Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use the bike lanes every day to buy groceries, take my kids to the Metro, take my oldest to soccer practice, visit my parents, commute to work.

Oh wait. Of course I don’t. I use the bus and car for those.

Some bike lanes work great. Others are pure city-planner GGW (does that exist anymore?) hokum that actually do damage by increasing commuting times and further disadvantaging centralized jobs and retail.

Whatever Duffy is up to is likely politicized nonsense, but the bike lane lobby has got to chill. Losing Connecticut Avenue was a sign.

Bike lanes reduce walking, not driving. Not sure why we want to reduce walking.

The talking point is supposed to be that it reduces public transit use.

Not that anyone using that argument would support a bus lane either.

I am not in favor of reducing public transit use. Can we force cyclists to use the bus? The busses have bike racks, so you can take your bike with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use the bike lanes every day to buy groceries, take my kids to the Metro, take my oldest to soccer practice, visit my parents, commute to work.

Oh wait. Of course I don’t. I use the bus and car for those.

Some bike lanes work great. Others are pure city-planner GGW (does that exist anymore?) hokum that actually do damage by increasing commuting times and further disadvantaging centralized jobs and retail.

Whatever Duffy is up to is likely politicized nonsense, but the bike lane lobby has got to chill. Losing Connecticut Avenue was a sign.

Bike lanes reduce walking, not driving. Not sure why we want to reduce walking.

The talking point is supposed to be that it reduces public transit use.

Not that anyone using that argument would support a bus lane either.

We've had bike lanes in this city for decades. If there was even a shred of evidence that bikes reduce driving, the city would be pointing to it at every opportunity. It's not and that silence tells you everything you need to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I use the bike lanes every day to buy groceries, take my kids to the Metro, take my oldest to soccer practice, visit my parents, commute to work.

Oh wait. Of course I don’t. I use the bus and car for those.

Some bike lanes work great. Others are pure city-planner GGW (does that exist anymore?) hokum that actually do damage by increasing commuting times and further disadvantaging centralized jobs and retail.

Whatever Duffy is up to is likely politicized nonsense, but the bike lane lobby has got to chill. Losing Connecticut Avenue was a sign.

Bike lanes reduce walking, not driving. Not sure why we want to reduce walking.

The talking point is supposed to be that it reduces public transit use.

Not that anyone using that argument would support a bus lane either.

Anonymous wrote:I use the bike lanes every day to buy groceries, take my kids to the Metro, take my oldest to soccer practice, visit my parents, commute to work.

Oh wait. Of course I don’t. I use the bus and car for those.

Some bike lanes work great. Others are pure city-planner GGW (does that exist anymore?) hokum that actually do damage by increasing commuting times and further disadvantaging centralized jobs and retail.

Whatever Duffy is up to is likely politicized nonsense, but the bike lane lobby has got to chill. Losing Connecticut Avenue was a sign.

Bike lanes reduce walking, not driving. Not sure why we want to reduce walking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city installed a protected bike lane on a road I've driven on every day for many years. They took out a car lane to do it. Now, traffic on the road is a lot worse. In the maybe six months since it was installed, I have seen a grand total of two bicyclists use it. During that same time, I must have seen many thousands of drivers on that same road. How on earth does this make any sense?

Perhaps they were installed by the same people who put in all the exercise equipment at city parks that no one has ever used...

That's hilarious. When I bike home a certain route, I always see people on public exercise equipment in the park. Sounds like you live in a bubble.

I do to.

A self-centered, misinformed, delusional car-brain?

Well I never!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city installed a protected bike lane on a road I've driven on every day for many years. They took out a car lane to do it. Now, traffic on the road is a lot worse. In the maybe six months since it was installed, I have seen a grand total of two bicyclists use it. During that same time, I must have seen many thousands of drivers on that same road. How on earth does this make any sense?

Perhaps they were installed by the same people who put in all the exercise equipment at city parks that no one has ever used...

That's hilarious. When I bike home a certain route, I always see people on public exercise equipment in the park. Sounds like you live in a bubble.

I do to.

You should thank your lucky stars you’re in DC or Arlington, where at least the transportation planners aren’t completely incompetent. The Montgomery County planners must be huffing paint thinner when they created a bike lane on Old Georgetown Road that literally no one uses and takes cyclists across on and off ramps to 270 and 495. I have never in my life seen such a poorly planned, unsafe, and unused bike lane. And this is coming from an avid cyclist who is happy with most of the bike lanes in DC and Arlington.

