GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 2017 Campus Plan Comprehensive Transportation Review

October 2016

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 16-18 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.16-18 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.33

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ______1 Overview ...... 1 Study Scope ...... 4

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES ______5 Roadway Network ...... 5 Table 1: Roadway Segment Details ...... 5 Existing Multi‐Modal Transportation Facilities and Services ...... 6 Georgetown University Transportation System (GUTS) ...... 6 Table 2: GUTS Headways (in minutes) ...... 7 Georgetown University Student Late Night Shuttle Loops ...... 7 Georgetown University SafeRides ...... 8 Uber Pilot Program ...... 8 Metrorail ...... 8 Table 3: Metrorail Headways (in minutes) ...... 9 Metrobus and DC Circulator ...... 9 Table 4: Metrobus and DC Circulator Headways (in minutes) ...... 10 Car‐sharing Services ...... 11 Capital Bikeshare...... 12 Chart 1: Bikeshare Trips by Station (September 2014 – March 2016) ...... 13 Chart 2: Capital Bikeshare Usage – 37th/O Street Station ...... 13 Bicycle Facilities ...... 14 Pedestrian Facilities ...... 14 Future Multi‐Modal Transportation Facilities and Services ...... 15 Overview ...... 15 Bicycle Facilities ...... 15 Pedestrian Facilities ...... 16 Transit Facilities ...... 16 Union Station – Georgetown Streetcar Line ...... 17 Southwest Waterfront – Georgetown Metrorail Line ...... 17 Rosslyn – Georgetown Gondola ...... 17

EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS ______18 Traffic Volumes ...... 18 Capacity Analysis ...... 19 Table 5: Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background Conditions ...... 20 Queue Analysis ...... 25 Table 6: Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) Existing and Background Conditions ...... 26 Safety Analysis ...... 31 Table 7: Crash Data Summary ...... 31

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Reservoir Road/39th Street ...... 32 Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate 1 ...... 32 M Street/Whitehurst Freeway ...... 32 M Street/34th Street ...... 32 M Street/33rd Street ...... 33 M Street/Wisconsin Avenue ...... 33 Prospect Street/37th Street ...... 33

FUTURE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ______34 Traffic Volumes ...... 34 Overview ...... 34 Regional Growth ...... 34 Pipeline Developments ...... 34 Background Forecasts ...... 35 Background Roadway Network ...... 35 Capacity Analysis ...... 36 Queue Analysis ...... 37

CAMPUS ANALYSIS ______38 Overview ...... 38 Parking ...... 39 On‐Campus Parking ...... 39 Table 8: Existing On‐Campus Parking Inventory ...... 39 Table 9: Proposed Parking Supply ...... 40 Reservoir Road Parking ...... 41 Chart 3: On‐Street Parking Occupancy on Reservoir Road By Time of Day ...... 41 Loading ...... 42 University Loading ...... 42 Table 10: Summary of Delivery Demand – University ...... 44 Hospital Loading ...... 44 Table 11: Summary of Delivery Demand – Hospital ...... 45 Site Access and Circulation ...... 46 Overview ...... 46 Vehicular Access ...... 46 GUTS Access ...... 47 Campus Pedestrian/Bicycle Network ...... 47 Campus Bicycling Services and Infrastructure ...... 48 Table 12: Bicycle Parking Occupancy Summary ...... 50 Trip Generation Analysis ...... 52 Overview ...... 52

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Existing Trips ...... 52 Table 13: Existing Vehicular Trip Generation Summary...... 53 University Trip Generation ...... 53 Table 14: University Mode Split Summary ...... 54 Table 15: Existing University Trip Generation by Mode ...... 55 Hospital Trip Generation ...... 55 Table 16: Hospital Mode Split Summary ...... 56 Table 17: Existing Hospital Trip Generation by Mode ...... 57 Potential Additional Trips ...... 57 University Trip Generation ...... 57 Table 18: AM and PM Peak Hour Arrival/Departure Patterns ...... 59 Table 19: Composite Growth Rate Calculation ...... 59 Table 20: Potential Additional University Trip Generation by Mode ...... 60 Hospital Trip Generation ...... 60 Table 21: MGUH Trip Generation ...... 62 Table 22: Potential Additional Hospital Trip Generation by Mode ...... 63 Combined Campus‐Wide Trip Generation ...... 63 Table 23: Potential Campus‐Wide Additional Trip Generation by Mode ...... 64 Campus‐Wide Vehicle Trip Reduction ...... 64 Hospital Decanting ...... 65 Table 24: MGUH Trip Generation With Decanting ...... 66 Transportation Demand Management ...... 67 University TDM Plan Overview ...... 68 Table 25: University Performance Target Commitment ...... 68 Table 26: University Vehicle Trip Generation With TDM Plan ...... 73 Hospital TDM Plan Overview ...... 73 Table 27: Hospital Performance Target Commitment ...... 74 Table 28: Hospital Vehicle Trip Generation With TDM Plan ...... 79 Site Trip Distribution and Assignment ...... 79

TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS ______80 Traffic Forecasts ...... 80 Traffic Control Options ...... 80 Reservoir Road/38th Street – Signalized ...... 81 Reservoir Road/38th Street – Unsignalized ...... 81 Reservoir Road/Gate 4 ...... 81 Capacity Analysis ...... 82 Table 29: Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM ...... 83 Queue Analysis ...... 89 Table 30: Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Scenarios without TDM ...... 90

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH TDM ______95 Traffic Forecasts ...... 95 Capacity Analysis ...... 95 Table 31: Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios ...... 96 Queue Analysis ...... 101 Table 32: Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) ‐ Total Future TDM Scenarios ...... 102 Improvement Analysis ...... 107 38th Street Unsiganlized ...... 107 Reservoir Road/Gate 4 ...... 107 Reservoir Road/Gate 3 ...... 107 Reservoir Road/39th Street ...... 107 Reservoir Road/Gate 1/38th Street ...... 108 Table 33: Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements ...... 109 Table 34: Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) ‐ Total Future Improvements ...... 114 38th Street Signalized ...... 118 Reservoir Road/37th Street ...... 119 Table 35: Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements ...... 119 Table 36: Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) ‐ Total Future Improvements ...... 125

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ______130

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

1 Georgetown University Campus Neighborhood Context 2 Existing GUTS Bus Routes/Stops 3 Late Night Shuttle Routes 4 Existing Car Share Locations 5 Existing Capital Bikeshare Locations 6 Existing Half Mile Bicycle Network 7 Existing Quarter Mile Pedestrian Network 8 Proposed Half Mile Bicycle Network 9 Proposed Quarter Mile Pedestrian Network 10 Potential Metrorail Extension 11A Existing Vehicular Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (West) 11B Existing Vehicular Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (East) 12A Existing Pedestrian Volumes (West) 12B Existing Pedestrian Volumes (East) 13A Existing Lane Use and Traffic Control (West) 13B Existing Lane Use and Traffic Control (East) 14A Background Traffic Forecasts (West) 14B Background Traffic Forecasts (East) 15 Proposed 20‐Year Development Plan 16 MGUH Medical/Surgical Pavilion Conceptual Plan 17 Existing Vehicular Circulation and Parking Facilities 18 Proposed Vehicular Circulation and Parking Facilities 19 Existing Loading/Service Facilities 20 Proposed Loading/Service Facilities 21 Future On‐Campus GUTS Routes 22A Campus Bicycle Route/Connections 22B West Road Proposed Sharrows 22C Prospect Street Proposed Sharrows 22D Tondorf Road (New South Hall) Proposed Sharrows 22E Typical Section – Tondorf Road (at Harbin Tower) 22F Typical Section – Tondorf Road (at between Regents Hall and ICC) 22G Campus Pedestrian Circulation 22H Conceptual Campus Wayfinding Plan 23 On‐Campus Bike Rack Locations 24 Geocoded University and Hospital Data 25 Regional Hospital Trip Distributions 26 Regional University Trip Distributions 27A University Site Trip Assignments (West) 27B University Site Trip Assignments (East)

v

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

FIGURE TITLE

28A Hospital Site Trip Assignments (West) 28B Hospital Site Trip Assignments (East) 29A Total Campus‐Wide Site Trip Assignments (West) 29B Total Campus‐Wide Site Trip Assignments (East) 30A University Site Trip Assignments with TDM Plan (West) 30B University Site Trip Assignments with TDM Plan (East) 31A Hospital Site Trip Assignments with TDM Plan (West) 31B Hospital Site Trip Assignments with TDM Plan (East) 32A Total Campus‐Wide Site Trip Assignments with TDM Plan (West) 32B Total Campus‐Wide Site Trip Assignments with TDM Plan (East) 33A Rerouted Background Traffic Forecasts (West) 33B Rerouted Background Traffic Forecasts (East) 34A Total Future Traffic Forecasts (West) 34B Total Future Traffic Forecasts (East) 35A Future Lane Use and Traffic Control (West) 35B Future Lane Use and Traffic Control (East) 36A Total Future Traffic Forecasts with TDM Plan (West) 36B Total Future Traffic Forecasts with TDM Plan (East)

vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE

A Scoping Document B Traffic Count Data C Existing Traffic Signal Timings D Level of Service Descriptions E Level of Service and Queue Reports for Existing Conditions F Crash Data G Level of Service and Queue Reports for Background Conditions H Reservoir Road Parking Occupancy Counts I Inventory of University Loading Facilities J Inventory of Hospital Loading Facilities K Swept Area Diagrams for Gate 1 L Hospital Trip Generation Analysis M Transportation Demand Management Plans N Peak Hour Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation O Level of Service and Queue Reports for Total Future Conditions With 38th Street Signalized P Level of Service and Queue Reports for Total Future Conditions With 38th Street Unsignalized Q Level of Service and Queue Reports for Total Future Conditions with TDM With 38th Street Signalized R Level of Service and Queue Reports for Total Future Conditions with TDM With 38th Street Unsignalized S Level of Service and Queue Reports for Total Future Conditions with TDM + Improvements ‐ With 38th Street UnSignalized T Level of Service and Queue Reports for Total Future Conditions with TDM + Improvements ‐ With 38th Street Signalized

vii

INTRODUCTION

Overview

Georgetown University (hereinafter referred to as the University or GU) was founded in 1789 and is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Georgetown’s main campus includes approximately 104 acres and more than 70 buildings housing university and hospital functions. The campus generally is bounded by Canal Road on the south, Reservoir Road on the north, Glover Archbold Park on the west, and Georgetown Visitation Preparatory School and West Georgetown on the east. The campus is situated among several established neighborhoods including Foxhall, Burleith, Hillandale, and West Georgetown. The campus location is shown on Figure 1.

The University is home to a vibrant community of students, faculty members, and professional staff. Seven of the University's nine schools are located on the main campus, and offer undergraduate and graduate degrees in a variety of programs. The University also offers a wide range of diverse research opportunities for its students and faculty, including its largest research center, the Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC).

An integral part of the undergraduate experience at Georgetown is the living and learning environment fostered by the University’s residential life program. All undergraduate students are eligible for on‐campus housing, and in Fall 2015 the University implemented a policy that requires that undergraduate students must live in on‐campus housing during their first year (freshman, transfer sophomore or transfer junior), sophomore year, and either junior or senior year. In the Fall of 2015, 4,976 undergraduate students lived on campus. Additionally, 31 Jesuits live on campus.

The University also is home to the MedStar Georgetown University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital or MGUH). The Hospital is a not‐for‐profit, acute‐care teaching and research hospital with 609 licensed beds located in the northern district of the main campus along Reservoir Road. MGUH’s Centers of Excellence include cancer, neurosciences, gastroenterology, transplant, and vascular diseases.

MGUH offers many services for complex diseases not offered at other hospitals in the region. Among many accolades, MGUH is the only hospital in Washington, DC to earn designation as a Center of Excellence by the National Parkinson Foundation and is the only comprehensive transplant center in DC and Southern Maryland to earn accreditation from the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy. In addition, the Transplant Center for Children is the only facility of its type in the DC area and the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center is the region’s only accredited NCI designated Comprehensive Cancer Center.

The University’s relationship with and commitment to its community and the District of Columbia is well established and takes many forms – as a leading employer and economic driver, a District partner in key social and policy initiatives, and a good neighbor to residents with whom it shares the dynamic and historic community surrounding campus.

1

The Georgetown Community Partnership (GCP), created in 2012 as a forum to facilitate discussion, information sharing, and consensus‐based decision making among University administrators, students, and members of the community, is a key reflection of the University’s commitment to maintaining positive and productive communication and collaboration among all interested stakeholders. At the time of the approval of the current Campus Plan, the University committed to launching a comprehensive planning process and to working with the GCP to develop a consensus 20‐year plan for the main campus. Since its inception, the GCP has continued to operate in a genuine collegial partnership, with representatives of all stakeholder groups actively engaged to evaluate existing programming, identify creative solutions to on‐going quality of life concerns, implement and evaluate programs to fulfill Campus Plan commitments, and plan for the future use of the main campus. Transportation and traffic considerations are of primary concern to members of the GCP; accordingly, the GCP established a specific working group tasked with addressing transportation‐related issues on a regular basis. The Transportation and Parking (TaP) Working Group meets monthly and provides a forum for members of the University administration, consultants from the Wells + Associates team, students, and members of the community to raise and resolve concerns regarding a wide range of transportation issues.

The unique working partnership forged through the GCP resulted in the development of a consensus 20‐year Campus Plan. The 20‐year Plan term allows the University to think more broadly in terms of envisioning the future of the campus, and provides members of the community with additional certainty and understanding of the University’s key priorities and commitments. Implementation of the proposed Campus Plan will support the University’s academic mission and further its reputation as a leading educational institution within the District of Columbia, as well as strengthen its relationships with residents in the neighborhoods surrounding campus. Key elements of the 2017 Campus Plan include:

. Continue productive engagement regarding Campus Planning and implementation efforts through the Georgetown Community Partnership (GCP); . Further efforts to develop and enhance the campus as a residential living and learning community; . Develop high‐quality green spaces and enhance existing ones, focusing efforts on creating a pedestrian‐friendly campus; . Address deferred maintenance and infrastructure needs, emphasizing the University’s commitment to stewardship of its existing resources; . Organize potential growth of up to approximately 900,000 square feet of additional GFA over the term of the Plan consistent with campus districts to support the University’s core academic mission in a strategic yet flexible manner, including construction of a new medical/surgical pavilion (up to 450,000 SF) at the hospital, which would provide 122 new beds (61 of these beds would accommodate patients who currently are boarded in hallways at the hospital, resulting in 61 net new beds);

2

. Require full‐time traditional undergraduate students to live in on‐campus housing during their first (freshman, transfer sophomore and transfer junior students), sophomore and either junior or senior year, unless specifically exempted. . Continue to support neighborhood quality of life initiatives to mitigate impacts associated with trash, noise, and student behavior; . Review and evaluate existing Transportation Management Plans for the University and Hospital and identify strategies to improve transportation‐related efforts that would enhance the efficacy of the plans; . Maintain existing cap of 4,080 parking spaces on campus (2,700 dedicated for Hospital use and 1,380 dedicated for University use); and . Manage student enrollment to currently‐permitted levels, including maintaining traditional undergraduate program enrollment cap of 6,675 students (the undergraduate headcount has remained at or near the 6,675 cap since the approval of the existing Campus Plan in 2012) and overall student headcount cap of 14,106 students (the current overall student headcount is 12,043, which would allow for measured growth in the graduate student population).

This report presents a Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) conducted in conjunction with the Campus Plan. The purpose of this report is to: . Evaluate existing traffic operational and safety conditions, . Evaluate future traffic conditions without changes associated with the 2017 Campus Plan, . Evaluate future traffic conditions with changes associated with the 2017 Campus Plan, . Identify existing and proposed mode choice alternatives, . Evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed parking, . Evaluate effectiveness of the existing loading facilities and make recommendations to reduce loading‐related impacts to vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic, . Identify any traffic operational impacts associated with the 2017 Campus Plan, . Recommend transportation improvements (including roadway, operational, and demand management strategies) to mitigate the impact of the campus plan and promote the safe and efficient flow of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic associated with the 2017 Campus Plan.

As part of the Campus Plan process, strategic, comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) plans for the University and Hospital also were developed. The plans are summarized briefly herein, but details of the plans can be found in the following companion documents: The Georgetown University Transportation Demand Management Plan and the Medstar Georgetown University Hospital Transportation Demand Management Plan.

3

The analyses presented herein include the construction of the new medical/surgical pavilion. In the event the pavilion is not constructed, the Campus Plan includes an alternative TDM Plan with appropriate performance targets for the Hospital. A supplemental addendum that analyzes transportation impacts associated with this alternate scenario will be submitted under separate cover.

Study Scope

In order to assess the impacts of the 2017 Campus Plan on the surrounding roadway network, the study area was determined based on those intersections that potentially could be affected by the implementation of the Campus Plan. The scope of the study and proposed methodologies were approved by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) prior to beginning the study. The agreed upon scoping document is included in Appendix A.

The proposed study area also was reviewed thoroughly with the GCP to obtain their input, feedback, and approval of the study area. Several intersections were added as a result of those discussions. The following intersections were identified for detailed analysis and agreed to by DDOT and the GCP: 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road, 13. Foxhall Road/P Street, 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street, 14. Foxhall Road/MacArthur Boulevard/ 44th Street, 3. Reservoir Road/Gate #4, 15. Canal Road/Foxhall Road, 4. Reservoir Road/Gate #3, 16. Canal Road/GU Driveway, 5. Reservoir Road/Gate #2, 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway, 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street, 18. M Street/Key Bridge, 7. Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate #1, 19. M Street/34th Street, 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street, 20. M Street/33rd Street, 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street, 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue, 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street, 22. Prospect Street/37th Street, and 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue, 23. Prospect Street/34th Street. 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place,

4

TRANSPORTATON FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Roadway Network

General details regarding the surrounding roadway segments, including functional classification, average daily traffic (ADT) volume, and speed limit are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Roadway Segment Details

Average Daily Functional Speed Limit Roadway Traffic* Classification (miles per hour) (vehicles per day) Reservoir Road Minor Arterial 19,500# 25 Canal Road Principal Arterial 39,200 35 Prospect Street Collector 6,200 30 Foxhall Road Minor Arterial 29,100 25 MacArthur Boulevard Principal Arterial 11,700 25† Wisconsin Avenue north Principal Arterial 18,900 25 of M Street Key Bridge Principal Arterial 50,900 30 Whitehurst Freeway east Freeway 37,400 35 of Wisconsin Avenue M Street west of Principal Arterial 24,000 25 Wisconsin Avenue 33rd Street Collector 6,400 25 34th Street Collector 4,100 25 35th Street Collector N/A 25‡,§ 36th Street Local N/A 25‡,+ 37th Street Collector N/A 25‡,~ 38th Street Local N/A 25‡ 39th Street Local N/A 25‡ 44th Street Local N/A 25‡ * The ADT volume is based on DDOT historical traffic volume data collected in 2014, which are the most recent data available, unless otherwise noted. # 2014 ADT not available between Foxhall Road and Wisconsin Avenue; 2013 ADT is reported. † A 15 mph School Speed Limit When Children Are Present is posted for eastbound traffic on MacArthur Boulevard west of Q Street and for westbound traffic east of Laverock Place NW. ‡ Speed limit unposted in the study area; assumed to be 25 mph. § A 15 mph School Speed Limit When Children Are Present is posted for northbound traffic on 35th Street north of R Street, north of P Street, north of O Street and north of Prospect Street and for southbound traffic north and south of R Street. + A 15 mph School Speed Limit When Children Are Present is posted for northbound traffic on 36th Street north of Reservoir Road and for southbound traffic south of R Street. ~ A 15 mph School Speed Limit When Children Are Present is posted for northbound traffic on 37th Street north of R Street and for southbound traffic south of R Street.

5

Existing Multi‐Modal Transportation Facilities and Services

Georgetown University Transportation System (GUTS)

The Campus is served by some nearby public transportation options (including Metrobus and DC Circulator as detailed below); however, in order to effectively link members of the campus community with the Metrorail system and other key access locations, the University operates the Georgetown University Transportation System (GUTS). While the entire cost of the GUTS program (approximately $3.5 million annually) is underwritten by the University, access to all GUTS routes is available free of charge to faculty, staff, students, patients, and visitors of the University and Hospital. The substantial and continued investment in the GUTS program is the essential centerpiece of the University’s commitment to supporting a truly multi‐modal campus.

In keeping with this commitment, and specifically to maximize the use of the Canal Road entrance as required under the 2010 Campus Plan, the University recently completed the McDonough Bus Plaza. Pursuant to the conditions of the 2010 Plan, GUTS buses, with the exception of the Wisconsin Avenue route, were required to be rerouted to enter and exit campus via Canal Road. The new bus facility facilitates compliance with this condition and provides an area for the boarding and alighting passengers at a dedicated turnaround on the southwest corner of campus, and also supports the University’s commitment to provide a pedestrian and bicycle friendly campus by eliminating bus traffic that had previously occurred through the core of campus. In addition, as a result of the new Bus Plaza, for the first time, four of the five bus stops are located in a single location on campus. The Bus Plaza also provides shelters for each of the four bus stops.

The University GUTS program operates five bus routes that provide connectivity between campus and the Metro system as well as key destinations for students, faculty, and staff, as described below: . Dupont Circle provides express service between the Main Campus (McDonough Bus Plaza) and the Dupont Circle Metro Station. . Rosslyn provides express service between the Main Campus (McDonough Bus Plaza) and the Rosslyn Metro Station. . North Arlington Loop provides access between Main Campus (McDonough Bus Plaza) and North Arlington via a series of 14 stops. . Law Center/Capitol Hill provides service between Main Campus (McDonough Bus Plaza) and the Georgetown University Law Center. New for the 2015‐2016 school year, the Law Center route makes an interim stop at Garfield Circle during three morning runs and two afternoon runs to serve students who have internships on Capitol Hill. . Wisconsin Avenue connects the Main Campus (Darnall Hall) to nearby off‐campus offices located at 3300 Whitehaven Street and 2115 and 2233 Wisconsin Avenue.

The five GUTS routes are shown on Figure 2 and summarized in Table 2 below:

6

Table 2 GUTS Headways (in minutes)

Days of Min Max Route Hours of Operation Operation Headway Headway

M‐F 6:00 AM – 12:00 AM 0:10 0:35 Dupont Circle Sat 12:10 PM – 6:15 PM 1:20 1:50 M‐F 4:45 AM – 11:45 PM 0:10 0:35 Rosslyn Sat 11:30 AM – 5:35 PM 1:20 1:50 7:10 AM – 11:15 AM Arlington M‐F 0:50 1:00 4:20 PM – 10:20 PM Law Center/Capitol Hill* M‐F 7:55 AM – 10:10 PM† 1:00 2:00 Wisconsin Avenue M‐F 7:00 AM – 7:09 PM 0:10 0:20 * At 8:18, 9:26, and 11:59 AM, the bus makes an interim stop at Garfield Circle to drop‐off passengers. At 5:48 and 6:46 PM, the bus makes an interim stop at Garfield Circle to pick‐up passengers. All other times, the bus stops only on campus and at the Law Center. † On Fridays, the last bus departs campus at 8:20 PM and departs the Law Center at 9:05 PM.

Georgetown University Student Late Night Shuttle Loops

The University provides free, late night shuttle service to popular nearby evening destinations and neighborhood destinations. The routes operate from Thursday through Saturday, 10:00 PM to 3:00 AM. The University operates four routes, as summarized below:  Burleith Loop – provides service around the Burleith neighborhood with 22 stops between the Main Gates via 37th Street, O Street, 35th Street, S Street, 38th Street, Reservoir Road, and P Street,  West Georgetown Loop – provides service around the West Georgetown neighborhood with 14 stops between the Main Gates via 37th Street, O Street, Wisconsin Avenue, and Prospect Street,  M Street Loop – provides service around the Georgetown neighborhood and waterfront with 6 stops between the Main Gates and the Canal Road entrance via 37th Street, M Street, Wisconsin Avenue, Water Street, and 31st Street, and  Dupont and Adams Morgan Loop – provides service to the Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle neighborhoods with a stop on campus at the Southwest Quad, Dupont Circle at 20th Street and Massachusetts Avenue, and Adams Morgan at 18th and Columbia Road.

Late night shuttle routes are shown on Figure 3.

7

Georgetown University SafeRides

The University’s SafeRides program provides a safe alternative to walking alone at night by providing rides to and from campus and adjacent neighborhoods. The service is available for University students, faculty, and staff. The service is provided on‐demand beginning at 8:00 PM every day. The service is provided until 2:00 AM Sunday through Wednesday and until 3:00 AM Thursday through Saturday. The locations of the Saferide vans and shuttles can be viewed on the Georgetown Mobile App.

The SafeRides service area is depicted on Figure 3.

Uber Pilot Program

The University continually looks for new and innovative ways to provide transportation options. Specifically, the University has been exploring ways to supplement the aforementioned SafeRides program. In April 2016, the University launched a pilot program with Uber. During the pilot period, students could use Uber at a discount for late night trips that started or ended in the SafeRides zone when SafeRides wait times exceeded 15 minutes. Students were required to first request a ride through SafeRides; if the wait was more than 15 minutes, the SafeRides dispatcher texted a link to request a ride through Uber with a promotion code for up to $5 off the Uber Ride.

The University continues to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program and will determine whether to continue the Uber partnership in the future based on utilization data collected during the pilot program and feedback from students.

Metrorail

The nearest Metro station by walking distance is the Rosslyn Metro Station, which is located approximately 0.9 miles from the southeastern edge of campus (37th Street/Prospect Street intersection). As indicated above, students, faculty, staff, and visitors can connect to the Rosslyn Metro Station via the Rossyln GUTS bus route.

The Rosslyn Metro Station provides access to the Metro Blue, Orange, and Silver lines. Riders can transfer to the Red line at Metro Center, to the Green and Yellow line (northbound) at L’Enfant Plaza, and to the Yellow line (southbound) at Pentagon.

The GUTS system also provides access to the Dupont Circle Metro Station, which provides access to the Metro Red line. Riders can transfer to the Orange, Silver, and Blue lines at Metro Center and to the Yellow and Green lines at Gallery Place.

Headways for the Red, Silver, Orange, and Blue lines are summarized in Table 3.

8

Table 3 Metrorail Headways (in minutes)

AM Rush Midday PM Rush Evening Late Night Headway* 5:00 AM – 9:30 AM – 3:00 PM – 7:00 PM – 9:30 PM – 9:30 AM 3:00 PM 7:00 PM 9:30 PM Close Red Line (Dupont Circle Metro Station) Min 0:03 0:12 0:03 0:06 0:15 Max 0:06 0:12 0:06 0:10 0:18 Silver Line (Rosslyn Metro Station) Min 0:06 0:12 0:06 0:12 0:20 Max 0:06 0:12 0:06 0:12 0:20 Orange Line (Rosslyn Metro Station) Min 0:06 0:12 0:06 0:12 0:20 Max 0:06 0:12 0:06 0:12 0:20 Blue Line (Rosslyn Metro Station) Min 0:12 0:12 0:12 0:12 0:20 Max 0:12 0:12 0:12 0:12 0:20 * Headways presented represent headways in both directions.

Metrobus and DC Circulator

Campus is directly served by the G2 and D6 Metrobus routes. The nearest G2 stop is located at the main gate to the campus at the 37th Street/O Street intersection. The G2 runs from Georgetown University at its western terminus to Howard University at its eastern terminus with multiple stops in between, including a stop at the Dupont Circle Metro Station.

