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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

1/2. Reducing gas consumption has long been a goal of public policy. Hence, forcing car manufacturers to improve mpg, which has been taking place for decades. No, it was not called climate reasons, but it was called reduction in pollution. Our major cities are vastly healthier due the Clean Air Act and related efforts.
3. Welcome to the real world. I guess pollution reduction/climate change and pedestrian safety are at odds.
4. People should NOT be biking in major roads.
5. BS. If the Avenues gets crowded, the side streets will feel the effect. I sometimes use side streets for this exact purpose. Even the DC Govt acknowledges that reality.
4(6). See PP.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Increasing vehicle mpg has long been a goal of public policy for some (but not for others). Reducing gas consumption hasn't been anybody's public policy goal except some environmentalists. The best way to reduce gas consumption is to encourage compact land use and transit. Instead we have encouraged sprawl and highways.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bicycles are transportation. If you don't want to bike on Connecticut Avenue, with or without bike lanes, you don't have to.
5. If your feelings are at odds with the data, that's on you.
6. If you choose to break traffic laws and/or drive unsafely, again, that's on you.

1/2. You may need to read a history on the Clean Air Act. That was signed by President Nixon in 1970 based in part on the understanding that cars were a key driver of air pollution. And, while I am not a scientist, I am confident that climate change and air pollution have a connection. But, perhaps, I am wrong. Not.
3. I guess you consider climate change to be more important that pedestrian safety. Life (and public policy) frequently involves tradeoffs.
4. The Avenue was built for cars, literally. Allowing a child to bike on the Avenue is child endangerment.
5. DC Govt acknowledged that side street traffic would increase. Further, please explain why many residential areas have speed bumps, if not to deter traffic (as well as to slow traffic, which also serves to deter traffic).
6. If I drive through a stop sign and get a ticket, I will pay it.

Connecticut Avenue was built for STREETCARS, literally. Bring back the streetcars.

Meanwhile, stop driving like a jerk. Stop at the stop signs.

It was not built for exclusive of streetcars. Streetcars are not bicycles. I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

When Connecticut Avenue was built, it was for streetcars, and there were more bikes than cars. So, sure, lets restore historic connecticut avenue

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

1/2. Reducing gas consumption has long been a goal of public policy. Hence, forcing car manufacturers to improve mpg, which has been taking place for decades. No, it was not called climate reasons, but it was called reduction in pollution. Our major cities are vastly healthier due the Clean Air Act and related efforts.
3. Welcome to the real world. I guess pollution reduction/climate change and pedestrian safety are at odds.
4. People should NOT be biking in major roads.
5. BS. If the Avenues gets crowded, the side streets will feel the effect. I sometimes use side streets for this exact purpose. Even the DC Govt acknowledges that reality.
4(6). See PP.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Increasing vehicle mpg has long been a goal of public policy for some (but not for others). Reducing gas consumption hasn't been anybody's public policy goal except some environmentalists. The best way to reduce gas consumption is to encourage compact land use and transit. Instead we have encouraged sprawl and highways.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bicycles are transportation. If you don't want to bike on Connecticut Avenue, with or without bike lanes, you don't have to.
5. If your feelings are at odds with the data, that's on you.
6. If you choose to break traffic laws and/or drive unsafely, again, that's on you.

1/2. You may need to read a history on the Clean Air Act. That was signed by President Nixon in 1970 based in part on the understanding that cars were a key driver of air pollution. And, while I am not a scientist, I am confident that climate change and air pollution have a connection. But, perhaps, I am wrong. Not.
3. I guess you consider climate change to be more important that pedestrian safety. Life (and public policy) frequently involves tradeoffs.
4. The Avenue was built for cars, literally. Allowing a child to bike on the Avenue is child endangerment.
5. DC Govt acknowledged that side street traffic would increase. Further, please explain why many residential areas have speed bumps, if not to deter traffic (as well as to slow traffic, which also serves to deter traffic).
6. If I drive through a stop sign and get a ticket, I will pay it.

Connecticut Avenue was built for STREETCARS, literally. Bring back the streetcars.

Meanwhile, stop driving like a jerk. Stop at the stop signs.

It was not built for exclusive of streetcars. Streetcars are not bicycles. I have no clue what point you are trying to make.

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

1/2. Reducing gas consumption has long been a goal of public policy. Hence, forcing car manufacturers to improve mpg, which has been taking place for decades. No, it was not called climate reasons, but it was called reduction in pollution. Our major cities are vastly healthier due the Clean Air Act and related efforts.
3. Welcome to the real world. I guess pollution reduction/climate change and pedestrian safety are at odds.
4. People should NOT be biking in major roads.
5. BS. If the Avenues gets crowded, the side streets will feel the effect. I sometimes use side streets for this exact purpose. Even the DC Govt acknowledges that reality.
4(6). See PP.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Increasing vehicle mpg has long been a goal of public policy for some (but not for others). Reducing gas consumption hasn't been anybody's public policy goal except some environmentalists. The best way to reduce gas consumption is to encourage compact land use and transit. Instead we have encouraged sprawl and highways.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bicycles are transportation. If you don't want to bike on Connecticut Avenue, with or without bike lanes, you don't have to.
5. If your feelings are at odds with the data, that's on you.
6. If you choose to break traffic laws and/or drive unsafely, again, that's on you.

