Davenport St NW

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to live on Davenport Street and I fully support them doing this. That street is for local use by residents. It's not designed for heavy commuter traffic. DC should stop congestion major roads like Conn Ave with stupid bike lanes and let the commuters get in and out of the city in peace.

Let’s repeat this. You do NOT own a public street. The banning of commuter traffic on certain streets happens mainly in upper northwest.
The only way to lesson traffic (bike lanes have nothing to do with it), is to reduce car dependent. Work from home goes a long way in doing this. So expect traffic to get much worse if feds start back five days a week. Much much worse.
—an urban planner

It's already much much worse on lower volume because that is what DDOT has intentionally done. When traffic lanes are narrowed and removed, traffic lights and cameras are increased, and random streets and turns are blocked off then congestion becomes worse. This is a man made problem not a function of increased population or traffic.

The “neighbors” are not complaining about congestion. They are complaining about unsafe driving. Yet the rejected the traffic calming solutions put forth by DDOT. What the really want is to close the street to traffic, which yes, is privileged and deluded.

Play whatever word games make you happy but they're complaining about too many people using the road. That's why they want to ban other people from using the street. Normal people call that congestion.

People driving unsafely down the street is not “congestion.”

But you're forgetting that according to DDOT, and the backers of this proposal, congestion increases safety. The more people that use it the safer it becomes. They should be pleased at how much safer it has become since Albemarle was blocked off and how much safer it will be when they remove two more lanes from Connecticut.

Albemarle will be reopened when the construction is done. The complaints are meaningless.

The Albemarle reopening is like Waiting for Godot. No sign of workers for months now. Just an idle excavator. The Forest Hills Connection even did a story on how residents of Albermarle have been jubilating with kids being able to roam freely, neighbors throwing block parties and getting to know each other better. This closure ain't ending any time soon.

What are they supposed to be doing? And why doesn't anybody ever seem to be working there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What the neighbor calls a "shortcut" is just my normal route. Should I drive way out of my way and add 15 minutes to my commute to convenience her? I guess everything is a "shortcut" if it takes someone past your house.

Please don't make this the same mess that the people on Fessenden did, where now you have to by pass your own street and unnecessarily, stupidly drive into Tenleytown and back out again to get home just so you drive past your neighbors's hour on one block of Fessenden. Ridiculous.

Fessenden is a two way street from Western Avenue all the way to Broad Branch Ter./32nd street. What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Please get over yourselves. The block of Davenport in question is multi-racial, multi-ethnic with the age range of 2-86, and covers the income spectrum. Some residents have lived here for over 50 years. This is about neighborhood safety for locals and visitors. Brandywine St is a direct route from Broad Branch Rd to Connecticut Ave and beyond. It is wide, has curbs and sidewalks and is safer for all. Davenport is barely 2 lanes with no curbs and a blacktop walkway that people park and drive on plus we have 5 driveways at a blind curve. There is no need to be so nasty. Try respect for others when you are in such a hurry !

[Anonymous]

The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

Have you ever walked up Grant Rd NW into RCP from Broad Branch to get to the Nature Center Area? I don't think you have from your post above. Because it's freaking terrifying. There's no shoulder, the cars driving on it are often speeding, and the turns in the road block a long line of sight for the most part.

Calling it "direct access to the park" isn't really accurate.

Anyway, I like the idea of making Davenport St 1-way and putting in sidewalks, cause that would allow folks to use that road to walk down (you can right now, but you're walking on the street and it's curvy and not safe to do). But it'd be way better if Grant actually had side walks on one side (no need to do both). That'd be great access for *everyone* west of the park. Right now to get into the park you really need to go all the way up to military and glover rd. You used to be able to take Soapstone Valley Trail to Broad Branch and then hoof it across to Ridge Rd, which wasn't great because Broad Branch also has no sidewalks.

