The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

[Anonymous]

I don’t disagree but those qualities aren’t assessed or required to get a drivers license or buy a car

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

What?

[Anonymous]

DC has relentlessly promoted bicycling for more than a decade and the number of cyclists is still a rounding error.

Maybe we should be using our transportation resources for modes of transportation people actually want to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

What?

"Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?"

Asking for clarification of that quote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC has relentlessly promoted bicycling for more than a decade and the number of cyclists is still a rounding error.

Maybe we should be using our transportation resources for modes of transportation people actually want to use.

Yeah, so sure you’d want 2 lanes removed for bus rapid transit. Stop lying. You have a pathological hatred of bikes, not a bona fide interest in transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

That's why they say they aren't out of the other side of their mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

Roads like Macomb already have substantial car traffic on them. People driving to WIS and John Eaton, or "cutting through" from CT to Wisconsin - there are already back ups at the lights at CT, 34th and Wisconsin. I am not sure what you are scared of, there are already people driving there in larger numbers than the roads were designed for. The changes proposed for CT Ave will not make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter or make it worse. It already happens.