900 16 Street Project Is Located at the Level of Service to a Component of the Th Intersection of I (Eye) and 16 Streets in Surrounding Transportation Network

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY 900 16TH STREET PUD WASHINGTON, DC

May 1, 2013 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.13-04 EXHIBIT NO.21C

Prepared by:

1140 Connecticut Avenue NW 3914 Centreville Road 7001 Heritage Village Plaza Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 220 Washington, DC 20036 Chantilly, VA 20151 Gainesville, VA 20155 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 703.787.9595 Fax: 202.785.1276 Fax: 703.787.9905 Fax: 703.787.9905

www.goroveslade.com

This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of services, is intended for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization by Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc., shall be without liability to Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C

Contents Figures Executive Summary ...... i Figure 1: Site Location ...... 2 Introduction ...... 1 Figure 2: Roadway Functional Classification...... 4 Project Summary ...... 1 Figure 3: AADT Map ...... 4 Figure 4: Existing Transit Facilities ...... 7 Purpose of Study ...... 1 Figure 5: Planned Transit Facilities ...... 7 Contents of Study ...... 2 Figure 6: Bicycle Facilities ...... 9 Site Review ...... 3 Figure 7: Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ...... 11 Roadways & Car Sharing ...... 3 Figure 8: Program and Access Summary ...... 12 Figure 9: Proposed Curb Extension ...... 13 Transit ...... 5 Figure 10: Study Area Intersections ...... 18 Bicycle Facilities ...... 8 Figure 11: Capacity Analysis Results, AM Peak Hour ...... 24 Pedestrian Facilities ...... 10 Figure 12 Capacity Analysis Results, PM Peak Hour ...... 25 Design Review ...... 12 Figure 13: Trip Assignment, Inbound ...... 26 Figure 14: Trip Assignment, Outbound AM Peak ...... 27 Site Access ...... 12 Figure 15: Trip Assignment, Outbound PM Peak ...... 28 Parking ...... 14 Figure 16: Analysis Data – Int. #1 ...... 29 Loading ...... 14 Figure 17: Analysis Data – Int. #2 ...... 31 Bicycle Facilities ...... 15 Figure 18 Analysis Data – Int. #3 ...... 33 Figure 19 Analysis Data – Int. #4 ...... 35 TDM ...... 15 Figure 20: Analysis Data – Int. #5 ...... 37 Impacts Review ...... 16 Figure 21: Existing Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes ...... 41 Multi‐Modal Trip Generation ...... 16 Figure 22: Bicycle Link LOS...... 42 Vehicular Capacity Analysis ...... 18 Figure 23: Pedestrian Sidewalk Volumes ...... 43 Figure 24: Pedestrian Segment LOS ...... 45 Non‐Auto Modes ...... 39

Crash Data Analysis ...... 46 Tables

Table 1: Carsharing Locations & Vehicles ...... 3 Table 2: Bus Route Information ...... 6 Table 3: Bikeshare Stations ...... 8 Table 4: Sidewalk Requirements ...... 10 Table 5: Base Trip Generation ...... 16 Table 6: Multi‐Modal Trip Generation ...... 17 Table 7: Summary of Analysis Assumptions ...... 19 Table 8: Mode Split Assumptions for Background ...... 21 Table 9: Trip Generation for Background Developments ...... 21 Table 10: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #1 ...... 30 Table 11: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #2 ...... 32 Table 12: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #3 ...... 34 Table 13: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #4 ...... 36 Table 14: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #5 ...... 38 Table 15: Bus Load Factors in Major Corridors ...... 40 Table 16: Pedestrian Delay LOS ...... 44 Table 17: Intersection CrashZONING Rates COMMISSION ...... 46 District of Columbia Table 18: High Crash Rate Intersections by Type ...... 47 Case No. 13-04 21C

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is a TIS (Transportation Impact sufficient parking while not encouraging Study) for the 900 16th Street NW PUD driving as a mode (Planned Unit Development) application case  Several loading bays and a trash bay number 13‐04. The 900 16th Street Project is accessed from an alley behind the located at the intersection of I (Eye) and 16th building, which will easily accommodate Streets in Northwest Washington DC. The site the expected delivery needs of the PUD Project Summary is currently home to the Third Church of  45 bicycle parking spaces, a number that Christ, Scientist. The PUD will replace the far exceeds the requirement Applicant: ICG 16th Street church with a mixed‐use building of primarily  A curb extension of I (Eye) Street NW that Associates, LLC office space, some ground floor retail space, will significantly enhance the pedestrian Location: 900 16th Street NW, and a new church. environment adjacent to the site th at the intersection of 16 and I (Eye) Streets NW. Site Access Analysis of Impacts The current site has approximately 50 parking A vehicular capacity analysis of nearby Case Type: Consolidated PUD spaces accessed from an alley connecting to K intersections found that the proposed PUD Street. The alley is very constrained and would not generate negative impacts or Case Number: 13‐04 oftentimes site traffic has difficulty reaching require mitigation measures. This is mostly Development Program: the parking garage. In order to alleviate this due to the low amount of traffic volumes Approximately: traffic congestion in the alley, the proposed generated by the project relative to the 12,000 SF Church PUD has a single curb cut from I (Eye) Street amount of traffic within the study area. The 4,000 SF Retail accessing its parking garage (with 93 spaces). project’s trip generation is not large enough 125,000 SF Office Access to loading for the project will remain to significantly alter conditions on from the alley. surrounding streets. Vehicular Trip Generation: AM Peak Hour: 59

PM Peak Hour: 60 Because the site has alley‐access, a new curb Similarly, a review of impacts to non‐auto cut to serve parking would normally be modes concluded that the project’s transit, Parking Provided: 93 spaces against DDOT (District Department of bicycle, and pedestrian travel demand can accessed from I (Eye) St NW Transportation) policy. Thus, the project team easily be accommodated on the surrounding met with DDOT early in the project’s design to transportation network. Loading Provided: 2 30’ docks and a trash service bay discuss site access, which led to DDOT accessed via alley behind suggesting the project apply for the curb cut’s Conclusion building accessed via K Street approval early, prior to the PUD’s Zoning Therefore, based on the quality NW Commission hearing. For several reasons, transportation elements of the site plan, and including the poor quality of the alley access, the analyses contained within this TIS, Bicycle Parking: 45 spaces (39 DDOT’s Public Space Committee granted Gorove/Slade concludes that approval of this long‐term, 6 short‐term) approval of the curb cut, at its February 28, PUD application would not lead to a 2013 meeting. detrimental impact to the surrounding transportation network. Other transportation elements of the PUD include:  93 vehicular parking spaces located in an underground garage, and amount that strikes a balance between providing ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C i

INTRODUCTION

This report is a TIS (Transportation Impact project design team completed the site design Study) for the 900 16th Street NW PUD and proceeded with the PUD application. (Planned Unit Development) application case number 13‐04. It includes a summary of the PURPOSE OF STUDY transportation components of the application, This report’s purpose is to review the project and reviews potential transportation impacts. for potential negative impacts to

transportation. A negative impact occurs PROJECT SUMMARY when the project creates an unacceptable th The 900 16 Street Project is located at the level of service to a component of the th intersection of I (Eye) and 16 Streets in surrounding transportation network. This Northwest Washington DC, as shown in Figure report determines if a negative impact occurs 1. The site is currently home to the Third by comparing two project future scenarios, (1) TIS Scoping Church of Christ, Scientist and Christian withoute th proposed application being In order to ensure that this Science Monitor Building. The proposed PUD approved (referred to as background TIS provides a sufficient will replace the church and office building conditions), and (2) with the application review and conforms to with a mixed‐use building of primarily office approved and constructed (referred to as DDOT (District Department of space, some ground floor retail space, and a total future conditions). Transportation) guidelines, GoroveSlade and DDOT had a new church. scoping meeting on October Thus, the analyses contained in the TIS are 24, 2012 and GoroveSlade The current site has approximately 50 parking tailored to reach this comparison. They are submitted a scoping form. spaces accessed from an alley connecting to K not designed to analyze general DDOT responded to the Street. The alley is very constrained and neighborhood congestion, existing concerns, scoping form on November oftentimes site traffic has difficulty reaching or long‐term construction impacts. 20, 2012, and a finalized the parking garage. In order to alleviate this scope was agreed to on December 14, 2012. traffic congestion in the alley, the proposed In addition to searching for impacts by PUD has a single curb cut from I (Eye) Street comparing these two future scenarios, accessing its parking garage (with 93 spaces). another component of the TIS is to review Access to loading for the project will remain how the application minimizes potential from the alley. impacts. In an urban setting like the District, it is important for new projects, regardless of Because the site has alley‐access, a new curb whether they generate negative impacts, to cut to serve parking would normally be minimize their impacts. This report addresses against DDOT (District Department of this by reviewing the application’s site plans Transportation) policy. Thus, the mproject tea and TDM (Transportation Demand met with DDOT early in the project’s design to Management) measures and identifying ways discuss site access, which led to DDOT that the project minimizes impacts. suggesting the project apply for the curb cut’s approval early, prior to the PUD’s Zoning

Commission hearing. For several reasons, including the poor quality of the alley access, DDOT’s Public Space Committee granted approval of the curb cut, at its February 28, 2013 meeting. With this approval in hand, the ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 1

CONTENTS OF STUDY This report contains three sections as follows:  Site Review – A summary of major transportation features near and adjacent to the project, provided for background information and as a reference for the following sections.  Design Review – A section reviewing the transportation components of the project, including reviewing the site plan and TDM elements.  Impacts Review – A section reviewing the potential impacts of the project, through a comparison of two future scenarios, one with the project and one without. For each mode of transportation, the negative impacts of the project are discussed and mitigation measures suggested as necessary.

