New bike lane on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm agnostic on the need for bike lanes on OGR. But this change could have been executed better. The left turn from westbound Tuckerman onto southbound OGR is an accident waiting to happen. The right most lane no longer exists so there are now two turn lanes trying to turn into the same lane to be able to take the ramp onto 270N. It's very confusing.

There are definitely improvements that could be made to reduce confusion, and I hope they will be made. The project isn't complete yet, though. People will also become less confused as they become used to it.

What's the solution though? Do we turn it into one turning lane? That would cause more gridlock. Regardless of how this is addressed, there will still be major gridlock. This is a major artery to access major interstates. Why would they ever encourage bike traffic on such a road is beyond me.

Which is worse, traffic back-ups or traffic deaths?

Deaths happen either way, so let’s avoid the gridlock

What a ghoulish thing to say. Fewer deaths happen when roads are safer.

But the roads are actually less safe now. Daily gridlock impacts people’s mental health and quality time. Delete tree lanes!!

No, they're not. If you don't like sitting in traffic, which who does, consider non-driving methods for getting around.

Please enlighten us as to what mode of transportation would replace automobiles? It certainly isn't the bicycle. Bikes don't work for people who have disabilities that prevent them from riding a bike (especially the elderly), moms of numerous children who must take them to activities, people going to the grocery store, people with long commutes, etc. Bikes are unsafe compared to automobiles as you only have the helmet on your head to protect you in the event of an accident -- and accidents will be inevitable regardless of whether you have bike lanes. You will never see our society move to bikes...never.

1) the more we get people out of cars and into mass transit and bikes/sscooters etc, the more space on the roads will be available to people with disabilities who have no alternative but to drive themselves
2) plenty of people bike with their kids to sporting events and other activities. Maybe the tell is, why aren't you?
3) The roads are safer. If people are that triggered by sitting in grifdlock, then they shouldn't be driving.
4) Please show your work on the statement that bikes are more unsafe than cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the way that development has taken place in this area, there is no such thing as a 'residential street' that is off limits to commuter traffic. I know that comes as a surprise to people who thought they could have a suburban lifestyle in a semi-urban are, but it's true. (Except in the incorporated parts of CCMD where they've managed to wall off cross-traffic with restrictions and one way streets.) Note the houses on OGR and on many other streets that are designated as state roads: people live there, kids play there too. I live on one that was bucolic until NIH expansion. We want to be able to pull out of our driveways without being killed, we want our kids to be able to walk to school (in my case, only 2 blocks away) without risking their lives. So it's not unreasonable to try to improve on the speedway conditions that have evolved on some streets.

But there are better ways to slow traffic and ensure pedestrian/bike safety than what's been done on OGR. And major arteries - like OGR and Conn Ave - need special care to ensure that reasonable safety measures don't have unintended consequences. Because like it or not, for the foreseeable future, cars remain an indispensable part of the transportation network in this area and that isn't changing any time soon.

We have to keep prioritizing cars because cars are indispensable because we have to keep prioritizing cars because...

Nobody answered my earlier question about how families with young children and disabled elderly get around without cars. I’m waiting.

Cargo bikes, bus, walk.

People who are disabled use MetroAccess or other van services.

If you had kids, you would know the first traunch, if you had anyone disabled in your family, you would know the second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, will all of the Lance Armstrong wannabes use the bike lanes? I have a feeling they would still prefer to be in traffic.

The bike lanes are not for the "Lance Armstrong wannabes," they're for people who just want to get where they're going, on a bike or on foot, without risking their lives.

Unfortunately in this particular case it seems that the solution might be even less safe for everyone involved because of its poor implementation.

Less safe than 2 dead teenage bicyclists, 1 dead pedestrian going to a bus stop, and multiple critically injured bicyclists in 3 years? "I almost got into a fender bender the other day!"? "It took me 15 minutes instead of 8!"? Those are inconvenience problems, not safety problems.

Stop being such a disingenuous liar. The pedestrian was hit by a Ride On bus at Battery Lane because the buses have poor visibility. You either don’t know where the bike lanes are and don’t care or you don’t know and just like to constantly lie about it.

What the heck, PP. Who are you and why do you keep insisting that everyone is lying?
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/i-miss-her-sister-mourns-woman-hit-and-killed-while-crossing-bethesda-road/167507/

^^^"Dona Cicy H. Amarasekara, 74, had left her job as a nanny Thursday night and was walking across northbound Old Georgetown Road at Kingswood Road when a Jeep Cherokee hit her."

Dona City H Amarasekara left her job and illegally entered the roadway at Kingswood Road. She was then hit by the driver of a Jeep. I’m not sure why bike lanes would have prevented this fatality. A controlled intersection at Kingswood would have been a better response.

