Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

Another canard. Gas taxes, licenses, registrations fees etc. generate a fraction of the costs that are required to construct and maintain the road infrastructure. Cyclists subsidize drivers, not the other way around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

Another canard. Gas taxes, licenses, registrations fees etc. generate a fraction of the costs that are required to construct and maintain the road infrastructure. Cyclists subsidize drivers, not the other way around.

i can't wait to hear this. please explain to us how the 300 people who use bike lanes in dc actually pay for all the roads. this should be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

I registered a car not that long ago. It cost almost $3,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

I registered a car not that long ago. It cost almost $3,000.

The registration fees are here: https://dmv.dc.gov/node/155452

The one-off excise tax - for which many vehicles are exempt - is not a registration fee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

Another canard. Gas taxes, licenses, registrations fees etc. generate a fraction of the costs that are required to construct and maintain the road infrastructure. Cyclists subsidize drivers, not the other way around.

i can't wait to hear this. please explain to us how the 300 people who use bike lanes in dc actually pay for all the roads. this should be good.

Everyone who pays income, property, or sales taxes in DC - which includes almost cyclists - subsidizes drivers. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

Another canard. Gas taxes, licenses, registrations fees etc. generate a fraction of the costs that are required to construct and maintain the road infrastructure. Cyclists subsidize drivers, not the other way around.

i can't wait to hear this. please explain to us how the 300 people who use bike lanes in dc actually pay for all the roads. this should be good.

Everyone who pays income, property, or sales taxes in DC - which includes almost cyclists - subsidizes drivers. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

almost all[i] cyclists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

You will doubtlessly a long and illustrious career exposing waste in government contracting. Just wait until you start going through the defense budget. You will look back on those days when got worked up about a $1,000 bicycle in astonishment that you ever could have been so impressionable.

You're defending this with a whataboutism about Pentagon procurement?

FYI an industrial grade adult bike is less than $500 through GSA Global Supply

I’m saying that if you are really concerned about the efficiency of public spending, this is about the last thing you should be concerned about. Although I doubt this has anyone to do with that. You are just trying to find something that occupies your time, fulfills your insatiable need to find conspiracies in every policy outcome you disagree with, and indulges your irrational hatred towards all thing bicycle.

Of course. Just like everything else you write. Nothing but defensiveness, projection, insults, victimhood and lies. It's a bad plan and the numbers don't add up. It will be disastrous. The fact that you're ok with the city creating it's own astroturf organization and using DDOT and the schools as a slush fund is strange but not suprising. You've wrapped your identity in this whole project as part of a search for redemption and feel the slightest criticism as a personal attack. You have become the exact thing you claim to oppose. Form witbout meaning

Uh, what? I'm the PP and I guess I hit a nerve. I really couldn't care less about WABA. They strike me as generally ineffective and I can't think that I would ever donate to them. That you think they are at the helm of some kind of conspiracy to drive this plan forward is kind of laughable, all things considered. The merits of the city's agreement with WABA to provide bicycle education has next to nothing to do with it nor, in the grand scheme of things, with the efficiency of government contracting. It's just a sad commentary on the fact that those opposed to the lanes have nothing better to hang their hat on.

It's surprising how few people give to WABA. You'd think if people actually wanted bike lanes, they'd be supporting the main lobbying group pushing them. I guess people don't want them.

The DC Office of Planning and DDOT want them, which is why they provide a substantial share of WABA’s funding. So we DC taxpayers are funding WABA, whether we like it or not. Thanks, Bowser.

Nope, you are funding the educational programs that WABA executes. Those have nothing to do with advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

Cyclists pay income and sales taxes too. Those roads? Cyclists pay for them, they are PUBLIC space, not DRIVER space. In fact, roads were paved because of advocacy from cyclists, not drivers - the paved roads predate cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

I registered a car not that long ago. It cost almost $3,000.

You realize that fees is annual in Virginia, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

Another canard. Gas taxes, licenses, registrations fees etc. generate a fraction of the costs that are required to construct and maintain the road infrastructure. Cyclists subsidize drivers, not the other way around.

i can't wait to hear this. please explain to us how the 300 people who use bike lanes in dc actually pay for all the roads. this should be good.

Everyone who pays income, property, or sales taxes in DC - which includes almost cyclists - subsidizes drivers. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

I think the main issue is that there are very few cyclists so whatever taxes they pay don't amount to very much money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

I registered a car not that long ago. It cost almost $3,000.

The registration fees are here: https://dmv.dc.gov/node/155452

The one-off excise tax - for which many vehicles are exempt - is not a registration fee.

