Originally Posted by
flangehead
I saw and rode on such roads in the Netherlands and in my very brief exposure it worked fine. In all cases, it was in low-traffic situations.
This is important. One size does not fit all. I'd argue that traffic carnage is a lot like cancer. Each cancer has a very different treatment that, more than anything else, is the result of trial and error. My cancer was relatively rare, but I was fortunate that it had an effective treatment because the cancer community had learned from trial and error.
I don't get the sense that the US traffic engineering community has that same mindset, as it has a specs and standards tradition. Most times, the design is heavily standards-based, and I consistently get the reply that they have no choice due to liability. Using best practices for a good outcome is not the objective.
I can see this being a viable option in some situations.
Yes in theory but my experience is that it is very dependent on the bureaucracy involved. I tried to influence a project and found out that due to the funding sources, for all practical purposes the design had been frozen 10 years earlier. Even though it was clearly a bad idea, and standards had changed, implementation went ahead.
I don’t know what exactly is meant by “standards.” I see two basic kinds. One is to communicate and enforce a particular design. Here it can easily be a good fit in only a limited number of cases. The other is to communicate requirements, such as minimum lane widths for the motor vehicle, pedaled vehicle, and pedestrian channels, and dedicated channel space allocations based on perhaps volume of usage.
Both approaches are standards, but one allows more flexibility in designing solutions for effectiveness, cost optimization, or whatever the design metrics are.