Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8-1   Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes Making Changes, Measuring Their Effects A before-and-after analysis is an important part of any roadway reallocation project. Under- standing how key measurements shift after a new cross section is in place is a great tool for learning, public engagement, and advocacy for future projects. C H A P T E R 8 Using Tactical Materials A tactical bike lane implementation in Baltimore, MD Agencies have had success transforming streets quickly using tactical materials like cones, spray chalk, and tape. These quick-build projects allow cities to try out new street designs and let neighbors experience these changes firsthand. This chapter summarizes important steps in making cross-section changes and, with 10 case studies, provides examples of successful reallocation projects throughout the United States. The Role of Funding All street redesign efforts need funding to move from concept to reality. Funding affects many aspects of implementation, particularly project type, team, and timeline: • Project type. The amount and availability of funding can affect whether a street redesign is a full reconstruction or a quick-build project using paint and tactical materials. Staggered fund- ing may make it necessary to reconstruct in phases.

8-2 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide • Project team. The core project team can change based on funding. Different agency depart- ments and partners pursue different funding sources and cross-section changes depending on their aims. For example, a local transit agency may lead a project that reallocates space to bus-only lanes, while a department of transportation may lead several projects that add bicycle facilities through its statewide repaving program. • Project timeline. Practitioners can access various funding types for street redesign, including federal, state, local, and private sources (Table 8-1). Depending on the source, funding may come with restrictions that condense or expand the project timeline. Design and Construction Any transportation agency can initiate and complete design processes to rebuild streets. The level of detail and number of phases in the design process vary based on project type, but street redesign projects generally include both preliminary and final design phases. Preliminary Design In the preliminary design phase, practitioners can make good use of the Decision-Making Frame- work. In this phase, practitioners assess the project’s permanent geometric design elements to con- firm the design will achieve the desired cross section and outcomes. The preliminary design should be modified and reevaluated as necessary to confirm that it matches the project’s transportation and land-use contexts, offers safety and comfort to all users, and supports other project goals. In addition to assessing preliminary designs based on the Decision-Making Framework’s rec- ommendations, practitioners should follow design processes that encourage flexibility. Flexible design solutions achieve project design goals by adapting to a roadway’s unique transportation and land-use context. Flexible design approaches may require design variances or exceptions and result in geometric designs that do not meet all established design standards. Practitioners should document all design decisions, supporting analysis, and justification for flexible design solutions before the project moves to a final design. NCHRP Report 785: Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets is a useful resource on flexible design. Funding Entity Example Funding Sources Federal government • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • RAISE Discretionary Grant Program (formerly TIGER/BUILD) • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program • Safe Routes to School Program • Capital Investment Grants Program (including New Starts and Small Starts) • Surface Transportation Block Grant Program • Transportation Alternatives Program State government • Statewide Transportation Funds • Complete Streets Funding Programs Local government • Local Transportation Funds Private organizations • Developer contributions • Nonprofit grant programs Table 8-1. Example funding sources for street design.

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-3   Final Design During the final design phase, practitioners advance and refine the preliminary design to a construction-ready document. Modifying design decisions during final design is much more costly than during earlier planning and design stages (Figure 8-1). The Decision-Making Framework helps practitioners avoid these high costs by enabling practitioners to pro- actively identify a safer design, weigh the design’s direct and indirect transportation out- comes, and communicate design decisions to stakeholders, decisionmakers, and community members. Once practitioners develop final design plans and construction contract documents, the plans usually need formal approval from a governing body to construct. Any last comments received on the final design and associated documents are updated in a plan, specification, and estimate review set before construction begins. Construction For a street reconfiguration to be effective, construction must be completed according to design. During construction, practitioner tasks may include responding to contractor requests for information, preparing construction observation reports, and obtaining certification that the work has been completed to the sponsoring agency’s satisfaction. Practitioners also ensure traffic maintenance plans are in place so all roadway users will have accessible travel paths through the work zone during construction (Figure 8-2). As noted in the following section on community engagement, the construction phase of any street redesign involves regular communication with stakeholders and the public to answer questions and pro- vide construction updates. Figure 8-1. Relationship between project phase and cost of design stages.

