DOCSLIB.ORG

Bicycle Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bicycle Facilities COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW SHEPHERD PARK PUD WASHINGTON, DC March 11, 2016 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 15-29 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.15-29 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.22B Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW 3914 Centreville Road 15125 Washington Street Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 136 Washington, DC 20036 Chantilly, VA 20151 Haymarket, VA 20169 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. Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Contents of Study .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Major Transportation Features .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Future Regional Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Project Design .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Site Access ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Loading ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 Parking ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 11 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Traffic Operations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Study Area, Scope, & Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Transit ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Proposed Transit Service ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Transit Site Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Pedestrian Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Pedestrian Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Site Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Proposed Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Site Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Crash Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................. 39 Summary of Available Crash Data ........................................................................................................................................................ 39 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figures Figure 1: Site Location ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Background Development Map .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3: Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4: Study Intersections ................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 5: Residential Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Figure 6: Proposed Supermarket Service Area ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 7: Retail Trip Distribution .............................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 8: Proposed Improvements at Georgia Avenue/Alaska Avenue/Kalmia Road ............................................................................. 27 Figure 9: Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 10: Pedestrian Pathways ............................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 11: Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 12: Existing Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Tables Table 1: Summary of Carshare Locations ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Summary of Loading Supply and Demand ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Compliance Application of The
    STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE APPLICATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, REPRESENTED BY THE AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY 1601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (Square 181, Lot 162) 1. Introduction The Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Australian Embassy, Washington DC (the “Embassy” or the “Applicant”), proposes to remove the existing Australian chancery building at 1601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (Square 181, Lot 162) and replace it with a new chancery building.1 The building will contain chancery office space, conference and meeting rooms, consular services, and accessory space. The replacement chancery building’s height, density, and lot occupancy will be generally consistent with that of the existing chancery building. As further detailed below, Foreign Missions Board of Zoning Adjustment (“FMBZA”) review is required for the proposed replacement chancery. The FMBZA has exclusive jurisdiction to review the proposed project pursuant to Section 206 of the Foreign Missions Act (22 USC § 4306) (the “Act”) and Subtitle X, Chapter 2 of the 2016 Zoning Regulations (“DCMR 11”), including public space approval and historic preservation approval pursuant to 11X DCMR §§ 201.8 and 203.7. The Act makes it clear that provisions of law other than the Act "shall apply to chanceries only to the extent that they are consistent with this section." 22 USC § 4306(j). Further, "[N]o act of any Federal agency shall be effective to confer or deny any benefit with respect to any foreign mission contrary to this Chapter." 22 USC § 4307. The final determination made by the FMBZA concerning the location, replacement or expansion of a chancery “shall not be subject to 1 “Chancery” is defined in the Zoning Regulations and in the Foreign Missions Act as “[t]he principal offices of a foreign mission used for diplomatic or related purposes, and annexes to such offices (including ancillary offices and support facilities), including the site and any building on such site that is used for such purposes.” 11B DCMR § 100.2; 22 USC § 4302.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket/Notice of Public Hearing
