Glendale City Council
November 18, 2025

City of Glendale
Roadway Design
Policy

Prepared by
Public Works Engineering
November 2025

633 E. Broadway, Room 205 Glendale, CA 91206

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3

1. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3

1.1 Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Alignment with City of Glendale’s General Plan and Policies ........................................................................ 4

1.3 Community Experience and Feedback ....................................................................................................... 4

2. Existing Roadway Classification System and Functional Characteristics (Circulation Element) ................. 5

2.1 Arterial Streets (Major and Minor) ............................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Collector Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Local Streets ............................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Proposed Roadway Classification System (Mobility Element) ................................ ................................ . 6

3.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Collector Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Local Streets ............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.4 Signature Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Street Design Criteria by Roadway Type ................................ ................................ ................................ . 8

4.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares ..................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Collector Streets Design .......................................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Local Streets Design ................................................................................................................................ 14

5. Lane Repurposing Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 16

5.1 Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions ................................................................................................. 16

5.2 Best Practices for Implementing Lane Reductions .................................................................................... 20

5.3 Lane Reductions: Examples, Case Studies, and False Impressions ........................................................... 26

6. Next Steps and Future Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ 29

6.1 When to Reference the Roadway Design Policies ...................................................................................... 29

6.2 Deferring Multimodal Enhancements ....................................................................................................... 31

6.3 Balancing the Community’s Wants and Needs .......................................................................................... 31

7. Appendix ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 34

7.1 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................... 34

7.2 Reference Materials and Further Reading ................................................................................................. 36

7.3 Attachments ........................................................................................................................................... 38

Executive Summary
This Glendale Roadway Design Policy represents a strategic initiative by the Glendale Public Works Department to establish comprehensive, community-centered guidelines for street design that align with the City’s broader transportation goals and vision for equitable, multimodal mobility. It provides a framework to balance safety, mobility, and community livability across all roadway types. The policy outlines the current roadway classifications, the proposed classifications, and details design criteria for each. Key elements include recommended lane width standards, guidance on median and turn lane design for safety and access management, and incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The policy highlights the importance of maintaining emergency vehicle access even after lane reductions or traffic calming measures. It prioritizes multimodal considerations, improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders while meeting Glendale’s General Plan objectives for reducing congestion and providing transportation alternatives. Detailed lane reconfiguration guidelines are provided, including criteria for when a travel lane may be removed and how to repurpose the roadway space effectively. The policy reflects what we’ve heard from the community from various projects spanning many years and lessons from peer cities. Best practices and case studies from federal guidance and neighboring cities are incorporated.

With this document, every street improvement can be consistent and predictable. Residents can expect a “safety first” design principle: decisions that prioritize reducing crash risk and improving walking and biking conditions.

The document covers implementation strategies to put the policy into action. It calls for coordination with community stakeholders and emergency responders in planning street changes, use of pilot projects and monitoring to evaluate outcomes, and integration of these design standards into Glendale’s project development process. A glossary of technical terms and a reference list of sources and further reading are included in the appendix for clarity. Glendale aims to create complete streets that enhance safety and are more accessible for everyone, including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, while still supporting efficient traffic flow and emergency response. This policy aligns with the City’s vision to preserve quality of life, support commerce, protect neighborhoods, and minimize environmental impacts. Finally, it is intended to serve as a valuable resource for guiding current and future planning initiatives, with a focus on delivering practical, community-oriented, and actionable recommendations.

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Glendale Roadway Design Policy is to establish clear standards and guidelines for street design and lane configurations citywide. This policy will guide the planning, design, and implementation of roadway projects ranging from minor striping changes to full corridor reconfigurations. It covers varying design scenarios across the city, including residential streets, commercial corridors, and multimodal thoroughfares. The scope includes geometric design elements, accommodations for all travel modes, and operational considerations. By compiling these standards into one document, Glendale aims for consistency in how streets are redesigned to meet modern transportation goals while considering community feedback.

This policy is intended for use by City engineers, planners, and consultants during every phase of project development, as well as by decision-makers evaluating roadway improvement proposals. It provides technical guidelines but also includes explanatory sections. Multimodal corridor design is a key focus. The policy outlines how to integrate car, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian needs in street redesigns. The overarching objective is to create “Complete Streets” that safely serve all users and improve the community's quality of life. The policy also

includes design solutions that are tailored for different areas of the city, from quiet neighborhoods to busy downtown streets.

1.2 Alignment with City of Glendale’s General Plan and Policies This roadway design policy aligns closely with Glendale’s General Plan, particularly the Circulation Element (1998), to be replaced by the proposed Mobility Element (adoption pending 2026), and other related policies. Glendale’s General Plan Circulation Element establishes goals of preserving neighborhood character, reducing congestion and vehicle impacts, and promoting alternative transportation modes. This design policy serves as an implementation tool to advance those goals through concrete street design practices. The design policy incorporates traffic calming measures on local streets to fulfill this objective, directly supporting the General Plan directives. This policy responds by prioritizing the addition of pedestrian, bike, and transit accommodations during roadway projects whenever a street is reconfigured or resurfaced, and sufficient right-of-way is available or can be reasonably acquired.

The policy also aligns with the Safety Element of Glendale’s General Plan (adopted 2025), which emphasizes maintaining adequate emergency access routes citywide while minimizing the impacts to emergency response capabilities. The Roadway Design Policy is grounded in adopted city policies. It translates the broad goals of Glendale’s General Plan into detailed standards for street design. Consistency with local design guidelines and regional plans is also maintained. For example, concepts from the City of Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan are reflected in Glendale’s streets to tie into broader regional networks.

The Roadway Design Policy was also developed to be consistent with the City’s commitment to safety as embodied in the forthcoming Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP). While the specific tools and analyses are not yet incorporated into this Policy, the overall framework and goals are aligned. The policy’s emphasis on designing for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, speed management, and collision reduction supports the Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries.

1.3 Community Experience and Feedback
This policy reflects extensive community input and City experience regarding traffic and safety. Residents have voiced concerns about speeding, cut-through traffic, and pedestrian safety in neighborhoods. This feedback reflects general community comments collected over the years, rather than comments directed specifically at the Roadway Design Policy. In response, Glendale has developed programs, like the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, to implement measures such as speed humps and curb extensions on local streets. Lessons learned from past projects, including road diets, bike lane installations, and streetscape improvements, helped inform these guidelines. For instance, previous Glendale projects have shown that narrowing or removing travel lanes can reduce vehicle speeds while causing congestion and increasing cut-through traffic.

This Roadway Design Policy is intended as a guiding document that is practical while addressing real-world conditions. Community feedback has reinforced the need for balanced solutions: residents expect safe crossings and bike lanes, but also efficient emergency response and reasonable traffic flow. This policy takes a context- sensitive approach, seeking designs that improve safety and multimodal options while respecting the functional needs of each street type and community.

By clearly defining standards and criteria, the Glendale Roadway Design Policy provides a transparent framework for making roadway decisions. This will help City staff, developers, and the public understand how street improvements are evaluated and designed in a way that supports a safe, livable, and accessible city for all.

2. Existing Roadway Classification System and Functional Characteristics (Circulation Element)
Glendale’s current street classification system, as defined in the City’s existing Circulation Element of the General Plan, groups roadways by their function and capacity. Each class of street has distinct characteristics in terms of typical traffic volumes, connectivity, and role in the network. The three primary classifications in the existing system are Arterial Streets, Collector Streets, and Local Streets.

2.1 Arterial Streets (Major and Minor)
These are the City’s major thoroughfares, built to carry high traffic volumes and longer-distance trips. Major arterials in Glendale are typically four to six travel lanes wide and handle up to ~45,000 vehicles per day. They provide continuous, efficient routes across the City and connect to freeways, other arterials, and major activity centers. Minor arterials, which usually have four lanes and traffic volumes up to ~30,000 vehicles per day, supplement the major arterial network. Both major and minor arterials prioritize mobility over land access; driveway access is limited, and intersections are usually signalized or otherwise controlled to favor traffic flow.

Arterial street cross-sections typically include wider travel lanes (10-12 feet), bike lanes where feasible, and parking lanes or shoulders (8 feet minimum) as space allows. These dimensions align with typical state highway design standards and accommodate transit buses and trucks. Examples of Glendale’s arterial corridors include Brand Boulevard, Central Avenue, Glendale Avenue, San Fernando Road, and Foothill Boulevard, which serve as primary routes for cross-town traffic and regional connectivity. Arterials are often designated truck routes and typically have the highest transit service frequency, reflecting their role in moving large numbers of people. Land uses along arterials are often commercial or high-density residential, and access control measures such as raised medians or turn restrictions are used to improve safety and capacity.

2.2 Collector Streets
Collector roads form the intermediate network that channels traffic from local streets to the arterial system.

Glendale’s current Circulation Element further distinguishes collectors by context, categorizing urban collectors in denser commercial/mixed-use areas, community collectors in suburban residential areas, and neighborhood collectors within neighborhoods. They all serve a similar function of balancing mobility and access. Collectors are typically two-lane roadways with one travel lane in each direction and carry moderate traffic volumes, generally around 10,000 vehicles per day. Because adjacent land uses vary, treatment of collectors can differ. Urban collectors may see more traffic and transit service, whereas neighborhood collectors traverse residential areas with lower volumes and usually allow full access to driveways and street parking. Glendale’s design standards for collectors generally mirror a scaled-down arterial: 10 to 11-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parking lanes, and possibly bike lanes if right-of-way allows. The City expects slower speeds on collectors than arterials, and in some cases has implemented traffic calming measures where appropriate. Examples of collector streets in Glendale include Kenneth Road, Grandview Avenue, and Lexington Drive.

2.3 Local Streets
Local streets comprise the majority of Glendale’s street network by mileage and primarily provide access to adjacent properties and various land uses. They are low-volume, low-speed roads intended for short trips within

neighborhoods. A typical local street in Glendale carries on the order of a few hundred vehicles per day. Through traffic should be discouraged on local streets since these roads are not meant as shortcuts for cross-town traffic.

Design features of local streets focus on accommodating residential traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists in a safe environment. Local streets are normally two lanes total, with one travel lane in each direction and with abundant on-street parking. Intersections are often controlled by stop signs rather than signals. Where speeding or cut- through issues arise, the City applies traffic calming measures to slow vehicles and restore a quiet neighborhood character. In designing local street improvements, maintaining the residential character is important: features like parkways, street trees, pedestrian-scaled street furniture, and sidewalks are encouraged to enhance walkability and aesthetics.

3. Proposed Roadway Classification System (Mobility Element) The proposed Mobility Element is a comprehensive update to the Circulation Element, which redefines street classifications to better align with multimodal transportation goals and contemporary planning concepts. As part of this update, the traditional roadway classifications are being refined into a framework that better accounts for multimodal travel and street context. The proposed roadway classification system introduces a new set of categories.

3.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares
This category corresponds generally to the current arterials, encompassing Glendale’s primary corridors for moving people and goods. Major Mobility Thoroughfares are the major streets that provide access to freeways, state highways, and regional destinations both within and outside Glendale. They remain the widest and highest- capacity city streets (typically 4 or more travel lanes for vehicles) but the definition of “mobility” on these thoroughfares is broadened. Rather than focusing solely on vehicle throughput, the City recognizes that moving more people can sometimes be achieved by multimodal enhancements. A Major Mobility Thoroughfare might feature transit priority lanes or high-quality bikeways in addition to general traffic lanes, especially on corridors designated as transit or bicycle priority routes in City plans. The intent is to increase person-carrying capacity even if it means repurposing some road space from cars to buses or bikes. Major Mobility Thoroughfares will continue to serve high traffic volumes, but their design will be context-sensitive: in some areas, wider sidewalks and transit amenities may be emphasized to support dense commercial land uses, whereas in others the priority might be maintaining efficient car travel. The key distinguishing factor of this class is its regional importance. These streets form the backbone of Glendale’s transportation network and must balance high demand and community support from all modes.

3.2 Collector Streets
In the new framework, “Collector Streets” connect neighborhoods to key destinations and to the Major Mobility Thoroughfares. They are typically two vehicular lanes with one per direction, but with added emphasis on supporting multiple travel modes. For instance, a collector might include bike lanes or bicycle boulevards if it is part of a bike route, or bulb-outs and crossing islands if it has heavy pedestrian activity. The updated Mobility Element envisions that person throughput on collectors can also be augmented with quality bicycle or transit treatments. This means if a particular collector is designated as a Bicycle Priority corridor, the City may consider a road diet or lane narrowing to install buffered bike lanes. If it’s a Transit Priority collector, improvements like bus

shelters, curb extensions at bus stops, or transit signal priority might be applied. The functional role of collectors is to handle moderate traffic volumes and link local streets with larger roads while supporting Glendale’s goals for improved bike/pedestrian travel and first-mile/last-mile transit connectivity. Under the new classification, the three subtypes may be consolidated for simplicity, but design guidance will still consider adjacent land use context. For example, a collector in a commercial district may get different sidewalk treatments than one in a purely residential area.

3.3 Local Streets
In the new framework, “Local Streets” remain the small-scale roads that form the backbone of Glendale’s residential areas, focusing on local access and neighborhood connectivity rather than serving through traffic. They are typically two-lane streets with low vehicle volumes and slow speeds appropriate for neighborhood activity, providing direct access to homes, schools, parks, and other community destinations. Local Streets primarily connect residential areas internally and link neighborhoods to the broader roadway network via Collector Streets.

They are not intended as shortcuts for cross-town travel; instead, these streets provide a safe, quiet environment, often featuring on-street parking, sidewalks, street trees, and frequent stop signs or other traffic calming measures—such as speed humps or traffic circles—to slow vehicles and discourage cut-through driving. The updated Mobility Element reinforces the importance of maintaining the residential character of Local Streets and supports Glendale’s goals for livable, walkable neighborhoods. These streets naturally encourage walking and casual bicycling, and the City will continue to implement context-sensitive traffic calming or pedestrian improvements where needed. While they carry far fewer vehicles than higher-tier roadways, Local Streets play a crucial first-mile/last-mile role in the transportation system by collecting trips at their origin or destination and guiding travelers to the nearest collector or thoroughfare.

3.4 Signature Streets
A Signature Street is not a separate functional class in terms of traffic volume or capacity, but rather an overlay for streets that have a unique civic or commercial identity and where placemaking and pedestrian experience are a top priority. These are often found in areas like downtown and retail districts, historic centers, or other specialty areas. Signature Streets typically feature distinctive streetscape designs. These include special paving, public art, consistent street furniture, pedestrian lighting, landscaping, and curb extensions for sidewalk dining or gathering.

They tend to have a high level of pedestrian activity and “Main Street” character. Auto traffic is still accommodated, but slower speeds and frequent pedestrian crossings are expected and encouraged to create a vibrant street life. A Signature Street might be a segment of a thoroughfare or collector that goes through a major shopping/dining area (for example, Brand Blvd in downtown, or Honolulu Avenue in Montrose). On such streets, design standards may call for wider sidewalks, angled parking to support retail, and aesthetic elements that reinforce the unique identity of the district. Importantly, safety for all users is critical on Signature Streets: features like high-visibility crosswalks, mid-block crossings, pedestrian refuges, and curb radius reductions are typically design considerations to make these areas pedestrian-friendly. While vehicle capacity may be second to ambience on a Signature Street, the policy will still consider loading zones and traffic management for peak times so that deliveries and circulation needs are met.