Anyway, point is, side walks good. People complaining about living on Davenport and not wanting it one-way bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to live on Davenport Street and I fully support them doing this. That street is for local use by residents. It's not designed for heavy commuter traffic. DC should stop congestion major roads like Conn Ave with stupid bike lanes and let the commuters get in and out of the city in peace.

Hahaha. Chain Bridge tried, failed and got revenge traffic to boot.

I live very near this street and our street is effectively private because we keep quiet about it.

[Anonymous]

Davenport will get speed humps and driver feedback signs (the ones that tell you your speed) but will remain a two-way road:

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-scraps-proposed-one-way-davenport-street-by-rock-creek-park/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the neighbor calls a "shortcut" is just my normal route. Should I drive way out of my way and add 15 minutes to my commute to convenience her? I guess everything is a "shortcut" if it takes someone past your house.

Please don't make this the same mess that the people on Fessenden did, where now you have to by pass your own street and unnecessarily, stupidly drive into Tenleytown and back out again to get home just so you drive past your neighbors's hour on one block of Fessenden. Ridiculous.

Fessenden is a two way street from Western Avenue all the way to Broad Branch Ter./32nd street. What are you talking about?

I think they're talking about the no left turn onto Fessenden from southbound River? But maybe not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

Have you ever walked up Grant Rd NW into RCP from Broad Branch to get to the Nature Center Area? I don't think you have from your post above. Because it's freaking terrifying. There's no shoulder, the cars driving on it are often speeding, and the turns in the road block a long line of sight for the most part.

Calling it "direct access to the park" isn't really accurate.

Anyway, I like the idea of making Davenport St 1-way and putting in sidewalks, cause that would allow folks to use that road to walk down (you can right now, but you're walking on the street and it's curvy and not safe to do). But it'd be way better if Grant actually had side walks on one side (no need to do both). That'd be great access for *everyone* west of the park. Right now to get into the park you really need to go all the way up to military and glover rd. You used to be able to take Soapstone Valley Trail to Broad Branch and then hoof it across to Ridge Rd, which wasn't great because Broad Branch also has no sidewalks.

Anyway, point is, side walks good. People complaining about living on Davenport and not wanting it one-way bad.

I have and I drive up and down Broad Branch multiple times a day. That intersection has a four way stop sign and outside of rush hour there is hardly any traffic on Broad Branch. It's not unsafe and the two houses in question are both infill properties.

It's also ridiculous that this was even entertained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

Have you ever walked up Grant Rd NW into RCP from Broad Branch to get to the Nature Center Area? I don't think you have from your post above. Because it's freaking terrifying. There's no shoulder, the cars driving on it are often speeding, and the turns in the road block a long line of sight for the most part.

Calling it "direct access to the park" isn't really accurate.

Anyway, I like the idea of making Davenport St 1-way and putting in sidewalks, cause that would allow folks to use that road to walk down (you can right now, but you're walking on the street and it's curvy and not safe to do). But it'd be way better if Grant actually had side walks on one side (no need to do both). That'd be great access for *everyone* west of the park. Right now to get into the park you really need to go all the way up to military and glover rd. You used to be able to take Soapstone Valley Trail to Broad Branch and then hoof it across to Ridge Rd, which wasn't great because Broad Branch also has no sidewalks.

Anyway, point is, side walks good. People complaining about living on Davenport and not wanting it one-way bad.

I have and I drive up and down Broad Branch multiple times a day. That intersection has a four way stop sign and outside of rush hour there is hardly any traffic on Broad Branch. It's not unsafe and the two houses in question are both infill properties.

It's also ridiculous that this was even entertained.

What does a 4-way stop sign have anything to do with it? The discussion was about dropping a lane so there'd be some space for sidewalks. Broad Branch has the same issue, the 2-lanes are the whole road - no shoulder, no sidewalk, not even dirt to walk on most of the way. You're telling me that you walk up and down Broad Branch and Grant and Davenport and are like "ah this is perfectly fine"? If so, you got some steel-y ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

Have you ever walked up Grant Rd NW into RCP from Broad Branch to get to the Nature Center Area? I don't think you have from your post above. Because it's freaking terrifying. There's no shoulder, the cars driving on it are often speeding, and the turns in the road block a long line of sight for the most part.

