DC delays Conn Ave bike lanes bcuz of opposition

[Anonymous]

What’s factually correct? How much is the ambassador making?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

It happens every single day in DC, are you on crack?

And you’d be wrong. It doesn’t. Also fentanyl

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

I searched the on Bike and Bicycle under contracts and found one for bike and pedestrian safety education to Waba for 1 year 2019 to 2020 for $2m+. Didn’t find anything about a bike ambassador or bicycle ambassador under contracts, but I’m not looking for a job l was just curious. If there is a job posting for a 20 hours / week position doing this for $150 to $180k l want to see evidence. I don’t believe it. Ddot is pretty underpaid as far as engineers go anyways, for the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If bikers were really interested in traffic safety they would take public transportation. Same could be said of Car drivers, but most of them don't care. The bikers claim they do. So they could make this thing a whole lot easier if they simply took the metro to work.

I disagree with this. If you don’t live super close to a metro or bus stop you need to walk, bike or drive to the metro or bus stop. Same thing on the destination end. It’s called the first mile / last mile problem and is one reason public transportation isn’t more popular. I often bike to my metro stop. If l had to walk 20 minutes each way, that takes too much time out of my day and I’d probably drive instead. That doesn’t mean l don’t care about safety. I’m a busy working parent of school aged kids and l really don’t have extra time in my day.

But, l don’t need a bike lane, I’m plenty comfortable sharing the road with cars and don’t feel unsafe. That being said l don’t use Connecticut, just local streets and the very wide sidewalk when l get to Wisconsin.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

I searched the on Bike and Bicycle under contracts and found one for bike and pedestrian safety education to Waba for 1 year 2019 to 2020 for $2m+. Didn’t find anything about a bike ambassador or bicycle ambassador under contracts, but I’m not looking for a job l was just curious. If there is a job posting for a 20 hours / week position doing this for $150 to $180k l want to see evidence. I don’t believe it. Ddot is pretty underpaid as far as engineers go anyways, for the DC area.

Click on the actual contract (it’s 33 pages). It’s item C.5.11

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

The contract is real. The "salary" is not. It is funding for a program. As you know.

It’s only a program in the sense that the bike ambassador has to do certain things in exchange for his salary. We don’t usually call that a “program” though. We call that a “job.”

It is a program. It is not a salary. As you know.

Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby, instead of lying about WABA? It might be more enjoyable.

This is wrong. All of the good for the program are itemized in the contract separately. The contract itself specifies that the payment is for wages. Now, I don’t believe that WABA is actually paying someone that much money. As with all government contracts they charge the government a higher rate for wages than what they pay employees and then pocket the rest.

[Anonymous]

Thankfully. Those on Old GT are a disaster. We’ve counted 2 people on bikes on them since they opened. Takes 15 mins longer to get places cause 3 lanes became 2. People keep running over the safety flaps.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

... Get it through your dense head. It is indeed wages. For all the people who are participating in the program... Not for one person doing 20 hours a week.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

The contract is real. The "salary" is not. It is funding for a program. As you know.

It’s only a program in the sense that the bike ambassador has to do certain things in exchange for his salary. We don’t usually call that a “program” though. We call that a “job.”

It is a program. It is not a salary. As you know.

Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby, instead of lying about WABA? It might be more enjoyable.

This is wrong. All of the good for the program are itemized in the contract separately. The contract itself specifies that the payment is for wages. Now, I don’t believe that WABA is actually paying someone that much money. As with all government contracts they charge the government a higher rate for wages than what they pay employees and then pocket the rest.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

The contract is real. The "salary" is not. It is funding for a program. As you know.

It’s only a program in the sense that the bike ambassador has to do certain things in exchange for his salary. We don’t usually call that a “program” though. We call that a “job.”

It is a program. It is not a salary. As you know.

Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby, instead of lying about WABA? It might be more enjoyable.

This is wrong. All of the good for the program are itemized in the contract separately. The contract itself specifies that the payment is for wages. Now, I don’t believe that WABA is actually paying someone that much money. As with all government contracts they charge the government a higher rate for wages than what they pay employees and then pocket the rest.