    Notice of Public Hearing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Docket B17-01: Proposed FY2018 Operating Budget and Docket B17-02: Proposed FY2018 Capital Improvement Program and Federal FY2017 Grant Applications Purpose Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority on the two dockets noted above as follows: Hearing No. 613 Monday, January 30, 2017 Metro Headquarters Building 600 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Open House 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing at 5 p.m. Speaker registration is on-site only and closes at 9 p.m. Please note that this date is subject to Metro’s inclement weather cancellation policy. In the event of a cancellation, Metro will post information about a new hearing on wmata.com. The public hearing location is wheelchair accessible. Any individual who requires special assistance such as a sign language interpreter or additional accommodation to participate in the public hearing, or who requires these materials in an alternate format, should contact Danise Peña at 202-962-2511 or TTY: 202-962-2033 as soon as possible in order for Metro to make necessary arrangements. For language assistance, such as an interpreter or information in another language, please call 202-962-2582 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing date. For more information please visit www.wmata.com/budget. In accordance with Section 62 of the WMATA Compact, Metro will conduct a public hearing at the location listed in this notice. Information on the hearing will be provided in area libraries, in Metrorail stations, on Metrobus and MetroAccess vehicles, and online at www.wmata.com/budget.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation and Environment Committee
    T&E COMMITTEE #1 March 5, 2020 MEMORANDUM March 2, 2020 TO: Transportation and Environment Committee FROM: Glenn OrliI~enior Analyst SUBJECT: FY21-26 Capital Improvements Program (CIP}--transportation: mass transit and pedestrian facilities/bikeways projects, and Facility Planning-Transportation1 PURPOSE: Worksession Please bring the Executive's Recommended FY21-26 CIP to this worksession, This is the second Committee worksession scheduled to review the transportation portion of the FY21-26 CIP. This worksession will include a review of mass transit and pedestrian facilities/bikeways projects, and Facility Planning-Transportation. Staff anticipated to attend this worksession include: Chris Conklin, Director, Department of Transportation (DOT) Emil Wolanin, Deputy Director, DOT Tim Cupples, Chief, Division of Transportation Engineering, DOT Dan Hibbert, Chief, Division of Transit Services, DOT Fred Lees, Chief, Management Services, DOT Brady Goldsmith, Office of Management & Budget Sara Benson, Senior Transit Facilities Planner, WMATA Michael Hance, AECOM A. PRELIMINARIES A clarification is requested regarding the February 27 worksession. The Executive did not include PDFs for the Highway Noise Abatement and Dedicated but Unmaintained Roads projects in his Recommended FY21-26 CIP. Council staff had recommended retaining these PDFs in the CIP, but not showing funding within the six-year period. In addition, over the next two-year CIP cycle, Council staff recommends that DOT reevaluate whether the criteria for these two programs be revised or to scrap the programs altogether, and to bring its recommendations to the Council. However, at the worksession Council staff did not receive the Committee's recommendation. Council staff has requested certain short briefings as part of this worksession, noted in italics in this staff report.
    [Show full text]
  • Metrorail Extended Shutdown for 45 Days / Noma-Gallaudet U
    Metrorail Extended Shutdown for 45 days / NoMa-Gallaudet U - Fort Totten 7/21/18 - 9/3/18 From NoMa-Gallaudet U From Fort Totten Bus & Rail Tips *Regular / Express fares apply Local Shuttle Bus Pick-up Location: Local Shuttle Bus Pick-up Location: On street level, 2nd Street NE: Local to Bus Bay D: Local to Brookland-CUA, • Red Line shutdown between NoMa-Gallaudet U and Fort Totten Metrorail stations Rhode Island Ave, Brookland-CUA, and Rhode Island Ave, and NoMa-Gallaudet U • Metrorail stations closed: Brookland-CUA and Rhode Island Ave Fort Totten • During the weekend of July 28-29, the shutdown will extend to Silver Spring Metrorail Station Metrobus routes from this station: • For more bus options use the Trip Planner on wmata.com Metrobus routes from this station: 60, 64: Fort Totten-Petworth Line • WMATA Customer Service (202) 637-7000 90, 92: U Street-Garfield Line • Pick-up locations: • Pick-up locations: - Bus Bay C: 60 - Bus Stop B: Florida Avenue & 3rd St. NE westbound - Bus Bay B: 64 Free Shuttle Bus Options towards U-Street and Adams Morgan • Metrorail stations served: (go under the bridge to cross Florida Avenue) - Georgia Ave-Petworth - Bus Stop C: Florida Avenue & 2nd St. NE eastbound - U St (Route 64 only) Express Shuttle Buses (Operates during weekday AM/PM rush hours only): Route 90 towards Anacostia - Metro Center (Route 64 only) • Brookland-CUA to Union Station Route 92 towards Congress Heights - Federal Triangle (Route 64 only) • Metrorail stations served: • Bus service: - Pick-up location at Brookland: Bus Bay D
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Corridor Network Plan
    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Priority Corridor Network Plan PRIORITY CORRIDOR NETWORK PLAN Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority PRIORITY CORRIDOR NETWORK PLAN Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority THE NEED FOR IMPROVED BUS SERVICES The Washington metropolitan area has Figure 1: Transit Modes Used Figure 2: Metrorail, Metrobus, and been growing steadily for the past 30 years Local Service Areas and is expected to continue to grow. Accord- ing to Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) estimates, jobs are expected to increase by 31 percent between 2008 and 2030, and population is expected to grow 26 percent over the same period. How- ever, the region is not growing uniformly. The outer suburbs are expected to grow much faster than the regional core, with dramatic increases in population and employment. The regional core and inner suburbs will still have the highest concentrations of jobs in 2030, but the inner and outer suburbs will have the ma- jority of the population. per year, and is expected to continue to grow Between 2000 and 2008, travel time by Me- as population and employment increase. This trobus has increased due to growing conges- The growth in population and employment growth has led to challenges for the Metrobus and the pattern of growth both are contribut- tion. For example, Route 52 on Fourteenth service. Not only has demand been increas- Street in Washington DC experienced nearly ing to increased vehicle travel. More people ing, but the added traffic congestion stem- are traveling longer distances to reach their a 14 percent increase in travel time, Route ming from regional growth has been increas- 29K on Little River Turnpike/Duke Street in places of employment and other destinations.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed DC Bus Changes
    FY22 Proposed Metrobus Service Changes District of Columbia FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS-SOUTHEAST LINE – ROUTES 30N, 30S SERVICE GUIDELINE SCORES Line Benefit Score 46 Line Classification Framework Overall Grade B Activity Tier 1 AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP Winter 2019-2020 Weekday Saturday Sunday Pre-Pandemic 4,947 3,774 3,795 PROPOSED CHANGES TO PRE-PANDEMIC SERVICE 1st half Fiscal Year 2022 (July-December 2021) • Eliminate service and replace with additional 31, 33 trips between downtown, Georgetown and Friendship Heights Metrorail Station, and additional 32, 36 trips between downtown, Capitol Hill and Naylor Road/Southern Ave. Metrorail stations 2nd half Fiscal Year 2022 (January-June 2022) • Continue proposed 1st half fiscal year adjustments PROPOSED SERVICE FREQUENCIES (minutes) Early Weekday Weekday Morning- FY 2022 Saturday Sunday Peak Off-Peak Late Evening (all days) July-December 2021 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A January-June 2022 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 1st half Fiscal Year 2022 (July-December 2021) • Routes 31, 33 between downtown, Georgetown and Friendship Heights Metrorail Station • Routes 32, 36 between downtown, Capitol Hill and Naylor Road/Southern Ave Metrorail station 2nd half Fiscal Year 2022 (January-June 2022) • Same as 1st half of fiscal year AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP Fall 2020 Weekday Saturday Sunday Total Ridership 2,092 N/A N/A Percentage affected 1 0% N/A N/A 1st Half FY 2022 Percentage affected 1 0% N/A N/A 2nd Half FY 2022 1 – Estimated percent of trips that can no longer board at the same stop using Metrobus.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia: 42, 43, 74, S2, S4, S9
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2019 Metrobus State of Good Operations ROUTES 42, 43 – MOUNT PLEASANT LINE BUDGET • Cost neutral PROPOSED CHANGE • During most off-peak periods (weekdays, middays and evenings; Saturdays; and Sunday mornings and afternoons), operate every-other trip as Route 43. These trips will connect Gallery Place and Mount Pleasant, operating under Dupont Circle. They will alternate with Route 42 trips serving Dupont Circle. Route 42 only would continue to operate early mornings and late nights daily, and evenings on Sundays. • Adjust the schedule to reflect traffic conditions and improve on-time performance and service reliability. • Eliminate the last round trip on weekday, Saturday and Sunday late nights due to low ridership. REASON FOR CHANGE • Respond to customer suggestions and public feedback: o This service plan was recommended in the Metrobus Service Evaluation Study: Mount Pleasant Line: 42, 43 and Connecticut Avenue Line: L1, L2 from October 2018. • Operating more trips under Dupont Circle will avoid congestion and provide faster travel time for passengers continuing past Dupont Circle in each direction. • Red Line connections will be maintained at Dupont Circle Metrorail Station on Route 42 and at Farragut North Metrorail Station on routes 42 and 43. • Adjust running time to provide a more realistic schedule and improve on-time performance and service reliability, with the goal of reaching at least 80% on-time performance in all time-periods. Recent on-time performance for the line is outlined below: December 2018-June
    [Show full text]
  • MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION Board of Zoning Adjustment District
