Raise the Hammer

I'm fine with the majority of the extension (as much as I like to complain, it's generally an improvement for me) but yes, the door zone bike lane should have been moved to "parking protected bike lane" (behind parking lane) since passenger doors are less likely to open, and provides a buffer zone from moving car traffic.

One of my main concern I noticed is the areas where the bike lane mysteriously becomes narrow (where the center turning lane widens to a whopping 125 inches (3.21 meters), measured by measuring tape):

(That could be your daughter riding that bike)

I sent the originals -- the non-annotated version of these photos -- to Matthew Green (who's been great with my emails) who I think forwarded them to the people responsible for the bike lanes.

With a measuring tape, I scooted onto the road during long quiet moments, quickly measured each lane, in order to provide the listed measurements.

I am curious why unidirectional turning lanes can be as narrow as 108" but bidirectional center turning lanes seems to apparently adhere to a minimum of 125" on Cannon (Even for very short sections where they can't be used as passing lane anyway) when I've seen them narrower elsewhere. That's 3.21 meters wide, over 10 feet wide. Almost two feet wider than regular turning lanes!

Even if this was a truck route (it's not), trucks have to stay rightmost to do a wide left turn, so it's useless on Cannon to design the center turn lane to fit the width of a 18-wheeler truck! Kids live here, people...It's a residential neighborhood.

It's probable painting staff are doing their hardworking jobs to unavoidably follow prescribed markings that are be following archaic minimum-lane-width rules that must need to be updated.

But 125" wide center turning lane. On a residential road (minor arterial) that is not a truck route??!!?!! HSR buses don't even need that lane width, as has been shown elsewhere in the city.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2015-11-11 17:37:55