Helmet Head

If you have about 27 feet to work with on half of a 45 mph roadway with no driveways and few intersections, which configuration would you prefer:

1. WOL. A 10 foot inside lane and a 17 foot WOL. 10-17
2. BL. 10 foot inside lane, 12 foot outside traffic lane, and a 5 foot bike lane. 10-12-5
3. NOL. Three narrow 9 foot lanes. 9-9-9.
4. Something substantially different (please specify)

Note that the only difference between the first two is a bike lane stripe.

Choice (c) effectively expands the bike lane from 5 feet to 9 feet (gaining the space to do so by narrowing the other two lanes), but allows other traffic to travel in it as well. In all three configurations there are always two lanes that faster traffic could use to pass the cyclist.

noisebeam

a

or

c with 25mph enforced speed limit OR sharrows on outside lane

edit: (made after genec agreed c is acceptable, not sure if this changes his opinion): to clarify 25mph enforced speed limit is only on outside lane. Inner 2 lanes would remain 45mph speed limit.

Al

Paul L.

All three are equally acceptable to me providing option C has an appropriate speed limit (wouldn't want to be there if the speed limit was 75 mph or anything like that). Do have a slight preference for A and B though.

genec

I like B as it removes the ambiguity of "shared lanes."

But Noisebeam's option C is also very acceptable.

Roody

I like the NOL. (Actually, HH, didn't you just tell me that a 9 foot lane would be a very narrow lane?)

I'm used to VNOLs. Unless motor traffic is very heavy, drivers usually find it easy to get around you. You soon learn not to worry too much about overtaking cars, just take your lane in the center and ride.

I'm dubious about one thing. I'm not sure that a 9-9-9 road would likely have a speed limit of 45 or more. Usually such a narrow road would be driven at 35 to 40 mph, wouldn't it?

Helmet Head

Maybe you're right, Roody. I should measure the actual width of lanes on such roads.

LittleBigMan

How about 12-12, 40 mph. with cameras capable of enforcing and ticketing speed violations?

noisebeam

As to the 9-9-9, I don't have experience on such a road.

I do on a VNL-VNOL road (VNOL means a Hummers wheels touch both gutter and lane stripe) posted at 45mph and I find it the worst to ride on during rush hour density traffic. But an extra lane would make it good, so I think 9-9-9 would be fine as it would elminate the pinch point I create by riding in the OL.

Al

Brian Ratliff

I have no preference between A and B. However, I would advocate for B. C is situationally dependent - my response would vary considerably depending on road conditions, lighting conditions, and traffic density and real speed. Note that this is regarding preference, not ability.

You forgot all types of single lane roads on your list, which are more prevalent in Portland (at least on the west side) than multilane streets, even for arterials.

CommuterRun

I would go for option A over any of the others. That would give everybody plenty of room to work with, without any of the down-sides of a designated BL.

Another option I would go for would be like option B, with a twist. Don't make the BL a designated BL. Instead just make it a paved shoulder. This would give the cyclist the option of using the taffic lane or the shoulder.

noisebeam

How is paved shoulder different from a BL - especially as seen by a motorist?

Al

Helmet Head

In CA, at least, there is absolutely no legal obligation for a cyclist to ride in a shoulder (even if paved).

But, you have a good point. Whether motorists, not to mention cyclists, understand this distinction is something else again.

Essentially, a bike lane IS a paved shoulder that cyclists are required (in most jurisdictions) to ride in.

John E

The minimum lane width permitted under California road design standards is 11 feet = 3.35m. A 9-foot = 2.75m lane is too narrow, particularly at the speed postulated.

Note also that California's homicidally written 85th percentile law essentially lets the fastest 15 percent of motorists set the speed limits, as anything lower is considered an unenforceable "speed trap."

Because of these complications, and because I see too many motorists using outside lanes and even shoulders to pass other traffic, I remain extremely skeptical of the narrow outside lane concept, whilst admitting that it does probably solve the right-hook problem.

To me, the most important consideration is still motor vehicle speed. I can live with almost any road and intersection configuration if the speed limit is 25mph = 40kph, but at higher speeds, bicyclists need safe accommodations, such as wide outside lanes (with or without bike lane demarcation) and traffic-calmed intersections (i.e., no free right turns, merges, or diverges).

Treespeed

Wide outside lane with Sharrows.

Roody

I'm not a traffic engineer, but I think 9 foot lanes would be 35 mph by the 85th %ile rule. that is awfully narrow, and most motorists wouldn't feel comfortable driving real fast on it. Of course there are other factors, like stop lights, streets, etc.

But i think the point for cyclists is that these lanes can certainly be ridable for cyclists.

Helmet Head

Are you sure you're not thinking about freeway standards or something? I am under the impression that 10 feet is pretty common.

noisebeam

Anyone care to estimate how wide the outside lane is on this road? The asphault width only, not the concrete gutter. The transition between gutter (about 18" wide) and asphault is a very subtantial bump of built up asphault from resurfacing.

Al

Paul L.

I would guess 9 feet if you figure the maximum width trailer is 8 feet wide and the fact that is quite a bit wider than those little cars. Is that Broadway in Tempe?

noisebeam

Its Southern. I too estimated 9ft. 6ft width for the silver BMW, 1ft on its left, 3ft on its right. I've seen gardeners trailers that barely in the lane though with right wheel bumping on asphault/concrete transition and left wheel almost touching lane line.

Al

Helmet Head

Uh, 6 + 1 + 3 = 10, not 9.

noisebeam

Well your completely wrong. Didn't we already go over the 1+1=/2 discussion

Yeah, thats what I estimated. (10) Not what I typed.
I want to lay a tape measure over it someday.

Al

genec

Maximum vehicle width in the US is 8 foot 6... everything else requires a permit.

Learned that as a trailer sailor.

Helmet Head

Right, which is why I thought the minimum lane width is 9 feet - that leaves 3 inches per side!

genec

Might be a bit hard to do at 25MPH. But then again "they" only give us cyclists 5 feet.

Heck, I have a hard time backing the trailer into the parking spot between the garage and fence, and it's nearly 13 feet between the wall and fence back there.

CommuterRun

A bike lane is a paved shoulder with one distinct difference. It has signs and road markings that legally designate it as a BL. Once this distinction is made, bicycles can be restricted to the BL by local ordinance, because it's now part of the roadway.

On the other hand, a paved shoulder is not a designated lane and, therefore, is not part of the roadway. This gives the cyclist the option of being on the shoulder or "as far right as practicable" in the roadway.


Florida is the same.