Have you ever registered a car? There are a million fees. It doesnt matter what they call each of them. They're fees people have to pay when they register a car and they routinely run four figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To recap:

1. The lion's share of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association's $2 million budget comes from the D.C. government. Very few people actually donate to them. Membership dues amount to about $100,000.

2. WABA appears to be illegally using this taxpayer money to lobby the DC government on bike lanes.

3. WABA says it's not just lobbying, that it has an educational mission too. But that educational mission appears to boil down to renting $100 bikes for children in PE classes at school to the city at more than $1,000 a pop.

Everything about bike lanes reeks of special interest politics.

Driving commuters are a minority of the population, at least in DC. It is also true that driving commuters impose a whole load of negative externalities for the rest of the population, an incomplete list of which includes air pollution, road congestion, physical injuries and death, cultural decay, and political polarization. Given all of this, your point that providing a viable means by which people can commute in ways that do not impose these negative externalities on the rest of the population is a very curious one, to the say the least.

There's 300,000 cars currently registered with the city. There's probably another 100,000 that aren't registered (it's criminally expensive to register your car). This is out of 670,000 people.

There are so few cyclists in this city they are almost a rounding error. Often they're thrown in an "other" category because there's so few of them.

Only about 40% of the households own cars, so do the math.

Also, out of those "670,000" people, many are too young or too old to drive. And many more are too poor to own a car.

And what does "criminally expensive" mean? We need the money to help maintain the roads and clean up the polluted air. If drivers actually paid the costs to our society, driving would be a heck of a lot more expensive.

Maybe cyclists could stop being such freeloaders?

Drivers pay for everything. They pay gas taxes and licensing fees and registration fees and traffic citations and income taxes.

Cyclists don't pay the gas tax, they dont pay licensing fees or registration fees, they dont pay any traffic citations (despite routinely flouting traffic laws) and there's so few cyclists that their income taxes all put together wouldn't be enough to build a single protected bike lane.

I registered a car not that long ago. It cost almost $3,000.

The registration fees are here: https://dmv.dc.gov/node/155452

The one-off excise tax - for which many vehicles are exempt - is not a registration fee.

Have you ever registered a car? There are a million fees. It doesnt matter what they call each of them. They're fees people have to pay when they register a car and they routinely run four figures.

Yes and the fees are listed in the link. The excise tax is the main expense if your vehicle is not exempt. But unless you keep importing new gas-powered vehicles, you are not paying that every time you re-register.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

You will doubtlessly a long and illustrious career exposing waste in government contracting. Just wait until you start going through the defense budget. You will look back on those days when got worked up about a $1,000 bicycle in astonishment that you ever could have been so impressionable.

You're defending this with a whataboutism about Pentagon procurement?

FYI an industrial grade adult bike is less than $500 through GSA Global Supply

I’m saying that if you are really concerned about the efficiency of public spending, this is about the last thing you should be concerned about. Although I doubt this has anyone to do with that. You are just trying to find something that occupies your time, fulfills your insatiable need to find conspiracies in every policy outcome you disagree with, and indulges your irrational hatred towards all thing bicycle.

Of course. Just like everything else you write. Nothing but defensiveness, projection, insults, victimhood and lies. It's a bad plan and the numbers don't add up. It will be disastrous. The fact that you're ok with the city creating it's own astroturf organization and using DDOT and the schools as a slush fund is strange but not suprising. You've wrapped your identity in this whole project as part of a search for redemption and feel the slightest criticism as a personal attack. You have become the exact thing you claim to oppose. Form witbout meaning

Uh, what? I'm the PP and I guess I hit a nerve. I really couldn't care less about WABA. They strike me as generally ineffective and I can't think that I would ever donate to them. That you think they are at the helm of some kind of conspiracy to drive this plan forward is kind of laughable, all things considered. The merits of the city's agreement with WABA to provide bicycle education has next to nothing to do with it nor, in the grand scheme of things, with the efficiency of government contracting. It's just a sad commentary on the fact that those opposed to the lanes have nothing better to hang their hat on.

It's surprising how few people give to WABA. You'd think if people actually wanted bike lanes, they'd be supporting the main lobbying group pushing them. I guess people don't want them.

The DC Office of Planning and DDOT want them, which is why they provide a substantial share of WABA’s funding. So we DC taxpayers are funding WABA, whether we like it or not. Thanks, Bowser.

Nope, you are funding the educational programs that WABA executes. Those have nothing to do with advocacy.

Oh you mean the educational program WABA runs where it charges DCPS more than $1,000 to rent a bike that costs $75?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

You will doubtlessly a long and illustrious career exposing waste in government contracting. Just wait until you start going through the defense budget. You will look back on those days when got worked up about a $1,000 bicycle in astonishment that you ever could have been so impressionable.

