Road diets / closures you're pretty okay with

[7/8]

I generally like seeing four lane undivided surface roads/streets being restriped as two lanes with a shared center left turn lane, it really improves traffic flow, as vehicles are no longer delayed by having to stop for other vehicles waiting to turn left in the left lane.  Doing that also allows for the creation of a striped bicycle lane on each side.

One such restriping was about a year ago on College Ave through downtown Appleton, WI (the city's main street),  It was reduced from four lanes undivided to two lanes with left turn lanes at the intersections and pre-existing parallel parking.  The restriping also left behind room for a striped dedicated bicycle lane on each side.  Ironically, this was 'real life traffic tested' over the years as after snowstorms, snow would be plowed to the center of the street, taking away a lane in each direction, to be loaded up and trucked away later.  So far so good.

Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.

Mike

Agreed, it sucks when there's no dedicated left turn lanes. It's also dangerous if cars from opposing sides want to turn left. Sometimes you're just about to make your left turn and someone darts out from behind the opposing left-turning car to go straight. I would much prefer a three-lane road instead.

I would love to see Fairway Rd in Kitchener between Morgan and River converted to three lanes: GSV

You can see in the streetview how all the cars heading toward River are in the left lane because the right lane becomes right-turn only at River. But often you'll get cars who need to turn left onto one of the side streets and it causes backups for everyone behind who wants to keep going straight. Then you have people moving to the right lane to get around, and some people fly up the right lane to get ahead. It would be much safer with a centre left-turn lane.

[7/8]

I'm a big fan of road diets, and I wish my area had many more! The most prominent one here is King St through Uptown Waterloo (reduced from 4 to 2-lanes, reduction of on-street parking, addition of separated bike lanes behind bollards): Before and after

I really wish they routed our LRT along King St in downtown Kitchener and made it vehicle-free (except local access like deliveries and residents), but alas, they instead split the tracks on neighbouring Charles and Duke instead. King in downtown is still decent though, only two lanes and feels pretty narrow: GSV

Another one that desperately needs a road diet are the dual one-ways Erb and Bridgeport in Waterloo. Each one is three-lanes, and they're resident streets! There's even an elementary school here: GSV. They recently made it 40 km/h near the school, as if that will be effective to slow cars down.

[algorerhythms]

Westmount (especially between Glasgow and Erb) is another one that could benefit from a road diet. It has all the already noted problems from the lack of left turn lanes, plus because the corridor is narrow, the lanes are very narrow. I think it would work much better with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane. (Though I seem to recall hearing something about the region trying it during Covid and nimbies having a fit because they didn't want bike lanes? That was before I moved to KW, though)

[MikieTimT]

Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.

Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.

On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree.  Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.

[michiganguy123]

They've been trying to do a road diet test on a already divided business route near here in Muskegon, MI. No one likes it. Absolutely no reason, they say it's for pedestrians but theres already a very wide bike path running parallel to the road and it really isn't hard to cross a divided road.

AADT is around 15,000

[webny99]

Agreed, it sucks when there's no dedicated left turn lanes. It's also dangerous if cars from opposing sides want to turn left. Sometimes you're just about to make your left turn and someone darts out from behind the opposing left-turning car to go straight. I would much prefer a three-lane road instead.

I would love to see Fairway Rd in Kitchener between Morgan and River converted to three lanes: GSV

You can see in the streetview how all the cars heading toward River are in the left lane because the right lane becomes right-turn only at River. But often you'll get cars who need to turn left onto one of the side streets and it causes backups for everyone behind who wants to keep going straight. Then you have people moving to the right lane to get around, and some people fly up the right lane to get ahead. It would be much safer with a centre left-turn lane.

This seems very similar to this stretch of NY 286 in my area. It is a major rat race at times - as I've described here before, it's not uncommon at all to make 4-5 lane changes while navigating this 1-mile stretch due to varying queue lengths at the signals, varying speeds between the lanes, and left turning traffic at the stoplights, side streets, and businesses/churches. I agree three lanes would be safer than what exists currently (not just for cars, but also bikers), but with an AADT approaching 20k and this being a major commuter route, the platoons of traffic would be so long it would be almost impossible to get out from the side streets, and the lines for the traffic lights would end up crawling every time there's a right turning vehicle and creating long backups. What's really needed here is a full rebuild with five lanes and proper shoulders, but that will probably never happen.

