DOCSLIB.ORG

Feasibility Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feasibility Study Feasibility Study Palisades Trolley Trail and Foundry Branch Trolley Trestle Bridge Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates Jacobs Traceries Commun-ET FINAL: December 2019 Feasibility Study Palisades Trolley Trail and Foundry Branch Trolley Trestle Bridge Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2 1.1. Opportunities and Constraints ...................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Concept Design ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1. Trail Alignment ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2. New Bridges .......................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3. Foundry Trestle Bridge .......................................................................................................... 9 1.2.4. New Connection to CCT ...................................................................................................... 10 1.2.5. Cost Estimates ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 12 2.1. Project Background ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2. Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.3. Neighborhood Context ............................................................................................................... 14 2.4. Review of Other Planning Documents ........................................................................................ 16 2.4.1. MoveDC ............................................................................................................................... 16 2.4.2. Vision Zero .......................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.3. Sustainable DC .................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.4. Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of the Pedestrian Bridge and Connecting Trail at Arizona Avenue ................................................................................................................................... 18 2.4.5. Rock Creek Far West Livability Study .................................................................................. 21 2.4.6. DC Water Potomac River Tunnel ........................................................................................ 21 3.0 Stakeholder and Public Involvement.......................................................................... 23 3.1. Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................................................ 23 3.2. Public Involvement...................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.1. Project Website ................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.2. Public Meetings ................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.3. Online Survey ...................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.4. Online Comment Map ......................................................................................................... 29 4.0 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 31 4.1. Current Trail Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 31 4.1.1. Location and Access ............................................................................................................ 31 4.1.2. Condition ............................................................................................................................. 35 4.1.3. Trail Crossings ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.1.4. Ownership ........................................................................................................................... 42 4.1.5. Trail Use .............................................................................................................................. 43 4.2. Street Network ............................................................................................................................ 44 4.3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................... 44 4.4. Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 50 4.5. Environmental Resources ........................................................................................................... 53 4.5.1. Topography, Geology, and Soils .......................................................................................... 53 4.5.2. Water Quality and Wetlands .............................................................................................. 54 4.5.3. Hazardous Waste Sites ........................................................................................................ 54 4.5.4. Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 55 4.5.5. Parkland .............................................................................................................................. 55 4.5.6. Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 55 4.5.7. Socioeconomic Resources and Community Destinations ................................................... 58 4.5.8. Noise ................................................................................................................................... 60 4.5.9. Visual Resources ................................................................................................................. 60 4.5.10. Utilities ................................................................................................................................ 60 5.0 Project Opportunities and Constraints ....................................................................... 62 5.1. Project Opportunities.................................................................................................................. 62 5.1.1. Safety: Vision Zero, Pro-active, Pre-emptive ...................................................................... 62 5.1.2. Demand ............................................................................................................................... 63 5.1.3. Regional and Local Connections ......................................................................................... 65 5.1.4. Historic Preservation ........................................................................................................... 70 5.1.5. Stormwater Management/Erosion Mitigation ................................................................... 71 5.2. Project Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 71 5.2.1. Land Ownership .................................................................................................................. 71 5.2.2. Utility Impacts ..................................................................................................................... 72 5.2.3. Constructability of Foundry Branch Trolley Trestle Bridge Rehabilitation ......................... 