U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Four-lane undivided highways have a history of relatively high crash rates as traffic volumes increase and as the inside lane is shared by higher speed 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
Figure 1. Road Diet
Photo Credit: Virginia Department of Transportation
Benefits of Road Diet installations may include:
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.
|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|
|Aesthetics||Provisions can be made for traversable medians and other treatments|
|Traffic calming||Potential for more uniform speeds; opportunity to encourage pedestrian activity|
|Adapted from Kentucky Transportation Center's Guidelines for Road Diet Conversions3|