Another one that desperately needs a road diet are the dual one-ways Erb and Bridgeport in Waterloo. Each one is three-lanes, and they're resident streets! There's even an elementary school here: GSV. They recently made it 40 km/h near the school, as if that will be effective to slow cars down.

Wow! Those lanes look quite narrow. Do traffic volumes really warrant three lanes here? Two thru lanes with proper shoulders and turning lanes at intersections where needed would seem to make a whole lot more sense.

[webny99]

Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.

Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.

On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree.  Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.

I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404, or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:

• Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
• Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
• Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical

(That being said... one time I was on a four-lane road in heavy traffic I had a driver zoom up besides me  into the oncoming left lane to make a left turn, passing other left turners in the process and barely squeaking through the intersection before oncoming traffic arrived. He got a lengthy honk from me, one of the rare honking instances of "major safety hazard and major personal irritation". It did occur to me that this never would have happened on a three-lane road, or if it did, he would have at least been in the TWLTL instead of the oncoming lane.)

[mgk920]

Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.

Especially from a safety standpoint, i.e. head-on collision risk.

On roads that have a freeway/expressway parallel, I'd agree.  Otherwise, capacity drops considerably when you consider that there is no longer any legal way to get around slow moving vehicles.

I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404, or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:

• Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
• Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
• Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical

(That being said... one time I was on a four-lane road in heavy traffic I had a driver zoom up besides me  into the oncoming left lane to make a left turn, passing other left turners in the process and barely squeaking through the intersection before oncoming traffic arrived. He got a lengthy honk from me, one of the rare honking instances of "major safety hazard and major personal irritation". It did occur to me that this never would have happened on a three-lane road, or if it did, he would have at least been in the TWLTL instead of the oncoming lane.)

When through traffic volume on the street warrants four lanes, IMHO, it also warrants a shared center left turn lane.

Mike

[webny99]

When through traffic volume on the street warrants four lanes, IMHO, it also warrants a shared center left turn lane.

That's often the case, but not always, such as in the two examples I cited.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404, or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:

• Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
• Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
• Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical

[/list]

Isn't NY 404 at the bottom the hill one of the most dangerous roads in the entire Rochester area?  There have been multiple crashes so bad that the whole road from Winton to Plank was closed until the investigation/cleanup finished.

[webny99]

I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404, or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:

• Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
• Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
• Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical

[/list]

Isn't NY 404 at the bottom the hill one of the most dangerous roads in the entire Rochester area?  There have been multiple crashes so bad that the whole road from Winton to Plank was closed until the investigation/cleanup finished.

The bottom of the hill is, yes, due to a combination of poor sightlines, high speeds (the limit is 45 on the Penfield side, and traffic regularly does 55-60 even in the 40 mph zone), and left turns to/from the local businesses. The new TWLTL on the east side of the hill that was put in during construction of the new apartment complex should definitely be extended to Bay Creek.

To my earlier post, though, I actually think the 1/2 mile stretch from Orchard Park Rd to Bay Creek is an acceptable stretch for no TWLTL or divider to exist, while the stretch from Bay Creek to the existing TWLTL near Southpoint Marina is very much not. It just goes to show that while there are acceptable locations for four lane undivided roadways, they're highly context-dependent and usually limited to short stretches of 1-2 miles or less.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't go so far as to say undivided four-lane roads are obsolete. In most cases, if four lanes are warranted, then a TWLTL is also warranted. But four lanes undivided does have limited utility in some cases, such as this stretch of NY 404, or this stretch of RR 57/Thorold Stone Rd in Ontario. In essence, it's probably warranted if all three of the following apply:

• Volumes are too much for two lanes to handle
• Side streets/businesses/driveways exist but are intermittent and not too closely spaced, so it's not worth creating a TWLTL
• Traffic is localized enough that a divided highway requiring U-turn movements is unnecessary/impractical

[/list]

Isn't NY 404 at the bottom the hill one of the most dangerous roads in the entire Rochester area?  There have been multiple crashes so bad that the whole road from Winton to Plank was closed until the investigation/cleanup finished.

The bottom of the hill is, yes, due to a combination of poor sightlines, high speeds (the limit is 45 on the Penfield side, and traffic regularly does 55-60 even in the 40 mph zone), and left turns to/from the local businesses. The new TWLTL on the east side of the hill that was put in during construction of the new apartment complex should definitely be extended to Bay Creek.

To my earlier post, though, I actually think the 1/2 mile stretch from Orchard Park Rd to Bay Creek is an acceptable stretch for no TWLTL or divider to exist, while the stretch from Bay Creek to the existing TWLTL near Southpoint Marina is very much not. It just goes to show that while there are acceptable locations for four lane undivided roadways, they're highly context-dependent and usually limited to short stretches of 1-2 miles or less.

I would extend the TWLTL past the other businesses and houses, which would leave only a quarter mile on the hill which wouldn't have it.  Not exactly a lot.

[Scott5114]

The idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.

[algorerhythms]

The idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.

I mean, when was the last time Oklahoma was an example of anything good? 

I think it's a bit more specific than that, though... it's specifically four-lane roads with no turn lanes. Where all traffic that turns left must wait for a gap in the left traffic lane, blocking that lane. In my experience, the arterials in Oklahoma (which I'm not really a fan of anyway, to be honest) at least have turn lanes at traffic lights. Westmount Road, which I referred to earlier looks like this. If there's a bus in the right lane, and left-turning traffic in the left lane (both of which are often the case during commute time in the morning), you're not going anywhere for a while. In this case, you could improve traffic flow by reducing the number of lanes, because it would give you the space to have turn lanes and space for the buses to pull out of the traffic lane while they're stopped.

[Rothman]

The idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.

Three words: Salt Lake City.

[CovalenceSTU]

In general, I'm OK with any road diet that eliminates an undivided four-lane road with no turning lanes in favor of a two-lane road with a center turn lane. A good example is the US 127 routing through Harrodsburg.

They recently did one to US 30 between 2nd and 7th St in Astoria (only old GSV), and also added a second marked crosswalk with a median. I believe it was approved after a bicyclist was killed by a truck, but the lone marked crosswalk was considered a bit unsafe before.

When it was complete I was a bit concerned it wouldn't hold up to summer (tourist) traffic, but there's been only minor issues so far. It also stopped notable speeding (>10 over) and made it much easier to turn out of side streets (TWLTL + better radius and sight lines for right turns).

[mgk920]

I generally like seeing four lane undivided surface roads/streets being restriped as two lanes with a shared center left turn lane, it really improves traffic flow, as vehicles are no longer delayed by having to stop for other vehicles waiting to turn left in the left lane.  Doing that also allows for the creation of a striped bicycle lane on each side.

One such restriping was about a year ago on College Ave through downtown Appleton, WI (the city's main street),  It was reduced from four lanes undivided to two lanes with left turn lanes at the intersections and pre-existing parallel parking.  The restriping also left behind room for a striped dedicated bicycle lane on each side.  Ironically, this was 'real life traffic tested' over the years as after snowstorms, snow would be plowed to the center of the street, taking away a lane in each direction, to be loaded up and trucked away later.  So far so good.

Yes, I consider undivided four lane roads to be obsolete.

Expanding a bit on this thought, I wouldn't mind seeing WisDOT and the City of Appleton look into doing something like that on Richmond Street (WI 47) on Appleton's northwest side.  The street was widened to four lanes undivided and concrete repaved in the late 1980s (it needed it!), but the city council at that time rejected the center left turn lane north of Winnebago St that WisDOT wanted due to the street then needing additional ROW and the affects that that would have on the adjoining residential  property owners.  The council never repeated that mistake in later projects.

Mike

[RobbieL2415]

Couple that come to mind:

-Sheriden Expressway downgrade to Sheridan Blvd., Bronx, NY.

-Inner Loop removal in Rochester, NY

- Four lanes to two lanes with bike lanes on Main St., Hartford, CT

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm really not too happy with the Hollywood Boulevard diet in East Hollywood. It appears they may eventually want to do this all the way to La Brea. LADOT just seems to operate with impunity and do whatever the fuck it is they want to do. I watch their meetings If they ever have any and Try to keep up with what it is they have planned. Out of the blue, they just decided one day to make the right through lane on Hollywood Boulevard a right turn lane at Gower Street, and then after that, it resumed to a four-lane road up until when they decided to permanently narrow it to one lane each way to the 101 with the eastbound lanes of Hollywood Boulevard from the 1 oh one to Gower Being two lanes.

Now Hollywood Boulevard is one lane each way from the 101 to Vermont. It has increased congestion and made travel times longer. Initially, I was pretty upset with it, but traffic still does flow for the most part and it adds 3 to 5 minutes at minimum of drive time.

The set up is what pisses me off. They claim to do this to make streets more friendly for pedestrians and reduce card dependency but that's a bunch of bullshit. There's One lane each way, A middle turn lane, Parking spaces, And a bike lane up against the curb.

I rarely see cyclist, but maybe they'll start using it more in the future who knows. They put up these ugly white plastic non-reinforced bollards. You can run over them and they'll flip back up. Do not ask me how I know. I've already seen a bunch of road rage flying down the middle turn lane. Overall, I'm not happy with it and I wish it would go back to four lanes.

But what makes me maddest is they claim this will reduce card dependency well why have parking lanes? They should've built parking structures to remove street parking. The parking lanes should be bus lanes. I do use this particular bus route which is either the 212 or the 217. The buses get Caught in the traffic jams that have greatly increased since they narrowed the road.

I will say it is a road diet I can live with. I just wish they would've done a better job with it. They did repave the road, which is nice but they used blacktop asphalt. I wish they would've used concrete, which would've reduced the urban island effect. They should've put landscape medians in and added some trees, which would stop people from flying down the middle turn lane which I witness almost every time I drive this road now which is several times a day. And of course, as I said, I wish they would've implemented bus lanes where the parking lanes are at. Build fully enclosed bus shelters. And increase frequencies.

It's just seems like typical LADOT crap Where they pretend to make the city more multimodal but they're either liars and just are doing pork barrel projects, don't know what they're doing, or just being cheap.

[7/8]

Another one that desperately needs a road diet are the dual one-ways Erb and Bridgeport in Waterloo. Each one is three-lanes, and they're resident streets! There's even an elementary school here: GSV. They recently made it 40 km/h near the school, as if that will be effective to slow cars down.

Wow! Those lanes look quite narrow. Do traffic volumes really warrant three lanes here? Two thru lanes with proper shoulders and turning lanes at intersections where needed would seem to make a whole lot more sense.

I actually don't find the lanes too narrow when I drive them. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to get an accurate measurement of them since I can't find the engineering plans on the City of Waterloo's Interactive Map. Personally I think two lanes would be plenty, but I also lean more urbanist than most of the forum, so make of that what you will.

The idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.

I mean, when was the last time Oklahoma was an example of anything good? 

I think it's a bit more specific than that, though... it's specifically four-lane roads with no turn lanes. Where all traffic that turns left must wait for a gap in the left traffic lane, blocking that lane. In my experience, the arterials in Oklahoma (which I'm not really a fan of anyway, to be honest) at least have turn lanes at traffic lights. Westmount Road, which I referred to earlier looks like this. If there's a bus in the right lane, and left-turning traffic in the left lane (both of which are often the case during commute time in the morning), you're not going anywhere for a while. In this case, you could improve traffic flow by reducing the number of lanes, because it would give you the space to have turn lanes and space for the buses to pull out of the traffic lane while they're stopped.

Yes that stretch of Westmount is poorly done. I just checked the latest engineering drawing on Kitchener's Interactive Map (dated 2001) and the road width is roughly 11.4m, meaning the lane widths average 2.85m. Considering the Region prefers 3.35-3.65m on new roads, that's quite narrow! Having said that, I think 3.65m is too wide for City/Region streets, since it encourages speeding.

[Plutonic Panda]

The idea of four-lane undivided streets being obsolete is insane to me because that describes just about every major arterial in the Oklahoma City metro. And a good chunk of the ones in Kansas City, too, so it's not just Oklahoma being cheap.

I wish OKC would take a queue from Dallas and wide and many of its roads to six lanes. But that's a lot to ask for given the fact most of them don't even have a turning lane. Urban planning in Oklahoma City is just horrible in general. Way too many curb cuts. Literally curb cuts right up against a major intersection.

If OKC did what that other poster, who doesn't like undivided four-lane roads wants, Almost every major in the city would be narrowed to one lane each way. That would be horrific.

But on a more positive note, even though OKC is still building undivided four-lane roads, They do seem to be building more and more turning lanes. Still concepts like a right turn lane seem to be completely foreign.

From what I've seen in experience, OKC has just about the worst mass transit of any large city I've ever seen. Yes, it's getting better and there's more projects proposed, But the last thing OKC should be doing is focusing on diets and making it harder to drive.

In general, I'm not a fan of road diets but there are some that makes sense. And even if I don't like them, Especially in LA, A case can be made because there is a decent enough metro out here.

