Medians – minimum desirable widths in practice Which of the following statements about median width provisions is correct for rural highways and long bridges/viaducts?

Introduction / Context:
Medians separate opposing traffic streams, improve safety, and offer space for future lanes, lighting, and barriers. Practical widths vary with setting and structural constraints.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Rural highway cross-sections versus constrained bridge decks.
• Use of raised/flush medians with or without barriers.
• Provision for drains, lighting, or future widening.

Concept / Approach:
On rural highways, wider medians (≈ 5 m) enhance safety and flexibility. Where right-of-way is limited but separation is still necessary, a median as narrow as ≈ 3 m may be adopted. On long bridges/viaducts, structural economy and deck width limitations often restrict medians to ~1.5 m, sometimes replaced by barriers.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Cross-section catalogues and bridge typical drawings commonly show ≈ 1.5 m deck medians and wider earthen medians on embankments matching these magnitudes.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Since A–C each apply in their respective contexts, the only fully correct choice is All the above.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a single median width fits all; forgetting barrier and shy distance requirements on narrow medians.

Final Answer:
All the above