Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

I'm listening. Please, tell us more about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least get a good design this time? Rather than the "inches from speeding trucks and buses" design that was Concept C?

No. Charles Allen is forbidding DDOT to spend money on the project unless they do what he wants. DDOT has already made their decision. So nothing will move forward. This means that the project will get shelved and if/when it ever gets resurrected it will have to start from scratch.

It’s smart politics for Allen though. He gains many anti recall foot soldiers and campaign contributions from the bike bros.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the f???

I thought this was done.

I thought the biker bros had lost.

It is done. It’s Charles Allen and his bike bros being nihilists. Just like the K St Transitway, the city cannot have anything nice unless it has bike lanes.

The reality is that this means that CT Ave won’t get pedestrian safety improvements but hilariously enough they could revert back to rush hour parking rules.

It’s basically just a back door way of making budget cuts while looking smug but actually being an a-hole. Classic Charles Allen.

Keep your hands off Ward 3.

Apparently this is also Matt “Pickleball” Frumin’s position - no Conn bike lanes, no more safety improvements.

Frumin is maddening. His colleagues repaid him for his loyal vote on progressive legislation the past 1.5 years by unanimously embarrassing him last week on legislation for housing voucher rules. His sole legislative accomplishment is “Old People Are Cool Month.” And he spends the vast majority of his time focusing on deed restrictions that have been legally unenforceable for generations.

He’s just getting his lunch eaten every day and I’m sure his colleagues love having an incompetent W3 councilmember

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the f???

I thought this was done.

I thought the biker bros had lost.

It is done. It’s Charles Allen and his bike bros being nihilists. Just like the K St Transitway, the city cannot have anything nice unless it has bike lanes.

The reality is that this means that CT Ave won’t get pedestrian safety improvements but hilariously enough they could revert back to rush hour parking rules.

It’s basically just a back door way of making budget cuts while looking smug but actually being an a-hole. Classic Charles Allen.

Keep your hands off Ward 3.

Apparently this is also Matt “Pickleball” Frumin’s position - no Conn bike lanes, no more safety improvements.

Frumin is maddening. His colleagues repaid him for his loyal vote on progressive legislation the past 1.5 years by unanimously embarrassing him last week on legislation for housing voucher rules. His sole legislative accomplishment is “Old People Are Cool Month.” And he spends the vast majority of his time focusing on deed restrictions that have been legally unenforceable for generations.

I would not really bet on the fact that this language is in an early draft of a budget resolution meaning that (a) the bike lanes will go ahead or (b) the city won't do other work on Connecticut in the end without the bike lanes.

I'd like to have the bike lanes, because I ride down/up Connecticut a few times a week to commute to/from work downtown and it's unpleasant and potentially dangerous, but I think they're done. And obviously it's insane to block safety improvements because they only include measures for pedestrians. Allen will wind up having to fold.

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least get a good design this time? Rather than the "inches from speeding trucks and buses" design that was Concept C?

No. Charles Allen is forbidding DDOT to spend money on the project unless they do what he wants. DDOT has already made their decision. So nothing will move forward. This means that the project will get shelved and if/when it ever gets resurrected it will have to start from scratch.

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least get a good design this time? Rather than the "inches from speeding trucks and buses" design that was Concept C?

"Inches away from speeding trucks and buses" is what we have now, though, so I don't really see how any protected bike lane would not be an improvement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Can we at least get a good design this time? Rather than the "inches from speeding trucks and buses" design that was Concept C?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the f???

I thought this was done.

I thought the biker bros had lost.

It is done. It’s Charles Allen and his bike bros being nihilists. Just like the K St Transitway, the city cannot have anything nice unless it has bike lanes.

The reality is that this means that CT Ave won’t get pedestrian safety improvements but hilariously enough they could revert back to rush hour parking rules.

It’s basically just a back door way of making budget cuts while looking smug but actually being an a-hole. Classic Charles Allen.

Keep your hands off Ward 3.

Apparently this is also Matt “Pickleball” Frumin’s position - no Conn bike lanes, no more safety improvements.