DOCSLIB.ORG

BLS Final EA Appendix E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BLS Final EA Appendix E Transportation Management Plan Suitland Federal Center 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland, MD Prepared for: U.S. General Services Administration National Capital Region Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. August 14, 2020 This page has been intentionally left blank. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... I GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................ II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.1.1 Regional........................................................................................................3 1.1.2 State ..............................................................................................................5 1.1.3 Local .............................................................................................................7 1.2 DATA COLLECTED ......................................................................................................... 9 1.3 TMP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 9 2.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .......................................................................................... 10 2.1 LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK .....................................................................................10 2.2 PARKING FACILITIES .....................................................................................................11 2.3 TRANSIT FACILITIES ........................................................................................................12 2.3.1 Metrorail ...................................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Bus 14 2.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES .........................................................................15 3.0 EMPLOYEE SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 18 3.1 CENSUS BUREAU AND BUREAU OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .......................................18 3.2 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS .....................................................................................19 3.3 SURVEY CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................21 4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 23 4.1 STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................23 4.2 ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................................................24 4.2.1 2020 Existing Condition .............................................................................. 25 4.2.2 2022 Future No Build Alternative ............................................................... 25 4.2.3 2022 Future Build Alternative ..................................................................... 25 4.2.4 2027 Future Build + 5 Years Alternative..................................................... 26 4.2.5 2027 Future Build + 5 Years with Mitigation Alternative ........................... 26 4.3 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................27 5.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 28 5.1 2015 SUITLAND FEDERAL CENTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN .............28 5.2 RECOMMENDED TDM STRATEGIES ..............................................................................30 5.2.1 ETC .............................................................................................................. 30 5.2.2 Carpool/Vanpool ...................................................................................... 31 5.2.3 Transit .......................................................................................................... 34 5.2.4 Last Mile Connectivity ............................................................................... 37 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.2.5 Telecommuting .......................................................................................... 38 5.2.6 Flexible and Alternative Work Schedule .................................................. 38 5.2.7 Internal/External Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation ..................................... 39 5.2.8 Accommodations for Flexible Mobility ..................................................... 40 5.2.9 Parking ........................................................................................................ 42 5.2.10 Smart Technology ...................................................................................... 43 5.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................................................................44 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 46 6.1 INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION BEFORE BLS RELOCATION (WITHIN 3 YEARS) ....................46 6.2 MID-TERM (WITHIN 3 – 5 YEARS) ..................................................................................48 6.3 LONG-TERM (WITHIN 5 – 10 YEARS) ............................................................................49 7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................... 51 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 52 TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Goals, Targets, and Indicators for Accessibility Category ..................................... 