There's a bike lane near me that they put in almost decade ago that I'm fairly certain has never been used by a single person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city is removing a protected bike lane. Good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/12/arizona-bike-lane-dc/

My prediction is that the city will hugely slow or even stop bike-lane construction while Trump is in office. As the story notes, his administration has come out against them, and the city needs to pick its battles. This is one that's not worth fighting. Trump is so petty that he will use bike lanes as an excuse to do something stupid to DC.

The city is going to stop building bike lanes that the public didnt ask for, doesnt want and doesnt use? What a radical idea!

Anonymous wrote:The city is removing a protected bike lane. Good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/12/arizona-bike-lane-dc/

My prediction is that the city will hugely slow or even stop bike-lane construction while Trump is in office. As the story notes, his administration has come out against them, and the city needs to pick its battles. This is one that's not worth fighting. Trump is so petty that he will use bike lanes as an excuse to do something stupid to DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the city should buy people bikes to create demand for the lanes?

It already does. It also pays WABA to rent it bikes for 2nd grade PE classes. That annual rental payment is higher than the one time cost of purchasing the bikes themselves.

I'm sure you're privy to all the details of what that contract includes, such maintenance and repair. Or maybe you're just talking out of your tailpipe.

WABA is mostly funded by the DC government. WABA returns the favor by charging the DC government scandalously high rates to rent bikes for school classes. It would be a million times cheaper for the city to just buy every student in the city a bike. It's a scam that's been going on forever. The documents are all publicly available.

I totally believe you because you anti-bike people are known for telling the truth. Lol

Sorry the facts hurt your feelings:

https://contracts.ocp.dc.gov/contracts/details?id=Q1c3NTQ3MsKmQmFzZSBQZXJpb2Q%3D&hash=idxlwolcp2ecbwde

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

There is absolutely no denying that WABA receives most of its funding from the DC government, most of it for the salaries of its officials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city is removing a protected bike lane. Good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/12/arizona-bike-lane-dc/

"It’s the first time D.C. is removing a set of protected bike lanes, cycling advocates say. They worry it’s a sign that city leaders are joining a backlash against bike infrastructure building nationally. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has frozen all federal grants involving cycling, recently calling bike lanes in congested areas “a problem”; cities in Texas and California are tearing them out. Last year D.C. canceled plans for a bike lane down Connecticut Avenue NW, a key thoroughfare."

Seems like a good thing. The DC government is doing what voters want, for once.

Negative. They are doing what one broke ass CRE developer who lives in the Palisades wants. The same dude who killed the declaria and k st.projects, who obviously has some serious dirt on someone(s) in this administration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city is removing a protected bike lane. Good start.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/12/arizona-bike-lane-dc/

"It’s the first time D.C. is removing a set of protected bike lanes, cycling advocates say. They worry it’s a sign that city leaders are joining a backlash against bike infrastructure building nationally. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy has frozen all federal grants involving cycling, recently calling bike lanes in congested areas “a problem”; cities in Texas and California are tearing them out. Last year D.C. canceled plans for a bike lane down Connecticut Avenue NW, a key thoroughfare."

Seems like a good thing. The DC government is doing what voters want, for once.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the city should buy people bikes to create demand for the lanes?

It already does. It also pays WABA to rent it bikes for 2nd grade PE classes. That annual rental payment is higher than the one time cost of purchasing the bikes themselves.

I'm sure you're privy to all the details of what that contract includes, such maintenance and repair. Or maybe you're just talking out of your tailpipe.

WABA is mostly funded by the DC government. WABA returns the favor by charging the DC government scandalously high rates to rent bikes for school classes. It would be a million times cheaper for the city to just buy every student in the city a bike. It's a scam that's been going on forever. The documents are all publicly available.

I totally believe you because you anti-bike people are known for telling the truth. Lol

DP. According to https://waba.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/WABA-990-2023.pdf about $3 million in revenue with $1.5 million from government grants. Part VIII, line 1e

And...?

The PP was correct. WABA is mostly government funded.

OMG wow no!

It shows how little support WABA actually has. If the government didn't write it big checks, the group would have folded a long time ago.

The Ward 3 rep used all his political capital for two years on Connecticut Ave bike lanes that only a handful of people wanted. Meanwhile, the city has packed the very same corridor with homeless and drug addicts. The misplaced priorities of our elected officials is breathtaking.