8-4 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Evaluating the New Design Project evaluations give public agencies, stakeholders, and community members critical data about the effects of roadway reallocation. By showcasing beneficial outcomes, evaluations can build community enthusiasm for future efforts. Evaluation is also an important step for pilot projects, helping designers understand what modifications may be needed in the final design. Developing a Before-and-After Evaluation Plan Practitioners should develop a before-and-after evaluation plan well before construction begins. The plan should include gathering “before” data prior to street reallocation. Table 8-2 presents performance measures and associated data that can be included in a project evalua- tion plan. Gathering “After” Data Once the roadway reallocation has been constructed, practitioners can begin gathering “after” data, evaluating changes that have occurred following implementation, and communicating those changes to stakeholders and community members. Some “after” data (e.g., vehicle speeds, crossing opportunities, conflict data, and crossing lengths) can be collected relatively quickly after construction. Other information, such as crash data, may not be available until a year or more later. It is important to gather exposure data, such as counts of roadway users of various modes, to have an accurate understanding of any change in risk. Reporting Outcomes Project evaluation results are typically shared with the public as a report from the sponsoring agency and its partners. Practitioners can summarize key findings in executive summaries, pre- sentations, and briefing documents for decisionmakers and community members. Figure 8-3 presents an example of an evaluation report for the Rainier Avenue South Safety Corridor Pilot Project in Seattle. Figure 8-2. Maintenance of traffic plan implementation for Columbus Avenue Bus-Only Lanes Project, Boston, MA.

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-5   Performance Measure Description Data Adherence to traffic laws or observations of risky behavior Did the redesign change how well pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists obey traffic laws on the project corridor? Or did it reduce the number of “near miss” incidents? Examples: Change in the number of people crossing at midblock locations; change in the number of bicyclists on sidewalks; change in the number of motorists parking illegally In-person and video- based observations Crashes Did the redesign change the frequency and severity of crashes on the project corridor? Examples: Change in number, severity, and cost of all crashes; change in the number of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes Crash data Crossing opportunities and crossing lengths Did the redesign change the frequency of crossing opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians? Did it change pedestrian and bicyclist exposure? Examples: Change in the average distance between crossing locations; change in average crossing length at crossing locations Field measurements Cut-through traffic Did the redesign shift vehicle traffic to parallel streets in the road network? Examples: The change in vehicle volumes on the project corridor as compared to the change in vehicle volumes on parallel streets Automated traffic recorder counts; location-based service (LBS) data; navigation-GPS data Economic development Did the redesign influence economic development on the project corridor? Examples: Change in corridor property values; changes in the number of corridor businesses, employees, and sales Property parcel data; business data, spending data Environmental outcomes Did the redesign change environmental outcomes on the corridor? Examples: Change in ambient noise; change in air quality Ambient noise levels; fine particulate matter levels Mental health outcomes Did the redesign change mental health outcomes for people traveling on the project corridor? Examples: Change in individual physiological health; change in individual emotional well- being Heart rate variability (Roe et al. 2020); intercept surveys Mode split Did the redesign change the percentage of total trips by transportation mode? Example: Change in proportion of people taking transit, walking, or biking on the project corridor Automated traffic recorder counts; LBS data; navigation-GPS data; transit ridership data Table 8-2. Example performance measures for project evaluation. (continued on next page)

