Election Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Connecticut from the MD line to Van Ness is literally not on top of any metro line. It's literally the only mass transit option for a whole lot of people whom you clearly think are disposable.

What are you talking about? I just said that the plan will make the unloading and loading better than today. Most of the study area is not the area that you just cited. Most of the study area is the area from Van Ness to Calvert. Numerous parties (including myself) have asked WMTA to reconsider the L1 and to keep the L2 going. The L1 was important to connect to Foggy bottom. That's a fools errand at this point. WMATA is focused on the rail issue presently. Out of this project it is entirely possible that we can get DDOT to put in a circulator that would run from ChChCircle down to Van Ness and back. Or maybe even all the way down to the green/yellow circulators that already exist.

Quit trying to preach at me from some moral high ground. You don't even ride a bus.

Or even better, let's do the Yellow and Blue so it can turn around at Dupont and loop up Mass/Wisc back to ChCh Circle. The purple route! https://imgur.com/a/iIE4swy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Connecticut from the MD line to Van Ness is literally not on top of any metro line. It's literally the only mass transit option for a whole lot of people whom you clearly think are disposable.

What are you talking about? I just said that the plan will make the unloading and loading better than today. Most of the study area is not the area that you just cited. Most of the study area is the area from Van Ness to Calvert. Numerous parties (including myself) have asked WMTA to reconsider the L1 and to keep the L2 going. The L1 was important to connect to Foggy bottom. That's a fools errand at this point. WMATA is focused on the rail issue presently. Out of this project it is entirely possible that we can get DDOT to put in a circulator that would run from ChChCircle down to Van Ness and back. Or maybe even all the way down to the green/yellow circulators that already exist.

Quit trying to preach at me from some moral high ground. You don't even ride a bus.

I ride the L2 every weekday. Can't wait to cross a lane of bike traffic to board it in a few years.

*Raised pedestrian crossing

FTFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Connecticut from the MD line to Van Ness is literally not on top of any metro line. It's literally the only mass transit option for a whole lot of people whom you clearly think are disposable.

What are you talking about? I just said that the plan will make the unloading and loading better than today. Most of the study area is not the area that you just cited. Most of the study area is the area from Van Ness to Calvert. Numerous parties (including myself) have asked WMTA to reconsider the L1 and to keep the L2 going. The L1 was important to connect to Foggy bottom. That's a fools errand at this point. WMATA is focused on the rail issue presently. Out of this project it is entirely possible that we can get DDOT to put in a circulator that would run from ChChCircle down to Van Ness and back. Or maybe even all the way down to the green/yellow circulators that already exist.

Quit trying to preach at me from some moral high ground. You don't even ride a bus.

Or even better, let's do the Yellow and Blue so it can turn around at Dupont and loop up Mass/Wisc back to ChCh Circle. The purple route! https://imgur.com/a/iIE4swy

Please point me to the part of the plan where DDOT will add annual millions to the plan for a Circulator in that area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

Maybe some people opposing bike lanes on CT Ave are concerned about thousands more cars speeding up the neighborhood side streets, streets even less equipped to serve as major arteries for MD commuters, as they are intentionally diverted from CT Ave to smaller residential streets on a daily basis. There won’t be fewer cars. They’ll just be speeding on different streets. Does that cross the minds of the bike lane advocates and neighborhood reps giving the finger, or laughing as colleagues give the finger, to a local business and their constituents who have a different view on the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bike Lane mafia is not doing so great in Ward 3. Maybe time for a real conversation?

?

All of the ANC's will still be pro-bike lane.
Frumin out-polled Cheh and is pro-bike lane.

IOW, bike lanes are happening.

Nope, but thanks for playing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

During rush hour, 3 lanes of car traffic will become two lanes of car traffic. Buses travel in those lanes. It's not rocket science to know that the L2 will be significantly slowed by this.

I don't own a car. I ride the L2 every weekday. But please, inform me further how I'm "entitled" because I don't want my commute to get worse.

If you are unable or unwilling to travel by bicycle you, there are many other parts of the city that has express bus service. You may feel more comfortable there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

Maybe some people opposing bike lanes on CT Ave are concerned about thousands more cars speeding up the neighborhood side streets, streets even less equipped to serve as major arteries for MD commuters, as they are intentionally diverted from CT Ave to smaller residential streets on a daily basis. There won’t be fewer cars. They’ll just be speeding on different streets. Does that cross the minds of the bike lane advocates and neighborhood reps giving the finger, or laughing as colleagues give the finger, to a local business and their constituents who have a different view on the issue?