Figure 1: Site Location ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 2

SITE REVIEW

ROADWAYS & CAR SHARING any zone throughout the defined “Home The 900 16th Street site is served by many Area”. Members do not have to pay the regional roadways including Connecticut meters or pay stations. Car2Go does not have Avenue and 16th Street. Additional arterials permanent designated spaces for their near the site include I (Eye) Street, K Street, H vehicles; however, availability is tracked Street, 17th Street, and 15th Street. Figure 2 through their website, which provides an shows the roadway network hierarchy and additional option for car‐sharing patrons. Figure 3 the average daily traffic volumes for the roadways near the proposed development.

Three car‐sharing companies serve the District: Zipcar, Hertz on Demand, and Daimler’s Car2Go. All three services are private companies that provide registered users access to a variety of automobiles. Both Zipcar and Hertz on Demand have locations adjacent to the project site. Table 1 lists the car‐sharing locations in the study area and the number of vehicles available with stations closest to the site listed first.

Table 1: Carsharing Locations & Vehicles Carshare Location Number of Vehicles Zipcar 17th/L Street NW 7 vehicles 1667 K Street NW 3 vehicles 1710 H Street NW 2 vehicles 1100 15th Street NW 3 vehicles 1725 DeSales St NW 2 vehicles 1150 15th Street NW 2 vehicles Thomas Circle South 4 vehicles 12th and H Street NW 4 vehicles 1325 G Street NW 3 vehicles Hertz on Demand 17th & L Streets NW 1 Vehicle Total 31 Vehicles

Car‐sharing is also proved by Car2Go, which is relatively new to the District and provides point‐to‐point car sharing. Unlike Zipcar, which requires two‐way trips, Car2Go can be used for on‐way rentals. Car2Go currently has a small fleet of vehicles located throughout the District. Car2Go vehicles may park in any non‐restricted Metered curbside parking ZONING COMMISSION space or Residential Parking Permit location in District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 3

Figure 2: Roadway Functional Classification

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 Figure 3: AADT Map 21C 4

TRANSIT Future Transit Metrorail and Metrobus services connect the Due to growth of population, jobs, and retail, site with other District neighborhoods and the the District’s infrastructure is challenged with Washington‐Metropolitan region. The site is the need for transportation investments to primarily serviced by Metrobus and support growth and to further strengthen MetroExpress bus service along I (Eye) Street, neighborhoods. In order to meet these 16th Street, and K Street which are all within challenges and capitalize on future walking distance of the site. The McPherson opportunities, DDOT has developed a plan to Square and Farragut West portals, servicing identify transit challenges and opportunities the Blue and Orange Line, and the Farragut and to recommend investments. This is North portal, servicing the Red Line, are outlined in the DC’s Transit Future System within walking distance of the site. Plan report published by DDOT in April 2010. This plan includes the reestablishment of The Blue and Orange Line travel through streetcar service in the District and near the downtown DC, with the Blue Line connecting proposed development. Largo Town Center with Franconia‐Springfield and the Orange Line connecting New The streetcar system element of the plan Carrolton with Vienna. The Red Line travels includes three routes that travel near the south from Shady Grove, travels through project site. The streetcar system will consist downtown DC and continues north to of modern low‐floor vehicles that operate on Glenmont. Trains run frequently during the surface tracksd embedde in the roadways, morning and afternoon peak hours. They run which will mostly operate in travel lanes that approximately every 5‐6 minutes during are shared with automobiles. Stops will weekday non‐peak hour, every 10‐15 minutes generally be located every ¼‐ to ½‐mile along on weekday evenings after 7:00 pmd an 6‐15 the routes. The future planned routes serving minutes on the weekends. the study area will connect the site to several areas in the District including Georgetown, Metrobus service is equally as accessible to Washington Circle, Congress Heights, Buzzard the site as there are several Lines located Point, Takoma, Rhode Island Avenue, and around the perimeter of the development Benning Road. site. The routes serving this area connect the In addition, the K Street Transitway will be site to the Metrorail system and with various located near the study area. The project will locations throughout the District. Table 2: Bus reconfigure the K Street corridor to benefit Route Information shows a summary of the mass transit, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, bus route information for the Lines that serve and motorists. The most updated plan the site vicinity, including service hours and consists of a two‐way, two‐lane median the headways. Figure 4 shows the existing transitway as well as two general purpose transit service. travel lanes between 20th Street and 9th

Street NW, and one 10‐foot travel/off‐peak

parking lane in each direction on K Street between 20th Street and 12th Street.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 5

Table 2: Bus Route Information Route Number Route Name Service Hours1 Headway1 Weekdays: 3Y Lee Highway – Farragut Square Line 6:30 – 9:30 AM (Eastbound only) 25 min 4:15 – 8 PM (Westbound only) Weekdays: 11Y Mt Vernon Express Line 6:30 – 9:00 AM (Northbound only) 15 – 30 min 4:10 – 7:30 PM (Southbound only) Weekdays: 16Y Columbia Pike – Farragut Square Line 6:10 – 9:40 AM (Eastbound Only) 10 – 20 min 3:45 – 7:35 PM (Westbound Only) Mon ‐ Sat: 5:20 AM – 2:00 AM 38B Ballston – Farragut Square Line 15 – 30 min Sunday: 5:30 AM – 12:30 AM Late night extension of A2, 6, 8 line 32, 36 Pennsylvania Avenue Line Weekdays: 12:00 am – 6:00 am 30 min Weekends: 12:00 am – 8:00 am Weekdays: 37 Wisconsin Avenue Limited Line 6:30 – 10:00 AM (Southbound only) 15 min 4:00 – 7:45 PM (Northbound only) Weekdays: 39 Pennsylvania Avenue Limited Line 6:30 – 9:45 AM (Westbound only) 15 min 3:30 – 7:30 PM (Eastbound only) Mon ‐ Sat: 4:30 AM – 3:30 AM 42, 43 Mount Pleasant Line 10 – 30 min Sunday: 4:30 AM – 2:00 AM Weekdays: 4:30 AM – 2:00 AM 80 North Capitol Street Line 10 ‐ 30 min Weekends: 5:00 AM – 1:00 AM Mon – Sat: D1 Glover Park – Federal Triangle Line 7:00 – 10:00 AM (Eastbound only) 20 ‐ 30 min 4:30 – 7:45 PM (Westbound only) Mon – Sat: D3 Ivy City – Dupont Circle Line 6:00 – 10:00 AM (Westbound only) 20 – 30 min 3:00 – 6:45 PM (Eastbound only) Weekdays: 4:30 AM – 2:00 AM Sibley Hospital – Stadium – Armory D6 Saturdays: 5:00 AM – 3:00 AM 20 – 40 min Line Sundays: 5:30 AM – 1:00 AM Weekdays: 5:00 AM – 1:30 AM G8 Rhode Island Avenue Line 15 – 30 min Weekends: 5:30 AM – 1:00 AM Mon – Sat: P17, P19 Oxon Hill – Fort Washington Line 5:00 AM – 3:00 PM (Northbound only) 10 – 30 min 9:30 AM – 8:00 PM (Southbound only) Mon – Sat S1 16th Street – Potomac Park Line 6:00 AM – 9:30 AM (Southbound only) 15 – 20 min 4:00 PM – 7:30 PM (Northbound only) Mon ‐ Sat: 4:30 AM – 3:30 AM S2, S4 16th Street Line 15 – 30 min Sunday: 4:30 AM – 2:00 AM

