« Capitol Hill Town Square | Main | Council passes fine for blocking bike lane »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not to defend the Post, but based on my long interview with the editorial writer, I think he was basically telling cyclists to do what he knows we're already doing, which is to keep negotiating the planners and not attack the Board before they've made a decision. I was unhappy with the tone of the editorial, which came out like a parent smiling then chastising a child.

The ICC is Route 200, so as it is not a freeway, cyclists cannot be prohibited from using it. Right? The road surface and grading will be to the sort of standard that cyclists prefer anyway. Why not encourage cyclists to use the "slow" lane of the ICC, and over time, designate that - the entire lane - as a cyclist lane? There will have to be a 'yield to cyclists' rule, for off-ramps and on-ramps. You might also want to limit the speed of traffic crossing that lane to, say, 30mph, and enforce it.

I personally am not at all into riding on sidewalks, or on some circuitous wood-chip trail.

From the Record of Response

"For safety reasons, the MdTA and the SHA will not permit bicycle operation on the travel lanes or on the shoulders of this high speed roadway"


Despite what they said in the Record of Response, the state has lately been considering letting cyclists use the shoulder. Whether we would want to ride there a different question!

Sounds like a location for a regular Critical Mass event then.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader