The Office of Planning (OP) released a draft Future Land Use Map on March 18, 2026. The FLUM is a major component of the Comprehensive Plan, which OP is in the proccess of rewriting. I wrote about how disappointing the proposed FLUM changes are here.

We reached out to candidates running in the 2026 Democratic primary and special election for seats on the DC Council and in Congress and who responded to GGWash’s questionnaire for their reactions to the FLUM. Here’s what they shared with us.

Also, take OP’s latest survey.

At-large minority-party special election

Doni Crawford

“[On March 18], the Office of Planning (OP) released a draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) intended to guide land use development and placemaking in the District through 2050. I appreciate the hard work of OP and commend them for releasing the FLUM ahead of the Comprehensive Plan draft, creating additional opportunities for community engagement. As OP continues to revise the FLUM, I would like to see greater density allowances across all eight wards, including missing middle housing, such as duplexes and triplexes, which will help increase housing supply and reduce housing costs.

Today, my team attended an OP briefing on the FLUM, where staff noted that neighborhoods at higher risk of displacement were identified using a methodology that excludes leading indicators of gentrification, such as rising education levels, increasing home values, and growing household incomes. Using its own methodology, OP chose not to add density in these identified areas to address concerns of displacement. I am concerned that the FLUM does not adequately address displacement risk in our most vulnerable communities. Research consistently shows that increasing housing supply lowers costs, and avoiding additional density does not protect residents from rising housing prices. As OP continues to engage residents through the Comprehensive Plan process, I am committed to working alongside our communities to ensure planning policy provides meaningful protections for those most at risk and advances a District that is affordable for everyone.”

Elissa Silverman

“The draft Future Land Use Plan released by the Office of Planning is a starting point, but it needs more work to meet our housing goals. First, let me point out some good in it: I appreciate that this draft plan is opening more areas in the city for additional housing, especially in Ward 3, which has seriously lagged behind in production.

But as the next at-large councilmember, I would not support this map as-is, since it only makes small changes to a few neighborhoods.

The stated goal for the changes was to add enough houses to “keep housing cost increases below the inflation rate.” I don’t think that should be our goal. We should be adding enough housing to bring down the cost of housing and to make it more affordable. We need to be adding enough housing so that working families have the opportunity to live across the city in various types of housing and don’t have to look to far-out suburbs or Richmond/Baltimore for prices they can afford.

The next Comprehensive Plan rewrite is supposed to last us for the next two decades. Over the last twenty years, we added over 100,000 residents. We need a Comp Plan that legalizes duplexes and quadplexes across the city, removes parking minimums, and generally increases density. If we don’t do this right, we’ll face the same problems in the next twenty years as we faced in the last: skyrocketing rents and gentrification displacing even more of our low-income and minority communities.”

At-large majority Democratic primary

Lisa Raymond

“We need to take bold steps to address D.C.’s housing shortage - and the draft Future Land Use Map doesn’t go far enough. Building more homes isn’t just about affordability; it’s essential to strengthening our economy. Right now, employers are losing talent because people can’t afford to live here, and that holds our entire city back. The District should be a place where people at all income levels can put down roots and grow their careers and families, just as I was able to do starting out in a small apartment. To get there, we need to expand housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods, build more homes near transit, and remove costly barriers like unnecessary parking mandates. Planning for more housing is a smart economic strategy because the real risk, and the real cost, comes from not building enough.”

Kevin Chavous, Fred Hill, Candace Tiana Nelson, and Oye Owolewa did not submit a statement.

Ward 1

Rashida Brown

“If we are not building enough housing - every type, at every income level, we will not maintain the diversity, culture and energy of Ward 1 and the District. The Office of Planning’s draft land use map blocks meaningful growth in our city.

Ward 1 proves that density fosters diversity, affordability, and quality of life. I have some experience in this work as ANC and as a community advocate, having fought for housing at McMillan and having fought tooth and nail against NIMBYs to get housing built at Park Morton and Bruce Monroe.

It should not be so hard!

Ward 1 can accommodate more homes for more people—and so can other wards. The draft Future Land Use Map doesn’t give any part of the city the chance to do that meaningfully. We need to “legalize apartments District-wide” and do much more than this plan draft does to encourage diversity and attract more housing that makes it more affordable for ALL of us to rent, buy, and stay here.”

When I’m on the Council, I’ll do what it takes to get these changes in the FLUM. We simply cannot wait any longer.”

Miguel Trindade Deramo

“I’m running to be the next Ward 1 Councilmember to say yes to more housing in Ward 1 and the whole city. Housing is a human right, but we cannot guarantee access to housing that does not exist. To make DC more affordable, we need to make it easier, faster, and cheaper to build all types of housing across the city. That means increasing our supply of both market-rate and subsidized affordable homes and allowing for gentle-density and high-density multifamily housing in our neighborhoods.

The DC Office of Planning (OP) recently released a draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) showing where density could be increased to allow for more housing in DC. In Ward 1, the FLUM suggests increasing density on one city block, plus the Congressional Club, a church, a playground, the DCUSA mall in Columbia Heights, and our beloved Hana Market. That’s it. This draft certainly does not meet the ward’s need for more homes that can be built by right, without needing additional layers of zoning-related approvals.

I’m proud to have blazed that trail as Chairman of ANC 1B, where we have passed a major pro-housing resolution — the first one in the city — calling on OP to use the new Comprehensive Plan as an opportunity to legalize row houses everywhere; to allow gentle density like duplexes, triplexes, and sixplexes in every neighborhood; and to let homeowners build and rent out accessory dwelling units (ADUs). As a Commissioner, I championed maximizing the number of affordable homes that will be created at the 1617 U Street site, a model that should be replicated and expanded at other public sites across the city.

The draft FLUM we have seen should be sent back to the drawing board. We need to adopt the types of land-use and zoning reforms that were successful in unlocking density for new supply in other jurisdictions, including Austin and Minneapolis. These pro-housing and pro-growth strategies include allowing townhouses everywhere, lowering parking and lot size requirements, and enabling higher density on public land and sites near transit. Not all of these strategies can be achieved through a FLUM alone, but this draft does not bode well for the revised Comprehensive Plan, which must enable these important reforms in the near future.

As a Councilmember, I will not vote for a Comprehensive Plan that falls short on creating the housing we need, and I will work on meaningful revisions that unlock housing density in all neighborhoods. The message is loud and clear: we need a revised FLUM that meets the moment. Let DC grow.”

Terry Lynch

“I have never found the Office of Planning to be innovative in its Comprehensive Plan rewrites to meet the needs of the city frankly.

I and a handful of others wrote the Downtown Development District amendments to the Comprehensive Plan in 1990, filed it with the Zoning Commission, and then I argues the case before the Commission during a year of hearings ….the goal was to required housing in an 88 block area of downtown along with retail, arts, and historic preservation goals…..as at the time commercial office developers wanted downtown to primarily be an office park. Thanks goodness we prevailed on a 3 to 2 vote and that launched a Living Downtown. While we got an area wide plan in place we had to continue to fight site by site to avoid developers from getting exceptions from preferred uses such as housing as well as they kept seeking larger office buildings until the market itself crashed.

I support innovative approaches to get more housing. I have committed to bring 5,000 new units to Ward 1. Some stretches can be upzoned. There are many many vacancies along Georgia Avenue, U Street, and upper 14th St NW that need to be returned to active use. There are numerous sites such as Police station 4D that needs to have mixed use and could provide housing and retail along with a new police station. Lot sizes need to be examined careful as do parking requirements. Howard U has many long vacant properties that should be redeveloped for mixed use to include housing and retail.

Ward 1 can achieve vitality. The Office Planning neds to re-think what it is doing …regardless of them I will work with stakeholders to achieve what is needed in Ward 1 as we did in downtown DC. I have a clear record of getting preferred uses that have benefited the city.”

