From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Clark F Morris  wrote:   
   >"Adam H. Kerman"  wrote:   
   >>Sancho Panza  wrote:   
   >>>On 6/9/2014 11:36 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:   
      
   >>>>>The point is that roadway design does not dictate speed, that is, on a   
   >>>>>lousy dangerous road, people will still speed, even if it means high   
   >>>>>fatalities.   
      
   >>>>10 foot wide lanes isn't lousy road design.   
      
   >>>It is when some vehicles are wider than 120 inches, a width that is   
   >>>prohibited, for example, on the extremely heavily used bus land to the   
   >>>Lincoln Tunnel.   
      
   >>Those vehicles will have to use other routes. Big deal.   
      
   >I suspect that most transit buses and maybe now the standard over the   
   >road bus is 102 inches wide as opposed to 96 inches wide for the   
   >original design.  This means 9 inches clearance on each side in a 10   
   >foot lane.  Even with a 12 inch clearance, would you want to drive a   
   >bus in the Lincoln Tunnel?   
      
   I don't see a magic solution for immediately widening all those   
   10 foot lanes. Here in Chicago, columns for the Lake Street "L" made the   
   street lanes for Lake Street narrow in areas in which the columns were   
   between the curbs. They ran narrower street cars and narrower buses.   
      
   You make accomodations, but you don't take the attitude that there's   
   any reason to accomodate 120 wide oversize loads except on special moves   
   on specially designated routes. And you don't build transit buses to   
   oversize widths just 'cuz.   
      
   Then they should have continued using 96 inch wide buses for Lincoln   
   Tunnel service if that's what's necessary. How do semi-trailers get through   
   there if it's impossible?   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)