S9 16th Street Limited Mon – Sat: 6:30 AM – 7:00 PM 10 min

Mon – Sat: W13 Bock Road Line 5:00 AM – 9:00 AM (Northbound only) 20 min 3:30 PM – 8:00 PM (Southbound only) Mon – Sat: 4:15 AM – 3:00 AM X2 Benning Road – H Street Line 15 – 30 min Sunday: 4:15 AM – 2:30 AM Sun – Thurs: 7:00 AM – 12:00 AM DC Circulator Georgetown – Union Station 10 min Fri – Sat: 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM

ZONING COMMISSION 1 WMATA route schedules, District of Columbia http://wmata.com/bus/timetables/ Case No. 13-04 21C 6

Figure 4: Existing Transit Facilities

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 Figure 5: Planned Transit Facilities 21C 7

BICYCLE FACILITIES Some bicycle parking was observed in the Surrounding the site, bicycles have access to study area though many cyclists were on‐street bike lanes, signed bike routes, and observed using street signs, parking meters or local and residential streets that facilitate similar objects to secure their bicycles. This cycling. The bicycle network provides good indicates that there may be demand for conditions for local trips and there are several additional bicycle parking facilities in the routes for trips between the study area and study area. other areas within the District. The Capital Bikeshare program, launched in For the most part, cyclists to and from the 900 late September 2010, has placed over 175 16th Street site have short and direct access to bicycle‐share stations across Washington, DC existing bicycle facilities. This is represented in and Arlington and Alexandria, VA with Figure 6 which displays the projected routes approximately 1,670 bicycles provided. There in which bicyclists would take to access or are two stations within a quarter‐mile radius egress the site via nearby existing bicycle of the site located at Columbus Circle/Union facilities. As can be seen in the figure, there is Station and D Street/Maryland Avenue NE very good north‐ south connectivity via the contributing to 67 docking stations as 15th Street cycle track. Although there is a summarized in Table 3. small break in the cycle track, bicycle specific signage leads bicyclists along an area with no Table 3: Bikeshare Stations Bikeshare Location Number of Docks vehicular traffic in order to regain access to K & 17th Streets 19 docking stations the cycle track. There is also significant east‐ 17th & K Streets 15 docking stations th west connectivity east of the site via the 15 and K Streets 18 docking stations th Pennsylvania Avenue cycle track in addition to 15 St and New York Ave 15 docking stations Total 67 docking stations the New York Avenue and G Street bike lanes.

Although the bicycle infrastructure is primarily good, one deficiency is the east‐west connectivity west of the site. The newly added L Street cycle track offers an exclusive eastbound lane, however there is no nearby exclusive bicycle facility in which bicyclists can travel westbound from the site, although a complimentary westbound facility for the L Street cycle track is being planned. Currently, bicyclists will likely continue westbound along I (Eye) Street as it is a one‐way street. Additionally, other one‐way streets near the site such as M Street might be utilized due to an enhanced sense of safety on one‐way streets. Overall, the existing bicycle infrastructure near the site is very good with many cycle tracks and bike lanes creating multi‐directional connectivity throughout the district. ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 8

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Figure 6: Bicycle Facilities Case No. 13-04 21C 9

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES quarter‐mile of the site. Three Metro lines Pedestrian access to the site is provided along that provide connectivity between the 16th Street and the facilities within the study District, Maryland, and Virginia are also area provide a good walking environment. located within a quarter‐mile of the site. Due Sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb ramps with to the large amount of transit options detectable warnings are provided at all available near the study area, there is heavy intersections in the study area and nearly all pedestrian traffic walking to transfer points in intersections within a quarter‐mile walkshed addition to pedestrians walking to or from of the site. Pedestrian activity within the transit stops. study area occurs along transit access routes, along transit transfer routes, in the vicinity of A detailed review of pedestrian facilities near transit stops, and at commercial nodes the site shows that most facilities meet DDOT surrounding the area. All streets in the study standards,d an provide a quality walking area have adequate sidewalk widths, and environment. Sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb although there are few continuous buffers ramps are evaluated based on the guidelines between the sidewalk and curb, there are set forth by DDOT’s Public Realm Design many trees, bike racks, parking meters, and Manual in addition to ADA standards, similar objects that provide some separation summarized below in Table 4. Within the between pedestrians and vehicular traffic. On‐ quarter‐mile walkshed, all roadways would be street parking provides an additional buffer considered downtown. Therefore, a 16 foot between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, sidewalk with a 6 foot buffer is required. As however on most streets within the study can be seen in the figure, most sidewalks area parking is not allowed during the AM and comply with standards; however, it should be PM peak periods. noted in most locations the buffer is the parking lane, which is converted to a through Figure 7 displays the existing pedestrian lane during the AM and PM peak hours. facilities within a quarter‐mile walkshed. As Therefore, for approximately five hours of can be seen, there are signalized crosswalks at each day, there is no continuous barrier all major intersections in addition to a between the roadway and sidewalk. ADA pedestrian only pathway near the site. standards require that all curb ramps be provided wherever an accessible route The bus stops located along K Street, I (Eye) crosses a curb and must have a detectable Street, H Street, 15th Street, and 16th Street warning. Additionally, curb ramps shared serve bus routes that provide local and between two crosswalks in not desired. As commuter service between the study area shown in the figure, under existing conditions and destinations throughout the District as there are some issues with curb ramps in the well as parts of Maryland and Virginia. Over area complying with ADA standards. 20 Metrobus lines are accessible within a Table 4: Sidewalk Requirements Street Type Minimum Sidewalk Width Minimum Buffer Width

Residential (Low to Moderate Density) 6 ft 4 ft (6 ft preferred for tree space)

Residential (High Density) 8 ft 4 ft (6 ft preferred for tree space)

Commercial (Non‐downtown) 10 ft 4 ft ZONING COMMISSION Downtown 16 ft 6 ft District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 10

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 11

Figure 7: Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure

DESIGN REVIEW

The 900 16th Street Project is located at the PUD has a single curb cut from I (Eye) Street intersection of I (Eye) and 16th Streets in accessing its parking garage (with 93 spaces). Northwest Washington DC. The site is Access to loading for the project will remain currently home to the Third Church of Christ, from the alley. Note: The graphics in

Scientist and the Christian Science Monitor this TIS are included for Because the site has alley‐access, a new curb Building . The proposed PUD will replace the diagrammatical church and office building with a mixed‐use cut to serve parking would normally be purposes only, and are building of primarily office space, some against DDOT (District Department of not intended to ground floor retail space, and a new church. Transportation) policy. Thus, the project team represent the latest Figure 8 contains a summary of the site’s met with DDOT early in the project’s design to design drawings for the project. The latest set of access plan and development program. discuss site access, which lead to DDOT site plans submitted suggesting the project apply for the curb cut’s with the BZA SITE ACCESS approval early, prior to the PUD’s Zoning application should be Commission hearing. For several reasons, The current site has approximately 50 parking referred to when including the poor quality of the alley access, looking for design spaces accessed from an alley connecting to K DDOT’s Public Space Committee granted details and plans to Street. The alley is very constrained and approval of the curb cut, at its February 28, scale. oftentimes site traffic has difficulty reaching 2013 meeting, with the following conditions: the parking garage. In order to alleviate this traffic congestion in the alley, the proposed

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 12

Figure 8: Program and Access Summary

1. The driveway entrance shall be 6. Relocation or replacement of street constructed to DDOT standards, with trees and street furnishing is the a maximum width of 20 feet and responsibility of the Applicant and appropriate signage to allow right‐in will be done in accordance with and right‐out traffic only. DDOT standards. 2. The public space between the curb 7. All loading and deliveries continue to cut and the property line is occur from the north‐south alley from constructed to DDOT standards. K Street. The proposed driveway 3. No changes in material or pattern are would be limited to passenger vehicle permitted for the driveway entrance. or bike access only and clearly signed 4. The curb line in front of the so. Applicant’s property, and the property immediately to the west, is Condition number 4, the extension of the curb extended southward into Eye Street line, was an essential component of bthe cur to match the curb line on the western cut approval. This curb extension will provide half of the 1600 block of Eye Street – a benefit to the pedestrian experience resulting in a continuous curb‐to‐curb adjacent to the site that will mitigate the width of approximately 41’ +/‐.5. negative aspects of the proposed curb cut. 5. Relocation of any associated utilities ‐ storm drains, light poles, etc. – is the responsibility of the Applicant.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Figure 9: Proposed Curb Extension Case No. 13-04 21C 13

