Old Georgetown RD......WHY???????????????? (beach, drive, road)

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by bufflove

The teens weren't biking on the road, they were on the sidewalk and fell into the roadway. One was due to residential trash cans blocking most of the sidewalk and causing the kid to lose his balance when trying to maneuver around; I don't recall the cause of the second fatality. Seeking a buffer for the immediately adjacent sidewalk was one reason for the redesign.

The dumb thing is to invest a ton of money and affect the flow of both commercial and residential traffic simply due to what sounds like a freak accident.


They have the same approach here in Arlington where there's one accident that is some unfortunate specific circumstance and use that as an excuse to rebuild the road to the benefit of no-one.



In my mind the simple reality is that in communities like Arlington & Bethesda there's just a strong anti-car, anti-road bias in the political leadership. They're just looking for an excuse to cut road space i.e. 'road diets'. Those kind of measures are aggressively promoted by various left-leaning think tanks and non-profits which are guaranteed to have influence with public administrations in 'safe Democratic' jurisdictions.



Arlington and Bethesda share that they have urbanized areas with a transit-oriented population as well as more traditional suburban areas which are mostly centered around car use. At least in Arlington it's fairly obvious that local politicians wish to push forward the urbanization process and drive out 'classic' suburbanites who may oppose their policies.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

The dumb thing is to invest a ton of money and affect the flow of both commercial and residential traffic simply due to what sounds like a freak accident.


They have the same approach here in Arlington where there's one accident that is some unfortunate specific circumstance and use that as an excuse to rebuild the road to the benefit of no-one.



In my mind the simple reality is that in communities like Arlington & Bethesda there's just a strong anti-car, anti-road bias in the political leadership. They're just looking for an excuse to cut road space i.e. 'road diets'. Those kind of measures are aggressively promoted by various left-leaning think tanks and non-profits which are guaranteed to have influence with public administrations in 'safe Democratic' jurisdictions.



Arlington and Bethesda share that they have urbanized areas with a transit-oriented population as well as more traditional suburban areas which are mostly centered around car use. At least in Arlington it's fairly obvious that local politicians wish to push forward the urbanization process and drive out 'classic' suburbanites who may oppose their policies.

I don't think it has been particularly expensive as the road was due for resurfacing anyways. Removing the flex posts and restriping back to three lanes each way would be a pretty minimal expense so we'll see if that's the decision that's ultimately made. It's not like the OGR/Exec Blvd intersection where major money was spent on road realignment, shifting stormwater infrastructure, adding grade-separated shared use paths, etc. to make the area safer for non-drivers.

[Turnerbro]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

The dumb thing is to invest a ton of money and affect the flow of both commercial and residential traffic simply due to what sounds like a freak accident.


They have the same approach here in Arlington where there's one accident that is some unfortunate specific circumstance and use that as an excuse to rebuild the road to the benefit of no-one.



In my mind the simple reality is that in communities like Arlington & Bethesda there's just a strong anti-car, anti-road bias in the political leadership. They're just looking for an excuse to cut road space i.e. 'road diets'. Those kind of measures are aggressively promoted by various left-leaning think tanks and non-profits which are guaranteed to have influence with public administrations in 'safe Democratic' jurisdictions.



Arlington and Bethesda share that they have urbanized areas with a transit-oriented population as well as more traditional suburban areas which are mostly centered around car use. At least in Arlington it's fairly obvious that local politicians wish to push forward the urbanization process and drive out 'classic' suburbanites who may oppose their policies.

IDK. Old Georgetown road is not a public transit friendly road. It's a car centric environment, and IMO should be treated as such. I'm all for increasing public transit and walking, but this is clearly the wrong way to go about it.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Turnerbro

IDK. Old Georgetown road is not a public transit friendly road. It's a car centric environment, and IMO should be treated as such. I'm all for increasing public transit and walking, but this is clearly the wrong way to go about it.

It's a long road, and it leads all the way to the office buildings and apartment complexes around Bethesda Metro with various bus routes on it. It would make sense for any densification vision to see Old Georgetown Rd along with Wisconsin as main drags along which that process takes place.

[North Beach Person]

In order to get highway money (the state from the feds, locals from the state and feds) any roadway "improvements" now have to incorporate bike lanes and, where appropriate, pedestrian walkways.

If you have to take away road lanes to do that then it's done. That satisfies a secondary requirement/goal, decreasing vehicle traffic comfort to encourage people to take transit.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

In order to get highway money (the state from the feds, locals from the state and feds) any roadway "improvements" now have to incorporate bike lanes and, where appropriate, pedestrian walkways.

If you have to take away road lanes to do that then it's done. That satisfies a secondary requirement/goal, decreasing vehicle traffic comfort to encourage people to take transit.

That's not true. SHA requires that projects (resurfacings, etc.) "shall be reviewed for bicycle accommodations," which sometimes can result in a bike lane (or "share the road" signage or sharrow markings) being added, but that's obviously not always the case. In plenty of instances adding a bike lane is not found to be feasible or safe and the project occurs without altering road design.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by bufflove

That's not true. SHA requires that projects (resurfacings, etc.) "shall be reviewed for bicycle accommodations," which sometimes can result in a bike lane (or "share the road" signage or sharrow markings) being added, but that's obviously not always the case. In plenty of instances adding a bike lane is not found to be feasible or safe and the project occurs without altering road design.

What is putting up "Share the Road" signs?

RTE 2 was rebuilt a few years ago between RTEs 260 and 258. It's a major, and busy, commuter route from Southern Maryland and is a rural road (one lane in each direction until RTE 214 in Edgewater). Bike lanes were mandated for the rebuild.

Pertinent analysis with Court cites:

https://jelr.law.lsu.edu/2018/02/02/...nfrastructure/

Adding bike lanes fulfills the last goal I mentioned, forcing people out of cars and onto transit.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

What is putting up "Share the Road" signs?

RTE 2 was rebuilt a few years ago between RTEs 260 and 258. It's a major, and busy, commuter route from Southern Maryland and is a rural road (one lane in each direction until RTE 214 in Edgewater). Bike lanes were mandated for the rebuild.

Pertinent analysis with Court cites:

https://jelr.law.lsu.edu/2018/02/02/...nfrastructure/

Adding bike lanes fulfills the last goal I mentioned, forcing people out of cars and onto transit.

The state doesn't put up super duper cool signs like this out your way? You're missing out.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9910...7i16384!8i8192

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by bufflove

The state doesn't put up super duper cool signs like this out your way? You're missing out.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9910...7i16384!8i8192

As a matter of fact they do. Many times on roads that bikes really shouldn't go on (narrow, twisting, no shoulders with deep, open culverts).

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Turnerbro

Seriously this has to be the worst road "improvement" I have ever seen. Why are we taking a 3 lane rd down to a two lane rd for a bike lane on a busy suburban road. This is not DC or some urban environment. I have driven this road almost every day for the past year. It took forever for them to do this construction, and once they're done. Traffic is somehow worse. Oh and BTW I have never seen anyone cycle on this road ever, so IDK who asked for this. Someone should really get fired over this garbage.

You get what you vote for!