At a not so local bike meeting yesterday the revisions to the MUTCD by the NCUTCD-BTC (Bicycle Technical Committee) was presented along with how and why the processes works. Most notably the question needs to be answered does a new or experimental TCD actually perform as expected? Is the statement "It should work to improve things" more valid then "We studied all the variables and found that this TCD made the following difference..." I think mosts cyclists would agree that having our facilities verified that they do actually work is a good thing. But it seems that Portland is throwing the experimental and verification processes out the window. First they install bike lane stripes all the way up to intersections against design guidelines and have discovered problems (well no duh.) And in attempt to fix the problem of going against design guidelines they are going even further adrift by throwing more new experimental stuff at the problem by installing green bike boxes. This might be well and good if green bike boxes where actually shown to work and could eventually make it into the MUTCD but Portland has elected to not go through the experimental process by only changing one variable at a time (what's the effect of bike boxes and what is the effect of the color green) and is more or less doing whatever it thinks should work rather then relying on provable data by the scientific method.
Personally I think whether you are a bike lane advocate or a anti-bike lane advocate the processes (and the "think" behind the changes) going on in Portland needs to be corrected and I strongly encourage Portland to work with NCUTCD-BTC.