I moved to DC in 2017, and was surprised that when I did, all I needed to do to get a DC driver’s license was to fill out a form and a check. It’s possible in that brief time at the DMV that they checked my Pennsylvania driver record electronically, but they certainly didn’t do anything to make sure I knew the laws that are different here.

And then they gave me a card that was good for over 7 years. In 2024, when that first DC license finally expired, I had to do even less to renew it—I didn’t even get a new photo, much less asked if I knew anything about DC traffic law. A lot has changed in the last eight years—for example, the default speed limit when there are no signs was lowered from 25 mph to 20. DDOT and other agencies could certainly be doing more to advertise these changes¹, but we should also be doing more to check in with our drivers and ensure the people we allow to operate multi-ton machines in our environment actually know the rules for doing so.

I would suggest that we start by testing drivers new to the District on the laws that may be different here from other states, perhaps especially those which relate to interaction with non-drivers, such as how much space do you need to leave when passing a person on a bike, when do you need to stop when someone is trying to walk across the street, or how close to an intersection can you park your car. But over the next several years, we should also start testing current DC drivers on, especially, the laws that have changed since they got their license or last renewed it. It’s not unreasonable for people to wonder what’s the point of changing the law or how we can enforce it if we don’t do much to make sure people know what the law is.

@online{swiderski2025,
  author = {Swiderski, J. I.},
  title = {Testimony to {DC} {Council,} {Committee} on {Transportation}
    and the {Environment,} {Department} of {Motor} {Vehicles}
    {Performance} {Hearing}},
  date = {2025-02-10},
  url = {https://jski.net/testimonies/2025-02-DMV_testimony.html},
  langid = {en}
}

Chair Mendelson et al.,

I am writing as a Ward 1 resident—and, particularly, as a resident of the U Street corridor less than a block away from Engine 9/MPD District 3—to say again that I strongly support increasing the FLUM density designations on the public sites in the corridor, including the Engine 9/D3 site, Garnet-Patterson School, and the Housing Finance Agency HQ site.

DC desperately needs more housing, and DC especially desperately needs more affordable housing.  Public sites provide our greatest opportunity not only to build more housing, but to ensure that as much as possible of the housing that gets built is affordable.   As I wrote in my previous testimony on the Comp Plan bill B23-736 in December, I support higher density designations for most of Ward 1, and I strongly support CM Nadeau’s amendment to increase the FLUM designations for the public sites in the U Street Corridor.

Again, as the National Capital Region continues to grow, not only does DC as the core of the region need most of the people moving here to actually locate within the District for economic and tax reasons, we need most of the people moving here to live as close as manageable to work, their groceries and shopping areas, and so forth for climate reasons.  We are in an emergency, the world is burning, and we cannot keep driving hour after hour, day after day to work and school and errands and home again.  As our traffic violence statistics spiral out of control—as of May 1st, we’re on track to lose 48 people on DC streets this year, the most since Adrian Fenty’s first year as Mayor a decade and a half ago—they again reinforce the critical need to reduce DC’s reliance on private automobiles and enable people to live where they do not feel the need to use or even own cars.  Sites like these, which are close to schools, grocery stores and shopping areas, and high-frequency, high-capacity transit lines, are especially critical to make accessible to as many potential future residents as possible.  Please enable this accessibility and allow more density, especially on the public sites in the U Street Corridor.

Thank you,

@online{swiderski2021,
  author = {Swiderski, J. I.},
  title = {Supporting Increased Density on {U} {Street} {NW}},
  date = {2021-05-03},
  url = {https://jski.net/testimonies/supporting-increased-density-on-u-street-nw.html},
  langid = {en}
}

Written testimony submitted to the DC Council Performance Oversight hearing for the Office of Unified Communications, the DC Government agency that includes the 3-1-1 and 9-1-1 centers.

