Ridership data demonstrate massive growth in bicycle use in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An scientific study shows that bike sharing in DC has actually reduced congestion: https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2020-b01452

This is an interesting counterpoint to those who claim that bike lanes have the opposite effect.

Except the physical changes increase congestion, which is what they are designed to do, by over 20% so it's still a large net negative.

Where are you getting 20% from? They certainly aren't allocating 20% of road space to bike lanes.

In terms of protected bike lanes (which are not used for free parking, most of the time), it’s 35 miles out of 1,500 miles of road. The lanes take up at most 20% of the road, so it’s 0.2 * 35/1500 =0.005%

The amount of whining that goes on about the use of 0.005% of road space in DC is phenomenal!

Get a better hobby, NIMBYs!

Old Georgetown Road says you're wrong. The took 2 of the 6 lanes (33%) and turned them into bike lanes which approximately zero people use.

You’d be interested to hear that the actual data shows the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road did not slow down commutes and seem to have decreased accidents. https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/08/many-drivers-despise-these-bethesda-bike-lanes-but-are-they-slowing-drivers-down/

Did you read the article? It's entirely specious spin - especially that accident data. It's a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

I’m not going to bother reading the article because it sounds like a huge lie. The SHA study came to the following conclusions:
- costs $100k per year to maintain
- used by 28 cyclists per day in summer
- adds ~10 minutes to travel time during peak hours
- did not increase vehicle accidents

Now one one could say, and plenty have, that 10 minutes is no big whoop. But 10 minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot.

Let’s put this another way, there is a reason why all of the cycling advocates in the region don’t talk about this boondoggle and there’s a reason why Montgomery County has shifted its “war on cars” strategy to lane reduction with bus lanes instead of bike lanes.

The report did not say that it costs $100,000 a year to maintain, and the report also did not say that it adds 10 minutes to travel time during peak hours. You're just factually wrong about that.

Also, if you think ten minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot, just imagine how much 3 permanently dead people is.

Here's the reality:

Old Georgetown Road was a dangerous/deadly road.
So MD SHA instituted a road diet to make it safer - reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and narrowing the lanes.
They had to do something with the extra road space, so they put in bike lanes.
The main effect of the bike lanes is to make the sidewalks much safer and more comfortable for people who are walking or waiting for the bus.
There isn't any additional cut-through traffic.
There aren't any additional traffic jams.
Almost two years later, some people are still complaining because it takes them a few minutes longer to drive.

Get over it.

It’s weird that someone would lie so much about bike lanes. Why do you do it?

The PP was close but not completely accurate. Here’s what the report says:

- AM peak period travel times have increased by up to 22%
- PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40%
- Total peak travel times increase is 6 minutes per day
- Maintenance has cost $57,000
- There was no reduction in bike crashes (1 per year last 3 years, 0 in 2019-2020)
- Vehicle crashes increased by 60% (16 in 2022, 26 in 2023)

where are you getting that from?

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the anti-cyclist maniac on here accustomed to accusing everyone else of lying refuses to cite their sources.

All interested stakeholders received a copy of the report. Since you didn’t receive one it clearly indicates what you are, which is someone who spends their days online lying about bicycles and attacking people who disagree with you. It’s a pretty sad existence.

If you want a copy of the report, please feel free to contact SHA directly or your state legislator.

I take it that whatever education you received failed in instructing you how to cite your sources. If you are making specific claims that are disputed by others, point to the page number in the report where those numbers come from.

Can you write a single post without flinging ridiculous accusations against anyone who requests a proper citation? I’ve seen you post the same crap in multiple threads now and, if anyone on here seems worthy of others’ pity, it is you.

You’re just angry that you got found out and exposed for being a liar.

SHA prepared a report on the implementation of the lanes in October that was disseminated to local stakeholders. You don’t have the report and everything you have said about the lanes is a lie.

If you want the report, contact SHA or your state representative. If you don’t live in MD I would wonder why you lie about a place you don’t live and about things you know nothing about.

Pathological.

Listing a few page numbers in the report would have taken a hell of a lot less time to write than that screed.

That you can’t provide strong suggests to me that you are, in fact, the one spilling fibs here.

this is a really weird hill for PP to die on. I really want to see the SHA report (if it exists) because those increases PP claims in travel time are much higher than the earlier SHA report. I’m pretty good at finding stuff online but couldn’t find it. It’s not hard to upload a doc to dropbox and post it here.

sadly I can believe the report might have shown no decrease in accidents. traffic safety got so bad post-pandemic that it could be the lanes just decreased the increase rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An scientific study shows that bike sharing in DC has actually reduced congestion: https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2020-b01452

This is an interesting counterpoint to those who claim that bike lanes have the opposite effect.

Except the physical changes increase congestion, which is what they are designed to do, by over 20% so it's still a large net negative.

Where are you getting 20% from? They certainly aren't allocating 20% of road space to bike lanes.