The bike lanes would not have prevented her death, because she unexpectedly entered the roadway. The same thing with the recent cyclist fatality. If a cyclist decides to unexpectedly leave the sidewalk/bike lane and enter the roadway the bike lane equally would not save them either. Also, previously the poor boy who fell off his bike, I’m not sure how the bike lane saves him if instead of falling from the sidewalk he he just falls from the bike lane into a traffic lane.

It is not possible to derisk these scenarios without considering the unfortunate actions of the pedestrians/cyclists leading up to them. And the bike lanes do nothing to derisk those situations because they only affect vehicles- who did nothing wrong - and do not control for cyclist/pedestrian errors/mistakes.

It is unclear to me why we are making everyone else accountable to accommodate unfortunate mistakes by 3 people, when people are going to continue to make mistakes. The best course of action is not to make the rest of the world accommodate worst case scenarios dependent on unfortunate actions, but to provide alternative and safer solutions for the people who are making the mistakes to reduce potential for poor decision making.

To protect pedestrians from making bad mistakes, perhaps central dividers in the roadway or fencing along the sidewalk would discourage them from improperly entering traffic. For bicycles, providing alternate and safer routes away from vehicles is clearly the solution instead of creating a false sense of safety in close proximity to vehicles that could induce more unfortunate mistakes.

You very obviously are not from the neighborhood. The issue with those sidewalks is that there was zero buffer between the sidewalk and the car traffic—no shoulder, no grass strip, nothing. That’s why those boys died when their bikes tipped due to obstructions on the sidewalk. (Because there was no gap the sidewalks also had driveway aprons which made them extra unsafe and likely contributed to the first death.). The bike lane was not the only solution but it was one solution. It is wide enough that is someone’s bike tips, they will not be in traffic. Also, it is flat so less likely to lead to a bike tipping. And the trees won’t overgrown it and create a dangerous invisible obstruction, which is what caused the second death. I’ve actually almost been knocked into the road as a pedestrian on that sidewalk because a branch without leaves is invisible at night—walking into it, it knocked me over, nearly into the path of oncoming cars. Those were literally the most unsafe sidewalks I’ve ever seen, for pedestrians or bike riders. I think the other solution was just to take a lane from OGR to create a buffer and a safe sidewalk (they did something similar along NIH taking some lane from NIH to do so).

Bottom line, bikes should never have been on that road to begin with. Poor judgment. Tragic. Let’s educate parents to guide their children appropriately. Not build ridiculous bike lanes that cause more accidents.

Bottom line, people on bikes have every right to use any street safely as cars. If engineeres are not designing the streets in that manner, then that has to change. But other than interstate highways, people in cars should always expect there will be cyclists using public space, as they are entitled to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm agnostic on the need for bike lanes on OGR. But this change could have been executed better. The left turn from westbound Tuckerman onto southbound OGR is an accident waiting to happen. The right most lane no longer exists so there are now two turn lanes trying to turn into the same lane to be able to take the ramp onto 270N. It's very confusing.

There are definitely improvements that could be made to reduce confusion, and I hope they will be made. The project isn't complete yet, though. People will also become less confused as they become used to it.

What's the solution though? Do we turn it into one turning lane? That would cause more gridlock. Regardless of how this is addressed, there will still be major gridlock. This is a major artery to access major interstates. Why would they ever encourage bike traffic on such a road is beyond me.

Which is worse, traffic back-ups or traffic deaths?

Deaths happen either way, so let’s avoid the gridlock

What a ghoulish thing to say. Fewer deaths happen when roads are safer.

But the roads are actually less safe now. Daily gridlock impacts people’s mental health and quality time. Delete tree lanes!!

No, they're not. If you don't like sitting in traffic, which who does, consider non-driving methods for getting around.

Please enlighten us as to what mode of transportation would replace automobiles? It certainly isn't the bicycle. Bikes don't work for people who have disabilities that prevent them from riding a bike (especially the elderly), moms of numerous children who must take them to activities, people going to the grocery store, people with long commutes, etc. Bikes are unsafe compared to automobiles as you only have the helmet on your head to protect you in the event of an accident -- and accidents will be inevitable regardless of whether you have bike lanes. You will never see our society move to bikes...never.

1) the more we get people out of cars and into mass transit and bikes/sscooters etc, the more space on the roads will be available to people with disabilities who have no alternative but to drive themselves
2) plenty of people bike with their kids to sporting events and other activities. Maybe the tell is, why aren't you?
3) The roads are safer. If people are that triggered by sitting in grifdlock, then they shouldn't be driving.
4) Please show your work on the statement that bikes are more unsafe than cars?

