The main emphasis needs to be on the major crosstown roads (like Connecticut Ave) that allow you to ride from A to B most directly -- these are the direct, through roads that are typically graded with gentle slopes (dating back to streetcar and even horse wagon days), like Connecticut. In theory they're the most ideal for cycling.

But these are the very roads where people are afraid to ride, because vehicle speed differentials and volumes are higher, and it's scary. So they're where bike lanes are most essential, where people can't and don't ride bikes today. Every now and then I'll suck it up and chance a half-mile on Rhode Island, Mass, Benning, South Dakota, Michigan because I need to get somewhere and don't have an extra 20 minutes to backtrack through random neighborhoods and maybe get lost, but it's no fun and not a risk I'm going to run regularly. But most people wouldn't be caught dead on any of those.

To really reap the reward of getting substantially more people riding for transportation, the city should refocus on getting the major network done first. Where I live I have got north/south bike lanes on 17th, 15th, 14th, 11th and now 9th -- and I ride 13th a lot too, which is fine without bike lanes. Along with east/west lanes on already slow streets like Q, R, T, V, W. That's great and I appreciate it, but I'd trade any 2 or 3 of those to get any of Connecticut (done!), Rhode Island, NH, Florida, or NY Aves.

Planners should keep in mind that drivers who only need to move their right foot an inch to accelerate to 25 aren't really affected by hills, slight detours, stop controls at ever intersection. But on a bike, a direct route, steady climb/descent, and green lights are so much better, and are what will see this new infrastructure really get used by everyone and justify its construction. Even the drivers complaining will get an ebike and ride it in on nice days when major commute roads like Mass, RI, Bladensburg, Benning are straight shots.