@online{swiderski2021,
  author = {Swiderski, J. I.},
  title = {Testimony to {DC} {Council} on {OUC} {Performance,} {Mar.}
    18, 2021},
  date = {2021-03-19},
  url = {https://jski.net/testimonies/testimony-ouc-performance.html},
  langid = {en}
}

As you can read elsewhere, today was the deadline for submitting testimony to DC Council on the pending five-year update—which has itself taken nearly five years—to the DC Comprehensive Plan. With thanks especially to Alex Baca, and a little boost from Josh Kramer’s Comp Plan Mad Libs, my submission:

I am writing to submit my comment, as a resident of Ward 1, on the Comp Plan proposals currently before the Council. 

In general, I support the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and suggest that Council:

• Pass Office of Planning’s amendments, intact, as soon as possible
• Support other amendments as long as they increase, not suppress, the construction of more housing citywide and especially in affluent neighborhoods; as long as amendments that further “upflum” are either maintained or expanded; and as long as they do not uphold the “protect” and “conserve” language prevalent in the 2006 land use element
• Add language to the bill text that creates better Comp Plan procedures and encourages OP to begin to rewrite the 2006 plan by 2022

With regard to the first and third points, I am particularly disappointed that this process has taken so long, and will continue to.  I truly believe it should not take five years to write and pass a five-year update to the plan, and I hope (a) that this can be wrapped up before Council moves on to performance-oversight and the budget and and and … (b) that the process can be improved for next time, so that the next long-term plan doesn’t take a long term just to write and pass.

I support as much density as can feasibly be added to the Future Land Use Map, particularly on publicly owned sites. For example, just within four blocks of my home at the bottom of Adams Morgan, there are enormous opportunities coming with the redevelopment of the Reeves Center and the U Street Fire/V Street police stations to add as much truly-affordable, subsidized, below-market-rate housing as possible, because these sites are publicly owned. But 2000 14th Street’s current FLUM designation (PDF) is medium-density residential/commercial, and 1617 U Street & 1620 V Street are designated for moderate-density residential development.

I think a high-density designation is appropriate not just for publicly-owned-space redevelopment projects at 14th & U and 17th & U streets, but for lots of places within Ward 1 (and other parts of the city, but, well, Ward 1 is where I live). As you will have heard from my friend Alex Baca and I’m sure many others, a great many of the buildings in which our neighbors live across Ward 1—the buildings which define many of our neighborhoods—could not be built under current regulations. 

But even more than that, I believe that detached single-family housing, especially the large lots surrounded by grass which typify my former neighborhood on upper 16th St NW and much of Upper Northwest, are damaging to our environment and to our community.  Despite the temporary effects of the coronavirus, I believe the draw of the National Capital Region as a whole is not going to lessen in the near future. Not only do we as the core of that region need most of the people moving here to actually locate within the District for economic and tax reasons, we need most of the people moving here to live as close as manageable to work, their groceries and shopping areas, and so forth for climate reasons.  We are in an emergency, the world is burning, and we cannot keep driving hour after hour, day after day to work and school and errands and home again.  

Rowhomes (R-3) should be our least-dense new construction going forward, and most parts of the District, especially here in Ward 1, should be significantly denser than that—and mixed-use to boot, so people can walk to the store.  I therefore heartily endorse Alex’s suggestion that, to encourage more “missing middle”/“gentle density”/four-to-seven-story buildings in Ward 1, DC should change moderate-density residential designations to medium-density residential, at least, and high-density where it makes sense.

I said before that I believe the region will continue to be a draw for people moving from elsewhere — I also believe that the District, and especially the inner parts of the District, including my own Adams Morgan, will continue to be a draw for people moving into and within the region.  Even if we do not build more housing, people will continue moving into the District.  But unless we build more housing, basic economics suggests the prices of what housing we do have will continue to rise and push out lower-income individuals.
I want to live in a racially and economically integrated city.  I believe I am better for living in an integrated city where people who want to live can afford to do so.  If I have kids, I believe they will be better for growing up in such a city.  Creating such a city requires more density, so that there can be more housing, so that more housing is available at a variety of price points.

Thank you,

@online{swiderski2020,
  author = {Swiderski, J. I.},
  title = {On the {DC} {Comprehensive} {Plan} {Update}},
  date = {2020-12-03},
  url = {https://jski.net/testimonies/on-the-comp-plan-update.html},
  langid = {en}
}

CM Nadeau, Chair Mendelson, et al.,

I am writing to submit my comment, as a resident of Ward 1, on the Comp Plan proposals currently before the Council.