4. Street Design Criteria by Roadway Type
Design guidelines are provided for each roadway classification to direct how improvements or modifications shall be implemented. The following sub-sections detail design criteria for Major Mobility Thoroughfares, Collector Streets, and Local Streets. Each includes considerations such as lane configurations and widths, provisions for parking, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, emergency vehicle access, and typical capacity ranges. These guidelines apply both to maintaining existing streets and to reconfiguring streets.

4.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares
Even when lane reconfigurations or “road diets” are applied, Major Mobility Thoroughfares must continue to fulfill their primary function of carrying high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently. The design criteria below provide standards and best practices for Glendale’s Major Mobility Thoroughfares to balance capacity with safety and multimodal needs:
• Travel Lane Configurations: On Major Mobility Thoroughfares, standard travel lane widths shall be in the range of 10 to 12 feet. A 12-foot lane is desirable on routes with frequent large vehicles to provide extra clearance such as transit buses or fire trucks. However, 11 feet is an acceptable minimum general-purpose lane width that can improve safety by encouraging slightly lower speeds without significantly hindering truck or bus operations. The City uses 10-foot lanes as a baseline, using 11-foot lanes for the outside curb lanes on those corridors that serve bus lines or heavy truck routes, or where there are high volumes of large vehicles. A Truck Route Map (Goods Movement Network Map) in the upcoming Mobility Element will aim to reduce truck congestion on City streets and provide further information on appropriate locations for bike lanes. If adding bike lanes by narrowing existing lanes, lane widths shall not be reduced to less than 10 feet with at least one 11-foot lane in each direction for emergency and large vehicles. In more urbanized roadway segments, like downtown areas, 10-foot lanes might be considered for inside lanes to calm traffic, especially if data showed it would reduce speeding while still accommodating traffic. Notably, the City of Pasadena’s design guidance uses 10-foot through lanes and 11-foot outer lanes on many city streets to successfully manage speeds. In Pasadena’s tests, narrowing lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet led to measurable speed reductions.

Summary: 11–12 feet is the desired lane width, with 10-foot widths as a minimum, that can reduce speeding and allocate space for other uses where appropriate. At least one 11-foot lane in each travel direction is required for emergency vehicles.

• Median and Turn Lane Configurations: Major Mobility Thoroughfares often benefit from a center median or center turn lane to manage left-turn movements and improve safety. Glendale’s design policy provides guidance on when to include such configurations. If a thoroughfare currently lacks a median and experiences a high volume of mid-block left turns or a history of left-turn-related and rear-end collisions, adding a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) or dedicated left-turn pockets at intersections should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A TWLTL can greatly reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes by removing turning vehicles from the through lanes. It also provides a refuge for drivers waiting to turn and can double as an emergency bypass lane when clear. For instance, converting a four-lane undivided thoroughfare into a three-lane (two through lanes + center turn lane) is an example of a road diet strategy that may be feasible on appropriate thoroughfares (see Vehicle Capacity and Volumes Section below) to improve safety and access. On the other hand, if fewer driveways and higher speeds are present, a raised

median may be preferable to a TWLTL. Raised medians offer additional benefits: they can physically separate opposing traffic by reducing head-on collision risk, provide pedestrian refuge at crossings, and aesthetically enhance the street with landscaping. When implementing raised medians, the design must still accommodate necessary left-turn pockets at key intersections, minimize access impacts to driveways in business districts, or U-turn slots for property access. Design treatments for left-turn pockets include adequate storage length and bay taper based on traffic volumes to provide clear sightlines.

Summary: Glendale’s thoroughfares should incorporate a median or center turn lane whenever feasible for both operational flow and safety. In a road diet scenario, adding a center turn lane is a primary safety improvement to reduce left-turn conflicts. Where continuous two-way left-turn lanes exist, converting portions to raised medians with strategic openings could be a recommended solution.

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: All Major Mobility Thoroughfare projects shall incorporate complete streets features, meaning accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians to the extent reasonably practical. If a lane reduction is feasible, the preferred use of the available roadway space is often to add or enhance bike lanes and improve pedestrian infrastructure. On such reconfigured thoroughfares, a protected Class IV bike lane is the preferred design where space allows and where it’s contextually appropriate (see Section 5 for bicycle facility guidelines). At minimum, buffered Class II bike lanes shall be considered to increase cyclist safety on Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority) that have sufficient right-of-way and are identified in Glendale’s proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan. This aligns with the City’s plan to improve the bikeway system and provide safe bicycle connectivity even along busy corridors.

In cases where adding bike lanes is not immediately feasible due to constrained width or other priorities, parallel bicycle routes on nearby streets or off-street bike routes may be considered.

For pedestrians, thoroughfare projects must improve crosswalks and sidewalks where feasible. When a thoroughfare is reconfigured, the reduction in crossing distance is an added benefit. Pedestrians have fewer lanes of traffic to cross which improves safety and can shorten signal cycles needed for pedestrian crossing. The Public Works Department recommends the installation of pedestrian refuge islands where appropriate. These refuges allow a two-stage crossing and are especially helpful on wide roads or for slower-moving pedestrians. Curb extensions may be used at intersections along thoroughfares to shorten the crossing distance and improve pedestrian visibility. Bulb-outs can be feasible on thoroughfares, particularly where on-street parking is present and can be extended at corners without removing travel lanes. Their design must accommodate turning vehicles and they should not extend so far as to impede the turning path of buses or trucks. All new or modified signalized intersections must include high-visibility “continental” or creative art-inspired crosswalk markings and countdown pedestrian signal phases. Timing adjustments like leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) can be implemented to give pedestrians a head start crossing before cars get a green light, improving safety at busy crossings. Mid-block crosswalks are encouraged on long thoroughfare blocks, especially near transit stops or major pedestrian generators, provided that appropriate traffic control is installed. Whenever a thoroughfare undergoes redesign, sidewalk conditions must be assessed: replace missing sidewalk segments, substandard narrow sidewalks widened if right-of-way permits, and obstructions relocated out of the clear walking path. The City will incorporate ADA-compliant upgrades during these projects, specifically every corner receiving modern curb ramps with tactile warnings and any non-compliant slopes or barriers made compliant.

Summary: Bicyclists and pedestrians are integral to Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority) design, transforming them into multimodal corridors. Projects will incorporate complete streets features to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as proposed in the Mobility Element and Bicycle Transportation Plan, if feasible.

• Large and Emergency Vehicle Access: Glendale’s Major Mobility Thoroughfares are often primary emergency response routes for fire trucks and ambulances, as well as main corridors for transit and commercial trucks. Maintaining adequate access and maneuverability for large vehicles is a critical requirement. A minimum travel lane of roadway width of 11 feet must be maintained such that emergency vehicles can safely travel. In practical terms, even after a lane reconfiguration, there shall be at least two lanes in each direction during emergencies. This might include one travel lane and one center turn lane.

Turning radii at intersections on a thoroughfare must accommodate the City’s largest emergency vehicle.

Projects shall coordinate with the Fire Department early in the design of any thoroughfare lane reconfiguration and the Fire Department will have the opportunity to review all stages of the design plans.

This policy document makes it clear that fire and life safety access is an essential priority, and any thoroughfare redesign must demonstrate that it preserves or improves emergency response capability.

Summary: Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority) designs will address lane width requirements for fire trucks, ambulances, buses, and large freight vehicles to travel and turn safely and effectively. This includes verifying that curb radii, lane widths, and intersection layouts accommodate a turning fire engine, that hydrants remain accessible, and that nothing in the design would permanently impede emergency vehicle passage.

• Vehicle Capacity and Volumes: While Glendale is focusing on safety and multi-modal enhancements, understanding and respecting a thoroughfare vehicle capacity remains important. Each thoroughfare has a typical range of traffic volume it is expected to carry. The standard unit of measurement is vehicles per day (vpd), referred to as Average Daily Traffic (ADT). A roadway segment’s ADT represents the total two-way traffic volume. For design purposes, Glendale will reference these ranges to decide what modifications are suitable. Major Mobility Thoroughfares in Glendale have the following Maximum Capacity and Acceptable Operational ADTs:
6 Travel Lanes
• Maximum = 55,300 vpd
• Acceptable = 48,350 vpd

4 Travel Lanes
• Maximum = 36,800 vpd
• Acceptable = 32,000 vpd

2 Travel Lanes
• Maximum = 18,300 vpd
• Acceptable = 16,000 vpd

If traffic volumes approach these upper limits of Acceptable ADTs which equate to a level of service (LOS) D, certain design changes are not advisable without mitigating measures, due to the risk of excessive congestion. This is consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, which suggests road diets are most suited for roadways with ADTs of 20,000 or less and should be evaluated for feasibility. If a thoroughfare has relatively lower volumes (less than 16,000 ADT), it might function adequately with fewer lanes and be a potential candidate for a road diet without causing undue congestion and significant diversion of traffic.

For conversions from four lanes (two in each direction) to three lanes (one in each direction plus a center turn lane):
o ≤16,000 ADT is likely feasible for reducing lanes; for 4 lane to 2-3 lane conversions o >16,000 is not feasible
For roadways with 6 or more travel lanes, a road diet in the higher ADT ranges may work in some cases but Glendale will only proceed with additional analysis and perhaps a pilot test in such scenarios. In addition to daily volumes, peak hour capacity is another important metric. A thoroughfare might carry 16,000 ADT but if peak hour volumes are very high, reducing lanes could cause severe delays during those hours. An examination of peak hour volume per lane is required. Another metric to determine the feasibility of a road diet is the peak hourly flow per direction per lane. If projected future peak volumes exceed what a single lane can accommodate, a lane removal is not feasible.

Summary: Roadways must maintain acceptable levels of operation for the thoroughfare’s intended function. This policy continues that approach: projects on thoroughfares must not intentionally create failing conditions during typical peak periods. However, slight reductions in vehicle capacity are acceptable accommodations if they yield large safety and multimodal benefits, as long as overall network function remains reasonable and diverting traffic can be mitigated. Major Mobility Thoroughfares with ADTs less than 16,000 vehicles per day are feasible candidates for a 4 lane to 2-3 lane conversion.

4.2 Collector Streets Design
Collector streets serve as the connectors between local streets and thoroughfares, they can handle moderate traffic volumes while also blending into neighborhood settings. Collector streets are efficient conduits for local traffic and transit, but also safe and pleasant for community use. Key guidelines for collector streets include:
• Travel Lane Configurations: Most collector streets in Glendale have a two-lane configuration (one travel lane in each direction) which is generally sufficient for their traffic volumes. Under typical conditions, a collector street can carry approximately 12,200 vehicles per day with acceptable operational volumes of 10,675 vehicles per day. If a collector has frequent left-turns, adding a center two-way left-turn lane for a stretch can improve flow by allowing left turners to wait outside of the through lane. The introduction of a center turn lane might also be part of a road diet on a wider collector. For example, if a collector currently has four lanes but low traffic, it might be converted to one lane each way plus a center lane.

Summary: Maintaining one travel lane in each direction is the baseline for collector streets and any added lanes are optional enhancements based on conditions.

• On-Street Parking Provisions: Many collector streets run through residential or mixed-use areas where on-street parking is valued. When reconfiguring a collector, retain or formalize parking if it is in demand and space allows. For instance, if a collector’s curb-to-curb width is approximately 38 feet, it could accommodate two 11-foot travel lanes and two 8-foot parking lanes on each side. If parking demand is low or the street is narrow, parking might be restricted to one side to free space for other uses on the other side.

Angled parking is most common near commercial districts, like Honolulu Avenue. Angled parking occupies more roadway width and can pose visibility issues when vehicles back out. This policy suggests that if angled parking exists on a collector and a lane reconfiguration is planned, Glendale could consider converting angled parking to parallel parking for improved safety, rather than removing travel lanes to retain

a larger angled parking footprint, as long as a parking utilization study is conducted and results in sufficient parking supply after the reconfiguration. If a collector has extensive angled parking and insufficient width, lane reductions are not recommended because the combination of angled parking and fewer lanes can severely constrain traffic flow and potentially create hazardous conditions. Each collector street’s parking usage shall be studied during design. This policy encourages conducting a parking occupancy survey to see if all the provided on-street parking is being utilized. These provisions are also applicable to Major Mobility Thoroughfares on a case-by-case basis.

Summary: The City will integrate on-street parking and provide it where needed, manage or modify parking where it conflicts with safety, and communicate parking changes to affected residents and businesses as part of the project.

• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Collector streets are often ideal candidates for enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure because they usually have lower speeds and volumes than thoroughfares.

Where feasible, sidewalks on both sides of all collector streets are recommended. If a collector street currently lacks a sidewalk on one or both sides, any roadway improvement project on that street must include adding the missing sidewalk segments where feasible or at minimum, plan for sidewalks and seek funding to do so concurrently. This is critical for walkability, as collectors connect neighborhoods to schools, parks, and transit stops. The sidewalk width on collectors should have a minimum of 5 feet of clear walking space in residential areas, and if feasible wider along commercial segments. If the existing accessible pedestrian path is less than 60 inches, this policy requires widening it or providing curb extensions at key locations to create safer waiting or passing areas for pedestrians. Enhanced crosswalks on collectors, especially at intersections with high pedestrian crossing demand or near community facilities shall be included in the design plans. These enhancements include high-visibility striping, warning signage, and flashing beacons/pedestrian hybrid beacons (RRFB/PHB) for mid-block crossings.

For bicyclists, the City will evaluate adding bike lanes or shared lane markings as proposed in the Mobility Element and Bicycle Transportation Plan if considered feasible, dependent on various factors like volumes, lane capacity, speeds, and community feedback. The policy recognizes that not all collectors need striped bike lanes. On a neighborhood collector with ADTs less than 3,000 and no greater than 25 MPH speeds, Class III sharrows might be sufficient. However, for many collectors with higher volumes and speeds exceeding 25 MPH, a dedicated Class II or Class IV bike lane is preferable for cyclist safety and comfort.

Glendale will use collected data and residents’ input to determine the feasibility of bicycle infrastructure installations. This is consistent with the idea of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) for bicyclists, where higher traffic volume and speed roads without bike lanes result in high stress LTS 3 or 4. The City should aim to bring collectors down to LTS 2 or better where feasible, which often means providing a striped lane or other separation. In some cases, Glendale might choose to implement a bike boulevard treatment on a collector:
this could involve route signage, traffic calming elements, and crossing improvements at key intersections to help cyclists.

Collector streets are well-suited for pedestrian safety improvements such as enhanced crosswalks and pedestrian bulb-outs at intersections, which help reduce crossing distances and slow turning vehicles.

These features can often be implemented by repurposing corner-adjacent parking spaces. The City will also evaluate traffic-calming measures on long, straight collector segments where speeding is documented. Additionally, mid-block traffic-calming treatments may be considered near schools to enhance pedestrian safety.

Summary: Pedestrian and bicycle improvements on collectors should be aimed at making these streets safe for all roadway users across the City. The goal is to minimize gaps in sidewalks and to establish a cohesive bike network using collectors as key links. All such enhancements will be considered in context.

For instance, a quiet hillside collector might need pedestrian improvements more than bike lanes due to steep grades, whereas a flat collector through town might become a bike corridor.

