reading this thread over now I see there are a lot of typos...oh well :(

protection is recommended by basically everyone is good. For the record, I am very much in favor of traffic calming measures

to be out of step with all the recommendations. I want to emphasize that I am a well-wisher of RR and am aware of and thankful for the excellent work you guys have done and are doing, so please don't take this as trolling. I just don't see how one can argue that including unprotected lanes where

dangerous infrastructure features as "wins" when they are nothing of the sort. Or is is the position of RR that the proposed bike lanes, unprotected as they are on a street with traffic volumes in excess of 10,000vpd and speeds of 41mph, are in fact safe, because this seems to me

You wrote above that brighton residents will have to wait 2 decades for separated bike lanes to be considered along monroe have.

I think better advocacy would be to make a compelling case about why 2 decades is unacceptable, that the people of brighton deserve better, then to tout....

is potentially dangers", but presently I cannot say this honestly because Reconnect Rochester doesn't seems not to share this opinion.

Now, I have no idea what the parameters of proposed project are, but Advocacy groups should help drum up grass-roots support for needed improvements.

"See, I told you this was a problem". Also, when I write my letter to NYDOT, as well as Jeremy Cooney, Moehle, and other town officials advocating for further improvemnts, I would love to be able to say that "it is the opinion of all major advocacy groups that I am aware of that the current design

What will Reconnect Rochester's position be if/when a cyclist is seriously injured in these lanes, especially if it pointed out they advocated for this substandard dangerous infrastructure?

I think you need to be on record saying that the design is inadequat so you can say

We disagree, however, that including dangerous bicycle gutters along high speed, high volume traffic corridors is a solution at all. As I mentioned above, every organization I could find which publishes recommendations for bikeway design explicitly states that unprotected bike lanes are...

This is I have no problem with. My criticism has to do with advocating for the inclusion of 5 foot bicycle shoulders on a street where both average speeds and volumes far exceed what is considered safe design according to MassDot, Nacto, BikeEasy, The Federal Highway Administration, and others

This is not advocacy, and may end up getting people killed. Advocacy would be putting forward a compelling argument for separated bike paths, which is universally regarded as the standard for arterials such as monroe and elmwood.

How do you defend advocating for 5 foot bicycle shoulders on a road with average traffic speeds of 41mph and volumes of roughly 10,000vdp. This is is dangerous infrastructure and out of step with all bikeway design principles I have managed to locate, including those from MassDOT.

I can't believe that's actually Dutch

"Only WHO can prevent forest fires"

[Bart Selects "you"]

"You have selected 'you', indicating 'me'. The correct answer is you"

Do I see Lobster Mushrooms there? I have never found one