Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

By definition: Bicycles are single occupancy vehicles while cars and trucks are multi. Those are just facts. Status quo is always an option.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

I think the issue is that you're like a religious zealot and you're going to build all these bike lanes regardless of whether anyone wants them or uses them.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by the city.

It is not delusional. I won't ride on Connecticut Ave without the bike lanes. Pedestrians get mad if I use the sidewalk (legally) and drivers get mad if I am in the street. There are a lot of people like me.

Count me and my spouse as another two.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

By definition: Bicycles are single occupancy vehicles while cars and trucks are multi. Those are just facts. Status quo is always an option.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

I think the issue is that you're like a religious zealot and you're going to build all these bike lanes regardless of whether anyone wants them or uses them.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by the city.

It is not delusional. I won't ride on Connecticut Ave without the bike lanes. Pedestrians get mad if I use the sidewalk (legally) and drivers get mad if I am in the street. There are a lot of people like me.

Riding a bike in a city like Washington will never ever be safe. That's like saying you're going to make boxing or football safe.

No, it really isn't.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

By definition: Bicycles are single occupancy vehicles while cars and trucks are multi. Those are just facts. Status quo is always an option.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

I think the issue is that you're like a religious zealot and you're going to build all these bike lanes regardless of whether anyone wants them or uses them.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by the city.

It is not delusional. I won't ride on Connecticut Ave without the bike lanes. Pedestrians get mad if I use the sidewalk (legally) and drivers get mad if I am in the street. There are a lot of people like me.

Count me and my spouse as another two.

3 down 9,697 to go.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

By definition: Bicycles are single occupancy vehicles while cars and trucks are multi. Those are just facts. Status quo is always an option.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

Actually barely two percent of commuters bike, per the Census Bureau. Even that seems high. The Census Bureau is just reporting what people told them, not confirming that what they said is true

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%...ommuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801.

That was in the middle of the pandemic. Something like 25% of commuters were driving and 50% were working from home. We've discussed this before, but I'm happy to repeat it in order to raise more money for WABA.

If you want to hire people to stand on every street, sidewalk, bike lane, bike path, bridge, and other conveyance in DC so that you can confirm the Census Bureau numbers, be my guest. In the absence of that, I'll take the Census Bureau estimates over numbers pulled from thin air.

Have you been downtown? There's practically tumbleweeds.

I am downtown every day. It's as busy now as it was pre-pandemic.

Yes, I’m downtown quite often and it’s deserted. As everyone can see including this reporter:

“Office worker occupancy in the D.C. region remained below the national average and the second lowest among the 10 largest markets according to a September report by commercial real estate property company JLL.”

https://wtop.com/business-finance/2022/10/on-typical-day-more-than-40-of-dc-regions-workforce-is-teleworking/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

Please spare us the pseudoscientific "Save Connecticut Ave" talking points. These claims have also been thoroughly debunked, not that it matters of course to those who are more interested in spreading propaganda than in pedestrian and cyclist safety.

[Anonymous]

Rock Creek Park has bike lanes. In fact, I think it's even referred to as the "bike path." I would support an elevated bike lane or a bike lane in the middle of the road, which I've seen in some cities, but I don't support something that would hurt access to local businesses. They're having a hard enough time staying alive after covid. They don't need another hit. I vividly remember the Washington Post highlighting the economic impact of covid on a strip of stores in the Van Ness portion of Connecticut. They don't need any more obstacles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

Please spare us the pseudoscientific "Save Connecticut Ave" talking points. These claims have also been thoroughly debunked, not that it matters of course to those who are more interested in spreading propaganda than in pedestrian and cyclist safety.

The ironing is delicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

Please spare us the pseudoscientific "Save Connecticut Ave" talking points. These claims have also been thoroughly debunked, not that it matters of course to those who are more interested in spreading propaganda than in pedestrian and cyclist safety.

The ironing is delicious.

Is that on the high steam setting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

Currently there are an infinity number, so 200 is much safer. Thanks for noting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rock Creek Park has bike lanes. In fact, I think it's even referred to as the "bike path." I would support an elevated bike lane or a bike lane in the middle of the road, which I've seen in some cities, but I don't support something that would hurt access to local businesses. They're having a hard enough time staying alive after covid. They don't need another hit. I vividly remember the Washington Post highlighting the economic impact of covid on a strip of stores in the Van Ness portion of Connecticut. They don't need any more obstacles.

There is no study that demonstrates that bike lanes hurt businesses. The reality...at worst they are neutral and in most cases, the improve businesses. I have made a point of telling the businesses I routinely support that I never park on Connecticut Avenue when I patronize them, and as a result, they should not be opposing the bike lanes. Generally speaking, others appear to be making the same point. I don't think most businesses know where their customers are coming from or how they are getting there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

Please spare us the pseudoscientific "Save Connecticut Ave" talking points. These claims have also been thoroughly debunked, not that it matters of course to those who are more interested in spreading propaganda than in pedestrian and cyclist safety.

The ironing is delicious.

Is that on the high steam setting?

You win the internet for today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

The bike lanes on Connecticut will increase bike/ped injuries. There are 200+ points on the proposed corridor where cars will have to completely cross the bike lanes.

Currently there are an infinity number, so 200 is much safer. Thanks for noting it.

That is a good point.

[Anonymous]

$52

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$52

What is this about, how is this thread making money for WABA?