[Plutonic Panda]

And one thing I hate about road diets and I notice this a lot in LA, Is they are touted As a way to make a city, more friendly to pedestrians and less card dependent. But almost every single diet I've ever seen in LA, A car is Converted into a parking lane sometimes with a bike lane. I just don't see how that makes the city less car dependent.

Another thing LA is doing that is driving me absolutely crazy is adding speed humps everywhere. It's causing road rage. Some people come to a complete crawl over them, especially delivery vans and then floor it. I guess for the people that live near those things if a speeding card didn't kill you the asthma from the increased congestion of more stop and go traffic will. I jest, kinda. But there's no way that is an adding and creating more air pollution.

They are also very big on trading these bike boxes like near the intersection where I live at Hawthorn and La Brea In Hollywood. They did this pre-pandemic. During rush-hour, it has made traffic backups much more worse on this residential street given the fact they banned right turns. I rarely see cyclist ever using this correctly, and I honestly can't remember the last time I ever have.

They claim it's about safety, but yet 500 feet to the south, you have Lanewood Boulevard Across the street a little strip mall that is two stories. A lot of people run across La Brea, which has speeding cars usually going the speed limit. And they don't think to put a pedestrian crossing there so people can safely cross.

They're also proposing a road diet on Forest lawn Drive. Whoopty fucking do. So now you'll have some idiot, tourist or some old person that'll be doing 10 under the speed limit that you'll either have to stick behind or illegally pass them lest you want to spend 5 miles behind a slow poke. Even if traffic counts, don't warrant four lanes. It's nice to have them to pass slower traffic.

[Scott5114]

I wish OKC would take a queue from Dallas and wide and many of its roads to six lanes. But that's a lot to ask for given the fact most of them don't even have a turning lane. Urban planning in Oklahoma City is just horrible in general. Way too many curb cuts. Literally curb cuts right up against a major intersection.

One of the things I'm loving about Las Vegas are the well-designed six-lane arterials everywhere. Las Vegas and Clark County are very good about providing median barriers to reduce the number of conflict points. U-turns are also pretty generously allowed, so the medians aren't much of an obstacle. 45 mph speed limits are also pretty awesome.

I think this treatment might be a little bit overkill for some of OKC/Norman's streets, but I think it would definitely be an improvement to many of them.

[webny99]

One of the things I'm loving about Las Vegas are the well-designed six-lane arterials everywhere. Las Vegas and Clark County are very good about providing median barriers to reduce the number of conflict points. U-turns are also pretty generously allowed, so the medians aren't much of an obstacle. 45 mph speed limits are also pretty awesome.

I think this treatment might be a little bit overkill for some of OKC/Norman's streets, but I think it would definitely be an improvement to many of them.

With the caveat that the Rochester area is fairly sprawling and not as densely populated as most large cities, I find this interesting because our only six-lane arterials (Jefferson Rd in Henrietta and W Ridge Rd in Greece), have a downright terrible reputation. I'll often hear complaints about them, even among non-roadgeeks, and it's criticism I tend to agree with: they're congested and slow-moving, signal timing is poor, having to U-turn to get anywhere is annoying, and they're even more prone to weaving/excessive lane changing than four lane arterials. I know some people who will go to great lengths to avoid driving on them at all, so I'm curious what, if anything, is done differently in Nevada to handle these issues.

[Plutonic Panda]

I wish OKC would take a queue from Dallas and wide and many of its roads to six lanes. But that's a lot to ask for given the fact most of them don't even have a turning lane. Urban planning in Oklahoma City is just horrible in general. Way too many curb cuts. Literally curb cuts right up against a major intersection.

One of the things I'm loving about Las Vegas are the well-designed six-lane arterials everywhere. Las Vegas and Clark County are very good about providing median barriers to reduce the number of conflict points. U-turns are also pretty generously allowed, so the medians aren't much of an obstacle. 45 mph speed limits are also pretty awesome.

I think this treatment might be a little bit overkill for some of OKC/Norman's streets, but I think it would definitely be an improvement to many of them.

I definitely think parts of May Avenue and Western could benefit from this. Though there would be right away issues and some parts of the city. So much of the city still doesn't even have fucking sidewalks. It's hilarious to see a bus stop off of the street in the middle of the grass with no sidewalk whatsoever. I'm not sure if I've seen ever seen that anywhere in a city.