The D6 route stops at multiple points along Reservoir Road, including a stop adjacent to Gate 1. The D6 provides runs between Sibley Hospital and the Stadium Armory Metro Station. In addition to stops along Reservoir Road serving the University and the Hospital, the D6 also stops at the following locations: Dupont Circle Metro Station, Farragut North Metro Station, Farragut West Metro Station, Metro Center, Union Station, and Capitol Hill.

Additional Metrobus lines run near campus on Wisconsin Avenue and M Street, including 30N, 30S, 38B, D1, D2, D3, and D5.

Two DC Circulator routes also run near campus. The Georgetown – Union Station Circulator route has multiple stops on Wisconsin Avenue near the campus. The Dupont Circle – Rosslyn Circulator route has multiple stops on M Street near campus.

The minimum, maximum, and average headways for the WMATA and DC Circulator routes are provided in Table 4.

9

Table 4 Metrobus and DC Circulator Headways (in minutes)

Northbound/Westbound Southbound/Eastbound AM Peak Midday PM Peak AM Peak Midday PM Peak HEADWAY 7:00 AM – 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM – 7:00 AM – 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM – 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 30N, 30S: Friendship Heights – Southeast Line Min 0:28 0:27 0:20 0:21 0:22 0:22 Max 0:39 0:35 0:33 0:34 0:35 0:30 Avg 0:33 0:31 0:28 0:29 0:29 0:28 38B: Ballston‐Farragut Square Line Min 0:12 0:20 0:12 0:10 0:09 0:09 Max 0:20 0:22 0:16 0:16 0:22 0:20 Avg 0:15 0:20 0:15 0:12 0:19 0:16 D1: Glover Park‐Federal Triangle Line Min N/A N/A 0:27 0:06 N/A N/A Max N/A N/A 0:36 0:17 N/A N/A Avg N/A N/A 0:30 0:10 N/A N/A D2: Glover Park‐Dupont Circle Line Min 0:08 0:15 0:09 0:06 0:15 0:09 Max 0:24 0:21 0:15 0:14 0:23 0:16 Avg 0:12 0:20 0:11 0:11 0:20 0:11 D3: Ivy City ‐ Dupont Circle Line Min 0:23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Max 0:30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Avg 0:27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A D5: MacArthur Blvd ‐ Georgetown Line Min N/A N/A 0:30 0:16 N/A N/A Max N/A N/A 0:34 0:22 N/A N/A Avg N/A N/A 0:31 0:19 N/A N/A D6: Sibley Hospital – Stadium Armory Line Min 0:12 0:28 0:09 0:16 0:12 0:12 Max 0:32 0:30 0:21 0:24 0:30 0:31 Avg 0:19 0:30 0:15 0:19 0:26 0:17 G2: P Street – LeDroit Park Line Min 0:12 0:29 0:16 0:12 0:17 0:17 Max 0:20 0:31 0:20 0:30 0:30 0:20 Avg 0:15 0:30 0:18 0:17 0:28 0:18

10

Table 4 (Continued) Metrobus and DC Circulator Headways (in minutes)

Northbound/Westbound Southbound/Eastbound AM Peak Midday PM Peak AM Peak Midday PM Peak HEADWAY 7:00 AM – 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM – 7:00 AM – 10:00 AM – 4:00 PM – 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 7:00 PM 31: Wisconsin Avenue Line Min 0:30 0:16 0:14 0:10 0:22 0:22 Max 0:31 0:33 0:18 0:24 0:33 0:34 Avg 0:30 0:28 0:16 0:15 0:29 0:28 33: Wisconsin Avenue Line Min 0:20 0:16 0:05 0:12 0:25 0:15 Max 0:32 0:33 0:22 0:20 0:32 0:34 Avg 0:29 0:28 0:14 0:15 0:29 0:26 Circulator: Georgetown – Union Station All Headways 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:10 Circulator: Dupont Circle – Georgetown ‐ Rosslyn All Headways 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:10 0:10

Car‐sharing Services

Three car‐sharing providers currently operate in the District: Zipcar, Car2Go, and Enterprise. In order to reduce the need for cars on campus, the University has partnered with Zipcar and Car2Go to provide a convenient, reduced cost car‐sharing service for faculty, staff, and students.

Zipcar requires a $25 application fee and members can choose from three plans: occasional driving plan ‐ $70 per year, pay as you go based on the standard hourly or daily rates; monthly plan ‐ $7 per month pay as you go based on the standard hourly or daily rates; and the extra value plan ‐ $50 per month, pay as you go based on discounted hourly or daily rates. Cars must be returned to the same designated parking spaces from which they were picked up.

Four Zipcars are located on the Georgetown Campus on Tondorf Road in front of Village C. Another three Zipcars are located at the north end of campus by the corner of Darnall Hall. The convenience of the on‐campus Zipcar spaces encourage student car‐sharing.

Georgetown University students, faculty, and staff are eligible for a Zipcar discount. The application fee of $25 is waived, and the annual fee is just $15 for students (a discount of $45) and $25 for faculty and staff (a discount of $35). Additionally, the cars parked on campus are available to students and staff at a discount compared to off‐campus locations.

11

Enterprise CarShare has a $25 one‐time application fee and a $40 annual membership fee. Members can choose from three plans: Keep it Local – pay by the hour or day plus pay per mile (based on the lowest set of rates offered), with no monthly commitment; Keep it Simple – pay by the hour and day (based on higher rates than in the local plan), includes 200 free miles; Road Warrior – prepay $25 or $50 each month and receive a 10 or 15 percent discount on hourly or daily rates and get 200 miles free (under this plan, the annual membership fee is waived).

Cars can be reserved by the hour or day (hourly and daily fees are charged per usage). In the District, cars must be returned to their original location. The nearest Enterprise CarShare cars are located more than one mile from campus in the West End and Foggy Bottom neighborhoods.

The University currently is working with carshare vendors to add additional capacity to campus. Current carsharing locations located on or near campus are shown on Figure 4.

Capital Bikeshare

Capital Bikeshare is an automated bicycle rental or bicycle sharing system that provides approximately 3,000 bicycles at 350 stations across Washington, DC, Arlington, VA, Alexandria, VA, and Montgomery County, MD. Membership, which is required to use Capital Bikeshare, includes four options for joining: 24 hours ($8), three days ($17), 30 days ($28), or one year ($85). The first 30 minutes of use are free; users then are charged a usage fee for each additional 30‐minute period. Bicycles can be returned to any station with an available dock. GU faculty and staff receive a 50 percent discount on membership fees through the GU Wellness Program.

Several Capital Bikeshare stations are located near the Georgetown Campus, as indicated below (capacities listed are as of October 12, 2016):  37th and O Street – 21 bicycle capacity,  C & O Canal and Wisconsin Avenue – 23 bicycle capacity,  Wisconsin Avenue and 34th Street – 11 bicycle capacity,  Georgetown Harbor at 30th Street – 19 bicycle capacity,  Wilson Boulevard and Fort Meyer Drive (Rosslyn Metro Station) – 19 bicycle capacity,  Lynn Street and 19th Street – 28 bicycle capacity,  Wisconsin Avenue and O Street – 18 bicycle capacity, and  34th and Water Street – 19 bicycle capacity.

Bikeshare locations are shown on Figure 5. The number of trips by station over the last 12 months is depicted in Chart 1.

12

Chart 1 Bikeshare Trips by Station (September 2014 – March 2016)

60000

50000

40000 Trips

of 30000

20000 Number 10000

0

Stations

The number of trips at the 37th Street/O Street station over the last five school years is shown in Chart 2.

Chart 21 Capital Bikeshare Usage – 37th/O Street Station

30000

25000

20000

15000

Number of Trips 10000

5000

0 2010‐2011 2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

1 Data for each school year is from September through July (11 months) with the exception of the 2010 – 2011 school year, which includes data from October through July (10 months).

13

Bicycle Facilities

Existing bicycle facilities within an approximate ½ mile radius of the campus are shown on Figure 6. Existing bicycle facilities include a southbound bike lane on 34th Street between Wisconsin Avenue and M Street and a northbound bike lane on 33rd Street between Wisconsin Avenue and M Street.

The Capital Crescent Trail is a multi‐use, off road trail located below Canal Road and connects Georgetown to Lyttonsville, MD. From Lyttonsville, the trail continues as an on‐road bike trail to Silver Spring, MD. Users in Georgetown can gain access to the trail just west of campus. From campus, bicyclists can access the trail by exiting campus via the Canal Road driveway and then heading west on Canal Road for approximately 840 feet to the trail access. Bicyclists can either ride on the road or on sidewalks, which are provided along the Canal Road driveway and along the north side of Canal Road.

The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Towpath is a 184.5‐mile multi‐use trail located along the north bank of the Potomac River and provides access between Washington, DC and Cumberland, MD. Access to the trail is provided via the footbridge at the southern end of 34th Street or via the trailhead located adjacent to the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway between Pennsylvania Avenue and Whitehurst Freeway.

Pedestrian Facilities

Existing pedestrian facilities within an approximate ¼ mile radius of the campus are shown on Figure 7. On the roadways bordering campus, a sidewalk is located on the north side of Canal Road. The University recently completed the sidewalk along the Canal Road driveway connecting campus pedestrian facilities to the public roadway network.

On Reservoir Road, sidewalks are present along both sides of the roadway with one notable exception. Along the north side of the roadway, the sidewalk is missing from Georgetown Court to a point just west of the French Embassy. On campus sidewalks are present along at least one side of all campus driveways along Reservoir Road to provide connectivity to the public sidewalk network.

Sidewalks are also present along Prospect Street connecting pedestrians on campus to the public sidewalk network. The main gate at O Street/37th Street also provides a pedestrian connection to the public sidewalk network.

At the 37th Street/N Street intersection, the entire all‐way stop controlled intersection is striped in a cross‐hatched pattern effectively creating one large crosswalk for all movements.

14

Future Multi‐Modal Transportation Facilities and Services

Overview

Completed in October 2014, the District of Columbia MoveDC Plan (the MoveDC Plan or the Plan) lays the framework for the 25‐year vision for Washington, DC’s transportation system. Recommendations made in the plan were assigned to Tiers, with Tier 1 assumed to be the highest priority and Tier 4 assumed to be the lowest priority. The MoveDC Plan includes recommendations for pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities and provides transit recommendations, primarily including high‐capacity transit, streetcar, high‐frequency bus service, and Metrorail.

In January 2014, the Georgetown Business Improvement District (BID) released Georgetown 2028, a 15‐year action plan that set forth goals for public space, economic development, and transportation. According to the 2016 Update, the BID continues to work on the following transportation initiatives: Georgetown Streetcar, Metrorail extension to Georgetown, aerial gondola service between Rosslyn and Georgetown, new Capital Bikeshare stations in Georgetown, more bicycle parking in Georgetown, and pedestrian improvements, including improvements between Georgetown and the Foggy Bottom Metro Station.

The potential multi‐modal infrastructure improvements and potential additional services are discussed in further detail below.

Bicycle Facilities

The bicycle element of the MoveDC Plan recommends “planning for trails and bikeways to ensure that bicycle network gaps are eliminated and trail system access is enhanced.” Within the study area, the plan identifies connecting the Capital Crescent Trail to the Rock Creek Trail along the Georgetown waterfront. Other improvements identified in the study area include: . Trail connection between Georgetown and Theodore Roosevelt Island (Tier 2), . Filling bicycle lane gaps along 33rd Street (Tier 2) ‐ Complete, . Trail along Canal Road (Tier 4), . Cycle track on Reservoir Road (Tier 3), and . Cycle track on K Street in Georgetown (Tier 4).

Proposed/planned bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 8.

Per DDOT’s request, a qualitative assessment of the cycle track on Reservoir Road was undertaken. Reservoir Road currently is 37 feet in width from face‐of‐curb to face‐of‐curb, including gutters. The roadway is striped with four lanes each approximately 8.5 feet in width. the northern curb lane is a travel lane during the PM Rush (4:00 PM to 6:30 PM) and a parking lane at all other times. The southern lane currently is a travel lane during the AM Rush (7:00 AM to 9:30 AM) and parking during all other times.

15

The minimum width for a bi‐directional cycle track is eight feet plus a buffer. One‐way cycle tracks are five feet plus buffer. Therefore, the Reservoir Road cross‐section is not wide enough to accommodate two parking lanes, a bi‐directional cycle track, and two travel lanes. The addition of a cycle track would require the elimination of two of the current lanes on Reservoir Road, which would eliminate a significant number of on‐street parking spaces and would reduce lane capacity by one lane in the eastbound direction during the AM Rush and by one lane in the westbound direction in the PM Rush.

Reservoir Road is a designated as a minor arterial and carries a significant volume of commuter traffic. The loss of capacity during rush hours would have a significant impact to the operations of the roadway. In addition, members of the community have indicated to the University that the loss of parking is a major concern.

The District of Columbia Capital Bikeshare Development Plan has identified Georgetown as a location for a new station in Fiscal Year 2018 to provide Bikeshare access to the Hospital and University. The final location and size of the station will be finalized at a later date.

Pedestrian Facilities

The pedestrian element of the MoveDC Plan recommends trail networks within the District and locations for new sidewalks. Within the study area, the Plan identifies the Palisades Trolley Trail along the north side of Canal Road running from the Palisades to a point at the eastern edge of Glover Archbold Park. The Trail would provide a connection to neighborhoods that currently is lacking with the Capital Crescent Trail due to a significant elevation difference and its terminus under the Whitehurst Freeway.

Within the study area, other improvements identified include: . Filling sidewalk gaps on Reservoir Road between Foxhall Road/Salem Lane and 37th Street/Winfield Lane (Tier 1), . Filling sidewalk gaps on Canal Road (Tier 2), and . Adding sidewalks on Winfield Lane between 37th Street and 35th Street (Tier 4).

The proposed pedestrian network surrounding the campus is shown on Figure 9.

Transit Facilities

The transit element of the MoveDC Plan provides recommendations primarily for high‐ capacity transit, streetcar, high‐frequency bus service, and Metrorail. Within the study area, the plan identifies: . Streetcar service from Union Station to the Georgetown Waterfront (Tier 1), . A new downtown Metrorail line from Georgetown to the Southwest Waterfront (Tier 2),

16

. High‐frequency bus service on Macarthur Boulevard/K Street from Farragut West to Palisades (Tier 3), . Extended streetcar service from Georgetown to Georgetown University (Tier 3), and . High‐capacity transit service on Wisconsin Avenue from Tenleytown to Georgetown (Tier 3).

Details regarding the feasibility studies for streetcar and Metrorail service to Georgetown are discussed in further detail below.

Union Station – Georgetown Streetcar Line

DDOT has developed a plan for a 37‐mile streetcar network throughout the District. In addition to the new H Street/Benning Road Line, which opened in February 2015, DDOT is in the process of preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a streetcar line connecting Union Station to Georgetown. The most recent public meeting was held on May 17, 2016. Both build alternatives addressed at that meeting included stops at Wisconsin Avenue on K Street underneath Whitehurst Freeway.

At this time, no timeframe has been identified for the implementation of the Union Station – Georgetown Streetcar Line.

Southwest Waterfront – Georgetown Metrorail Line

WMATA is in the process of outlining long‐term capacity improvements for its 2040 Regional Transit System Plan, which includes a proposed line to serve Metrorail’s core. The line would feature eight to ten new Metrorail Stations, including a stop in Georgetown and stops along the Southwest Waterfront. A diagram of WMATA’s most recently proposed network is shown on Figure 10.

Rosslyn – Georgetown Gondola

The idea of constructing a gondola to connect Georgetown with Rosslyn came as a result of the Georgetown Business Improvement District’s (BID) 2028 15‐Year Action Plan. Following its inception, funding for a feasibility study was acquired through a diverse partnership of governmental, real estate, business improvement district, and institutional organizations, including Georgetown University. The purpose of the feasibility study is to identify the demand, financial, regulatory, design, and real estate implications for pursuing the gondola project. A preliminary public meeting was held on July 7, 2016, and a second public meeting is anticipated for Fall 2016 to present findings and recommendations.

17

EXISTING CONDITONS ANALYSIS

Traffic Volumes

Existing vehicular turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian counts were conducted from 6:30 AM to 10:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in January 2015 at the following intersections: . Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road, . Reservoir Road/Gate 4, . Reservoir Road/Gate 3, . Reservoir Road/Gate 2, . Reservoir Road/39th Street, . Reservoir Road/Gate 1, . Reservoir Road/38th Street, . Reservoir Road/37th Street, . Reservoir Road/35th Street, and . Reservoir Road/34th Street.

Due to issues with the counts at Reservoir Road/Gate 3 and Reservoir Road/34th Street, the intersections were recounted on February 24, 2015 and March 11, 2015, respectively.

Existing vehicular turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM in March 2015 and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in October 2015 at the following locations: . Canal Road/Foxhall Road, . Canal Road/GU Driveway, . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway, . M Street/Key Bridge, and . M Street/34th Street.

Existing vehicular turning movement, bicycle, and pedestrian counts were conducted from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM in March 2016 at the following locations: . Reservoir Road/44th Street, . Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue, . Foxhall Road/Volta Place, . Foxhall Road/P Street, . Foxhall Road/MacArthur Boulevard/44th Street,

18

. M Street/33rd Street, . M Street/Wisconsin Avenue, . Prospect Street/37th Street, and . Prospect Street/34th Street.

AM and PM peak hours for each of the study intersections were determined individually to provide the most conservative peak hour analysis, consistent with standard DDOT practice. Counts along the Canal Road/M Street Corridor were adjusted to account for the rerouting of GUTS buses to the Canal Road driveway. Existing vehicular peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 11. Peak hour pedestrian volumes are shown on Figure 12. Traffic count data are included in Appendix B.

Capacity Analysis

Capacity/level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the study intersections based on the existing lane use and traffic control shown on Figure 13, baseline traffic volumes (vehicular and pedestrian) shown on Figures 11 and 12, and traffic signal timings obtained from DDOT, included in Appendix C.

Synchro software (Version 9) was used to evaluate levels of service at the study intersections during the peak hours. Synchro is a macroscopic model used to evaluate the effects of changing intersection geometrics, traffic demands, traffic control, and/or traffic signal settings and to optimize traffic signal timings. The levels of service reported were taken from the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM) reports generated by Synchro. Level of service descriptions are included in Appendix D.

The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 5. Capacity analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E.

As shown in Table 5, under existing conditions, the signalized study intersections operate at overall levels of service D or better, with the exception of the following intersections: . Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road – Operates at an overall LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours; . Reservoir Road/38th Street – Operates at an overall LOS F during AM peak hour; . Foxhall Road/Canal Road – Operates at an overall LOS F during AM peak hour and an overall LOS E during PM peak hour; . Canal Road/GU Driveway – Operates at an overall LOS F during PM peak hour; . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway – Operates at an overall LOS E during AM peak hour and LOS F during PM peak hour; . M Street/Key Bridge – Operates at an overall LOS F during PM peak hour; and . M Street/34th Street – Operates at an overall LOS E during PM peak hour.

19

Table 5 Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background Conditions

Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL D D D E (57.6) EBT F (227.6) E (62.2) F (386.1) F (87.5) EBR D D D D WBL F (110.0) D F (176.0) D WBT D F (139.9) D F (253.3) WBR C D C D NBLTR F (81.5) C F (171.9) D SBL F (137.9) D F (272.6) D SBTR F (283.9) F (313.8) F (427.6) F (469.6) Overall F (146.6) F (116.7) F (250.6) F (177.5) 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT A A A A WBT A A A A NBLR C B D C 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4* EBTR A A A A WBL B C A A WBT A A NBLR C D E [37.4] E [41.4] Overall ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR A A A A WBLT A A A A NBL F [68.3] C F [141.4] D NBR C B E [36.3] B 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR A A A A WBLT A A A A NBL F [51.2] C F [99.6] D NBR B B C C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh * A traffic signal is proposed at Reservoir Road/Gate 4 for Total Future Conditions.

20

Table 5 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background

Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT B A B A WBTR A A B A SBLR C D C D Overall B A B A 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† EBTR ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ WBLT ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBL ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBR ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Overall ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ EBLTR A B A B WBLT F (284.5) F (546.5) B B WBR A A NBL E (68.5) E (77.0) E (70.0) E (79.4) NBTR C C C C SBLTR C C C C Overall F (84.5) C F (155.9) C 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR A D A F (164.8) WBLTR A A A A NBLTR D D D D SBLTR F (146.3) E (59.2) F (415.2) F (105.2) Overall C C E (59.1) F (95.2) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

21

Table 5 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background

Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT B C B C EBR B C D C WBLTR B B B B NBL F (106.0) D F (365.2) F (156.6) NBTR C C C C SBLT E (77.2) E (68.4) F (160.7) F (128.4) SBR C C D C Overall D D F (92.3) E (63.2) 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR C B F [52.0] B WBLT A A B B SBLTR B B C B Overall C B E [35.9] B 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR E (56.9) D F (84.1) E (64.8) NBLT C A F (172.1) C SBTR A A B A Overall C B F (105.3) C 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR C B D C NBTR A A A A SBLT A A A A 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR C C D C NBTR A A A A SBLT A A A A 14A. 44th Street/MacArthur Boulevard WBLTR D D D D NBL C C E (70.8) C NBT B B B B SBTR C D C D Overall B C D C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

22

Table 5 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background

Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR C B D B NBT A A A A SBT A A A A Overall A A B A 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT D F (178.1) F (88.2) F (305.2) WBL ‐ C ‐ F (123.9) WBT A A A A NBR F (333.1) ‐ F (503.9) ‐ Overall F (144.2) E (59.2) F (228.2) F (119.2) 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT A A A A WBT A A A A SBR B C B C 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL A A A A EBT D B F (147.5) E (58.4) WBT A F (141.8) A F (265.4) WBR A A A A SBL E (68.7) F (220.8) E (68.7) F (220.8) Overall C F (107.3) F (94.0) F (196.1) 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR F (113.9) C F (242.4) F (90.5) EBR A A A A WBTR C D C F (117.9) NBL D F (308.5) E (65.8) F (465.7) NBLT D F (317.7) E (72.3) F (477.7) NBR D C F (137.8) C SBL E (60.0) E (57.8) E (61.6) E (59.2) SBR E (55.2) D E (55.0) E (56.5) Overall E (59.1) F (139.7) F (118.3) F (230.8) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

23

Table 5 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background

Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT F (143.4) E (72.3) F (278.4) E (75.1) EBR C F (155.5) C F (271.4) WBL E (61.0) F (90.4) F (96.6) F (202.0 WBT C B C B NBL E (77.8) F (161.0) F (162.4) F (273.5) NBR C A E (75.3) A Overall D F (85.3) F (101.7) F (163.8) 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR C A E (56.3) B WBLT D C D C NBLTR D D D D SBLT D D D D SBR C F (170.8) C F (296.1) Overall C E (62.2) D F (99.6) 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR A A A A WBLTR D D F (103.7) F (126.2) NBLTR D D D D Overall B C D E (79.2) 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR D B F (115.8) B WBT C C C D WBR E (67.5) F (88.5) F (94.3) F (131.6) NBL D E (63.7) E (57.0) E (76.8) NBLTR D E (60.0) E (56.8) E (73.5) SBL F (84.1) F (82.1) F (145.8) F (126.3) SBLT E (78.6) F (82.7) F (134.4) F (128.8) SBR C D C D Overall D D F (98.0) D [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

24

Table 5 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Existing and Background

Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR A A A A WBLTR A A A A NBLTR A A A A SBLTR A A A A Overall A A A A 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR B D B F [63.7] WBLT C C D D SBLTR C D F [54.8] F [62.3] Overall C C E [37.9] F [54.2] [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

Queue Analysis

A queuing analysis was conducted for existing conditions. Synchro was used to conduct the analyses, using the larger of the 95th percentile queue lengths or 50th percentile queue lengths. The results are summarized in Table 6 and queue reports are provided in Appendix E.

As shown in Table 6, the following intersections have one or more lane groups that have 95th percentile queues in excess of the available storage under existing conditions: . Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road, . Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate 1, . Reservoir Road/37th Street/Winfield Lane, . Reservoir Road/35th Street, . Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue, . Foxhall Road/Canal Road, . Canal Road/GU Driveway, . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway, . M Street/Key Bridge, . M Street/34th Street, . M Street/33rd Street, and

25

. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue.

Queues that extend to adjacent intersections are typical in urban environments where intersections are closely spaced.

Table 6 Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) Existing and Background Conditions

Available Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL 100 31 38 35 47 EBT 200 726 186 957 250 EBR 200 10 31 22 0 WBL 50 163 161 220 212 WBT 145/605 256 655 331 853 145 (AM)/ WBR 35 66 40 96 250 (PM) NBLTR 210 532 266 712 372 SBL 115 535 108 734 133 SBTR 115 774 625 979 779 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT 235 0 0 0 0 WBT 625 0 0 0 0 NBLR 140/300 22 7 47 13 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4 EBT 625 0 0 0 0 EBR 60 0 0 WBL 165/995 4 5 1 1 WBT 165/995 0 0 NBLR 50/110 5 49 8 74 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR 115/365 0 0 0 0 WBLT 430/570 18 2 24 2 NBL 105 9 20 19 27 NBR 105 84 10 121 12 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

26

Table 6 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) Existing and Background Conditions

Available Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR 430/855 0 0 0 0 WBLT 90 10 4 13 5 NBL 110 18 21 32 28 NBR 110 4 9 5 11 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT 90/995 234 67 371 66 Ex: 280/ WBTR 182 55 275 68 Prop: 225 SBLR 475 66 50 76 55 7A. Reservoir Road/38th Street† Ex: 280/ EBTR ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Prop: 225 WBLT 330 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBL 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBR 110 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ Ex: 280/ EBLTR 29 275 70 380 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 592 701 186 225 WBR 90 0 0 NBL 110 167 225 167 228 NBTR 110 75 71 108 71 SBLTR 115/275 54 45 56 50 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR 330 47 677 61 942 WBLTR 405 46 38 174 41 NBLTR 260 33 11 38 11 SBLTR 280 239 157 387 239 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted. † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

27

Table 6 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) Existing and Background Conditions

Available Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT 435 164 178 315 234 EBR 130 364 210 403 251 WBLTR 320 118 132 156 164 NBL 75 317 230 486 378 NBTR 300 173 163 215 204 SBLT 285 271 285 370 379 SBR 60 7 15 49 32 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR 320 155 43 378 73 WBLT 415 23 28 38 45 SBLTR 90/300 43 50 78 85 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR 420 220 102 448 236 NBLT 30 413 206 596 406 SBTR 300 146 132 188 177 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR 180/645 2 2 3 3 NBTR 120/345 0 0 0 0 SBLT 150/365 4 2 3 2 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR 185/550 2 3 5 4 NBTR 675 0 0 0 0 SBLT 335 1 1 2 1 14A. MacArthur Boulevard/44th Street WBLTR 635 58 0 67 0 NBL 625 264 189 542 263 NBT 625 312 456 540 544 SBTR 100/675 191 282 242 358 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR 50/265 349 140 514 175 NBT 635 0 0 0 0 SBT 40 22 6 25 7 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

28

Table 6 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) Existing and Background Conditions

Available Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach Storage† AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT 500 537 725 816 940 WBL 210 ‐ 640 ‐ 1132 WBT 1375 0 430 0 1154 NBR 8360 1315 ‐ 1700 ‐ 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT N/A 0 0 0 0 WBT 275 0 0 0 0 SBR 310 4 49 4 49 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL 365 7 0 6 0 EBT 1395 1298 117 1837 245 WBT 1075 222 1346 320 1863 WBR 135 42 3 42 3 SBL 560 42 473 42 473 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR 1090 857 284 1224 567 EBR 1090 3 0 404 0 WBTR 370 474 479 583 694 NBL 4160 412 1437 542 1814 NBLT 4160 424 1423 551 1792 NBR 360 407 181 685 310 SBL 80 36 45 43 52 SBR 80 0 32 0 44 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

29

Table 6 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) Existing and Background Conditions

Available Existing Conditions Background Conditions Approach Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT 355 358 85 515 92 EBR 350 368 562 505 633 WBL 135 468 944 648 1334 WBT 185 96 81 109 93 NBL 2160 496 405 664 519 NBR 2160 630 146 1063 219 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR 135 670 272 1002 448 WBLT 165/440 203 280 224 329 NBLTR 115 0 36 0 0 SBLT 60 39 30 46 37 SBR 230 110 677 206 887 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR 240/435 87 57 111 60 WBLTR 155 144 451 310 719 NBLTR 100 26 84 29 100 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR 595 193 78 405 82 WBT 370 159 277 196 356 WBR 370 183 230 253 292 NBL 80/365 109 194 128 258 NBLTR 80/365 106 158 128 218 SBL 220 372 268 491 351 SBLT 220 381 280 503 366 SBR 220 34 129 37 170 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR 125/905 5 10 5 10 WBLTR 285 20 8 25 8 NBLTR 120 0 0 0 0 SBLTR 245 5 8 5 10 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR 255 28 228 43 360 WBLT 150 85 85 170 155 SBLTR 115/240 160 163 345 333 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

30

Safety Analysis

Crash data at the study intersections were obtained from DDOT and are included in Appendix F. The information provided by DDOT included the total number of crashes over the latest three years of available data (i.e. 2012, 2013, and 2014) at each intersection and was further categorized by type of crash. Based on the data, Table 7 shows the overall intersection crash rates at each of the study intersections. No transportation‐related fatalities were reported in the study area.