Calling it "direct access to the park" isn't really accurate.

Anyway, I like the idea of making Davenport St 1-way and putting in sidewalks, cause that would allow folks to use that road to walk down (you can right now, but you're walking on the street and it's curvy and not safe to do). But it'd be way better if Grant actually had side walks on one side (no need to do both). That'd be great access for *everyone* west of the park. Right now to get into the park you really need to go all the way up to military and glover rd. You used to be able to take Soapstone Valley Trail to Broad Branch and then hoof it across to Ridge Rd, which wasn't great because Broad Branch also has no sidewalks.

Anyway, point is, side walks good. People complaining about living on Davenport and not wanting it one-way bad.

I have and I drive up and down Broad Branch multiple times a day. That intersection has a four way stop sign and outside of rush hour there is hardly any traffic on Broad Branch. It's not unsafe and the two houses in question are both infill properties.

It's also ridiculous that this was even entertained.

What does a 4-way stop sign have anything to do with it? The discussion was about dropping a lane so there'd be some space for sidewalks. Broad Branch has the same issue, the 2-lanes are the whole road - no shoulder, no sidewalk, not even dirt to walk on most of the way. You're telling me that you walk up and down Broad Branch and Grant and Davenport and are like "ah this is perfectly fine"? If so, you got some steel-y ones.

why would i walk up and down Broad Branch when the Park and its trails are right there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

Have you ever walked up Grant Rd NW into RCP from Broad Branch to get to the Nature Center Area? I don't think you have from your post above. Because it's freaking terrifying. There's no shoulder, the cars driving on it are often speeding, and the turns in the road block a long line of sight for the most part.

Calling it "direct access to the park" isn't really accurate.

Anyway, I like the idea of making Davenport St 1-way and putting in sidewalks, cause that would allow folks to use that road to walk down (you can right now, but you're walking on the street and it's curvy and not safe to do). But it'd be way better if Grant actually had side walks on one side (no need to do both). That'd be great access for *everyone* west of the park. Right now to get into the park you really need to go all the way up to military and glover rd. You used to be able to take Soapstone Valley Trail to Broad Branch and then hoof it across to Ridge Rd, which wasn't great because Broad Branch also has no sidewalks.

Anyway, point is, side walks good. People complaining about living on Davenport and not wanting it one-way bad.

I have and I drive up and down Broad Branch multiple times a day. That intersection has a four way stop sign and outside of rush hour there is hardly any traffic on Broad Branch. It's not unsafe and the two houses in question are both infill properties.

It's also ridiculous that this was even entertained.

What does a 4-way stop sign have anything to do with it? The discussion was about dropping a lane so there'd be some space for sidewalks. Broad Branch has the same issue, the 2-lanes are the whole road - no shoulder, no sidewalk, not even dirt to walk on most of the way. You're telling me that you walk up and down Broad Branch and Grant and Davenport and are like "ah this is perfectly fine"? If so, you got some steel-y ones.

why would i walk up and down Broad Branch when the Park and its trails are right there?

Don't get me wrong. I love your houses and long dreamt of having one of those houses facing Rock Creek with direct access to Broad Branch/Beach. I am very envious. I also love sidewalks.

But that doesn't mean that I think it's ok for you to try and privatize a locally important road, harm surrounding roads and neighborhoods or complain about a sidewalk when the houses you are in are infill built into a hill on a curve and utilized intersection. That garage was placed there knowing full well what the situation was and the builder also chose not to grade the surrounding hill.

That was the tradeoff you got for one of the most exclusive and coolest properties in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re right; you’re wrong.

