Why Transportation Advocates Need to Pay Attention to Kenyan McDuffie’s Record

As Washington, DC heads into a pivotal mayoral election, transportation advocates, climate voters, transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists should take a close look at Mayoral Candidate Kenyan McDuffie’s public record on transportation and safe streets.

This election comes at a critical moment for the future of transportation policy in the District. Across DC, protected bike lanes, bus priority corridors, Vision Zero investments, and safer pedestrian infrastructure are increasingly under political attack. At the same time, residents continue demanding safer streets, more reliable transit, and transportation systems that work for everyone, not just drivers.

The question voters should ask is simple: when key transportation projects faced controversy, where did Kenyan McDuffie stand?

Opposition to the 9th Street Protected Bike Lane

One of the clearest examples is the long-running fight over the 9th Street NW protected bike lane, a project transportation planners identified as a critical north-south safety connection through downtown DC.

Yet when legislation was introduced in 2020 to move the stalled project forward, McDuffie publicly opposed the effort. McDuffie attempted to frame his opposition to protected bike lane infrastructure during the debate surrounding the 9th Street NW protected bike lane as an equity and displacement concern tied to the alleged loss of parking.

But the project proposals did not eliminate the adjacent parking lanes on 9th Street. The corridor ultimately retained parking while adding protected infrastructure intended to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians, transit users, and drivers alike.

For many advocates, the issue was not simply disagreement over street design, it was the use of racial equity language to cast doubt on a proven safety intervention without substantial evidence that the project itself would cause displacement.

That framing frustrated many safe streets organizers because transportation justice and racial equity are deeply interconnected in Washington, DC.

If McDuffie had fully engaged with the data surrounding traffic violence in the District, he would have seen a troubling reality: the majority of traffic violence victims in DC are people of color. Black residents in particular are disproportionately harmed and killed by dangerous street conditions, speeding, and unsafe roadway design.

Silence During the Fight for Safer 8th Street NE

Transportation advocates also point to McDuffie’s silence during one of Ward 5’s most contentious street safety fights: the redesign of 8th Street NE.

The project was intended to calm traffic and improve safety on a dangerous corridor that residents and advocates had spent years pushing to redesign. But as opposition intensified, the project came under political attack and was reportedly on the brink of collapse.

At that critical moment, advocates say the project could have benefited from strong public leadership from the Ward 5 councilmember. Instead, McDuffie largely remained silent as the debate unfolded, despite the project being located within the ward he represented.

As Greater Greater Washington later documented, the safer redesign proposal faced repeated setbacks and political pressure before eventually moving forward years later, after McDuffie had already left the Ward 5 seat. The project was ultimately installed after sustained public demand from residents and transportation advocates who continued organizing despite the opposition.

For many safe streets advocates, the lesson was clear: silence from elected leadership during politically difficult moments can function as opposition when transformative transportation projects need vocal public support to survive.

Opposition to the K Street Transitway

McDuffie has also taken aim at one of the city’s most ambitious bus infrastructure projects: the K Street Transitway.

The project was designed to create dedicated bus lanes, safer bike infrastructure, and improved transit reliability through one of the busiest downtown corridors in the city. Transit advocates viewed the project as a critical investment in moving people more efficiently through downtown DC and improving travel times for thousands of Metrobus riders every day.

But during a 2026 interview, McDuffie dismissed the project by stating:

“Nobody’s door I knocked on has asked about the K Street Transitway.”

That statement raised alarms among many transit and safe streets advocates because transformational transportation projects are not always the loudest issue at the doorstep but they are essential to the long-term safety, sustainability, and functionality of a growing city.

Organizations like the Washington Area Bicyclist Association supported the K Street Transitway because of its potential to improve bus reliability, create safer bicycle infrastructure, and reduce conflicts between road users in a heavily congested corridor.

Opposition to Automated Traffic Enforcement Without a Serious Alternative

McDuffie has also made opposition to DC’s automated traffic enforcement system a central political message, repeatedly describing traffic cameras as “predatory.”

Concerns about fairness and equity in ticketing deserve discussion. But what remains deeply concerning is that McDuffie has not proposed or led a serious alternative accountability framework for dangerous driving.

At a time when speeding continues to kill and seriously injure people across the District, weakening one of the city’s primary enforcement tools without presenting a replacement plan creates major public safety concerns.

Transportation advocates should ask: if not traffic cameras, then what?

There has been no detailed public plan outlining how a McDuffie administration would address speeding, reckless driving, red-light violations, or repeat dangerous drivers who threaten pedestrians, cyclists, bus riders, and children walking to school.

If leaders want to reform traffic enforcement, there are many serious policy pathways available:

• income-based fine reform,

• targeted enforcement against repeat offenders,

• expanded traffic calming,

• Intelligent Speed Assistance, 

• Strengthening our vehicle point system for vehicles with repeated high-speed driving,

• street redesigns,

• safer intersections,

• or protected infrastructure.

  
  

But simply attacking cameras as “predatory” while offering no replacement solution risks making streets more dangerous for everyone else.

A Consistent Pattern 

Transportation advocates have also raised concerns about McDuffie’s broader approach to street design and transportation planning.

In response to the Greater Greater Washington candidate questionnaire, McDuffie signaled opposition to removing any parking or travel lanes for protected bike infrastructure, despite the reality that many protected bike lanes cannot be built without reallocating some street space away from cars.

The concern is not about one isolated issue. It is about a broader governing philosophy:

• skepticism toward protected bike infrastructure,

• silence during major safe streets battles,

• opposition to major transitway investments,

• attacks on traffic enforcement,

• and reluctance to repurpose street space.

At a time when DC should be accelerating investments in transit, walking, biking, and street safety, many advocates fear this approach would move the city backward.

This Is a Pivotal Moment for DC’s Transportation Future

Transportation policy is not a niche issue. It is about public safety, climate resilience, affordability, accessibility, and quality of life.

Protected bike lanes save lives. Bus lanes make transit faster and more reliable for working residents. Traffic calming protects children walking to school. Walkable streets strengthen local businesses and create healthier neighborhoods. But these gains are not permanent.

A mayor appoints DDOT leadership, shapes transportation priorities, controls capital investments, and determines whether safe streets projects move forward, or stall indefinitely.

That is why bike advocates, transit riders, pedestrian safety supporters, climate advocates, and residents who care about safer streets cannot afford to disengage from this election.

DC residents spent years organizing, advocating, and fighting for the transportation progress the city has made so far. That progress was not inevitable.

And at this moment, advocates must decide whether the city continues moving toward safer, more connected, people-centered streets, or whether it risks returning to a transportation agenda centered primarily around protecting the status quo for drivers.