In terms of protected bike lanes (which are not used for free parking, most of the time), it’s 35 miles out of 1,500 miles of road. The lanes take up at most 20% of the road, so it’s 0.2 * 35/1500 =0.005%

The amount of whining that goes on about the use of 0.005% of road space in DC is phenomenal!

Get a better hobby, NIMBYs!

Old Georgetown Road says you're wrong. The took 2 of the 6 lanes (33%) and turned them into bike lanes which approximately zero people use.

You’d be interested to hear that the actual data shows the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road did not slow down commutes and seem to have decreased accidents. https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/08/many-drivers-despise-these-bethesda-bike-lanes-but-are-they-slowing-drivers-down/

Did you read the article? It's entirely specious spin - especially that accident data. It's a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

I’m not going to bother reading the article because it sounds like a huge lie. The SHA study came to the following conclusions:
- costs $100k per year to maintain
- used by 28 cyclists per day in summer
- adds ~10 minutes to travel time during peak hours
- did not increase vehicle accidents

Now one one could say, and plenty have, that 10 minutes is no big whoop. But 10 minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot.

Let’s put this another way, there is a reason why all of the cycling advocates in the region don’t talk about this boondoggle and there’s a reason why Montgomery County has shifted its “war on cars” strategy to lane reduction with bus lanes instead of bike lanes.

The report did not say that it costs $100,000 a year to maintain, and the report also did not say that it adds 10 minutes to travel time during peak hours. You're just factually wrong about that.

Also, if you think ten minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot, just imagine how much 3 permanently dead people is.

Here's the reality:

Old Georgetown Road was a dangerous/deadly road.
So MD SHA instituted a road diet to make it safer - reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and narrowing the lanes.
They had to do something with the extra road space, so they put in bike lanes.
The main effect of the bike lanes is to make the sidewalks much safer and more comfortable for people who are walking or waiting for the bus.
There isn't any additional cut-through traffic.
There aren't any additional traffic jams.
Almost two years later, some people are still complaining because it takes them a few minutes longer to drive.

Get over it.

It’s weird that someone would lie so much about bike lanes. Why do you do it?

The PP was close but not completely accurate. Here’s what the report says:

- AM peak period travel times have increased by up to 22%
- PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40%
- Total peak travel times increase is 6 minutes per day
- Maintenance has cost $57,000
- There was no reduction in bike crashes (1 per year last 3 years, 0 in 2019-2020)
- Vehicle crashes increased by 60% (16 in 2022, 26 in 2023)

where are you getting that from?

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the anti-cyclist maniac on here accustomed to accusing everyone else of lying refuses to cite their sources.

All interested stakeholders received a copy of the report. Since you didn’t receive one it clearly indicates what you are, which is someone who spends their days online lying about bicycles and attacking people who disagree with you. It’s a pretty sad existence.

If you want a copy of the report, please feel free to contact SHA directly or your state legislator.

I take it that whatever education you received failed in instructing you how to cite your sources. If you are making specific claims that are disputed by others, point to the page number in the report where those numbers come from.

Can you write a single post without flinging ridiculous accusations against anyone who requests a proper citation? I’ve seen you post the same crap in multiple threads now and, if anyone on here seems worthy of others’ pity, it is you.

You’re just angry that you got found out and exposed for being a liar.

SHA prepared a report on the implementation of the lanes in October that was disseminated to local stakeholders. You don’t have the report and everything you have said about the lanes is a lie.

If you want the report, contact SHA or your state representative. If you don’t live in MD I would wonder why you lie about a place you don’t live and about things you know nothing about.

Pathological.

Listing a few page numbers in the report would have taken a hell of a lot less time to write than that screed.

That you can’t provide strong suggests to me that you are, in fact, the one spilling fibs here.

this is a really weird hill for PP to die on. I really want to see the SHA report (if it exists) because those increases PP claims in travel time are much higher than the earlier SHA report. I’m pretty good at finding stuff online but couldn’t find it. It’s not hard to upload a doc to dropbox and post it here.

sadly I can believe the report might have shown no decrease in accidents. traffic safety got so bad post-pandemic that it could be the lanes just decreased the increase rate.

DP. The report does exist. Delegate Marc Korman sent an email on October 31, with the report attached. Here is his email, which includes his summary of the report's findings:


You are receiving this because of your interest in the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. As you are aware, the State Highway Administration added the bike lanes as a safety feature in two phases following the deaths of Jacob Cassell and Enzo Alvarenga--and other incidents and injuries--along the roadway. The second phase (between Tilden Lane and Ryland Drive) is the focus of thi report and was completed about two years ago as part of a resurfacing contract.

Since that time, I have emailed, spoken, and/or met with many of you. The State Highway Administration has released prior reports on the bike lanes but to address some of the continued questions heard from the community, the General Assembly requested a report from the State Highway Administration on several specific issues (brief summary of findings included):

Travel Time Impacts: There are auto travel time impacts--particularly during the peaks--of a few minutes.