PARKING LOADING As described above, parking will be provided Access to the loading and service area is by means of a below‐grade parking garage provided from an alley behind the buildings, accessed directly from (Eye) Street. Because accessed via K Street. Loading activity for the the curb cut is located on I (Eye) Street, which site in addition to the surrounding businesses is a one‐way street, the access will operate as will be improved due to the rerouting of a right‐in/right‐out access. private vehicle traffic. Further analysis of the existing and proposed alley network can be The parking garage will contain 93 vehicular found in the Technical Appendix, including parking spaces, which exceeds zoning turning movement diagrams for trucks requirements. Zoning regulations require 1 accessing the project’s loading bays. space per 1,800 SF after the first 2,000 SF for office uses and 1 space per 750 SF after the There will be two 30’ loading bays, and a trash first 3,000 SF for retail uses. There is no truck bay on the northwest corner of the parking requirement for the church building accessible via the alley. Zoning component of the development. Therefore, regulations require two 30’ loading docks for the development will require 69 spaces for the office component. Because the retail office uses and 1 space for retail uses. The site component is less than 8,000 square feet, no is providing 93 vehicular parking spaces, loading facility is required for the use.. which meet the zoning minimums. The amount of loading facilities provided is

adequate to handle the expected amount of Based on the proposed development’s deliveries. The office building will generate location, the amount of parking proposed is around 15 van‐sized and 3 30’ truck deliveries adequate to serve the expected demand per week. The retail tenant is yet to be without providing too muchg parkin and determined; however it is safe to assume that encouraging driving as a mode. While working the retail component will generate no more on various projects within the District, than 2 van‐sized and 4 30’ truck deliveries per Gorove/Slade had observed that parking week. This amounts to 2 to 3 van‐sized and 1 demand for office & retail land uses within to 2 30’ truck deliveries per day or the District core is around 25% of the demand approximately 2 trucks per day using each generated by suburban locations. The loading dock, an amount of activity easily comparable suburban parking demand for the accommodated by the proposed loading proposed office & retail components would facilities. be 350 spaces (calculated using ITE’s Parking th Generation, 4 Edition). The 93 spaces Turning diagrams for trucks accessing the provided represents 27% of this suburban proposed site are located in the Technical demand estimate, and thus the amount of Appendix. These diagrams show 30’ single‐ parking is in line with what would be expected unit trucks accessing the loading docks via the in the District core. alley without difficulties.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 14

BICYCLE FACILITIES  Carpooling/vanpooling, employee The proposed PUD provides both short and shuttles, and improvements that long term bicycle parking, taking advantage of encourage bicycling and walking its location in a bicycle friendly area of the  Financial incentives, such as preferential District. parking for ride‐sharers and transit subsidies The proposed landscape includes short‐term  Congestion avoidance strategies, such as public bicycle spaces near building entrances compressed work weeks, flexible work and public places. These short‐term spaces schedules and telecommuting will include inverted U‐racks placed in high‐ visibility areas. The current plans show three Proposed TDM Plan racks, or six short‐term bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant’s proposed TDM plan is as follows: Additionally, the development includes  The Applicant will comply with zoning secured long‐term bicycle parking within the requirements to provide bicycle parking garage. The current site plans show parking/storage facilities. As stated 39 long‐term bicycle parking spaces within the earlier, the Applicant proposes to greatly garage. Based on District zoning regulations exceed these minimums. and laws, a development is required to  The Applicant commits that all parking provide bicycle parking spaces equivalent to 5 costs be unbundled from the cost of lease percent of the required (or provided) or purchase. Parking costs will be set at vehicular parking spaces. This would equate no less than the charges of the lowest fee to 5 spaces for this development. Thus, the garage located within ¼ mile. proposed PUD is greatly exceeding the bicycle  The Applicant will identify a project’s parking minimums. TDM Leader (for planning, construction, TDM and operations), and provide DDOT/Zoning Enforcement with annual TDM (Transportation Demand Management) TDM Leader contact updates. is the application of policies and strategies  The Applicant will post all TDM used to reduce travel demand or to commitments on‐line, publicize redistribute demand to other times of day availability, and allow the public to see when there is capacity. TDM typically focuses what commitments have been promised. on reducing the demand of single‐occupancy private vehicles during peak period travel  The Applicant will provide website links times or on shifting single‐occupancy to CommuterConnections.com and vehicular demand to off‐peak periods. goDCgo.com on developer and property management websites. TDM’s importance within the District is  The Applicant will install a Transportation highlighted within section T‐3.1 of the DC Information Center Display (kiosk) within Comprehensive Plan, where it has its own the office building and church lobbies dedicated section including TDM policies and containing printed materials related to actions. As stated in the Plan, the Washington local transportation alternatives, and DC, metropolitan region is a leader in maintain a stock of materials at all times. developing and implementing TDM strategies.  The Applicant will provide reserved spaces for carpools that are conveniently located with respect to the elevators Typical TDM programs include: ZONING COMMISSION serving the buildings. District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 15

IMPACTS REVIEW

This section of the TIS includes a review of MULTI‐MODAL TRIP GENERATION potential impacts of the application to the Traditionally, trip generation for a proposed surrounding transportation network. It development is calculated based on the includes: methodology outlined in ITE’s (Institute of  A summary of the project’s multi‐modal Transportation Engineers’) Trip Generation, th trip generation. This information is used 9 Edition. The trip generation rates as an input to the remaining analyses, contained in Trip Generation are for suburban and provides a general level of potential site, with minimal use of non‐auto modes. impacts just through summarizing the Thus, for this report, Gorove/Slade amount of trips on each mode the project supplemented the ITE methodology to will generate. account for the urban nature of the site. The  A summary of a vehicular capacity following summarizes the methodology that analysis designed to determine if the was used in this study: project creates a negative impact on the roadway network. A negative impact 1. First, the vehicular trip generation was occurs when the project creates an calculated using ITE methodologies, and unacceptable level of service to a converted from vehicular‐trips to person‐ component of the surrounding trips, to account for how more than one transportation network. This report person on average occupies a vehicle. The determines impacts by comparing two average vehicle occupancy assumptions project future scenarios, (1) without the are based on information contained in proposed application being approved the National Household Transportation (referred to as background conditions), Survey (2009, Federal Highway and (2) with the application approved and Administration). The results of this constructed (referred to as total future calculation are contained in Table 5. conditions).  A review of impacts to non‐auto modes 2. Second, the person‐trips were assigned to near the project, reviewing how the trip the various modes of travel using an generation estimates for non‐auto modes assumed mode split for the project. For will be accommodated, and the adequacy the purpose of this analysis, both office of the transportation network. and church land uses were assumed to  A review of crash rates, using data have the same modes split. Thi is because provided by the District and the turning people traveling to and from the Church movement counts collected to determine during peak commuter periods will most a crash rate for each study intersection. likely be employees working typical office hours. The mode split estimates for 900

Table 5: Base Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use ITE Land Use Code Quantity In Out Total In Out Total Church 560 Church 11,722 SF 4 3 7 4 5 9 Retail 820 Shopping Center (rate) 3,817 SF 2 2 4 7 8 15 Office 710 General Office Building 125,246 SF 198 27 225 37 182 219 New Site Vehicular Trips – ITE Rates 204 32 236 48 ZONING195 COMMISSION243 District of Columbia Person Trips – Church/Retail – Assumes 1.8 persons/vehicle 11 9 20 20 23 43 Person Trips – Office – Assumes 1.1 persons/vehicle 218 30 248 Case41 No.200 13-04 241 21C Total Person‐Trips 229 39 267 61 224 284 16

16th Street were developed using survey Street retail component. The weekday information contained in WMATA’s 2005 peak hour mode split is summarized Development‐Related Ridership Survey. below in Table 6. Although typically an average of several sites is used to determine an appropriate 3. Finally, the vehicular mode split is mode split, Ridership Survey data from converted from person‐trips to vehicle‐ 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue alone was trips using the same vehicle occupancy used due do its similar characteristics to assumptions as before. Table 8 shows the development site, notably distance the resulting trips made by mode. from the Metro and overall location. For the retail component, there is only one study location located within the District: U Street Main Street. The proposed

development has very similar characteristics to the U Street Main

Street therefore the mode split for this study location was used for the 900 16th