As shown in Table 7, the crash rates at the Reservoir Road/39th Street, Reservoir Road/38th Street, M Street/Whitehurst Freeway, M Street/34th Street, M Street/Wisconsin Avenue, and Prospect Street/37th Street intersections are above 1.0, which is considered high by DDOT.

Table 7 Crash Data Summary

No. of Crash Type of ADT Intersection Crashes Rate Control (veh/day) (3 Years) (MEV) Foxhall Road/Reservoir Road Signal 18 22,150 0.74 Reservoir Road/44th Street Two‐way Stop 10 14,590 0.63 Reservoir Road/Gate 4† Two‐way Stop N/A 13,130 N/A Reservoir Road/Gate 3† Two‐way Stop N/A 13,030 N/A Reservoir Road/Gate 2† Two‐way Stop N/A 11,320 N/A Reservoir Road/39th Street Signal 14 11,390 1.12 Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate 1 Signal 45 12,970 3.17 Reservoir Road/37th Street Signal 6 12,940 0.42 Reservoir Road/35th Street Signal 13 14,620 0.81 Reservoir Road/34th Street All‐way Stop 1 6,690 0.14 Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue Signal 1 15,370 0.06 Foxhall Road/Volta Place Two‐way Stop 9 11,340 0.72 Foxhall Road/P Street Two‐way Stop 7 11,650 0.55 Foxhall Road/MacArthur Boulevard Signal 10 19,590 0.47 Foxhall Road/Canal Road Signal 27 35,150 0.70 Canal Road/GU Driveway† Signal N/A 39,560 N/A M Street/Whitehurst Freeway Signal 57 40,160 1.30 M Street/Key Bridge Signal 37 47,600 0.71 M Street/34th Street Signal 43 30,410 1.29 M Street/33rd Street Signal 50 24,310 1.88 M Street/Wisconsin Avenue Signal 165 23,450 6.43 Prospect Street/37th Street All‐way Stop 3 2,120 1.29 Prospect Street/34th Street All‐way Stop 5 10,410 0.44 † The campus driveways are not included in MPD crash data logs as intersection crashes. There are no crash reports from DDOT for the driveways. Therefore, the crash rate cannot be calculated.

31

Crash data at intersection with a crash rate of 1.0 or higher were reviewed in further detail to determine whether any patterns, trends, or causation factors could be identified.

Reservoir Road/39th Street

A review of the crash types at the Reservoir Road/39th Street intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection involved sideswipe collisions (36 percent). Another 21 percent were parked vehicle collisions.

None of the crashes involved pedestrians. One bicycle was involved in a collision.

Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate 1

A review of the crash types at the Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate 1 intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection were sideswipe collisions (40 percent). Two other categories that made up more than 10 percent of the crashes included rear‐end collisions (13 percent) and parked vehicle collisions (11 percent).

Two of the crashes involved pedestrians. No bicycles were involved in collisions at this intersection.

Based on observations at this intersection, the right‐of‐way is not clear to many motorists due to the offset nature of the intersection. For example, a motorist making a southbound left would be required to yield to an opposing northbound right turning motorist at a conventional intersection. However, because the southbound (38th Street) approach is offset from the northbound (Gate 1) approach, it is not apparent to either motorist who has the right‐of‐way during a green signal. The same situation occurs for northbound left turns and southbound right turns. A relatively high volume of pedestrian traffic also contributes to the number of conflicts at the intersection.

M Street/Whitehurst Freeway

A review of the crash types at the M Street/Whitehurst Freeway intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection were rear‐end crashes (30 percent) and sideswipe collisions (28 percent). The crash types for 12 percent were unspecified.

Two of the crashes involved pedestrians. Four bicycles were involved in collisions at this intersection.

M Street/34th Street

A review of the crash types at the M Street/34th Street intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection involved rear‐end collisions and sideswipe collisions (28 percent each). Two other categories that made up more than 10 percent of the crashes included right angle collisions and parked vehicle collisions (12 percent each).

32

One of the crashes involved pedestrians. One bicycle was involved in a collision.

M Street/33rd Street

A review of the crash types at the M Street/33rd Street intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection involved sideswipe collisions (32 percent). Rear‐end collision made up 18 percent of the crashes and left turn crashes made up another 12 percent of crashes at the intersection.

Two of the crashes involved pedestrians. No bicycles were involved in collisions at this intersection.

M Street/Wisconsin Avenue

A review of the crash types at the M Street/Wisconsin Avenue intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection involved sideswipe collisions (48 percent). Another 15 percent involved rear‐end collisions.

Eleven of the crashes involved pedestrians. Six bicycles were involved in collisions at this intersection.

Prospect Street/37th Street

A review of the crash types at the Prospect Street/37th Street intersection reveals that the majority of crashes that have occurred at the intersection involved sideswipe collisions and parked vehicle collisions (33 percent each). One of the collisions at the intersection involved a pedestrian.

No crashes at this intersection involved pedestrians. One bicycle was involved in a collision at this intersection.

Although the crash rate at the Reservoir Road/44th Street intersection is less than 1.0, the crash data at the intersection was reviewed in detail at the request of the GCP. Residents of the Foxhall neighborhood have observed northbound bicyclists frequently entering the Reservoir Road intersection without stopping at the stop sign. A review of the crash data indicates the one of the ten reported crashes that have occurred over the past three years involved a bicycle. A field view of the intersection indicates that there are two stop signs posted on the northbound approach of the intersection (one on either side of the street). Neither sign is obstructed nor does either sign have poor reflectivity.

Based on the limited information provided for each intersection, no discernable pattern, trend, or causation factors could be identified. In order to make recommendations to improve safety, details regarding the crash history including direction of travel, time of day (daylight or nighttime), and weather conditions is needed.

33

FUTURE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS

Traffic Volumes

Overview

In order to forecast traffic volumes in the study area to a 20‐year horizon, increases in traffic associated with growth outside the immediate site vicinity (regional growth) and increases in traffic associated with planned or approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area (pipeline developments) were considered.

Regional Growth

DDOT’s historical ADT volume maps were examined to determine an appropriate growth rate for the study area. Year‐by‐year growth rates for the roadways in the study area ranged, on average, from ‐4.4 percent to +3.4 percent. Between 2002 and 2013, traffic volumes, on average, have declined slightly at the rate of 0.55 percent per year. A conservative growth rate of one percent per year, compounded annually over 20 years, was applied to the existing vehicular volumes.

Pipeline Developments

Two other developments that are planned in and around the study area were identified during the scoping process. A minor residential development (Phillips Park) consisting of nine single family houses was not included in the pipeline analysis as the regional growth applied to the existing vehicular volumes includes the negligible number of trips associated with this development. The second pipeline development identified is the Duke Ellington School of the Arts.

The Duke Ellington School of the Arts, located at 3500 R Street, NW, was vacant when traffic counts were conducted. The school currently is being renovated. Upon completion of the project in Fall 2016, the school will house an enrollment of 541 students.

The number of trips generated by the school was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). Land use code 530, High School, was used to estimate the number of trips generated by the school. Based on standard ITE rates/equations, with 541 students, the school will generate an estimated 233 AM and 70 PM peak hour vehicle trips.

The AM and PM peak hour trips were added to the roadway network utilizing distributions based on existing traffic patterns in the study area and general knowledge of commuter routes to/from the school.

34

Background Forecasts

Background 20‐year traffic forecasts (without the potential Campus Plan growth) were developed by combining the existing traffic volumes plus regional growth with the pipeline traffic volumes. The resulting background traffic forecasts are shown on Figure 14.

Background Roadway Network

As noted during the scoping process, DDOT is conducting a study on Canal Road from Chain Bridge to Key Bridge. The objectives of the study were to identify safety deficiencies, identify infrastructure needs, and to identify areas of geotechnical concerns. The study developed conceptual improvement alternatives to address these issues. To date, three public meetings have been held, the most recent on November 11, 2014, during which several alternatives were presented. The University and members of the GCP were actively engaged throughout the process. In October 2014, the University and the GCP requested that DDOT consider the following short‐term recommendations as part of the study: . Work with NPS to acquire right‐of‐way along Canal Road to widen sidewalks, . Install roadway markings and signage to prevent vehicles from “blocking the box” at the Canal Road entrance to Georgetown University, . East of the entrance to Georgetown University, create a dedicated eastbound lane on Canal Road onto Whitehurst Freeway, through the use of flexible bollards and/or new lane striping. The intent is to prevent or discourage motorists destined to town via M Street from traveling along the eastbound turn lane and then stopping as they approach Whitehurst Freeway to merge into the adjacent lane to continue on to M Street thereby blocking traffic destined to Whitehurst Freeway, . Improve signage on Canal Road and Foxhall Road during times of reversible traffic lanes, and . Improve signal timings and lane designations at the following intersections: o Whitehurst Freeway and M Street, o Key Bridge and M Street, and o 34th Street and M Street.

Since that time, the University worked with DDOT to install “Do Not Block Intersection” signs and markings at the Canal Road driveway. DDOT also made timing adjustments along the Canal Road/M Street corridor.

The University and GCP also requested that DDOT consider the following long‐term recommendations: . Improve access to the Capital Crescent Trail from Canal Road, including better lighting and . Improve signalization and lane markings at the following intersections:

35

o Canal Road and Foxhall Road and o Foxhall Road and MacArthur Boulevard.

The current status of the DDOT Canal Road Study is unknown.

Capacity Analysis

Capacity/level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted at the study intersections based on the existing lane use and traffic control shown on Figure 13, future background traffic forecasts shown on Figure 14, and existing DDOT traffic signal timings.

The level of service results for the background conditions without the Campus Plan are presented in Appendix G and summarized in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, under background conditions, many of the study intersections would experience an increase in delay as a result of the background traffic growth and the pipeline project.

The following intersections would drop from an acceptable overall intersection level of service (i.e. LOS D or better), to an overall LOS E or F under background conditions:

. Reservoir Road/37th Street – Overall LOS E during the AM peak hour and overall LOS F during the PM peak hour; . Reservoir Road/35th Street – Overall LOS F during the AM peak hour and overall LOS E during the PM peak hour; . Reservoir Road/34th Street – Overall LOS E during the AM peak hour; . Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue – Overall LOS F during the AM peak hour; . Canal Road/GU Driveway – Overall LOS F during the AM peak hour; . M Street/Key Bridge – Overall LOS F during the AM peak hour; . M Street/33rd Street – Overall LOS E during the PM peak hour; . M Street/Wisconsin Avenue – Overall LOS F during the AM peak hour; and . Prospect Street/34th Street – Overall LOS E during the AM peak hour and overall LOS F during the PM peak hour.

Additionally, the following intersections would either continue to operate at an overall LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours or drop from LOS E to LOS F under background conditions and would experience a significant increase in delays when compared to existing conditions:

. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road – Overall LOS F during AM and PM peak hours; . Reservoir Road/38th Street/Gate 1 – Overall LOS F during the AM peak hour; . Foxhall Road/Canal Road – Overall LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours; . Canal Road/GU Driveway – Overall LOS F during the PM peak hour; . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway – Overall LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours;

36

. M Street/Key Bridge – Overall LOS F during the PM peak hour; and . M Street/34th Street – Overall LOS F during the PM peak hour.

As shown in Table 5, a number of lane groups at the study intersections also would operate at a LOS E or LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions.

Queue Analysis

A queuing analysis was conducted for future background conditions without the Campus Plan. Synchro was used to conduct the analyses, using the larger of the 95th percentile queue lengths or 50th percentile queue lengths. The results are summarized in Table 6. Queue reports are provided in Appendix G.

As shown in Table 6, the queues at several study intersections would increase under background conditions. The following intersections would experience an increase in queue lengths from existing conditions greater than the allotted storage length:

. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road, . Reservoir Road/Gate 3, . Reservoir Road/38th Street, . Reservoir Road/37th Street, . Reservoir Road/35th Street, . Reservoir Road/34th Street, . Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue, . Canal Road/GU Driveway, . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway, . M Street/33rd Street, and . Prospect Street/34th Street.

37

CAMPUS ANALYSIS

Overview

The 2017 Campus Plan maintains the student enrollment caps established in the 2010 Campus Plan, specifically: . Traditional undergraduate program student enrollment cap (headcount) = 6,675 . Main campus overall student headcount cap = 14,106

Based on current enrollment levels, the University could increase the graduate student population on the main campus by 2,063 students. Such potential growth would occur in a measured and gradual manner over the 20‐year plan term.

A key focus of the 2017 Campus Plan is to develop and enhance the campus as a living and learning community. In support of the University’s core academic mission, the campus plan calls for organized potential growth of up to 1.3 MSF of gross floor area (GFA), which includes a new medical/surgical pavilion of up to 450,000 SF at the hospital. The proposed 20‐year development plan for the campus is shown on Figure 15.

The initial project anticipated to be developed under the 2017 Campus Plan is a new medical/surgical pavilion at the Hospital. The proposed plan for the pavilion is shown on Figure 16. The new medical/surgical pavilion would result in 122 new beds; however, half of those beds would be used to accommodate patients who currently are housed in hallways at the hospital, resulting in effectively 61 net new beds. MGUH anticipates that 655 new employees would staff the new pavilion. An additional 50 employees beyond that level could be realized by the end of the 20‐year Campus Plan term.

As shown on Figure 16, the new pavilion and adjacent green space would occupy areas that currently are surface parking lots (Lots A, B, and B1). The proposed pavilion would provide three levels of below‐grade parking. Access to the parking for the new pavilion would be provided via Gate 1.

Throughout the on‐going campus master planning process, the University and Hospital have worked extensively with the GCP and members of the community to develop a plan that meets the needs of the University and the Hospital while minimizing impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Several key transportation principles were established as a result of these extensive discussions and with substantial input from the community, including: . Maintain Existing Parking Capacity, . “Right‐Size” Parking (More User‐Friendly), . More Evenly Disperse Traffic among Reservoir Road Gates, . Retain Offset between Gate 1 and 38th Street, and . Improve/Provide More Organized Circulation Internal to Campus.

38

Parking

On‐campus Parking

The campus currently is subject to a parking cap of 4,080 spaces. Approximately 66 percent of those spaces, or 2,700 spaces, are dedicated for MGUH use. The remaining 34 percent, or 1,380 spaces, are dedicated for University use. Table 8 summarizes the current on‐campus parking inventory. The location of the parking facilities, along with the number of parking spaces, also is shown on Figure 17.

Based on parking occupancy counts conducted on campus in conjunction with the 2015 Georgetown University Transportation Performance Monitoring Study, the peak occupancy for the University parking facilities is 88 percent and the peak occupancy for the Hospital parking facilities is 94 percent. Generally, the overall parking occupancy on campus is around 90 percent from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM during the week. Parking occupancy declines substantially after 3:00 PM.

Table 8 Existing On‐Campus Parking Inventory

Capacity (# of spaces) Name University Hospital Marked Unmark Total Marked Unmark Total Garage 1 504 102 606 Garage 2 718 244 962 Garage 4 195 0 1951 Leavey (P 1/2) 559 98 657 Leavey (P 2/3) 344 47 391 Southwest Garage 439 13 452 199 0 199 Lot A (Hospital) 169 0 169 Lot B (St. Mary’s) 107 0 107 Lot B1 (St. Mary’s) 6 15 21 Lot E (Medical/Dental) 67572 Lot G (New Research) 64 26 90 Lot Y (Yates) 18826 Lot 6 (Poulton) 20020 Lot 9 (Lauinger Library) 7814 92 Lot WM (Wisemiller’s) 10 11 21 Sub‐total 1,241 139 1,380 2,256 444 2,700 Grand Total 4,080 1 Includes two plug‐in spaces for electric vehicles.

Note that Leavey Garage (excluding the spaces allocated for GU use, which are reserved for GU employees), Garage 1, and the Southwest Garage are public garages. Graduate students

39

can park in the Southwest Garage after 5:00 PM for a discounted flat rate of $4.00. Other visitors pay $4.00 per hour.

The 2017 Campus Plan maintains the existing 4,080 space parking cap. The Campus Plan does, however, call for the replacement of surface parking lots with below‐grade parking as new buildings are developed. For example, the proposed new medical/surgical pavilion and adjacent green space would displace 297 surface parking spaces in Lots A, B, and B1. The proposed below‐grade parking associated with the new medical/surgical pavilion would provide approximately 644 additional parking spaces. In addition to replacing the lost surface parking, the new below‐grade parking facility would also allow the Hospital to eliminate the majority of stacked parking in its existing parking facilities, thereby creating more user‐friendly and efficient parking. This strategy was intentionally devised to address the community’s concerns regarding parking in the neighborhood without increasing the overall parking cap on campus. To ensure that the continuation of stacked parking that would result in parking capacity above the cap does not occur, parking occupancy counts by time of day will be included in an Annual Performance Monitoring Study, as described in detail later in this report.

The proposed parking supply is summarized in Table 9 and shown on Figure 18.

Table 9 Proposed Parking Supply

Capacity (# of spaces) Name University Hospital Marked Unmark Total Marked Unmark Total Pavilion Garage 644 0 644 Garage 1 504 504 Garage 2 718 76 794 Garage 4 195 0 195 Leavey (P 1/2) 559 559 Leavey (P 2/3) 344 47 391 Southwest Garage 439 13 452 199 0 199 Lot A (Hospital) 0 0 0 Lot B (St. Mary’s) 0 0 0 Lot B1 (St. Mary’s) Lot E (Medical Dental) 67 5 72 Lot G (New Research) Lot Y (Yates) 229 0 229 Lot 6 (Poulton) 20 020 Lot 9 (Lauinger Library) Lot WM (Wisemiller’s) 10 11 21 Sub‐total 1,304 76 1,380 2,624 76 2,700 Grand Total 4,080

40

Reservoir Road Parking

At the request of DDOT, an inventory of the on‐street parking spaces along Reservoir Road also was conducted. Currently, 116 on‐street spaces are located on Reservoir Road between Gate 4 and 35th Street, excluding spaces along the north side of the roadway between 35th and 36th Street, which were unavailable at the time the inventory was conducted due to on‐ going construction activities associated with the Duke Ellington School. Of the 116 spaces, half (58 spaces) are metered spaces (four hour meters). The remaining spaces are Residential Permit Parking (RPP) spaces. Those without the appropriate RPP sticker can park for two hours during the times the RPP restrictions are in place.

Hourly parking occupancy counts were conducted on Thursday, September 17, 2015 from 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM and from 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM in conjunction with the 2015 Georgetown University Transportation Performance Monitoring Study. Based on the data collected, the peak occupancy occurred at 4:00 PM when 90.7 percent of the on‐street spaces were occupied and five spaces were available. The off‐peak parking occupancy prior to 4:00 PM occurred when 80 percent of the on‐street spaces were occupied and 21 spaces were available. Following 4:00 PM, 63.8 percent of on‐street spaces were occupied and 38 spaces were available. The parking occupancy is shown below in Chart 3. Parking occupancy counts are included in Appendix H.

Chart 3 On‐Street Parking Occupancy on Reservoir Road By Time of Day†,‡

† Note that 11 spaces on the south side of Reservoir Road between Gate 3 and 4 were not included in the parking occupancy study and, therefore, are not included in the inventory or occupancy for purposes of calculating the percent occupancy. ‡ The parking supply on Reservoir Road decreases from 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM due to PM Rush Hour restrictions on the north side of the roadway.

41

Loading

Various service and loading facilities are located throughout campus, as shown on Figure 19. Data was collected for both the University and Hospital to determine current loading demands for each institution.

Specific loading and service details for new buildings on campus will be finalized during further processing for each specific building. The anticipated future loading facilities are shown on Figure 20.

University Loading

An inventory was conducted to determine the frequency of deliveries, size of vehicles making the deliveries, the time of day the deliveries are made, and the location by which the delivery vehicles access campus. Detailed summaries are provided in Appendix I. A summary of the delivery information is provided in Table 10.

The majority of University deliveries occur during the day, between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM. A few deliveries occur in the evening (between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM) and a few deliveries occur overnight between midnight and 6:00 AM.

In addition to considering University deliveries, information regarding trash/recycling service operations has been provided by the University. Generally, five locations provide access to the campus trash/recycling facilities and pick‐up is completed by 9:00 AM or 10:00 AM. The five access locations listed in order from most frequently used (1) to least frequently used (5) are: 1. Reservoir Road/Gate 1 Entrance, 2. Reservoir Road/Gate 4 Entrance, 3. Canal Road/GU driveway, 4. Prospect Street/37th Street, and 5. P Street/37th Street.

Roll‐off and rear‐load trucks serve the trash, recycling, and food waste compactors on campus. Several solar compactors are also serviced on campus using pick‐up trucks in the case of inclement weather. Front‐load trash trucks do not serve the campus due to their larger size. A detailed summary of trash/recycling service is provided in Appendix I.

42

In order to ensure that the loading operations do not adversely impact the surrounding community, and to promote a safe environment for all campus users, the University will implement a loading management plan, as follows:

. Loading dock managers will be designated (if not already) to manage deliveries for each loading/service area (duties may be part of other duties assigned to the individual). Dock managers will coordinate with vendors to schedule deliveries to ensure that dock capacity is not exceeded. The dock managers will work with the Transportation Planning Coordinator (as discussed more fully in the Georgetown University TDM Plan) to address any community concerns, should they arise. . All loading activities will be required to take place on campus. No loading activities shall be permitted from public streets. . All trash disposal service will be required to take place on campus, and no service activities shall be permitted from public streets, with the following exception: o In support of the University’s Environment and Landlord Initiatives (ELI) and consistent with the Campus Plan, the University supplements residential trash service throughout the West Georgetown and Burleith communities with litter and trash patrols on a regular basis. This trash service pick‐up takes place from the street. . Trucks using the loading docks will not be allowed to idle and must follow all District guidelines for heavy vehicle operation including but not limited to DCMR 20 – Chapter 9, Section 900 (Engine Idling), the regulations set forth in DDOT’s Freight Management and Commercial Vehicle Operations document, and the primary access routes listed in the DDOT Truck and Bus Route Map (godcgo.com/truckandbusmap). . University trash/recycling service operations and vendors making regular deliveries to the University shall be required to use the Canal Road driveway between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Special deliveries in unusual circumstances may be allowed from time‐to‐time other than through the Canal Road entrance after 8:00 PM, provided such deliveries are quiet and not disruptive to the neighborhood. The University shall inform its vendors that deliveries other than through the Canal Road entrance between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM are discouraged and will take appropriate corrective action in response to meritorious complaints that such a delivery is not quiet or is disruptive to the neighborhood. With respect to trash/recycling service operations, the majority of such operations taking place between 6:00 AM and 8:00AM will use the Canal Road entrance. However, some trash and service vehicles, including those in support of the above‐referenced ELI initiatives, may utilize other access locations between the hours of 6:00AM and 8:00AM, consistent with current practices. Specifically, Gate 4 may be used between the hours of 7:00AM to 8:00 AM until such time as Gate 4 is accessible from Canal Road through the construction of the proposed East‐West Road. Additionally, other campus entrances may be utilized after 6:00AM to support ELI trash patrol initiatives which generally involve the use of pick‐up truck sized vehicles.

43

Table 10 Summary of Delivery Demand – University

Frequency of Deliveries1 Tractor‐ SU30/ Loading Location Trailer Total Access Route Box Truck (WB40/50) Wkdy Wkend Wkdy Wkend Wkdy Wkend 1 Southwest Garage 56 2 2 0 58 2 Canal Road 2 Darnall/St. Mary’s 9 1 24 2 33 3 Gate 1 3 Yates Field House2 Prospect Street 4 Lauinger Library 22 0 34 0 56 0 Canal Road 5 New South2 6 McDonough Gym2 5 0 17 0 22 0 Canal Road 7 Heating/Cooling Plant 11 0 4.73 0 15.173 0 Canal Road Canal Road 8 School of Business 27 4 0 0 0 0 Gate 1 Canal Road 9 Reiss 29 0 1 0 30 0 Gate 1 37th/P4 10 White‐Gravenor Hall 3.75 0 0 0 3.75 0 37th/P 11 Harbin Hall 0.25 0 7 0 7.25 0 Canal Road 12 Facilities 93 0 1 0 94 0 Canal Road 13 Village C 35 2 0 0 35 2 Canal Road 14 Gervase 19 0 0 0 19 0 37th/P Street 15 Davis Performing Arts 265 3.55 0 0 0 0 NA4 16 Leavey Center 59 2 37 2 96 2 Gate 4 17 Medical Center 177 16 0 0 177 16 Gate 3 18 Car Barn 2 0 0 0 2 0 M Street curb cut 1 Many vendors deliver to multiple locations on campus; therefore, the frequency of deliveries is not additive. 2 Data was not reported and, therefore, is not available. 3 Includes an average of 4.5 oil deliveries per day that are only made during the winter months. 4 The 37th Street/P Street curb cut is used only an estimated one time per year for new professor move‐ins. 5 Size of trucks was not reported. Based on the type of deliveries, they were assumed to be made in 30‐foot trucks or smaller.