Public street, public access. The residents own exactly 0% of the street, they have no more right to tell people how to use it than I do, because they own exactly as much of the street as I do.

If they were offering to buy the property from the District and pay all the associated costs of maintenance I'd consider taking them seriously, but I'd also hope even then DC would tell them to kick rocks, because it's a stupid entitled complaint put up by stupid entitled NIMBYs.

Yet residents are required to clear sidewalks. Not talking about Davenport but any street that does have them in front of a resident's single family property or if it's not the responsibility of an HOA . If residents "own 0%" why doesn't the city clear sidewalks within 24-48hrs after snow ends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re right; you’re wrong.

Public street, public access. The residents own exactly 0% of the street, they have no more right to tell people how to use it than I do, because they own exactly as much of the street as I do.

If they were offering to buy the property from the District and pay all the associated costs of maintenance I'd consider taking them seriously, but I'd also hope even then DC would tell them to kick rocks, because it's a stupid entitled complaint put up by stupid entitled NIMBYs.

Yet residents are required to clear sidewalks. Not talking about Davenport but any street that does have them in front of a resident's single family property or if it's not the responsibility of an HOA . If residents "own 0%" why doesn't the city clear sidewalks within 24-48hrs after snow ends?

But this has nothing to do with sidewalks. There are no sidewalks. Go back to the shoveling thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The handful of houses on the block in question are worth $2-3 million.

Demanding respect and sympathy while trying to screw over Davenport St is hypocritical at best. There are pros and cons to having direct access to the Park. The route has been there since before any of you bought your house.

Have you ever walked up Grant Rd NW into RCP from Broad Branch to get to the Nature Center Area? I don't think you have from your post above. Because it's freaking terrifying. There's no shoulder, the cars driving on it are often speeding, and the turns in the road block a long line of sight for the most part.

Calling it "direct access to the park" isn't really accurate.

Anyway, I like the idea of making Davenport St 1-way and putting in sidewalks, cause that would allow folks to use that road to walk down (you can right now, but you're walking on the street and it's curvy and not safe to do). But it'd be way better if Grant actually had side walks on one side (no need to do both). That'd be great access for *everyone* west of the park. Right now to get into the park you really need to go all the way up to military and glover rd. You used to be able to take Soapstone Valley Trail to Broad Branch and then hoof it across to Ridge Rd, which wasn't great because Broad Branch also has no sidewalks.

Anyway, point is, side walks good. People complaining about living on Davenport and not wanting it one-way bad.

I have and I drive up and down Broad Branch multiple times a day. That intersection has a four way stop sign and outside of rush hour there is hardly any traffic on Broad Branch. It's not unsafe and the two houses in question are both infill properties.

It's also ridiculous that this was even entertained.

What does a 4-way stop sign have anything to do with it? The discussion was about dropping a lane so there'd be some space for sidewalks. Broad Branch has the same issue, the 2-lanes are the whole road - no shoulder, no sidewalk, not even dirt to walk on most of the way. You're telling me that you walk up and down Broad Branch and Grant and Davenport and are like "ah this is perfectly fine"? If so, you got some steel-y ones.

why would i walk up and down Broad Branch when the Park and its trails are right there?

Don't get me wrong. I love your houses and long dreamt of having one of those houses facing Rock Creek with direct access to Broad Branch/Beach. I am very envious. I also love sidewalks.

But that doesn't mean that I think it's ok for you to try and privatize a locally important road, harm surrounding roads and neighborhoods or complain about a sidewalk when the houses you are in are infill built into a hill on a curve and utilized intersection. That garage was placed there knowing full well what the situation was and the builder also chose not to grade the surrounding hill.

That was the tradeoff you got for one of the most exclusive and coolest properties in DC.

+1

The architecture of some of these houses is amazing. But comes at the price of blind driveways and some other less desireable road conditions. But this is obvious from driving down the road one time. I assume most residents are pretty smart.