In general, I support the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and suggest that Council:

• Pass Office of Planning’s amendments, intact, as soon as possible
• Support other amendments as long as they increase, not suppress, the construction of more housing citywide and especially in affluent neighborhoods; as long as amendments that further “upflum” are either maintained or expanded; and as long as they do not uphold the “protect” and “conserve” language prevalent in the 2006 land use element
• Add language to the bill text that creates better Comp Plan procedures and encourages OP to begin to rewrite the 2006 plan by 2022

With regard to the first and third points, I am particularly disappointed that this process has taken so long, and will continue to. I truly believe it should not take five years to write and pass a five-year update to the plan, and I hope (a) that this can be wrapped up before Council moves on to performance-oversight and the budget and and and … (b) that the process can be improved for next time, so that the next long-term plan doesn’t take a long term just to write and pass.

I support as much density as can feasibly be added to the Future Land Use Map, particularly on publicly owned sites. For example, just within four blocks of my home at the bottom of Adams Morgan, there are enormous opportunities coming with the redevelopment of the Reeves Center and the U Street Fire/V Street police stations to add as much truly-affordable, subsidized, below-market-rate housing as possible, because these sites are publicly owned. But 2000 14th Street’s current FLUM designation is medium-density residential/commercial, and 1617 U Street & 1620 V Street are designated for moderate-density mixed-use development.

I think a high-density designation is appropriate not just for publicly-owned-space redevelopment projects at 14th & U and 17th & U streets, but for lots of places within Ward 1 (and other parts of the city, but, well, Ward 1 is where I live). As you will have heard from my friend Alex Baca and I’m sure many others, a great many of the buildings in which our neighbors live across Ward 1—the buildings which define many of our neighborhoods—could not be built under current regulations.

But even more than that, I believe that detached single-family housing, especially the large lots surrounded by grass which typify my former neighborhood on upper 16th St NW and much of Upper Northwest, are damaging to our environment and to our community. Despite the temporary effects of the coronavirus, I believe the draw of the National Capital Region as a whole is not going to lessen in the near future. Not only do we as the core of that region need most of the people moving here to actually locate within the District for economic and tax reasons, we need most of the people moving here to live as close as manageable to work, their groceries and shopping areas, and so forth for climate reasons. We are in an emergency, the world is burning, and we cannot keep driving hour after hour, day after day to work and school and errands and home again.

Rowhomes (R-3) should be our least-dense new construction going forward, and most parts of the District, especially here in Ward 1, should be significantly denser than that—and mixed-use to boot, so people can walk to the store. I therefore heartily endorse Alex’s suggestion that, to encourage more “missing middle”/“gentle density”/four-to-seven-story buildings in Ward 1, DC should change moderate-density residential designations to medium-density residential, at least, and high-density where it makes sense.

I said before that I believe the region will continue to be a draw for people moving from elsewhere — I also believe that the District, and especially the inner parts of the District, including my own Adams Morgan, will continue to be a draw for people moving into and within the region. Even if we do not build more housing, people will continue moving into the District. But unless we build more housing, basic economics suggests the prices of what housing we do have will continue to rise and push out lower-income individuals.

I want to live in a racially and economically integrated city. I believe I am better for living in an integrated city where people who want to live can afford to do so. If I have kids, I believe they will be better for growing up in such a city. Creating such a city requires more density, so that there can be more housing, so that more housing is available at a variety of price points.

Thank you,

@online{swiderski2020,
  author = {Swiderski, J. I.},
  title = {Testimony to {DC} {Council} on {B23-736,} the
    “{Comprehensive} {Plan} {Amendment} {Act} of 2020.”},
  date = {2020-12-03},
  url = {https://jski.net/testimonies/comp-plan.html},
  langid = {en}
}

Testimony for the Council of DC
Committee on Transportation & the Environment
Legislative Hearing on 2019 Vision Zero Road Safety Legislation

October 24, 2019

Councilmember Cheh and Members of the Committee,

I am a resident of Ward 1, ANC 1C08, and a student in the Master of Urban and Regional Planning program at Virginia Tech in Ballston, and for the record, I use they/them pronouns. I am here in support generally of the bills on the agenda today, and in particular I want to speak to the Mandatory Protected Cycling Lane Amendment Act and the Vision Zero Enhancement Omnibus Amendment Act.

