Time to Revisit Bike Lanes on Busy Roads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve noticed the bike lane on Old Georgetown Road is rarely used, especially during rush hour, while it’s causing dreadful congestion for drivers. I understand the importance of safe cycling infrastructure, but I wonder if we can find a better balance to serve all commuters. It seems the dream of transitioning to a carbon free transportation infrastructure is not longer in the cards.

Could we discuss potential solutions, like redesigning a bike path off the road to maintain bike safety while easing traffic flow? I’d love to hear your thoughts and work together to propose actionable ideas to the County and State governments. Also, the bike lanes have not been properly maintained, nor the road median. It is just a big mess that needs to be cleaned up.

Your post is too long given what time it is. Have you noticed that near Edson and also Nicholson, heading from the direction of Tuckerman cars that need to make a right turn are driving up the bike lane to turn rather than waiting for traffic to clear the area. At first o thought it unsafe. And since no bikes are using it I follow and do the same sometimes. I’m never the leader of the pack. Yes I know I could get a ticket. And…. And the lanes are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

The bike lanes on Old Georgetoen Road are a poor experiment. The cost (more idling cars, more time waiting, more gas, more polution) does not outweigh the benefits to the handful of cyclists using them on a short stretch of the road. As far as the "it's only 30 seconds more time," that's a out and out lie. Anyone who's had to spend time on the road in rush hour knows it's a lot more than that. I've spent an extra 30 minutes compared to non-rush hour.

Wish they'd be willing to do another study and get rid of those bike lanes. Or at least one of them, and make the extra lane into Bethesda in the morning and out of Bethesda in the afternoons.

And, how much worse is the traffic on Fernwood amd 355 since the bike lanes were installed? I've used both at times, rather than Old Georgetown Road

[Anonymous]

Can privileged cyclists who recreate during morning rush hour on arterial roadways that are one lane each way - with 20+ cars trailing them at 15 mph - please find these lovely roads with bike lanes to recreate on instead so that mere peasantry like myself can get to our jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes on Old Georgetoen Road are a poor experiment. The cost (more idling cars, more time waiting, more gas, more polution) does not outweigh the benefits to the handful of cyclists using them on a short stretch of the road. As far as the "it's only 30 seconds more time," that's a out and out lie. Anyone who's had to spend time on the road in rush hour knows it's a lot more than that. I've spent an extra 30 minutes compared to non-rush hour.

Wish they'd be willing to do another study and get rid of those bike lanes. Or at least one of them, and make the extra lane into Bethesda in the morning and out of Bethesda in the afternoons.

And, how much worse is the traffic on Fernwood amd 355 since the bike lanes were installed? I've used both at times, rather than Old Georgetown Road

The benefit is the lives saved. Two kids died on that sidewalk. If the bike lane had been there, they'd be alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can privileged cyclists who recreate during morning rush hour on arterial roadways that are one lane each way - with 20+ cars trailing them at 15 mph - please find these lovely roads with bike lanes to recreate on instead so that mere peasantry like myself can get to our jobs?

When I'm commuting to work by bike do you consider that recreating? How would you know what my purpose is?

[Anonymous]

25 minutes additional travel time going north on Old Georgetown Road during rush hour. Actual numbers from a trip I've taken for years.

These particular bike/pedestrian lanes need to go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have questions. Because I do commute on Old Georgetown Road - on a bike. And I see other cyclists in the bike lane.

But it’s crazy that I don’t see more cyclists given that I ride from the beltway to downtown in a few minutes more than it takes to drive and way faster than the metro. I get my exercise, some fresh air (the trails that cover most of the distance are 1000% better than bike lanes), and my doctor says I’m in great shape for my age. All this in a vehicle with no payments or insurance, and I don’t need to take time out for the gym anymore.

But honestly, I’ve been hit by a car before and harassed by cars frequently for “sharing a lane” on regular roads. Old Georgetown would be way too dangerous to ride without the protection and legitimacy that bike lanes provide cyclists.

This is the problem here. The person does use the bike lane and sees others use it, but in reality is very few people who do. Its a massive inconvenience to everyone else with benefit to a minority... this is just par for the coarse for the county, some nonsense idea that benefits the few and inconveniences the many - but another amusing and sad thing, the amount of people supporting it. I assume these people either never drive in these areas or are "casual drivers" always taking there sweet time and not really caring if the drive to Baldacci's takes an extra 15 minutes - same people that drive 3 miles below the speed limit, just because and/or pace the work vans in the other lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have questions. Because I do commute on Old Georgetown Road - on a bike. And I see other cyclists in the bike lane.

But it’s crazy that I don’t see more cyclists given that I ride from the beltway to downtown in a few minutes more than it takes to drive and way faster than the metro. I get my exercise, some fresh air (the trails that cover most of the distance are 1000% better than bike lanes), and my doctor says I’m in great shape for my age. All this in a vehicle with no payments or insurance, and I don’t need to take time out for the gym anymore.