Cut Through Traffic Impacts: These appear to be .2% to .3% of total trips.

Bike Lane Usage: Chart is on page 6 of the report. Usage is somewhat erratic.

First Responders: SHA continues to communicate with first responders about the bike lanes. There are no reported issues. Not noted in the report but worth mentioning is that emergency vehicles can use the bike lanes just like they could a road shoulder, so if you see that not happening please let me know and we can remind wherever the first responder is from.

Crash Data: Charts are on pages 7-8. Total crashes in 2023 were the same as 2018.

Winter Weather Maintenance: There has been no snow removal operations since the lanes were added, only salt application.

Ongoing Lane Maintenance Costs: $46,000 for two years of maintenance.

The full report is attached. As always, I am happy to pass along questions to State Highway or facilitate further meetings/discussions with them. One is already scheduled for the Maplewood neighborhood in January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An scientific study shows that bike sharing in DC has actually reduced congestion: https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2020-b01452

This is an interesting counterpoint to those who claim that bike lanes have the opposite effect.

Except the physical changes increase congestion, which is what they are designed to do, by over 20% so it's still a large net negative.

Where are you getting 20% from? They certainly aren't allocating 20% of road space to bike lanes.

In terms of protected bike lanes (which are not used for free parking, most of the time), it’s 35 miles out of 1,500 miles of road. The lanes take up at most 20% of the road, so it’s 0.2 * 35/1500 =0.005%

The amount of whining that goes on about the use of 0.005% of road space in DC is phenomenal!

Get a better hobby, NIMBYs!

Old Georgetown Road says you're wrong. The took 2 of the 6 lanes (33%) and turned them into bike lanes which approximately zero people use.

You’d be interested to hear that the actual data shows the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road did not slow down commutes and seem to have decreased accidents. https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/08/many-drivers-despise-these-bethesda-bike-lanes-but-are-they-slowing-drivers-down/

Did you read the article? It's entirely specious spin - especially that accident data. It's a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

I’m not going to bother reading the article because it sounds like a huge lie. The SHA study came to the following conclusions:
- costs $100k per year to maintain
- used by 28 cyclists per day in summer
- adds ~10 minutes to travel time during peak hours
- did not increase vehicle accidents

Now one one could say, and plenty have, that 10 minutes is no big whoop. But 10 minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot.

Let’s put this another way, there is a reason why all of the cycling advocates in the region don’t talk about this boondoggle and there’s a reason why Montgomery County has shifted its “war on cars” strategy to lane reduction with bus lanes instead of bike lanes.

The report did not say that it costs $100,000 a year to maintain, and the report also did not say that it adds 10 minutes to travel time during peak hours. You're just factually wrong about that.

Also, if you think ten minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot, just imagine how much 3 permanently dead people is.

Here's the reality:

Old Georgetown Road was a dangerous/deadly road.
So MD SHA instituted a road diet to make it safer - reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and narrowing the lanes.
They had to do something with the extra road space, so they put in bike lanes.
The main effect of the bike lanes is to make the sidewalks much safer and more comfortable for people who are walking or waiting for the bus.
There isn't any additional cut-through traffic.
There aren't any additional traffic jams.
Almost two years later, some people are still complaining because it takes them a few minutes longer to drive.

Get over it.

It’s weird that someone would lie so much about bike lanes. Why do you do it?

The PP was close but not completely accurate. Here’s what the report says:

- AM peak period travel times have increased by up to 22%
- PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40%
- Total peak travel times increase is 6 minutes per day
- Maintenance has cost $57,000
- There was no reduction in bike crashes (1 per year last 3 years, 0 in 2019-2020)
- Vehicle crashes increased by 60% (16 in 2022, 26 in 2023)

where are you getting that from?

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the anti-cyclist maniac on here accustomed to accusing everyone else of lying refuses to cite their sources.

All interested stakeholders received a copy of the report. Since you didn’t receive one it clearly indicates what you are, which is someone who spends their days online lying about bicycles and attacking people who disagree with you. It’s a pretty sad existence.

If you want a copy of the report, please feel free to contact SHA directly or your state legislator.

I take it that whatever education you received failed in instructing you how to cite your sources. If you are making specific claims that are disputed by others, point to the page number in the report where those numbers come from.

Can you write a single post without flinging ridiculous accusations against anyone who requests a proper citation? I’ve seen you post the same crap in multiple threads now and, if anyone on here seems worthy of others’ pity, it is you.

You’re just angry that you got found out and exposed for being a liar.

SHA prepared a report on the implementation of the lanes in October that was disseminated to local stakeholders. You don’t have the report and everything you have said about the lanes is a lie.

If you want the report, contact SHA or your state representative. If you don’t live in MD I would wonder why you lie about a place you don’t live and about things you know nothing about.

Pathological.

Listing a few page numbers in the report would have taken a hell of a lot less time to write than that screed.

