Are bikes allowed to go through red lights on major roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Black and Brown people tend to have lower incomes, so they can't afford a car, so they take the bus, or bike, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

You can add bike lanes by taking away some parking, because bike lanes are narrower than car lanes. You can only add bus lanes by taking away car lanes. Do you really think the reason the CT Ave plan only includes bike lanes is because of the bike lanes? Or could there be some other car-shaped reason?

"Some other car-shaped reason?" haha.

FWIW, I decided yesterday to cut across the city on H st and used the bus/bike lanes which were fine except that there were cars driving in them. But I also noticed that those bus lanes there are HUGE - easily probably a lane and a half in size (like 15 ft). On my way back west, I went north and hit 16th street around Park to Columbia to see up there and their bike lanes were smaller closer to regular lane size.

I'll just reiterate that as a cyclist, a bus lane on either size for the outside lane, that has protection during the mid-block to KEEP CARS OUT 24/7, would be fine by me. Nice and roomy lane. An even better would be the PA ave configuration (protected bike lane at curb, bus lane next - with travel restrcited to just buses during rush hours and allowing for parking), but not sure that would fit on Conn Ave. PA Ave looks to me like its about half again larger than Conn Ave is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

You can add bike lanes by taking away some parking, because bike lanes are narrower than car lanes. You can only add bus lanes by taking away car lanes. Do you really think the reason the CT Ave plan only includes bike lanes is because of the bike lanes? Or could there be some other car-shaped reason?

"Some other car-shaped reason?" haha.

FWIW, I decided yesterday to cut across the city on H st and used the bus/bike lanes which were fine except that there were cars driving in them. But I also noticed that those bus lanes there are HUGE - easily probably a lane and a half in size (like 15 ft). On my way back west, I went north and hit 16th street around Park to Columbia to see up there and their bike lanes were smaller closer to regular lane size.

I'll just reiterate that as a cyclist, a bus lane on either size for the outside lane, that has protection during the mid-block to KEEP CARS OUT 24/7, would be fine by me. Nice and roomy lane. An even better would be the PA ave configuration (protected bike lane at curb, bus lane next - with travel restrcited to just buses during rush hours and allowing for parking), but not sure that would fit on Conn Ave. PA Ave looks to me like its about half again larger than Conn Ave is.

PP from above, "On my way back west, I went north and hit 16th street around Park to Columbia to see up there and their bike lanes were smaller closer to regular lane size." meant their bus lane not bike lane on 16th street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Name two examples.

The only reason why it would ever be bus lanes OR bike lanes, instead of bus lanes AND bike lanes, is if you're trying to preserve general-travel (car) lanes or (car) parking.

Connecticut Avenue (where the plan is to add bike lanes, but not bus lanes) was brought up in the first post of the bus discussion, and multiple times in the discussion that followed. The fact that you're trying to ignore it just underscores how difficult the decision is to defend.

You can add bike lanes by taking away some parking, because bike lanes are narrower than car lanes. You can only add bus lanes by taking away car lanes. Do you really think the reason the CT Ave plan only includes bike lanes is because of the bike lanes? Or could there be some other car-shaped reason?

"Some other car-shaped reason?" haha.

FWIW, I decided yesterday to cut across the city on H st and used the bus/bike lanes which were fine except that there were cars driving in them. But I also noticed that those bus lanes there are HUGE - easily probably a lane and a half in size (like 15 ft). On my way back west, I went north and hit 16th street around Park to Columbia to see up there and their bike lanes were smaller closer to regular lane size.

I'll just reiterate that as a cyclist, a bus lane on either size for the outside lane, that has protection during the mid-block to KEEP CARS OUT 24/7, would be fine by me. Nice and roomy lane. An even better would be the PA ave configuration (protected bike lane at curb, bus lane next - with travel restrcited to just buses during rush hours and allowing for parking), but not sure that would fit on Conn Ave. PA Ave looks to me like its about half again larger than Conn Ave is.

Yes, despite the what-about games that one PP is clearly playing, I'm sure everyone who wants the bike lanes on Connecticut would be very happy if there were bus lanes instead, that bikes were allowed to ride in. But if people think the BIKE lanes have been controversial, wait to see the reaction if the city proposes banning cars to make room for buses...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Cycling is the whitest thing ever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Cycling is the whitest thing ever

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/fatal-germantown-bike-crash-other-cars-may-have-left-scene/65-f2661a4a-1e27-403b-a9d0-c520c1bc66bb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:fwiw I don’t believe bus lanes are condidered good fits for every road anyway. there needs to be a certain density of buses. if you’re trying to claim the absence of a bus lane in the Ct Ave plan somehow demonstrates a priority of biked over buses - that’s just absurd. There are many bus improvements in the plan.

Cyclists think it's "absurd" to want an actual bus lane and just "many bus improvements" (but no lane). None of the cyclists who claim they really, truly support bus lanes took any issue with this either.

Yes, poor people take the bus or bike. Except we have the actual numbers a few pages back, and they actually overwhelmingly take the bus. Not sure why cyclists keep trying to speak for bus riders, and then attack bus riders when they speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Cycling is the whitest thing ever

Going to farmers markets, swimming at country clubs and watching the World Cup are close behind

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Cycling is the whitest thing ever

Knowing what is best for poor people they won’t associate with is also very high on the list

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Cycling is the whitest thing ever

Going to farmers markets, swimming at country clubs and watching the World Cup are close behind

Ah yes, the World Cup, known worldwide for being a thing for white people only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:fwiw I don’t believe bus lanes are condidered good fits for every road anyway. there needs to be a certain density of buses. if you’re trying to claim the absence of a bus lane in the Ct Ave plan somehow demonstrates a priority of biked over buses - that’s just absurd. There are many bus improvements in the plan.