Table 6: Multi‐Modal Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Generation by Land Use & Mode In Out Total In Out Total Church Metrorail Person‐Trips 56% 4 3 7 4 5 9 Metrobus Person‐Trips 16% 1 1 2 1 2 3 Walking Person‐Trips 2% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycling Person‐Trips 1% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicular Person‐Trips 25% 2 1 3 2 2 4 Vehicle‐Trips 1 1 2 1 1 2 Retail Metrorail Person‐Trips 44% 2 1 3 6 6 12 Metrobus Person‐Trips 13% 1 0 1 2 2 4 Walking Person‐Trips 18% 1 1 2 2 3 5 Bicycling Person‐Trips 7% 1 0 1 1 1 2 Vehicular Person‐Trips 19% 1 1 2 2 3 5 Vehicle‐Trips 1 0 1 1 2 3 Office Metrorail Person‐Trips 56% 122 7 139 23 112 135 Metrobus Person‐Trips 16% 35 5 40 7 32 39 Walking Person‐Trips 2% 4 1 5 1 4 5 Bicycling Person‐Trips 1% 2 0 2 0 2 2 Vehicular Person‐Trips 25% 55 7 62 10 50 60 Vehicle‐Trips 50 6 56 9 46 55 Total Trips Metrorail Person‐Trips 128 21 149 33 123 156 Metrobus Person‐Trips 37 6 43 10 56 46 Walking Person‐Trips 5 2 7 3 7 10 Bicycling Person‐Trips 3 0 3 1 3 4 Vehicular Person‐Trips 58 9 67 14 55 69 ZONING COMMISSION Total Vehicle‐Trips 52 7 59 11 49 60 District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 17

VEHICULAR CAPACITY ANALYSIS access. They do not necessarily include all The vehicular capacity analysis is the main congested intersections near the project. component of this TIS used to determine if the project generates a negative impact. A For this TIS, the following intersections were negative impact occurs when the project selected as they represent the intersections creates an unacceptable level of service to a that are most likely to experience an impact component of the surrounding transportation from the project based on the directions network. This report determines if a negative vehicles to travel to and from the parking impact occurs by comparing two project garage driveway: th future scenarios, (1) without the proposed 1. 17 St and I (Eye) St NW th application being approved (referred to as 2. 17 St/Connecticut Ave and I (Eye) St NW th background conditions), and (2) with the 3. 16 St and I (Eye) St NW th application approved and constructed 4. 15 St and I (Eye) St NW (referred to as total future conditions). 5. Proposed Site Access at I (Eye) St NW

Study Area In addition to a set of study intersections, a The study area is a set of intersections TIS also selects multiple scenarios to evaluate. selected because they represent locations Typically, the differences between the where impacts from the project are most scenarios are minor, so as to determine the likely to occur. They include intersections incremental impact of each variable added where a significant percentage of future from scenario to scenario. traffic will be attributable to the project, For this TIS, the study scenarios are as follows: intersections where the project will generate a large amount of turning traffic, and  2012 Existing Conditions – this scenario intersections close to the project’s parking represents the existing conditions at the

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 Figure 10: Study Area Intersections 21C 18

time the vehicular data was collected in adjusts the roadway geometry and late 2012. It is used as a basis for the operations to account for any funded future scenarios. improvements in the study area  2016 Background Conditions ‐ this intersections. scenario adds to the existing scenario (1)  2016 Total Future Conditions – this traffic generated by any approved project scenario adds to the background scenario that has an origin or destination within the trip generation attributable to the the study area intersections and is project, as shown in the prior section. planned to be complete by 2016, and (2) a background growth percentage to Table 7 summarizes the assumptions and account for other development outside of inputs in the vehicular analyses. A detailed the study area passing through. It also description is provided after the summary.

Table 7: Summary of Analysis Assumptions 2012 Existing Conditions  Volumes o Existing Turning Movement Counts . Thursday, September 20, 2012 . Wednesday, December 12, 2012 . Counts taken from 7:00 – 10:00 AM and 4:00 – 7:00 PM . Count sheets in Technical Appendix . System Peak: 8:15 – 9:15 AM and 5:15 – 6:15 PM  Geometry/Operations o Geometries and lane configurations based on existing conditions o Signal timings/phasings/offsets provided by DDOT 2016 Future Conditions without Development (2016 Background)  Volumes: 2012 Existing Conditions, PLUS o Background developments: . Developments assumed completed by 2016  1000 Connecticut Ave NW  1200 17th Street NW  1700 NY Ave NW . Trip generation based on ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition . Mode split determined based on WMATA Ridership Survey . Trip distribution and route assignment determined for each development separately in order to appropriately account for the variance in travel routes due to one‐way streets . Total AM peak hour trips assigned: 275; Total PM peak hour trips assigned: 265 o Background growth percentage: . 1 percent per year assumed and applied to all through movements  Geometry/Operations o Same as existing conditions 2016 Future Conditions with Development (2016 Total Future)  Volumes: 2016 Background Conditions, PLUS o Site trip generation based on ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition . Total AM peak hour trips assigned: 59; Total PM peak hour trips assigned: 60 o Mode split determined based on comparable projects from WMATA Ridership Survey . Office and church land uses based on the office mode split of 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue . Retail land use based on the retail mode split of U Street Main Street o Trip distribution for vehicles based on existing traffic volumes and travel patterns in the study ZONING COMMISSION area, along with an analysis of probable travel routes. District of Columbia  Geometry/Operations o Same as existing conditions Case No. 13-04 21C 19

Volume Assumptions and afternoon periods that contains the The basis of the existing conditions analysis is highest cumulative traffic demands. From a set of turning movement counts at the study each peak period count, the morning and area intersections. DDOT and National afternoon peak hours are determined by standards require that traffic be counted on a summing up the four fifteen‐minute weekday, not including Monday or Friday, consecutive time periods in the study area when traffic conditions can be described as that experience the highest cumulative traffic typical. This includes consideration for volumes. These peak hours are analyzed for adjacent uses, such as retail, special events, the system of intersections investigated, and recreation facilities and for major traffic choosing the peak hour of the entire system generators, such as the area public school instead of each individual intersection. system or any large public or private institutions. Weekend and other off‐peak Following the above guidelines, traffic counts, periods are often reviewed if the study area including vehicular and pedestrian volumes, includes other uses that may be relatively were conducted by Gorove/Slade at the key inactive during the typical weekday. study intersections between the hours of 7:00 and 10:00 AM and 4:00 and 7:00 PM on Traffic counts conducted on typical days are September 20, 2012 and December 12, 2012. used to determine the morning and afternoon The results of the traffic counts are included peak hour of traffic within the study area. The in the Technical Appendix. The morning and peak hour represents the worst‐case scenario, afternoon peak hours for the system of when the system traffic volumes are the intersections being studied occurred between highest. The use of a typical weekday morning 8:15 to 9:15 AM and 5:15 to 6:15 PM, and afternoon peak hours are used to ensure respectively. that conclusions regarding adverse impacts and their respective mitigation measures The 2016 Background scenario adds to the would apply to the vast majority of time existing scenario (1) traffic generated by any roadways are used in the study area. approved project that has an origin or destination within the study area In order to ensure that the data collected intersections and is planned to be complete contains the peak hour, traffic counts are by 2016, and (2) a background growth taken for a period of several hours during the percentage to account for other development morning and afternoon peak periods. From outside of the study area passing through. these peak periods, a peak hour is derived for both the morning and the afternoon time This analysis includes three background periods. According to the Transportation developments. Trips were generated for these Impact Analyses for Site Development Manual developments using similar methodologies as published by the Institute of Transportation the project generated trips, starting with ITE’s th Engineers (ITE), data is generally collected Trip Generation, 9 Edition. The WMATA during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 Ridership Survey was used to determine non‐ AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak auto reduction rates in order to account for hours. Although this is the standard, trips taken by walking, bicycling, and transit. GoroveSlade usually collects data for a three‐ The mode split assumptions were based on hour (or longer) period to ensure that the the patterns and general findings from that peak hour is contained within. document, observations of existing traffic, and the type and density of surrounding land The peak period counts are analyzed to uses. Table 8 summarizes the mode split ZONING COMMISSION determine the one hour during the morning assumptions for the background District of Columbia Case No. 13-04 21C 20

Table 8: Mode Split Assumptions for Background Mode Split Land Use Metrobus/ Metro Walk Bicycle Automobile Other Transit Office 60% 10% 4% 1% 25% Retail 45% 10% 15% 5% 25%