Hospital Loading

Loading data for the Hospital was gathered over a three‐week period from November 30 to December 20, 2015, and from January 4 to January 10, 2016. Data was collected to determine the occupancy of the hospital loading dock by time of day. The sizes of vehicles using the loading dock also were recorded. Detailed summaries are provided in Appendix J. As shown in Table 11 below, the peak loading demands for the Hospital are primarily comprised of SU‐ 30s, box trucks, and passenger cars.

44

Table 11 Summary of Loading Dock Demand – Hospital

Tractor‐ SU30/ Passenger Peak Trailer Trash Truck Total Box Truck Car* Occupancy (WB40/50) Wkdy Wkend Wkdy Wkend Wkdy Wkend Wkdy Wkend Wkdy Wkend Maximum 2 2 11 2 1 1 7 5 15 6 Average 1.3 0.6 6.9 1.0 0.8 0.1 5.7 3.5 9.0 3.0 * Note passenger cars using the observed loading areas may be using these facilities for pick‐up/drop‐off and may not be making deliveries to the Hospital.

In conjunction with the construction of the proposed new medical/surgical pavilion, MGUH will relocate the Hospital’s loading facility from its current, at‐grade location just inside Gate 1, to a new below‐grade facility. This relocation will significantly reduce queues behind trucks maneuvering into and out of the loading area that frequently spillback onto Reservoir Road.

Additionally, in order to further ensure that the loading operations do not negatively impact the surrounding community, and to promote a safe environment for all campus users, the Hospital will implement a loading management plan, as follows:

. Continue employing a loading dock manager to manage deliveries (duties may be part of other duties assigned to the individual). The dock manager will coordinate with vendors to schedule deliveries to ensure that dock capacity is not exceeded. The dock manager will work with appropriate administrative personnel at the Hospital to address any community concerns, should they arise. . All loading activities will be required to take place on‐campus. No loading activities shall be permitted from public streets. . Trucks using the loading docks will not be allowed to idle and must follow all District guidelines for heavy vehicle operation including but not limited to DCMR 20 – Chapter 9, Section 900 (Engine Idling), the regulations set forth in DDOT’s Freight Management and Commercial Vehicle Operations document, and the primary access routes listed in the DDOT Truck and Bus Route Map (godcgo.com/truckandbusmap). . The Hospital shall maintain its current delivery schedules and the current western delivery route on Reservoir Road for the duration of the Plan. Regular critical deliveries shall continue to occur outside the regular delivery hours of 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM, and consist of a delivery for medical and surgical supplies, a delivery for pharmaceuticals, a delivery for linens, occasional deliveries for patient care equipment and oxygen, and deliveries for food (which number no more than four to six per day). In addition, urgent or unplanned critical deliveries may also occur as patient needs demand between 6:30 AM and 8:30 AM. Emergency deliveries for the immediate saving need of patients may occur as needed. During emergency operations (such as snow storms or city wide disasters) deliveries temporarily may

45

occur as needed. Proposed future recurring deliveries outside of the regular delivery hours may be added only if reviewed by and concurred to by the GCP.

Site Access and Circulation

Overview

The proposed Campus Plan includes a number of changes to improve access to and egress from campus as well as to improve circulation on campus across all modes.

Vehicular Access

Currently, vehicular access to and egress from campus is provided via eight locations, as shown on Figure 17. Primary vehicular access/egress is provided via the four gates on Reservoir Road and one on Canal Road. Gate 1, which is the eastern‐most of the four gates on Reservoir Road currently serves as the main entrance for the Hospital. Traffic associated with the Emergency Department at the Hospital currently uses Gate 2 on Reservoir Road. Gates 3 and 4 primarily serve Hospital employees. Today, Gate 1 accounts for approximately 53 to 59 percent of the traffic entering and exiting campus via Reservoir Road during the peak hours. The remaining Reservoir Road gates each make up just six to 16 percent of the traffic entering and exiting campus via Reservoir Road during the peak hours.

The Canal Road gate serves as the primary vehicular access/egress for the University. Prospect Street provides limited vehicular access and egress for authorized vehicles only. Likewise, an existing curb cut at the intersection of 37th Street and P Street provides limited access for service/emergency vehicles. Finally, a curb cut on Reservoir Road east of Gate 1 provides egress only from Lots B and B1, which provide 128 surface parking spaces for Hospital and University employees.

In connection with the proposed new medical/surgical pavilion, Emergency Department traffic would be shifted from Gate 2 to Gate 1. Without implementing offsetting improvements, the location of the new parking proximate to Gate 1 coupled with the current campus circulation would add to congestion at the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection. Several improvements to campus circulation on the north side of campus are proposed in order to alleviate the congestion and more evenly disperse traffic among the Reservoir Road gates. These improvements include: . The addition of an east‐west roadway internal to campus, . Signalization of Reservoir Road/Gate 4, . Removal of the entry/exit from the northern façade of Leavey garage, and . Shifting of the Garage 1 exit from Gate 1 to Gate 2.

The proposed circulation plan is shown on Figure 18.

In conjunction with the proposed improvements along the north side of campus, the location of Gate 1 with respect to 38th Street has been closely examined. Currently, Gate 1 is offset from and

46

located approximately 60 feet west of 38th Street. Although the GCP acknowledged DDOT’s interest in aligning Gate 1 with 38th Street, such an alignment was not favored for several reasons.

The project team, as well as the GCP and OGB noted that the alignment of Gate 1 with 38th Street would interfere with the continuity of the important new campus green space that is envisioned to extend from Leavey Center to Reservoir Road – a key element of the Campus Plan.

In addition, members of the Burleith neighborhood indicated that they are concerned that the alignment would induce cut‐through traffic through the neighborhood. An option that included an island to prevent northbound and southbound through traffic at the intersection (thereby eliminating cut‐through traffic) was introduced; however, the community organizations represented through the GCP indicated concern that such a solution would not be permanent, and also would make 38th Street less accessible to residents by limiting it to right‐in/right‐out.

As a result of this analysis, the plan shifts Gate 1 further to the west in order to maximize the separation. As proposed, Gate 1 would be located approximately 100 feet west of 38th Street. Detailed capacity analyses of the Gate 1/38th Street/Reservoir Road intersection are presented in subsequent sections. Swept‐area diagrams for the Gate 1 intersection are included in Appendix K.

GUTS Access

Based on extensive feedback received after implementation of the GUTS rerouting to Canal Road, the 2017 Campus Plan includes a provision to add an additional bus stop on the north side of campus on the east side of Shaw Field near the Lombardi Cancer Center (or potentially another suitable location). The new bus stop will serve the Dupont Circle and Rosslyn routes, as shown on Figure 21. The stop will allow riders a choice of boarding and alighting buses on the south side of campus at the McDonough Bus Plaza or on the north side of campus at the new bus stop. Like the McDonough Bus Plaza, the new bus stop will include shelters. Importantly, buses originating from or destined to the new bus stop on the north side of campus will use the Canal Road gate.

The University continually explores ways to improve and enhance GUTS service to better serve existing riders and to attract new riders. Such enhancements may include extended operating times, new routes, or modifications to existing routes. In order to evaluate potential service changes, the University included a series of questions in its annual Commute Survey conducted during the Spring 2016 semester. These questions were aimed at ascertaining whether expanded service, both in terms of extended operating times and the identification of new routes, would be well utilized. The survey also included questions about potential changes to current routes to determine whether such changes would attract new riders and whether such changes would be perceived positively or negatively by existing riders. The University continues to evaluate the results of the survey and also is working closely with the GCP to gain additional feedback. Detailed survey results will be provided in the University’s 2016 Transportation Performance Monitoring Study. Final decisions on changes to the routes or addition to new routes will be included in future monitoring studies required under the current Campus Plan or in monitoring studies that will be required under the 2017 Campus Plan.

47

In addition, the University currently is in the process of equipping GUTS buses with new GPS and data collection technology which will enhance route time and passenger count tracking so that the University can more accurately monitor GUTS ridership. The upgrades are expected to be complete in Fall 2016.

Campus Pedestrian/Bicycle Network

A key principle of the 2017 Campus Plan is to create a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly campus. In order to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experience on campus, the University will limit vehicular access within the core of campus by installing strategically placed gates. In addition to the recently installed gate at Prospect Street, the University also proposes to install gates on the entry from Canal Road, near the entrance to the Southwest Garage and between Pasquerrilla Health Center and the Leavey Center. Additionally, a gate will be installed on Tondorf Road in order to transform the key campus road into a pedestrian/bicycle corridor with limited vehicular access (service and emergency vehicles only). Further, the removal of the entry/exit along the northern façade of Leavey Garage also will significantly reduce vehicular congestion in this area and alleviate significant vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.

In addition to limiting vehicular traffic within the core of campus, the University also will work to define an internal north – south pedestrian/bicycle spine through campus and will enhance the east – west pedestrian/bicycle spine. Figure 22A illustrates the proposed bicycle pathways through campus. As part of its effort to continue to make the campus more bicycle‐friendly, the University has identified primary east‐west and north‐south bicycle routes through campus. These routes are either generous, shared‐use bicycle/pedestrian pathways or existing roadways proposed to be enhanced with pavement markings to illustrate that the roadway is a shared roadway to promote safety and awareness. Figures 22B through 22F show illustrative typical sections at various locations across campus.

Figure 22G shows the proposed campus pedestrian circulation, which is aimed at linking major campus spaces and locations with navigable, active connections. Figure 22H shows the University’s conceptual campus wayfinding plan intended to establish standardized exterior signage that will enhance the use of pathways to navigate campus. While the renderings shown on Figure 22H are conceptual in nature and do not necessarily represent specific architectural intent, the wayfinding plan, along with improvements to pedestrian circulation and additional clarity to bicycle routes, underscores the University’s commitment to create a more pedestrian‐friendly campus environment. At DDOT’s suggestion, the University also is exploring ways to effectively incorporate bicycle wayfinding into its overall wayfinding plan.

Campus Bicycling Services and Infrastructure

In November 2013, Georgetown University became the first university in the District designated as a Bronze‐level Bicycle Friendly University (BFU) by the League of American Bicyclists. Since becoming a BFU, the University has implemented new initiatives to advance bicycling at the University and in the surrounding neighborhood.

48

New measures to encourage bicycling at the University include providing a map of bicycle parking locations on‐campus. Similarly, a map showing locker room and shower locations for faculty, staff, and commuters is available online. These maps can be found on the University’s transportation webpage (https://transportation.georgetown.edu/Bicycling) and bicycling resource webpage (http://sustainability.georgetown.edu/bicycling). The bicycling resource webpage also provides information regarding free monthly bicycle safety classes offered by the University. Topics covered in the bicycle safety classes include crash prevention, signaling, and lane/intersection positioning.

In Fall 2015, the Office of Sustainability and Center for Student Engagement launched a bicycle‐rental pilot program, HoyaCycles. The program allowed 10 students to rent a bicycle for use during the school year. Based on the University’s evaluation of this pilot program, investing in a larger supply of bicycles may not be reasonable. For example, the bicycles donated to the program required a significant amount of maintenance to be of use to students during the school year. While the pilot program may not have resulted in an expansion, it did inform what challenges and issues there may be to implementing a successful bicycle‐rental program.

The University installed a bicycle maintenance area at Red Square in Fall 2014, which includes a bicycle pump, wrenches, screwdrivers, and other repair tools. Given the positive response to this amenity, the University is finalizing locations for two additional bicycle maintenance areas to be installed on the north and south ends of campus. The hardware for the new maintenance areas has been acquired by the University and will be installed once the locations are identified.

The University has also taken steps to improve bicycle parking and storage. As part of the master planning process, the University has adopted a standard site furnishings palette, which includes a new hoop rack (inverted‐U) bicycle rack standard. Using data provided in the annual Georgetown University Transportation Performance Monitoring Studies, the University has begun upgrading bicycle racks throughout campus to the current standard and is adding bike racks where current capacity is lacking. At the Red Square and Lauinger Library, several grid racks have been replaced with inverted‐U racks. Two wall‐mounted bicycle racks have been installed at the Bunn Intercultural Center.

The University recently installed 27 inverted‐U bicycle racks on Prospect Street and 35th Street. Those racks are the first phase in a plan to add up to 81 racks on N Street, 35th Street, Prospect Street, and 36th Street. As new buildings are constructed pursuant to the 2017 Campus Plan, long‐term bicycle parking within the building will be provided. The new Northeast Triangle Residence Hall will include indoor bike storage for 50 bikes.

The University also has implemented an Abandoned Bicycle Abatement program, which makes room for additional bicycle parking by removing abandoned bicycles that take up rack space on campus. In addition, GUTS buses feature bicycle racks on the front of each to bus to give bike commuters more options for bicycling to and from campus.

49

Table 12 and Figure 23 illustrate the location, capacity, and type of bike racks on campus as of Fall 2015. The peak percent occupancy for each area (taken from the 2015 Georgetown University Transportation Monitoring Study) also is provided in Table 12. The peak bicycle occupancy for the campus as a whole was 50.9 percent. Updated inventory counts will be conducted in conjunction with the 2016 Georgetown University Transportation Performance Monitoring Study.

Table 12 Bicycle Parking Occupancy Summary

Location No. Type Capacity (spaces)* Location #1 – East Campus (Near Car Barn) – Peak Occupancy = 29.3%† 1A Independent 4 1B Wave/Serpentine 80 1C Grid 80 1D Grid 10 1E Removed 0 1F § Inverted U 18 1G § Inverted U 36 Sub‐total 228 Location #2 – East Campus (Near Healy Hall) ‐ Peak Occupancy = 58.2%† 2A Grid/Inverted U 30 2B Grid 30 2C Grid 10 2D Grid 30 2E Grid 20 2F Independent 12 2G Wave/Serpentine 8 2H Grid 5 2I‡ Grid/Inverted U 70 2J Temporarily Removed Due to Construction 0 2K Inverted U 10 Sub‐total 225 * The capacity is based on the number of bicycles that can be parked in accordance with the intended design, less spaces that cannot be accessed due to obstructions. It does not take into account the reduced capacity stemming from the use of the racks in a way other than intended by design † Peak occupancy includes bicycles that were on‐rack and bicycles that were off‐rack in the location vicinity. ‡ Bicycle maintenance area. § Bike racks not installed at the time of occupancy counts; therefore, racks not included in occupancy calculations.

50

Table 12 (Continued) Bicycle Parking Occupancy Summary

Location No. Type Capacity (spaces)* Location #3 – South Campus (Around Southwest Quad) ‐ Peak Occupancy = 52.9%† 3A Wave/Serpentine 8 3B Wave/Serpentine 16 3C Wave/Serpentine 14 3D Wave/Serpentine 100 3E Independent 6 3F Independent 20 3G Grid 20 3H Wave/Serpentine 10 3I Grid 20 3J Temporarily Removed Due to Construction 0 3K Independent 12 3LФ Grid 10 Sub‐total 236 Location #4 – Central Campus (Near Harbin Field) – Peak Occupancy = 39.2%† 4A Wave/Serpentine 36 4B Wave/Serpentine 24 4C Wave/Serpentine 24 4D Grid 50 4E Wave/Serpentine 40 4F Temporarily Removed Due to Construction 0 4GФ Wave/Serpentine 12 Sub‐total 186 Location #5 – North Campus (between Reiss and St. Mary’s) – Peak Occupancy = 54.0%† 5A Temporarily Removed Due to Construction 0 5B Temporarily Removed Due to Construction 0 5C Grid 20 5D Grid 12 5E Grid 20 5F Grid 50 5G Wave/Serpentine 6 5H Wave/Serpentine 8 5I Grid 10 5J Grid/Wave/Serpentine 56 5K Grid 20 Sub‐total 202 * The capacity is based on the number of bicycles that can be parked in accordance with the intended design, less spaces that cannot be accessed due to obstructions. It does not take into account the reduced capacity stemming from the use of the racks in a way other than intended by design. † Peak occupancy includes bicycles that were on‐rack and bicycles that were off‐rack in the location vicinity. Ф Located below‐grade.

51

Table 12 (Continued) Bicycle Parking Occupancy Summary

Location No. Type Capacity (spaces)* Location #6 – Georgetown Medical Campus – Peak Occupancy = 86.0%† 6A Wave/Serpentine 12 6B Removed 0 6C Grid 40 6D Temporarily Removed Due to Construction 0 6E Wave/Serpentine 18 6F Independent 10 6G Grid 10 Sub‐total 90 TOTAL – Overall Peak Occupancy = 50.9%† 1,167 * The capacity is based on the number of bicycles that can be parked in accordance with the intended design, less spaces that cannot be accessed due to obstructions. It does not take into account the reduced capacity stemming from the use of the racks in a way other than intended by design. † Peak occupancy includes bicycles that were on‐rack and bicycles that were off‐rack in the location vicinity.

Trip Generation Analysis

Overview

The trip generation potential resulting from the implementation of the 2017 Campus Plan is composed of two components: trip generation related to the University and trip generation related to the Hospital. In order to estimate the number of additional trips that would be generated as a result of the Campus Plan, existing trip generation characteristics of both the University and the Hospital were examined. Those existing characteristics were then used to estimate the future trip generation for each institution as more fully described below.

Existing Trips

In order to determine the number of vehicle trips currently generated by the University and Hospital, traffic counts were conducted on campus on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 and Tuesday, February 24, 2015 from 6:30 AM to 10:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Counts also were conducted on Thursday, March 17, 2016 from 7:00 AM to 10:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Based on the data collected at each driveway or gate, the number of AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips entering and exiting the campus was determined. Generally, traffic using the driveways and gates along Reservoir Road primarily is associated with the Hospital. In the same way, traffic using the Prospect Street gate and Canal Road gate primarily is associated with the University. However, some University traffic uses Gate 1 on Reservoir Road and some Hospital traffic uses the Canal Road gate. In order to provide separate vehicular trip generation estimates for the University and the Hospital, the percentage of University traffic using Gate 1 and the percentage of Hospital traffic using the Canal Road Gate was estimated based on license plate origin‐destination (O‐D) data that were collected on the same dates as the traffic counts.

52

Table 13 summarizes the vehicular trip generation for the University, the Hospital, and the campus as a whole.

Table 13 Existing Vehicular Trip Generation Summary1

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total University 512 64 576 119 397 516 Hospital 903 407 1,310 193 795 988 Total Campus 1,415 471 1,886 312 1,192 1,504 1 The number of vehicle trips reflected above include trips made by all user groups at the University and Hospital, including faculty, staff, students, and visitors.

In order to determine the number of existing trips by non‐auto modes (e.g. pedestrian, bicycle, transit trips, etc.) currently generated by the University and the Hospital, detailed mode split information based on the transportation surveys for each institution were evaluated. Details of the analysis are presented below.

University Trip Generation

Each year, the University is required to conduct a mode split survey in accordance with the conditions of approval for the 2010 Campus Plan. Based on the mode split survey conducted in March 2015, 62.2 percent of the University population currently commutes to campus by non‐auto modes of transportation. Another four percent carpool or vanpool to campus. The results of the University’s mode split survey are summarized below in Table 14.

53

Table 14 University Mode Split Summary

Staff

Faculty Group Undergrad Students

Employees Population

Other Students University Campus

Mode ‐ University Graduate Overall Affiliate Off Private Vehicle 3.9 15.3 51.6 36.5 54.5 46.7 30.7 Carpool/Vanpool 2.2 1.8 4.3 4.5 1.5 0.0 4.0 Carsharing 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7 3.0 3.0 0.6 Dropped‐Off/Taxi 2.0 2.5 1.8 2.0 1.5 2.2 2.5 Subtotal Auto Modes 8.2 19.9 58.3 43.7 60.5 51.9 37.8 GUTS 4.5 27.7 6.8 30.0 2.3 10.4 15.6 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 5.1 7.2 9.6 0.0 23.5 11.1 10.9 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 1.8 7.2 3.1 4.5 8.4 21.5 7.2 Circulator 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.2 Bicycle/Bikeshare 6.0 6.7 4.6 4.1 0.0 0.7 5.1 Walk 74.0 30.3 10.0 14.1 5.3 3.0 20.7 Telecommute 0.0 0.8 7.6 3.0 0.0 0.7 2.5 Subtotal Non‐Auto Modes 91.8 80.1 41.7 56.3 39.5 48.1 62.2 1 Mode split reported is for the longest portion of the trip. As such, the GUTS mode split does not include people who take Metro and then use GUTS to get from the Metro station to Campus. 29 percent of all respondents indicated they used GUTS for the last portion of their trip. 58.2 percent of respondents indicated that they take one of the five GUTS routes on a regular or semi‐regular basis.

Based on the percentage of trips made by auto modes of transportation from the survey results, the total number of trips was calculated by dividing the number of vehicle trips currently generated by the University (as determined from the traffic counts and as presented in Table 13) by the auto mode split percentage for the overall population shown in Table 14 (i.e. 37.8 percent). Once the total number of trips was determined, the breakdown of trips by mode was calculated based on the percentages provided in Table 14. The resulting trip generation by mode is summarized in Table 15.

54

Table 15 Existing University Trip Generation by Mode

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Private Vehicle 416 52 468 97 323 420 Carpool/Vanpool 54 7 61 12 42 54 Carsharing 8 1 9 2 6 8 Drop‐off/Taxi 34 4 38 8 26 34 Sub‐Total – All Vehicle Modes 512 64 576 119 397 516 GUTS 211 26 238 49 164 213 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 148 18 166 34 114 149 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 98 12 110 23 76 98 Circulator 3 0 3 1 2 3 Bicycle/Bikeshare 69 9 78 16 54 70 Walk 280 35 315 65 217 282 Telecommute 34 4 38 8 26 34 Sub‐Total – All Non‐Auto Modes 843 104 947 196 653 849 Total – All Modes 1,355 168 1,523 315 1,050 1,365

Hospital Trip Generation

Based on the mode split survey conducted in March 2015, 18.8 percent of the Hospital population currently commutes to campus by non‐auto modes of transportation. Another four percent carpool or vanpool to campus. The results of the Hospital’s mode split survey are summarized below in Table16.

55

Table 16 Hospital Mode Split Summary

Group Intern

Staff Other Nurse Faculty Overall Physician Mode Population Medical Administrative Private Vehicle 91.8 77.5 83.8 88.0 66.4 68.8 74.4 Carpool/Vanpool 1.6 3.2 7.8 0.0 4.4 4.2 3.5 Carsharing 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.2 Dropped‐Off/Taxi 1.5 2.7 0.0 0.7 2.8 1.6 2.1 Subtotal Auto Modes 95.0 84.3 91.6 88.7 75.4 76.4 81.2 GUTS 1.2 3.9 1.3 3.2 4.7 6.3 4.5 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 0.9 4.1 1.3 0.0 13.2 8.0 6.9 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 0.0 2.2 3.2 0.2 3.5 3.8 2.7 Circulator 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Bicycle/Bikeshare 1.6 0.5 0.0 2.2 0.1 1.3 0.8 Walk 1.0 4.5 1.3 5.7 1.6 3.4 3.1 Telecommute 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.0 1.4 0.8 0.8 Subtotal Non‐Auto Modes 5.0 15.7 8.4 11.3 24.6 23.6 18.8 1 Mode split reported is for the longest portion of the trip. As such, the GUTS mode split does not include people who take Metro and then use GUTS to get from the Metro station to Campus. 12 percent of all respondents indicated they used GUTS for the last portion of their trip. 28 percent of respondents indicated that they take one of the five GUTS routes on a regular or semi‐regular basis.

As was done for the University trip generation, the total number of trips generated by the Hospital was calculated by dividing the number of vehicle trips currently generated by the Hospital (as determined from the traffic counts and as presented in Table 13) by the auto mode split percentage shown for the overall population in Table 16 (i.e. 81.2 percent). The total number of trips was then broken down by mode based on the percentages provided in Table 16. The resulting trip generation by mode is summarized in Table 17.

56

Table 17 Existing Hospital Trip Generation by Mode

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Private Vehicle 828 373 1,201 177 728 905 Carpool/Vanpool 39 17 56 8 34 42 Carsharing 13 6 19 3 12 15 Drop‐off/Taxi 23 11 34 5 21 26 Sub‐Total – All Vehicle Modes 903 407 1,310 193 795 988 GUTS 50 22 72 11 44 55 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 77 34 111 16 68 84 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 30 14 44 6 26 33 Circulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle/Bikeshare 9 4 13 2 8 10 Walk 34 16 50 7 30 38 Telecommute 9 4 13 2 8 10 Sub‐Total – All Non‐Auto Modes 209 94 303 45 184 229 Total – All Modes 1,112 501 1,613 238 979 1,217

Potential Additional Trips

Based on the growth contemplated in the 2017 Campus Plan and the known trip generation characteristics for the University and the Hospital, the number of additional trips that could be realized as a result of the implementation of the Campus Plan was determined as described in detail below.

University Trip Generation

The two major components of peak hour vehicle trip generation for the University are graduate/non‐degree students and employees. Nearly all undergraduate students live on campus or walk to campus. In Fall 2015, approximately 1,211 undergraduate students lived off campus and attended the main campus. Based on extrapolated survey results, approximately five of those undergraduate students arrived or departed by car during the peak hours. Taking into account the total undergraduate population, the number of undergraduate trips equates to less than one percent of the total daily peak hour trips. Likewise, visitors also make up a relatively small percentage.

Therefore, the number of vehicle trips generated by the University under the 2017 Campus Plan can be estimated based on the potential increase in number of graduate students and the potential increase in employees. Under the current enrollment cap (which is proposed to remain unchanged under the 2017 Campus Plan), graduate/non‐degree student enrollment can increase by 38.4 percent (due to the fact that there is no available growth

57

potential under the current undergraduate program cap, any increase in students would be in graduate or non‐degree student growth), as shown below: . Current total student enrollment on main campus (headcount) = 12,043 . Traditional undergraduate program student enrollment cap (headcount) = 6,675 . Current graduate/non‐degree student enrollment on main campus (headcount) = 5,368 (12,043 – 6,675) . Main campus headcount cap = 14,106 . Potential graduate/non‐degree growth = 2,063 (14,106 – 12,043) . Percent graduate/non‐degree student growth = 38.4 percent (2,063÷5,368)

In addition to the potential growth in graduate students, the University anticipates that the number of employees could increase by up to 10 percent through the 20‐year term of the 2017 Campus Plan based on recent trend data as well as faculty/staff resources required to support anticipated graduate student growth on the main campus. The number of employees in 2010 was 4,035. In 2015, the number of employees was 4,150, which represented an increase of 115 employees, or 2.8 percent over six years. Extrapolating that growth over 20 years would result in a growth of approximately ten percent (2.8% ÷ 6 years = 0.47% per year * 20 years = 9.4%).

A composite growth rate was developed to determine the potential increase in vehicle trips that may be realized as a result of potential increases in graduate students and employees. Though undergraduate students make up a very small portion of the vehicular trip generation, they also were included in developing the composite growth rate but had no consequential impact on the composite rate.

The composite growth rate takes into account arrival/departure patterns for undergraduate students, graduate students, and employees. The arrival/departure patterns for each group were used to determine the percent of peak hour traffic that is attributable to each group. Table 18 summarizes the arrival/departure patterns for the AM and PM peak hours.