8-6 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Access and network completeness Did the redesign increase the proportion of the transportation network usable for people walking, biking, or accessing transit? Example: Change in the number of community destinations accessible by walking, biking, and transit GIS-based multimodal network data Vehicle speeds Did the redesign change the prevailing motor vehicle speeds on the project corridor? Examples: Change in the proportion of motorists traveling over the posted speed limit; change in 85th percentile speeds on the project corridor Automated traffic recorder counts Travel time Did the redesign change travel time or travel time reliability for people walking, biking, taking transit, or driving on the project corridor? Examples: Change in pedestrian delay at intersections; change in end-to-end travel time for people biking, taking transit, or driving on the project corridor; change in travel time reliability (i.e., consistency of trip times) LBS data; navigation-GPS data; field observations User perception of comfort, safety, or level of service Did the redesign change user perception of comfort, safety, and/or level of service on the project corridor? Examples: Change in bicycle and pedestrian level of traffic stress; change in user perceptions; change in delay at corridor intersections Bicycle and pedestrian level of traffic stress analyses; intercept surveys; turning movement count data Volume of travelers Did the redesign change the number of people traveling along the corridor? Example: Changes in people walking, biking, accessing transit, and driving on the corridor Automated traffic recorder counts; LBS data; navigation-GPS data Volume of visitors Did the redesign change the number of people accessing the curbside and public spaces along the corridor? Examples: Changes in parking occupancy and turnover; changes in the number of guests at streateries or sidewalk cafés; changes in the number of guests at plazas Parking occupancy and turnover data; intercept surveys Performance Measure Description Data Table 8-2. (Continued).

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-7   These project evaluation documents are the last major opportunity to communicate lessons learned and successes from the project. Along with the actual street redesign, they can help build support for similar interventions on other streets (Sadik-Khan 2016). Engaging Agency Partners, Decisionmakers, and Community Members Support or opposition can dramatically influence the outcomes of a cross-section reallocation project. Agency staff, decisionmakers, and community members all have unique perspectives (dis- cussed in detail in Chapter 4). Early, frequent, and comprehensive communication should continue throughout the project’s design, pre-construction, construction, and post-construction phases. Engaging agencies, stakeholders, and community groups before implementation helps practi- tioners minimize the risk of a project being delayed or withdrawn. Continuing to communicate after the project has been built can set the stage for future redesign projects. The following tasks and approaches can support effective engagement before, during, and after construction. Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Figure 8-3. Pages from the project evaluation for the Rainier Avenue South Safety Corridor Pilot Project.

8-8 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Include Agency Partners Practitioners should include relevant agency partners in project design and implementation processes. The number of agency partners will vary based on the project context and can include the following: • State departments of transportation • State departments of conservation and recreation • Regional municipal planning organizations (i.e., county, city, or town entities that address transportation, public works, transit, parks, fire, and disabilities/ADA). Practitioners can include agency partners in stakeholder groups and should provide regular updates to these partners throughout the planning, design, and pre-implementation processes. Agency partners can weigh in on specific design details through meetings, as part of the design plan’s review. Practitioners should include all agency partners in the plan’s comment resolution meetings to make sure conflicting comments are discussed and resolved. Engaging agency partners early and often ensures that the final street design meets the project’s goals while addressing agency concerns. Some agency partners will actively participate in the implementation phase. For example, if a cross-section reallocation project involves implementing bus-only lanes, the transit agency can serve a key role, confirming transit vehicles can safely and efficiently navigate new lanes and stations. Other agency partners may have a less active role but should nevertheless be provided with progress updates. Inform Decisionmakers Decisionmakers at local, regional, and state levels can play key supporting roles in street-design projects. They can pass ordinances or laws that guide design outcomes, allocate funding, and serve as public advocates for specific projects. Practitioners should provide decisionmakers with the necessary tools and information to answer constituent questions and serve as project champions. The Decision-Making Framework (as described in Chapter 2) provides practitioners with direct and indirect transportation outcomes from specific changes to street cross sections. Prac- titioners should present these holistic outcomes to decisionmakers in a format that can be under- stood by the broader public. Practitioners should also keep decisionmakers apprised of project progress during construction so that decisionmakers can respond to constituent questions and concerns about the construction process. Following implementation, decisionmakers will want to understand project outcomes. As dis- cussed previously in this chapter, before-and-after studies can provide decisionmakers with key outcomes from local reallocation projects. Decisionmakers who are equipped with information about known and expected outcomes of a street redesign can be powerful advocates for future street designs. Supporting Future Projects In communities where practitioners are implementing a cross-section reallocation for the first time, it is important to provide a particularly high level of agency, decisionmaker, and community engagement. In addition to conducting robust

