design (Length, Width, Turning Radius, 

etc.) and Speed of Vehicles

• Arterial Travel Speeds and Vehicle Delays

• Level of Enforcement for Proper TWLTL Use 

(i.e., No Passing Allowed)

• What is the acceptable delay with respect to frequentstop and/or slow-moving vehicles?

• Can these vehicles turn properly at the access points 

and intersections?

• Can passing prohibitions be feasibly enforced?

• Are there locations for pull-outs for these vehicles?

• Can some or all of the stop locations for the frequentstop vehicles be combined?

• What are the potential peak and off-peak impacts?
61

Factor Characteristics Sample Evaluative Questions

Weaving, Speed, and 

Queues

• Signal Timing or Phasing

• Number of Existing Lane Changes

• Turn Volume and Location

• Arterial Travel Speeds and Vehicle Delays

• Level of Enforcement for Proper TWLTL Use 

(i.e., No Passing Allowed)

• Number and Location of Turn Volumes and 

Access Points

• Peak Time Period of Turn Volumes

• Existence of Left-Turn and Right-Turn Lanes

• Design of Access Points and Intersections

• Turn Volume of Frequent-Stop or SlowMoving Vehicles

• Minor Street and Access Point Vehicle Delay

• Queue Length

• Number of Speeders

• Does the signal timing or phasing need to be changed 

or optimized?

• How important is it that right-turning vehicles quickly 

enter or exit the roadway?

• Do the access point and intersections need to be 

redesigned (e.g., radii, approach slopes, location)?

• Are right-turn lanes needed at particular locations?

• What is an acceptable increase in minor street and leftturning vehicle delay?

• Is a decrease in arterial travel speed of 5 miles per hour 

or less acceptable?

• What is an acceptable change in queues?

• Are there safety concerns related to weaving?

• Can no passing be enforced?

• Can drivers be educated about proper use of TWLTL?

• Is a reduction in speeders and speed variability 

preferred?

• Can all the old markings be completely removed?

• Does the current roadway primarily operate as a “de 

facto” three-lane cross section?

Right-of-Way Availability, 

Cost, and Acquisition 

Impacts

• Available Right-of-Way

• Cost of Right-of-Way

• Existence of Left-Turn and Right-Turn Lanes

• Design of Access Points and Intersections

• Number of Properties Needed and 

Environmental Impacts (e.g., Tree Removal)

• Cross Section Width

• Parallel Parking Needs

• Is the right-of-way limited?

• Will the cost of right-of-way acquisition be significant?

• Do the access point and intersections need to be 

redesigned (e.g., radii, approach slopes, location)?

• Are right-turn lanes needed at particular locations?

• What is necessary in the cross section (e.g., bike lane, 

parallel parking, etc.)?

General Characteristics

Parallel Roadways • Roadway Network Layout

• Volume and Characteristics of Through 

Vehicles Diverted

• Impact of Diversion on Parallel Roadways

• Is a decrease in arterial travel speed of 5 miles per hour 

or less acceptable?

• Does the signal timing or phasing need to change or be 

optimized?

• Will conversion divert through vehicles to parallel 

roadways?

• Is it possible to avoid or reroute the diverted traffic?

• What is the impact on the parallel roadway 

environment?
62

Factor Characteristics Sample Evaluative Questions

Offset Minor Street 

Intersections

• Volume and Time of Left Turns

• Queue Lengths

• Distance between Minor Street Approaches

• Do left turns occur into both minor street and access 

point approaches at a similar time?

• Are the left-turn volumes significant?

• Will the left-turn volumes produce queues in the 

through lanes of a three-lane roadway?

Parallel Parking • Parallel Parking Needs

• Number of Parking Maneuvers

• Operational and Safety Impacts of Parallel 

Parking

• Design of Existing or Proposed Parallel 

Parking

• Does parallel parking exist?

• How many parking maneuvers occur during peak travel 

times?

• What are the safety and delay concerns related to 

parallel parking maneuvers?

• Is it possible to design these spaces for easy entry or exit 

(i.e., to minimize delay)?

• Will it be necessary to reduce the number of parking 

spaces?

• Does parallel parking reduce the ability of vehicles to 

turn in and out of minor streets and access points?

Corner Radii • Design of Access Points and Intersections

• Number and Location of Turn Volumes and 

Access Points

• Peak Time Period of Turn Volumes

• Existence of Left-Turn and Right-Turn Lanes

• Turn Volume of Frequent-Stop or SlowMoving Vehicles

• Minor Street and Access Point Vehicle Delay

• How important is it that right-turning vehicles quickly 

enter or exit the roadway?

• Do the access points and intersections need to be 

redesigned (e.g., radii, approach slopes, location)?

• Are right-turn lanes needed at particular locations?

• Does the proposed marking allow the design vehicle 

(e.g., tractor-trailer) to turn properly?

• Do parallel parking spaces need to be removed to allow 

proper turning?