That you can’t provide strong suggests to me that you are, in fact, the one spilling fibs here.

this is a really weird hill for PP to die on. I really want to see the SHA report (if it exists) because those increases PP claims in travel time are much higher than the earlier SHA report. I’m pretty good at finding stuff online but couldn’t find it. It’s not hard to upload a doc to dropbox and post it here.

sadly I can believe the report might have shown no decrease in accidents. traffic safety got so bad post-pandemic that it could be the lanes just decreased the increase rate.

DP. The report does exist. Delegate Marc Korman sent an email on October 31, with the report attached. Here is his email, which includes his summary of the report's findings:


You are receiving this because of your interest in the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. As you are aware, the State Highway Administration added the bike lanes as a safety feature in two phases following the deaths of Jacob Cassell and Enzo Alvarenga--and other incidents and injuries--along the roadway. The second phase (between Tilden Lane and Ryland Drive) is the focus of thi report and was completed about two years ago as part of a resurfacing contract.

Since that time, I have emailed, spoken, and/or met with many of you. The State Highway Administration has released prior reports on the bike lanes but to address some of the continued questions heard from the community, the General Assembly requested a report from the State Highway Administration on several specific issues (brief summary of findings included):

Travel Time Impacts: There are auto travel time impacts--particularly during the peaks--of a few minutes.

Cut Through Traffic Impacts: These appear to be .2% to .3% of total trips.

Bike Lane Usage: Chart is on page 6 of the report. Usage is somewhat erratic.

First Responders: SHA continues to communicate with first responders about the bike lanes. There are no reported issues. Not noted in the report but worth mentioning is that emergency vehicles can use the bike lanes just like they could a road shoulder, so if you see that not happening please let me know and we can remind wherever the first responder is from.

Crash Data: Charts are on pages 7-8. Total crashes in 2023 were the same as 2018.

Winter Weather Maintenance: There has been no snow removal operations since the lanes were added, only salt application.

Ongoing Lane Maintenance Costs: $46,000 for two years of maintenance.

The full report is attached. As always, I am happy to pass along questions to State Highway or facilitate further meetings/discussions with them. One is already scheduled for the Maplewood neighborhood in January.

upload the full report to dropbox. otherwise it’s impossible to interpret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An scientific study shows that bike sharing in DC has actually reduced congestion: https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2020-b01452

This is an interesting counterpoint to those who claim that bike lanes have the opposite effect.

Except the physical changes increase congestion, which is what they are designed to do, by over 20% so it's still a large net negative.

Where are you getting 20% from? They certainly aren't allocating 20% of road space to bike lanes.

In terms of protected bike lanes (which are not used for free parking, most of the time), it’s 35 miles out of 1,500 miles of road. The lanes take up at most 20% of the road, so it’s 0.2 * 35/1500 =0.005%

The amount of whining that goes on about the use of 0.005% of road space in DC is phenomenal!

Get a better hobby, NIMBYs!

Old Georgetown Road says you're wrong. The took 2 of the 6 lanes (33%) and turned them into bike lanes which approximately zero people use.

You’d be interested to hear that the actual data shows the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road did not slow down commutes and seem to have decreased accidents. https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/08/many-drivers-despise-these-bethesda-bike-lanes-but-are-they-slowing-drivers-down/

Did you read the article? It's entirely specious spin - especially that accident data. It's a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

I’m not going to bother reading the article because it sounds like a huge lie. The SHA study came to the following conclusions:
- costs $100k per year to maintain
- used by 28 cyclists per day in summer
- adds ~10 minutes to travel time during peak hours
- did not increase vehicle accidents

Now one one could say, and plenty have, that 10 minutes is no big whoop. But 10 minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot.

Let’s put this another way, there is a reason why all of the cycling advocates in the region don’t talk about this boondoggle and there’s a reason why Montgomery County has shifted its “war on cars” strategy to lane reduction with bus lanes instead of bike lanes.

The report did not say that it costs $100,000 a year to maintain, and the report also did not say that it adds 10 minutes to travel time during peak hours. You're just factually wrong about that.

Also, if you think ten minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot, just imagine how much 3 permanently dead people is.

Here's the reality:

Old Georgetown Road was a dangerous/deadly road.
So MD SHA instituted a road diet to make it safer - reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and narrowing the lanes.
They had to do something with the extra road space, so they put in bike lanes.
The main effect of the bike lanes is to make the sidewalks much safer and more comfortable for people who are walking or waiting for the bus.
There isn't any additional cut-through traffic.
There aren't any additional traffic jams.
Almost two years later, some people are still complaining because it takes them a few minutes longer to drive.

Get over it.

It’s weird that someone would lie so much about bike lanes. Why do you do it?

The PP was close but not completely accurate. Here’s what the report says:

- AM peak period travel times have increased by up to 22%
- PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40%
- Total peak travel times increase is 6 minutes per day
- Maintenance has cost $57,000
- There was no reduction in bike crashes (1 per year last 3 years, 0 in 2019-2020)
- Vehicle crashes increased by 60% (16 in 2022, 26 in 2023)

where are you getting that from?

