So after the meeting I spoke with DDOT staff. Building the trail to the south of the railroad is problematic because, allegedly, NSA has a facility between the river and the I395 ramp. They are fine with a railroad but draw the line at a 10 foot path. I think your step 1 is the way they will go as there's a cut through parking lot between NSA and NPS facilities to the trail to the Case. That said, it the point of the bridge is to connect the District to Virginia, this does a sucky job of it. My fear is that they build this thing and it will be seen a a boondoggle as few will use it because they don't know how to get to it or they have to go so far out of the way to use it that it becomes impractical.

By displacement, I'm refering to its place in the community, it's relevance. This seems to make certain churches less open and more resistant to changes that seem fairly unobtrusive. The conversation may go on for years, that doesn't mean the construction stops. DDOT, as we all know, is not the best communicator. DDOT has a history of being tone deft, using a hammer at times when they need a violin. The dialogue needs to happen informally, over time, with people who live there and use the street regularly. WABA, the ANC, BAC, other churches, can all be part of the conversation. Collectively, we waste a lot of energy fighting people's fear of change. It hardens people's positions and they use that resentment for the next protected lane - and the next. I'm suggesting is that we build along 6th street using innovative methods: paint, HAWK crossings, integrated sidewalks, traffic calming, enforcement - until we get to a unified state. It may take 10 years but incrimentally, we can achieve a better outcome. Sorry for the typos, doing this on a phone...

I think we a cyclists exert too much energy arguing for every block. I'd rather have some protection for most of my ride and deal with obstacles or sharrows as they come. I disagree with the church's position but I get why they feel threatened. As others have said, they feel displacement on their heels and that the area that supported them for years is changing, making them less relevant. What should happen is that there should be a dialog. That doesn't mean we stop building bike infrastructure but I'll take an unprotected lane over nothing everyday of the week, and twice on Sundays. This dialog should be between the residents most near the lanes, the church, and cyclists. I really want to know how the residents feel, their opinions are worth a little more to me. If they are in favor of lanes, it weakens the churches argument. If the the church understands that protected lanes are actually a benefit and potentially protects parishioners by reducing travel speeds of cars, perhaps they can evolve from their current stance. We just need one minister who's a bicyclist to step up and mediate.

Ugh, don't get hit by lightening, please. Picture of the "odd" bike lane at Hamilton Street? http://dcbac.blogspot.com/2013/04/picture-this-new-traffic-signal.html

It's even more nuanced than that with regard to DC road improvements. When NPS initially said that DC could consult with NPS and CFA in an advisory capacity, they were actually talking about NPS' relationship with CPA. While DC has jurisdiction over the street, NPS implied that the CFA legislation may apply differently to the DC, that's why it's "illegal" for DC to make improvements without CFA approval. Further more, NPS eventually stated while CFA theoretically only has "advise and consent" powers, NPS almost never proceeds without CFA's approval.