• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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

Load more

  51

Copy Link