58

Table 18 AM and PM Peak Hour Arrival/Departure Patterns

Arrive/Depart Percent of Arrive/Depart Percent of Component/ AM Peak Hour AM Peak PM Peak Hour PM Peak Population 3 3 Percent1 No.2 Hour Traffic Percent1 No. 2 Hour Traffic Undergrads – 6,675 0% 0 0% 0.2% 5 0.2% Grads – 5,368 6.5% 349 19.7% 24.7% 1,326 46.5% Employees – 4,150 34.2% 1,419 80.3% 36.6% 1,519 53.3% Total ‐‐‐ 1,768 100% ‐‐‐ 2,850 100% 1 Information taken from the Georgetown University 2015 Commute Survey 2 The number of each component arriving or departing during the peak hour was calculated by multiplying the percent arriving or departing by the population of each component. For example, the number of graduate students arriving/departing in the AM peak hour was calculated as 5,368*0.065 = 349. 3 The percent of traffic attributable to each component was calculated by dividing the number arriving/departing during the peak hour for that particular component divided by the total of all undergraduate students, graduate students, and employees arriving/departing during the peak hour. For example, the percent of AM peak hour traffic attributable to graduate students was calculated as 349÷1,768 = 19.7%.

The proportion of peak hour vehicle trips attributable to each group was then applied to the anticipated growth for each group to determine composite growth rates for the AM and PM peak hours. The calculations are summarized in Table 19.

Table 19 Composite Growth Rate Calculation

Percent of Percent of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Component AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Growth Rate Growth Rate Traffic Traffic Undergraduates 0% 0% 0% 0.2% Grad Students 38.4% 19.7% 38.4% 46.5% Employees 10% 80.3% 10% 53.3% Composite 15.6%1 100% 23.2%1 100% 1 The composite growth rate was calculated as follows: 38.4*0.197 + 10*0.803 = 15.6% for the AM Peak Hour and 38.4*0.465 + 10*0.533 = 23.2% for the PM Peak Hour.

The number of new vehicle trips that could be generated by the University over the 20‐year term of the Campus Plan was calculated by applying the composite growth rates in Table 19 to the number of existing University trips shown in Table 13. Accordingly, the University potentially could generate an additional 90 AM peak hour vehicle trips (80 inbound and 10 outbound) and an additional 120 PM peak hour vehicle trips (28 inbound and 92 outbound). Note that the vehicle trips included in Table 13 include trips generated by visitors. The anticipated growth was applied to ALL existing vehicle trips (including visitor vehicle trips). Since the composite growth rate is based only on the anticipated growth of students and

59

employees, which will experience a higher growth rate than visitors, the overall projected growth is conservative.

The number of trips for each mode of transportation was determined in the same manner as for existing conditions, using the mode splits shown in Table 14. The resulting trip generation by mode is shown in Table 20.

Table 20 Potential Additional University Trip Generation by Mode

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Private Vehicle 65 8 73 23 75 98 Carpool/Vanpool 9 1 10 3 10 13 Carsharing 1 0 1 0 1 1 Drop‐off/Taxi 5 1 6 2 6 8 Sub‐Total – All Vehicle Modes 80 10 90 28 92 120 GUTS 33 4 37 12 38 50 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 23 3 26 8 27 35 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 15 2 17 5 18 23 Circulator 1 0 1 0 0 0 Bicycle/Bikeshare 11 1 12 4 12 16 Walk 44 5 49 15 50 65 Telecommute 5 1 6 2 6 8 Sub‐Total – All Non‐Auto Modes 132 16 148 46 151 197 Total – All Modes 212 26 238 74 143 317

Hospital Trip Generation

As noted above, as part of the 2017 Campus Plan, MGUH proposes to construct a new medical/surgical pavilion of up to 450,000 SF of gross floor area at the hospital. The new pavilion would result in 122 new beds; however, half of those beds would be used to accommodate patients who currently are boarded in hallways at the hospital, resulting in effectively 61 net new beds. MGUH anticipates 655 new employees would be associated with the new pavilion. An additional 50 employees beyond that could be realized by the end of the 20‐year term of the Plan.

To determine the vehicular trip generation for the Hospital, three independent variables could be used, including the number of beds, number of employees, or square footage. Further, the Hospital complex on campus comprises both the hospital and medical offices. In order to arrive at the most appropriate combination of variables to determine the vehicular trip generation, the actual observed vehicular trip generation for the existing hospital complex was compared to calculated vehicular trip generation for various

60

combinations of independent variables using the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). The following combinations were tested: 1) Square footage for both the medical office and the hospital, 2) Employees for both the medical office and the hospital, 3) Square footage for the medical office and number of beds for the hospital, and 4) Employees for the medical office and number of beds for the hospital.

Based on the analyses, the details of which are included in Appendix L, the second scenario (number of employees for both the medical office and hospital) most closely predicted the vehicular trip generation for existing conditions. Therefore, the number of proposed employees was used to estimate the number of new vehicle trips that would be generated by the new medical/surgical pavilion. The anticipated trip generation for the Hospital complex is summarized in Table 21. As shown, the Hospital is expected to generate an additional 131 AM peak hour vehicle trips (94 inbound and 37 outbound) and an additional 58 PM peak hour vehicle trips (16 inbound and 42 outbound) as a result of the proposed pavilion and anticipated growth throughout the term of the Campus Plan.

61

Table 21 – MGUH Trip Generation1

Independent AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip LUC Variable Component In Out Total In Out Total (Employees) Existing Hospital 610 3,306 675 263 938 242 592 834 Existing Med Office 720 1,1282 472 126 598 407 789 1,196 Total Existing 4,434 1,147 389 1,536 649 1,381 2,030 Internal Synergy (43%)4 0 0 0 279 594 873 Total External Trips 1,147 389 1,536 370 787 1,157 Non‐Auto Mode Split (25.2% AM; 23.0% PM)6 289 98 387 85 181 266 External Vehicle Trips 858 291 1,149 285 606 891 Proposed Hospital 610 4,0003 805 313 1,118 283 694 977 Proposed Med Office 720 1,1193 468 125 593 403 783 1,186 Total Proposed 5,119 1,273 438 1,711 686 1,477 2,163 Internal Synergy (43%)4 0 0 0 295 635 930 Total External Trips 1,273 438 1,711 391 842 1,233 Non‐Auto Mode Split (25.2% AM; 23.0% PM)5 321 110 431 90 194 284 External Vehicle Trips 952 328 1,280 301 648 949 Net New Vehicle Trips 94 37 131 16 42 58 (Proposed – Existing)6 1 Proposed trips were calculated based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition using the total number of future employees as the independent variable. The existing and proposed trip generation accounts for trips made to the hospital by all users (including doctors, nurses, staff, guests, visitors, etc.). 2 Reflects number of employees at the time counts were conducted on campus; the number has since reduced by 20. Additional trips generated by general growth included in proposed employee count as indicated in note three below. 3 General growth of 50 employees across campus added proportionally to hospital and medical office uses. 4 PM peak hour existing internal synergy was based on the fact that on average, outpatient and Georgetown Physician Group patients make 1.75 visits per trip (a 43% reduction); AM peak hour synergy was assumed to be 0% since the majority of AM peak hour trips are employee trips. 5 Non‐auto mode split reduction based on intercept survey conducted by W+A in February 2015 (a composite non‐auto mode split was developed based on the proportion of employees vs. visitors, which yielded 25.2% in the AM peak and 23% in the PM peak). 6 The number of additional, net new vehicle trips anticipated over the life of the Plan was calculated by subtracting the number of existing vehicle trips from the number of future vehicle trips (both of which were calculated using the same ITE methodology, as shown in the table.

62

The number of trips for each mode of transportation was determined in the same manner as for existing conditions, using the mode splits shown in Table 16. The resulting trip generation by mode is shown in Table 22.

Table 22 Potential Additional Hospital Trip Generation by Mode

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Private Vehicle 86 34 120 15 38 53 Carpool/Vanpool 4 2 6 1 2 3 Carsharing 2 0 2 0 1 1 Drop‐off/Taxi 2 1 3 0 1 1 Sub‐Total – All Vehicle Modes 94 37 131 16 42 58 GUTS 5 2 7 1 2 3 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 8 3 11 1 4 5 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 3 1 4 1 1 2 Circulator 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle/Bikeshare 1 0 1 0 1 1 Walk 4 2 6 1 2 2 Telecommute 1 0 1 0 0 1 Sub‐Total – All Non‐Auto Modes 22 8 30 4 10 14 Total – All Modes 116 45 161 20 52 72

Combined Campus‐Wide Trip Generation

The total number of additional trips (by all modes) that could be generated as a result of the 2017 Campus Plan was determined by combining the University’s anticipated trip generation with the Hospital’s anticipated trip generation. The number of additional campus‐wide trips is summarized in Table 23.

63

Table 23 Potential Campus‐Wide Additional Trip Generation by Mode

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Private Vehicle 151 42 193 38 113 151 Carpool/Vanpool 13 3 16 4 12 16 Carsharing 3 0 3 1 2 2 Drop‐off/Taxi 7 2 9 1 7 9 Sub‐Total – All Vehicle Modes 174 47 221 44 134 178 % Increase in Vehicular Traffic 12% 10% 12% 14% 11% 12% GUTS 38 6 44 13 40 53 Metrorail/Commuter Rail 31 6 37 9 31 40 Metrobus/Commuter Bus 18 3 21 6 19 25 Circulator 1 0 1 0 0 0 Bicycle/Bikeshare 12 1 13 4 13 17 Walk 48 7 55 16 52 67 Telecommute 6 1 7 2 6 9 Sub‐Total – All Non‐Auto Modes 154 24 178 50 161 211 Total – All Modes 328 71 399 94 195 389

Campus‐Wide Vehicle Trip Reduction

In developing the 2017 Campus Plan, the University and Hospital worked closely with community leadership through the GCP to develop a plan to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the campus. Specifically, both the University and Hospital met with the GCP over several months to develop trip reduction targets for each institution. The performance targets reflect the goals and desires of the community, the distinct operational profiles of the two institutions, potential impacts related to staffing the Hospital, and existing efforts by each institution to encourage non‐single‐occupant‐vehicle (non‐SOV) trips.

As a result of the collaborative GCP process, both the University and the Hospital established two performance targets: 1) a trip generation commitment and 2) an aspirational goal. In the case of the University, the PM peak hour was selected as the critical peak hour since the University’s trip generation is the highest during the PM peak hour. The University established a trip generation commitment that would reduce PM peak hour trips by 8.5 percentage points from the projected volume that would otherwise occur with implementation of the proposed Campus Plan. As an aspirational goal, the University also will strive to achieve a reduction of 20 percentage points below the projected volume. The University proposes to achieve the proposed reductions through traditional TDM measures as more fully discussed in subsequent sections.

64

In the case of the Hospital, the AM peak hour was selected as the critical peak hour since the Hospital’s trip generation is the highest during the AM peak hour. The Hospital established a trip generation commitment that would reduce AM peak hour trips by 15 percentage points from the projected volume that would otherwise occur with implementation of the proposed Campus Plan (or five percentage points below existing volumes). As an aspirational goal, the Hospital also will strive to achieve a reduction of 22 percentage points below the projected volume.

Due to the nature of Hospital operations, including the types of patients its serves, the shift work of its staff, and on‐going staffing challenges, the Hospital developed a two‐pronged approach to reducing its vehicle trips, specifically through 1) decanting certain departments or services off‐site and 2) through traditional TDM measures. Traditional TDM strategies are expected to achieve approximately half of the 15 percentage point reduction to which the Hospital has committed and the remainder of the reduction will be achieved through decanting. Such an approach will result in significant reductions in vehicle trips destined to and coming from campus, thereby addressing the community’s concerns and also will allow for a meaningful reduction in SOV trips through traditional TDM measures.

Hospital Decanting

In order to help manage growth on campus and limit the impact to the surrounding community, the Hospital proposes to decant or relocate certain clinical and/or ancillary departments off campus. In order to achieve an AM peak hour reduction of approximately 7.5 percent through decanting (based on AM peak hour volumes), MGUH has identified certain key clinical and/or ancillary departments that include approximately 258 associates who mostly work traditional day shifts (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM). As a result of this decanting strategy, the overall increase in number of employees on campus would be 448 employees (705 additional employees projected over the 20‐year term of the Campus Plan less 258 employees relocated to off‐site locations).

Relocating these associates would reduce peak hour trips as shown in Table 24. As shown in Table 24, the proposed decanting would substantially reduce the volume of trips entering and exiting campus.

65

Table 24 – MGUH Trip Generation with Decanting1

Independent AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip LUC Variable Component In Out Total (Employees) Existing Hospital 610 3,306 675 263 938 Existing Med Office 720 1,1282 472 126 598 Total Existing 4,434 1,147 389 1,536 Internal Synergy (43%)4 0 0 0 Total External Trips 1,147 389 1,536 Non‐Auto Mode Split (25.2% AM; 23.0% PM)6 289 98 387 External Vehicle Trips 858 291 1,149 Proposed Hospital 610 4,0003 805 313 1,118 Proposed Med Office 720 8823 369 98 467 Total Proposed 4,882 1,174 411 1,585 Internal Synergy (43%)4 0 0 0 Total External Trips 1,174 411 1,585 Non‐Auto Mode Split (25.2% AM)5 296 104 399 External Vehicle Trips 878 307 1,186 Net New Vehicle Trips 20 16 36 (Proposed – Existing)6 1 Proposed trips were calculated based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition using the total number of future employees, less number of decanted employees, as the independent variable. The existing and proposed trip generation accounts for trips made to the hospital by all users (including doctors, nurses, staff, guests, visitors, etc.). 2 Reflects number of employees at the time counts were conducted on campus; the number has since reduced by 20. Additional trips generated by general growth included in proposed employee count as indicated in note three below. 3 An additional 705 employees (694 hospital employees vs. 11 medical office employees) are anticipated over the term of the Campus Plan. The Hospital proposes to decant 258 medical office employees to off‐site locations. 4 AM peak hour synergy was assumed to be 0% since the majority of AM peak hour trips are employee trips. 5 Non‐auto mode split reduction based on intercept survey conducted by W+A in February 2015 (a composite non‐auto mode split was developed based on the proportion of employees vs. visitors, which yielded 25.2% in the AM peak). 6 The number of additional, net new vehicle trips anticipated over the life of the Plan was calculated by subtracting the number of existing vehicle trips from the number of future vehicle trips (both of which were calculated using the same ITE methodology, as shown in the table.

66

Transportation Demand Management

Traffic and parking congestion can be effectively addressed in one of two ways: 1) increase supply or 2) decrease demand. Increasing supply requires building new roads, widening existing roads, building more parking spaces, or operating additional transit service. These solutions are often infeasible in constrained conditions in urban environments and, where feasible, can be cost‐prohibitive, time consuming, and in many instances, unacceptable to businesses, government agencies, and/or the general public. The demand for travel and parking can be influenced by TDM plans implemented by those in the private sector. TDM plans are most effective when tailored to a specific project or user group. Typical TDM strategies include measures to encourage multi‐modal modes of transportation and discourage SOV use. Specific strategies are customized based on the type of use (e.g. university versus hospital).

Accordingly, both the University and the Hospital each have undertaken a strategic, comprehensive TDM planning process. The TDM Plans were developed in conjunction with the GCP, incorporating the input of a wide range of stakeholders to formulate a strategy to manage campus‐related traffic and mitigate transportation impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods.

Both the University and Hospital TDM Plans identify two key performance targets. The first is a commitment to achieve significant reductions in peak hour trip generation for each institution. The second target is an aspirational goal of an even more significant peak hour trip reduction that the University and Hospital will strive to achieve over the term of the Plan. The TDM Plans were developed around these key performance targets, and set forth strategies and approaches to achieve them as well as clear and defined guidelines for annual monitoring. While compliance will be determined based on the commitment standards, the annual report will also document each institution’s performance toward the aspirational goal.

The Plans were specifically and intentionally developed to provide flexibility for each institution to select from a variety of TDM policies and approaches included in a “toolbox” of strategies based on what measures are most effective given the unique nature of each institution and the commuting patterns of their constituencies. This flexibility also allows each institution to respond to changes in technology or transportation services that may impact the effectiveness of the TDM plan over the 20‐year term of the Campus Plan.

Details are provided in the Georgetown University Transportation Demand Management Plan and the Medstar Georgetown University Hospital Transportation Demand Management Plan. Both Plans are included in Appendix M. A brief summary of each is provided below:

67

University TDM Plan Overview

As part of the 2017 Campus Plan, the University has established two performance targets: 1) a trip generation commitment and 2) an aspirational goal with respect to campus traffic volumes over the twenty‐year term of the Plan. The proposed reduction in peak hour trips was extensively analyzed, reviewed, and discussed with the members of the surrounding community through the GCP, and represents one of the key commitments that form the basis of the consensus 2017 Campus Plan. The reduction represents a decrease in projected PM peak hour trips of 8.5 percentage points and was developed with the following considerations in mind:

1) The University already has achieved a significant non‐auto mode split of 62.2 percent plus a carpool percentage of four percent (for a total of 66.2 percent); 2) Based on projected increases in campus populations, to achieve the proposed reduction the University would increase its non‐auto plus carpool percentage from 66.2 to 68.9 percent; 3) A significant component of the projected trip generation for the University is associated with the projected increase in graduate students. The increase in graduate students currently is permitted under and falls within the student cap set forth in the current Campus Plan.

Trip Generation Performance Targets (see Section 4 of the Georgetown University Transportation Demand Management Plan for more details): . Commitment o Peak hour vehicle trips shall not exceed 632 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 591 PM peak hour vehicle trips, as shown in the Table 25 below: Table 25 University Performance Target Commitment

AM Peak1 PM Peak1 Existing Vehicle Volume2 576 516 Projected Site Trips3 +90 +120 Projected Future Trips with Campus Plan 666 636 Proposed TDM Reduction4,5 ‐34 ‐45 Projected Future Trips with Campus Plan and 632 591 TDM 1 For simplicity, the combined inbound + outbound trips are presented. 2 From Table 15 of the CTR 3 From Table 20 of the CTR 4 TDM Reduction was derived as follows based on the PM peak hour (since the projected number of site trips is higher during the PM peak hour): The University is projected to increase PM peak hour trips by 23.2% (120/516=0.233) The proposed TDM reduction represents a reduction of 8.5 percentage points, resulting in a reduction of 45 PM peak hour trips (23.2‐8.5=14.7% increase over existing volumes; 516*0.147=75 trips vs. 120 trips; 120‐ 75 = 45 trip reduction) 5 The AM peak hour reduction was calculated as follows: 45/120 = 0.375; 90*0.375 = 34

68

. Aspirational Goal o As an aspirational goal, the University will strive to achieve a threshold that is below 593 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 532 PM peak hour vehicle trips. o Notwithstanding the aspirational goal, for purposes of the monitoring and evaluation, compliance shall be determined based on the threshold of 632 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 591 PM peak hour vehicle trips. . Parking Cap o The current University parking cap of 1,380 spaces will remain unchanged.

General TDM Strategies: . Transportation Infrastructure o Build upon and improve existing transportation services on campus . Education and Support o Establish Transportation Program Manager function to inform University students, faculty and staff of travel options available to the University . Parking Management o Discourage the use of SOVs through effective parking management . Alternative Work Arrangements o Implement and promote policies that encourage reduction in trips and/or peak hour trips

See Section 4 of the Georgetown University Transportation Demand Management Plan for a detailed list of potential strategies, including the proposed strategies for year 1 of the Campus Plan.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

To fully assess the University’s efforts towards achieving the peak hour performance commitment and aspirational goal described above, the University shall conduct an Annual Performance Monitoring Study. The Study shall include: (1) measurement of University vehicle trip generation, (2) a university‐wide transportation survey (including determination of mode split), (3) daily GUTS ridership counts, (4) a summary report on TDM activities, and (5) parking occupancy counts. . Elements of the Annual Performance Monitoring Study: o Vehicle Trip Counts ‐ The number of vehicle trips generated by the University during the AM and PM peak hour will be determined through vehicular traffic counts. ‐ Traffic counts shall be conducted when Georgetown University, DC Public Schools, and Congress are in session.

69

‐ Counts shall be conducted during the Fall Semester on three typical weekdays (i.e. a Tuesday, Wednesday, and/or Thursday) from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Counts shall be conducted on days when no adverse weather impacts travel conditions. Counts shall be conducted at the following campus driveways:  Canal Road,  Prospect Street,  Gate 1,  Gate 2,  Gate 3,  Gate 4,  Lot B Driveway, and  37th/P Driveway. In order to separate University trips from Hospital trips, counts shall also be conducted at the internal campus parking facilities that are open and operational at the time the monitoring study is performed. In parking facilities that house both University and Hospital designated spaces (e.g. Southwest Garage and Leavey Garage) the number of University trips will be estimated based on the proportion of University spaces versus the number of Hospital spaces. If counts conducted the first year reveal that the count windows can be shortened from four hours to three hours and still capture the AM and PM peak hours of both the University and Hospital, then the count window shall be shortened to three hours for each peak in the subsequent years of the Campus Plan. ‐ The number of AM peak hour trips generated by the University shall be determined by averaging the data from the three days and then selecting the single highest hourly inbound volume entering campus plus outbound volume exiting campus (for all driveways combined) between 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM. The number of PM peak hour trips generated by the University shall be determined by selecting the single highest hourly inbound volume entering campus plus outbound volume exiting campus (for all driveways combined) between and from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM based on the averaged data. ‐ The trip generation information will be used to determine whether the targets established above are met. ‐ During the term of the Campus Plan, if major construction projects significantly alter traffic circulation patterns and/or access to campus parking facilities such that the methodology outlined above would not adequately differentiate between University and Hospital trips, then an alternate methodology shall be devised and submitted to the GCP and DDOT for review and approval prior to conducting the counts. o University‐wide Transportation Survey

70

‐ A mode split survey will be conducted (in coordination with the traffic counts during the Fall Semester) to identify the mode of transportation for students and faculty/staff. ‐ The mode split results will be provided for informational purposes and will be used by the University to inform decisions regarding implementation of various TDM strategies to achieve the established performance targets. Mode split results will be presented along with results from previous years to reveal any trends. ‐ Questions regarding various travel options and incentives to ascertain respondents’ sentiments and awareness regarding specific TDM strategies will be included in the survey to garner additional information beyond mode choice to better inform the University’s decision making. As an example, the survey may ask questions related to changes in GUTS bus service to determine whether specific improvements likely would result in an increase in GUTS ridership. ‐ Year‐to‐year trends regarding TDM performance and user knowledge gaps will be reported. o GUTS Daily Ridership Counts o Daily ridership will be provided for each of the active GUTS routes for a minimum of one week. The ridership numbers will be collected for the same week in which traffic counts are conducted. o Year‐to‐year trends in ridership also will be reported. o Annual TDM Performance Report ‐ A list of TDM strategies in effect at the time the performance monitoring study was conducted and perceived awareness of their availability will be provided. ‐ The number of students enrolled and faculty/staff employed at the time the study was conducted will be provided. ‐ An itemized summary of TDM‐related expenditures, demonstrating the level of financial investment made toward achieving the performance targets outlined above will be included in the report. ‐ In the event that the trip generation commitment is not met, a remediation plan, including a list of additional TDM strategies and the timeframe for their implementation also will be provided. o Parking Occupancy Counts ‐ A count of the number of occupied parking spaces in each of the on‐campus parking facilities will be conducted on a typical weekday (i.e. a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Counts shall be conducted on days when no adverse weather impacts travel conditions and shall be conducted on a day in which the vehicle trip counts are being conducted. ‐ Data will be provided in tabular or graphic format comparing the number of occupied spaces to the University’s parking cap to ensure the parking cap is not exceeded.

71

. Sequencing of Annual Performance Monitoring Studies o Monitoring studies shall be conducted during the Fall semester each year beginning the year following the approval of the Campus Plan. o If the vehicle trip counts reveal that the trip generation commitment is not met, the University shall identify and begin to implement additional TDM measures, as noted above and discussed more fully below, and shall repeat the vehicle trip counts by the end of the following Spring Semester and submit those results to both the GCP and DDOT. o Annual Performance Monitoring Studies shall be conducted throughout the 20‐year term of the Campus Plan.

Enforcement:

The University will submit its Annual Performance Monitoring Study to DDOT and the GCP. If the Annual Performance Monitoring Study reveals that the Performance Commitment is not met, the University will work with the GCP’s Transportation and Parking Working Group, the GCP Steering Committee, and DDOT to review the then‐current TDM strategies and associated expenditures and to develop an increasingly robust plan to augment existing and/or implement new TDM strategies to enhance performance. Strategies may include but are not limited to the toolkit components discussed more fully in Section 5 of the Georgetown University Transportation Demand Management Plan, including: . Carpool/vanpool ride matching and/or incentives . Increased telework and distance learning opportunities . Enhanced or expanded GUTS service . Additional bicycle infrastructure . Installation of electronic information displays . Enhanced internal TDM communications

Compliance with the provisions of this TDM Plan will be specifically enforceable pursuant to the proposed conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit FF of the Campus Plan.

Table 26 reflects the vehicular trip generation for the University based on the University’s commitment to reduce vehicular trip generation through implementation of a comprehensive TDM Plan. The trip generation presented in Table 24 is based on the performance commitment established by the University and the GCP. As noted above, the University will strive to reach its aspirational trip reduction goal; however, for purposes of the analyses presented herein, the commitment performance standard was used. Since meeting the aspirational target would result in fewer trips generated by the University, basing the analyses presented in subsequent sections on the commitment standard presents a conservative scenario.

72

Table 26 University Vehicle Trip Generation With TDM Plan

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Vehicle Trips w/o TDM Plan 80 10 90 28 92 120 TDM Reduction 30 4 34 10 35 45 Vehicle Trips w/ TDM Plan 50 6 56 18 57 75

Hospital TDM Plan Overview

As part of its further processing application for the proposed medical/surgical pavilion, as described in the 2017 Campus Plan, the Hospital has established two performance targets: (1) a trip generation commitment and (2) an aspirational goal with respect to its impact on campus traffic volumes. The proposed reduction in peak hour trips was extensively analyzed, reviewed, and discussed with the members of the surrounding community through the GCP, and represents one of the key commitments associated with the medical/surgical pavilion project. The proposed reduction represents a decrease in projected AM peak hour trips of 15 percentage points and was developed based on the community’s desire for the Hospital to not only offset the projected increase in vehicle trips associated with the new medical/surgical pavilion but to also reduce trips to a level below existing volumes. Due to the nature of Hospital operations, including the types of patients its serves, the shift work of its staff, and on‐going staffing challenges, the Hospital developed a two‐pronged approach to reducing its vehicle trips, specifically through 1) decanting certain departments or services off‐site and 2) through traditional TDM measures. For purposes of discussing the performance targets for the Hospital, targets associated with both decanting and traditional TDM measures are provided below. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the TDM Plan, targets are provided separately for decanting and for TDM.

To achieve the proposed TDM reduction the Hospital would increase its non‐auto plus carpool percentage from 22.3 to 31.7 percent.