Aparna Raj

“In addition to the statement, I also just wanted to share that I put out this tweet thread as an initial response to the FLUM, and attended both the YIMBY rally and the OP session in MLK library to provide feedback on it. I’m also working on a direct to camera social media video to try to share more information and direct people to OP’s survey, hopefully to be released later this week!

Every single person in Ward 1 and across DC deserves a dignified, affordable place to live. But that life is out of reach for too many, and the Office of Planning’s draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) has failed to meet the scale of the housing crisis. I share GGWash’s priority of ensuring that the Comprehensive Plan rewrite maximizes & legalizes the greatest amount of housing to be built throughout the District. It is extremely disappointing to see OP only increasing zoned capacity by 3% — with just 15,000 homes projected to be built by 2050 — despite 45,000 homes being built since 2019.

The Office of Planning’s Future Land Use Map does not just fail to meet the moment; it deeply entrenches racial segregation and shameful exclusionary zoning at the expense of the working class and people of color. DC has historically pushed these communities out — and in a time where our city can propose a vision for the next 25 years to be more inclusive & build the housing we need to grow & thrive, the Office of Planning is conveying through the draft FLUM that wealthy neighborhoods can continue to exclude more housing, working people, and people of color from their neighborhoods for the next generation. It is unacceptable, for instance, that neighborhoods west of Rock Creek Park continue to be solely zoned for single-family detached homes. OP must adjust the FLUM to equitably distribute more moderate-scale and medium-scale neighborhood designations in the planning areas that have blocked new housing construction & haven’t even hit 40% of their designated 2025 housing target: Capitol Hill, Near Northwest, and Rock Creek West. And as I conveyed to the Office of Planning (OP) staff at the in-person workshop this past Saturday, we must legalize row homes, apartments, and townhomes across DC.

Further, I think the FLUM undercuts the amount of housing we can (and must) create in Ward 1. I’m running for office in Ward 1 because I love my neighborhood and want to live here for the rest of my life, with the chance to start a family, age in place, and find housing for all phases of my life. But unfortunately, a lack of urgency in increasing housing production will make it unaffordable for me to permanently stay in Ward 1. As a tenant organizer, I have talked to so many other renters who feel that rising housing costs will eventually price them out of DC.

As I mentioned in my GGWash questionnaire, Ward 1 has been effective in building new housing — with our planning area Mid-City exceeding 154% of Mayor Bowser’s target goal, with 36% of new units being built since 2019 being affordable. Even then, I believe Ward 1 can and must continue to grow. Upzoning more of Ward 1, especially along (but not limited to) our transit and commercial corridors will be critical in ensuring we meet the target I set for 72,000 homes being built District-wide by 2032. In Ward 1 in particular, we can upzone more blocks—especially within a 20-minute walking radius of our Metrorail stations & 15-minute walking radius of our Metrobus stations—to legalize the building of sixplexes and taller apartment buildings via the medium-scale residential neighborhood, large-scale residential neighborhood, and regional center neighborhood designations from OP.

I also believe the FLUM should be codifying smaller setback requirements, expanding lot coverage allowances, reducing minimum lot sizes & widths, eliminating parking minimums (and instituting parking maximums near transit), and ending floor area ratio (FAR) mandates as a key set of measures to help increase housing construction—particularly of starter homes and row homes. As I also note in my questionnaire, the District is underutilizing publicly owned land and the FLUM’s zoning should be adjusted to legalize the building of mixed-use, high-density housing at our government offices, recreation centers, and libraries — within Ward 1, this includes but is not limited to the Reeves Center, MPD/FEMS at 1617 U St NW, and DCHFA HQ at 815 Florida Ave NW.

If elected to represent Ward 1, I will introduce amendment after amendment to the Comprehensive Plan—and vote no on the Comp Plan & draft FLUM as currently presented—until the revisions I have noted above have been made.

As I have emphasized throughout this campaign, making housing more affordable in DC requires both increased production and strong tenant protections. Just like I have been proudly backed by a coalition of tenants and working people who will fight with me in the Wilson Building to protect & expand rent stabilization and TOPA when I am in office, I will also mobilize and organize that coalition to fight for greater housing supply in the Comp Plan rewrite to bring down housing costs.