• Large and Emergency Vehicle Access: Collector streets often serve as secondary routes for emergency response. If a thoroughfare is congested or closed, emergency vehicles might divert through a collector to reach a destination. Some collectors are also the primary fire access routes into certain residential areas, particularly hillside neighborhoods where only collectors lead in. The City will maintain sufficient street width and operational considerations on collectors to allow emergency vehicles to travel. The policy sets a guideline that even after adding features like bike lanes or curb extensions, a minimum lane width of 11 feet in both travel directions shall be available. However, certain traffic calming measures could inadvertently narrow the usable roadway and if used on a collector, they must be designed such that the remaining travel lane still leaves enough room for a fire truck to navigate. The Fire Department will review collector designs that introduce significant horizontal deflection like diverters or vertical deflection like speed humps, to assess the impact on response times. Generally, the Fire Department in Glendale can tolerate speed humps on residential streets but will restrict them on collectors that are important for emergency access. Another emergency consideration is turnaround and connectivity. Some collectors end in cul-de-sacs or dead ends. Adequate turnaround space for fire apparatus is required in these scenarios.

The policy established the need for a 20-foot minimum clear path for emergency vehicles if curb extensions or chokers are added.

Summary: Collectors must support emergency access allowing emergency vehicles the ability to travel with minimal hindrance. If lane repurposing is proposed on a collector street, the City will verify that emergency vehicle maneuverability is not hindered. Coordination with emergency services is essential when modifying collectors to minimize any potential increases to emergency response times.

• Vehicle Capacity and Volumes: Collector streets carry intermediate volumes, typically around 12,200 vehicles per day. For design, this policy suggests typical capacity ranges: a standard two-lane collector without turn lanes can usually accommodate roughly 10,675 ADT at a Level of Service (LOS) of D, depending on intersection controls. The City will use these figures to decide on road diets or traffic calming. If a collector has low volumes relative to capacity, it could potentially tolerate traffic measures that have minor capacity impacts. Conversely, if a collector is near its capacity, adding any measure that reduces effective capacity might push the street over acceptable congestion levels.

The roadway characteristics and typical users of collector roads are different than those of thoroughfares.

Reducing lanes on collector streets, which often serve as vital connectors between local roads and thoroughfares, could lead to traffic diversion onto adjacent local streets. This may increase congestion and potentially compromise safety in residential areas not designed to tolerate higher traffic volumes.

Additionally, lane reductions on collectors without community engagement may disproportionately affect certain neighborhoods, particularly those with limited alternative routes. This could raise concerns and community opposition.

Summary: Design considerations for collectors are configurations that can handle projected traffic and do not introduce changes that would cause undue queuing or diversion. This policy frames capacity in terms of flexible response: design for expected typical volumes plus some growth, use extra space for safety

where possible, avoid reducing capacity below the demand, and prevent the redistribution of traffic onto smaller local streets. Collector roadways with ADTs exceeding 10,675 vehicles per day may not be feasible candidates for a 4 lane to 2-3 lane conversion.

4.3 Local Streets Design
Local streets are at the heart of Glendale’s neighborhoods. Design guidelines for local residential streets focus on enhancing safety, livability, and neighborhood character, rather than increasing capacity. Key aspects of local street design include traffic calming measures, shared space considerations, and emergency access. • Traffic Calming Measures: For local streets, controlling vehicle speeds and discouraging cut-through traffic is a top priority. This policy document emphasizes using design features to naturally slow down cars and reduce collision risk, to discourage high speeds on residential streets. Unlike thoroughfares or collectors, local streets usually do not have extra lanes to remove, and it is common to implement measures included in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (adopted 2023). Any proposed modifications on local streets should be coordinated with residents through community-led efforts.

Summary: Local streets should operate at 25 MPH or less and drivers should expect calming features. If local streets are part of school routes, additional enhancements like high-visibility crosswalks, crossing guards, or feedback signs might be implemented.

• Shared Space Considerations: In select low-volume local or neighborhood streets, the City may consider adopting a “shared street” or “bicycle boulevard” approach. A shared street is where the distinction between modes is minimized. Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all share the space with very low speed limits and minimal traffic control devices. This concept can be appropriate for short local streets or alley- like streets in commercial areas, or for designated neighborhood greenways. The policy suggests that for some local/neighborhood streets, especially those with very low traffic volumes (<1,000 ADT) and a community desire for a walkable environment, a shared street design could be implemented. This might involve removing lane markings, using special pavement treatments, and adding planters or street furniture to indicate it’s a pedestrian-priority space. In residential areas, bike boulevards are local streets optimized for bicycle travel and crossings. These treatments could include diverters, pavement markings, and signs that emphasize bike presence. Bicycle boulevards encourage a mix of bikes and local cars in a slow-speed setting.

In unique commercial contexts, a local street might include shared elements for a few blocks or designing a curb-less street where the entire right-of-way is a pedestrian promenade. The City can consider a pilot program for areas with high foot traffic and business support. To implement a shared street, the vehicle volumes and speeds must be very low. If considering converting a typical local street into a shared street, coordination with and support from residents is required.

Summary: While the typical local street is a conventional street with sidewalks and narrow lanes, this policy includes shared-space solutions in appropriate locations. The purpose is to enhance walkability/bikeability and community character by treating the street as a shared space, not just for vehicles. The City will identify candidate streets for such treatments through its planning processes and community input.

• Large and Emergency Vehicle Access: Traffic calming or any street modifications must not impede Fire Department and emergency access, even on local streets. Local residential streets, especially in hillside areas of Glendale, often have constrained widths, so any additional obstructions must be carefully reviewed. A 20-foot unobstructed path for fire apparatus access is a requirement. For any local street where curb extensions or parking changes are planned, the design must be reviewed for emergency vehicle access. Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets need special consideration. They must have adequate turnaround space for fire trucks. If a street is a dead-end without a proper cul-de-sac, alternate turnarounds like a “Y” or hammerheads that accommodate a large fire truck could be provided. This policy emphasizes that even as the City adds features like landscape elements or traffic circles, the ability of a fire engine to reach every house and local fire hydrants must not be impeded.

Summary: No traffic calming or local street modification shall compromise emergency response.

Glendale’s practice is to continue to provide the Fire Department the ability to review and comment on all street modification plans.

• Residential Character and Right-of-Way Enhancements: Local streets offer a great opportunity to improve aesthetics and walkability through enhancements in the right-of-way. The City encourages adding features like green parkways, street trees, and continuous sidewalks as part of local street improvements.

Even if roadway space is being reallocated for calming, the policy looks to incorporate beautification simultaneously. For example, a traffic calming project that adds bulb-outs could include planters or landscaping on those bulb-outs, contributing to the neighborhood’s appearance. Planting street trees along local streets is highly encouraged. Not only do trees provide shade and beautification, but they also have a traffic calming effect by visually narrowing the street and providing a physical buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk.

Certain neighborhoods may have very narrow or missing sidewalks. This policy calls for completing sidewalks wherever possible and practical. While some local streets might have very low pedestrian use, the City’s long-term goal is walkable and bikeable neighborhoods. Parkways are valued on local streets for their greenery and as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. Maintaining or creating parkways where right-of-way width permits is recommended. Features like decorative streetlamps, benches, or community identifiers could be placed on local streets to build a sense of community identity. Another aspect is stormwater management. The City can incorporate green infrastructure like bioswales on local streets. A curb extension can double as a rain garden that captures street runoff. This contributes to environmental goals and adds to the visual appeal.

Summary: Local streets serve as pleasant public spaces on a small scale. This means integrating landscaping, street furniture, and pedestrian amenities in local street design. If the right-of-way can accommodate these enhancements, doing so will improve walkability, improve environmental quality, and provide a unique residential character to each neighborhood’s look and feel.

• Vehicle Capacity and Volumes: Local streets typically accommodate very low volumes with ADT limits generally not exceeding 2,000–2,500 vehicles per day. If a local street is found to carry more than that regularly, the City can investigate measures to reduce through traffic. Local street designs should not intentionally increase capacity. In new development projects, this policy would advise designing the local street network to disperse traffic rather than concentrating it on a few local streets.

Summary: Local streets are meant for local traffic only. This policy supports designs that encourage local streets to prioritize quality of life over capacity.

5. Lane Repurposing Guidelines
Lane repurposing, often termed a “lane reduction” or “road diet”, is a design strategy used to reconfigure roadway space by removing or re-purposing existing roadway lanes. The primary goals of lane reductions are to improve safety, calm traffic, and provide space for other uses such as turn lanes, bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, or parking.

This section outlines the criteria for considering a lane reduction and the best practices to implement such a reconfiguration effectively while aligning with the City’s multi-modal transportation goals.

5.1 Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions
When evaluating whether a roadway is a good candidate for a lane reduction, the following criteria and factors shall be considered for every project. Each project must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but generally a lane reduction may be feasible and beneficial if several of these conditions are met:

• Traffic Volume Thresholds: Lane reductions are typically considered on streets with moderate traffic volumes. Roadways with no more than two travel lanes in each direction carrying no more than 16,000 vehicles per day are potential candidates for lane repurposing and should be reviewed for other roadway metrics like peak-hour traffic rates and traffic diversion onto local streets. Streets that have more than two travel lanes in each direction with volumes between 16,000 and 32,000 vehicles per day will require a detailed analysis, especially to manage peak-hour congestion. At the discretion of the City Engineer, borderline scenarios may still be evaluated for a lane reduction if a detailed capacity analysis indicates the conversion can maintain acceptable traffic operations. The intent of this policy is not to establish inflexible cutoffs. For instance, if a street has 16,200 ADT but other factors suggest a road diet could work, staff can choose to analyze it further. However, roadways with volumes above 32,000 vehicles per day will not operate acceptably with fewer lanes and are not considered feasible. Every lane reduction analysis shall include countermeasures, such as parallel route improvements and diversion management strategies, to mitigate the capacity reduction. All volume thresholds must account for current and future volumes with the appropriate growth factor. A thorough review of peak-hour traffic flow is critical and required. Examining intersection performance and turn movements can identify whether a reduction in through lanes will still allow acceptable Levels of Service (A-D). Lane reductions may be feasible when peak hourly flow per direction is less than 750 vehicles.

• Safety and Collision History: Improving safety is a key motivator for lane reductions. High collision rates or patterns of crashes that could be mitigated by fewer lanes strongly support consideration of a lane reconfiguration. These patterns include collisions from excessive speeding, frequent rear-end or sideswipe crashes, or collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, a four-lane undivided road with frequent left-turn crashes can often see improved safety by converting to a three-lane configuration with a center turn lane. Reducing the number of travel lanes can also reduce conflict points and encourage lower vehicle speeds, contributing to an enhanced environment for all users. Specific streets with documented speeding problems or a history of severe collisions, especially those involving pedestrians or cyclists, are prime candidates for a road diet as a safety countermeasure.

Once a corridor’s feasibility for lane reduction is determined, a data-driven safety analysis of each design alternative is required. Using the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) methodology, the City will estimate the expected safety benefit of each proposed reconfiguration by applying proven crash reduction factors to

the corridor’s crash history. This process quantifies how many crashes, by type and severity, each alternative could eliminate. The reduction in predicted crashes is then converted to an economic safety benefit value using standard crash cost figures to allow comparison. In tandem, planners and engineers will prepare planning-level cost estimates for each alternative so that a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) can be calculated. The BCR is computed by dividing the alternative’s annualized safety benefit by its implementation cost, yielding a measure of cost-effectiveness. While a minimum BCR of 15.0 is recommended, it is not required; however, a higher BCR improves the likelihood of success for grant and funding applications, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The City will prioritize roadway reconfiguration alternatives by their safety impact, favoring the option with the highest BCR and greatest crash reduction potential. An alternative with a higher BCR indicates it achieves more safety benefit per dollar spent, aligning with the City’s safety-first and fiscally responsible approach. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity: Lane reductions offer an opportunity to enhance conditions for non- motorized users, particularly where pedestrian volumes are high, such as near schools, parks, and commercial centers. They help shorten crossing distances and provide the space needed for bike lanes or buffered shoulders. When a corridor is included in the City’s adopted bicycle or pedestrian plans, converting a travel lane may be a key strategy to achieve plan goals. However, such decisions must be supported by an evaluation of both existing and future traffic volumes to confirm that operational and safety impacts do not outweigh the projected benefits. To qualify, corridors should meet the minimum feasibility thresholds defined in this policy, balancing safety, mobility, and long-term network performance. • Community Context and Support: Community character and input must be considered early in the evaluation process. Lane reconfiguration is most successful where the surrounding community supports a more livable and walkable street environment while understanding and accepting the effects of potential increases in traffic congestion levels. In areas where residents or businesses have expressed concerns about speeding or difficulty crossing the street, a lane reduction can be a potential solution. Conversely, if a proposed lane removal might divert traffic to residential streets or is opposed by the community, these impacts must be carefully weighed and mitigated. Projects should be consistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies.
• Parking and Curbside Needs: Where on-street parking is desired or needed to support local businesses or residents, removing a travel lane can create additional curb parking or allow retention of parking that might otherwise be removed for traffic capacity. If a corridor lacks sufficient parking or loading zones, a lane reduction could free up space to provide these amenities. The presence of frequent driveways or turning movements along the street is also a consideration. Adding a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) as part of a road diet can improve access to properties and reduce conflicts with through traffic. Evaluate if the benefits of added parking or turn lanes would outweigh the reduction in through capacity. • Emergency Vehicle, Transit, and Freight Route Considerations: Streets that serve as emergency response corridors, transit routes, or designated truck routes must be carefully evaluated before any lane reduction is implemented. Maintaining reliable access for emergency services is a critical design priority.

While lane reductions may be feasible on certain corridors, they should not impede emergency response times or operational performance. The City has determined that 10-foot lanes present challenges for emergency vehicles and a minimum lane width of 11 feet is required on Critical Emergency Response routes and thoroughfare streets where sufficient roadway space is available. Accommodations like bus turnouts or signal priority should be included on streets that serve public transit. Close coordination with transit agencies and emergency services is required to address any operational concerns before moving forward with the lane reduction.

• Overall Network and Congestion Impact: A proposed lane reduction should be evaluated in the context of the broader road network. Analyze whether removing a lane on the target street will likely divert more than 10% amount of the traffic to parallel streets, and if so, assess those streets’ ability to handle the diverted traffic. If the adjacent network provides good alternative routes or if the majority of trips are local, a road diet may have minimal adverse impact. It’s also important to consider intersection throughput at major junctions, analyzing if a road diet creates a bottleneck at a key intersection. Traffic modeling and before/after studies must be used to confirm that post-reduction traffic operations will be acceptable and not create excessive queuing or delay beyond acceptable levels. • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Diversion: The City is mindful of broader traffic effects of lane reductions, including how they might redistribute traffic and implications for VMT, a metric under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for transportation impacts in California (SB 743). A road diet that causes significant traffic to divert to longer routes and increase congestion would increase VMT, which is undesirable for environmental and quality of life reasons. As part of road diet feasibility, the City must analyze whether traffic is likely to shift to parallel residential streets and whether any increases in delay might cause longer trip lengths. A road diet shall be accompanied by measures that mitigate diversion. If the VMT model indicates that more than 25% of trips would reroute off the intended thoroughfare and onto local roads, that alternative is not feasible. Another consideration is business access and verifying that reducing lanes won’t discourage patrons from reaching commercial destinations. Avoiding the movement of traffic volumes elsewhere is a successful road reconfiguration strategy since it solves more problems than it creates.

