07-29-2016, 02:00 PM
(07-28-2016, 10:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(07-28-2016, 07:17 PM)Canard Wrote: I think you're making an assumption that there is a big wasted space between the tracks. In fact, there is not - what little space there is between the two tracks is occupied by the poles which support the Overhead Contact System ("Catpoles"):
I've taken the liberty of ghosting in the approximate dimensions to scale of the LRV's, at 2.65 m width.
I think the point is, the space currently allocated to the two 1.5 meter painted bike lanes, and the 1.5 meter sidewalk could be combined in the middle into a 4.5 meter wide MUT. The tracks would be moved.
Obviously this would complicate using ballasted track, and perhaps other issues (polls for example), but the idea is not that there is wasted space right now.
Also, frustration of frustration, why is there a 2 meter painted buffer between the sidewalk and the bike lane, how stupid. And how stupid not to use that 2 meter painted buffer to widen both bike lanes by a meter, instead squeezing cyclists in with 70 km/h through traffic.
Correct. My idea is to arrange the various lanes on the bridge in a different way. So I take the space allocated to both sidewalks and move it to the very centre between the tracks, pushing the tracks apart.
And indeed, I agree that if there is indeed a buffer between the sidewalk and the bike lane rather than between the bike lane and the motor traffic, that is a nutty way to design it. While it’s perfectly reasonable to want bicycles separated from pedestrians, it is not reasonable to believe that more separation is required between pedestrians and bicycles than between bicycles and motor traffic.