The performance targets are summarized below:

Trip Generation Performance Targets (see Section 4 of the Medstar Georgetown University Hospital Transportation Demand Management Plan for more details): . Commitment o Peak hour vehicle trips shall be reduced by at least 101 trips during the AM peak hour and at least 76 trips during the PM peak hour based on traditional TDM strategies as outlined in the TDM Plan, as shown in Table 27. The peak hour vehicle trip reductions associated with traditional TDM strategies shall be calculated as follows:

73

‐ Calculate the expected vehicle trip generation in accordance with the trip generation methodology outlined in the Comprehensive Transportation Review for the Georgetown University Campus Plan dated October 2016 prepared by Wells + Associates based on the number of Hospital employees on campus at the time. ‐ Determine the actual vehicle trip generation, as described below, based on vehicle trip counts. ‐ The reduction achieved is equal to the expected vehicle trip generation minus the actual vehicle trip generation. o Taking into account the combined effect of reductions associated with both decanting and traditional TDM strategies, peak hour vehicle trips shall be reduced by 196 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 107 PM peak hour vehicle trips, as shown in Table 27. The peak hour vehicle trip reductions associated with both decanting and traditional TDM strategies shall be calculated as follows: ‐ Use the expected vehicle trip generation at full build out (i.e. 5,119 total employees), which is equal to 1,441 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 1,046 PM peak hour vehicle trips as identified in the Comprehensive Transportation Review for the Georgetown University Campus Plan dated October 2016 prepared by Wells + Associates. ‐ Determine the actual trip generation, as described below, based on vehicle trip counts. ‐ The reduction achieved is equal to the expected vehicle trip generation at full build out minus the actual vehicle trip generation.

Table 27 Hospital Performance Target Commitment

AM Peak1 PM Peak1 Existing Vehicle Volume2 1,310 988 Projected Site Trips3 +131 +58 Projected Future Trips with Campus Plan 1,441 1,046 Proposed TDM Reduction4,5 ‐101 ‐76 Proposed Decanting Reduction4,5 ‐95 ‐31 Projected Future Trips with Campus Plan and 1,245 939 Reduction 1 For simplicity, the combined inbound + outbound trips are presented 2 From Table 17 of the CTR 3 From Table 21 of the CTR 4 TDM Reduction was derived as follows based on the AM peak hour (since the projected number of site trips is higher during the AM peak hour): The Hospital is projected to increase AM peak hour trips by 10% (131/1,310=0.10) The proposed overall reduction represents a reduction of 15 percentage points overall (and five percent below existing volumes), resulting in a reduction of 196 AM peak hour trips (10‐15=‐5% decrease from existing volumes; 1,310*(1‐0.05) = 1,245 trips or an overall reduction of 196 trips (1,441‐1,245=196) 5 The PM peak hour reduction was calculated as follows: 988*(1‐0.05) = 939 or a reduction of 107 trips (1,046‐ 939 = 107)

74

. Aspirational Goal o As an aspirational goal, the Hospital will strive to achieve an overall reduction of 288 AM peak hour vehicle trips and 176 PM peak hour vehicle trips. o Reductions will be calculated as described above. o Notwithstanding the aspirational goal, for purposes of the monitoring and evaluation, compliance shall be determined based on the reductions outlined under “Commitment.” . Parking Cap o The current Hospital parking cap of 2,700 spaces will remain unchanged. To ensure that the parking cap will not be exceeded with the addition of approximately 644 parking spaces under the proposed medical/surgical pavilion, a significant number of stacked parking spaces will be eliminated in other, existing parking facilities. General TDM Strategies: . Transportation Infrastructure – o Build upon and improve existing transportation services on campus . Education and Support – o Inform staff of travel options available to the Hospital . Incentives o Establish incentives that will increase the convenience of using alternative forms of transportation

See Section 4 of the Medstar Georgetown University Hospital Transportation Demand Management Plan for a detailed list of potential strategies, including the proposed strategies for year 1 of the Campus Plan.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

To fully assess the Hospital’s effort towards achieving the peak hour vehicle trip reduction commitment and aspirational goal, as described above, an Annual Performance Monitoring Study that includes: (1) measurement of Hospital vehicle trip generation, (2) a hospital transportation survey (including determination of a mode split), and (3) a summary report on TDM activities is recommended. . Elements of the Annual Performance Monitoring Study: o Vehicle Trip Counts ‐ The number of vehicle trips generated by the Hospital during the AM and PM peak hours will be determined through vehicular traffic counts. ‐ Traffic counts shall be conducted when Georgetown University, DC Public Schools and Congress are in session. Counts shall be conducted during Georgetown University’s Fall Semester on three typical weekdays (i.e. a Tuesday, Wednesday, and/or Thursday) from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM.

75

Counts shall be conducted on days when no adverse weather impacts travel conditions. Counts shall be conducted at the following campus driveways:  Canal Road,  Prospect Street,  Gate 1,  Gate 2,  Gate 3,  Gate 4,  Lot B Driveway, and  37th/P Driveway. ‐ In order to separate Hospital trips from University trips, counts shall also be conducted at the internal campus parking facilities that are open and operational at the time the monitoring study is performed. In parking facilities that house both University and Hospital designated paces (e.g. Southwest Garage and Leavey Garage) the number of Hospital trips will be estimated based on the proportion of Hospital spaces versus the number of University spaces. If counts conducted the first year reveal that the count windows can be shortened from four hours to three hours and still capture the AM and PM peak hours of both the University and Hospital, then the count window shall be shortened to three hours for each peak in the subsequent years of the Campus Plan. ‐ The number of AM peak hour trips generated by the Hospital shall be determined by averaging the data from the three days and then selecting the single highest hourly inbound volume entering campus plus outbound volume exiting campus (for all driveways combined) between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM. The number of PM peak hour trips generated by the Hospital shall be determined by selecting the single highest hourly inbound volume entering campus plus outbound volume exiting campus (for all driveways combined) between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM based on the averaged data. ‐ The trip generation information will be used to determine whether the targets established above are met. ‐ During the term of the Campus Plan, if major construction projects significantly alter traffic circulation patterns and/or access to campus parking facilities such that the methodology outlined above would not adequately differentiate between University and Hospital trips, then an alternate methodology shall be devised and submitted to the GCP and DDOT for review and approval prior to conducting the counts. o Hospital Transportation Survey ‐ A mode split survey will be conducted (in coordination with the traffic counts) to identify the mode of transportation for employees.

76

‐ The mode split results will be provided for informational purposes and will be used by the Hospital to inform decisions regarding the implementation of various TDM strategies to achieve the established performance targets. Mode split results will be presented along with results from previous years to reveal any trends. ‐ Questions regarding various travel options and incentives to ascertain respondents’ sentiments and awareness regarding specific TDM strategies will be included in the survey to garner additional information beyond mode choice to better inform the Hospital’s decision making. . Year‐to‐year trends regarding TDM performance and user knowledge gaps will be reported. o GUTS Daily Ridership Counts ‐ Daily ridership will be provided for each of the active GUTS routes for a minimum of one week. The ridership numbers will be collected for the same week in which traffic counts are conducted. ‐ Year‐to‐year trends in Ridership also will be reported. o Annual TDM Performance Report ‐ A list of TDM strategies in effect at the time the performance monitoring study was conducted and perceived awareness of their availability will be provided. ‐ The number of staff employed on‐site at the time the study was conducted will be provided. ‐ In the event that the trip generation commitment is not met, a remediation plan including a list of additional TDM strategies to be implemented and the timeframe for their implementation also will be provided. ‐ An itemized summary of TDM‐related expenditures, demonstrating the level of financial investment made toward achieving the performance targets outlined above will be included in the report. o Parking Occupancy Counts ‐ A count of the number of occupied parking spaces in each of the on‐campus parking facilities will be conducted on a typical weekday (i.e. a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Counts shall be conducted on days when no adverse weather impacts travel conditions and shall be conducted on a day in which the vehicle trip counts are being conducted. ‐ Data will be provided in tabular or graphic format comparing the number of occupied spaces to the Hospital’s parking cap to ensure the parking cap is not exceeded. . Sequencing of Annual Performance Monitoring Studies o Monitoring studies shall be conducted during the Fall Semester each year beginning the year following the approval of the Campus Plan. o If the vehicle trip counts reveal that the trip generation commitment is not met, the Hospital shall identify and begin to implement additional TDM measures, as noted

77

above and discussed more fully below, and shall repeat vehicle trip counts by the end of Georgetown University’s following Spring Semester and submit the results to both the GCP and DDOT. o Annual Performance Monitoring Studies shall be conducted throughout the 20‐year term of the Campus Plan.

Enforcement:

The Hospital will submit its Annual Performance Monitoring Study to DDOT and the GCP. If the Annual Performance Monitoring Study reveals that the Performance Commitment is not met, the Hospital will work with the GCP’s Transportation and Parking Working Group, the GCP Steering Committee, and DDOT to review the then‐current TDM strategies and associated expenditures and to develop an increasingly robust plan to augment existing and/or implement new TDM strategies to enhance performance Strategies may include but are not limited to the toolkit components discussed more fully in Section 5 of the Medstar Georgetown University Hospital Transportation Demand Management Plan, including: . Carpool/vanpool ride matching and/or incentives . Flexible work operations . Enhanced internal TDM communications . Additional bicycle infrastructure . Enhanced or expanded GUTS service . Installation of electronic information displays . Increased on‐campus parking fees for Hospital employees . Targeted marketing/outreach to employees based on their home location

Compliance with the provisions of this TDM Plan will be specifically enforceable pursuant to the proposed conditions of approval set forth in the further processing application for the Medical/Surgical Pavilion Project.

Table 25 reflects the vehicular trip generation for the Hospital based on the Hospital’s commitment to reduce vehicular trip generation through implementation of a comprehensive TDM Plan. The trip generation presented in Table 28 is based on the performance commitment established by the Hospital and the GCP. As noted above, the Hospital will strive to reach its aspirational trip reduction goal; however, for purposes of the analyses presented herein, the commitment performance standard was used. Since meeting the aspirational target would result in fewer trips generated by the Hospital, basing the analyses presented in subsequent sections on the commitment standard presents a conservative scenario.

78

Table 28 Hospital Vehicle Trip Generation With TDM Plan

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Component In Out Total In Out Total Vehicle Trips w/o Decanting and 94 37 131 16 42 58 w/o TDM Plan Decanting Reduction1 74 21 95 9 22 31 TDM Reduction1 67 34 101 21 55 76 Vehicle Trips w/ TDM and ‐47 ‐18 ‐65 ‐14 ‐35 ‐49 Decanting 1 Total AM and PM TDM reduction calculated as 7.7% of existing hospital trip generation (as presented in Table 13). Total AM and PM decanting reduction calculated as 7.3% of existing hospital trip generation (as presented in Table 13). The AM inbound/outbound decanting reductions are based on the trip generation presented in Table 24. The AM inbound/outbound TDM reductions are based on the resulting reduction needed to achieve the AM goal. The PM inbound/outbound decanting and TDM reduction based on the inbound vs. outbound proportion in the first row of this table.

As shown on Table 25, the Hospital’s TDM commitment and planned relocation of certain services actually would result in a reduction of vehicle trips generated by the Hospital when compared to today’s volumes.

Site Trip Distribution and Assignment

Survey responses from the Commute Surveys for University and the Hospital were geocoded by address and used to approximate campus demographics. University data were reduced to include only employees and graduate students that drive to and from the main campus during the AM and PM peak periods. Hospital data also were reduced to include only employees that drive to and from the main campus during the AM and PM peak periods. The address data were grouped in zones, based on regional traffic patterns and are shown on Figure 24.

Entry and exit trip distributions were calculated based on actual traffic volumes at each driveway. The address information then was used to distribute the driveway distributions to the larger regional network. Travel paths to and from each zone were determined by evaluating the regional distributions (based on address location) in combination with the driveway distributions (based on actual driveway counts). In the case of the University, the regional and driveway distributions matched very closely. In the case of the Hospital, because the regional distributions did not include visitor trips (since visitors were not part of the Hospital survey), the regional distributions (based on address location) did not necessarily match the driveway distributions (based on actual counts). Therefore, the regional distributions were proportionally adjusted so that the origins and destinations, following logical travel patterns to/from each zone, matched the driveway distributions.

79

The resulting University regional trip distributions are shown on Figure 25. Campus entry points include Canal Road, Prospect Street and Reservoir Road. Trips cannot exit eastbound via the Canal Road gate during the AM peak hour. The resulting Hospital regional trip distributions are shown on Figure 26. For proposed conditions, Hospital traffic can only enter the site from Reservoir Road.

The trip distributions shown on Figures 25 and 26 were applied to the vehicular trip generation for the University (shown in Table 20) and for the Hospital (shown in Table 22), respectively. The resulting traffic assignments for the University and Hospital are shown on Figures 27 and 28, respectively. Total anticipated vehicle site trips associated with the Campus Plan (i.e. University and Hospital combined) are shown on Figure 29.

The trip distributions shown on Figures 25 and 26 also were applied to the vehicular trip generation for the University with its TDM Plan (shown in Table 24) and the vehicular trip generation for the Hospital with its TDM Plan (shown in Table 25). The resulting traffic assignments with the TDM reductions for the University and Hospital are shown on Figures 30 and 31, respectively. Total anticipated vehicle site trips with the TDM reduction (i.e. University and Hospital combined) are shown on Figure 32.

TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS

Traffic Forecasts

Total future traffic forecasts associated with the implementation of the 2017 Campus Plan were developed as a composite of background traffic volumes and traffic generated by the University and Hospital under the proposed Campus Plan. In order to account for the proposed changes to the site circulation described in the previous section, background traffic forecasts at the Reservoir Road Gates were redistributed. The rerouted background volumes are shown on Figure 33. The total future forecasts, which are shown on Figure 34, were determined by combining the rerouted background traffic forecasts shown in Figure 33 with the combined University and Hospital site trips volumes shown on Figure 29.

Traffic Control Options

Proposed changes to the configuration of Gate 1 at the intersection of Reservoir Road/38th Street are expected to have operational implications along the Reservoir Road corridor. The Applicant proposes to shift the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 curb cut approximately 46 feet to the west to accommodate extension of the proposed campus green to Reservoir Road, helping to further the University’s goal of creating a pedestrian‐friendly campus. As such, the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection would be further separated from the Reservoir Road/38th Street intersection. The initial proposal would maintain signalization of both 38th Street and Gate 1. At DDOT’s request, the removal of the traffic signal at 38th Street/Reservoir Road intersection also was evaluated.

80

As two traffic control options are being considered for this location under total future conditions, two total future scenarios are presented in this report.

Additionally, a signal is proposed at the Reservoir Road/Gate 4 intersection to accommodate the proposed increase in traffic entering and exiting campus via Gate 4 as a result of the campus circulation improvements proposed as part of the Campus Plan.

Reservoir Road/38th Street – Signalized

Today, Gate 1 is offset from 38th Street by approximately 60 feet. The signal operates as one intersection (i.e. one traffic signal controller) with two phases (i.e. eastbound and westbound traffic on Reservoir Road receive green time simultaneously and northbound and southbound traffic from Gate 1 and 38th Street receive green time simultaneously).

Under the proposed condition, Gate 1 would be offset further to the west. Despite the increased offset between Gate 1 and 38th Street (approximately 100 feet), both intersections could operate under one traffic signal controller, if 38th Street remains signalized. However, unlike existing conditions where Gate 1 and 38th Street run concurrently, it is recommended that these approaches be split‐phased. The phasing of the single controller also would provide appropriate clearance intervals to ensure that spillback would not occur between the two intersections and would ensure that appropriate offsets are maintained by avoiding drifting clocks that could occur in a two‐controller scenario. In addition to providing split phase operation for the side streets, an advance westbound left turn phase also was assumed to help facilitate traffic entering the campus and to alleviate delay for westbound through vehicles. The proposed signalization of Gate 1 and 38th Street at Reservoir Road would result in a four‐phase signal operation. Capacity and queue analyses for this traffic control option are presented in this report assuming the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection is signalized and the Reservoir Road/38th Street intersection is signalized, with both intersections operating under the same controller.

Reservoir Road/38th Street – Unsignalized

To determine if signalization of 38th Street is still appropriate, peak hour signal warrants for the Reservoir Road/38th Street intersection were evaluated. Based on total future peak hour volumes at this intersection, a traffic signal would not be warranted based on the relatively low 38th Street volumes. Signal warrant analysis details are included in Appendix N.

Capacity and queue analyses for this traffic control option are presented in this report assuming the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection is signalized and the Reservoir Road/38th Street intersection is unsignalized, with stop control on the 38th Street southbound approach. The signal at Reservoir Road/Gate 1 was modeled to include a westbound left turn phase.

Reservoir Road/Gate 4

To determine if signalization of the Gate 4 intersection is justified, peak hour signal warrants for the Reservoir Road/Gate 4 intersection were evaluated. Based on total future peak hour

81

volumes at this intersection, a traffic signal would be warranted under total future conditions. Signal warrant analysis details are included in Appendix N.

Capacity Analysis

Capacity analyses were performed at the study intersections using the future lane use and traffic controls shown on Figure 35 and the total future peak hour traffic forecasts shown on Figure 34. Existing signal timings were used, with one exception. At the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection, new traffic signal timings were developed based on the new configuration of the intersection and proposed phasing for the signal operation. Additionally, traffic signal timings were developed for the proposed signal at the Reservoir Road/Gate 4 intersection using the prevailing cycle length for existing signals along Reservoir Road.

The level of service results for total future conditions with 38th Street signalized are included in Appendix O and summarized below in Table 26. The level of service results for total future conditions with 38th Street unsignalized are included in Appendix P and also summarized below in Table 29. For convenience, the background levels of service also are repeated in Table 29.

By comparing total future levels of service to background levels of service, the impact of the implementation of the 2017 Campus Plan can be identified for each scenario. In accordance with the methodology outlined during the scoping process, an impact is defined as follows: . Degradation in approach or overall level of service to LOS E or LOS F or . Increase in overall intersection delay operating at a LOS E or LOS F by more than five seconds when compared to background conditions.

82

Table 29 Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL D E (57.6) D E (57.6) D E (57.6) EBT F (386.1) F (87.5) F (413.8) F (88.4) F (413.8) F (88.4) EBR D D D D D D WBL F (176.0) D F (202.2) D F (202.2) D WBT D F (253.3) D F (257.2) D F (256.3) WBR C D C C C C NBLTR F (171.9) D F (197.0) D F (197.0) D SBL F (272.6) D F (284.5) D F (284.5) D SBTR F (427.6) F (469.6) F (428.8) F (469.6) F (428.8) F (469.6) Overall F (250.6) F (177.5) F (265.7) F (176.7) F (265.7) F (176.5) 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A NBLR D C D C D C 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4* EBTR A A A A A A WBL C C C A A A WBT A A A NBLR E [37.4] E [41.4] D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ A B A B 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [141.4] D F [102.0] E [38.8] F [102.1] E [38.8] NBR E [36.3] B C C C C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh * A traffic signal is proposed at Reservoir Road/Gate 4 for Total Future Conditions.

83

Table 29 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [99.6] D F [103.9] D F [103.9] D NBR C C C C C C 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT B A B A B A WBTR B A C A C A SBLR C D C D C D Overall B A C A B A 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† EBTR ‐ ‐ A B D F (83.8) WBLT ‐ ‐ F (245.0) A F (650.0) A NBL ‐ ‐ D D D D NBR ‐ ‐ D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ F (87.6) B F (239.3) D 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ EBLTR A B A A A D WBLT F (550.2) A E (56.6) B A B WBR A A B NBL E (71.1) E (79.4) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR C C ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR C C C D D D Overall F (156.9) C ‐ ‐ C C 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR A F (164.8) B F (200.4) B F (207.1) WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR D D D D D D SBLTR F (415.2) F (105.2) F (458.1) F (110.7) F (458.1) F (110.7) Overall E (59.1) F (95.2) E (69.0) F (115.5) E (70.9) F (117.9) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

84

Table 29 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT B C C C C C EBR D C D C D C WBLTR B B B B B B NBL F (365.2) F (156.6) F (371.6) F (162.7) F (371.6) F (162.7) NBTR C C C C C C SBLT F (160.7) F (128.4) F (160.7) F (129.7) F (160.7) F (129.7) SBR D C C C C C Overall F (92.3) E (63.2) F (93.7) E (64.4) F (93.8) E (64.4) 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR F [52.0] B F [57.0] B F [57.0] B WBLT B B B B B B SBLTR C B C C C C Overall E [35.9] B E (38.7) B E [38.7] B 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR F (84.1) E (64.8) F (91.2) E (66.9) F (91.2) E (66.9) NBLT F (172.1) C F (184.4) C F (184.4) C SBTR B A B A B A Overall F (105.3) C F (113.2) C F (113.2) C 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR D C D C D C NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR D C F [62.8] C F [62.8] C NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 14A. 44th Street/MacArthur Boulevard WBLTR D D D D D D NBL E (70.8) C E (74.1) C E (74.1) C NBT B B B B B B SBTR C D C D C D Overall D C D C D C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

85

Table 29 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak AM Peak 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR D B D B D B NBT A A A A A A SBT A A A A A A Overall B A B A B A 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT F (88.2) F (305.2) F (91.8) F (313.8) F (91.8) F (313.8) WBL ‐ F (123.9) ‐ F (135.6) ‐ F (135.6) WBT A A A A A A NBR F (503.9) ‐ F (506.7) ‐ F (506.7) ‐ Overall F (228.2) F (119.2) F (228.0) F (125.2) F (228.0) F (125.0) 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A SBR B C B C B C 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL A A A B A B EBT F (147.5) E (58.4) F (148.6) D F (148.8) D WBT A F (265.4) A F (274.9) A F (274.9) WBR A A A A A A SBL E (68.7) F (220.8) E (68.7) F (287.3) E (68.7) F (287.3) Overall F (94.0) F (196.1) F (93.4) F (204.9) F (93.4) F (204.9) 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR F (242.4) F (90.5) F (244.8) F (108.9) F (244.8) F (108.9) EBR A A A A A A WBTR C F (117.9) C F (123.0) C F (123.0) NBL E (65.8) F (465.7) E (72.0) F (468.6) E (72.0) F (468.6) NBLT E (72.3) F (477.7) F (80.2) F (480.6) F (80.2) F (480.6) NBR F (137.8) C F (141.3) C F (141.3) C SBL E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) SBR E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) Overall F (118.3) F (230.8) F (119.7) F (235.5) F (119.7) F (235.5) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

86

Table 29 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT F (278.4) E (75.1) F (285.5) E (74.2) F (285.5) E (74.2) EBR C F (271.4) C F (288.4) C F (288.4) WBL F (96.6) F (202.0 F (97.3) F (206.3) F (97.3) F (206.3) WBT C B C B C B NBL F (162.4) F (273.5) F (191.6) F (284.1) F (191.6) F (284.1) NBR E (75.3) A E (76.2) A E (76.2) A Overall F (101.7) F (163.8) F (109.1) F (170.5) F (109.1) F (170.5) 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR E (56.3) B E (58.1) B E (58.1) B WBLT D C D C D C NBLTR D D D D D D SBLT D D D D D D SBR C F (296.1) C F (307.2) C F (307.2) Overall D F (99.6) D F (103.5) D F (103.5) 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR F (103.7) F (126.2) F (107.6) F (126.2) F (107.6) F (126.2) NBLTR D D D D D D Overall D E (79.2) D E (79.0) D E (79.0) 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR F (115.8) B F (117.1) B F (117.1) B WBT C D C D C D WBR F (94.3) F (131.6) F (95.3) F (133.3) F (95.3) F (133.3) NBL E (57.0) E (76.8) E (57.0) E (76.3) E (57.0) E (76.8) NBLTR E (56.8) E (73.5) E (56.8) E (73.5) E (56.8) E (73.5) SBL F (145.8) F (126.3) F (147.1) F (126.3) F (147.1) F (126.3) SBLT F (134.4) F (128.8) F (134.4) F (128.8) F (134.4) F (128.8) SBR C D C D C D Overall F (98.0) D F (98.8) D F (98.8) D [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

87

Table 29 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR A A A A A A SBLTR A A A A A A Overall A A A A A A 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR B F [63.7] B F [63.6] B F [63.6] WBLT D D D D D D SBLTR F [54.8] F [62.3] F [58.9] F [64.6] F [58.9] F [64.6] Overall E [37.9] F [54.2] E [40.6] F [55.4] E [40.6] F [55.4] [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

As shown in Table 29, delays are projected to increase with the anticipated growth resulting from the Campus Plan. The following intersections that are projected to operate at an overall LOS E or LOS F under background conditions, would continue to operate at an overall LOS E or LOS F with the Campus Plan, but would experience an increase in overall delay per vehicle of at least five seconds: . Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road – AM peak hour, . Reservoir Road/37th Street – AM and PM peak hours, . Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue – AM peak hour, . Foxhall Road/Canal Road – PM peak hour, . Canal Road/GU Driveway – PM peak hour, . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway – PM peak hour, and . M Street/Key Bridge – AM and PM peak hours.

88

In addition to the intersections listed above, the following lane groups are projected to drop to a LOS E or LOS F with the potential growth associated with the 2017 Campus Plan: . Reservoir Road/Gate 3 – northbound left during the PM peak hour, . Foxhall Road/P Street – westbound approach during the AM peak hour, and . M Street/Whitehurst Freeway – northbound left/through during the AM peak hour.

Also of note, the Reservoir Road/38th Street intersection is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (i.e. a LOS D or better) under unsignalized conditions. Additionally, the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection would operate at significantly better levels of service as a single, signalized T‐intersection than under background conditions. During the PM peak hour, all lane groups/approaches are projected to operate at a LOS D or better. During the AM peak hour, the westbound approach and the overall intersection are projected to operate at a LOS F; however, the delays for each would be lower than background conditions.

Queue Analysis

Queuing analyses were performed at the study intersections for total future conditions. Synchro was used to conduct the analyses, using the larger of the 95th percentile queue lengths or 50th percentile queue lengths. The results for total future conditions with 38th Street signalized are included in Appendix O and summarized below in Table 27. The level of service results for total future conditions with 38th Street unsignalized are included in Appendix P and also summarized below in Table 30.

By comparing total future levels of service to background levels of service, the impact of the Campus Plan can be identified. In accordance with the methodology outlined during the scoping process, an impact is defined as an increase in the 95th percentile queue greater than 150 feet when compared to background conditions.