If a lane reduction is deemed feasible, there can be multiple design alternatives within a consistent right-of-way width. The following four cross sections show a few possible configurations of a four-lane roadway.

Current conditions with 4 travel lanes.

Current Conditions
Alternative 1 - One travel lane in each direction with bike lanes.

Feasible Alternative 1
Alternative 2 - Space reallocated for outdoor dining, transit stops, and a center turn lane.

Feasible Alternative 2
Alternative 3 - One travel lane in each direction with a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane.

Feasible Alternative 3

5.2 Best Practices for Implementing Lane Reductions
Once a roadway is determined to be a feasible candidate for a lane reduction, careful planning and design are required for the conversion to achieve its intended benefits. The following best practices represent a list of considerations and strategies for implementing lane reductions:
• Comprehensive Analysis and Planning: A thorough analysis of the proposed reconfiguration shall be conducted including other feasible alternatives. This includes but is not limited to, traffic volume analysis, intersection capacity calculations, and queuing analysis for key locations. Use traffic simulation modeling to predict how the new configuration will perform during current and future peak periods. It is also required to conduct a safety study of existing conditions and forecasted conditions after the lane reduction. These planning phase documents will identify potential critical improvement areas and the expected benefits such as Benefit-Cost Ratios, lower speeds, and improved pedestrian crossings. Clear documentation of the analysis will help communicate the rationale to stakeholders and provide a baseline for future performance evaluation.
• Consider Traffic Operational Impacts: When reconfiguring the roadway, incorporate design elements that minimize any negative impacts on traffic flow. A common conversion is from four lanes to three lanes with one travel lane in each direction plus a center turn lane. In this scenario, it is important to provide a continuous center two-way left-turn lane or dedicated left-turn pockets at intersections to remove turning vehicles from the through lanes and improve intersection safety. This maintains traffic flow and prevents through vehicles from queueing behind left-turning vehicles. Adjustment of traffic signal timing and phasing should be considered to optimize new lane configuration patterns. The goal is to maintain an acceptable level of service after the reconfiguration by proactively addressing choke points in the design. • Repurpose Road Space Effectively: A key benefit of lane reductions is the opportunity to reallocate roadway space for other uses. Plan how the newly available space will be used to enhance the corridor.

Possible re-purposing options include:
o Bicycle Lanes – Install bike lanes or protected cycle tracks where appropriate. For example, a 4-to-3 lane conversion often uses the extra space to add bike lanes in both directions. Design any new bike facilities to meet current standards for width, striping, and utilizing buffers or physical separation where feasible to maximize cyclist safety.
▪ Class IV Bikeway widths – minimum 5-foot lane with 2-foot buffer ▪ If adjacent to on-street parking, a minimum 3-foot buffer is required. ▪ Class II Bikeway widths – minimum 5-foot lane
▪ If adjacent to on-street parking, a minimum 18-inch buffer is required. ▪ Class III bike lanes are recommended for posted speed limits of 25 MPH or less. ▪ Class II bike lanes are recommended for posted speed limits of 30 MPH or less. ▪ Only Class IV bike lanes are recommended for posted speed limits of 35 MPH or above. o Pedestrian Enhancements – Use excess roadway width to improve the pedestrian environment.

This could involve widening sidewalks, adding landscaped buffers or parkways, and constructing curb extensions (bulb-outs) at intersections or mid-block crossings. Curb extensions shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and improve their visibility to drivers. ADA-compliant curb ramps shall be installed where feasible if not already present throughout the project. Where a center turn

lane is not needed along certain segments, consider installing pedestrian refuge islands or medians, which offer a safe midpoint for crossing and can be landscaped to beautify the street. ▪ Minimum accessible pedestrian path widths – 60 inches or more o On-Street Parking and Loading – If parking demand exists, the space from a removed travel lane can be converted to parking bays. Providing additional on-street parking can support local businesses and calm traffic by creating a buffer between moving cars and the sidewalk. Similarly, designated loading zones for deliveries or passenger drop-off can be added where appropriate to serve adjacent land uses, especially in commercial areas by clearly marking any new parking or loading areas adjacent to the remaining travel lanes.
▪ Minimum parking stall widths – 8 feet
▪ Maintain or increase the capacity of existing short-term parking and loading zones ▪ Maintain or increase the capacity of existing ADA-compliant parking stalls ▪ Ratio of 1 accessible space per 25 stalls that are metered or designated by signs or pavement markings
▪ Minimum angled parking stall length including buffer space – 25 feet o Emergency and Transit Routes – Coordinate with emergency service and transit providers to maintain or enhance operations as part of the project. For instance, the lane reduction design could include bus pull-out bays or “bus bulbs” so that buses can service passengers without impeding the single through lane. The design must maintain or improve emergency and transit service reliability even after removing a vehicular lane. ▪ Minimum lane width for Emergency vehicles and Transit– one 11-foot travel lane per direction
o Urban Greening and Placemaking – The reduction of pavement space presents an opportunity to incorporate aesthetic and green infrastructure elements, including heat island reduction strategies.

Consider adding features like landscaped medians, stormwater capture systems, street trees, parklets, or sidewalk seating areas where feasible. Such improvements can transform the look and feel of the street, providing shade and visual interest, which in turn can support economic activity and community enjoyment of the corridor. Any greening elements should be designed to maintain adequate sightlines and not obstruct drivers’ view of pedestrians or intersecting traffic. A consistent theme should be used along a project corridor.

The desired and minimum dimensions listed above shall be evaluated per project and are subject to current local, state, and federal requirements.
• Prioritize Safety in Design Details: Every aspect of the redesigned roadway should enhance safety for all users. Lane markings, crosswalks, and bike lane delineations shall be high-visibility and applied consistently. Install adequate signage in advance of and through the project limits to alert drivers of the new traffic pattern (for example, “Lane Ends, Merge Ahead” signs and directional arrows guiding traffic into the correct lanes). If the lane reduction introduces any new conflict points (such as vehicles merging), consider supplemental safety measures like adding reflectors, surface markings (e.g., merge arrows or yield lines), or even warning signs if warranted. Intersection crossings should ideally be enhanced with measures such as high-visibility crosswalk striping, timing adjustments like Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), and accessible curb ramps if not already present. For bike lanes, use green colored pavement in

conflict zones and across driveways or merging areas to increase awareness of cyclists. The vertical elements of a Class 4 bike lane should be considered for segments of a roadway with few or no driveways to allow for a continuous and consistent Class 4 facility. For a segment with a significant number of driveways and cross streets, a Class 2 bike lane would be more appropriate. The overall design should aim to calm traffic speeds. Narrower effective roadway width and the presence of bikes and pedestrians tend to encourage drivers to slow down, which improves reaction times and reduces crash severity. Throughout the design process, traffic engineers and planners must apply current best-practice design guidelines for roadway reconfigurations (such as state and national design standards for complete streets) to meet safety objectives identified in the project.

Once a preferred lane-reconfiguration design is selected, the detailed engineering and design phase must implement the safety countermeasures that drove its selection. The LRSM provides a list of proven safety countermeasures and should be used to integrate the highest safety impact measures into the final plans.

For example, the LRSM identifies a “Road Diet” treatment, reducing a four-lane undivided road to three lanes with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes, as capable of reducing total crashes by approximately 35%. If the chosen alternative relies on such a configuration, the design will include all associated safety features—continuous two-way left-turn lanes, new or widened bike lanes, and improved lane markings—to realize that predicted benefit. Similarly, if the safety analysis showed that adding pedestrian refuge islands or upgrading signal timing, such as implementing LPI, would yield substantial crash reductions, those elements must appear in the design plans. Every design detail should tie back to a safety purpose: high- visibility crosswalks, green paint in bike lane conflict zones, advanced warning signage, and other best- practice treatments should be specified in the final design to address the crash patterns identified. The highest-priority safety countermeasures that contribute the most to crash reduction should be implemented first. The following recommendations will help determine specific countermeasures appropriate for each project.
o Collision Density: Focus on collision “hotspots” within a corridor. o Severity of Collisions: Prioritize the mitigation of fatal or serious injury collisions. o Vulnerable Users: Prioritize the mitigation of collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists. o 10 Year Collisions History: Expand the date range beyond the standard 5 years. o Collision Patterns: Analyze recurring crash types or other patterns like time of day. • Transit, Freight, and Emergency Access: While implementing a lane reduction, accommodation of large vehicles is required. For transit buses, verify that turning movements at intersections are still possible with one fewer lane (this might involve adjusting curb radii and confirming no new obstacles prevent wide turns). It may be necessary to slightly widen the remaining lanes. Coordinate with the Fire Department and other emergency services to confirm that fire trucks and ambulances can navigate the new street configuration. Where on-street parking or bulb-outs are added, maintain adequate clear width so that emergency apparatus are not obstructed.
• Community Engagement and Pilot/Quick-Build Implementation: Engaging the community is crucial for the success of any lane reduction project. Communicate the purpose and expected benefits of the lane reduction early and often to residents, business owners, legislative bodies, and other stakeholders along the corridor. Outreach efforts include but are not limited to public workshops, community meetings, informational materials, and door-to-door canvassing that explain how the new street configuration will look and function. It is often helpful to highlight examples of successful lane reductions in similar communities to build public understanding. Pilot testing can be an effective tool for evaluating the impact of a proposed lane reduction and building public support. Interim materials such as paint, flexible posts, and temporary signage can be used to simulate the reconfigured street layout before investing in

permanent construction. However, pilot implementation should only occur on corridors already scheduled for resurfacing within the next three years. Any surface wear or pavement damage resulting from the pilot treatment can be addressed as part of the planned capital improvement project. A pilot phase offers an opportunity to observe how the new traffic pattern affects behavior, congestion, and safety. Feedback collected during the demonstration period can inform refinements to the final design, minimizing risk and helping build community trust in the reconfiguration.

While coordinating a pilot with a planned resurfacing can be cost-effective, the City may also implement quick-build projects at any time to test traffic lane reconfigurations or other safety improvements. These quick-build options use temporary materials (for example, paint, flexible delineators, or removable barriers) to allow rapid deployment and easy adjustment. By permitting quick-build reconfigurations outside of the paving schedule, the policy enables timely testing of safety and operational improvements. • Monitoring and Follow-Up: After a lane reduction is implemented, staff should actively monitor the corridor to determine if operations are performing as intended. Key performance indicators include vehicle speeds, traffic volumes (to detect any significant diversion to other streets), intersection delays or queues, and safety outcomes (number and severity of crashes involving all road users). To enable meaningful comparison, baseline traffic and safety conditions must be documented through data collection within six months prior to construction. Post-implementation evaluations should occur at regular intervals (three months, six months, and one year) to compare against the “before” conditions. If the data shows improvements (e.g., lower speeds and collision reductions) with only minimal increases in travel delay, those successes should be documented and communicated to stakeholders. If issues are observed, be prepared to implement mitigation measures or minor design adjustments.

All lane reduction projects must align with the broader goals outlined in the City’s Roadway Design Policy:
enhancing safety, promoting sustainable mobility for all travel modes, and supporting community vitality. By carefully applying the above criteria and best practices, lane reductions can provide more balanced roadways that serve drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and businesses alike. Each project should be documented as a case study for continued learning and contributing to a library of local examples that should inform future design decisions. Lane reconfiguration is one of many tools in the City’s toolkit that can advance the City’s transportation and safety objectives when executed with sound analysis and community buy-in.

*If a study is required, a lane reduction is not initially recommended and shall not be considered as a feasible option in any other City document unless the study has been completed or reviewed by Public Works. At the discretion of the City Engineer, borderline scenarios may still be evaluated for a lane reduction.

Table 1: Primary Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions.

Primary Criteria Feasible Not Feasible Notes
Traffic Volumes (ADT)
For typical 4 travel lane roadways
Total two‑way traffic volumes
Traffic Volumes (ADT)
6 or more travel lanes
Total two‑way traffic volumes
Peak Hour Volumes
For typical 4 travel lane roadways
On-Street Parking Stall Width 8 ft Minimum < 8 ft*
*Study adjacent lane widths N/A
Class II Bicycle Lane Width
After roadway reconfiguration
Class IV Bicycle Lane Width
After roadway reconfiguration
Sidewalk Walkway Width
Maintain or improve existing
accessible pedestrian path
≥ 60 inches
< 60 inches of accessible pedestrian
path*
*Refer to current ADA standards for
minimum width exemptions
Angled Parking – Stall Details Length ≥ 25 ft
8 ft Minimum stall width
Class II ≥ 5 ft
Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions
Maintain or increase capacity of
existing ADA compliant parking
stalls
Reduce capacity of existing ADA
compliant parking stalls
Ratio of 1 accessible space per 25
stalls that are metered/designated
by signs or pavement markings
Class IV: ≥5ft lane + *≥2ft buffer Class IV: <5ft lane or <2ft buffer *3ft buffer is required if Class IV is adjacent to on street parking
≤ 10%
> 25%
If between 11-25%, initiate mitigation and
traffic calming process
Total % of vehicles diverted to
adjacent local streets
≥ 11 ft travel lane
at least 1 in each direction
All travel and TWLTL less than 11 ft*
*Study required if TWLTL is the only 11ft
lane TWLTL = Two-Way Left Turn Lanes
≤ 16,000 vpd > 16,000 vpd Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Vehicles per day (vpd)
≤ 750 vph per direction > 750 vph per direction vehicles/hour (vph) per direction of flow
≤ 16,000 vpd > 32,000 vpd
*Study if between 16,000 - 32,000 vpd
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Vehicles per day (vpd)
Class II <* 5 ft
*4ft Class II lane if not adjacent to on
street parking or gutter
Buffered Class II = 18 inch minimum
buffer
< 23 ft*
*Study adjacent lane widths
if between 23-25ft
Assuming 60 degree stall and length
includes buffer (curb to edge of
travel lane)
VMT and Local Cut-Through
Traffic Diversion
Emergency/Transit Lane Width
ADA Parking Provision

*If a study is required, a lane reduction is not initially recommended and shall not be considered as a feasible option in any other City document unless the study has been completed or reviewed by Public Works. At the discretion of the City Engineer, borderline scenarios may still be evaluated for a lane reduction.

Table 2: Supplemental Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions.

Supplemental Criteria Desirable May Consider Not Desirable Critical Emergency Route
Is the segment a Critical Emergency
Route?
Level of Service (LOS) A, B, or C – acceptable operations. D E & F Parking Removal Impact No removal of existing stalls ≤ 10% existing stalls removed (Parking utilization study may be required) > 10% existing stalls removed Other Parking Provision
Green/Yellow/White Curbs
Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR)
Safety Benefits vs. Cost
Bicycle Facilities by Posted
Speed Limit
Only Class IV Bicycle Facilities
should be considered for roads ≥
35 MPH
Class II ≤ 30 MPH
Class III ≤ 25 MPH N/A
Between 10.0 - 15.0 ≤ 10.0
NO YES
(at GFD discretion) N/A
Increase capacity of existing short-
term parking and loading zones
Maintain capacity of existing short-term
parking and loading zones
Eliminate or reduce capacity of
existing short-term parking and
loading zones
≥ 15.0
Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions

5.3 Lane Reductions: Examples, Case Studies, and False Impressions Lane Reduction Examples
Many cities have implemented road diet projects on multi-lane streets to improve safety and support multimodal travel. The following examples below highlight projects with positive outcomes that approximately match the various criteria listed in this policy document.