Table 9 shows the total number of trips on I (Eye) Street was not available thus a more generated by the background developments. specific growth rate could not be obtained. This growth rate was applied to through These trips were then distributed and movements of all roadways in the study area. assigned to the network. Due to the frequency of one‐way streets in the vicinity of The 2016 Total Future scenario adds to the the background development, a trip background scenario the vehicular trip distribution and assignment was applied to generation attributable to the project, as each development separately in order to most described in the prior section. Existing traffic accurately predict the impacts of generated volumes and travel patterns in the study area trips. The trip distribution was primarily based were analyzed in order to determine the trip upon existing turning movement counts and distribution and assignment for the trips an analysis of likely inbound and outbound added by the proposed development. A vehicular travel paths. separate trip distribution was obtained for inbound and outbound trips to take into In addition to the background developments, account the numerous one‐way roadways inherent growth on the study area roadways that greatly affect the most desirable path of due to ambient growth near the site was travel. Additionally, a separate trip accounted for with a 1 percent per year distribution was determined for the AM and growth rate compounded annually over the PM peak hours for the outbound trips study period. Historical daily volume data because 17th Street (east of the square) is

Table 9: Trip Generation for Background Developments Trip Generation Land Use Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday In Out Total In Out Total Total 1. 1000 Connecticut Avenue NW Office Component 394,000 Square Feet 504 69 573 88 432 520 3722 Non‐Auto Reduction ‐75% ‐378 ‐52 ‐430 ‐66 ‐324 ‐390 ‐2792 Retail Component 15,246 Square Feet 9 6 15 27 29 57 651 Non‐Auto Reduction ‐75% ‐7 ‐4 ‐11 ‐20 ‐22 ‐42 ‐488 Total 128 19 147 29 115 144 1093 2. 1200 17th Street NW Office Component 170,000 Square Feet 257 35 293 46 223 269 1965 Non‐Auto Reduction ‐75% ‐193 ‐26 ‐219 ‐34 ‐168 ‐202 ‐1474 Total 64 9 73 11 56 67 491 3. 1700 New York Avenue NW ZONING COMMISSION Office Component 120,000 Square Feet 195 27 221 36 177 213 1508 District of Columbia Non‐Auto Reduction ‐75% ‐146 ‐20 ‐166 ‐27 ‐133 ‐160 ‐1131 Case No. 13-04 Total 49 7 55 9 44 21C53 377 21 Total Vehicle Trips 241 34 275 49 215 265 1961

one‐way southbound during the AM peak Analysis Results hour. Therefore, some drivers will take Intersection capacity analyses were different routes during the AM and PM peak performed for the three scenarios at the hours. intersections contained within the study area during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Roadway Geometry and Operations Synchro, Version 7.0 was used to analyze the Gorove/Slade conducted field reconnaissance study intersections based on the Highway to confirm the existing lane configurations Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The and traffic controls at the intersections within results of the capacity analyses are expressed the study area. The right‐most lanes on 16th in level of service (LOS) and delay (seconds Street and I (Eye) Street are generally used for per vehicle) for each approach. A LOS grade is parking, however during the AM and PM peak a letter grade based on the average delay (in hours parking is restricted to accommodate seconds) experienced by motorists traveling additional vehicular traffic. Thus for the through an intersection. LOS results range purpose of this study these lanes will be from “A” being the best to “F” being the considered through lanes as opposed to worst. LOS D or better is typically used as the th parking lanes. It should also be noted that 17 acceptable LOS threshold in the District; Street/Connecticut Avenue (East of Farragut althoughS LO grades of E or F are sometimes Square) acts as a one‐way southbound accepted in urbanized areas. roadway from the hours of 7:00 – 9:30 AM. Existing signal timings and offsets were The LOS capacity analyses were based on: (1) obtained from DDOT and confirmed during the peak hour traffic volumes; (2) the lane use field reconnaissance. and traffic; and (3) the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies (using Synchro The lane configurations and traffic controls for 7 software). The average delay of each the 2016 future conditions without the approach and LOS is shown for the signalized proposed development are based on the 2012 intersections in addition to the overall existing conditions. No roadway infrastructure average delay and intersection LOS grade. The changes were assumed for the future HCM does not give guidelines for calculating conditions without redevelopment for 2016. the average delay for a two‐way stop‐ controlled intersection, as the approaches The lane configurations and traffic controls for without stop signs would technically have no the 2016 future conditions with the proposed delay. Detailed LOS descriptions ande th development are based on the 2012 existing analysis worksheets are contained in the conditions. No roadway infrastructure Technical Appendix. changes were assumed for the future conditions with development for 2016. The analysis results showed that all study However, a new curb cut for the below‐grade intersections operate at acceptable conditions parking garage will be added along I (Eye) during the morning and afternoon peak hours Street just east of the existing parking garage for the 2012 Existing, 2016 Background, and access for the adjacent building. 2016 Future scenarios. Therefore, no mitigation strategies are suggested for the study intersections.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 22

The following graphics and tables present the results of the vehicular capacity analyses. First, Figure 11 and Figure 12 contain a summary of the analysis results. Second, Figure 13 details the inbound trip generation and distribution of project generated traffic, and Figure 14 and Figure 15, the outbound. Finally, a figured is presente for each study area intersection containing all of the lane configuration, geometry, operations, and volume assumptions, and a table is presented for each intersection containing the capacity analysis results and a discussion of those results.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 23

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Figure 11: Capacity Analysis Results, AM Peak Hour Case No. 13-04 21C 24

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Figure 12 Capacity Analysis Results, PM Peak Hour Case No. 13-04 21C 25

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Figure 13: Trip Assignment, Inbound Case No. 13-04 21C

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Figure 14: Trip Assignment, Outbound AM Peak Case No. 13-04 21C 27

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Figure 15: Trip Assignment, Outbound PM Peak Case No. 13-04 21C 28

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 29 Figure 16: Analysis Data – Int. #1

Capacity Analysis Results – I (Eye) Street and 17th Street NW (Intersection #1) AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Level of Service and Delay (sec/vehicle) Percentile Queue (feet) Existing Background Tot. Future Storage Existing Background Total Future Approach LOS / Delay LOS / Delay LOS / Delay Link Length (ft) 50th 95th 50th 95th 50th 95th Overall C / 34.5 D / 35.8 D / 36.5 WB Left I St 180 ** * * * * Westbound I St D / 44.2 D / 47.1 D / 48.5 WB Thru/Right I St 180 190 248 196 256 201 263 Northbound 17th B / 19.9 B / 19.8 B / 19.8 NB Left 17th St 130 54 101 54 101 54 101 Southbound 17th C / 31.6 C / 32.4 C / 32.4 NB Thru/Right 17th St 300 71 92 78 100 78 100 SB Thru/Right 17th St 310 141 182 158 202 158 202 * Volume exceeds capacity Analysis Summary & Concerns: Intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all scenarios. Queuing Review of Potential Improvements analysis shows an existing issue ‐ queues extending back from I Street Synchro optimization of timings shows past the next block, which is expected on such a short block. improvement to WB I Street (including Signal timing changes queuing). Improvement comes from (splits & offsets reallocation of NB green to WB green. DDOT only): Field Observations: may want to investigate this further as a Field observations at peak times mostly match analysis results. potential improvement. During the peak hours some pedestrians were observed jaywalking Removal of NB protected left has significant during the leading protected NB left turn, although all vehicles were Signal timing changes benefits in Synchro, but this is not observed making the turn in a single cycle. (including phasing): recommended due to pedestrian crossing activity (see field observations). Restriping the WB left/thru lane into a left only Project Impact: lane (and creating a double‐left turn lane) Project trips travelling through the intersection, and their associated shows significant improvements in Synchro. impacts are negligible. Queuing issues are an existing problem and Lane restriping: This improvement is infeasible though, given are mostly a result of the short block spacing due to Farragut Square. how curb lanes revert to parking in non‐peak No mitigation required. hour conditions. Curbside changes on None, all peak hour parking is restricted Percent Total Future Volumes Attributable to Project: approaches: already. Project Existing Background Time Period Generated Other operational Counts Volumes None recommended. Volumes changes: AM Peak 93.9% 5.9% 0.2% Addition of turn PM Peak 93.4% 5.6% 1.0% None recommended. lanes:

Other geometry or widening None recommended. improvements: ZONING COMMISSION Table 10: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #1 District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 30

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 Figure 17: Analysis Data – Int. #2 21C 31

Capacity Analysis Results – I (Eye) Street and 17th Street NW/Connecticut Ave (Intersection #2) AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Analysis Summary & Concerns: Intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all scenarios. Review of Potential Improvements Signal timing changes Synchro optimization shows slight, non‐ (splits & offsets significant improvement. only): Field Observations: Signal timing changes Field observations at peak times match analysis results. None recommended. (including phasing):

Lane restriping: None recommended. Project Impact: Project trips travelling through the intersection, and their associated Curbside changes on None, all peak hour parking is restricted impacts are negligible. No mitigation required. approaches: already.