89

Table 30 Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Scenarios without TDM

Background Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Available Approach Conditions Street Unsignalized Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL 100 35 47 35 47 35 47 EBT 200 957 250 996 251 996 251 EBR 200 22 0 24 0 23 0 WBL 50 220 212 236 189 236 189 145 (AM)/ WBT 331 853 335 850 335 849 605 (PM) WBR 145/250 40 96 40 67 40 67 NBLTR 210 712 372 754 380 754 380 SBL 115 734 133 752 135 752 135 SBTR 115 979 779 980 779 980 779 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLR 140/300 47 13 55 11 55 11 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4 EBT 625 0 234 234 0 223 223 EBR 60 0 2 2 WBL 165/995 5 31 31 1 217 205 WBT 165/995 0 67 67 NBLR 50/700 8 74 40 202 40 202 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR 115/365 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 430/570 24 2 16 2 16 2 NBL 105 19 27 9 28 9 28 NBR 105 121 12 41 12 41 12 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR 430/855 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 90 13 5 8 5 8 5 NBL 110 32 28 55 39 55 39 NBR 110 5 11 11 29 11 29 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

90

Table 30 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Conditions without TDM

Background Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Available Approach Conditions Street Unsignalized Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT 90/995 371 66 228 93 228 93 Ex: 280/ WBTR 275 68 609 72 286 87 Prop: 225 SBLR 475 76 55 76 55 76 55 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† Ex: 280/ EBTR ‐ ‐ 293 339 590 740 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 ‐ ‐ 733 69 827 78 NBL 110 ‐ ‐ 127 145 127 148 NBR 110 ‐ ‐ 92 48 64 48 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ Ex: 280/ EBLTR 70 380 1 5 28 592 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 701 0 534 225 0 173 WBR 90 0 0 5 NBL 110 167 228 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR 110 108 71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR 115/275 56 50 35 44 57 49 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR 330 61 942 147 940 381 729 WBLTR 405 174 41 184 41 184 41 NBLTR 260 38 11 38 11 38 11 SBLTR 280 387 239 405 246 405 246 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT 435 315 234 313 253 313 253 EBR 130 403 251 375 253 375 253 WBLTR 320 156 164 167 167 167 167 NBL 75 486 378 491 382 491 382 NBTR 300 215 204 216 204 216 204 SBLT 285 370 379 370 381 370 381 SBR 60 49 32 56 35 56 35 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.† Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the traffic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

91

Table 30 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Conditions without TDM

Background Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Available Approach Conditions Street Unsignalized Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR 320 378 73 400 78 400 78 WBLT 415 38 45 43 45 43 45 SBLTR 90/300 78 85 78 85 78 85 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR 420 448 236 463 252 463 252 NBLT 30 596 406 610 411 610 411 SBTR 300 188 177 188 177 188 177 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR 180/645 3 3 7 3 7 3 NBTR 120/345 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 150/365 3 2 7 2 7 2 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR 185/550 5 4 10 4 10 4 NBTR 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 335 2 1 2 1 2 1 14A. MacArthur Boulevard/44th Street WBLTR 635 67 0 67 0 67 0 NBL 625 542 263 551 269 551 269 NBT 625 540 544 679 550 679 550 SBTR 100/675 242 358 246 368 246 368 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR 50/265 514 175 515 176 515 176 NBT 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 40 25 7 25 7 25 11 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT 500 816 940 826 956 826 955 WBL 210 ‐ 1132 ‐ 1167 ‐ 1167 WBT 1375 0 1154 0 1147 0 1147 NBR 8360 1700 ‐ 1706 ‐ 1706 ‐ * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

92

Table 30 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Conditions without TDM

Background Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Available Approach Conditions Street Unsignalized Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 310 4 49 4 59 4 59 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL 365 6 0 6 0 6 0 EBT 1395 1837 245 1845 260 1845 260 WBT 1075 320 1863 370 1980 370 1980 WBR 135 42 3 48 11 48 11 SBL 560 42 473 42 542 42 542 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR 1090 1224 567 1229 606 1229 607 EBR 1090 404 0 405 0 405 0 WBTR 370 583 694 616 707 616 707 NBL 4160 542 1814 568 1821 568 1821 NBLT 4160 551 1792 581 1801 581 1801 NBR 360 685 310 691 319 691 319 SBL 80 43 52 43 52 43 52 SBR 80 0 44 0 44 0 44 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT 355 515 92 524 91 524 91 EBR 350 505 633 509 656 509 656 WBL 135 648 1334 652 1349 652 1349 WBT 185 109 93 111 92 111 92 NBL 2160 664 519 715 530 715 530 NBR 2160 1063 219 1067 221 1067 221 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR 135 1002 448 1009 450 1009 450 WBLT 165/440 224 329 224 329 224 329 NBLTR 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 60 46 37 47 37 47 37 SBR 230 206 887 209 905 209 905 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

93

Table 30 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Conditions without TDM

Background Total Future – 38th Total Future – 38th Available Approach Conditions Street Unsignalized Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR 240/435 111 60 112 61 112 61 WBLTR 155 310 719 314 719 314 719 NBLTR 100 29 100 29 100 29 100 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR 595 405 82 406 82 406 82 WBT 370 196 356 199 356 199 356 WBR 370 253 292 256 294 256 294 NBL 80/365 128 258 128 258 128 258 NBLTR 80/365 128 218 128 218 128 218 SBL 220 491 351 491 351 491 351 SBLT 220 503 366 503 366 503 366 SBR 220 37 170 37 170 37 170 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR 125/905 5 10 5 13 5 13 WBLTR 285 25 8 25 10 25 10 NBLTR 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLTR 245 5 10 5 10 5 10 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR 255 43 360 45 360 45 360 WBLT 150 170 155 188 163 188 163 SBLTR 115/240 345 333 363 343 363 343 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

As shown in Table 30, the queues at the following lane groups are project to increase by more than 150 feet with the potential growth associated with the 2017 Campus Plan: . Reservoir Road/39th Street – westbound approach during the AM peak hour with 38th Street unsignalized, and . Reservoir Road/37th Street – Eastbound left/through/right queue during the AM peak would increase by more than 150 feet.

As under existing and background conditions, queues along Reservoir Road at the 38th Street/Gate 1 intersection are expected to spillback through adjacent intersections during the peak hours. Also of note, queues at the Reservoir Road/Gate 4 intersection are projected to be accommodated within the available storage under the proposed signalized conditions.

94

TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH TDM

Traffic Forecasts

Total future traffic forecasts with the TDM Plans were determined by combining the background traffic forecasts shown in Figure 33 with the combined University and Hospital site trips with the TDM reduction shown on Figure 32 to yield the total future traffic forecasts with TDM shown on Figure 36. As previously indicated, the traffic forecasts with TDM are based on the University’s and Hospital’s performance commitment targets rather than the aspirational goals. While both institutions will strive to reach the aspirational goals over the term of the Campus Plan, the analysis presented below reflects the more conservative scenario (i.e. the trip reduction achieved with reaching the performance commitment targets).

Capacity Analysis

Capacity analyses were performed at the study intersections using the total future forecasts with the TDM Plans, shown on Figure 36 and using the same lane use and traffic controls and the same signal timings as the analyses conducted for total future conditions without the proposed TDM Plans.

The level of service results for total future TDM conditions with 38th Street unsignalized are included in Appendix Q and summarized below in Table 31. The level of service results for total future TDM conditions with 38th Street signalized are included in Appendix R and also summarized below in Table 31.

As shown in Table 31, many of the study intersections would experience a decrease in delay as a result of the TDM plan. The level of service impacts associated with the Campus Plan are mitigated with the TDM plan, with one exception. At Reservoir Road/Gate 3 during the PM peak hour, the northbound left level of service drops from a LOS D under background conditions to a LOS E.

Also of note, the Reservoir Road/38th Street intersection would operate at acceptable levels of service under unsignalized conditions. Additionally, the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection would operate at significantly better levels of service as a single, signalized T‐ intersection than under background conditions. All lane groups/approaches are projected to operate at a LOS D or better, with the exception of the westbound approach during the AM peak hour, which is projected to operate at a LOS F. Note, however, that although the westbound approach is projected to operate at a LOS F, the delay would be significantly reduced from background conditions. The overall intersection is projected to operate at a LOS D during the AM peak hour and an overall LOS B during the PM peak hour.

95

Table 31 Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future TDM – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL D E (57.6) D E (57.6) D E (57.6) EBT F (386.1) F (87.5) F (381.3) F (86.5) F (381.3) F (86.5) EBR D D D D D D WBL F (176.0) D F (162.3) D F (162.3) D WBT D F (253.3) D F (246.1) D F (245.0) WBR C D C C C C NBLTR F (171.9) D F (161.7) D F (161.7) D SBL F (272.6) D F (276.2) D F (276.2) D SBTR F (427.6) F (469.6) F (427.6) F (469.6) F (427.6) F (469.6) Overall F (250.6) F (177.5) F (247.2) F (174.7) F (247.2) F (174.5) 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A NBLR D C D C D C 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4* EBTR A A A A A A WBL C A A A A A WBT A A A NBLR E [37.4] E [41.4] D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ A B A B 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [141.4] D F [86.3] E [37.1] F [86.3] E [37.1] NBR E [36.3] B C C C C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh * A traffic signal is proposed at Reservoir Road/Gate 4 for Total Future Conditions.

96

Table 31 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future TDM – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [99.6] D F [82.8] D F [82.8] D NBR C C C C C C 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT B A B A B A WBTR B A C A B A SBLR C D C D C D Overall B A C A B A 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† EBTR ‐ ‐ A B C E (68.9) WBLT ‐ ‐ F (92.1) A F (388.5) A NBL ‐ ‐ D D D D NBR ‐ ‐ D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ D B F (145.3) D 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ EBLTR A B A A A C WBLT F (550.2) A D B A B WBR A A B NBL E (71.1) E (79.4) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR C C ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR C C C D D D Overall F (156.9) C ‐ ‐ B C 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR A F (164.8) B F (154.1) B F (159.1) WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR D D D D D D SBLTR F (415.2) F (105.2) F (405.3) F (102.0) F (405.3) F (102.0) Overall E (59.1) F (95.2) E (59.7) F (89.2) E (60.8) F (91.7) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the traffic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

97

Table 31 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future TDM – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT B C C C C C EBR D C D C D C WBLTR B B B B B B NBL F (365.2) F (156.6) F (358.8) F (156.9) F (358.8) F (156.9) NBTR C C C C C C SBLT F (160.7) F (128.4) F (160.7) F (129.7) F (160.7) F (129.7) SBR D C D C D C Overall F (92.3) E (63.2) F (93.0) E (63.6) F (93.0) E (63.6) 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR F [52.0] B E [49.4] B E [49.4] B WBLT B B B B B B SBLTR C B C B C B Overall E [35.9] B E [34.4] B E [34.4] B 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR F (84.1) E (64.8) E (79.5) E (63.2) E (79.5) E (63.2) NBLT F (172.1) C F (167.8) C F (167.8) C SBTR B A B A B A Overall F (105.3) C F (102.2) C F (102.2) C 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR D C C B C B NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR D C D C D C NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

98

Table 31 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future TDM – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak AM Peak 14A. 44th Street/MacArthur Boulevard WBLTR D D D D D D NBL E (70.8) C E (71.9) C E (71.9) C NBT B B B B B B SBTR C D C D C D Overall D C D C D C 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR D B D B D B NBT A A A A A A SBT A A A A A A Overall B A B A B A 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT F (88.2) F (305.2) F (87.5) F (299.3) F (87.5) F (299.3) WBL ‐ F (123.9) ‐ F (124.0) ‐ F (124.6) WBT A A A A A A NBR F (503.9) ‐ F (506.0) ‐ F (506.0) ‐ Overall F (228.2) F (119.2) F (230.0) F (117.1) F (230.0) F (117.1) 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A SBR B C B C B C 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL A A A B A B EBT F (147.5) E (58.4) F (147.0) D F (147.0) D WBT A F (265.4) A F (273.5) A F (273.5) WBR A A A A A A SBL E (68.7) F (220.8) E (68.7) F (262.6) E (68.7) F (262.6) Overall F (94.0) F (196.1) F (93.6) F (200.4) F (93.6) F (200.4) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

99

Table 31 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future TDM – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR F (242.4) F (90.5) F (241.6) F (93.3) F (241.5) F (93.3) EBR A A A A A A WBTR C F (117.9) C F (119.7) C F (119.7) NBL E (65.8) F (465.7) E (65.8) F (466.4) E (65.8) F (466.4) NBLT E (72.3) F (477.7) E (72.3) F (479.1) E (72.3) F (479.1) NBR F (137.8) C F (139.7) C F (139.7) C SBL E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) SBR E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) Overall F (118.3) F (230.8) F (118.1) F (231.9) F (118.1) F (231.9) 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT F (278.4) E (75.1) F (281.2) E (75.5) F (281.2) E (75.5) EBR C F (271.4) C F (272.6) C F (272.6) WBL F (96.6) F (202.0 F (96.8) F (204.6) F (96.8) F (204.6) WBT C B C B C B NBL F (162.4) F (273.5) F (162.4) F (277.9) F (162.4) F (277.9) NBR E (75.3) A E (76.0) A E (76.0) A Overall F (101.7) F (163.8) F (102.2) F (165.8) F (102.2) F (165.8) 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR E (56.3) B E (57.1) B E (57.1) B WBLT D C D C D C NBLTR D D D D D D SBLT D D D D D D SBR C F (296.1) C F (303.3) C F (303.3) Overall D F (99.6) D F (102.1) D F (102.1) 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR F (103.7) F (126.2) F (106.6) F (125.9) F (106.6) F (125.9) NBLTR D D D D D D Overall D E (79.2) D E (78.9) D E (78.9) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

100

Table 31 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future TDM – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR F (115.8) B F (116.1) B F (116.1) B WBT C D C D C D WBR F (94.3) F (131.6) F (93.4) F (131.6) F (93.4) F (131.6) NBL E (57.0) E (76.8) E (57.0) E (76.3) E (57.0) E (76.3) NBLTR E (56.8) E (73.5) E (56.7) E (73.5) E (56.8) E (73.5) SBL F (145.8) F (126.3) F (149.7) F (126.3) F (149.7) F (126.3) SBLT F (134.4) F (128.8) F (128.5) F (128.8) F (128.5) F (128.8) SBR C D C D C D Overall F (98.0) D F (97.8) D F (97.8) D 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR A A A A A A SBLTR A A A A A A Overall A A A A A A 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR B F [63.7] B F [63.6] B F [63.6] WBLT D D D D D D SBLTR F [54.8] F [62.3] F [56.4] F [63.8] F [56.4] F [63.8] Overall E [37.9] F [54.2] E [39.0] F [55.1] E [39.0] F [55.1] [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

Queue Analysis

Queuing analyses were performed at the study intersections for total future TDM conditions. Synchro was used to conduct the analyses, using the larger of the 95th or 50th percentile queue lengths. The results for total future TDM conditions with 38th Street unsignalized are included in Appendix Q and summarized below in Table 29. The level of service results for total future TDM conditions with 38th Street signalized are included in Appendix R and also summarized below in Table 32.

101

Table 32 Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – Background Total Future TDM – Available 38th Street Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized Storage* Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL 100 35 47 35 47 35 47 EBT 200 957 250 950 247 950 247 EBR 200 22 0 22 0 22 0 WBL 50 220 212 210 129 210 129 WBT 145/605 331 853 329 827 329 827 145 (AM)/ WBR 40 96 40 59 40 58 250 (PM) NBLTR 210 712 372 696 373 696 373 SBL 115 734 133 741 133 741 133 SBTR 115 979 779 979 779 979 779 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLR 140/300 47 13 46 11 46 11 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4 EBT 625 0 223 223 0 160 160 EBR 60 0 1 1 WBL 165/995 5 22 22 1 194 186 WBT 165/995 0 62 62 NBLR 50/110 8 74 29 164 29 164 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR 115/365 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 430/570 24 2 15 2 15 2 NBL 105 19 27 8 27 8 27 NBR 105 121 12 46 11 46 11 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR 430/855 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 90 13 5 8 5 8 5 NBL 110 32 28 47 37 47 37 NBR 110 5 11 11 27 11 27 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

102

Table 32 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – Background Total Future TDM – Available 38th Street Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized Storage* Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT 90/995 371 66 211 92 211 92 Ex: 280/ WBTR 275 68 431 71 252 87 Prop: 225 SBLR 475 76 55 76 55 76 55 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† Ex: 280/ EBTR ‐ ‐ 304 308 381 694 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 ‐ ‐ 389 67 699 70 NBL 110 ‐ ‐ 119 125 119 127 NBR 110 ‐ ‐ 67 46 61 47 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ Ex: 280/ EBLTR 70 380 1 5 24 551 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 701 0 465 225 0 168 WBR 90 0 0 5 NBL 110 167 228 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR 110 108 71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR 115/275 56 50 31 38 57 49 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR 330 61 942 120 860 385 681 WBLTR 405 174 41 171 40 171 40 NBLTR 260 38 11 38 11 38 11 SBLTR 280 387 239 381 236 381 236 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT 435 315 234 317 221 317 222 EBR 130 403 251 414 250 414 250 WBLTR 320 156 164 152 162 152 162 NBL 75 486 378 482 375 482 375 NBTR 300 215 204 215 204 215 204 SBLT 285 370 379 370 381 370 381 SBR 60 49 32 47 32 47 32 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted. † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

103

Table 32 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – Background Total Future TDM – Available 38th Street Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized Storage* Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR 320 378 73 365 68 365 68 WBLT 415 38 45 38 43 38 43 SBLTR 90/300 78 85 75 83 75 83 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR 420 448 236 439 222 439 221 NBLT 30 596 406 591 403 591 403 SBTR 300 188 177 188 177 188 177 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR 180/645 3 3 5 3 5 3 NBTR 120/345 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 150/365 3 2 6 2 6 2 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR 185/550 5 4 4 4 4 4 NBTR 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 335 2 1 2 1 2 1 14A. MacArthur Boulevard/44th Street WBLTR 635 67 0 67 0 67 0 NBL 625 542 263 543 262 543 262 NBT 625 540 544 503 544 503 544 SBTR 100/675 242 358 241 350 241 350 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR 50/265 514 175 515 176 515 176 NBT 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 40 25 7 25 7 25 7 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT 500 816 940 814 930 814 930 WBL 210 ‐ 1132 ‐ 1129 ‐ 1129 WBT 1375 0 1154 0 1152 0 1152 NBR 8360 1700 ‐ 1705 ‐ 1705 ‐ 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 310 4 49 4 55 4 55 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted..

104

Table 32 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – Background Total Future TDM – Available 38th Street Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized Storage* Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL 365 6 0 6 0 6 0 EBT 1395 1837 245 1834 232 1834 232 WBT 1075 320 1863 325 1974 325 1974 WBR 135 42 3 48 11 48 11 SBL 560 42 473 42 516 42 516 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR 1090 1224 567 1221 574 1221 574 EBR 1090 404 0 403 0 403 0 WBTR 370 583 694 583 699 583 699 NBL 4160 542 1814 542 1815 542 1815 NBLT 4160 551 1792 551 1797 551 1797 NBR 360 685 310 686 310 686 310 SBL 80 43 52 43 52 43 52 SBR 80 0 44 0 44 0 44 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT 355 515 92 519 93 519 93 EBR 350 505 633 502 634 502 634 WBL 135 648 1334 650 1343 650 1343 WBT 185 109 93 110 92 110 92 NBL 2160 664 519 664 524 664 524 NBR 2160 1063 219 1066 221 1066 221 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR 135 1002 448 1005 451 1005 451 WBLT 165/440 224 329 224 329 224 329 NBLTR 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 60 46 37 47 37 47 37 SBR 230 206 887 207 899 207 899 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR 240/435 111 60 112 61 112 61 WBLTR 155 310 719 313 718 309 718 NBLTR 100 29 100 29 100 29 100 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

105

Table 32 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future TDM Scenarios

Total Future TDM – Background Total Future TDM – Available 38th Street Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized Storage* Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR 595 405 82 405 82 405 82 WBT 370 196 356 198 356 198 356 WBR 370 253 292 251 292 251 292 NBL 80/365 128 258 128 258 128 258 NBLTR 80/365 128 218 128 218 128 218 SBL 220 491 351 496 351 496 351 SBLT 220 503 366 495 366 495 366 SBR 220 37 170 37 170 37 170 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR 125/905 5 10 5 13 5 13 WBLTR 285 25 8 25 10 25 10 NBLTR 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLTR 245 5 10 5 10 5 10 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR 255 43 360 45 360 45 360 WBLT 150 170 155 180 160 180 160 SBLTR 115/240 345 333 353 338 353 338 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

As shown in Table 32, the queues at several study intersections would decrease as a result of the TDM Plans. The locations identified previously as being impacted by the Campus Plan would still be impacted; however, the queues with the TDM Plans would be shorter than without the TDM Plans.

106

Improvement Analysis

To mitigate the potential impact of the implementation of the Campus Plan after accounting for the TDM Plans, improvements were examined at each impacted intersection. Note that the cycle lengths and offsets are consistent with existing conditions.

38th Street Unsignalized

Results of the analyses are summarized in Tables 33 and 34. For comparison purposes, the background and total future conditions (without improvements) also are provided in the tables. The Synchro reports for level of service and queue improvement analyses are provided in Appendix S.

Reservoir Road/Gate 4

As a signal is proposed at this intersection for total future conditions, signal timings have already been optimized in the total future analyses. In addition, three of the four queueing impacts at this intersection are still contained within available storage. Therefore, additional improvements are not recommended at this intersection.

Reservoir Road/Gate 3

As this intersection is unsignalized and two northbound lanes already are provided, additional improvements at this intersection are not feasible. Installation of a traffic signal at the Reservoir Road/Gate 4 intersection instead of this location is preferable because the entrance at Gate 4 would provide better connectivity to the rest of campus. Gate 3 currently does not provide connectivity, nor is there an ability to provide connectivity in the future. Importantly, the vast majority of traffic exiting via Gate 3 comes from Garage 2. Garage 2 also provides a point of egress on the western side of the garage allowing motorists who park in Garage 2 a choice of exiting via Gate 3 or Gate 4. With signalization of Gate 4, it is anticipated that traffic would choose the exit route with the least amount of delay and, to that end, a certain amount of outbound traffic currently using Gate 3, reasonable can be expected to alter their exit route to exit campus via Gate 4 with the aid of the new traffic signal. Therefore, additional improvements are not recommended at this intersection.

Reservoir Road/39th Street

Minor timing adjustments in the AM would mitigate the impact of the Campus Plan at this intersection. Queueing on the westbound approach would be reduced to be within 150 feet of background queues if the following improvement is made:

. During the AM peak, shift one second of green time from the southbound phase to the eastbound/westbound phase.

107

Reservoir Road/Gate 1/38th Street

As a signal is proposed at this intersection for total future conditions, signal timings have already been optimized in the total future analyses. In addition, mitigations are not feasible, as shifting additional time to the eastbound approach would violate minimum splits for other approaches.

As demonstrated herein, 38th Street would operate at acceptable levels of service under unsignalized conditions and peak hour traffic volumes on 38th Street would not meet peak hour traffic signal warrants under total future conditions. Further, the Gate 1 intersection would operate at better levels of service, with significant reductions in delay, as a signalized T‐intersection. Therefore, it is recommended that, in conjunction with the shift of Gate 1 from its current location to a location approximately 46 feet west, Gate 1 remain signalized but 38th Street be unsignalized with a stop sign on the 38th Street approach.

This solution moves a pedestrian crossing across Reservoir Road from 38th Street to the Gate 1 intersection. There is a benefit to this move, as the proposed reconfiguration of the Gate 1 and 38th Street intersections with Reservoir Road is expected to be a more conventional configuration than the current configuration, which currently experiences a high crash rate. Further, the new signalized crossing at the Gate 1 intersection would be relocated just an estimated 50 feet (or less) to the west. The new signalized crosswalk, coupled with the existing signalized crosswalk at the Reservoir Road/37th Street intersection would provide two convenient crosswalks for pedestrians entering campus from the east or from the west on Reservoir Road.

108

Table 33 Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL D E (57.6) D E (57.6) D E (57.6) EBT F (386.1) F (87.5) F (381.3) F (86.5) F (379.3) F (86.5) EBR D D D D D D WBL F (176.0) D F (162.3) D F (162.3) D WBT D F (253.3) D F (246.1) D F (246.1) WBR C D C C C C NBLTR F (171.9) D F (161.7) D F (161.1) D SBL F (272.6) D F (276.2) D F (274.4) D SBTR F (427.6) F (469.6) F (427.6) F (469.6) F (427.6) F (469.6) Overall F (250.6) F (177.5) F (247.2) F (174.7) F (246.4) F (174.7) 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A NBLR D C D C D C 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4* EBTR A A A A A A WBL C A A A A A WBT A A A NBLR E [37.4] E [41.4] D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ A B A B 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [141.4] D F [86.3] E [37.1] F [87.6] E [37.1] NBR E [36.3] B C C C C 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [99.6] D F [82.8] D F [83.6] D NBR C C C C C C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh * A traffic signal is proposed at Reservoir Road/Gate 4 for Total Future Conditions.