Get it through you dense head. It is wages. Wages for all of the people who are working in the program. Not for one person.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

The contract is real. The "salary" is not. It is funding for a program. As you know.

It’s only a program in the sense that the bike ambassador has to do certain things in exchange for his salary. We don’t usually call that a “program” though. We call that a “job.”

It is a program. It is not a salary. As you know.

Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby, instead of lying about WABA? It might be more enjoyable.

This is wrong. All of the good for the program are itemized in the contract separately. The contract itself specifies that the payment is for wages. Now, I don’t believe that WABA is actually paying someone that much money. As with all government contracts they charge the government a higher rate for wages than what they pay employees and then pocket the rest.

Get it through you dense head. It is wages. Wages for all of the people who are working in the program. Not for one person.

This is false. The contract specifies that there is only one paid Bike Ambassador and that the rest are volunteers.

“The Contractor shall provide one full-time employee to serve as the DC Bicycle Ambassador. The Contractor shall recruit volunteer Bicycle Ambassadors to improve the visibility of the Bicycle Ambassador program.”

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

The contract is real. The "salary" is not. It is funding for a program. As you know.

It’s only a program in the sense that the bike ambassador has to do certain things in exchange for his salary. We don’t usually call that a “program” though. We call that a “job.”

It is a program. It is not a salary. As you know.

Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby, instead of lying about WABA? It might be more enjoyable.

This is wrong. All of the good for the program are itemized in the contract separately. The contract itself specifies that the payment is for wages. Now, I don’t believe that WABA is actually paying someone that much money. As with all government contracts they charge the government a higher rate for wages than what they pay employees and then pocket the rest.

Get it through you dense head. It is wages. Wages for all of the people who are working in the program. Not for one person.

This is false. The contract specifies that there is only one paid Bike Ambassador and that the rest are volunteers.

“The Contractor shall provide one full-time employee to serve as the DC Bicycle Ambassador. The Contractor shall recruit volunteer Bicycle Ambassadors to improve the visibility of the Bicycle Ambassador program.”

To repeat: It's program funding. It's not the person's salary. Just like the salary for the Secretary of Defense isn't $344.4 billion. I'm sorry you think the Bicycle Ambassadors program is a waste of public money ... well, no, actually I don't care that you think the Bicycle Ambassadors program is a waste of public money.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

can we create a bingo card for this thread? “WABA is funded by DC and controls DDOT” will be a square.

Uh, well you can look at the budget and see for yourself

WABA gets about $100,000 annually in membership dues and almost $1 million from the government. I think that’s called astroturf

WABA has/had a contract with DC to teach 2nd graders how to ride bikes. How horrible! What monsters!!!

Oh you mean the program where WABA charges DC public schools $1,000 per child to rent one of their bikes? No, that’s not shady at all

One of the WABA contracts with the city 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

What??? Is that for real? What are the qualification?

I’m a civil engineer and did a summer internship in a city transpiration bike design department. I did ride bike lanes and proposed bike lanes probably a couple times a week. I considered myself well paid at 20 making $16 and hour, back in the late 90s.

No, it's not for real. It's a lie. PP is repeatedly lying about this, for some reason only known to themselves.

Of course it’s real. You can look up the contract at https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov

Click on contracts then search Washington area bicyclist association. The city pays Waba *absurd* amounts of money for all kinds of dumb things

The contract is real. The "salary" is not. It is funding for a program. As you know.

It’s only a program in the sense that the bike ambassador has to do certain things in exchange for his salary. We don’t usually call that a “program” though. We call that a “job.”

It is a program. It is not a salary. As you know.

Have you considered basket-weaving as a hobby, instead of lying about WABA? It might be more enjoyable.

This is wrong. All of the good for the program are itemized in the contract separately. The contract itself specifies that the payment is for wages. Now, I don’t believe that WABA is actually paying someone that much money. As with all government contracts they charge the government a higher rate for wages than what they pay employees and then pocket the rest.

Get it through you dense head. It is wages. Wages for all of the people who are working in the program. Not for one person.

This is false. The contract specifies that there is only one paid Bike Ambassador and that the rest are volunteers.

“The Contractor shall provide one full-time employee to serve as the DC Bicycle Ambassador. The Contractor shall recruit volunteer Bicycle Ambassadors to improve the visibility of the Bicycle Ambassador program.”