Pasadena, California – Cordova Street: In 2010, Pasadena transformed a 0.5-mile segment of Cordova Street, which carried approximately 11,000 vehicles daily. The project reconfigured the roadway from four lanes to three, adding bicycle lanes and curb extensions at intersections. This redesign aimed to address speeding issues and improve pedestrian crossings. Post-implementation studies indicated reduced vehicle speeds, improved compliance with speed limits, and enhanced bicycle level of service, all without negatively impacting vehicular or pedestrian levels of service.

FHWA’s Road Diet Case Studies: The table below synthesizes information from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Diet Case Studies report, which details objectives, design features, and the results of road diet implementations nationwide. Each case’s data (city, segment, ADT, outcomes, etc.) is drawn directly from those case studies. 14 of the 16 (87.5%) street segments with reported ADTs have fewer than 16,000 vehicles per day.

The consistent findings across these diverse locations provide evidence in support of the Roadway Design Policy’s criteria for considering lane reductions.

Table 3: Summary of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Diet Case Studies.

Source: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/road-diets/road-diet-case-studies City, State Street Segment Length Year (Installation) ADT (vpd) Genesee County, MI Multiple corridors (county-wide program) N/A 2009 10,500 (avg) Grand Rapids, MI Division St (I-196 to Wealthy St) 1 mile 2012 15,000 Grand Rapids, MI Burton St (Division St to Plymouth Ave) 2.0 miles 2012 15,000 Chicago, IL 55th St (Cottage Grove Ave to Dorchester Ave) 0.8 miles 2011 N/A Chicago, IL Franklin Blvd (Sacramento Blvd to Central Park Ave) 0.75 miles 2010 3,000 Chicago, IL Wabash Ave (Cermak Rd to Harrison St) 1.5 miles 2013 N/A Pasadena, CA Cordova St (Lake Ave to Hill Ave) 0.5 miles 2010 11,000 Santa Monica, CA Ocean Park Blvd (Lincoln Blvd to Cloverfield Blvd) 1.1 miles 2008 23,000 Los Angeles, CA Seventh St (Bixel St to Catalina St) 2.0 miles 2011 16,000 Reston, VA (VDOT) Lawyers Rd (Fox Mill Rd to Myrtle Ln) 2.0 miles 2009 10,000 Reston, VA (VDOT) Soapstone Dr (Sunrise Valley Dr to Lawyers Rd) 2.0 miles 2011 4,500 (avg) Dunn Loring, VA (VDOT) Oak St (Gallows Rd to Sandburg St) 0.25 miles 2013 3,000 Des Moines, IA Ingersoll Ave (Polk Blvd to MLK Jr. Pkwy) 2.0 miles 2011 14,000 (avg) Reno, NV (Washoe RTC) California Ave (Mayberry Dr to S. Virginia St) 1.4 miles 2011 9,900 Reno, NV (Washoe RTC) Wells Ave (Stewart St to S. Virginia St) 1.0 mile 2003 16,000 Staten Island, NY Luten Ave (Tottenville HS area) 0.3 miles 2013 N/A Manhattan, NY Ninth Ave (W 23rd St to W 16th St) 0.3 miles 2007 N/A Brooklyn, NY Empire Blvd (Utica Ave to Bedford Ave) 1.4 miles 2009 N/A Brooklyn, NY West Sixth St (Surf Ave to Bensonhurst) 1.5 miles 2010 N/A Seattle, WA Dexter Ave (Downtown to Fremont) 2.0 miles 2011 9,050 (avg) Seattle, WA Nickerson St (13th Ave W to Florentia St) 1.2 miles 2010 18,500 Seattle, WA Stone Way (N 34th St to N 45th St) 0.9 miles 2007 13,000

LADOT Lane Reconfiguration Projects: This table summarizes 11 road diet corridors implemented by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), showing project extents, length, installation date, and daily traffic volumes before and after lane reconfiguration. Lane Reconfigurations completed in the past 10 years, that are approximately 0.5 mile or longer, and that converted from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane in each direction were included in this analysis. Of the eleven corridors summarized, only one shows a post-project ADT greater than 16,000 vpd; while several corridors had pre- project ADTs above 16,000 vpd, the observed post-project demand typically falls below this threshold. Taken together, these results indicate that a single travel lane in each direction (with a center turn lane) generally operates within the Roadway Design Policy’s criteria for lane reductions.

Table 4: LADOT Lane Reconfiguration Projects over ~0.5 miles completed in the last 10 years.

The complete LADOT Road Diet Inventory can be found in the Design Element: Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines (April 2023) – https://ladot.lacity.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/lane-reconfiguration-guidelines-update-april-2023.pdf

Street Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (mi) Installation Date W/N E/S Total W/N E/S Total Foothill Boulevard Balboa Boulevard Filbert Street 0.74 6/9/2014 4,399 4,238 8,637 4,928 3,332 8,260 Clybourn Avenue Victory Boulevard Chandler Boulevard 1.47 9/11/2014 745 1,947 2,692 944 2,612 3,556 Pacific Avenue 15th Street O'Farrell Street 1.05 9/10/2015 10,530 8,588 19,118 9,277 8,039 17,316 Fletcher Drive Avenue 36 Delay Drive 0.56 8/2/2016 6,230 7,622 13,852 6,309 4,017 10,326 Foothill Boulevard Wentworth Avenue Sunland Avenue 0.67 3/9/2017 6,984 6,589 13,573 La Tuna Canyon Road Honolulu Avenue 7600' W/O S. La Tuna Canyon 1.87 6/8/2018 6,484 5,290 11,774 6,086 8,370 14,456 Alhambra Avenue Druid Street Lowell Avenue 1.1 6/28/2018 Chatsworth Street Arleta Avenue Chatsworth Drive 0.67 10/31/2018 4,509 7,983 12,492 Hoover Street Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Vernon Avenue 0.49 3/6/2019 7,941 5,643 13,584 7,608 5,111 12,719 Avalon Boulevard Manchester Avenue 35th Street 3.71 10/15/2020 12,841 11,460 24,301 7,337 6,209 13,546 Adams Boulevard Fairfax Avenue Crenshaw Boulevard 2.04 10/1/2021 10,033 11,835 21,868 7,629 6,675 14,304 Data Not Available
LADOT Lane Reconfiguration Projects Pre-Project ADT (vpd) Post-Project ADT (vpd) Data Not Available
Data Not Available Data Not Available

North Brand Boulevard: A Demonstration in Street Redesign In 2024, the City of Glendale embarked on a temporary project to reimagine a half-mile stretch of North Brand Boulevard, aiming to enhance safety and promote alternative modes of transportation. This initiative, known as the North Brand Boulevard Complete Streets Demonstration Project, sought to transform the corridor between Glenoaks Boulevard and Mountain Street into a more pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly environment. The redesign reduced the number of vehicle lanes from four to two, introducing a central turn lane to facilitate smoother traffic flow. Protected bike lanes were added on both sides of the street, separated from vehicular traffic by concrete barriers. Additionally, colorful curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks were implemented to improve pedestrian safety and visibility. Community engagement was a cornerstone of the project. The City conducted extensive outreach, including public meetings and surveys, to gather feedback from residents and businesses.

While many appreciated the efforts to enhance safety and promote active transportation, others expressed concerns about increased traffic congestion and challenges with parking and driveway access.

Data collected during the demonstration period indicated a reduction in vehicle speeds and an increase in pedestrian activity. However, bicycle usage did not rise as anticipated and drivers diverted to parallel streets to avoid the reconfigured segment. Emergency response times were also a point of concern, given the reduced number of travel lanes. After evaluating the project's outcomes and considering public feedback, the City decided to revert North Brand Boulevard to its original configuration. This decision underscored the importance of aligning infrastructure changes with community needs and expectations. The North Brand Boulevard demonstration highlighted both the potential benefits and challenges of street redesigns aimed at promoting multimodal transportation. While the project achieved certain safety improvements, it also revealed the complexities involved in altering established traffic patterns. Future initiatives will benefit from the lessons learned, emphasizing the need for comprehensive planning, clear design guidelines, and community involvement.

Culver City – Downtown Corridor (MOVE Culver City Pilot):

In late 2021, Culver City launched a 1.3-mile pilot reconfiguration of its downtown corridor, converting one travel lane in each direction on Culver and Washington Boulevards into dedicated bus and bike lanes separated by paint, bollards, and bus boarding platforms. The corridor carried approximately 14,000 vehicles per day before the pilot, a volume that dropped to about 12,000 vehicles per day during the trial period. This “quick build” project was intended to improve safety and expand mobility options, and results showed measurable benefits: bus ridership on the corridor increased by roughly 36 percent compared to pre-implementation, cycling activity rose by about 57 percent relative to pre-pandemic levels, and pedestrian volumes also grew. Bus travel times improved, with certain routes running up to four minutes faster in the peak period, while auto travel remained manageable—morning peak trips moved faster than in 2019, and afternoon trips averaged only two minutes longer. Emergency response times were unaffected, as fire crews were able to use the mobility lane when necessary.

Despite these positive multimodal outcomes, public sentiment was divided. While many residents and businesses supported the enhanced safety for walking and biking, a majority expressed concern about traffic congestion, cut- through driving, and delivery access along the corridor. A citywide survey found that six in ten respondents favored continuing the project, but most preferred modifications to address operational impacts. In April 2023, the City Council voted 3–2 to scale back the pilot. The modified design restored a second general-purpose lane in each direction and replaced the separated bike lane with a shared bus/bike lane. By late 2024, the corridor was re- striped to reflect this compromise approach, reintroducing vehicle capacity while preserving a scaled-down version of the mobility lane concept. The MOVE Culver City Pilot Project illustrates that lane reconfiguration can yield significant safety and mobility gains with minimal impact on traffic operations, but success depends on

robust community engagement. Even when performance data demonstrates benefits, sustained public support is essential for the success of any multimodal project.

Understanding the Limitations of Lane Reductions
Although road diets are strategies employed to enhance road safety and promote alternative modes of transportation, it is essential to recognize that they are not universally effective and may present challenges if not carefully planned and executed.
• Safety Consideration: Reducing the number of travel lanes can lead to decreased vehicle speeds and fewer collisions, particularly on roads with moderate traffic volumes. However, on high-speed or high-volume corridors, simply narrowing the roadway without implementing additional safety measures—such as improved signage, pedestrian crossings, or protected bike lanes—may not sufficiently mitigate risks. In some cases, inadequate planning can result in unchanged or even increased accident rates, especially if the new design fails to accommodate the needs of all users effectively. Moreover, introducing new pedestrian and bicycle facilities can encourage more people to walk or cycle. While this shift supports sustainable transportation goals, it also increases the number of vulnerable road users exposed to traffic, potentially elevating the risk of accidents if appropriate safety measures are not in place.

• Traffic Flow and Diversion: A common concern with lane reductions is the potential for increased congestion and traffic diversion to adjacent streets. If a road diet is applied to a corridor already operating near its capacity, the reduced lanes may not handle the existing traffic volume efficiently, leading to longer travel times and prompting drivers to seek alternative routes through residential neighborhoods. Such outcomes can undermine the intended benefits of the project and may necessitate further interventions to manage the redistributed traffic load. Increased traffic on residential streets can raise safety risks for local communities. Higher traffic volumes on streets not designed for heavy use can lead to more accidents and diminish the quality of life for residents.

• Cyclist Preferences: Introducing bike lanes is a frequent component of road diet projects, aiming to encourage cycling by providing dedicated space for cyclists. While many riders appreciate these facilities, preferences can vary. Novice cyclists often prefer bike lanes for the sense of security they provide.

However, experienced cyclists may find certain bike lane designs restrictive, especially when vertical elements like bollards are present. These features can limit maneuverability and may be accompanied by obstacles such as debris or pedestrians, leading some seasoned riders to opt for general traffic lanes instead.

6. Next Steps and Future Considerations

6.1 When to Reference the Roadway Design Policies
City planners, street designers, and consultants in Glendale should treat the Roadway Design Policy as a core reference throughout all stages of a project. During early planning, referring to this document helps align proposals with the City’s transportation objectives and maintain compliance with local standards. As design work progresses, the technical guidance, such as lane widths, should inform project layouts and choices. When pursuing funding or grants, referencing the policy reinforces that a proposal supports plans such as the General Plan’s Mobility Element, Bicycle Transportation Plan, and the Pedestrian Plan. In later review phases, City staff and consultants should verify that submitted designs follow the policy’s recommendations. Using this document

consistently provides a shared framework across departments and project teams, promoting consistent and goal- aligned infrastructure improvements. This document also serves to coordinate local decision-making with Glendale’s broader transportation strategy.

The policy translates high-level objectives from the City’s General Plan into practical street design direction. It supports Glendale’s commitment to creating safe, multi-use streets that serve all travel modes. The guidance here also complements Glendale’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, which aims to broaden the City’s existing bike network and make cycling more accessible. To meet these goals, teams are encouraged to consult the Roadway Design Policy together with these broader plans when choosing features like sidewalks, bus amenities, or bike facilities.

Standardizing practices across neighborhoods helps reduce inconsistencies and supports smooth implementation. Cities across the country have adopted similar design frameworks to align their capital projects with community expectations and improve safety. In Glendale, referencing this policy regularly will help every project contribute to the City’s transportation vision while streamlining the planning and design components of a project.

This document includes Table 1: Lane Reduction Feasibility Matrix at the end of Section 5.2. This matrix serves as a practical checklist to help planners, designers, and reviewers quickly assess whether a roadway segment meets the minimum conditions for a road diet. By referencing the criteria listed in the Matrix, project teams can determine early on whether a proposed lane reduction is likely to qualify as feasible, require further study, or be considered not feasible under current standards. Using this matrix can help expedite the design and review process by identifying clearly eligible corridors early, reducing the need for repeated traffic studies or extended public outreach for each individual project. When applied the matrix can improve the community’s support of a project by following a more targeted and transparent design approach.

It is important to note that the design criteria and lane repurposing guidelines in this document are not mandates.

They establish a consistent, streamlined process for evaluating potential street modifications, but they do not automatically trigger any lane removal without additional case-by-case analysis and approval. The purpose of setting criteria is to flag feasible opportunities and filter out clearly unsuitable scenarios, thereby saving time and resources. However, engineering judgment and context considerations will always play a role. Meeting a criterion does not guarantee a lane reduction will be implemented; it simply means the option can be explored further.

Conversely, if a proposal slightly exceeds a guideline, it may still be considered if other factors point to a beneficial outcome. In such cases, the City Engineer has discretion to require further study.