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the anti-cyclist maniac on here accustomed to accusing everyone else of lying refuses to cite their sources.

All interested stakeholders received a copy of the report. Since you didn’t receive one it clearly indicates what you are, which is someone who spends their days online lying about bicycles and attacking people who disagree with you. It’s a pretty sad existence.

If you want a copy of the report, please feel free to contact SHA directly or your state legislator.

I take it that whatever education you received failed in instructing you how to cite your sources. If you are making specific claims that are disputed by others, point to the page number in the report where those numbers come from.

Can you write a single post without flinging ridiculous accusations against anyone who requests a proper citation? I’ve seen you post the same crap in multiple threads now and, if anyone on here seems worthy of others’ pity, it is you.

You’re just angry that you got found out and exposed for being a liar.

SHA prepared a report on the implementation of the lanes in October that was disseminated to local stakeholders. You don’t have the report and everything you have said about the lanes is a lie.

If you want the report, contact SHA or your state representative. If you don’t live in MD I would wonder why you lie about a place you don’t live and about things you know nothing about.

Pathological.

Listing a few page numbers in the report would have taken a hell of a lot less time to write than that screed.

That you can’t provide strong suggests to me that you are, in fact, the one spilling fibs here.

this is a really weird hill for PP to die on. I really want to see the SHA report (if it exists) because those increases PP claims in travel time are much higher than the earlier SHA report. I’m pretty good at finding stuff online but couldn’t find it. It’s not hard to upload a doc to dropbox and post it here.

sadly I can believe the report might have shown no decrease in accidents. traffic safety got so bad post-pandemic that it could be the lanes just decreased the increase rate.

DP. The report does exist. Delegate Marc Korman sent an email on October 31, with the report attached. Here is his email, which includes his summary of the report's findings:


You are receiving this because of your interest in the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. As you are aware, the State Highway Administration added the bike lanes as a safety feature in two phases following the deaths of Jacob Cassell and Enzo Alvarenga--and other incidents and injuries--along the roadway. The second phase (between Tilden Lane and Ryland Drive) is the focus of thi report and was completed about two years ago as part of a resurfacing contract.

Since that time, I have emailed, spoken, and/or met with many of you. The State Highway Administration has released prior reports on the bike lanes but to address some of the continued questions heard from the community, the General Assembly requested a report from the State Highway Administration on several specific issues (brief summary of findings included):

Travel Time Impacts: There are auto travel time impacts--particularly during the peaks--of a few minutes.

Cut Through Traffic Impacts: These appear to be .2% to .3% of total trips.

Bike Lane Usage: Chart is on page 6 of the report. Usage is somewhat erratic.

First Responders: SHA continues to communicate with first responders about the bike lanes. There are no reported issues. Not noted in the report but worth mentioning is that emergency vehicles can use the bike lanes just like they could a road shoulder, so if you see that not happening please let me know and we can remind wherever the first responder is from.

Crash Data: Charts are on pages 7-8. Total crashes in 2023 were the same as 2018.

Winter Weather Maintenance: There has been no snow removal operations since the lanes were added, only salt application.

Ongoing Lane Maintenance Costs: $46,000 for two years of maintenance.

The full report is attached. As always, I am happy to pass along questions to State Highway or facilitate further meetings/discussions with them. One is already scheduled for the Maplewood neighborhood in January.

those are totally different numbers from what PP was claiming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

upload the full report to dropbox. otherwise it’s impossible to interpret.

You can ask Delegate Korman's office for it, if you're not already on the email distribution list. The document is

Information Related to Bike Lanes on Old Georgetown Road (MD 187)

A Report for the Maryland General Assembly
Senate Budget and Taxation Committee
and
House Appropriations Committee

Maryland Department of Transportation
State Highway Administration
October 2024


Then you can upload it to Dropbox, if you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An scientific study shows that bike sharing in DC has actually reduced congestion: https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2020-b01452

This is an interesting counterpoint to those who claim that bike lanes have the opposite effect.

Except the physical changes increase congestion, which is what they are designed to do, by over 20% so it's still a large net negative.

Where are you getting 20% from? They certainly aren't allocating 20% of road space to bike lanes.

In terms of protected bike lanes (which are not used for free parking, most of the time), it’s 35 miles out of 1,500 miles of road. The lanes take up at most 20% of the road, so it’s 0.2 * 35/1500 =0.005%

The amount of whining that goes on about the use of 0.005% of road space in DC is phenomenal!

Get a better hobby, NIMBYs!

Old Georgetown Road says you're wrong. The took 2 of the 6 lanes (33%) and turned them into bike lanes which approximately zero people use.

