Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
The VC model seems to have been generated in the suburban environment. The WOL platform seems to have been generated in a "super suburban" environment which assumes 4 lane (both directions) roads with fast traffic. Certain parts of VC are useful in all environments. The concept of lane positioning is useful everywhere, but its strict adherance is a product of the suburban environment. The lane positioning which is suitable for a 4 lane arterial is not possible on a 2 lane, narrow, no shoulder rural highway.
I believe that the vehicular cycling model fits best in urban environments with a high density of intersections, narrow lanes/door zones, and slower speeds.
As motor vehicle speeds get very high and intersection counts get very low, especially when the intersections become free-flowing exchanges, and the availability of space for segregated bikeways increases, that's where I think the model starts to show shortcomings.
WOLs may be easier to build in the suburbs, but they operate fine in urban areas too. I prefer a WOL in an urban area over a sidewalk bike path or a striped bike lane through the same high-intersection count, moderate-speed environment. On freeway-like roads in the suburbs, that's where I start to think a well-swept, wide bike lane or wide paved shoulder could have advantages over a WOL.
The neighborhood street in front of my house is two lanes, 16' per lane, 25mph speed limit. Kids and their parents ride near the edge of the lane and drivers pass with plenty of space. I ride in the center of the lane if I am going fast. A driver can park on the side of the road if he wants to, but there aren't very many. A perfect WOL example.