Cyclists think it's "absurd" to want an actual bus lane and just "many bus improvements" (but no lane). None of the cyclists who claim they really, truly support bus lanes took any issue with this either.

Yes, poor people take the bus or bike. Except we have the actual numbers a few pages back, and they actually overwhelmingly take the bus. Not sure why cyclists keep trying to speak for bus riders, and then attack bus riders when they speak for themselves.

You seem perfectly comfortable speaking for cyclists, as you’re chastising them for speaking for bus riders.

As a cyclist who also often rides the bus and the subway and never drives to work, let me endorse wholeheartedly your plan to put bus lanes on Connecticut Avenue. Turn the whole road into a bus boulevard while you’re at it. Bikes are allowed in bus lanes in D.C., so I don’t understand why you think there’s any actual conflict between bus lanes and bike lanes. Please do put more bus lanes all over the city!

It is not cyclists who would stand in the way of putting bus lanes on Connecticut. It is drivers. It’s also not cyclists’ fault that the current plan doesn’t include bus lanes. The city designed it, not a bunch of random bike riders on an anonymous message board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:fwiw I don’t believe bus lanes are condidered good fits for every road anyway. there needs to be a certain density of buses. if you’re trying to claim the absence of a bus lane in the Ct Ave plan somehow demonstrates a priority of biked over buses - that’s just absurd. There are many bus improvements in the plan.

Cyclists think it's "absurd" to want an actual bus lane and just "many bus improvements" (but no lane). None of the cyclists who claim they really, truly support bus lanes took any issue with this either.

Yes, poor people take the bus or bike. Except we have the actual numbers a few pages back, and they actually overwhelmingly take the bus. Not sure why cyclists keep trying to speak for bus riders, and then attack bus riders when they speak for themselves.

The "actual numbers" are Census data from 2015, about the primary mode (choose only one) that people used for one category of trip: the trip to work.

There's no reason we can't have bus lanes AND bike lanes. There's plenty of room on all of the major roads in DC for both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is pretty great you guys.

ANGRY POSTER 1: CYCLISTS GO SO SLOW AND CLOG UP TRAFFIC1!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 2: CYCLISTS BLOW THROUGH RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS AND I NEVER SEE THEM COMING!!!!111ONEONE
ANGRY POSTER 3: BIKES ARE PLAY TOYS AND ARE TOO SLOW TO BE ON THE STREET
ANGRY POSTER 4: CYCLIST MOVE UNPREDICTABLY AND TOO QUICKLY FOR ME TO REACT IN MY MOTOR VEHICLE

You all must be big fans of string theory. Schrodinger's cyclist says hi.

Don’t forget that old saw about how cyclists are more likely to be white, more likely to have higher incomes and more likely to live within biking distance of their jobs so closing roads like Beach to cars benefits them and disproportionately hurts black and brown people who drive because they’re commuting from much greater distances.

Oh wait…that one’s true isn’t it? Sorry teachers, cops and other government employees. Maybe you could save up and buy a place much closer in, near the cyclists?

Yet another trope. People who bike must be wealthy because *bikes* are so expensive! Yeah, I wonder why all those teachers, cops, and other public service providers have to move out to the suburbs. Probably could afford a place in Ward 3 or 4 if your NIMBY ass didn't keep clutching onto SF-Zoning and litigating into damnation every development there is.

All the available research shows cyclists in DC are overwhelmingly white and that drivers are disproportionately black and brown. So, yeah, closing roads to cars benefits a tiny number of white cyclists at the expense of a far larger number of nonwhite people. Yet another white privilege.

White people tend to have higher incomes so they can afford to live within biking distance of their jobs.

Cycling is the whitest thing ever

If all you do is drive around Ward 3 and the western part of Ward 4 then I guess I can see what you are saying. But if you actually ventured out to like.. the Anacostia River Trail or the rest of the wards across the river, you'd see plenty of POC on bikes doing normal bike things like exercising on the weekend or cruising around for errands...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:fwiw I don’t believe bus lanes are condidered good fits for every road anyway. there needs to be a certain density of buses. if you’re trying to claim the absence of a bus lane in the Ct Ave plan somehow demonstrates a priority of biked over buses - that’s just absurd. There are many bus improvements in the plan.

Cyclists think it's "absurd" to want an actual bus lane and just "many bus improvements" (but no lane). None of the cyclists who claim they really, truly support bus lanes took any issue with this either.

Yes, poor people take the bus or bike. Except we have the actual numbers a few pages back, and they actually overwhelmingly take the bus. Not sure why cyclists keep trying to speak for bus riders, and then attack bus riders when they speak for themselves.

Practice your reading comprehension. The person you are quoting above isn't saying that wanting a bus lane is absurd, they are saying that YOUR CLAIM of the fact there is not a bus lane means that DDOT did bike lanes in lieu of a bus lane is absurd. And indeed, DDOT said as much multiple times where they came out and said "Conn Ave isn't a bus priority area" because it literally sits on top of a 3 metro stations in the study area.

Now, as others have said in this thread, that to me isn't *super* convincing because (a) ChCh circle has a bus depot and (b) ChCh circle to Van Ness has nothing but buses and no metro (unless you consider a 20 minute walk to either Tenley or Friendship Heights, but I don't). So, this cyclist, would totally prefer for DDOT to do what they just did with PA Ave and lay down both a bus and cycling thing in some way on Conn Ave. But doing so would cost you more parking, so i think you're really the one who would balk at that.