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-9   Empower Community Members Although effective street-design projects should include a robust public engagement process during the project planning phase, some community members will always be unfamiliar with this work. As the project progresses into design and pre-implementation, new people and busi- nesses will enter the community and bring their preferences and perspectives about the project (Figure 8-4). engagement, practitioners should start with a street with a high probability of successful outcomes. While an unsuccessful first project may preclude opportunities to implement similar projects in the future, a successful project offers multiple benefits. Implementing a reallocation on a promising site can increase community comfort with reallocation projects and set the stage for future successes. When practitioners can point to outcomes from a successful first project, they can address stakeholder concerns on later projects and build community support for future projects. Figure 8-4. San Francisco’s Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) summarized public outreach for the Valencia Bikeway Improvements Project so that community members could see how they and their peers were engaged during the project planning process.

8-10 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Practitioners should communicate consistently and thoughtfully during the project design and pre-implementation phases. This communication should help community members under- stand the project goals, how the design advances those goals, and the expected direct and indirect- transportation outcomes of the proposed design. If similar projects have been built elsewhere in the community, practitioners should share lessons learned and outcomes from those projects. Pre-implementation engagement should state project status in the context of the broader timeline and set expectations for the types of com- munity feedback that will be helpful. Potential strategies for pre-implementation engagement include the following: • Updating the project website regularly • Sending emails to the project listserv • Sharing project information on social media • Mailing postcards to neighbors • Hosting informational meetings at diverse times and locations • Providing “office hours” at local markets, libraries, and other popular community destinations • Posting informational fliers along the project corridor and in project businesses During construction, practitioners should let community members know what to expect. Helpful information to share with the public may include changes to traffic patterns, FAQ docu- ments, and construction timelines. Practitioners should be prepared to answer community ques- tions during and after construction. Project evaluation documents are a useful tool for sharing lessons learned and successes from a street redesign project with the public. Intercept surveys, walking or bicycling tours of the redesigned street, and before-and-after images and videos of the street can also be used to com- municate and gather feedback (Figure 8-5). Figure 8-5. Charlotte’s Department of Transportation used video drone footage to highlight street changes implemented as part of the Plaza Street conversion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPr2h-b-1y4&t=41s

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-11   Case Studies As part of the research for this Guide, the research team evaluated the effects of cross-section reallocation on 10 streets across the United States. The team investigated the following questions as part of the evaluation: 1. What are the operational and safety effects on each travel mode when motor vehicle speeds are reduced because of a street reallocation? 2. How does reducing motor vehicle speeds in an intersection-heavy environment affect travel times by mode? 3. Where does traffic go when lane(s) are reallocated from automobile to non-automobile modes? Does the traffic divert to other streets? Does it evaporate? By how much? 4. What are the effects of street reallocation projects on adjacent businesses? For most of the case studies, the total number of crashes and the number of crashes involv- ing bicyclists and pedestrians decreased on reallocation streets. The case studies showed mixed results in travel time changes for reallocation corridors. The case studies did not find substantial evidence of vehicle diversion from reallocation streets to parallel streets (i.e., decreased volumes on reallocation streets paired with increased volumes on parallel streets). These case study findings were used to confirm outcomes provided in the decision support matrix (Appendix B) and the Cross-Section Decision-Making Tool. Key findings from each case study are summarized here. Case Study 1: Somerville, MA (Broadway from Main Street to McGrath Highway) In September 2019, the City of Somerville added dedicated bus and bike lanes to a 1-mile seg- ment of Broadway (Magoun Square to McGrath Highway). The reallocation project converted a four-lane cross section with on-street parking to a two-lane cross section with exclusive shared bus/bike lanes, a separated bike lane, and on-street parking between McGrath Highway and Main Street. The project also included signal retiming and transit signal priority on Broadway at School Street and Temple Street. These modifications were made through a restriping and retiming street project. The changes were deemed a success by city leadership, residents, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Subsequently, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Somerville, MBTA, and other regional partners undertook several additional street reallocation projects to improve walking, rolling, biking, and riding transit. Table 8-3 summarizes the results of the analyses that were part of this project, which showed improved daily travel time, decreased overall crash counts, decreased crash costs, and minimal economic impact on neighboring businesses. Case Study 2: Arlington, VA (Crystal Drive from 18th Street S to 23rd Street S) In April 2016, Arlington County deployed peak-hour bus lanes and a two-way left-turn lane on Crystal Drive, between 18th Street S and 23rd Street S. This reallocation was part of a larger transitway project extending between the Crystal City Metrorail Station, in Arlington County, and the Braddock Road Metrorail Station, in Alexandria. The reallocation project involved restriping to convert a four-lane cross section with on-street parking and one bike lane to a three-lane cross section with a two-way left-turn lane, on-street parking, a peak-hour bus lane, and bike lanes.