DP. Bikes are more unsafe than cars because of cars. Almost 100% of the risks of bicycling are related to the danger of being hit by a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The problem is that the way that development has taken place in this area, there is no such thing as a 'residential street' that is off limits to commuter traffic. I know that comes as a surprise to people who thought they could have a suburban lifestyle in a semi-urban are, but it's true. (Except in the incorporated parts of CCMD where they've managed to wall off cross-traffic with restrictions and one way streets.) Note the houses on OGR and on many other streets that are designated as state roads: people live there, kids play there too. I live on one that was bucolic until NIH expansion. We want to be able to pull out of our driveways without being killed, we want our kids to be able to walk to school (in my case, only 2 blocks away) without risking their lives. So it's not unreasonable to try to improve on the speedway conditions that have evolved on some streets.

But there are better ways to slow traffic and ensure pedestrian/bike safety than what's been done on OGR. And major arteries - like OGR and Conn Ave - need special care to ensure that reasonable safety measures don't have unintended consequences. Because like it or not, for the foreseeable future, cars remain an indispensable part of the transportation network in this area and that isn't changing any time soon.

We have to keep prioritizing cars because cars are indispensable because we have to keep prioritizing cars because...

Nobody answered my earlier question about how families with young children and disabled elderly get around without cars. I’m waiting.

There are a lot of your fellow Montgomery County residents who are apparently invisible to you, starting with the families with young children who are standing and waiting at the bus stops as you drive by. And moving on to all of the disabled people and elderly people who can't drive and are walking, rolling on inadequate or missing sidewalks that are dangerously near speeding vehicles, taking the bus, or, yes, riding bicycles on those dangerous sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

This thread is becoming an echo chamber. Bottom line, you can kiss those lanes good bye. Even Elrich k owes they are a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is becoming an echo chamber. Bottom line, you can kiss those lanes good bye. Even Elrich k owes they are a mistake.

"Even Elrich"? He's never been in favor of bike lanes, and SHA has never been in favor of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is becoming an echo chamber. Bottom line, you can kiss those lanes good bye. Even Elrich k owes they are a mistake.

"Even Elrich"? He's never been in favor of bike lanes, and SHA has never been in favor of him.

Oh that’s good then. Good to have him on our side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Great idea. We can start with Randolph Road/East Randolph Road and Shady Grove Road, which are both county roads. Meanwhile the state should slap a 50 mph speed limit on Bradley Lane and widen it to 6 lanes, because after all it's a state highway.

You think you’re being clever but it is actually in the state highway master plan to eventually widen Bradley to 4 lanes to River Road. If you haven’t noticed (probably because you don’t actually live in the area) the bridge over 495 has already been built for 4 lanes to accommodate future widening and the state owns the RoW to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm agnostic on the need for bike lanes on OGR. But this change could have been executed better. The left turn from westbound Tuckerman onto southbound OGR is an accident waiting to happen. The right most lane no longer exists so there are now two turn lanes trying to turn into the same lane to be able to take the ramp onto 270N. It's very confusing.

There are definitely improvements that could be made to reduce confusion, and I hope they will be made. The project isn't complete yet, though. People will also become less confused as they become used to it.

What's the solution though? Do we turn it into one turning lane? That would cause more gridlock. Regardless of how this is addressed, there will still be major gridlock. This is a major artery to access major interstates. Why would they ever encourage bike traffic on such a road is beyond me.

Which is worse, traffic back-ups or traffic deaths?

Deaths happen either way, so let’s avoid the gridlock

What a ghoulish thing to say. Fewer deaths happen when roads are safer.

But the roads are actually less safe now. Daily gridlock impacts people’s mental health and quality time. Delete tree lanes!!

No, they're not. If you don't like sitting in traffic, which who does, consider non-driving methods for getting around.

Please enlighten us as to what mode of transportation would replace automobiles? It certainly isn't the bicycle. Bikes don't work for people who have disabilities that prevent them from riding a bike (especially the elderly), moms of numerous children who must take them to activities, people going to the grocery store, people with long commutes, etc. Bikes are unsafe compared to automobiles as you only have the helmet on your head to protect you in the event of an accident -- and accidents will be inevitable regardless of whether you have bike lanes. You will never see our society move to bikes...never.

1) the more we get people out of cars and into mass transit and bikes/sscooters etc, the more space on the roads will be available to people with disabilities who have no alternative but to drive themselves
2) plenty of people bike with their kids to sporting events and other activities. Maybe the tell is, why aren't you?
3) The roads are safer. If people are that triggered by sitting in grifdlock, then they shouldn't be driving.
4) Please show your work on the statement that bikes are more unsafe than cars?