As a first step, once the Office of Planning releases its survey in the coming days/weeks for those unable to attend its in-person workshops, my campaign will commit to encouraging all of our supporters to submit comments urging the end of exclusionary zoning, legalization of apartments/rowhomes/townhomes District-wide, and the building of high-density, mixed-use buildings on publicly owned land & within a 20/15-minute walking radius of rail/bus stations — along with GGWash’s other listed priorities for the FLUM.

And if elected, the mobilizing and organizing work will not stop on June 16, or on November 3. I am running to be an organizer in office. Our campaign has mobilized hundreds of volunteers and activated people who have never participated in local politics before. This broad coalition and energy is going to be critical to passing the ambitious legislative agenda the District needs. Throughout my term, I will continue to partner with organized labor, tenants’ unions, Greater Greater Washington, and other housing supply and land use champions to hold OP accountable & ensure this Comprehensive Plan rewrite codifies a vision that builds more housing to enable the District to grow and be affordable for all residents.”

Ward 3

Matthew Frumin did not submit a statement.

Ward 5

Zachary Parker

“The draft Future Land Use Map (FLUM) by the DC Office of Planning is a cautious response to the District’s housing and equity challenges. While the draft FLUM modestly increases housing capacity, it fails to address the legacy of concentrated industrial land in Ward 5. Rather than confronting current inequities, where most industrial land is in Ward 5, and reimagining these areas for high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods, the draft largely preserves the status quo and perpetuates these inequities into the foreseeable future. This is not only a missed opportunity but also concerning given the well-documented effects of toxic air pollution in these areas.

The plan could also enable more high-density, mixed-use buildings, particularly along commercial corridors where the District should concentrate new housing, jobs, and walkable amenities. Corridors such as Bladensburg Road NE largely maintain the status quo, despite being well-suited for additional housing and mixed-use development. That said, it is encouraging to see Rhode Island Avenue NE moving in a positive direction, and I appreciate the Office of Planning’s partnership in reimagining that corridor with me. More of this approach is needed across the city.

The risk of displacement remains greatest in Wards 5, 7, and 8, which is why we must use every tool in our toolkit to deliver more (affordable) housing and allow more Washingtonians to stay and thrive here in the District. I have requested a meeting with the Office of Planning to better understand these decisions, including why corridors like Bladensburg Road were not designated for greater density and how the agency plans to meaningfully engage residents in shaping a more equitable final map.”

Bernita Carmichael did not submit a statement.

Ward 6

Charles Allen

“The first draft of DC’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) misses the mark. It doesn’t lay out a vision of how we grow our city, add more homes, and make DC more livable and affordable. The Comprehensive Plan is the opportunity to imagine our city’s future with ambitious growth. While it includes some changes for greater density at transit hubs, the draft FLUM does not go nearly far enough. It must change to support higher density and more homes around transit, remove parking minimums to make construction and rental costs lower, and maximize DC’s ability to create new housing as part of the larger strategy to improve affordability across our city. I look forward to engaging with neighbors as this process moves forward to make the changes we need.”

Delegate to the US House of Representatives

Brooke Pinto

“DC is in the throes of a housing affordability crisis: tens of thousands of Washingtonians spend more than half their income on rent and buying a home and building generational wealth is growing impossible. We need urgent, bold action to build a DC that working people can actually afford to live in. We have the opportunity over the next few decades to make DC the best place in the country to raise a family, start a business, and retire - but restrictive, regressive zoning will throttle the vibrancy of our city and relegate the nation’s capital to an era of stagnation.”

Robert White

“I share the goal of making it possible for more residents to live in Washington, DC. Our land use policies must evolve to meet the scale of our housing needs and ensure they benefit all DC residents regardless of household size, income level, or neighborhood. We need a Comprehensive Plan and FLUM that allow for significantly more housing, particularly near transit and along major corridors.

