In a move that sparked significant debate among transportation experts and urban planners, the Trump administration reversed long-standing federal guidance that promoted the use of “road diets”—a strategy widely recognized for improving traffic safety. Road diets typically involve reducing the number of travel lanes on a roadway and reallocating that space for other uses such as bike lanes, sidewalks, turning lanes, or medians. These modifications are aimed at calming traffic, reducing vehicle speeds, and enhancing safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.
The decision by the Trump-era Department of Transportation (DOT) to scale back support for road diets marked a notable shift in federal transportation policy. For years, both Republican and Democratic administrations had supported road diets as a cost-effective and data-backed approach to reducing crashes and saving lives. However, the Trump administration’s reversal signaled a pivot toward prioritizing vehicular flow and road capacity over traffic calming and multimodal safety enhancements.
Understanding Road Diets
Road diets, also known as lane reductions or road reconfigurations, are most commonly applied to four-lane roads that are converted into three lanes—two through lanes and a center turn lane—with additional space allocated to bike lanes or wider sidewalks. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) had for years endorsed these transformations, citing studies that demonstrated a significant reduction in crashes—often by 20 to 40 percent.
The concept is rooted in the idea that reducing excessive lane capacity, especially on urban and suburban roads with moderate traffic volumes, discourages speeding and reckless driving. In turn, this makes the roads safer not only for motorists but for pedestrians and cyclists as well. Moreover, by reallocating space, cities can promote healthier transportation modes such as walking and biking, and improve accessibility for all road users.
The Reversal
The Trump administration’s decision to roll back support for road diets stemmed from a broader regulatory philosophy that emphasized reducing federal oversight and promoting local and state decision-making. Critics of road diets—primarily some suburban and rural lawmakers—argued that lane reductions increased congestion and negatively affected emergency response times, delivery services, and economic activity.
Under this new guidance, the FHWA revised its internal documents and technical assistance programs to downplay road diets as a go-to safety strategy. While not outright banning or forbidding them, the administration’s stance discouraged states and municipalities from automatically considering road diets in safety improvement plans. Officials cited concerns about potential traffic delays and local opposition, arguing that each project must be assessed through the lens of maximizing vehicular mobility.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao stated that the revised approach aimed to “balance safety with mobility,” but many saw the change as a step backward. Urban planners and safety advocates contended that it undermined years of progress in designing safer streets and communities.
Impacts and Reactions
The backlash to the reversal was swift and widespread among city planners, public health experts, and advocacy groups. They emphasized that road diets had been instrumental in reducing traffic fatalities and injuries, especially in dense urban areas with high rates of pedestrian traffic. By discouraging their use, they warned, the federal government was effectively contributing to a rise in traffic-related deaths.
Many city officials expressed concern that the new guidance would make it more difficult to secure federal funding or approval for road diet projects. Without strong federal support, they feared increased resistance from local stakeholders who might be more influenced by short-term congestion concerns than long-term safety benefits.
Organizations like the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and Vision Zero Network, which aim to eliminate traffic deaths, criticized the Trump administration’s move as a regression in public safety policy. They stressed that road diets are among the most effective, affordable, and scalable tools for saving lives on American roads.
Broader Implications
The road diet reversal fit into a larger pattern of deregulatory efforts during the Trump administration, where infrastructure policy often leaned toward expanding road capacity and reducing perceived bureaucratic barriers. While this approach aimed to stimulate economic growth and streamline development, critics argued it came at the expense of environmental and safety standards.
Furthermore, the decision highlighted the ongoing cultural and political divide in the United States over transportation priorities. While many urban areas are pushing toward walkability, sustainability, and multimodal infrastructure, suburban and rural regions often remain focused on automobile access and traffic efficiency. The shift in federal guidance reflected this tension, illustrating the challenges of implementing uniform safety strategies across diverse geographic and political landscapes.
Looking Ahead
Although the federal support for road diets was weakened during the Trump administration, many cities and states continued to move forward with such projects, backed by strong local data and community engagement. However, the lack of federal encouragement potentially slowed the momentum for new projects and reduced the resources available for technical assistance and research.
With subsequent administrations signaling a renewed focus on safety, equity, and sustainable infrastructure, advocates hope to see a return to evidence-based transportation planning that prioritizes all road users. The road diet debate underscores the importance of aligning federal transportation policy with public health, climate resilience, and community well-being.
In the end, the Trump administration’s reversal served as a critical inflection point in America’s evolving transportation narrative—one that continues to spark important conversations about how streets should be designed and whom they are meant to serve.