8-12 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Table 8-3. Somerville, MA, reallocation project analysis results summary. Table 8-4 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed improved daily travel time; decreased overall, bicycle, and pedestrian crash counts; and minimal economic impact on neighboring businesses. Case Study 3: Richmond, VA (Broad Street from N. Thompson Street to N. Foushee Street) Between the Fall of 2016 and the Summer of 2018, the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) established a center-running BRT on Broad Street, between N. Thompson Street and N. Foushee Street. This 2-mile reallocation was implemented as part of a larger BRT project extending 7.6 miles between Willow Lawn in Henrico County and Rocketts Landing in Richmond. The reallocation project converted a six-lane cross section with on-street parking to a four-lane cross section with center-running BRT lanes, dedicated left-turn lanes, and on-street parking on one side of Broad Street. The project also included corridor traffic signal retiming. Table 8-5 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed decreased overall crash counts and minimal economic impact on neighboring businesses. Average travel times on

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-13   Table 8-4. Arlington, VA, reallocation project analysis results summary. Broad Street generally decreased in the eastbound direction and consistently increased in the westbound direction. The increased travel time in the westbound direction aligns with volume growth, particularly on the western part of the corridor. Case Study 4: Richmond, VA (Broad Street from N. 4th Street to College Street) Between the Fall of 2016 and the Summer of 2018, the GRTC implemented curb-running BRT on Broad Street, between N. 4th Street and College Street. This 0.59-mile reallocation was part of the previously mentioned BRT project, extending 7.6 miles between Willow Lawn in Henrico County and Rocketts Landing in Richmond. The reallocation project used restriping to convert a four-lane cross section with peak-hour bus lanes on one curb and on-street parking on the other curb to a four-lane cross section with curb-running BRT lanes. The project also included corridor traffic signal retiming. Table 8-6 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed decreased overall crash counts, decreased crash costs, and positive economic outcomes.

8-14 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Table 8-5. Richmond, VA, reallocation project analysis results summary. Case Study 5: Tampa, FL (N. Highland Avenue from W. Violet Street to W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard) In November 2019, FDOT added a contraflow bike lane to N. Highland Avenue between W. Violet Street and W. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The purpose of this 0.63-mile real- location was to improve safety by managing speeds. The project converted a three-lane, one-way cross section with one bike lane to a two-lane, one-way cross section with a standard bike lane and a buffered contraflow bike lane. The posted speed was reduced from 40 mph to 35 mph. Table 8-7 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed decreased overall crash counts and crash costs. Case Study 6: Oakland, CA (Foothill Boulevard from 16th Avenue to 22nd Avenue) In July 2019, the Oakland Department of Transportation added buffered bike lanes to a 1.3-mile stretch of Foothill Boulevard, between 16th Avenue and 22nd Avenue as part of a pavement