On the DC Council, I have consistently supported efforts to expand housing supply, strengthen tenant protections, and hold agencies accountable for delivering housing outcomes. That work has reinforced my belief that we must pair strong planning with real execution to address the housing crisis.

During my five years serving as legislative counsel to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, I worked on federal land transfers that ultimately enabled transformative mixed-use developments at the Wharf, Navy Yard, Walter Reed, Hill East, and Saint Elizabeths. Those projects produced thousands of housing units, including affordable homes, because surplus federal land was transferred in a way that allowed the District to plan and build strategically.

As Delegate, I will continue to align federal policy including unlocking federal land for housing and ensuring federal investments to support the District’s growth strategy. At the same time, growth must be paired with strong tenant protections, anti-displacement strategies, and investments in infrastructure and public services.

We have an opportunity to align our land use policies with our values and build a more inclusive, affordable city for the next generation of Washingtonians. I will be the quarterback that DC needs to make the Council, Mayor, and Attorney General a united front to fight for DC and its residents.”

Kinney Zalesne

“While I applaud the Office of Planning for their efforts to simplify land use by consolidating and simplifying the dozens of existing categories into just 12, the proposed future land use map (FLUM) falls far short of where it needs to be. The proposed map, though offering moderate increases in density in a few spots, leaves most of the rest of the map and its overly restrictive land uses unchanged. Not only does this force all hope for expanding housing supply onto just a handful of neighborhoods, it further perpetuates decades of economic and racial segregation. In order for DC to meet its housing needs and not push residents to smaller and smaller pockets or worse, out of the District entirely, we need housing of every type allowed in every neighborhood in our great city. This includes my own neighborhood in Ward 3. I have lived in this city for 30 years and I, like most parents, want my kids to be able to afford to live here too. This land use plan makes that harder if not impossible. We cannot continue to expect a near status quo to solve the issues of affordability and opportunity. I am calling on the DC Office of Planning to revise this map and I will be at future DC 2050 public meetings to push for just that.”

Top image: We appreciate that many candidates, like us, think the draft FLUM ain’t it. One of the reasons it ain’t it is because it doesn’t even legalize rowhome District-wide. Image by afagen licensed under Creative Commons.

Comment on this article

If your electric bill looks higher than usual, you’re not alone. Across Washington, D.C. and the nation, many households are seeing higher monthly totals. For families already dealing with rising housing, food and transportation costs, utility bills are another strain on household budgets.

When bills go up, many people understandably ask: Why aren’t regulators stopping it? The Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia, which oversees Pepco, has received sharp public criticism in recent months from commentators claiming we’ve allowed uncontrolled increases in energy prices.

But these accusations miss most of the story. The Public Service Commission directly regulates roughly 27% of a typical Pepco bill. The remaining 73% is driven largely by factors outside the DCPSC’s control, including regional electricity markets, federal transmission expenses, and policy mandates set by bodies beyond the commission.

To understand why bills are rising, it helps to know where those costs come from. 

Delivery

Start with delivery — the portion of your bill that pays for the poles, wires, substations, and the crews that maintain the local electric grid. In the District, delivery rates are regulated by the Public Service Commission. When utilities propose changes to delivery rates, they must go through a detailed legal public process, in which proposals are examined by consumer advocates, independent experts, and regulators. These proceedings often take months and involve extensive data review and public input before any changes are approved. After this thorough review, the rate proposal from the utilities is often significantly reduced.

The D.C. Court of Appeals recently vacated DCPSC’s approval of a Pepco rate plan. The court order affirms that the commission must carefully weigh proposed rate changes via an in-depth evidentiary hearing.

Supply

The cost of generating electricity, known as supply, is largely determined by a regional wholesale market managed by PJM Interconnection, which operates across 13 states. D.C. cannot generate most of its own electricity because it is a small, densely developed city with limited land for large power plants or utility-scale energy projects. So, D.C. must rely on power produced elsewhere.

Several forces are pushing supply prices higher. Electricity demand across the region is rising quickly, fueled primarily by the expansion of energy-intensive data centers and the electrification of homes and vehicles. At the same time, older power plants are retiring faster than new ones are coming online. When demand grows faster than new supply, wholesale prices increase, and those increases flow through to consumers.