    1140 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 202.296.8625 MEMORANDUM To: Jenna Jacobson Rock Creek Property Group David Avitabile Goulston & Storrs Jane Nelson Nelson Architects From: Tracy Jones-Schoenfeld Daniel Solomon Robert B. Schiesel, P.E. Daniel B. VanPelt, P.E., PTOE Date: June 9, 2017 Subject: 5 Thomas Circle – Comprehensive Transportation Review INTRODUCTION This memorandum presents a Comprehensive Transportation Review (CTR) of the proposed expansion of the National City Christian Church, located at 5 Thomas Circle in the Logan Circle neighborhood of Northwest Washington, DC. This document was prepared in support of the project’s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) application. Figure 1 identifies the regional site location within the District, and Figure 2 shows an aerial of the site in relation to its near vicinity. The site is currently improved with a three-story structure occupied by the National City Christian Church. The Campbell Wing, located on the western portion of the property, currently has 39,000 square feet of space which has included a variety of uses including office, educational, and childcare. The proposed project will add two floors with approximately 21,000 additional square feet of office space to the Campbell Wing. It is anticipated that this space will be primarily leased by tenants not affiliated with the National City Christian Church. The site is located 0.3 miles from the McPherson Square Metrorail Station, which provides direct connections to areas in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. Pedestrian facilities near the site provide excellent connections to transit and other destinations. The presence of numerous bike facilities near the site, including a Capital Bikeshare station directly adjacent to the site, will increase the use of non-vehicular travel modes to and from the site.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.0 DC Circulator Evaluation
    DC Circulator 2017 Transit Development Plan DRAFT DC Circulator 2017 TDP DRAFT Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................ 7 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 7 TDP Planning Process .................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.1. Stakeholder Input .................................................................................................................. 9 1.2.2. Public Outreach ................................................................................................................... 10 1.2.3. System-Level Approach ....................................................................................................... 10 1.2.4. Updated Operations Analysis .............................................................................................. 10 2.0 System Overview ...................................................................................................... 11 History ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................. 12 Hours of Operations ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pedestrian Facilities
    COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW CHILDREN’S NATIONAL AT WALTER REED Z.C. CASES NO. 19-24 AND 19-24A: TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENT WASHINGTON, DC January 27, 2020 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.19-24A EXHIBIT NO.7A Prepared by: 1140 Connecticut Avenue NW 3914 Centreville Road 15125 Washington Street Suite 600 Suite 330 Suite 212 Washington, DC 20036 Chantilly, VA 20151 Haymarket, VA 20169 Tel: 202.296.8625 Tel: 703.787.9595 Tel: 571.248.0992 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. Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................................... i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Standard VHB Memo Template
    January 29, 2010 Contract No. 09-049 An Evaluation of the Metrobus Priority Corridor Networks Draft Final Report Submitted to Metropolitan Washington Council of 777 North Capitol Street, N.E Governments Suite 300 Washington, District of Columbia 20002 Washington Metropolitan Area 600 5th Street, NW Transit Authority Washington, DC 20001 Submitted by In Association With: Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Shapiro Transportation Consulting, LLC 8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 Foursquare Integrated Transportation Planning Vienna, VA 22182 Gallop Corporation Contents Overview of Priority Corridor Network (PCN) Concept ...................................................... 1 PCN Concept ............................................................................................................................ 1 Current PCN Status ................................................................................................................. 1 PCN Evaluation Project .......................................................................................................... 4 PCN Evaluation Overall Findings ......................................................................................... 5 Overall Results of PCN Alternatives .................................................................................... 5 Results of Key Measures of Effectiveness in PCN Corridors ............................................ 7 PCN Impact on Regional Transit Ridership ...................................................................... 14 PCN Relationship
    [Show full text]