You're defending this with a whataboutism about Pentagon procurement?

FYI an industrial grade adult bike is less than $500 through GSA Global Supply

I’m saying that if you are really concerned about the efficiency of public spending, this is about the last thing you should be concerned about. Although I doubt this has anyone to do with that. You are just trying to find something that occupies your time, fulfills your insatiable need to find conspiracies in every policy outcome you disagree with, and indulges your irrational hatred towards all thing bicycle.

Of course. Just like everything else you write. Nothing but defensiveness, projection, insults, victimhood and lies. It's a bad plan and the numbers don't add up. It will be disastrous. The fact that you're ok with the city creating it's own astroturf organization and using DDOT and the schools as a slush fund is strange but not suprising. You've wrapped your identity in this whole project as part of a search for redemption and feel the slightest criticism as a personal attack. You have become the exact thing you claim to oppose. Form witbout meaning

Uh, what? I'm the PP and I guess I hit a nerve. I really couldn't care less about WABA. They strike me as generally ineffective and I can't think that I would ever donate to them. That you think they are at the helm of some kind of conspiracy to drive this plan forward is kind of laughable, all things considered. The merits of the city's agreement with WABA to provide bicycle education has next to nothing to do with it nor, in the grand scheme of things, with the efficiency of government contracting. It's just a sad commentary on the fact that those opposed to the lanes have nothing better to hang their hat on.

It's surprising how few people give to WABA. You'd think if people actually wanted bike lanes, they'd be supporting the main lobbying group pushing them. I guess people don't want them.

The DC Office of Planning and DDOT want them, which is why they provide a substantial share of WABA’s funding. So we DC taxpayers are funding WABA, whether we like it or not. Thanks, Bowser.

Nope, you are funding the educational programs that WABA executes. Those have nothing to do with advocacy.

The DC Office of Planning is also funding Smart growth lobbyists and their astroturf groups. It’s a total ripoff of taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the WABA contracts include paying someone $150,000 per year, rising to $180,000 to be a “bicycle ambassador” which includes hanging out and riding around trails and bike lanes for 20 hours per week. How is this not corruption?

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/attachments/Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2TCpnszRTM4NkU4Qy1BRDQ3LTQ1MUMtQTlBNC05Qzk0OEI3MEY3ODF9

We're paying them $1,102.50 per bicycle on top of everything else. What the hell, these are bikes for 8 year olds and we don't get to keep them.

At these prices it would be inordinately cheaper to just give every 8 year old a bike.

You will doubtlessly a long and illustrious career exposing waste in government contracting. Just wait until you start going through the defense budget. You will look back on those days when got worked up about a $1,000 bicycle in astonishment that you ever could have been so impressionable.

You're defending this with a whataboutism about Pentagon procurement?

FYI an industrial grade adult bike is less than $500 through GSA Global Supply

I’m saying that if you are really concerned about the efficiency of public spending, this is about the last thing you should be concerned about. Although I doubt this has anyone to do with that. You are just trying to find something that occupies your time, fulfills your insatiable need to find conspiracies in every policy outcome you disagree with, and indulges your irrational hatred towards all thing bicycle.

Of course. Just like everything else you write. Nothing but defensiveness, projection, insults, victimhood and lies. It's a bad plan and the numbers don't add up. It will be disastrous. The fact that you're ok with the city creating it's own astroturf organization and using DDOT and the schools as a slush fund is strange but not suprising. You've wrapped your identity in this whole project as part of a search for redemption and feel the slightest criticism as a personal attack. You have become the exact thing you claim to oppose. Form witbout meaning

Uh, what? I'm the PP and I guess I hit a nerve. I really couldn't care less about WABA. They strike me as generally ineffective and I can't think that I would ever donate to them. That you think they are at the helm of some kind of conspiracy to drive this plan forward is kind of laughable, all things considered. The merits of the city's agreement with WABA to provide bicycle education has next to nothing to do with it nor, in the grand scheme of things, with the efficiency of government contracting. It's just a sad commentary on the fact that those opposed to the lanes have nothing better to hang their hat on.

It's surprising how few people give to WABA. You'd think if people actually wanted bike lanes, they'd be supporting the main lobbying group pushing them. I guess people don't want them.

The DC Office of Planning and DDOT want them, which is why they provide a substantial share of WABA’s funding. So we DC taxpayers are funding WABA, whether we like it or not. Thanks, Bowser.

Nope, you are funding the educational programs that WABA executes. Those have nothing to do with advocacy.

The DC Office of Planning is also funding Smart growth lobbyists and their astroturf groups. It’s a total ripoff of taxpayers.

Which smart growth lobbyists are receiving this funding? I don't want my tax dollars funding lobbyists.