If a certain project corridor requires a study to determine the feasibility of a lane reduction, the study should include but not be limited to:
• Current and Future traffic forecast (Opening + 10 years) o Existing ADT (24-hour counts)
o Peak hour volumes (by direction)
o Intersection turning movement counts
• 85th percentile speed data
• End-to-end travel time
o Current (field measured) and forecasted (modeled)
• Intersection queue length
o Current (field measured) and forecasted (modeled)
o Visual/Video outputs from queuing forecasts (e.g., SimTraffic) • Collision History with Benefit to Cost Analysis
o 5 or 10-Year Collision Pattern and Density Analysis
• Segment and Intersection LOS (existing & future)
• Parking Utilization (occupancy counts)

• Loading and Short-Term Parking Zone Inventory
• ADA Parking Inventory
• Curbside activity assessment
• VMT analysis
o Mode shift potential (bike, walk, transit)
• Traffic diversion potential (parallel routes, local streets) • Preliminary geometric layout and concept plan
• Emergency access assessment (lane width, turn radii)
• Design vehicle accommodation (buses, fire trucks)
• Consistency with City plans (e.g., General Plan, Bike/Ped, Vision Zero) • Community/stakeholder engagement Strategies
• Pilot test feasibility (if applicable)
o Before and after study
o Post-project monitoring plan
• Summary of alternatives and trade-offs

6.2 Deferring Multimodal Enhancements
The City recognizes that maintaining roadway pavement in good condition is critical and sometimes must take precedence when resources are limited. To support this, this policy allows temporary deferral of multimodal infrastructure enhancements (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, or transit-related features). This approach lets urgent pavement needs be addressed without permanently compromising Glendale’s Complete Streets objectives.

Deferral of bike lanes, sidewalks, transit amenities, or other Complete Streets elements is permitted only when all the following criteria apply. If full multimodal enhancements are not immediately feasible due to physical or funding constraints, the City may pursue a phased implementation rather than indefinite deferral • Pavement Condition Threshold: The street’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) must be within the ranges below and treatments shall include only crack sealing, slurry sealing, and ARAM (Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane) System 1.
o PCI below 91 but above 65 for Thoroughfare and Collector Roads o PCI below 86 but above 60 for Local Roads

• Funding: Deferral is allowed only when budget limitations or physical constraints make full implementation of Complete Streets elements unfeasible at the time of the pavement project. In practice, this means that if insufficient funds make it impossible to include all planned bike, pedestrian, or transit facilities, the City may consider phasing or postponing those enhancements.
• Documentation of Justification: Any deferred multimodal enhancements must be fully documented, including specific reasons such as budget shortfalls, design constraints, or pavement preservation needs that led to the decision.
• Future Implementation Plan: All deferred enhancements shall be tracked for future implementation in the City’s planning processes with approximate timelines. The postponed bike, pedestrian, or transit features will be incorporated into upcoming Capital Improvement Projects when feasible, assuming field conditions will not change.

6.3 Balancing the Community’s Wants and Needs
Looking beyond immediate design projects, Glendale recognizes the need for a broader shift toward multimodal transportation and strategic mobility planning in the coming years. This future vision emphasizes Complete Streets

and context-sensitive design for roadways that are safe and accessible for all users—drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders alike. Policies like road diets, traffic calming measures, and enhanced pedestrian crossings will be systematically implemented to rebalance streets for safety and livability. Glendale also plans to expand its multimodal network by creating better infrastructure for active transportation. This includes exploring Transit Priority lanes or Bus Rapid Transit corridors for high-frequency bus lines, adding protected bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian pathways, and strengthening first/last-mile connections to transit. By encouraging mixed-use and walkable developments near transit hubs, Glendale can foster neighborhoods that support transit use and walking. This integrated approach will reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and set the foundation for a more sustainable and efficient transportation system citywide.

Another key focus for Glendale’s future mobility planning is equity, accessibility, and sustainability. As identified in the Environmental Justice Element, the City will invest in communities to improve transit options and neighborhood infrastructure. All street projects will be designed to meet or exceed ADA standards so that seniors and persons with disabilities can travel comfortably and safely. At the same time, Glendale’s transportation strategies will align with climate action goals by promoting low-carbon travel modes. Embracing smart mobility technologies is another future consideration: the City will look to deploy intelligent traffic management systems, smart signals, and real-time data tools to optimize traffic flow and transit efficiency. Support for emerging mobility options, like rideshare and micro transit, will be integrated in a way that complements public transit and reduces vehicle trips. By coupling technological innovation with an emphasis on equity and sustainability, Glendale aims to create a transportation network that is not only efficient but also inclusive and resilient in the face of future challenges.
2025 Community Survey Results
Community feedback plays a key role in how Glendale shapes its street design decisions, and the results of the 2025 Glendale Community Survey reveal important preferences. Residents expressed low interest in trade-offs that limit vehicle travel, including the removal of travel lanes for protected bike lanes which ranked second to last among a list of improvement priorities. At the same time, the community signaled that safety on Glendale’s roads remains a high concern: unsafe driving, speeding, and related dangers were identified as among the most serious problems facing the City. The survey also revealed that pedestrian safety received more support than bicycle- related improvements, highlighting that while some support exists for active transportation infrastructure, many residents place stronger importance on pedestrian improvements than on bicycle improvements. These findings illustrate a complex set of views: while people want enhanced safety, they remain cautious about changes that affect traffic flow and car travel.

Glendale must consider this range of viewpoints when evaluating which street improvements to pursue. Residents clearly want action on traffic safety. Curb extensions, crosswalk enhancements, and lane edge lines all offer ways to slow traffic and potentially increase safety without immediately removing vehicle lanes. Meanwhile, efforts to enhance cycling safety will continue in appropriate areas, using designs that minimize the effect on drivers, transit, and emergency services. Community engagement and flexibility will be essential, especially for projects that propose reconfiguring travel lanes. For pedestrian improvements which ranked as a higher concern than bike improvements, the City may prioritize measures like new crosswalks, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and sidewalk repairs. For bike improvements, Glendale can focus on low-traffic corridors, off-street improvements, or implementing trial projects. In all cases, transparent communication about how safety solutions address the concerns raised in the survey will be critical.

Moving Forward Together
Public engagement and regional collaboration are viewed as essential next steps. Glendale will continue to conduct community outreach to involve residents, businesses, and other stakeholders in transportation decisions,

recognizing that public support and feedback are critical for lasting change. The City will also partner with neighboring jurisdictions and regional transit agencies to coordinate improvements like aligning bike networks and transit routes across city borders to share data and best practices for traffic management. Through this collaborative and transparent approach, Glendale’s mobility evolution will be guided by both expert analysis and community values. As Glendale implements its Roadway Design Policy, it will continue to coordinate safety improvements with public priorities. This document provides the tools to do so with consistency and careful consideration for the residents and the communities they live in. By grounding decisions in both technical analysis and meaningful public feedback, Glendale can build more welcoming streets that reflect the shared values of the community.

7. Appendix

7.1 Glossary of Terms
• ADT (Average Daily Traffic): The average 24‑hour, two‑way vehicle volume on a roadway segment, expressed in vehicles per day (vpd). It is a measure of traffic demand. • Arterial/Thoroughfare: A major road designed for high capacity and longer-distance travel. Usually have 4–6 lanes and carry heavy traffic.
• Buffered Bike Lane: A Class II bike lane with additional painted buffer space (18 inch minimum) separating it from the adjacent travel lane and/or parking lane.
• Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): A measure of the cost-effectiveness of a transportation project, calculated by dividing the total estimated safety or societal benefit by the total project cost. A higher BCR indicates greater return on investment.
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): An off-street paved path completely separated from motor vehicles, for use by bicyclists (and often pedestrians). Examples might be paths through parks or along a river. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): An on-street striped lane for one-way bike travel on either side of the road.

Marked by painted lines and bike symbols, sometimes with a painted buffer. Cyclists have their own designated space but no physical barrier to cars.
• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): An on-street shared facility where bicycles and cars share the lane.

Designated by signs or pavement markings (sharrows), but no exclusive lane for bikes. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bike Lane): An on-street bike lane with physical separation from moving traffic.

Separation can be flexible posts, parked cars, a curb, etc. • Collector: A road of intermediate scale that connects local streets to thoroughfares. Generally two lanes, they carry moderate volumes and often traverse neighborhoods. They can be residential or commercial in character.
• Complete Streets: A design philosophy that calls for streets to be planned, designed, and operated for safe use by all modes and all ages/abilities including drivers, transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. • Curb Extension (Bulb-out): A horizontal extension of the curb into the street, typically at intersections or mid-block crosswalks, that reduces roadway width. Bulb-outs shorten pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility by making pedestrians more prominent and slowing turning vehicles. • FHWA: Federal Highway Administration – a U.S. agency that provides research and guidance on road safety and design (for example, the FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide which offers evidence and best practices).
• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI): A traffic signal timing strategy that provides pedestrians with a head start of typically 3 to 7 seconds to begin crossing the street before parallel vehicular traffic receives a green light. • Level of Service (LOS): A qualitative A–F rating of traffic flow and congestion at an intersection or road segment. LOS A means free-flow conditions; LOS E or F indicates significant delays and congested conditions (vehicles may wait through multiple signal cycles).

• Level of Traffic Stress (LTS): A rating of bicyclist comfort/stress on a road, from 1 (very low stress, suitable for children) to 4 (high stress, only experienced riders). LTS considers factors like traffic speed, volume, number of lanes, and presence of bike facilities.
• Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM): A planning and evaluation tool developed to help local jurisdictions identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements using proven crash reduction strategies. • Local Street: A smaller road primarily providing access to adjacent properties (homes, businesses). Local streets carry low volumes (usually less than 2,500 vehicles/day) at low speeds. • Peak Hour Volume: The number of vehicles observed in the busiest hour of travel (often morning or evening rush) on a road. This is used alongside ADT to understand capacity needs. • Protected Bike Lane (Cycle Track): A Class IV bikeway that has physical separation from motor traffic using barriers like bollards, curbs, parked cars, or planters. Also called a “separated bikeway” or “cycle track. ” • Quick-Build: A project delivery approach that uses temporary, low-cost materials to rapidly implement street design changes before making permanent improvements. • Road Diet: A roadway reconfiguration that reduces the number of travel lanes (usually from 4 lanes to 2 plus a center turn lane) to improve safety and provide space for other uses. • SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments – the regional metropolitan planning organization. • Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL): A center lane shared by traffic in both directions for making left turns. It is typically painted (not raised) with turn arrows and provides refuge for cars waiting to turn left. • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A transportation metric that quantifies the total miles driven by all vehicles within a specific geographic area over a defined period, typically one year. VMT is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles by the distance each vehicle travels.

7.2 Reference Materials and Further Reading

1. City of Glendale General Plan – Circulation Element (1998). City of Glendale, CA.

The adopted Circulation Element outlines Glendale’s transportation goals and street classification system.

Contains policies, street design standards, traffic calming, and bicycle facility implementation.

Status: Adopted (Update in progress)

2. City of Glendale General Plan – Mobility Element (forthcoming). City of Glendale, CA.

The Mobility Element, previously known as the Circulation Element, is undergoing an update to provide a comprehensive framework for a multimodal transportation network that accommodates all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motorists.

Status: Under Development

3. City of Glendale General Plan – Land Use Element (1986). City of Glendale, CA.

The Land Use Element outlines the long-term vision for land use and development in Glendale, specifying the desired mix of residential, commercial, and industrial areas across the city.

Status: Adopted (Update in progress)

4. City of Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan (2012). City of Glendale, CA.

The citywide bicycle master plan provides a 20-year blueprint for expanding and improving the bicycle network, including new bike lanes, paths, parking facilities, and education programs.

Status: Adopted (Update in progress)

5. City of Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan (2021). City of Glendale, CA.

A comprehensive plan to improve pedestrian safety and make Glendale more walkable. The plan (in two parts) assesses current walking conditions and recommends infrastructure improvements (such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic signals) and policies to promote walking as a viable mode.

Status: Adopted

6. City of Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan (forthcoming). City of Glendale, CA.

A traffic safety action plan was launched to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries on Glendale streets. It builds on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans and focuses on data-driven strategies in engineering, enforcement, and education.

Status: Under Development

7. City of Glendale Safe & Healthy Streets Plan (2011). City of Glendale, CA.

An active transportation and public health plan to encourage walking and biking. It outlines policies and street design changes to enhance safety and create a more inviting environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Status: Adopted

8. City of Glendale Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020). City of Glendale, CA.

Updated technical guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts of development projects under CEQA.

The City’s guidelines were revised to require a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis (replacing the old level- of-service metric) in compliance with SB 743, ensuring that traffic studies focus on reducing driving distance and greenhouse gas emissions.

Status: Adopted

9. Glendale Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (2023). City of Glendale, CA.

Internal City program documentation outlining procedures and acceptable measures for traffic calming on

local/collector streets.

Status: Adopted

10. FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide (2014). Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-14-028. – A comprehensive guide to planning and implementing road diets. Summarizes safety benefits, operational considerations, and case studies nationwide.

11. City of Pasadena Street Design Guide (2017). Pasadena Department of Transportation. – A modern street design manual from a neighboring city.

12. City of Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide (2018). Los Angeles City Planning & LADOT. – LA’s reference for complete streets elements, covering everything from lane configurations to pedestrian plazas. Provides context on design vehicles and emergency access. Illustrates traffic calming measures and their design considerations.

13. City of Los Angeles Supplemental Street Design Guide (2020). Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering & LADOT. – A technical supplement focusing on details like corner radii, curb extensions, and design vehicle standards.

14. Caltrans Complete Streets Action Plan (2024–25). California Department of Transportation. - This plan outlines the highest-priority actions over a two-year period (2024–2025) to implement the Complete Streets policy statewide.

15. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design (2015). California Dept. of Transportation. – State guidelines defining Class I–IV bikeways and design criteria. Serves as the basis for bikeway standards in California cities.

16. FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – California Supplement (latest). – The MUTCD provides standards for signage, striping, and signals. California’s version is referenced for crosswalk markings, bike lane symbols, and signal warrants.

17. U.S. Access Board – Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). – Guidelines for ADA- compliant street design. Referenced for federal accessibility requirements for curb ramps, sidewalk clear widths, and crosswalk treatments.

18. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide & NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. – Design guides from the National Association of City Transportation Officials, offering innovative urban street treatments and bike facility designs.

19. Federal Highway Administration. Road Diet Case Studies. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Safety. 2015.– Contains 24 national and California-based examples of road diet implementations, including safety results, ADTs, outreach efforts, and trade-offs.

20. Environmental Science, Engineering. An Evaluation of “Road Diet” Projects on Five Lane and Larger Roadways. 2016. – Summarizes findings from multi-city case studies of lane reductions on 5+ lane roads.

Includes traffic volume, safety, LOS, and public response data.

21. City of Glendale. North Brand Boulevard Complete Streets Demonstration Project Report. December 2024. – Provides detailed evaluation of Glendale’s pilot road diet project, including public engagement, measured outcomes, and final conclusions.