Other operational None recommended. changes: Percent Total Future Volumes Attributable to Project: Project Addition of turn Existing Background None recommended. Time Period Generated lanes: Counts Volumes Volumes Other geometry or AM Peak 95.6% 3.9% 0.4% widening None recommended. improvements: PM Peak 92.8% 4.1% 3.1%

Table 11: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #2

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 32

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Figure 18 Analysis Data – Int. #3 Case No. 13-04 21C 33

Capacity Analysis Results – I (Eye) Street and 16th Street NW (Intersection #3) AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Other operational None recommended. changes: Percent Total Future Volumes Attributable to Project: Project Addition of turn Existing Background None recommended. Time Period Generated lanes: Counts Volumes Volumes Other geometry or AM Peak 94.1% 3.1% 2.7% widening None recommended. improvements: PM Peak 96.4% 3.0% 0.6%

Table 12: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #3

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 34

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C Figure 19 Analysis Data – Int. #4 35

Capacity Analysis Results – I (Eye) Street and 15th Street NW (Intersection #4) AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Other operational None recommended. changes: Percent Total Future Volumes Attributable to Project: Project Addition of turn Existing Background None recommended. Time Period Generated lanes: Counts Volumes Volumes Other geometry or AM Peak 95.8% 3.5% 0.7% widening None recommended. improvements: PM Peak 96.6% 3.1% 0.4%

Table 13: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #4

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 36

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 Figure 20: Analysis Data – Int. #5 21C 37

Capacity Analysis Results – I (Eye) Street and Garage Access (Intersection #5) AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

Analysis Summary & Concerns: Intersection operates at acceptable LOS under all scenarios. Review of Potential Improvements

Convert to traffic Not recommended (wouldn’t meet warrants). signal?:

Field Observations: N/A. Lane restriping: None recommended.

Curbside changes on None, all peak hour parking is restricted approaches: already. Project Impact: Project trips travelling through the intersection, and their associated Other operational None recommended. impacts are negligible. Site access drive operates at acceptable changes: conditions. No mitigation required. Addition of turn None recommended. lanes: Percent Total Future Volumes Attributable to Project: Other geometry or Project Existing Background widening None recommended. Time Period Generated Counts Volumes improvements: Volumes AM Peak 91.9% 3.6% 4.6% PM Peak 91.8% 3.3% 5.0%

Table 14: Capacity Analysis Results ‐ Int. #5

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 38

NON‐AUTO MODES farecard gates. Although the McPherson Transit Square station is currently, and will remain, one of the high‐ridership stations, it is not The proposed development is expected to expected to have any vertical or faregate generate 149 Metrorail trips and 43 Metrobus capacity issues under future conditions. trips during the AM peak hour; 156 Metrorail trips and 46 Metrobus trips during the PM Additional Metrorail trips generated by the peak hour. This increase in transit trips is site may be added to stations with existing primarily generated by office component of capacity issues, however these issues will the development. As stated earlier, there is a continue to worsen regardless of the significant amount of transit service nearby, proposed development due to the expected including the Metrorail blue, orange, and red economic and population growth in and lines serviced by the Farragut West, Farragut around the District. The site is located in the North, and McPherson Square stations. In central business district and a large amount of addition there are several Metrobus routes commuter traffic via Metrorail is expected. and stops within walking distance of the site. The current Metrorail capacity issues

determined in the study are addressed and WMATA studied capacity of Metrorail stations potential improvements have been identified in its 2008 Station Access & Capacity Study. such as adding southeast mezzanine‐to‐ The study analyzed capacity of Metrorail platform vertical capacity at the Farragut stations for their vertical transportation, for North station in addition to construction of a example the capacity of the station at pedestrian tunnel that connects the Farragut elevators, stairs, and escalators to shuttle North and Farragut West stations. patrons between the street, mezzanine, and platforms. The study also analyzed stations WMATA also studies capacity for its bus capacity to process riders at farecard gates. routes in DC’s Transit Future System Plan, For both analyses, vertical transportation and which listse th bus routes with the highest farecard gates, volume to capacity ratios were load factor (a ratio of passenger volume to calculated for existing data (from 2005) and bus capacity). There are 24 bus routes that projections for the year 2030. Based on pass near the development and 9 of these are findings presented in the Station Access & considered high load routes as summarized in Capacity Study, the southeast mezzanine at Table 13. For the purpose of the study, a load the Farragut North station currently warrants factor over 1.2 in peak periods or over 1.0 in improvements for vertical transportation as it off‐peak periods/weekends exceeds has a volume to capacity ratio above 0.75. The acceptable load standards. Due to the west mezzanine of the Farragut West station abundance of bus routes that travel through currently warrants a study of the vertical the study area, the Metrobus trips generated transportation as the volume to capacity ratio by the development will not cause is between 0.5 and 0.75. Ridership at the detrimental impacts to the existing high load Farragut West station is not expected to bus routes. These issues have been addressed increase such that the volume to capacity and the need for additional transit options has ratio increases above 0.75. Additionally, it is been acknowledged within DC’s Transit Future more likely that people going to or coming System Plan through the reestablishment of from the site will utilize the east mezzanine of the DC Streetcar system. This system will add the Farragut West station. Both the Farragut additional capacity to DC’s overall public North and the Farragut West stations have transportation system and take some of the acceptable volume to capacity ratios for ZONING COMMISSION load off of high capacity bus routes. District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 39

Table 15: Bus Load Factors in Major Corridors Route Numbers Corridor Load Factor 42 Mount Pleasant Line 1.41 (all day) S2, S4 16th Street Line 1.41 (peak) X2 H Street, Benning Road 1.34 (peak) 32, 36 Wisconsin Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue 1.20 (peak) D1, D3, D6 Sibley Hospital/Stadium Armory 1.06 (all day), 1.35 (Saturday)

Bicycle A bicycle link analysis was performed at The trip generation for cycling is the lowest of segments near the vicinity of the site based the modes analyzed for this project. The on the anticipated bicycle routes discussed in development is projected to generate 3 Section 1.5. Each link was evaluated based bicycle trips during the AM peak hour and 4 upon methodology outlined in Chapter 17 of bicycle trips during the PM peak hour. the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Although bicycling will be an important mode which discusses urban street segments. This for getting to and from the site, the impacts analysis is meant to evaluate the performance from bicycling will be relatively less than of an urban street segment in terms of its impacts to other modes. service to bicyclists. The results of the capacity analyses are expressed in level of Bicycle segment counts were taken on service (LOS) for each segment. A LOS grade is Wednesday, December 12, 2012 and January a letter grade based on the bicyclist’s 30, 2013 from 8:00 to 10:00 AM and 4:00 to perception of safety and comfort on a 6:00 PM. The AM and PM peak hours were particular road segment. LOS results range determined to be 8:15 to 9:15 AM and 5:00 to from “A” being the best quality of service to 6:00 PM, respectively. The peak hour bicycle “F” being the worst. volumes are shown on Figure 21. Figure 22 displays the LOS results for the bicycle links around the site. nAs ca be seen, all links operate at an acceptable LOS for bicyclists under existing conditions. Detailed methodology and calculations are located in the Technical Appendix.