To repeat: It's program funding. It's not the person's salary. Just like the salary for the Secretary of Defense isn't $344.4 billion. I'm sorry you think the Bicycle Ambassadors program is a waste of public money ... well, no, actually I don't care that you think the Bicycle Ambassadors program is a waste of public money.

Here are the program activities. None of these have specific costs aside from printing which are specified separately in the contract. All of the “program funding” is for paying salary to one person to conduct these tasks. Not to mention paying overhead to WABA of course. That is the important part and the part where the overhead costs paid to WABA are potentially being commingled with their lobbying.

“• Educating bicyclists on how to use new bicycle facilities, such as protected cycle tracks, counter-flow bike lanes, and special intersection safety treatments.
• Bicycling around the streets of all eight of DC's Wards with a bicycle trailer displaying safety messages aimed at bicyclists and drivers. The bicycle trailer could display safety messages aimed at both bicyclists and drivers and have messages in English and Spanish.
• Outreach to groups that are under-represented among DC bicyclists, such as women or minority communities. In order to draw people who may not consider themselves bicyclists, these outreach activities may have other themes or partners that broaden the event beyond just bicycling. For example, Arlington, VA had success with a women only bicycling and yoga event. Another event ideas would be to partner with Black Women Bike for a safety happy hour.
• Teaching classes on how to plan bicycle routes.
• Organizing Two-Wheel Tuesday meet-ups to socialize and discuss issues facing bicyclists.
Outreach to large groups of drivers police, taxi drivers, Uber or Lyft drivers, etc.) on how to drive safely around bicycles.
• Outreach to bicyclists and non-bicyclists at neighborhood festivals, church events and other events that draw large crowds.
• Dissemination of bicycle safety information and DC bike maps.
• In high-crime areas, educating bicyclists of how to deal with personal
safety issues that can arise when bicycling.”

[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:

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:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

It's better for pedestrians AND cyclists if cars aren't turning right on red, though. The cars aren't "competing" with pedestrians, because the pedestrians have right of way.

Eliminating right on red is silly because no one will obey it and it’s unenforceable. This is just teaching people that traffic laws are meaningless in DC.

Why will no one obey it? Right on red in particular, or traffic laws in general? Should we just get rid of all traffic laws?

Is this a real question? Yes the government can pass whatever laws it likes. It can declare that everyone has to walk backwards on tuesdays and walking forwards that day is illegal but if no one obeys and it’s not enforced all you’ve done is convince people laws are not worthy of respect.

Like stop signs and red lights and speed limits?

NP but yes. Have you driven at rush hour lately? People blow through stop signs and red lights speeding on a regular basis. And this is not speeding up through a yellow light. It’s incredibly dangerous and there are zero consequences. Maybe they get a camera ticket but who would pay that anyway?

So we should just get rid of all traffic laws?

No. You’re missing the point. When the city starts passing laws that seem to have no purpose but to harass drivers and satisfy anti-car fetishists, people ignore the laws, which is worse than not having the law in the first place.

There’s a traffic light near me for example that seems to serve no point whatsoever but slow down traffic and now drivers routinely drive right through the red light. That is stupid and makes everyone worse off. People should obey all traffic laws but the government needs to be a lot more judicious and thoughtful in deciding what is worthy of putting into law.

The point of banning Right Turn On Red is to reduce crashes where drivers hit and injure pedestrians. I think that is worthy of putting into law.

Yeah that almost never happens. This is a solution in search of a problem. I will ignore all bans on turning right on red. If you want to protect people, maybe cyclists be should required to wear helmets.

Almost never means it happens. The way to mitigate it is to simply ban the practice so it never happens.

You must be a huge fan of requiring everyone to take their shoes off at the airport for the rest of eternity because some crazy guy 20 years ago tried to hide a bomb in a shoe.

Except that it's actually quite common. The driver has a red, they roll across the crosswalk into the intersection looking to their left, they can't see anybody on their right because they're looking left, and CRASH. Everybody who has tried to cross with a walk signal has experienced this phenomenon (but hopefully not the crash).

It’s so common that it doesn’t even show up in police statistics.

