U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
November 2014
Contact: Rebecca Crowe at rebecca.crowe@dot.gov, 202-507-3699
Download the Printable version: [PDF, 1.9 MB][ Technical Report Documentation Page ] [ Acknowledgements ] [ Acronyms ]
1.2.1 History of Road Diet Installations
1.2.2 History of Road Diet Safety Evaluations
2.1 Benefits of Road Diets2.1.1 Improved Safety2.2 Synergies and Trade-offs
2.1.2 Operational Benefits
2.1.3 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Benefits
2.1.4 Livability Benefits
3 Road Diet Feasibility Determination
3.2 Context Sensitive Solutions and Complete Streets
3.3.1 De Facto Three-Lane Roadway Operation
3.3.2 Speed
3.3.3 Level of Service (LOS)
3.3.4 Quality of Service
3.3.5 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
3.3.6 Peak Hour and Peak Direction
3.3.7 Turning Volumes and Patterns
3.3.8 Frequently Stopping and Slow-Moving Vehicles3.4 Bicycles, Pedestrians, Transit, and Freight
3.4.1 Bicycle Considerations
3.4.2 Pedestrian Considerations
3.4.3 Transit Considerations
3.4.4 Freight Considerations3.5 Other Feasibility Determination Factors
3.5.1 Right-of-Way Availability and Cost
3.5.2 Parallel Roadways
3.5.3 Parallel Parking
3.5.4 At-Grade Railroad Crossings
3.5.5 Public Outreach, Public Relations, and Political Considerations
4.1.1 Road Function and Context
4.1.2 Design Controls
4.1.3 Elements of Design
4.1.4 Cross Sectional Elements
4.1.5 Intersection Design4.2.1 Cross-Section Allocation
4.2.2 Crossing Pedestrians
4.2.3 Intersection Control Changes
4.2.4 Pavement Marking and Signing
4.2.5 Intersection Design Elements
5 Determining if the Road Diet is Effective
5.1 Safety Analysis of a Road Diet
5.1.1 Data Needs
5.1.2 Observational Before-and-After Studies of Road Diets
5.1.3 Surrogate Measures of Safety for Road Diets5.2.1 Analyzing Vehicle Operations
5.2.2 Non-Motorized Operations
5.2.3 Tools and Methods to Evaluate Impacts
Appendix A – Road Diet Safety Assessment Studies
Appendix B – Feasibility Determination Factors, Characteristics, and Sample Evaluative Questions
Figure 2. Typical Road Diet Basic Design
Figure 3. Focus of Each Informational Guide Chapter
Figure 4. Mid-Block Conflict Points for Four-Lane Undivided Roadway and Three-Lane Cross Section
Figure 7. Addition of a Bike Lane Creates a Buffer between Pedestrians and Moving Vehicles
Figure 8. Mid-block Pedestrian Refuge Island
Figure 9. Pedestrian Refuge Island on a Road Diet Corridor in Chicago
Figure 10. Road Diet in Flint, Michigan, Central Business District
Figure 11. Four-lane Undivided Roadway Intersection Operating as a de facto Three-lane Cross Section
Figure 12. Road Diet Implementation Maximum Volume Thresholds by Agency
Figure 13. Bus Loading Zone in Seattle, Washington
Figure 14. Buffered Bicycle Lanes on Wabash Avenue in Chicago
Figure 15. Pedestrians Buffered from Traffic in Reston, VA
Figure 17. City of Seattle Modeling Flow Chart for Road Diet Feasibility Determination
Figure 18. Painted Buffer Between Through Lane and Bicycle Lane in Lansing, Michigan
Figure 19. Bicycle Lane on Rural 3-Lane Section, Lawyers Road, Reston, VA
Figure 20. Typical Bike Lane Illustration
Figure 21. Paired Parking Cross Sections (Adapted from AASHTO)
Figure 22. Example Parking Lane Transition at Intersection (Adapted from AASHTO, 2011)
Figure 23. Transition from 3-lane to 2-lane Cross Section, Oak Street, Merrifield, VA
Figure 24. Offset Driveways Causing Conflict Points in the TWLTL
Table 1. Problems Potentially Correctable by Road Diet Implementation
Table 2. Practitioner Interview Results Summary: Road Diet Installation Observations
Table 3. Road Diet Implementation Considerations by Agency
Table 4. Quantifiable Characteristics of Land User Contexts (NJDOT & PennDOT, 2008)
Table 5. Regional Arterial Design Matrix (NJDOT & PennDOT, 2008)
Table 6. Maximum Allowable Travel Distance in TWLTL
For More Information:
For more information, visit http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
FHWA-SA-14-028