Based on the low trip generation and the overall quality of the routes near the project’s location, the 900 16th Street site will not have a negative impact to bicycle facilities in the study area.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 40

Figure 21: Existing Peak Hour Bicycle Volumes

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 41

Figure 22: Bicycle Link LOS

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 42

Pedestrian The development is expected to generate 7 Pedestrian delay at crosswalks at the study walking trips during the AM peak hour and 10 area intersections was evaluated. The analysis walking trips during the PM peak hour. The was based on “Chapter 18: Pedestrians” of origins and destinations of these trips are the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The attributable to employees and patrons who methodology for signalized intersections was live within walking distance of the used in order to estimate the average delay development. Additionally, the transit trips experienced by a pedestrian at a signalized generated by the site will also generate crosswalk (the amount of time waiting for a pedestrian demand between 900 16th Street “Walk” sign). As stated in the HCM, and the nearby transit stops. pedestrian delayt is no constrained by capacity, even when pedestrian flow rates Pedestrian counts were taken at all study reach 5,000 pedestrians per hour (pph). This intersection crosswalks in addition to calculation is based on the effective green sidewalks within the study area on time programmed for pedestrians and the Wednesday, December 12, 2012 from 7:00 to cycle length, and it is rated by the amount of 10:00 AM and 4:00 to 7:00 PM. The AM and delay experienced. Therefore the pedestrian PM peak hours were 8:15 to 9:15 AM and delay will be the same for existing and future 5:15 to 6:00 PM, respectively. The volumes of conditions since there are no proposed pedestrians crossing study area intersections changes to the existing signal timings. The are shown on the intersection diagrams in the results of the signalized intersection analyses vehicular analysis section above. Figure 23 are expressed in LOS and delay (seconds) for below shows the peak hour volumes on each crosswalk. LOS results range from “A” sidewalks near the project. being the best to “F” being the worst. The

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Figure 23: Pedestrian Sidewalk Volumes Case No. 13-04 21C 43

delay and LOS show the likelihood that a Table 16 shows the results of the capacity pedestrian will not comply with a traffic‐ analyses, including LOS and average delay (in control device (i.e. jaywalking). According to seconds). The analysis results indicate thate th the HCM, when pedestrians experience more majority of signalized crosswalks in the study than a 30‐second delay, they become area operate at a level of service D or better impatient and may engage in risk‐taking during both the morning and afternoon peak behavior. The likelihood of non‐compliance hours for the existing conditions. This reflects low to moderate conflicting volumes. indicated a low (LOS A and B) to moderate At intersections with high conflicting vehicle (LOS C and D) likelihood of non‐compliance by volumes, pedestrians have little choice but to pedestrians. The study intersections with wait for the walk signal. Therefore, observed crosswalks operated at LOS E will experience a non‐compliance is reduced at these locations. moderate to high likelihood of non‐ compliance.

Table 16: Pedestrian Delay LOS Crosswalk SpecificationsCycle Existing & Future Conditions Intersection Parallel Approximate Length AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach Length “Walk” Time Delay LOS “Walk” Time Delay LOS I (Eye) Street NW & 17th Street NW Eastbound 70 100 28 25.9 C 24 28.9 C Westbound 75 100 28 25.9 C 24 28.9 C Northbound 46 100 18 33.6 D 22 30.4 D Southbound 44 100 21 31.2 D 25 28.1 C I (Eye) Street NW & 17th Street/Connecticut Avenue NW Eastbound 41 100 38 19.2 B 42 16.8 B Westbound 39 100 36 20.5 C 39 18.6 B Northbound 38 100 33 22.4 C 29 25.2 C Southbound 45 100 36 20.5 C 32 23.1 C I (Eye) Street NW & 16th Street NW Eastbound 56 100 18 33.6 D 13 37.8 D Westbound 54 100 22 30.4 D 17 34.4 D Northbound 51 100 23 29.6 C 15 36.1 D Southbound 53 100 17 34.4 D 9 41.4 E I (Eye) Street NW & 15th Street NW Eastbound 43 100 13 37.8 D 8 42.3 E Westbound 42 100 33 22.4 C 46 14.6 B Northbound 51 100 39 18.6 B 26 27.4 C Southbound 54 100 14 37.0 D 10 40.5 E

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 44

A pedestrian link analysis was performed at Figure 27 displays the LOS results for each segments near the vicinity of the site based pedestrian link within the study area. The on the predicted pedestrian routes to and sidewalks directly outside of the site were from the site. Each pedestrian link was evaluated separately in order to determine if evaluated based upon the 2010 Highway changes to the site result in any changes to Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology outlined pedestrian link LOS. Detailed methodology in Chapter 17. This extensive methodology and calculations are located in the technical assesses each link based upond sidewalk an appendix. As can be seen in the figure, under roadway conditions, vehicle and pedestrian existing conditions all pedestrian links operate speeds, and many additional variables in at an acceptable LOS. The additional order to determine the performance of the pedestrian traffic generated by the proposed segment in terms of its service to pedestrians. development is not expected to create detrimental impacts to the pedestrian environment.

Figure 24: Pedestrian Segment LOS

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 45

CRASH DATA ANALYSIS This section of the report reviews available Four intersections in the study area meet this crash data within the study area, and reviews criterion. Thus, the project needs to be how the project may influence or impact developed in a manner to help alleviate, or at crash rates. The first step in the crash analysis minimum not add to, the conflicts at this was to assemble crash rates for the study area intersection. For these intersections, the crash intersections. Two factors go into the type information from the DDOT crash data calculation for crash rates; (1) crash data was reviewed to see if there is a high provided by DDOT from the last three years percentage of certain crash types. Generally, available (2010 to 2012), and (2) the the reasons for why an intersection has a high intersection turning movement counts. For crash rate cannot be derived from crash data, each intersection, the crash rate was as the exact details of each crash are not calculated in crashes per million‐entering represented. However, some summaries of vehicles (MEV). The rates per intersection are crash data can be used to develop general shown below. trends or eliminate some possible causes.

Although crash rates are not an exact measure of safety, they can help identify where a safety problem may exist. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Transportation Impact Analysis for Site Development, an accident rate of 1.0 or higher is an indication that further study is required. A rate 0over 1. does not necessarily mean there is a significant problem at an intersection, but rather it is a threshold used to identify which intersections may have higher crash rates due to operational, geometric, or other issues.

Table 17: Intersection Crash Rates Pedestrian Intersection Total Crashes Bike Crashes Rate per MEV* Crashes I (Eye) Street & 17th Street NW 74 5 0 2.93 I (Eye) Street & 17th Street/Connecticut Ave NW 23 3 0 1.40 I (Eye) Street & 16th Street NW 44 3 1 2.29 I (Eye) Street & 15th Street NW 44 0 2 2.32 * ‐ Million Entering Vehicles; volumes estimated based on turning movement count data

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 46

Table 18: High Crash Rate Intersections by Type Ride

Road

Object Angle Turn On

End Involved Collision Swiped

Off MEV Turn ‐

Rate per Right Left Right Rear Intersection Side Head Parked Fixed Ran Ped. Backing Non Under/Over Unspecified Total 1101523001002001 2.32 44 15th St and I (Eye) St (East) 2% 23% 2% 11% 52% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2% 432418220033003 2.29 44 16th St and I (Eye) St 9% 7% 5% 9% 41% 5% 5% 0% 0% 7% 7% 0% 0% 7% 10527000024002 1.40 23 17th St/Connecticut Ave and I (Eye) St 4% 0% 22% 9% 30% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 17% 0% 0% 9% 1451327062163006 2.93 74 17th St and I (Eye) St (West) 1% 5% 7% 18% 36% 0% 8% 3% 1% 8% 4% 0% 0% 8%

15th St and I (Eye) St (East) 17th St and I (Eye) St (West) This intersection was found to have a high This intersection was found to have a high crash rate of 2.31 crashes per MEV over the crash rate of 2.93 crashes per MEV over the course of the 3‐year study period. The course of the 3‐year study period. The majority of the crashes at this intersection majority of the crashes at this intersection were side‐swiped and turning vehicles. were side‐swiped and rear‐ended vehicles. Sideswipe crashes can often occur when a Sideswipe crashes can often occur when a vehicle makes a last‐second lane change or vehicle makes a last second lane change or in a location with a significant presence of in a location with a significant presence of on‐street parking. on‐street parking. Elevated rear‐end collision rates are typical at intersections 16th St and I (Eye) St controlled by a traffic signal. This intersection was found to have a high crash rate of 2.29 crashes per MEV over the Although there are many intersections within course of the 3‐year study period. The the study are that have a high crash rate, this majority of the crashes at this intersection report does not recommend mitigation were side‐swiped vehicles. Sideswipe measures as the proposed development is not crashes can often occur when a vehicle projected to make significant changes to the makes a last‐second lane change or in a commuting patterns, operations, or geometry location with a significant presence of on‐ of these intersections. street parking.

17th St/Connecticut Ave and I (Eye) St This intersection was found to have a somewhat high crash rate of 1.40 crashes per MEV over the course of the 3‐year study period. The majority of the crashes at this intersection were side‐swiped and turning vehicles. Sideswipe crashes can often occur when a vehicle makes a last‐second lane change or in a location with a significant presence of on‐street parking.

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 13-04 21C 47