You’d be interested to hear that the actual data shows the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road did not slow down commutes and seem to have decreased accidents. https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/08/many-drivers-despise-these-bethesda-bike-lanes-but-are-they-slowing-drivers-down/

Did you read the article? It's entirely specious spin - especially that accident data. It's a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

I’m not going to bother reading the article because it sounds like a huge lie. The SHA study came to the following conclusions:
- costs $100k per year to maintain
- used by 28 cyclists per day in summer
- adds ~10 minutes to travel time during peak hours
- did not increase vehicle accidents

Now one one could say, and plenty have, that 10 minutes is no big whoop. But 10 minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot.

Let’s put this another way, there is a reason why all of the cycling advocates in the region don’t talk about this boondoggle and there’s a reason why Montgomery County has shifted its “war on cars” strategy to lane reduction with bus lanes instead of bike lanes.

The report did not say that it costs $100,000 a year to maintain, and the report also did not say that it adds 10 minutes to travel time during peak hours. You're just factually wrong about that.

Also, if you think ten minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot, just imagine how much 3 permanently dead people is.

Here's the reality:

Old Georgetown Road was a dangerous/deadly road.
So MD SHA instituted a road diet to make it safer - reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and narrowing the lanes.
They had to do something with the extra road space, so they put in bike lanes.
The main effect of the bike lanes is to make the sidewalks much safer and more comfortable for people who are walking or waiting for the bus.
There isn't any additional cut-through traffic.
There aren't any additional traffic jams.
Almost two years later, some people are still complaining because it takes them a few minutes longer to drive.

Get over it.

It’s weird that someone would lie so much about bike lanes. Why do you do it?

The PP was close but not completely accurate. Here’s what the report says:

- AM peak period travel times have increased by up to 22%
- PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40%
- Total peak travel times increase is 6 minutes per day
- Maintenance has cost $57,000
- There was no reduction in bike crashes (1 per year last 3 years, 0 in 2019-2020)
- Vehicle crashes increased by 60% (16 in 2022, 26 in 2023)

where are you getting that from?

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the anti-cyclist maniac on here accustomed to accusing everyone else of lying refuses to cite their sources.

All interested stakeholders received a copy of the report. Since you didn’t receive one it clearly indicates what you are, which is someone who spends their days online lying about bicycles and attacking people who disagree with you. It’s a pretty sad existence.

If you want a copy of the report, please feel free to contact SHA directly or your state legislator.

I take it that whatever education you received failed in instructing you how to cite your sources. If you are making specific claims that are disputed by others, point to the page number in the report where those numbers come from.

Can you write a single post without flinging ridiculous accusations against anyone who requests a proper citation? I’ve seen you post the same crap in multiple threads now and, if anyone on here seems worthy of others’ pity, it is you.

You’re just angry that you got found out and exposed for being a liar.

SHA prepared a report on the implementation of the lanes in October that was disseminated to local stakeholders. You don’t have the report and everything you have said about the lanes is a lie.

If you want the report, contact SHA or your state representative. If you don’t live in MD I would wonder why you lie about a place you don’t live and about things you know nothing about.

Pathological.

Listing a few page numbers in the report would have taken a hell of a lot less time to write than that screed.

That you can’t provide strong suggests to me that you are, in fact, the one spilling fibs here.

this is a really weird hill for PP to die on. I really want to see the SHA report (if it exists) because those increases PP claims in travel time are much higher than the earlier SHA report. I’m pretty good at finding stuff online but couldn’t find it. It’s not hard to upload a doc to dropbox and post it here.

sadly I can believe the report might have shown no decrease in accidents. traffic safety got so bad post-pandemic that it could be the lanes just decreased the increase rate.

DP. The report does exist. Delegate Marc Korman sent an email on October 31, with the report attached. Here is his email, which includes his summary of the report's findings:


You are receiving this because of your interest in the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. As you are aware, the State Highway Administration added the bike lanes as a safety feature in two phases following the deaths of Jacob Cassell and Enzo Alvarenga--and other incidents and injuries--along the roadway. The second phase (between Tilden Lane and Ryland Drive) is the focus of thi report and was completed about two years ago as part of a resurfacing contract.

Since that time, I have emailed, spoken, and/or met with many of you. The State Highway Administration has released prior reports on the bike lanes but to address some of the continued questions heard from the community, the General Assembly requested a report from the State Highway Administration on several specific issues (brief summary of findings included):

Travel Time Impacts: There are auto travel time impacts--particularly during the peaks--of a few minutes.

Cut Through Traffic Impacts: These appear to be .2% to .3% of total trips.

Bike Lane Usage: Chart is on page 6 of the report. Usage is somewhat erratic.

First Responders: SHA continues to communicate with first responders about the bike lanes. There are no reported issues. Not noted in the report but worth mentioning is that emergency vehicles can use the bike lanes just like they could a road shoulder, so if you see that not happening please let me know and we can remind wherever the first responder is from.

Crash Data: Charts are on pages 7-8. Total crashes in 2023 were the same as 2018.

Winter Weather Maintenance: There has been no snow removal operations since the lanes were added, only salt application.

Ongoing Lane Maintenance Costs: $46,000 for two years of maintenance.