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-15   Table 8-6. Richmond, VA, reallocation project analysis results summary. resurfacing project. The reallocation converted a four-lane cross section with on-street parking to a two-lane cross section with buffered bike lanes and on-street parking. Table 8-8 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed improved daily travel time and neutral economic outcomes. A before-and-after analysis for bicycle and pedestrian crashes was not feasible, given that multiple corridors did not have any bicycle or pedestrian crashes in either the before or after periods. Case Study 7: San Francisco, CA (Valencia Street from Duboce Avenue to 15th Street) In April 2019, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency implemented separated bike lanes on Valencia Street between Duboce Avenue and 15th Street. This reallocation was implemented as part of a larger reallocation project extending 0.4 miles between Market Street and 15th Street. This reconstruction project converted a three-lane cross section to a two-lane cross section with separated bike lanes. The improvements include parking-protected bicycle lanes, improved pedestrian visibility, advanced limit lines, loading islands with protective railings, additional space for loading, and vehicle turn restrictions.

8-16 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Table 8-7. Tampa, FL, reallocation project analysis results summary. Table 8-8. Oakland, CA, reallocation project analysis results summary.

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-17   Table 8-9 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed improved daily travel time; decreased overall, bicycle, and pedestrian crash counts; decreased crash costs; and positive economic outcomes for neighboring businesses. Case Study 8: Seattle, WA (Spring Street from 4th Avenue to 6th Avenue) In January 2018, the Seattle Department of Transportation implemented dedicated bike lanes and bus lanes on Spring Street running between 4th and 6th Avenues. This reallocation was implemented as part of a larger project extending 0.3 miles from 1st Avenue to 6th Avenue. The segment of Spring Street between 4th Avenue and 6th Avenue was converted from a three-lane, one-way street to a two-lane cross section with dedicated bicycle and bus lanes. The reallocation project on this quarter-mile segment coincided with general restriping work along the corridor. Table 8-10 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed improved daily travel time, decreased overall and pedestrian crash counts, decreased crash costs, and neutral eco- nomic outcomes. Table 8-9. San Francisco, CA, reallocation project analysis results summary.

8-18 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Table 8-10. Seattle, WA, reallocation project analysis results summary. Case Study 9: Minneapolis, MN (Washington Avenue from Hennepin Avenue to 5th Avenue) In January 2018, Hennepin County installed raised bicycle lanes on a 0.45-mile segment of Washington Avenue between Hennepin and 5th Avenues. The reallocation project converted a six-lane cross section with a median to a five-lane cross section without a median and with raised bike lanes. Table 8-11 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed decreased overall and pedestrian crash counts, decreased crash costs, and positive economic outcomes. Case Study 10: Washington, DC (I & H Streets NW from 14th Street NW to 18th Street NW) In June 2019, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) introduced peak-hour parking restrictions and a bus-only lane on a half-mile segment of one-way couplet I & H Streets NW, between 14th Street NW and 18th Street NW. This reallocation was implemented as part of a larger reallocation project extending from Pennsylvania Avenue to 13th Street NW. The reallocation project used restriping to convert a three-lane cross section with two lanes of peak- hour parking restricted lanes (westbound on I Street NW and eastbound on H Street NW) to a

Making and Evaluating Cross-Section Changes 8-19   Table 8-11. Minneapolis, MN, reallocation project analysis results summary. three-lane cross section with one lane of peak-hour parking restrictions and one bus-only lane between 14th Street NW and 18th Street NW. The changes were deemed successful by DDOT and subsequently made permanent. Table 8-12 summarizes the results of the project analyses, which showed improved daily travel time, decreased overall bicycle and pedestrian crash counts, decreased crash costs, and positive eco- nomic outcomes. Summary Project implementation is an important continuation of the community engagement process. Practitioners should continue active engagement through the design and construction process. Data collection and performance measurement are critical to understanding how a reallocation project affects communities and will help inform future projects. Data from recent reallocation projects shows safety benefits for all street users, especially people walking and bicycling. Vehicle travel times may increase or decrease after reallocation, but the effects are usually minimal. Case studies did not find substantial evidence of vehicle diversion from reallocation streets to parallel streets.

8-20 Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide Table 8-12. Washington, DC, reallocation project analysis results summary.