4 Table 2: Current Commute Mode Split for SFC Respondents .............................................19 Table 3: Current Commute Mode Split for BLS Respondents ..............................................20 Table 4: BLS Respondent Potential Mode of Transportation to SFC ...................................21 Table 5: Study Area Major Corridor Characteristics .............................................................24 Table 6: Trip Generation Estimate ..........................................................................................25 Table 7: 2015 TMP Census TDM Commitments .....................................................................29 Table 8: 2015 TMP NOAA TDM Commitments ......................................................................29 Table 9: 2015 TMP WNRC TDM Commitments ......................................................................30 Table 10: Employee Survey Response – Area of Residence ...............................................32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Suitland Federal Campus and Suitland Metro Station Project Area Map (NTS) ............................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2: SFC Parking Lot Locations (NTS) ..............................................................................12 Figure 3: Metrorail System Map (NTS) ....................................................................................13 Figure 4: Walking Distance and Times from Campus Buildings to Suitland Metro Station (assumes 3 mph walking speed) (NTS) .......................................................14 Figure 5: Metrobus and TheBus Route Map (NTS) ................................................................15 Figure 6: Planned Bicycle Facilities in Study Area (NTS) .......................................................17 Figure 7: Potential Locations for Carpool and Vanpool Meeting Places (NTS) .................33 Figure 8: Potential Modifications for Improved Pedestrian and Bicycle/Scooter Mobility (NTS).............................................................................................................40 Figure 9: Potential Taxi/TNC Area Outside of Secured Area of Campus (NTS) ..................41 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Example Annual Employee Survey Appendix B: Employee Commuter Survey Analysis TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Abbreviations BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics ETC Employee Transportation Coordinator ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MDOT Maryland Department of Transportation M-NCPPC Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MTA Maryland Transit Administration MWCOG Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments NTS Not to Scale NCPC National Capital Planning Commission NMIC National Maritime Intelligence Center NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service PSB Postal Square Building SFC Suitland Federal Center SHA State Highway Administration SOV Single-Occupancy Vehicle TDM Transportation Demand Management TMP Transportation Management Plan TNC Transportation Network Company WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority WNRC Washington National Records Center i TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN Glossary Autonomous
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NCPC Provides Feedback on the Smithsonian's South Mall Campus Master Plan
    MEDIA RELEASE For Immediate Release Julia Koster April 6, 2018 202-482-7211 or [email protected] Stephen Staudigl 202-482-7279 or [email protected] NCPC Provides Feedback on the Smithsonian’s South Mall Campus Master Plan Commission also comments on three potential sites for the Desert Storm and Desert Shield Memorial Washington, DC—At its Thursday, April 5 meeting, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) provided comments on the Smithsonian Institution’s draft master plan for its 17-acre South Mall Campus that stretches from the Freer Gallery of Art to the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The plan will guide short- and long- term development at the site over the next 20-30 years and identifies projects to improve visitor services and address long-term space requirements as well as physical and operational deficiencies. The draft master plan has changed substantially since the Smithsonian released the original concept in 2014. It takes into consideration feedback obtained through the planning process, including public comments. The Commission supported the Smithsonian’s preferred option for the master plan. This option: • Restores the Smithsonian Castle as the main visitor center and the physical and symbolic center of the Smithsonian’s museums on the National Mall. • Makes the underground Quadrangle Building more functional and modern, with its public spaces consolidated, and its 30-year old roof replaced. • Creates two new pavilions to improve pedestrian connections and accessibility and provides better entries into the Sackler Gallery and National Museum of African Art. • Locates a new Haupt Garden, maintaining many of the current garden’s characteristics, on the Quadrangle Building’s reconstructed roof.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2021 Committee Budget Report
    FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh Chairperson, Committee on Transportation & the Environment DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: DRAFT Report and recommendations of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment on the Fiscal Year 2021 budget for agencies under its purview The Committee on Transportation & the Environment (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 for the agencies under its jurisdiction, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020, as proposed by the Mayor, and proposes several of its own subtitles. Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Operating Budget Summary Table .................................................................................................. 7 C. Full-Time Equivalent Summary Table ............................................................................................. 9 D. Operating & Capital Budget Ledgers ........................................................................................... 11 E. Committee Transfers ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ROUTE RESTRICTIONS Bridge Under Clearance/Overhead Clearance Information September 3, 2021 Page 1 of 16 INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