What does show up is that one quarter of the 40 traffic deaths each year in DC are the fault of the pedestrian/cyclist/scooter.

It doesn't show up in police statistics because there is no box for "driver was turning right on red" on the form.

In DC, in 2022, at least 504 pedestrians and 269 bicyclists were injured in crashes. It's really weird to focus just on deaths, as though there were only two possibilities, no crash or fatal crash.

If it was common, they’d have a category for it.

All these silly rules to prevent things that are already incredibly rare seems reminiscent of life after 9-11 when we adopted lots of dumb precautions because terrorists were supposedly everywhere.

If the streets were dangerous, you wouldn’t see parents putting children on bikes.

If the streets are dangerous, the city needs to stop people from putting kids on bikes. People should not be allowed to put children in dangerous situations.

+

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

The drastic change was legalizing right on red during the late 1970's oil crunch. So this is just reverting back to the previous 70 years of practice.

So, now, some liberals want to eliminate right on red due to accidents, while those same liberals (or their liberal parents) wanted to permit right on red in the 1970s for climate reasons. Now, some liberals want to encourage cars to use side streets to allow for bike lanes on the key avenues into DC while prior liberals wanted speed bumps on side streets to discourage traffic on side streets. Fact is that DC's population is not really increasing anymore as many move to the burbs thanks to the pandemic.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Yes I never understood this one either. When you eliminate right turn in red turn cars are “competing” with pedestrians to turn right before the light turns red again. Better to turn right into a clear lane when the walk signal is red.

When you eliminate right turn on red, pedestrians who are crossing the street on WALK don't get hit by drivers who are turning right on red. Does that help you understand?

Meanwhile, there are Leading Pedestrian Intervals to help protect pedestrians from drivers who are turning right on green and don't want to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross.

You must be a terrible driver. A driver turning right on red should treat the red light as a stop sign. If the lane you are in is clear and the lane you are turning into is clear, which it should be if walkers are observing the no walk sign, and if bikers are coming up on your right hand side are are observing the red light then turn. Its efficient and keeps cars from having yo compete with walkers, argue over semantics if you must who cares, the goal and needs of both are the same. Point A to B. Geez people you are all so reactionary and obtuse.

Clearly you anti car reactionary folks should all stick to walking because you clearly don’t don’t have the mental capability, flexibility, maturity nor basic level of mental health (fragile little things) required to safely operate a motor vehicle. If given the chance to operate a mv on the city streets you little black and white, all or nothing thinkers would all be road raging and mowing down little old grannies in the cross walks in under 2.5.

No wonder you all are so hyped up. No amount of Zannys can fix your collective “this is my space it belongs to me, me” is egotistical hysteria. We get it…all cars are bad, all drivers are bad people. Sounds like pure projection.

As this board proves over and over again. The truth is that most people are basic and stupid, not mean or evil, regardless of their preferred mode of transport, so protect and conduct yourself accordingly.

Agreed. People make mistakes. That is why No Right On Red is a good thing. It protects pedestrians from being hit by drivers who are turning right on red, and it protects drivers from hitting pedestrians.

It also means a several thousands of hours annually of unnecessary car idling time greatly outweighing any public safety benefit.

Because reducing car idling is more important than reducing the number of people who are injured or killed? Huh.

Gimme a break. It's not as if that is actually happening. You can't baby proof the world. Accidents will happen -- that doesn't mean you have to make drastic changes. Another accident will happen another way in another place another time. That's life.

There is no epidemic of people being hit by cars turning right on red. This is just another way for bikers to not have to follow the rules of the road. I'd rather save the planet.

The drastic change was legalizing right on red during the late 1970's oil crunch. So this is just reverting back to the previous 70 years of practice.

So, now, some liberals want to eliminate right on red due to accidents, while those same liberals (or their liberal parents) wanted to permit right on red in the 1970s for climate reasons. Now, some liberals want to encourage cars to use side streets to allow for bike lanes on the key avenues into DC while prior liberals wanted speed bumps on side streets to discourage traffic on side streets. Fact is that DC's population is not really increasing anymore as many move to the burbs thanks to the pandemic.

It's almost like as information changes people adapt their thinking.