Last spring, I along with four other students did a study on e-scooter use and reactions in Rosslyn, just across the river in Arlington.¹ Among the other results from the study, I want to call this committee’s attention in particular to the questions of where scooter users ride and where they would prefer to ride.

66% of survey respondents who ride e-scooters said they ride on the sidewalk “sometimes”, “often”, or “always”—only 6% said they “never” do.  However, when e-scooter users were asked where they would prefer to ride if they had the choice, sidewalks were ranked fourth out of five options, only ahead of riding in the street in lanes shared with cars.  Scooter users don’t want to ride on sidewalks, they do it because they don’t feel safe in the street.

It is clear: the way to get scooter riders off the sidewalk is to provide them more safe places to ride. In fact, in response to another question, several respondents indicated that they would ride more if they had safer places to ride, and several more folks who don’t ride currently said they would if they could do so safely.

The District’s own experience on 15th St NW has shown providing protected bike lanes nearly solves the problem of people riding bikes on the sidewalks.  The way to solve the problem of people riding e-scooters on sidewalks is the same: build more protected lanes. We need more protected lanes, faster; current processes clearly aren’t enough.  I strongly encourage this Council to do everything within your power to get DDOT to build more protected lanes, including but not limited to passing the Mandatory Protected Lane Act.

On the Vision Zero Enhancement Omnibus Amendment Act, I want to speak particularly to the requirement for contractors to restore roadway markings within 24 hours.  I strongly support this provision, but I also want to make sure that it is enforced not only on private construction and utility companies, but also on the District’s own agencies.  As we know from the Safe Accommodations policy passed by this body several years ago, DDOT often is not willing to make its own contractors abide by requirements to keep people safe while walking and biking past District projects.  I therefore strongly urge this Council to make sure that this policy applies not only to private companies’ work in the streets, but to work done by and on behalf of District agencies as well.

Finally, I want to close with a note about DPW’s enforcement of parking restrictions in the District, and in particular which ones. Since I’m sure many people today will testify to the need for DPW to increase parking enforcement, I’d also like to point out: enforcement is a last resort.  We cannot simply enforce our way to safe streets.  However, in the short term, before we’re able to build safer, calmer places to walk, bike, and drive, I will say this:  Others have noted that the majority of the Parking Enforcement team’s time seems to be spent on neighborhood permit checks. If a person has parked inappropriately in a permit-regulated area, someone else may have a hard time parking their own vehicle when they get home—if a person has parked inappropriately in a bike lane, someone else may not get home at all.  Bike lane parking is not a mere matter of convenience, an annoying issue to be dodged and avoided like a pothole²—this is a life safety issue, and it is time DPW and other agencies start treating it like one. I support the BAC Expansion Act, B23-242, and hope hearing perspectives like this more often helps reinforce the need to refocus DPW’s attention.

In 2016, Linda Bailey, then the Executive Director of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), wrote that “Elected officials should be champions for safe street designs.”  The record and rising number of “lives lost is a wake-up call, yet we know how to stem this epidemic. Better design will save lives and make our streets safer.” Mayor Bowser hired her to be DDOT’s Vision Zero Director, but as the Department’s continuing record shows, on Safe Accommodations, on the Eastern Downtown Protected Lanes, and so many more projects and regulations collecting dust on shelves, the rest of us still need you on this Council to be our champions.   Demand more.

@online{swiderski2019,
  author = {Swiderski, J. I.},
  title = {Testimony to {DC} {Council} on {Vision} {Zero,} {Oct.} 24,
    2019},
  date = {2019-10-25},
  url = {https://jski.net/testimonies/vzhearingdc2019.html},
  langid = {en}
}