At-Grade Railroad 

Crossing

• Volume, Location, and Time of Train Crossing

• Length of Crossing Train

• Delay Impacts of Train Crossing

• Queue Impacts of Train Crossing

• Total Daily Vehicle Volume

• Peak-Hour Vehicle Volume (Morning/Noon/

Evening)

• Directional Split of Vehicles

• Do trains cross during peak travel periods? 

• What is the typical delay from a train crossing?

• Is double the current queue length (with four-lane 

undivided cross section) at a railroad at-grade crossing 

acceptable?

• Is there a nearby parallel at-grade intersection where 

impacts may need to be mitigated?

Adapted from Knapp, Welch, and Witmer, 1999.
63

1. FHWA, “Proven Safety Countermeasures” web page. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/index.htm

2. FHWA “Proven Safety Countermeasures, ‘Road Diet’ (Roadway Reconfiguration),” FHWA-SA-12-013 (Washington, DC: 2012). 

Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.htm

3. Stamatiadis, N et al. “Guidelines for Road Diet Conversions.” 2011. 

Available at: http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/guidelines_for_road_diet_conversion_stamatiadis.pdf

4. Rosales, J., Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, 2006.

5. Rosales, 2006.

6. Harwood, D.W. NCHRP 282: Multilane Design Alternatives for Improving Suburban Highways, (Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, March 1986).

7. Knapp, K., T. Welch, J. Witmer. Converting Four-Lane Undivided Roadways to a Three-Lane Cross Section: Factors to Consider.

8. Nemeth, Z.A., “Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes: State-of-the-Art Overview and Implementation Guide.” Transportation Research Record 681 (1978): 62-69.

9. Pawlovich, M., W. Li, A. Carriquiry, and T. Welch, Iowa’s Experience with “Road Diet” Measures: Impacts on Crash Frequencies and Crash Rates Assessed 

Following a Bayesian Approach, 2005.

10. Harkey, D., R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, NCHRP 617: Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements. (Transportation Research Board: 

Washington, DC, 2008). Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_617.pdf

11. FHWA “Proven Safety Countermeasures, ‘Road Diet’ (Roadway Reconfiguration),” FHWA-SA-12-013 (Washington, DC: 2012). 

Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_013.htm

12. FHWA “Evaluation of Lane Reduction ‘Road Diet’ Measures on Crashes.” FHWA Report No. FHWA-HRT-10-053”. (Washington, D.C: 2010)

13. Stout, Thomas B., Before and After Study of Some Impacts of 4-Lane to 3-Lane Roadway Conversions. March 2005.

14. FHWA, Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide – Providing Safety and Mobility. FHWA-RD-01-102 (Washington, DC: 2001). 

Available at http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedFacility_UserGuide2002.pdf

15. FHWA, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines, FHWA-RD-01-075 

(Washington, DC: 2001).

16. Garder P, “Pedestrian safety at traffic signals: a study carried out with the help of a traffic conflicts technique.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 21: 435–444.

17. FHWA Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty. “Livability Initiative” web page. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/

18. FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, Median and Pedestrian Crossing Islands in Urban and Suburban Areas, Washington, DC, 2012.

19. Welch, T. The Conversion of Four Lane Undivided Urban Roadways to Three Lane Facilities. 1999.

20. Knapp, K., K. Giese, Guidelines for the Conversion of Urban Four-Lane Undivided Roadways to Three-Lane Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Facilities, 2001.

21. FHWA, “Context Sensitive Solutions” web page. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/what.cfm

22. FHWA, “Principles of Context Sensitive Design” web page. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/qualities.cfm

23. Knapp, Welch, and Witmer, 1999.

24. Knapp, Welch, and Witmer, 1999.

25. Knapp and Giese, 2001, p. 66.

26. Gates, T., et al., The Safety and Operational Effects of "Road Diet" Conversions in Minnesota, 2007, pp. 65-66.

27. City of Orlando, Edgewater Drive Before & After Re-Striping Results, 2002, p. 2.

28. Gates et al., 2007, pp. 69.

29. Gates et al., 2007, pp. 67.

30. Chu, X. and M. Baltes, “Measuring Pedestrian Quality of Service of Midblock Street Crossings,” Paper No. 03-5045, Transportation Research Record 1828

(2004): 89-97.

31. McLeod, D.S. “Multimodal Arterial Level of Service,” Transportation Research Circular E-C018 (2000): 221-233.

32. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C.: 2010), p. 16-7. 

33. Knapp and Giese, 2001, p. 39.

34. Knapp and Giese, 2001, p. 51.

35. Stamatiadis et al., 2011, p. 29.

36. Gates, T., D. Noyce, V. Talada, L. Hill, Safety and Operational Characteristics of Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes, 2006, p. 25.

37. Knapp, K., K. Giese, and W. Lee, Urban Four-Lane Undivided to Three-Lane Roadway Conversion Guidelines, 2003.

38. Knapp, Welch, and Witmer, 1999.

39. Knapp, Welch, and Witmer, 1999.

40. Knapp, Giese, and Lee, 2003.

41. The League of American Bicyclists, “Road Diets Now Proven Safety Measure; Q&A with FHWA Associate Administrator Furst,” News from the League, 

February 6, 2012. Available at: http://www.bikeleague.org/content/road-diets-now-proven-safety-measure-qa-fhwa-associate-administrator-furst

42. Rosales, 2006.

43. New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, "Complete Streets Fact Sheet," New York, 2012.

44. New York State Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, "Complete Streets Fact Sheet 2.0," New York, 2014.

45. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Regional Road Diet Analysis Feasibility Assessment. 2008.

46. Tan, C., “Going on a Road Diet,” Public Roads, Sept/Oct 2011. 

References
64

47. In-person meeting with Tracie Leix, P.E., Safety Programs Unit Manager, Michigan Department of Transportation. March 20, 2013. 

48. Interview with Christopher Zull, Traffic Safety Manager, and Carissa McQuiston, Traffic Engineer, City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, on March 20, 2013.

49. Interview with Andrew Kilpatrick, Transportation Engineer, City of Lansing, Michigan, March 22, 2013.

50. Research team interview with Derek Bradshaw and Jason Nordberg, Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Michigan. March 21, 2013.

51. FHWA, Flexibility in Highway Design. (Washington, DC: 2012)

52. AASHTO, A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, 1st Edition, 2004.

53. FHWA, “Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility,” August 20, 2013. 

Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/design_flexibility.cfm

54. New Jersey Department of Transportation and Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Smart Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing 

Highways and Streets that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities, 2008.

Available at: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/mobility/pdf/smarttransportationguidebook2008.pdf

55. AASHTO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition, 2011.

56. Gattis, J.L. et al., NCHRP Report 659: Guide for the Geometric Design of Driveways, (Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, 2012).

57. FHWA, User’s Guide to Positive Guidance, 3rd Edition, (Washington, DC: 1990).

58. Campbell, J., et al, NCHRP Report 600: Human Factors Guidelines for Road Systems, Second Edition, (Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, 2012).

59. Morena, D., W.S. Wainwright, and F. Ranck, “Older Drivers at a Crossroads,” Public Roads, FHWA-HRT-2007-002, Vol. 70, No. 4, January/February 2007.

60. AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, 2012.

61. FHWA, “Memorandum: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility,” August 20, 2013. 

Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/design_flexibility.cfm

62. FHWA, Speed Concepts: Informational Guide, FHWA-SA-10-001 (Washington, D.C.: 2009).

63. FHWA, “Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections,” Washington, DC. 2010. 

Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/fhwasa10002/

64. AASHTO, Guide for High-Occupancy (HOV) Facilities, 2004.

65. Texas Department of Transportation, Roadway Design Manual, Section 2.6, 2013. 

Available at http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/cross_sectional_elements.htm#BGBGIBAE

66. AASHTO, Highway Drainage Guidelines, 4th Edition, 2007.

67. AASHTO, Model Drainage Manual, 3rd Edition, 2005.

68. AASHTO, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition, 2004.

69. The most recent PROWAG is in draft form as of July 2014.

70. AASHTO, Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition, 2012.

71. AASTHO, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011.

72. Texas Transportation Institute, TCRP Report 19: Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops, (Transportation Research Board of the National 

Academies: Washington, D.C., 1996).

73. Gattis, et al., 2012.

74. Harwood, D. W., NCHRP Report 282: Multilane Design Alternatives for Improving Suburban Highways (Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, 1986).

75. Harwood, D.W., NCHRP Report 330: Effective Utilization of Street Width on Urban Arterials, (Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, 1990).

76. Fitzpatrick, K. et al., TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, (Transportation Research Board: Washington, 

DC, 2006).

77. AASHTO, Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition, 2004.

78. Bartlett, J., B. Graves, and T. Redmon, “Proven Countermeasures for Pedestrian Safety,” Public Roads, FHWA-HRT-12-003, Vol. 75, No. 5, March/April 2012.

79. Gattis et al., 2012.

80. FHWA, Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections – Technical Summary, FHWA-SA-10-002 (Washington, DC: 2002).

81. City of Seattle, WA

82. Institute of Transportation Engineers, “Before-and-After Study,” Technical Brief, (Washington DC. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2009.

83. Hauer, E., D.W. Harwood, F.M. Council, and M.S. Griffith, Estimating Safety by the Empirical Bayes Method: A Tutorial, 2002. 

Available at: http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=726704

84. AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2010

85. Hauer, E., Observational Before – After Studies in Road Safety. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK: 1997).

86. AASHTO, An Introduction to the Highway Safety Manual, 2010.

87. AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 1st Edition, 2010

88. FHWA, 1989

89. Porter, R.J., E.T. Donnell, and J.M. Mason, “Geometric Design, Speed, and Safety,” Transportation Research Record 2309 (2012): 39-47.

90. Rosales, 2006.

91. Harwood, 1986.

92. FHWA, "Context Sensitive Solutions" web page. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/what.cfm

93. FHWA, "Proven Safety Countermeasures" web page. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/index.htm
For More Information:

For more information, visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ 

FHWA, Office of Safety

Rebecca Crowe

rebecca.crowe@dot.gov

804-775-3381

FHWA-SA-14-028