109

Table 33 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT B A B A B A WBTR B A C A C A SBLR C D C D C D Overall B A C A C A 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† EBTR ‐ ‐ A B A B WBLT ‐ ‐ F (92.0) A F (92.0) A NBL ‐ ‐ D D D D NBR ‐ ‐ D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ D B D B 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ EBLTR A B A A A A WBLT F (546.5) A A B A A WBR A A A NBL E (70.0) E (79.4) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR C C ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR C C C D C D Overall F (155.9) C ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR A F (164.8) B F (154.1) B F (154.1) WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR D D D D D D SBLTR F (415.2) F (105.2) F (405.3) F (102.0) F (405.3) F (102.0) Overall E (59.1) F (95.2) E (59.7) F (89.2) E (59.6) F (89.2) 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT B C C C C C EBR D C D C D C WBLTR B B B B B B NBL F (365.2) F (156.6) F (358.8) F (156.9) F (358.8) F (156.9) NBTR C C C C C C SBLT F (160.7) F (128.4) F (160.7) F (129.7) F (160.7) F (129.7) SBR D C D C D C Overall F (92.3) E (63.2) F (93.0) E (63.6) F (96.2) E (63.6) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

110

Table 33 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR F [52.0] B E [49.4] B F [50.7] B WBLT B B B B B B SBLTR C B C B C B Overall E [35.9] B E [34.4] B E [35.1] B 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR F (84.1) E (64.8) E (79.5) E (63.2) E (79.1) E (63.2) NBLT F (172.1) C F (167.8) C F (167.1) C SBTR B A B A B A Overall F (105.3) C F (102.2) C F (101.8) C 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR D C C B D B NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR D C D C D C NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 14A. 44th Street/MacArthur Boulevard WBLTR D D D D D D NBL E (70.8) C E (71.9) C E (71.4) C NBT B B B B B B SBTR C D C D C D Overall D C D C D C 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR D B D B D B NBT A A A A A A SBT A A A A A A Overall B A B A B A [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

111

Table 33 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak AM Peak 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT F (88.2) F (305.2) F (87.5) F (299.3) F (87.5) F (299.3) WBL ‐ F (123.9) ‐ F (124.0) ‐ F (124.0) WBT A A A A A A NBR F (503.9) ‐ F (506.0) ‐ F (506.0) ‐ Overall F (228.2) F (119.2) F (230.0) F (117.1) F (230.0) F (117.1) 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A SBR B C B C B C 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL A A A B A B EBT F (147.5) E (58.4) F (147.0) D F (146.7) D WBT A F (265.4) A F (273.5) A F (273.5) WBR A A A A A A SBL E (68.7) F (220.8) E (68.7) F (262.6) E (66.7) F (262.6) Overall F (94.0) F (196.1) F (93.6) F (200.4) F (93.4) F (200.4) 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR F (242.4) F (90.5) F (241.6) F (93.3) F (241.6) F (93.3) EBR A A A A A A WBTR C F (117.9) C F (119.7) C F (119.7) NBL E (65.8) F (465.7) E (65.8) F (466.4) E (65.8) F (466.4) NBLT E (72.3) F (477.7) E (72.3) F (479.1) E (72.3) F (479.1) NBR F (137.8) C F (139.7) C F (138.5) C SBL E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.4) E (59.2) SBR E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) Overall F (118.3) F (230.8) F (118.1) F (231.9) F (118.0) F (231.9) 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT F (278.4) E (75.1) F (281.2) E (75.5) F (278.9) E (75.5) EBR C F (271.4) C F (272.6) C F (272.6) WBL F (96.6) F (202.0 F (96.8) F (204.6) F (96.8) F (204.6) WBT C B C B C B NBL F (162.4) F (273.5) F (162.4) F (277.9) F (162.4) F (277.9) NBR E (75.3) A E (76.0) A E (76.0) A Overall F (101.7) F (163.8) F (102.2) F (165.8) F (102.0) F (165.8) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

112

Table 33 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Unsignalized Street Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR E (56.3) B E (57.1) B E (56.9) B WBLT D C D C D C NBLTR D D D D D D SBLT D D D D D D SBR C F (296.1) C F (303.3) C F (303.3) Overall D F (99.6) D F (102.1) D F (102.1) 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR F (103.7) F (126.2) F (106.6) F (125.9) F (106.0) F (125.9) NBLTR D D D D D D Overall D E (79.2) D E (78.9) D E (78.9) 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR F (115.8) B F (116.1) B F (116.1) B WBT C D C D C D WBR F (94.3) F (131.6) F (93.4) F (131.6) F (93.4) F (131.6) NBL E (57.0) E (76.8) E (57.0) E (76.3) E (57.0) E (76.3) NBLTR E (56.8) E (73.5) E (56.7) E (73.5) E (56.7) E (73.5) SBL F (145.8) F (126.3) F (149.7) F (126.3) F (149.7) F (126.3) SBLT F (134.4) F (128.8) F (128.5) F (128.8) F (128.5) F (128.8) SBR C D C D C D Overall F (98.0) D F (97.8) D F (97.8) D 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR A A A A A A SBLTR A A A A A A Overall A A A A A A 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR B F [63.7] B F [63.6] B F [63.6] WBLT D D D D D D SBLTR F [54.8] F [62.3] F [56.4] F [63.8] F [57.0] F [63.8] Overall E [37.9] F [54.2] E [39.0] F [55.1] E [39.4] F [55.1] [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

113

Table 34 Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Background Available 38th Street 38th Street Approach Conditions Storage* Unsignalized Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL 100 35 47 35 47 35 47 EBT 200 957 250 950 247 950 247 EBR 200 22 0 22 0 61 0 WBL 50 220 212 210 129 210 129 WBT 145/605 331 853 329 827 329 827 145 (AM)/ WBR 40 96 40 59 40 59 250 (PM) NBLTR 210 712 372 696 373 696 373 SBL 115 734 133 741 133 741 133 SBTR 115 979 779 979 779 979 779 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLR 140/300 47 13 46 11 46 11 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4 EBT 625 0 223 223 0 160 160 EBR 60 0 1 1 WBL 165/995 5 22 22 1 194 195 WBT 165/995 0 62 61 NBLR 50/110 8 74 29 164 29 164 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR 115/365 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 430/570 24 2 15 2 15 2 NBL 105 19 27 8 27 8 27 NBR 105 121 12 46 11 50 11 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR 430/855 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 90 13 5 8 5 8 5 NBL 110 32 28 47 37 48 37 NBR 110 5 11 11 27 11 27 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

114

Table 34 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Background Available 38th Street 38th Street Approach Conditions Storage* Unsignalized Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT 90/995 371 66 211 92 208 92 Ex: 280/ WBTR 275 68 431 71 405 71 Prop: 225 SBLR 475 76 55 76 55 77 55 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† Ex: 280/ EBTR ‐ ‐ 304 308 304 308 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 ‐ ‐ 389 67 389 67 NBL 110 ‐ ‐ 119 125 119 125 NBR 110 ‐ ‐ 67 46 67 46 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ Ex: 280/ EBLTR 70 380 1 5 1 5 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 701 0 0 225 0 0 WBR 90 0 0 0 NBL 110 167 228 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR 110 108 71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR 115/275 56 50 31 38 31 38 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR 330 61 942 120 860 120 860 WBLTR 405 174 41 171 40 45 40 NBLTR 260 38 11 38 11 38 11 SBLTR 280 387 239 381 236 381 236 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT 435 315 234 317 221 316 221 EBR 130 403 251 414 250 433 250 WBLTR 320 156 164 152 162 152 162 NBL 75 486 378 482 375 482 375 NBTR 300 215 204 215 204 215 204 SBLT 285 370 379 370 381 370 381 SBR 60 49 32 47 32 68 32 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted. † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

115

Table 34 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Background Available 38th Street 38th Street Approach Conditions Storage* Unsignalized Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR 320 378 73 365 68 365 68 WBLT 415 38 45 38 43 38 43 SBLTR 90/300 78 85 75 83 75 83 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR 420 448 236 439 222 439 222 NBLT 30 596 406 591 403 591 403 SBTR 300 188 177 188 177 188 177 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR 180/645 3 3 5 3 6 3 NBTR 120/345 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 150/365 3 2 6 2 6 2 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR 185/550 5 4 4 4 5 4 NBTR 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 335 2 1 2 1 2 1 14A. MacArthur Boulevard/44th Street WBLTR 635 67 0 67 0 67 0 NBL 625 542 263 543 262 543 262 NBT 625 540 544 503 544 503 544 SBTR 100/675 242 358 241 350 241 350 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR 50/265 514 175 515 176 515 176 NBT 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 40 25 7 25 7 25 7 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT 500 816 940 814 930 814 930 WBL 210 ‐ 1132 ‐ 1129 ‐ 1129 WBT 1375 0 1154 0 1152 0 1152 NBR 8360 1700 ‐ 1705 ‐ 1705 ‐ 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 310 4 49 4 55 4 55 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

116

Table 34 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Background Available 38th Street 38th Street Approach Conditions Storage* Unsignalized Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL 365 6 0 6 0 6 0 EBT 1395 1837 245 1834 232 1834 232 WBT 1075 320 1863 325 1974 322 1974 WBR 135 42 3 48 11 47 11 SBL 560 42 473 42 516 42 516 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR 1090 1224 567 1221 574 1221 574 EBR 1090 404 0 403 0 403 0 WBTR 370 583 694 583 699 583 699 NBL 4160 542 1814 542 1815 542 1815 NBLT 4160 551 1792 551 1797 551 1797 NBR 360 685 310 686 310 686 310 SBL 80 43 52 43 52 43 52 SBR 80 0 44 0 44 0 44 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT 355 515 92 519 93 518 93 EBR 350 505 633 502 634 501 634 WBL 135 648 1334 650 1343 648 1343 WBT 185 109 93 110 92 110 92 NBL 2160 664 519 664 524 664 524 NBR 2160 1063 219 1066 221 1066 221 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR 135 1002 448 1005 451 1003 451 WBLT 165/440 224 329 224 329 224 329 NBLTR 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 60 46 37 47 37 47 37 SBR 230 206 887 207 899 207 899 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR 240/435 111 60 112 61 112 61 WBLTR 155 310 719 313 718 312 718 NBLTR 100 29 100 29 100 29 100 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

117

Table 34 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Background Available 38th Street 38th Street Approach Conditions Storage* Unsignalized Unsignalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR 595 405 82 405 82 405 82 WBT 370 196 356 198 356 198 356 WBR 370 253 292 251 292 251 292 NBL 80/365 128 258 128 258 128 258 NBLTR 80/365 128 218 128 218 128 218 SBL 220 491 351 496 351 496 351 SBLT 220 503 366 495 366 495 366 SBR 220 37 170 37 170 37 170 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR 125/905 5 10 5 13 5 13 WBLTR 285 25 8 25 10 25 10 NBLTR 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLTR 245 5 10 5 10 5 10 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR 255 43 360 45 360 45 360 WBLT 150 170 155 180 160 180 160 SBLTR 115/240 345 333 353 338 373 338 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

38th Street Signalized

Results of the analyses are summarized in Tables 32 and 33. For comparison purposes, the background and total future conditions (without improvements) also are provided in Tables 35 and 36. The Synchro reports for level of service and queue improvement analyses are provided in Appendix T.

As explained in the previous section, improvements are not recommended for the following intersections:

. Reservoir Road/Gate 4, . Reservoir Road/Gate 3, . Reservoir Road/Gate 1, and . Reservoir Road/38th Street.

118

Reservoir Road/37th Street

Timing adjustments in the AM would mitigate the impact of the campus plan at this intersection. Queueing on the eastbound approach would be reduced to be within 150 feet of background queues if the following improvement is made:

. Add an eastbound left turn phase equal to 9 seconds during the AM peak hour.

Table 35 Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Signalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL D E (57.6) D E (57.6) D E (57.6) EBT F (386.1) F (87.5) F (381.3) F (86.5) F (381.3) F (86.5) EBR D D D D D D WBL F (176.0) D F (162.3) D F (162.3) D WBT D F (253.3) D F (245.0) D F (245.0) WBR C D C C C C NBLTR F (171.9) D F (161.7) D F (161.7) D SBL F (272.6) D F (276.2) D F (276.2) D SBTR F (427.6) F (469.6) F (427.6) F (469.6) F (427.6) F (469.6) Overall F (250.6) F (177.5) F (247.2) F (174.5) F (247.2) F (174.5) 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A NBLR D C D C D C 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4* EBTR A A A A A A WBL C A A A A A WBT A A A NBLR E [37.4] E [41.4] D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ A B A B 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [141.4] D F [86.3] E [37.1] F [86.3] E [37.1] NBR E [36.3] B C C C C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh * A traffic signal is proposed at Reservoir Road/Gate 4 for Total Future Conditions.

119

Table 35 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Signalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR A A A A A A WBLT A A A A A A NBL F [99.6] D F [82.8] D F [82.8] D NBR C C C C C C 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT B A B A B A WBTR B A B A B A SBLR C D C D C D Overall B A B A B A 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† EBTR ‐ ‐ C E (68.9) C E (68.9) WBLT ‐ ‐ F (388.5) A F (388.4) A NBL ‐ ‐ D D D D NBR ‐ ‐ D D D D Overall ‐ ‐ F (145.3) D F (145.2) D 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ EBLTR A B A C A C WBLT F (550.2) D C B B B WBR A B B NBL E (71.1) E (79.4) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR C C ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR C C D D D D Overall F (156.9) C B C B C 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR A F (164.8) B F (159.1) B F (159.1) WBLTR A A A A B A NBLTR D D D D D D SBLTR F (415.2) F (105.2) F (405.3) F (102.0) F (405.3) F (102.0) Overall E (59.1) F (95.2) E (60.8) F (91.7) E (64.0) F (91.7) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the trafic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

120

Table 35 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Signalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT B C C C C C EBR D C D C D C WBLTR B B B B B B NBL F (365.2) F (156.6) F (358.8) F (156.9) F (358.8) F (156.9) NBTR C C C C C C SBLT F (160.7) F (128.4) F (160.7) F (129.7) F (160.7) F (129.7) SBR D C D C D C Overall F (92.3) E (63.2) F (93.0) E (63.6) F (93.1) E (63.6) 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR F [52.0] B E [49.4] B E [49.4] B WBLT B B B B B B SBLTR C B C B C B Overall E [35.9] B E [34.4] B E [34.4] B 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR F (84.1) E (64.8) E (79.5) E (63.2) E (79.5) E (63.2) NBLT F (172.1) C F (167.8) C F (167.8) C SBTR B A B A B A Overall F (105.3) C F (102.2) C F (102.2) C 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR D C C B C B NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR D C D C D C NBTR A A A A A A SBLT A A A A A A 14A. 44th Street/MacArthur Boulevard WBLTR D D D D D D NBL E (70.8) C E (71.9) C E (71.9) C NBT B B B B B B SBTR C D C D C D Overall D C D C D C [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

121

Table 35 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Signalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak PM Peak AM Peak 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR D B D B D B NBT A A A A A A SBT A A A A A A Overall B A B A B A 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT F (88.2) F (305.2) F (87.5) F (299.3) F (87.5) F (299.3) WBL ‐ F (123.9) ‐ F (124.6) ‐ F (124.6) WBT A A A A A A NBR F (503.9) ‐ F (506.0) ‐ F (506.0) ‐ Overall F (228.2) F (119.2) F (230.0) F (117.1) F (230.0) F (117.1) 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT A A A A A A WBT A A A A A A SBR B C B C B C 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL A A A B A B EBT F (147.5) E (58.4) F (147.0) D F (147.0) D WBT A F (265.4) A F (273.5) A F (273.5) WBR A A A A A A SBL E (68.7) F (220.8) E (68.7) F (262.6) E (68.7) F (262.6) Overall F (94.0) F (196.1) F (93.6) F (200.4) F (93.6) F (200.4) 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR F (242.4) F (90.5) F (241.5) F (93.3) F (241.6) F (93.3) EBR A A A A A A WBTR C F (117.9) C F (119.7) C F (119.7) NBL E (65.8) F (465.7) E (65.8) F (466.4) E (65.8) F (466.4) NBLT E (72.3) F (477.7) E (72.3) F (479.1) E (72.3) F 479.1) NBR F (137.8) C F (139.7) C F (139.7) C SBL E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) E (61.6) E (59.2) SBR E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) E (55.0) E (56.5) Overall F (118.3) F (230.8) F (118.1) F (231.9) F (118.1) F (231.9) [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

122

Table 35 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Signalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT F (278.4) E (75.1) F (281.2) E (75.5) F (281.2) E (75.5) EBR C F (271.4) C F (272.6) C F (272.6) WBL F (96.6) F (202.0 F (96.8) F (204.6) F (96.8) F (204.6) WBT C B C B C B NBL F (162.4) F (273.5) F (162.4) F (277.9) F (162.4) F (277.9) NBR E (75.3) A E (76.0) A E (76.0) A Overall F (101.7) F (163.8) F (102.2) F (165.8) F (102.2) F (165.8) 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR E (56.3) B E (57.1) B E (57.1) B WBLT D C D C D C NBLTR D D D D D D SBLT D D D D D D SBR C F (296.1) C F (303.3) C F (303.3) Overall D F (99.6) D F (102.1) D F (102.1) 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR F (103.7) F (126.2) F (106.6) F (125.9) F (106.6) F (125.9) NBLTR D D D D D D Overall D E (79.2) D E (78.9) D E (78.9) 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR F (115.8) B F (116.1) B F (116.1) B WBT C D C D C D WBR F (94.3) F (131.6) F (93.4) F (131.6) F (93.4) F (131.6) NBL E (57.0) E (76.8) E (57.0) E (76.3) E (57.0) E (76.8) NBLTR E (56.8) E (73.5) E (56.8) E (73.5) E (56.8) E (73.5) SBL F (145.8) F (126.3) F (149.7) F (126.3) F (149.7) F (126.3) SBLT F (134.4) F (128.8) F (128.5) F (128.8) F (128.5) F (128.8) SBR C D C D C D Overall F (98.0) D F (97.8) D F (97.8) D [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

123

Table 35 (Continued) Level of Service Summary – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – 38th Total Future Imps – 38th Background Conditions Approach Street Signalized Street Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR A A A A A A WBLTR A A A A A A NBLTR A A A A A A SBLTR A A A A A A Overall A A A A A A 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR B F [63.7] B F [63.6] B F [63.6] WBLT D D D D D D SBLTR F [54.8] F [62.3] F [56.4] F [63.8] F [56.4] F [53.8] Overall E [37.9] F [54.2] E [39.0] F [55.1] E [39.0] F [55.1] [x.x] = unsignalized intersection control delay in sec/veh (x.x) = signalized intersection control delay in sec/veh

124

Table 36 Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Background Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Available Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized38th Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 1. Reservoir Road/Foxhall Road EBL 100 35 47 35 47 35 47 EBT 200 957 250 950 247 950 247 EBR 200 22 0 22 0 22 0 WBL 50 220 212 210 129 210 129 WBT 145/605 331 853 329 827 329 827 145 (AM)/ WBR 40 96 40 58 40 58 250 (PM) NBLTR 210 712 372 696 373 696 373 SBL 115 734 133 741 133 741 133 SBTR 115 979 779 979 779 979 779 2. Reservoir Road/44th Street EBT 235 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 625 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBLR 140/300 47 13 46 11 46 11 3. Reservoir Road/Gate 4 EBT 625 0 223 223 0 160 160 EBR 60 0 1 1 WBL 165/995 5 22 22 1 186 186 WBT 165/995 0 62 62 NBLR 50/110 8 74 29 164 29 164 4. Reservoir Road/Gate 3 EBTR 115/365 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 430/570 24 2 15 2 15 2 NBL 105 19 27 8 27 8 27 NBR 105 121 12 46 11 46 11 5. Reservoir Road/Gate 2 EBTR 430/855 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBLT 90 13 5 8 5 8 5 NBL 110 32 28 47 37 47 37 NBR 110 5 11 11 27 11 27 6. Reservoir Road/39th Street EBLT 90/995 371 66 211 92 211 92 Ex: 280/ WBTR 275 68 252 87 252 87 Prop: 225 SBLR 475 76 55 76 55 76 55 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

125

Table 36 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Background Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Available Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized38th Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 7A. Reservoir Road/Gate 1† Ex: 280/ EBTR ‐ ‐ 381 694 381 694 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 ‐ ‐ 699 70 698 70 NBL 110 ‐ ‐ 119 127 119 127 NBR 110 ‐ ‐ 61 47 61 47 7B. Reservoir Road/38th Street‡ Ex: 280/ EBLTR 70 380 24 551 24 551 Prop: 225 WBLT 330 701 465 464 225 168 168 WBR 90 0 5 5 NBL 110 167 228 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ NBTR 110 108 71 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ SBLTR 115/275 56 50 57 49 57 49 8. Reservoir Road/37th Street EBLTR 330 61 942 385 681 110 681 WBLTR 405 174 41 171 40 260 40 NBLTR 260 38 11 38 11 38 11 SBLTR 280 387 239 381 236 381 236 9. Reservoir Road/35th Street EBLT 435 315 234 317 222 317 222 EBR 130 403 251 414 250 409 250 WBLTR 320 156 164 152 162 152 162 NBL 75 486 378 482 375 482 375 NBTR 300 215 204 215 204 215 204 SBLT 285 370 379 370 381 370 381 SBR 60 49 32 47 32 47 32 10. Reservoir Road/34th Street EBTR 320 378 73 365 68 365 68 WBLT 415 38 45 38 43 38 43 SBLTR 90/300 78 85 75 83 75 83 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted. † Offsetting Gate 1 from 38th Street and signalizing the driveway is proposed for Total Future Conditions. ‡ Removing the traffic signal at Reservoir Road/38th Street is proposed for Total Future Conditions.

126

Table 36 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Background Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Available Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized38th Street Signalized Storage* AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 11. Reservoir Road/Wisconsin Avenue EBLR 420 448 236 439 221 439 221 NBLT 30 596 406 591 403 591 403 SBTR 300 188 177 188 177 188 177 12. Foxhall Road/Volta Place WBLR 180/645 3 3 5 3 5 3 NBTR 120/345 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 150/365 3 2 6 2 6 2 13. Foxhall Road/P Street WBLR 185/550 5 4 4 4 4 4 NBTR 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 335 2 1 2 1 2 1 14A. MacArthur Boulevard/44th Street WBLTR 635 67 0 67 0 67 0 NBL 625 542 263 543 262 543 262 NBT 625 540 544 503 544 503 544 SBTR 100/675 242 358 241 350 241 350 14B. MacArthur Boulevard/Foxhall Road EBR 50/265 514 175 515 176 515 176 NBT 635 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 40 25 7 25 7 25 7 15. Foxhall Road/Canal Road EBT 500 816 940 814 930 814 930 WBL 210 ‐ 1132 ‐ 1129 ‐ 1129 WBT 1375 0 1154 0 1152 0 1152 NBR 8360 1700 ‐ 1705 ‐ 1705 ‐ 16A. Canal Road/GU Driveway (west) EBT N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR 310 4 49 4 55 4 55 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

127

Table 36 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Background Total Future Imps – Available 38th Street Approach Conditions 38th Street Signalized Storage* Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 16B. Canal Road/GU Driveway EBL 365 6 0 6 0 6 0 EBT 1395 1837 245 1834 232 1834 232 WBT 1075 320 1863 325 1974 325 1974 WBR 135 42 3 48 11 48 11 SBL 560 42 473 42 516 42 516 17. M Street/Whitehurst Freeway EBTR 1090 1224 567 1221 574 1221 574 EBR 1090 404 0 403 0 403 0 WBTR 370 583 694 583 699 583 699 NBL 4160 542 1814 542 1815 542 1815 NBLT 4160 551 1792 551 1797 551 1797 NBR 360 685 310 686 310 686 310 SBL 80 43 52 43 52 43 52 SBR 80 0 44 0 44 0 44 18. M Street/Key Bridge EBT 355 515 92 519 93 519 93 EBR 350 505 633 502 634 502 634 WBL 135 648 1334 650 1343 650 1343 WBT 185 109 93 110 92 110 92 NBL 2160 664 519 664 524 664 524 NBR 2160 1063 219 1066 221 1066 221 19. M Street/34th Street EBTR 135 1002 448 1005 451 1005 451 WBLT 165/440 224 329 224 329 224 329 NBLTR 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLT 60 46 37 47 37 47 37 SBR 230 206 887 207 899 207 899 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

128

Table 36 (Continued) Synchro 95th Percentile Queue Summary (in feet) – Total Future Improvements

Total Future TDM – Total Future Imps – Background Available 38th Street 38th Street Approach Conditions Storage* Signalized Signalized AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak 20. M Street/33rd Street EBLTR 240/435 111 60 112 61 112 61 WBLTR 155 310 719 309 718 313 718 NBLTR 100 29 100 29 100 29 100 21. M Street/Wisconsin Avenue EBLTR 595 405 82 405 82 405 82 WBT 370 196 356 198 356 198 356 WBR 370 253 292 251 292 251 292 NBL 80/365 128 258 128 258 128 258 NBLTR 80/365 128 218 128 218 128 218 SBL 220 491 351 496 351 496 351 SBLT 220 503 366 495 366 495 366 SBR 220 37 170 37 170 37 170 22. Prospect Street/37th Street EBLTR 125/905 5 10 5 13 5 13 WBLTR 285 25 8 25 10 25 10 NBLTR 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBLTR 245 5 10 5 10 5 10 23. Prospect Street/34th Street EBTR 255 43 360 45 360 45 360 WBLT 150 170 155 180 160 180 160 SBLTR 115/240 345 333 353 338 353 338 * Where two distances are listed, the first is the distance to the nearest unsignalized driveway; the second is the distance to the nearest unsignalized or signalized intersection or nearest signalized driveway, unless otherwise noted.

129

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conclusions and recommendations of this study are as follows:

1. The 2017 Campus Plan would allow for the organized development of up to 1,300,000 SF of new development on campus to further the University’s academic mission, enhance the campus living and learning environment, and improve the delivery of medical care at the Hospital. The proposed development includes a new medical/surgical pavilion up to 450,000 SF. 2. The University is not proposing to increase student enrollment caps beyond what currently is permitted. Based on current enrollment levels and existing enrollment caps, the University could increase its enrollment by 2,063 graduate students. The University also anticipates an approximate 10 percent increase in faculty/staff. Such growth would occur in a measured and gradual manner over the 20‐year Plan term. 3. The Hospital anticipates adding 655 employees in conjunction with the proposed new medical/surgical pavilion. Another 50 employees potentially could be added over the 20‐year term of the Plan. 4. The University has made a significant investment in multi‐modal transportation infrastructure and services, most notably GUTS, which operates five routes and provides critical links to the Metrorail system and other key locations. As a result of this substantial and continued investment, the University currently realizes a non‐ auto mode split of 62.2 percent. The Hospital realizes an 18.8 percent non‐auto mode split. 5. The 2017 Campus Plan proposes significant campus circulation improvements for all modes of travel, specifically: . Create east‐west link on campus with new roadway, . Signalize Gate 4/Reservoir Road, . Remove entry/exit from northern façade of Leavey garage, . Shift exit of Garage 1 from Gate 1 to Gate 2, . Extend Dupont and Rosslyn GUTS service from McDonough Bus Plaza to a new stop adjacent to Shaw Field and the Lombardi Cancer Center to better serve users on the northern side of campus, . Install strategically placed gates to limit vehicular traffic through the pedestrian‐focused core of campus, . Transform Tondorf Road to a pedestrian/bicycle corridor with limited vehicular access, . Create internal north‐south pedestrian/bicycle spine through campus, connecting on the north with Reservoir Road and on connecting on the south with Canal Road via existing sidewalks. . Create/strengthen east‐west pedestrian/bicycle spine.

130

6. The current parking cap for the campus will be maintained under the 2017 Campus Plan. As new buildings are constructed throughout the term of the Plan, surface parking will be relocated to below‐grade parking garages. Plans for the new medical/surgical pavilion call for the construction of three levels of below‐grade parking, which would effectively replace nearly 300 surface spaces and would allow the Hospital to eliminate the majority of stacked parking in its remaining parking facilities, creating a much more user‐friendly parking experience as well as significant green space amenities. 7. As part of the proposed medical/surgical pavilion project, the Hospital would move its loading facilities below‐grade, which would alleviate significant congestion resulting from trucks maneuvering into and out of the existing at‐grade loading facility just inside the main entrance to the Hospital. 8. Both the University and Hospital will implement Loading Management Plans to ensure impacts to the surrounding community are effectively mitigated. 9. Based on the growth potential associated with the Campus Plan, the University’s vehicular trip generation could increase by 90 trips during the AM peak hour and 121 trips during the PM peak hour, if graduate student enrollment grows to currently permitted levels. 10. The Hospital’s vehicular trip generation is anticipated to increase by 131 trips during the AM peak hour and 58 trips during the PM peak hour after completion of the proposed medical/surgical pavilion. 11. The University will implement a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Plan with a commitment to reduce projected PM peak hour vehicle trip generation by 8.5 percentage points (i.e. projected growth would be reduced by approximately one‐third or 45 PM peak hour vehicle trips). The PM peak hour vehicle site trips also will be reduced by approximately one‐third or 34 AM peak hour site trips). To ensure that the proposed vehicle trip reduction commitment is met, the University will monitor its performance and submit annual compliance reports. As an aspirational goal, the University also will strive to achieve a reduction in projected PM peak hour vehicular traffic volumes by 20 percentage points (or 105 PM peak hour vehicle trips). The AM peak hour aspirational goal would result in a reduction of 79 AM peak hour vehicle trips. 12. The Hospital also will implement a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Plan with a commitment to significantly reduce projected AM peak hour vehicular trip generation by 15 percentage points, which would result in five percent fewer vehicle trips than under existing conditions (i.e. the AM peak hour vehicular trip generation would be reduced by 196 vehicle trips). The PM peak hour vehicular trip generation would be reduced by 107 vehicle trips. To ensure that the proposed trip reduction commitment is met, the Hospital also will monitor its performance and submit annual compliance reports. As an aspirational goal, the Hospital also will strive to achieve a reduction in projected AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes by 22 percentage points, or a 12 percent reduction below existing conditions (i.e. the AM peak hour vehicular trip generation would be reduced by 288 AM peak hour trips). The PM peak hour vehicular trip generation would be reduced by 176 vehicle trips.

131

13. Implementation of the University’s and Hospital’s comprehensive TDM Plans would mitigate the majority of the traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The following additional improvements also are recommended: . Install and eastbound advance left turn phase at the Reservoir Road/37th Street intersection, . Install a westbound advance left turn phase at the Reservoir Road/Gate 1 intersection, and . Install a traffic signal at the Reservoir Road/Gate 4 intersection.

O:\Projects\6500‐7000\6527A Campus Plan Study – GU Portion\Documents\Reports\Revised CTR\6527A CTR Report ‐ Revised.docx

132