But honestly, I’ve been hit by a car before and harassed by cars frequently for “sharing a lane” on regular roads. Old Georgetown would be way too dangerous to ride without the protection and legitimacy that bike lanes provide cyclists.

This is the problem here. The person does use the bike lane and sees others use it, but in reality is very few people who do. Its a massive inconvenience to everyone else with benefit to a minority... this is just par for the coarse for the county, some nonsense idea that benefits the few and inconveniences the many - but another amusing and sad thing, the amount of people supporting it. I assume these people either never drive in these areas or are "casual drivers" always taking there sweet time and not really caring if the drive to Baldacci's takes an extra 15 minutes - same people that drive 3 miles below the speed limit, just because and/or pace the work vans in the other lanes.

Somebody finally puts the hate where it belongs: the fact that other people dare to use the precious road that you want to have for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have questions. Because I do commute on Old Georgetown Road - on a bike. And I see other cyclists in the bike lane.

But it’s crazy that I don’t see more cyclists given that I ride from the beltway to downtown in a few minutes more than it takes to drive and way faster than the metro. I get my exercise, some fresh air (the trails that cover most of the distance are 1000% better than bike lanes), and my doctor says I’m in great shape for my age. All this in a vehicle with no payments or insurance, and I don’t need to take time out for the gym anymore.

But honestly, I’ve been hit by a car before and harassed by cars frequently for “sharing a lane” on regular roads. Old Georgetown would be way too dangerous to ride without the protection and legitimacy that bike lanes provide cyclists.

But the bike lanes don’t go all the way from the Beltway into Bethesda so you must be using the Trolley Trail - which is great - but I don’t understand why they needed to put in the bike lanes when the Trolley Trail was already there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those bike lanes also provide a buffer for pedestrians.

That's what the sidewalk is for! The bike lanes are insane and a reason why DT won. Common sense people.

The sidewalk isn't the buffer, it is where pedestrians are. Drivers are so horrible that they can't responsibly drive next to a sidewalk without killling kids, so guess what, you get lanes taken away to give the pedestrians safe space.

[Anonymous]

Who can argue against regular studies of these bike lanes? We all should understand usage, impacts, benefits. Perhaps a study would show we need more bike lanes. Perhaps a study would show needs for adjustments. I don’t know but to build these and then not review is foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes are there because two kids died on the sidewalk. The price of car infrastructure is now internalized to car users.

So the kids died on the sidewalk, which is separated from the travel lanes by a 10” tall curb, and the solution is to move kids down onto the roadway itself, and separate them from the travel lanes by flexible plastic sticks.


This is literally “cyclist logic” at work.


“Oh the road is too dangerous for bikes? Let’s put the bikes directly IN the road then. The deaths that will occur will provide us with the statistics we need to advocate a ban on cars.”

Do you know how tall 10 inches is? just askin...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just ride your bike.

Perfect solution for inclement weather.

Hydroplaning is surprisingly fun when you get used to the slipping feeling /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those bike lanes also provide a buffer for pedestrians.

That's what the sidewalk is for! The bike lanes are insane and a reason why DT won. Common sense people.

The sidewalk isn't the buffer, it is where pedestrians are. Drivers are so horrible that they can't responsibly drive next to a sidewalk without killling kids, so guess what, you get lanes taken away to give the pedestrians safe space.

So you’re saying the bike lanes are the buffer to protect pedestrians from cars?

But what is protecting pedestrians from cyclists? There should be a buffer to keep cyclists at a safe from pedestrians too. The cyclists need to have their lanes reduced as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lanes are there because two kids died on the sidewalk. The price of car infrastructure is now internalized to car users.

So the kids died on the sidewalk, which is separated from the travel lanes by a 10” tall curb, and the solution is to move kids down onto the roadway itself, and separate them from the travel lanes by flexible plastic sticks.


This is literally “cyclist logic” at work.


“Oh the road is too dangerous for bikes? Let’s put the bikes directly IN the road then. The deaths that will occur will provide us with the statistics we need to advocate a ban on cars.”

Now the sidewalk is safer. The kids died on there when they fell into the road. The curb is no protection. The buffer now is.

So what happens when someone in the bike lanes falls or crashes and goes out into the road? Those silly plastic sticks aren’t going to help keep them in the bike lane. They’ll go skidding out into the travel lanes and get run over and be just as dead as the kid who rode his bike off the sidewalk in front of a car.

What now?


Oh wait - I know! You’ll have the county take ANOTHER lane to provide a “buffer” for cyclists who fall or crash in the bike lanes.

So on a former 3 lane road, it’ll now be 1 lane for bikes, one lane as a buffer, and one lane for cars.


Sounds exactly like a Montgomery County solution.