DP. Bikes are more unsafe than cars because of cars. Almost 100% of the risks of bicycling are related to the danger of being hit by a car.

Remove cars from equation and cyclists still crash with disturbing frequency causing severe injuries. Case in point, the Lance Armstrong wannabes that try to emulate a peloton in East Potomac Park crashed recently and they had to call multiple ambulances because so many people were so severely injured. That had nothing to do with cars. And where accidents do involve cars a significant number involve cyclist breaking traffic rules, principally running stop signs and red lights at intersection, where such records are kept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is becoming an echo chamber. Bottom line, you can kiss those lanes good bye. Even Elrich k owes they are a mistake.

The fact that 5,000 people have signed a petition against them is a good sign of how badly they got this wrong by only listening to a small group of activists. A big part of the problem is that local politicians, like Andrew Friedson, also listened to those activists and got it badly wrong. The question is what is Friedson going to do now? Continue to cater to the activists or listen to his constituents.

This situation is common to what happens in the council. They so insulate themselves catering to small groups of activists that they eventually over reach and piss everyone off, much to their surprise. That’s how we got term limits. You’d think they would eventually learn their lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm agnostic on the need for bike lanes on OGR. But this change could have been executed better. The left turn from westbound Tuckerman onto southbound OGR is an accident waiting to happen. The right most lane no longer exists so there are now two turn lanes trying to turn into the same lane to be able to take the ramp onto 270N. It's very confusing.

There are definitely improvements that could be made to reduce confusion, and I hope they will be made. The project isn't complete yet, though. People will also become less confused as they become used to it.

What's the solution though? Do we turn it into one turning lane? That would cause more gridlock. Regardless of how this is addressed, there will still be major gridlock. This is a major artery to access major interstates. Why would they ever encourage bike traffic on such a road is beyond me.

Which is worse, traffic back-ups or traffic deaths?

Deaths happen either way, so let’s avoid the gridlock

What a ghoulish thing to say. Fewer deaths happen when roads are safer.

But the roads are actually less safe now. Daily gridlock impacts people’s mental health and quality time. Delete tree lanes!!

No, they're not. If you don't like sitting in traffic, which who does, consider non-driving methods for getting around.

Please enlighten us as to what mode of transportation would replace automobiles? It certainly isn't the bicycle. Bikes don't work for people who have disabilities that prevent them from riding a bike (especially the elderly), moms of numerous children who must take them to activities, people going to the grocery store, people with long commutes, etc. Bikes are unsafe compared to automobiles as you only have the helmet on your head to protect you in the event of an accident -- and accidents will be inevitable regardless of whether you have bike lanes. You will never see our society move to bikes...never.

1) the more we get people out of cars and into mass transit and bikes/sscooters etc, the more space on the roads will be available to people with disabilities who have no alternative but to drive themselves
2) plenty of people bike with their kids to sporting events and other activities. Maybe the tell is, why aren't you?
3) The roads are safer. If people are that triggered by sitting in grifdlock, then they shouldn't be driving.
4) Please show your work on the statement that bikes are more unsafe than cars?

So you don’t believe induced demand is real? Good to know you folks only trot it out when it suits you and then say that it doesn’t exist when it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is becoming an echo chamber. Bottom line, you can kiss those lanes good bye. Even Elrich k owes they are a mistake.

The fact that 5,000 people have signed a petition against them is a good sign of how badly they got this wrong by only listening to a small group of activists. A big part of the problem is that local politicians, like Andrew Friedson, also listened to those activists and got it badly wrong. The question is what is Friedson going to do now? Continue to cater to the activists or listen to his constituents.

This situation is common to what happens in the council. They so insulate themselves catering to small groups of activists that they eventually over reach and piss everyone off, much to their surprise. That’s how we got term limits. You’d think they would eventually learn their lesson.

And the petition supporting the lanes can't even get to 200 signatures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me how people use "death" as an excuse to push their agenda. If that is the case, then perhaps there need to be laws against people attempting to ride on major roads. There are plenty of alternatives for cyclists to avoid those extremely heavily traveled roads.

There actually are such laws. It is illegal for cyclists to ride on interstate highways in Maryland. It is also illegal for cyclists to ride in the roadway on the Clara Barton Parkway. Why it has been decided that it should not only be legal but also accommodated on state highways in high population density areas is beyond me.

You're asking why roads in areas with high population densities should accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motorists.

State highways, just like interstate highways by their very nature are unsafe for bicycles. The county should be providing these accommodations on appropriate streets that are more safe.

Then don't put state highways through residential areas.

you realize that we have an interstate highway through a residential area, right?