The full report is attached. As always, I am happy to pass along questions to State Highway or facilitate further meetings/discussions with them. One is already scheduled for the Maplewood neighborhood in January.

those are totally different numbers from what PP was claiming.

Yeah, that's because the OMG OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD BIKE LANES ARE THE WORST DISASTER EVER poster is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An scientific study shows that bike sharing in DC has actually reduced congestion: https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2020-b01452

This is an interesting counterpoint to those who claim that bike lanes have the opposite effect.

Except the physical changes increase congestion, which is what they are designed to do, by over 20% so it's still a large net negative.

Where are you getting 20% from? They certainly aren't allocating 20% of road space to bike lanes.

In terms of protected bike lanes (which are not used for free parking, most of the time), it’s 35 miles out of 1,500 miles of road. The lanes take up at most 20% of the road, so it’s 0.2 * 35/1500 =0.005%

The amount of whining that goes on about the use of 0.005% of road space in DC is phenomenal!

Get a better hobby, NIMBYs!

Old Georgetown Road says you're wrong. The took 2 of the 6 lanes (33%) and turned them into bike lanes which approximately zero people use.

You’d be interested to hear that the actual data shows the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road did not slow down commutes and seem to have decreased accidents. https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2023/08/many-drivers-despise-these-bethesda-bike-lanes-but-are-they-slowing-drivers-down/

Did you read the article? It's entirely specious spin - especially that accident data. It's a prime example of how to lie with statistics.

I’m not going to bother reading the article because it sounds like a huge lie. The SHA study came to the following conclusions:
- costs $100k per year to maintain
- used by 28 cyclists per day in summer
- adds ~10 minutes to travel time during peak hours
- did not increase vehicle accidents

Now one one could say, and plenty have, that 10 minutes is no big whoop. But 10 minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot.

Let’s put this another way, there is a reason why all of the cycling advocates in the region don’t talk about this boondoggle and there’s a reason why Montgomery County has shifted its “war on cars” strategy to lane reduction with bus lanes instead of bike lanes.

The report did not say that it costs $100,000 a year to maintain, and the report also did not say that it adds 10 minutes to travel time during peak hours. You're just factually wrong about that.

Also, if you think ten minutes for 10,000 daily road users is a lot, just imagine how much 3 permanently dead people is.

Here's the reality:

Old Georgetown Road was a dangerous/deadly road.
So MD SHA instituted a road diet to make it safer - reducing the number of lanes from 6 to 4, and narrowing the lanes.
They had to do something with the extra road space, so they put in bike lanes.
The main effect of the bike lanes is to make the sidewalks much safer and more comfortable for people who are walking or waiting for the bus.
There isn't any additional cut-through traffic.
There aren't any additional traffic jams.
Almost two years later, some people are still complaining because it takes them a few minutes longer to drive.

Get over it.

It’s weird that someone would lie so much about bike lanes. Why do you do it?

The PP was close but not completely accurate. Here’s what the report says:

- AM peak period travel times have increased by up to 22%
- PM peak period travel times have increased up to 40%
- Total peak travel times increase is 6 minutes per day
- Maintenance has cost $57,000
- There was no reduction in bike crashes (1 per year last 3 years, 0 in 2019-2020)
- Vehicle crashes increased by 60% (16 in 2022, 26 in 2023)

where are you getting that from?

It’s perhaps unsurprising that the anti-cyclist maniac on here accustomed to accusing everyone else of lying refuses to cite their sources.

All interested stakeholders received a copy of the report. Since you didn’t receive one it clearly indicates what you are, which is someone who spends their days online lying about bicycles and attacking people who disagree with you. It’s a pretty sad existence.

If you want a copy of the report, please feel free to contact SHA directly or your state legislator.

I take it that whatever education you received failed in instructing you how to cite your sources. If you are making specific claims that are disputed by others, point to the page number in the report where those numbers come from.

Can you write a single post without flinging ridiculous accusations against anyone who requests a proper citation? I’ve seen you post the same crap in multiple threads now and, if anyone on here seems worthy of others’ pity, it is you.

You’re just angry that you got found out and exposed for being a liar.

SHA prepared a report on the implementation of the lanes in October that was disseminated to local stakeholders. You don’t have the report and everything you have said about the lanes is a lie.

If you want the report, contact SHA or your state representative. If you don’t live in MD I would wonder why you lie about a place you don’t live and about things you know nothing about.

Pathological.

Listing a few page numbers in the report would have taken a hell of a lot less time to write than that screed.

That you can’t provide strong suggests to me that you are, in fact, the one spilling fibs here.

this is a really weird hill for PP to die on. I really want to see the SHA report (if it exists) because those increases PP claims in travel time are much higher than the earlier SHA report. I’m pretty good at finding stuff online but couldn’t find it. It’s not hard to upload a doc to dropbox and post it here.

sadly I can believe the report might have shown no decrease in accidents. traffic safety got so bad post-pandemic that it could be the lanes just decreased the increase rate.