    *Restrictions are subject to change at any time MARYLAND ROUTE RESTRICTIONS Bridge Under Clearance/Overhead Clearance Information September 3, 2021 Page 1 of 16 INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS I-70 All loads 120,000 lbs or more must crawl Bridge #2111803 (I-70 EB over MD 65/exit [Washington] 29) at 5 MPH. I-495 (IL)/ I-95 All permit loads crossing Bridge No. 1615905 (I-495/ I-95 IL (innerloop) over MD 4) [Prince Georges] must cross the bridge using the 2 left lanes going to Virginia. I-83 Baltimore Beginning July 29, 2020 until further notice, wide loads permitted moves please use the 2 left lanes through the project work zone from Timonium Rd to Warren RD (North and South) I-95 No permitted loads allowed in the right lane (over I-695 –Bridge #0319900), [Baltimore/ move all loads into the left lane until further notice. Southside] I-95 BALTIMORE: Permitted loads over 120,000 lbs going to Dundalk Marine Terminal on [Baltimore] I-95 must use Exit 59 (Eastern Ave) to the Baltimore City Line. Loads that are over 120,000 lbs and over 14’6” H must move during night time hours only with a Baltimore City Police Escort. Permittee must apply for a Baltimore City Permit. Please call the Baltimore City Permit office at 443-984-2195 for assistance. I-95 Permit loads over 120,000 lbs coming from the Dundalk Marine Terminal to I-95N MUST [Baltimore] USE EXIT 57 (O’Donnell St.) from the Baltimore City Line. Permittee must call the Baltimore City Permit Office to apply for a Baltimore City Permit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’S County Planning Department Development Review Division 301-952-3530
    The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Prince George’s County Planning Department Development Review Division 301-952-3530 Note: Staff reports can be accessed at www.mncppc.org/pgco/planning/plan.htm. Preliminary Plan 4-08018 Application General Data Project Name: Date Accepted: 01/29/09 Moore Property Planning Board Action Limit: 06/18/09 Location: North of Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Suitland Plan Acreage: 47.7 Parkway interchange to the Woodyard Road interchange. Zone: M-X-T Gross Floor Area: 3,000 sq. ft. Applicant/Address: Evangel Cathedral, Inc Lots: 375 P.O. Box 523 College Park, MD 20741 Parcels: 52 Property Owner: Planning Area: 78 Evangel Cathedral, Inc P.O. Box 523 Tier: Developing College Park, MD 20741 Council District: 06 Election District 15 Municipality: N/A 200-Scale Base Map: 206/07SE08/09 Purpose of Application Notice Dates Mixed-use subdivision containing 3,000 square feet Informational Mailing: 10/30/08 of retail commercial and 640 dwelling units. Acceptance Mailing: 01/23/09 Sign Posting Deadline: 05/04/09 Staff Recommendation Staff Reviewer: Whitney Chellis APPROVAL WITH APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL DISCUSSION CONDITIONS X THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Preliminary Plan of Subdivision 4-08018 Moore Property for 375 lots and 52 parcels OVERVIEW The subject property is located on Tax Map 90, in Grids E-3 and E-4, and is known as Parcel 168. The property is 47.70 acres and is a part of the Westphalia Center; an urban regional center zoned Mixed Use-Transportation Oriented (M-X-T), which is 530.27 acres in the Developing Tier.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 DC HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Plan Methodology Connections to Long-Range Planning B Seeking Public Views
    2020 District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan Preserving For Progress 1 introduction 1 Preserving for progress The district of columbia’s vision for historic preservation 2 dc history and heritage 9 People and progress A legacy of visionary plans Landmarks and milestones A succession of eras 3 preservation achievements 45 What works about preservation in dc 4 preservation challenges 55 Gathering public views Balancing growth and character Protecting neighborhoods Communicating preservation basics Leading the nation Planning for preservation Evaluating available resources 5 goals, objectives, and actions 65 Setting shared goals Sustaining our progress Preservation in context A new planning cycle Recognizing historic resources Engaging communities Improving protections Maintaining our heritage 6 implementation 79 Achieving our goals 7 resources and appendices 89 Bibliography Credits and acknowledgements introduction 1 Preserving for progress Introduction Continuing on a Path Forward A Guide for Everyone Plan Organization Now well into its third century, the District of Columbia is This plan for 2020 updates the goals established in the Preservation requires collective action. Community The 2020 plan is organized in seven chapters: fortunate in the exceptional value of its cultural, historical, District’s historic preservation plan for the four years ending organizations and volunteers foster pride in our history and and architectural heritage. This is a rich and varied legacy, in 2016. That plan introduced a new framework for planning advocate for the benefits of preservation. Schools, cultural • First, it describes a common vision, and reviews our manifested not just in the city’s majestic museums and that could be sustained through regular updates in the institutions, and a multitude of congregations maintain history and heritage — Chapters 1 and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendments to the 2016 Federal Workplace Element