Transmission

Transmission costs are another major factor. High-voltage lines move electricity from power plants to local distribution systems, like Pepco. Transmission rates are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, not the District.

Across our region, utility and independent transmission companies are investing billions of dollars in new transmission lines to strengthen reliability and connect new energy sources to the grid. These investments are necessary to maintain a resilient electric system, but the costs are shared by customers and ultimately appear on their monthly bills.

Policy

Policy mandates by the D.C. Council, though a smaller factor, are also part of the equation. Renewable energy programs, compliance fees, solar incentives, surcharges, and other public policy initiatives all add to the total cost of electricity in the District. Some District compliance fees around clean energy mandates are among the highest in the nation, compared to other states. The cost of all of these initiatives and programs factor into the monthly bill. According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, in 2024 15% of the District's average electric bill was associated with Renewable Portfolio Standard compliance, a standard that requires utilities to get a certain amount of their energy from renewable sources. This figure will only increase as RPS mandate requirements each year.

Here’s the key point: regulators do not set the price of electricity, and do not simply defer to utilities. Instead, the commission’s role is to ensure that the portion of the bill within its authority, which is primarily the delivery rates (roughly 27%), is fair, transparent, and justified.

In D.C., assistance programs, payment plans, and energy-efficiency improvements are available to help reduce costs. I invite residents, businesses, and community organizations to attend and participate in DCPSC hearings, our community outreach events, and our affordability summit, to be held on May 27, 2026. 

Higher electricity bills are a real concern for families across the District. Addressing it will require cooperation among regulators, policymakers, utilities, regional grid operators, and community advocates. 

Solving the broader affordability problem begins with a clear understanding of what is truly driving prices and a commitment to thoughtful solutions that keep the lights on. 

Emile C. Thompson is the Chairman of the Public Service Commission of the District of Columbia.

The two biggest technical problems with DC Streetcar have been friction with cars and the fact that it’s too short to be useful for many trips.

That’s technical. Politically, the two biggest problems were named Bowser and Mendelson. Although the District Department of Transportation drew up multiple plans to relieve the operational problems, either Mayor Muriel Bowser or DC Council Chair Phil Mendelson stepped in to thwart every single attempt.

It didn’t have to be that way. The streetcar’s failures are not inherent, they’re supervisory. As the streetcar winds down for its March 31 closure, let’s recount those derailments of stewardship.

A two-mile stub was never the plan

Transit has to carry people to destinations. The more destinations it reaches, the more people can use it.

The original idea behind the DC Streetcar was to cover all of DC. Early network plans from the mayoral administrations of Marion Barry and Anthony Williams evolved under Mayor Adrian Fenty into a maximal 37-mile proposed streetcar network, anchored by an eight-mile-long east-west line from Georgetown to Benning Road, including what became the H Street segment.

Nobody ever seriously considered building that entire network in one single swoop. But Mayor Vincent Gray wanted to build 22 miles of it at once, and got so far as to budget $900 million for it and to formally solicit contractors.

Gray’s plan very nearly happened. Until Council Chair Phil Mendelson slashed that budget by $500 million to fund tax cuts, trimming the system down to just the eight-mile east-west line.

Meanwhile, while running for mayor against Gray, then-Councilmember Muriel Bowser said she’d “reasses” the streetcar program, citing high costs, but avoided details beyond that. After winning election, Bowser promptly canceled the solicitation to build anything beyond the two-mile H Street segment, and floated the idea of killing even that just weeks before it would open.

What had been a funded city-wide system became a two-mile stub, too short to be useful or build a consituency.

Strategic delays in 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023

Officially at least, studies to extend the stub into a useable eight-mile line lived on as the K Street Transitway and the Benning Road Extension.

In practice, Mendelson steadfastly refused to actually let them proceed. But rather than kill them and face blowback, Mendelson’s strategy was to repeatedly delay them, chipping away funding with every delay until nothing remained.