If there are actually thousands of cars, they won't be speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bike Lane mafia is not doing so great in Ward 3. Maybe time for a real conversation?

?

All of the ANC's will still be pro-bike lane.
Frumin out-polled Cheh and is pro-bike lane.

IOW, bike lanes are happening.

Nope, but thanks for playing!

How are you planning on reversing the decision that has already been made and affirmed by an election that took place just last week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

During rush hour, 3 lanes of car traffic will become two lanes of car traffic. Buses travel in those lanes. It's not rocket science to know that the L2 will be significantly slowed by this.

I don't own a car. I ride the L2 every weekday. But please, inform me further how I'm "entitled" because I don't want my commute to get worse.

If you are unable or unwilling to travel by bicycle you, there are many other parts of the city that has express bus service. You may feel more comfortable there.

"If you don't like it, move" is such a mature argument, sure to win over so many people who might be on the fence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

During rush hour, 3 lanes of car traffic will become two lanes of car traffic. Buses travel in those lanes. It's not rocket science to know that the L2 will be significantly slowed by this.

I don't own a car. I ride the L2 every weekday. But please, inform me further how I'm "entitled" because I don't want my commute to get worse.

If you are unable or unwilling to travel by bicycle you, there are many other parts of the city that has express bus service. You may feel more comfortable there.

"If you don't like it, move" is such a mature argument, sure to win over so many people who might be on the fence.

So fighting for the failing auto-centric transportation paradigm of the last century is the winning solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

During rush hour, 3 lanes of car traffic will become two lanes of car traffic. Buses travel in those lanes. It's not rocket science to know that the L2 will be significantly slowed by this.

I don't own a car. I ride the L2 every weekday. But please, inform me further how I'm "entitled" because I don't want my commute to get worse.

If you are unable or unwilling to travel by bicycle you, there are many other parts of the city that has express bus service. You may feel more comfortable there.

"If you don't like it, move" is such a mature argument, sure to win over so many people who might be on the fence.

Maturity has nothing to do with it. We need aggressive action to fight climate change. Once commuters adjust to the new Connecticut Ave with bike lanes then a logical next step is a dedicated bus lane. But that comes next under our plan, NOT first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

During rush hour, 3 lanes of car traffic will become two lanes of car traffic. Buses travel in those lanes. It's not rocket science to know that the L2 will be significantly slowed by this.

I don't own a car. I ride the L2 every weekday. But please, inform me further how I'm "entitled" because I don't want my commute to get worse.

They won't be pulling in and out and around cars. That is a huge positive difference. Sorry you don't comprehend why. Maybe if you ever rode a bus, you would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Connecticut from the MD line to Van Ness is literally not on top of any metro line. It's literally the only mass transit option for a whole lot of people whom you clearly think are disposable.

What are you talking about? I just said that the plan will make the unloading and loading better than today. Most of the study area is not the area that you just cited. Most of the study area is the area from Van Ness to Calvert. Numerous parties (including myself) have asked WMTA to reconsider the L1 and to keep the L2 going. The L1 was important to connect to Foggy bottom. That's a fools errand at this point. WMATA is focused on the rail issue presently. Out of this project it is entirely possible that we can get DDOT to put in a circulator that would run from ChChCircle down to Van Ness and back. Or maybe even all the way down to the green/yellow circulators that already exist.

Quit trying to preach at me from some moral high ground. You don't even ride a bus.

I ride the L2 every weekday. Can't wait to cross a lane of bike traffic to board it in a few years.

Well, since no one will be riding bikes on the bike lanes, it won't be an issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

That isn't what option C, the ones the ANCs, Mayor and Councilmember all already supported. You aren't getting this....the decision has already been made. There will be bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

It appears that the I’ll timed picture of the ANC reps attacking a local small business has increased awareness of this proposal. Stay tuned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

That isn't what option C, the ones the ANCs, Mayor and Councilmember all already supported. You aren't getting this....the decision has already been made. There will be bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

It appears that the I’ll timed picture of the ANC reps attacking a local small business has increased awareness of this proposal. Stay tuned.

I can’t believe someone hasn’t started a thread about it.