    Executive Director’s Recommendation Commission Meeting: March 4, 2021 PROJECT NCPC FILE NUMBER Comprehensive Plan for the National CP01G Capital: Federal Elements – Amendments to the 2016 Federal NCPC MAP FILE NUMBER Workplace Element 00.00(00.00)45274 SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT’S REQUEST National Capital Planning Commission Adoption of the updated 2016 Federal Workplace Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the REVIEW AUTHORITY National Capital: Federal Elements Preparation and Adoption of Federal Elements per 40 U.S.C. § 8721 PROPOSED ACTION Adopt updated element as requested ACTION ITEM TYPE Staff Presentation PROJECT SUMMARY Following the draft update of the Federal Workplace Element, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic emerged and resulted in immediate changes to the economy and operations of the federal workplace. Because of the unknown long-term implications of the current pandemic on the federal workplace, staff will put the full update of the Element on hold. Over the next year, staff will continue to study the potential long-term impacts to the planning, location, and design of federal workplaces post-COVID-19 and update the Element accordingly. Currently, staff requests the Commission only adopt changes to the Central Employment Area (CEA). The proposed amendments are limited to the description, boundary, and policy (FW.A.2) of the 2016 Federal Workplace Element that pertain to the CEA. NCPC prioritizes federal workplace locations within Washington’s official CEA. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) uses the CEA boundary for federal leasing purposes in Washington, DC. The CEA is located within the Federal Workplace Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements (Comprehensive Plan), and the change would become effective 60 days after the publication of the Federal Register notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter VI: Streets, Roads, and Highways C
    MASTER PLAN B. Identify future locations for rights-of-way for highway facilities COUNTYWIDE so that these can be protected from future development. Transportation Chapter VI: Streets, Roads, and Highways C. Include recommendations for development of access controls that are appropriate to the functional classification of the highway. The highway system is classified into various categories, delineated according to the geometric, right-of-way, and service characteristics. Introduction Highway classification by function is useful for planning and design It is of critical importance that the roads, streets, and highways be purposes, and is delineated as follows: maintained and preserved as a segment of the transportation A. Freeway: A divided highway for through traffic with full control infrastructure for Prince George’s County, in order to supplement and of access and grade-separated interchanges at selected public support the transit and nonmotorized elements into the future. For the roads. county to grow in population and jobs without a corresponding increase in traffic congestion, the road infrastructure will need B. Expressway: A divided highway for through traffic with full or improvements that eliminate any gaps that may impede the transit partial control of access and interchanges at selected public roads network and accommodate nonmotorized travel along it. with some at-grade intersections at 1,500–2,000 foot intervals. In addition to maintaining and enhancing the transportation C. Arterial: A highway for through and local traffic, either divided infrastructure, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, or undivided, with controlled access to abutting properties and such as construction of park-and-ride lots and making transit and at-grade intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • Evacuation Route Reference Map
    Medical Center MONTGOMERY COUNTY Evacuation Route Reference Map Silver Spring DC Routes and Shelters District of Columbia Homeland Security and Bethesda Emergency Management Agency 72hours.dc.gov hsema.dc.gov Walter Reed Takoma PRINCE GEORGE’S Rock Creek Park & College Park-U of Md Piney Branch Parkway 3 Takoma Ed Ctr COUNTY AVENUE CONNECTI 1 Coolidge 47 Lafayette GEORGIA Prince George’s Plaza Ward 4 ENUE CU 13 Brightwood AV T AV Friendship Heights RE ENUE MO TI West Hyattsville 43 Murch BAL Fort Totten ET STRE Tenleytown-AU 37 Woodrow 39 Barnard Fort Totten Wilson 16TH Park WISCONSIN Psychiatric 41 MacFarland Providence Institute Van Ness-UDC Hospital for Sick Children 40 Roosevelt CLARA BARTON PARKWAY AVENUE Ward 3 Georgia Ave Petworth Cleveland Park Sibley 22 Taft 21 Bancroft Washington Brookland-CUA 31 Tubman Veterans 32 Bell Affairs 30 Marshall Multicultural Ward 1 Columbia Heights Children’s Woodley Park-Zoo Ward 5 44 Key Adams Morgan 4 Banneker 24 Reed US HIGHWA Rhode Island Ave Howard AVENUE U St/Cardozo Y 50 Cheverly RHODE ISLAND 18 Ellington 49 Garrison 23 Cleveland Shaw-Howard Dupont Circle Univ Georgetown 14 Dunbar NEW YORK AVENUE Anacostia Park CANAL ROADRiverside 26 Francis Mt Vernon Sq - 7th St NUE New York Ave E Convention Center AV Deanwood ET M STRE 10 Walker-Jones TH GE 12 Thomson OR ID Farragut Terrell 8 - Browne K STREET North 2 Thomas ILW N 6 Burrville KE Farragut Gallery Pl H STREET 27 Spingarn KEY BR McPherson Sq George Foggy West Chinatown Washington Bottom Theodore Roosevelt 38 Stuart-Hobson Minnesota Ave LEE HIGHWAY Island Judiciary Sq BENNING ROAD 46 H.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Text Statement, "Parkways of the National Capital Region, 1913 to 1965," Is Attached to This Document
    f/o NPS Form 10-900 (Rev. 8/93} United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form INTERA&NCV RESOURCES DIVISION I NATIONAL PARK SERVICE This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts, See i Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item b II i te b *r the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property_____________________________________________________ historic name: George Washington Memorial Parkway____________________________________ other names/site number: N/A________________________________________________ 2. Location______________________________ Wq^hinntnn Mpmong] Pgtrkw^V_________________________________________________________ street & number: Turkey Run Park____________________________________[ ] not for publication city or town: McLean, VA vicinity state: Maryland. Virginia, DC counties: Montgomery, Arlington, Fairfax, DC: code: 031, 013, 059, 001 zip code: 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination [ ] request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property [ «""{rneets [ ] does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered signifies*]* [ ^naiionally [ ] statewide [ ] locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Map 7: Existing Green Infrastructure Plan