By 2017, Bowser’s budget included $160 million to build the Benning extension and engineer K Street. Mendelson eliminated $60 million of that, and pushed the remaining $100 million out to later years, giving him flexibility to cut it more later.

Which is exactly what he did. In 2019, Mendelson cut funding for K Street that had been in the budget for 2020 and 2021, once again pushing it back to later years.

By 2020, Bowser’s DDOT pulled the streetcar out of K Street plans, leaving only a much shorter busway.

In 2021, Bowser’s budget delayed funding for Benning, and in 2023 the council delayed Benning once again, this time at Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen’s recommendation, who with Mendelson defunded what remained of K Street that same year.

The public expected a usable line, but five times in a six year span, either the mayor or council chair prevented that from becoming reality.

Scuttled plans to free the streetcar from cars

For one mile along H Street — about half the total length — DC Streetcar runs “curbside,” meaning in the street lane closest to the curb, next to a lane of parallel parking. This is generally the worst place to put a train. Cars block it constantly, queuing to turn, parking, and picking people up. Putting a streetcar here is a recipe for delay.

DDOT built this section of tracks before really planning the streetcar corridor in detail. Circa 2006, they were rebuilding and repaving H Street, and agreed to lay down tracks while the street was already ripped up. The upside: DDOT wouldn’t have to rip up the street twice. The downside: There was never any consideration or public debate about putting the tracks anywhere else, or managing them differently.

After DDOT laid the tracks but before the streetcar opened, criticism started piling up that the line needed dedicated lanes. After service began, that problem was immediately apparent, and has dominated streetcar discourse for its entire decade of service.

Interestingly, throughput congestion was not the biggest driver of delay for the streetcar. Rather, it was cars parked too close, pickup-dropoff, and other problems with being too close to the parking lane. The median lanes on Benning didn’t face those problems and worked much better.

These lessons weren’t lost on streetcar planners. None of the expansion proposals that actually received detailed planning prior to track construction would have relied nearly so much on curbside mixed traffic lanes. There would have been segments of that, yes, but planners focused on avoiding it.

The mayor or council blocked all of these from actually happening.

H Street transit lanes

Even on H Street itself, the business and advocate communities pushed hard over the past few years to give streetcars dedicated lanes. DDOT drew up plans to convert the streetcar’s shared lane into a dedicated one for transit, including buses.

The H Street plan would’ve also added bus bulb-outs, and converted some of H Street’s parking to pick-up spaces.

This plan would’ve had a big impact on that one mile of especially “car-frictiony” H Street. It was fully designed, fully funded, and slated to begin construction in 2025.

Until Mayor Bowser canceled it at the 11th hour, shortly before construction would’ve started. That same spring, she announced she would close the streetcar entirely.

Also that same spring, Bowser announced a deal to build a new Washington Commanders stadium near the streetcar’s eastern stop. Whether or not eliminating pesky transit in order to reserve car space for stadium traffic was an explicit part of the negotiations is anybody’s guess, but the timing is suspect.

Failure wasn’t inevitable, but Bowser and Mendelson guaranteed it

The DC Streetcar was a response to the very real need for better street transit. It could have delivered.

In building the H Street line, DDOT immediately learned a ton of lessons, arranged adjustments to massively improve the product, and then never got to apply any of them, because two people blocked every attempt over the span of a decade.

Council Chair Mendelson treated the streetcar as a budgetary slush fund: a place to park money in the out-years of the budget, and then move it away onto something else when the time drew near.

Mayor Bowser treated the streetcar as an inconvenience from day one, happy to take credit for completing the work of prior administrations but never believing in the legitimacy of its purpose. More than that, she’s turned a harsh corner on multimodal transportation in general during her third term, canceling not only the streetcar and transit lanes, but also the Circulator and multiple major bikeways.

In hindsight, one wonders if either Bowser or Mendelson ever had any intention of doing anything to the streetcar except strangling it to death.

Top image: Extending the streetcar with a transitway on K Street was one of many attempts to improve the system that Bowser or Mendelson stymied. Image by DDOT.

Comment on this article