1/2. You may need to read a history on the Clean Air Act. That was signed by President Nixon in 1970 based in part on the understanding that cars were a key driver of air pollution. And, while I am not a scientist, I am confident that climate change and air pollution have a connection. But, perhaps, I am wrong. Not.
3. I guess you consider climate change to be more important that pedestrian safety. Life (and public policy) frequently involves tradeoffs.
4. The Avenue was built for cars, literally. Allowing a child to bike on the Avenue is child endangerment.
5. DC Govt acknowledged that side street traffic would increase. Further, please explain why many residential areas have speed bumps, if not to deter traffic (as well as to slow traffic, which also serves to deter traffic).
6. If I drive through a stop sign and get a ticket, I will pay it.

Connecticut Avenue was built for STREETCARS, literally. Bring back the streetcars.

Meanwhile, stop driving like a jerk. Stop at the stop signs.

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.

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

1/2. Reducing gas consumption has long been a goal of public policy. Hence, forcing car manufacturers to improve mpg, which has been taking place for decades. No, it was not called climate reasons, but it was called reduction in pollution. Our major cities are vastly healthier due the Clean Air Act and related efforts.
3. Welcome to the real world. I guess pollution reduction/climate change and pedestrian safety are at odds.
4. People should NOT be biking in major roads.
5. BS. If the Avenues gets crowded, the side streets will feel the effect. I sometimes use side streets for this exact purpose. Even the DC Govt acknowledges that reality.
4(6). See PP.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Increasing vehicle mpg has long been a goal of public policy for some (but not for others). Reducing gas consumption hasn't been anybody's public policy goal except some environmentalists. The best way to reduce gas consumption is to encourage compact land use and transit. Instead we have encouraged sprawl and highways.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bicycles are transportation. If you don't want to bike on Connecticut Avenue, with or without bike lanes, you don't have to.
5. If your feelings are at odds with the data, that's on you.
6. If you choose to break traffic laws and/or drive unsafely, again, that's on you.

1/2. You may need to read a history on the Clean Air Act. That was signed by President Nixon in 1970 based in part on the understanding that cars were a key driver of air pollution. And, while I am not a scientist, I am confident that climate change and air pollution have a connection. But, perhaps, I am wrong. Not.
3. I guess you consider climate change to be more important that pedestrian safety. Life (and public policy) frequently involves tradeoffs.
4. The Avenue was built for cars, literally. Allowing a child to bike on the Avenue is child endangerment.
5. DC Govt acknowledged that side street traffic would increase. Further, please explain why many residential areas have speed bumps, if not to deter traffic (as well as to slow traffic, which also serves to deter traffic).
6. If I drive through a stop sign and get a ticket, I will pay it.

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

1/2. Reducing gas consumption has long been a goal of public policy. Hence, forcing car manufacturers to improve mpg, which has been taking place for decades. No, it was not called climate reasons, but it was called reduction in pollution. Our major cities are vastly healthier due the Clean Air Act and related efforts.
3. Welcome to the real world. I guess pollution reduction/climate change and pedestrian safety are at odds.
4. People should NOT be biking in major roads.
5. BS. If the Avenues gets crowded, the side streets will feel the effect. I sometimes use side streets for this exact purpose. Even the DC Govt acknowledges that reality.
4(6). See PP.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Increasing vehicle mpg has long been a goal of public policy for some (but not for others). Reducing gas consumption hasn't been anybody's public policy goal except some environmentalists. The best way to reduce gas consumption is to encourage compact land use and transit. Instead we have encouraged sprawl and highways.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bicycles are transportation. If you don't want to bike on Connecticut Avenue, with or without bike lanes, you don't have to.
5. If your feelings are at odds with the data, that's on you.
6. If you choose to break traffic laws and/or drive unsafely, again, that's on you.

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.

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.

Not a program. All of the nearly $200,000 is used to pay a single person’s salary and that person has minimal expenses or responsibilities. Basically their entire job is reminding people to wear a helmet and keep their bike in good working order.

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.

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.

Not a program. All of the nearly $200,000 is used to pay a single person’s salary and that person has minimal expenses or responsibilities. Basically their entire job is reminding people to wear a helmet and keep their bike in good working order.

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

1/2. Reducing gas consumption has long been a goal of public policy. Hence, forcing car manufacturers to improve mpg, which has been taking place for decades. No, it was not called climate reasons, but it was called reduction in pollution. Our major cities are vastly healthier due the Clean Air Act and related efforts.
3. Welcome to the real world. I guess pollution reduction/climate change and pedestrian safety are at odds.
4. People should NOT be biking in major roads.
5. BS. If the Avenues gets crowded, the side streets will feel the effect. I sometimes use side streets for this exact purpose. Even the DC Govt acknowledges that reality.
4(6). See PP.

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

Speed humps make me more likely to roll stop signs. Gotta make up time somehow

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Nobody was advocating for anything "for climate reasons" in the 1970s.
2. Right on red was a reaction to high gas prices in the 1970s.
3. It has been well known since the 1970s that right on red endangers pedestrians.
4. Bike lanes on main streets enable people to bike safely on main streets.
5. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will not increase car traffic on side streets.
4. Speed humps on side streets increase safety by slowing car traffic.

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.