DP. The report does exist. Delegate Marc Korman sent an email on October 31, with the report attached. Here is his email, which includes his summary of the report's findings:


You are receiving this because of your interest in the bike lanes on Old Georgetown Road. As you are aware, the State Highway Administration added the bike lanes as a safety feature in two phases following the deaths of Jacob Cassell and Enzo Alvarenga--and other incidents and injuries--along the roadway. The second phase (between Tilden Lane and Ryland Drive) is the focus of thi report and was completed about two years ago as part of a resurfacing contract.

Since that time, I have emailed, spoken, and/or met with many of you. The State Highway Administration has released prior reports on the bike lanes but to address some of the continued questions heard from the community, the General Assembly requested a report from the State Highway Administration on several specific issues (brief summary of findings included):

Travel Time Impacts: There are auto travel time impacts--particularly during the peaks--of a few minutes.

Cut Through Traffic Impacts: These appear to be .2% to .3% of total trips.

Bike Lane Usage: Chart is on page 6 of the report. Usage is somewhat erratic.

First Responders: SHA continues to communicate with first responders about the bike lanes. There are no reported issues. Not noted in the report but worth mentioning is that emergency vehicles can use the bike lanes just like they could a road shoulder, so if you see that not happening please let me know and we can remind wherever the first responder is from.

Crash Data: Charts are on pages 7-8. Total crashes in 2023 were the same as 2018.

Winter Weather Maintenance: There has been no snow removal operations since the lanes were added, only salt application.

Ongoing Lane Maintenance Costs: $46,000 for two years of maintenance.

The full report is attached. As always, I am happy to pass along questions to State Highway or facilitate further meetings/discussions with them. One is already scheduled for the Maplewood neighborhood in January.

those are totally different numbers from what PP was claiming.

Yeah, that's because the OMG OLD GEORGETOWN ROAD BIKE LANES ARE THE WORST DISASTER EVER poster is wrong.

You mean the poster that rages on here incessantly against every bus lane, bike lane, and traffic calming measure, scours the internet for confirmation of their inane views about bicycle ridership and the causes of traffic accidents, and who accuses everyone who takes a contrary view of being a “LIAR”??? Surely that poster wouldn’t themselves be lying, would they???

[Anonymous]

Laugh-out-loud stuff posted in the other thread with the misleading info:

“Np. Where oh where have all the journalists gone. Sigh. Instead we have mouth breathing trolls bullying people for citations on public reports. It’s so very sad.”

“Np”??? As if!!!

Requesting that people source their claims is “bullying”???

Writing stupid hyperbolic crap is, of course, classic attention-seeking troll behavior.

[Anonymous]

The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

Well. Journalists don't have to take statistics. Also, confidence intervals are for random samples, and crash data aren't random samples. But yeah, it was a stupid column.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

1. All the available data shows the number of bike commuters is down quite dramatically since 2017

2. If you're canceling your subscription to the Post because of something you read, you should look in the mirror and ask: How did I become such a whiny little **tch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

1. All the available data shows the number of bike commuters is down quite dramatically since 2017

2. If you're canceling your subscription to the Post because of something you read, you should look in the mirror and ask: How did I become such a whiny little **tch?

Eh. People who live in the real world know the number of people riding bicycles in DC for transportation is up quite dramatically. And not just in DC. Some people are super upset about this, and they should look in the mirror and ask: why don't I have more enjoyable hobby than hating on people who ride bicycles for transportation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

Well. Journalists don't have to take statistics. Also, confidence intervals are for random samples, and crash data aren't random samples. But yeah, it was a stupid column.

That was a reference to the assertion made in the article that the proportion of people commuting by bike has declined since 2017. This assertion is entirely based on point estimates drawn from small samples. However, once confidence intervals are accounted for, it would be clear that we don’t know whether bicycle commuters have proportionately increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

1. All the available data shows the number of bike commuters is down quite dramatically since 2017

2. If you're canceling your subscription to the Post because of something you read, you should look in the mirror and ask: How did I become such a whiny little **tch?

I wouldn’t pay money to read your nonsensical opinions, detached as they are from both reality and knowledge of basic scientific principles. So why would anyone want to pay the Post to read similar crap? And how does not wanting to do that make someone a “whiny little ***tch”, f**kst**k?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other thread also reminded me that I need to cancel my WaPo subscription.

How can you work as a journalist for that long and not understand a concept as basic as confidence intervals?

Well. Journalists don't have to take statistics. Also, confidence intervals are for random samples, and crash data aren't random samples. But yeah, it was a stupid column.

That was a reference to the assertion made in the article that the proportion of people commuting by bike has declined since 2017. This assertion is entirely based on point estimates drawn from small samples. However, once confidence intervals are accounted for, it would be clear that we don’t know whether bicycle commuters have proportionately increased, decreased, or stayed the same.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I apologize! I was wrong. Never mind!