Greater Greater Washington

Report a Comment

Rereading this article, I'm not sure what Geoff wants DDOT to do?

1. "There should be an employee who deals with contracts who can get the necessary work done." But Deutsch reports that they have been in contact with the vendor. "Getting the work done" is in their court and the only option if they don't respond to asking/demanding is a lawsuit. Is that what Geoff is asking for.

2."There's simply no rationale for not putting temporary lighting under the bridge." Escept that there is. And that's that resources, as he notes, are limited. Which bike program would Geoff like to fund less to provide temporary lights and maintain them?

And the headline is inexcusable Examiner-type stuff. DDOT in no way told cyclists they were on their own. They said they were aware of the problem and were working on it BUT public pressure might help move things faster. [Unsaid was that this is what moved SOL to perform the last round of repairs]. A far better headline would be "DDOT vendor unable to keep problematic lights working." Or "SOL sucks".

by David C on Dec 6, 2012 10:11 am • linkreport

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator pagespam