    should be given consideration during the development of adjacent properties for impacts to its natural and aesthetic qualities and resources. The Suitland Parkway is owned and operated by the National Park Service. Part parkway and part greenway, the parkway is located between the Washington, D.C., line, Southern Avenue, and MD 4 (Pennsylvania Avenue) in Prince George’s County. In addition, this parkway is planned and partially designed for a multiuse trail that will connect Washington, D.C., and Prince George’s County. It will link to several existing and planned trails in both jurisdictions and form part of the planned regional trails network. Development plans in the sector plan area should consider the impact on the viewshed from the parkway and its trails. Design details should address buffers, where appropriate, to maintain the integrity of this greenway.) The 2004 Approved Countywide Green Infrastructure Plan provided a comprehensive vision for conserving significant environmental ecosystems in Prince George’s County. It includes a map of interconnected sensitive habitats of countywide significance. With this network as a guide, specific recommendations for preserving and strengthening the local green infrastructure system have been developed for the Branch Avenue Corridor Sector Plan and secondary market area. (See Map 7 below.) Map 7: Existing Green Infrastructure Plan The designated green infrastructure network is divided into three environmental assessment categories: regulated areas, evaluation areas, and network gaps. Regulated areas contain environmentally sensitive features such as streams, wetlands, buffers, the 100-year floodplain, and steep slopes that are currently regulated (i.e., protected) during the land development process.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project
    THE NEW FREDERICK DOUGLASS MEMORIAL BRIDGE PROJECT ABOUT THE PROJECT The Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Project calls for replacing the 68-year-old bridge and reconstruction of the Suitland Parkway/I-295 interchange. The bridge has been classified functionally obsolete and needs to be replaced due to its condition, age and functional limitations. This project will increase pedestrian and vehicular safety, improve multimodal transportation options, increase community accessibility and support economic development on both sides of the Anacostia River. This project is one in a series of transportation, environmental, economic, community, and recreation projects developed by the larger Anacostia Waterfront Initiative (AWI) Program. From the Tidal Basin to the city’s northeast border with Maryland, the 30-year, $10 billion AWI Program is transforming the shores of the Anacostia River into a world-class waterfront and enriching nearby communities. For more information about AWI, visit the website: anacostiawaterfront.org. KEY PROJECT ELEMENTS • Building a new six-lane Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge • Creating a new traffic oval west of the river that connects South Capitol Street, Potomac Avenue and Q Street SW • Creating a new at-grade traffic oval east of the river that connects South Capitol Street, Suitland Parkway and Howard Road SE • Reconstructing the Suitland Parkway/Interstate 295 interchange • Constructing a new diamond interchange on Suitland Parkway at Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue • Increasing bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Improving drainage and storm water management throughout the corridor PROJECT START: WINTER 2017 | PROJECT COMPLETION: FALL 2021 PROJECT CONTACT: [email protected] STAY CONNECTED BY VISITING: www.newfrederickdouglassbridge.com District Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20003.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorials and Museums Master Plan Site Selection
    17 Site Selection SITE SELECTION A major component of the master plan is the identification and compilation of potential future memorial and museum sites in the District of Columbia and environs. The site selection process also evaluated the candidate locations relative to ele- ments of the framework. Each location was assigned a level of significance based The process that was undertaken in the initial identification, evaluation, and short- on the planning and urban design principles described earlier in this report. The listing of the potential locations was, by necessity, iterative. The initial list of loca- elements of the framework were placed in the following order of importance: tions was both expanded and reduced on several occasions resulting in a final list of locations that was agreed upon for purposes of additional evaluation and refine- Waterfront Crescent ment. A select list of prime locations was also identified and all sites were catego- Monumental Corridors (Gateway Boulevards and Principal Avenues) rized as to prominence, size, availability, and numerous other factors. Commemorative Focus Areas The initial list of potential locations was a compilation of sites: Final Candidate Sites and Site Locations Identified by the National Park Service A brief summary of each site was distributed to the members of the JTFM and other Suggested by NCPC interested parties, including the Committee of 100, Advisory Neighborhood Included in the NCPC Legacy Plan Commissions, District Council Members and staff, select staff from Congressional Identified because they would complete or restore missing elements oversight committees, etc. After review and comment, a consensus was reached of the L'Enfant Plan and the final short-list of 100 Candidate memorial and museum sites was com- Added by consensus of the JTFM and consultant team pleted.
    [Show full text]