7.3 Attachments

N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd

24.5 6.7

27.7 28.2

8.7 16.6

7.7 6

6.7 6.5

6.8 11.3

19.5 10.8

9.8 3.5

26.2 6.5

8.3 5

8.1 6.4

12.9 14.8

7.1 10.2
9 6.6

4.328.1

17.2 7.3
245.5

24.25.2 4.6

21.6 2.9

8.4 9.4

32.5 7.9
6 16.8

32.8 14.1

6.9 5.5

5.1 5.2

20.6 20.2

25.5 6.1

29.5 5.2

7.5 20.6

21.8 5.7

5.7 6.6

22.9 3.6

16.9 25.8

5.8 16.5

4.1 7.4

6.2 2.4

5.5 3.1

23.8 3.7

6.2 5.2

21.1 2.7
21 3.6

7.2 13.1
6 13.5

2.4 5.9

22.5 3.1

21.3 27

4.3 28.4

22.5 5.2

5.8 15.3

3.9 26.5

11.2 14.6
27 12.1

28.3 4.6

31.8 6

26.7 4.5

25.1 15.2

14.1 10.9

5.3 5.6
26 16.3
7 24.7
19 2.2

2.3 11.5

26.3 10.8

4.6 12.8

14.2 21.8

19.8 4.8

27.3 3.4
3 9.7

5.3 4.6

9.9 3.3

11.4 6.1

8.4 12.7

6.3 3.4

6.4 2

6.8 6.4 1.6

7.7 7

6.1 11.3
5 12.7

13.4 4.1

3.7 2.7

13.4 2.3

7.3 4.2

1.2 1.8

24.8 1.7

1.9 8.4

11.6 9.5

12.7 2.9

21.3 2.6

17.7 2.6

6.1 4.9

2.9 3.4

24.3 14

5.7 14.5

3.5 8.3

8.8 16

3.8 13.5

8.7 4.2

14.3 4.1

21.3 22.8

5.5 1.8

18.9 25.4

14.2 13.7

9.7 4.1
13 22.9

9.3 21

2.6 10.1

10.2 1.8

16.5 6.6

1.6 2.5

21.5 1.7

4.6 11.9
10 13

4.5 22

18.5 2.2

12.8 21.1
35 10.4

6.8 29.5

13.5 29.3

4.2 15.87.3

16.2 17.8
4 30.9

15.2 1.2

2.2 1

13.4 3.4

22.3 15.7

6.5 0.6

7.1 29.1

3.9 8.8

12.1 5.7

0.8 18.5

41.6 15.1

12.3 7.3

31.2 29.4

2.7 5.4

38.4 14.9

9.7 19.1

23.1 1.6

11.6 27.7

16.7 11.4

1.2 5.2
2 17.6

2.8 29

21.2 2.6

1.4 27.2

4.2 2.4

15.6 14.6

1.6 29.7

2.6 12.6

3.9 9.8

5.4 1
8 5.3

33.4 7.6

16.2 7

17.2 25.5

19.7 19

6.1 6.2

17.9 15.8

22.2 11.6

26.3 14.4
412.9

12.4 17.6

8.5 3.1

24.1 7.4
14 27.2
24 27.8

10.9 7.4

4.3 21.5

11.6 7.1

2.4 22.4

4.7 2

31.2 2.1

5.1 20.3

17.1 13.1

6.5 7.3

28.7 11.1

5.1 20.2

13.1 11.6

8.4 20.6

22.8 1.9

23.4 10.4

20.9 8.2

2.1 25.5

7.4 27

3.7 2.3

3.6 1.9

3.5 23

9.7 9.2
17 11.2

10.4 14.1

5.4 23.5

20.9 15.8

13.8 4.5

5.7 23.321.818.2

8.8 7.5
33 38.2

12.8 10.9
3 6.1

10.9 8.1

5.74.5 6.8

2.3 2.2

23.6 5.4
20 11.2

8.6 3.7

3.9 10.6

3.1 22.3

5.1 10.5

4.8 1.5

3.6 5.8

6.8 3.5
6 22.3

12.8 7.7

7.4 17.3

18.8 3.3
2 2.4

4.6 1.1

21.6 7.6

8.7 33.8

14.2 6.9

3.5 3.4

3.3 3.9

2.7 3.8

12.4 10.4

7.3 19.9

11.6 10.5

4.3 6.9

3.4 22.1

8.4 3.3

20.6 1.4
9 6.6
Daily Vehicle Volume
Up to 5,000
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 30,000
More than 30,000
Daily Vehicle Volume
Up to 5,000
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 30,000
More than 30,000
Existing Daily Vehicle Traffic Volumes (in thousands)

CITY OF GLENDALE
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Acacia Ave Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 5707
Adams St Chevy Chase Dr Palmer Ave U 2 4240
Adams St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 5210
Adams St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5233
Adams St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 5475
Adams St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 5476
Adams St Maple St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 6089
Adams St Colorado St Maple St U 2 6138
Adams St Harvard St Colorado St U 2 6199
Adams St Broadway Harvard St U 2 6610
Adams St Palmer Ave South City border C 2 6919
Air Way Grandview Ave Flower St M 2 978
Air Way Sonora Ave Grandview Ave M 2 2001
Alameda Ave Bel Aire Dr Kenneth Rd C 2 1963
Alameda Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 3611
Allen Ave Lake St Victory Blvd U 2 1236
Allen Ave Flower St Lake St U 2 1632
Allen Ave Bel Aire Dr Kenneth Rd C 2 2627
Allen Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd U 2 4185
Allen Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 5790
Arden Ave Pacific Ave Central Ave U 2 4066
Artsakh Ave Wilson Ave Broadway M 2 2414
Artsakh Ave Broadway Harvard St M 2 3617
Boston Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd C 2 3456
Boston Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 C 2 3887
Boston Ave I-210 Honolulu Ave C 2 4122
Brand Blvd Kenneth Rd Mountain St M 2 4927
Brand Blvd Mountain St Stocker M 4 5195
Brand Blvd Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd M 4 13068
Brand Blvd Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd A 6 19767
Brand Blvd Wilson Ave Broadway A 5 20992
Brand Blvd Broadway Harvard St A 5 21071
Brand Blvd Los Feliz Blvd Cerritos Ave A 4 21247
Brand Blvd Harvard St Colorado St A 5 21337
Brand Blvd Cerritos Ave San Fernando Rd A 4 21341
Brand Blvd California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 21767
Brand Blvd Chevy Chase Dr Los Feliz Blvd A 4 21843
Brand Blvd Colorado St Maple St A 4 22446
Brand Blvd Lexington Dr California Ave A 4 22490
Brand Blvd Maple St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 23304
Brand Blvd Milford St Lexington Dr A 5 24248
Brand Blvd Doran St Milford St A 6 25515
Brand Blvd Goode Ave Sanchez Dr A 5 28223
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
St
ta St
ta St
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Brand Blvd San Fernando Rd South City border A 6 29035
Brand Blvd Sanchez Dr Doran St A 6 32493
Broadview Dr Ocean View Ave Verdugo Blvd C 2 4107
Broadview Dr Verdugo Blvd Valihi Way C 2 4461
Broadway San Fernando Rd Pacific Ave M 4 7709
Broadway Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd M 4 12425
Broadway Columbus Ave Central Ave M 4 12724
Broadway Adams St Chevy Chase Dr M 4 13115
Broadway Glendale Ave Adams St M 4 13377
Broadway Pacific Ave Columbus Ave M 4 13448
Broadway Louise St Jackson St M 4 14104
Broadway Jackson St Glendale Ave M 4 14197
Broadway Maryland Ave Louise St M 4 14834
Broadway Verdugo Rd Wilson Ave M 4 15769
Broadway Brand Blvd Maryland Ave M 4 16605
Broadway Central Ave Orange St M 4 16849
Broadway Orange St Brand Blvd M 4 17203
California Ave San Fernando Rd Concord St U 2 1812
California Ave Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 2221
California Ave Concord St Pacific Ave U 2 3692
California Ave Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 4583
California Ave Adams St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 4819
California Ave Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 6348
California Ave Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 6720
California Ave Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 6968
California Ave Louise St Jackson St U 2 7024
California Ave Central Ave Orange St U 2 7893
California Ave Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 8101
California Ave Jackson St Isabel St U 2 8276
California Ave Orange St Brand Blvd U 2 8994
California Ave Isabel St Glendale Ave U 2 9749
Camino San Rafael Foxkirk Road Calle Amable C 2 6624
Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd (N) Opechee Way A 4 20632
Canada Blvd Opechee Way Wabasso Way A 4 21096
Canada Blvd Wabasso Way Verdugo Rd (S) A 4 22056
Central Ave San Fernando Rd South City border M 2 2192
Central Ave Kenneth Rd Mountain St U 2 5534
Central Ave Mountain St Stocker St U 2 9690
Central Ave Los Feliz Blvd San Fernando Rd A 4 10068
Central Ave Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd M 2 10397
Central Ave Chevy Chase Dr Los Feliz Blvd A 4 18224
Central Ave Glenoaks Blvd Arden Ave A 4 19538
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Central Ave Maple St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 20559
Central Ave Arden Ave Goode Ave A 5 20640
Central Ave Colorado St Maple St A 4 20914
Central Ave Broadway Americana Wy A 6 21794
Central Ave Americana Wy Colorado St A 6 22473
Central Ave Wilson Ave Broadway A 6 24045
Central Ave California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 25821
Central Ave Lexington Dr California Ave A 4 27004
Central Ave Goode Ave Sanchez Dr A 4 27734
Central Ave Milford St Lexington Dr A 5 28076
Central Ave Doran St Milford St A 5 29538
Central Ave Sanchez Dr Doran St A 6 32795
Cerritos Ave Gardena Ave San Fernando Rd M 2 1586
Cerritos Ave San Fernando Rd Brand Blvd M 2 2911
Cerritos Ave Brand Blvd Glendale Ave M 2 3407
Chevy Chase Dr North-East City border Emerald Isle Dr C 2 2664 Chevy Chase Dr Emerald Isle Dr Linda Vista Rd C 2 3315
Chevy Chase Dr Glenoaks Blvd Verdugo Rd M 4 4560
Chevy Chase Dr San Fernando Rd West City border M 4 7298 Chevy Chase Dr Harvey Dr Glenoaks Blvd C 2 7648
Chevy Chase Dr SR-2 Lilac Ln C 2 8981
Chevy Chase Dr SR-2 Harvey Dr C 2 9524
Chevy Chase Dr Maple St Acacia Ave M 4 10880
Chevy Chase Dr California Ave Wilson Ave M 4 12110
Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd California Ave M 4 12765
Chevy Chase Dr Acacia Ave Adams St M 4 13019
Chevy Chase Dr Wilson Ave Broadway M 4 13491
Chevy Chase Dr Central Ave Columbus Ave M 4 13543
Chevy Chase Dr Columbus Ave San Fernando Rd M 4 14513
Chevy Chase Dr Brand Blvd Central Ave M 4 15794
Chevy Chase Dr Colorado St Maple St M 4 15801
Chevy Chase Dr Harvard St Colorado St M 4 16481
Chevy Chase Dr Broadway Harvard St M 4 16930
Chevy Chase Dr Glendale Ave Brand Blvd M 4 17779
Chevy Chase Dr Adams St Glendale Ave M 4 19867
Colorado St San Fernando Rd I-5 Fwy Entry/Exit A 4 10007 Colorado St Adams St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 20989
Colorado St Glendale Ave Adams St A 4 22283
Colorado St Verdugo Rd East City border A 4 22806
Colorado St Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd A 4 23450
Colorado St Jackson St Glendale Ave A 4 24483
Colorado St Louise St Jackson St A 4 25969
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Colorado St Brand Blvd Louise St A 4 26664
Colorado St Central Ave Brand Blvd A 6 29335
Colorado St Pacific Ave Columbus Ave A 4 29365
Colorado St Columbus Ave Central Ave A 5 30867
Colorado St I-5 Fwy Entry/Exit Pacific Ave A 4 35001
Columbus Ave Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 2278
Columbus Ave Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 3056
Columbus Ave Colorado St Riverdale Dr U 2 4000
Columbus Ave California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 4091
Columbus Ave Riverdale Dr Chevy Chase Dr U 2 4480
Columbus Ave Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5517
Columbus Ave Broadway Harvard St U 4 8371
Concord St Glenwood St Stocker St C 2 1861
Concord St Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 2417
Concord St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 2860
Concord St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 4559
Concord St Doran St California Ave U 2 7434
Concord St Glenoaks Blvd Fairmont Ave C 2 11603
Concord St Fairmont Ave Doran St U 4 14254
Doran St Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 2045
Doran St Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 3374
Doran St Concord St Pacific Ave U 2 3864
Doran St Louise St Jackson St U 2 5987
Doran St Geneva St Glendale Ave U 2 6434
Doran St Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 6819
Doran St Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 6945
Doran St Jackson St Isabel St U 2 7082
Doran St Central Ave Orange St U 4 7270
Doran St Isabel St Geneva St U 2 7379
Doran St San Fernando Rd Concord St U 2 7974
Doran St Orange St Brand Blvd U 4 8432
Doran St Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 3 9810
Dryden St Everett St Cedar St N 2 2073
Dryden St Brand Blvd Louise St N 2 5054
Dunsmore Ave I-210 Honolulu Ave C 2 2241
Dunsmore Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 C 2 2440
Dunsmore Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd C 2 3330
Elk Ave San Fernando Rd I-5 Fwy Entry/Exit M 2 6055
Emerald Isle Dr Camino San Rafael Chevy Chase Dr C 2 1402 Ethel St La Zanja Dr Moncado Dr N 2 1769
Ethel St Glenoaks Blvd Viscano Dr N 2 2648
Fairmont Ave San Fernando Rd Concord St M 3 8848
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Fern Ln Verdugo Rd SR-2 C 2 3440
Figueroa St North-East City border San Augustine Rd C 2 1996 Flower St Air Way San Fernando Rd M 4 1822
Flower St Grandview Ave Air Way M 4 6806
Flower St Allen Ave Western Ave M 4 7141
Flower St West City border Allen Ave M 4 7265
Flower St Sonora Ave Grandview Ave M 4 7352
Flower St Western Ave Sonora Ave M 4 11090
Foothill Blvd Boston Ave Dunsmore Ave A 4 22977
Foothill Blvd Lowell Ave Boston Ave A 4 23368
Foothill Blvd Dunsmore Ave New York Avenue A 4 25479
Foothill Blvd New York Avenue Pennsylvania Ave A 4 26961 Gardena Ave Central Ave Cerritos Ave M 2 1708
Geneva St Monterey Rd Doran St U 2 3339
Geneva St Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd U 2 6674
Glendale Ave Cerritos Ave San Fernando Rd A 3 12058
Glendale Ave Los Feliz Blvd Cerritos Ave A 4 14640
Glendale Ave Maple St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 20037
Glendale Ave Colorado St Maple St A 4 23983
Glendale Ave Palmer Ave Los Feliz Blvd A 4 24087
Glendale Ave Harvard St Colorado St A 4 24667
Glendale Ave Chevy Chase Dr Palmer Ave A 4 24791
Glendale Ave Broadway Harvard St A 4 25098
Glendale Ave Wilson Ave Broadway A 4 26482
Glendale Ave California Ave Wilson Ave A 5 26986
Glendale Ave Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd A 6 27738
Glendale Ave Verdugo Rd Glenoaks Blvd A 4 27823
Glendale Ave Lexington Dr California Ave A 4 28315
Glendale Ave Doran St Lexington Dr A 4 31782
Glendale Ave Monterey Rd Doran St A 5 38418
Glenoaks Blvd Glendale Ave Verdugo Rd M 2 6463
Glenoaks Blvd Harvey Dr SR-2 C 2 6609
Glenoaks Blvd Verdugo Rd Chevy Chase Dr C 2 6875
Glenoaks Blvd Chevy Chase Dr Harvey Dr C 2 7314
Glenoaks Blvd Geneva St Rossmoyne Ave M 2 8137
Glenoaks Blvd Mt Carmel Dr Waltonia Dr C 2 8165
Glenoaks Blvd Jackson St Geneva St A 4 11424
Glenoaks Blvd Rossmoyne Ave Glendale Ave M 2 11890
Glenoaks Blvd Louise St Jackson St A 4 16323
Glenoaks Blvd Brand Blvd Louise St A 4 19013
Glenoaks Blvd Central Ave Brand Blvd A 6 21985
Glenoaks Blvd Pacific Ave Central Ave A 6 23551
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Glenoaks Blvd West City border Allen Ave A 6 27176
Glenoaks Blvd Allen Ave Western Ave A 6 28715
Glenoaks Blvd Kenilworth Ave Pacific Ave A 6 29494
Glenoaks Blvd Concord St Kenilworth Ave A 6 29686
Glenoaks Blvd Western Ave Sonora Ave A 6 31209
Glenoaks Blvd Sonora Ave Grandview Ave A 6 32971
Glenoaks Blvd Highland Ave Concord St A 6 33374
Glenoaks Blvd Grandview Ave Highland Ave A 6 33817
Glenwood Rd Highland Ave Concord St C 2 3939
Glenwood Rd Concord St Pacific Ave C 2 4344
Glenwood Rd Grandview Ave Highland Ave C 2 5058
Goode Ave Central Ave Brand Blvd A 2 10751
Grandview Ave San Fernando Rd Air Way M 4 1222
Grandview Ave Air Way Flower St M 4 1374
Grandview Ave Cumberland Rd Sonora Ave C 2 4224
Grandview Ave Kenneth Rd Glenwood St C 2 4650
Grandview Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd M 4 5282
Grandview Ave Sonora Ave Kenneth Rd C 2 5747
Grandview Ave Glenwood St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 7001
Harvard St Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 2022
Harvard St Adams St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 2657
Harvard St Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 3740
Harvard St Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 5026
Harvard St Louise St Jackson St U 2 5316
Harvard St Jackson St Glendale Ave U 2 6095
Harvard St Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 6528
Harvey Dr Chevy Chase Dr Glenoaks Blvd M 4 7074
Harvey Dr Glenoaks Blvd Holly Dr A 4 12805
Harvey Dr Holly Dr Wilson Ave A 4 20920
Highland Ave Kenneth Rd Glenwood St C 2 2245
Highland Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd C 2 5401
Highland Ave Glenwood St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 6764
Holly Dr Harvey Dr SR-2 M 4 18882
Honolulu Ave Ocean View Ave Verdugo Rd/ Montrose Ave U 2 6844 Honolulu Ave Rosemont Ave Ocean View Ave U 2 8692
Honolulu Ave La Crescenta Ave Rosemont Ave U 4 8807
Honolulu Ave Boston Ave Dunsmore Ave M 4 9687
Honolulu Ave Dunsmore Ave New York Avenue M 4 10433
Honolulu Ave Lowell Ave Boston Ave A 4 10554
Honolulu Ave New York Avenue Pennsylvania Ave M 4 11624 Honolulu Ave Pennsylvania Ave Ramsdell Ave M 4 12813
Honolulu Ave Ramsdell Ave La Crescenta Ave M 4 14076
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Isabel St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 1641
Isabel St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 2449
Isabel St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 3671
Jackson St Harvard St Colorado St U 2 3095
Jackson St Broadway Harvard St U 2 3892
Jackson St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5727
Jackson St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 6181
Jackson St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 7185
Jackson St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 7683
Jackson St Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd U 2 8749
Jackson St Monterey Rd Doran St U 2 9855
Kenilworth Ave Concord St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 2283
Kenneth Rd Alameda Ave Allen Ave C 2 5149
Kenneth Rd Central Ave Brand Blvd C 2 5688
Kenneth Rd Allen Ave Western Ave C 2 6522
Kenneth Rd Western Ave Sonora Ave C 2 7332
Kenneth Rd Sonora Ave Grandview Ave C 2 8674
Kenneth Rd Pacific Ave Central Ave C 2 10398
Kenneth Rd Grandview Ave Highland Ave C 2 10471
Kenneth Rd Highland Ave Pacific Ave C 2 10901
La Crescenta Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave A 4 11229
La Crescenta Ave Oakmont View Dr Roselawn Ave A 4 11623 La Crescenta Ave Roselawn Ave Verdugo Rd A 4 12385
La Crescenta Ave Honolulu Ave Oakmont View Dr A 4 12839 La Crescenta Ave I-210 Montrose Ave A 4 14212
Lake St Western Ave Sonora Ave C 2 2072
Lake St Allen Ave Western Ave C 2 2133
Lake St West City border Allen Ave C 2 2272
Lexington Dr Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 2984
Lexington Dr Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 3412
Lexington Dr Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 4589
Lexington Dr Adams St Verdugo Rd U 2 5003
Lexington Dr Louise St Jackson St U 2 5577
Lexington Dr Central Ave Orange St U 2 5954
Lexington Dr Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 5976
Lexington Dr Isabel St Glendale Ave U 2 6072
Lexington Dr Jackson St Isabel St U 2 6371
Lexington Dr Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 6455
Lexington Dr Orange St Brand Blvd U 2 6573
Linda Vista Rd Chevy Chase Dr Figueroa St C 2 1521
Linda Vista Rd Figueroa St North-East City border C 2 1601 Los Feliz Blvd Brand Blvd Glendale Ave A 4 13030
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Los Feliz Blvd Central Ave Brand Blvd A 4 16181
Los Feliz Blvd San Fernando Rd Central Ave A 4 21335
Los Feliz Blvd West City border San Fernando Rd A 4 29065 Louise St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 5798
Louise St Broadway Harvard St U 2 5844
Louise St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 5903
Louise St Harvard St Colorado St U 2 5972
Louise St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 6353
Louise St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 7526
Louise St Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd U 2 7709
Louise St Monterey Rd Doran St U 2 8383
Lowell Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd M 2 3283
Lowell Ave Foothill Blvd Honolulu Ave M 2 11646
Maple St Central Ave Brand Blvd U 2 1181
Maple St Adams St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 2611
Maple St Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 2698
Maple St Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 2969
Maple St Brand Blvd Glendale Ave U 2 5350
Maryland Ave California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 3584
Maryland Ave Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 4306
Maryland Ave Milford St Lexington Dr U 2 4631
Maryland Ave Doran St Milford St U 2 5168
Milford St Orange St Brand Blvd U 4 2942
Milford St Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 3462
Milford St Central Ave Orange St U 4 5199
Monterey Rd Louise St Jackson St M 2 4519
Monterey Rd Brand Blvd Louise St M 3 4634
Monterey Rd Jackson St Geneva St M 2 6795
Monterey Rd Glendale Ave Verdugo Rd U 2 7420
Monterey Rd Geneva St Glendale Ave M 2 12658
Montrose Ave Pennsylvania Ave Ramsdell Ave M 2 7428
Montrose Ave La Crescenta Ave Rosemont Ave M 2 7504
Montrose Ave Ramsdell Ave La Crescenta Ave M 2 9157
Montrose Ave North City border Verdugo Blvd/ Honolulu Ave A 4 16039 Mountain St Central Ave Brand Blvd C 2 3540
Mountain St Jackson St Rossmoyne Ave C 2 3822
Mountain St Rossmoyne Ave Verdugo Rd C 2 4308
Mountain St Brand Blvd Jackson St C 2 5440
Mountain St Verdugo Rd SR-2 A 5 21554
Mt. Carmel Dr Holly Dr Glenoaks Blvd M 2 3983
New York Ave I-210 Honolulu Ave C 2 2591
New York Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 C 2 3424
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
New York Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd C 2 3441
Ocean View Ave Broadview Dr Verdugo Rd M 2 6188
Ocean View Ave Honolulu Ave Broadview Dr M 2 8412
Ocean View Ave North City border Honolulu Ave M 4 9319
Opechee Way Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd C 2 593
Orange St Milford St Lexington Dr U 2 4296
Orange St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5085
Orange St Doran St Milford St U 2 5150
Orange St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 5683
Orange St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 6605
Pacific Ave Cumberland Rd Kenneth Rd C 2 6,144
Pacific Ave Kenneth Rd Glenwood St C 2 8643
Pacific Ave Riverdale Dr San Fernando Rd M 2 10179
Pacific Ave Glenwood St Stocker St M 2 12746
Pacific Ave Colorado St Riverdale Dr M 2 12933
Pacific Ave Broadway Colorado St M 4 20241
Pacific Ave Wilson Ave Broadway M 4 21621
Pacific Ave Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd M 2 22200
Pacific Ave California Ave Wilson Ave M 4 22862
Pacific Ave Lexington Dr California Ave M 4 23767
Pacific Ave Glenoaks Blvd Arden Ave A 4 26226
Pacific Ave Doran St Lexington Dr M 4 26293
Pacific Ave SR-134 Doran St M 4 27344
Pacific Ave Arden Ave SR-134 A 4 28374
Palmer Ave Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 7272
Pennsylvania Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd M 2 10523 Pennsylvania Ave I-210 Montrose Ave A 4 13670
Pennsylvania Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave M 4 13985
Pennsylvania Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 A 4 18826
Ramsdell Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave C 2 1932
Ramsdell Ave I-210 Montrose Ave C 2 4496
Riverdale Dr San Fernando Rd Pacific Ave U 2 3870
Riverdale Dr Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 4186
Riverdale Dr Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 5425
Riverside Dr West City border Western Ave C 2 5665
Riverside Dr Western Ave Sonora Ave C 2 8481
Roselawn Ave Broadview Dr La Crescenta Ave C 2 1871
Rosemont Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave C 2 3731
Rosemont Ave Honolulu Ave Broadview Dr C 2 3822
San Fernando Rd West City border Allen Ave A 4 15551
San Fernando Rd Grandview Ave Flower St A 4 16241
San Fernando Rd Los Feliz Blvd Central Ave A 4 16531
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
San Fernando Rd Broadway Colorado St A 4 16974
San Fernando Rd Allen Ave Western Ave A 4 17096
San Fernando Rd Sonora Ave Grandview Ave A 4 17268
San Fernando Rd Wilson Ave Broadway A 4 17721
San Fernando Rd California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 18493
San Fernando Rd Flower St Highland Ave A 4 18519
San Fernando Rd Doran St California Ave A 4 19030
San Fernando Rd Riverdale Dr Pacific Ave A 4 19651
San Fernando Rd Western Ave Sonora Ave A 4 20261
San Fernando Rd Colorado St Riverdale Dr A 4 21517
San Fernando Rd Cerritos Ave Brand Blvd A 4 21538
San Fernando Rd Highland Ave Fairmont Ave A 4 22258
San Fernando Rd Chevy Chase Dr Los Feliz Blvd A 4 22309 San Fernando Rd Fairmont Ave Doran St A 4 22826
San Fernando Rd Central Ave Cerritos Ave A 4 22932
San Fernando Rd Brand Blvd Glendale Ave A 4 24343
San Fernando Rd Pacific Ave Chevy Chase Dr A 4 26272
San Fernando Rd Glendale Ave South City border A 4 31159 Sanchez Dr Central Ave Brand Blvd A 2 11501
Santa Carlota St Boston Ave Dunsmore Ave C 2 2282
Santa Carlota St Lowell Ave Boston Ave C 2 2362
Santa Carlota St New York Avenue Pennsylvania Ave C 2 3065 Santa Carlota St Dunsmore Ave New York Avenue C 2 3594
Sherer Lane Verdugo Rd SR-2 C 2 1077
Sonora Ave Grandview Ave Kenneth Rd C 2 1596
Sonora Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 3520
Sonora Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd U 2 11378
Sonora Ave San Fernando Rd Air Way U 4 13970
Sonora Ave Lake St Victory Blvd C 4 15153
Sonora Ave Air Way Flower St U 4 15685
Sonora Ave Flower St Lake St U 4 16736
Stancrest Dr Broadview Dr SR-2 C 2 999
Stocker St Everett St Cedar St N 2 2616
Stocker St Concord St Pacific Ave C 2 3489
Stocker St Brand Blvd Jackson St C 2 4797
Stocker St Pacific Ave Central Ave C 2 7608
Stocker St Central Ave Brand Blvd C 2 8298
Valihi Way Verdugo Blvd Broadview Dr C 2 2529
Verdugo Blvd SR-2 La Tour Way C 4 17563
Verdugo Blvd Montrose Ave Valihi Way C 4 23078
Verdugo Blvd Valihi Way SR-2 C 4 25447
Verdugo Rd Canada Blvd North Fern Lane M 4 8438
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Verdugo Rd Fern Lane Opechee Way M 4 9701
Verdugo Rd Opechee Way Wabasso Way M 4 10410
Verdugo Rd Wabasso Way Sherer Ln M 4 10929
Verdugo Rd Glendale Ave Glenoaks Blvd A 4 11550
Verdugo Rd Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd A 4 12273
Verdugo Rd Broadview Dr Ocean View Ave A 6 12620
Verdugo Rd Honolulu Ave/ Verdugo Blvd Broadview Dr A 6 13493 Verdugo Rd Ocean View Ave La Crescenta Ave A 6 13830
Verdugo Rd Chevy Chase Dr California Ave A 4 14071
Verdugo Rd Sherer Ln Canada Blvd South M 4 14157
Verdugo Rd Maple St Acacia Ave A 4 14395
Verdugo Rd Wilson Ave Broadway A 4 14616
Verdugo Rd Colorado St Maple St A 4 15126
Verdugo Rd California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 15307
Verdugo Rd Monterey Rd Chevy Chase Dr A 4 17939
Verdugo Rd Harvard St Colorado St A 4 20195
Verdugo Rd Broadway Harvard St A 4 20550
Verdugo Rd La Crescenta Ave Canada Blvd North A 6 25495 Verdugo Rd Mountain St Glendale Ave A 5 38243
Verdugo Rd Canada Blvd South Mountain St A 8 41558
Victory Blvd Allen Ave Western Ave M 4 13095
Victory Blvd West City border Allen Ave M 4 13353
Victory Blvd Western Ave Sonora Ave M 4 17248
Wabasso Way Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd C 2 848
Western Ave Bel Aire Dr Kenneth Rd C 2 2807
Western Ave Victory Blvd Riverside Dr M 2 3401
Western Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 6006
Western Ave Lake St Victory Blvd A 2 14857
Western Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd A 4 17635
Western Ave Flower St Lake St A 4 19132
Western Ave San Fernando Rd Flower St A 4 27163
Wilson Ave San Fernando Rd Concord St M 2 1655
Wilson Ave Concord St Pacific Ave M 2 3096
Wilson Ave Pacific Ave Columbus Ave M 2 5329
Wilson Ave Columbus Ave Central Ave M 2 6139
Wilson Ave Central Ave Orange St M 2 9404
Wilson Ave Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd M 2 9782
Wilson Ave Orange St Brand Blvd M 2 10234
Wilson Ave Maryland Ave Louise St M 2 10755
Wilson Ave Louise St Jackson St M 2 10915
Wilson Ave Adams St Chevy Chase Dr M 2 11201
Wilson Ave Verdugo Rd Broadway M 2 11247
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Wilson Ave Glendale Ave Adams St M 2 11275
Wilson Ave Brand Blvd Maryland Ave M 2 11328
Wilson Ave Jackson St Isabel St M 2 12912
Wilson Ave Isabel St Glendale Ave M 2 15211
Street Classification:

F= Freeway, A= Major Arterial, M= Minor Arterial, U= Urban Collector, C= Community Collector, N= Neighborhood Collector Freeway 22500
Major Arterial 9000
Minor Arterial 8000
Urban Collector 7000
Community Collector 6500
Neighborhood Collector 6500
Baseline ADT Capacity (per lane)