74 5.2.4. Constructability of New Bridges ......................................................................................... 76 5.2.5. Trail Crossings at High-Stress Roadways ............................................................................. 77 5.2.6. Complex Conditions East of Foxhall Road ........................................................................... 77 5.2.7. Roadway Context in Georgetown at Trail Terminus ........................................................... 78 5.2.8. Community Perspective on the Proposed Trail .................................................................. 79 5.2.9. Cost ..................................................................................................................................... 80 5.2.10. Environmental Resources ................................................................................................... 80 5.2.11. Environmental Permitting + Coordination .......................................................................... 81 6.0 Concept Design ......................................................................................................... 83 6.1. Trail Overview ............................................................................................................................. 84 6.1.1. General Alignment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2008 INTEGRATED REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND U.S. CONGRESS PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 305(b) AND 303(d) CLEAN WATER ACT (P.L. 97-117) District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division Government of the District of Columbia Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor PREFACE PREFACE The Water Quality Division of the District of Columbia's District Department of the Environment, Natural Resources Administration, prepared this report to satisfy the listing requirements of §303(d) and the reporting requirements of §305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act (P.L. 97-117). This report provides water quality information on the District of Columbia’s surface and ground waters that were assessed during 2008 and updates the water quality information required by law. Various programs in the Natural Resources Administration contributed to this report including the Fisheries and Wildlife Division and the Watershed Protection Division. Questions or comments regarding this report or requests for copies should be forwarded to the address below. The District of Columbia Government District Department of the Environment Natural Resources Administration Water Quality Division 51 N St., NE Washington, D.C. 20002-3323 Attention: N. Shulterbrandt ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final DC TMDL for Organics and Metals in Potomac Tributaries
    D.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH E nvironmental Health Administration B ureau of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINAL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR ORGANICS AND METALS IN BATTERY KEMBLE CREEK, FOUNDRY BRANCH, AND DALECARLIA TRIBUTARY AUGUST 2004 Doreen Thompson Senior Deputy Director for Environmental Health Administration DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINAL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR ORGANICS AND METALS IN BATTERY KEMBLE CREEK, FOUNDRY BRANCH, AND DALECARLIA TRIBUTARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER QUALITY DIVISION AUGUST 2004 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. TMDL Definition and Regulatory Information 1 1.2. Impairment Listing 1 2. Chemicals of Concern, Beneficial Uses and Applicable Water Quality Standards 3 2.1. Chemicals of Concern 3 2.2. Designated Beneficial Uses 5 2.3. Applicable Water Quality Standards 5 2.3.1. Narrative Criteria 5 2.3.2. Numerical Criteria 5 2.4. TMDL Endpoint 7 3. Watershed Characterization 7 3.1. Potomac River Small Tributaries 7 3.1.1 Battery Kemble Creek/Fletchers Run 7 3.1.2 Foundry Branch 7 3.1.3 Dalecarlia Tributary 7 4. Source Assessment 8 4.1. Assessment of Nonpoint Sources 8 5. Technical Approach 8 5.1. Seasonal Variations and Critical Conditions 8 5.2. Small Tributaries Models 9 5.3. Scenario and Model Runs 10 6. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Allocations and Margins of Safety 11 6.1. Battery Kemble Creek Loads and TMDL 11 6.2. Foundry Branch Loads and TMDL 11 6.3. Dalecarlia Tributary Loads and TMDL 12 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalist Quarterly Winter 2017
    AUDUBON NATURALIST SOCIETY Naturalist Quarterly Winter 2017 ANSHOME.ORG 120 Year Anniversary - Leading with the Future by Lisa Alexander ANS NATURE ACTIVITIES & NEWS The Audubon Naturalist Society OFFICERS inspires residents of the greater PRESIDENT Leslie Catherwood (’17) Naturalist Quarterly Washington, DC region to VICE PRESIDENT Paul D’Andrea (‘17) appreciate, understand, and treasURER Scott Fosler (‘17) ANShome.org Winter 2017 protect their natural environment SecretarY Megan Carroll (‘19) through outdoor experiences, BOARD OF DIRECTORS education, and advocacy. Wendy Anderson (‘18), Cecilia Clavet From the Director 3 HEADQUARTERS (‘19), Alice Ewen (‘18), Allyn Finegold Woodend, a 40-acre wildlife (‘17), Mike Gravitz (‘17), Jennifer Judd 120 Year Anniversary - Leading with the Future sanctuary in Chevy Chase, MD Hinrichs (‘17), Diane Hoffman (‘19), Laura Hull (‘17), Jane McClintock (‘18), By Lisa Alexander 4 OFFICE HOURS Tim McTaggart (’18), Carolyn Peirce Monday-Friday 9 AM-5 PM (‘19), Nancy Pielemeier (‘19), Rebecca Testing the Waters...by Diane Lill 6 STORE HOURS Turner (‘18), Bonnie VanDorn (‘18), Larry Monday-Friday 10 AM-5 PM Wiseman (‘19) Children and Family Programs 8 Saturday 9 AM-5 PM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Sunday 12-5 PM Lisa Alexander Learning about Tales and Trails GROUNDS HOURS STAFF Dawn to dusk By Cathy Gruban 8 FINANCE ANS MEMBERSHIP Lois Taylor, Comptroller, Dupe Cole, Student $15 Senior Accountant/Benefits Manager; Rust Classes/Programs 11 Individual $50 Barbara Young, Accountant Family $65 Adult Programs 12 MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS Nature Steward $100 Audubon Advocate $200 CALENDAR 16 Sanctuary Guardian $500 AUDUBON NATURALIST SHOP Naturalists Council $1,000 Matt Mathias, Manager; Yoli Del Buono, Preservationist $1,000+ Assistant Manager Woodend’s Master Naturalists NATURALIST QUARTERLY is CONSERVATION By Alison Pearce 21 published four times a year by Eliza Cava, Director of Conservation; the Audubon Naturalist Society, Monica Billger, Virginia Conservation Water Quality Monitoring 22 8940 Jones Mill Road, Chevy Advocate; Chase, MD 20815.
    [Show full text]
  • Palisades Trolley Trail & Foundry Trestle Bridge Feasibility
    Appendix 5b December 2019 Palisades Trolley Trail & Foundry Trestle Bridge Feasibility Study Public Meeting Summary Report: Public Meeting #2 Contract No. DCKA-2017-T-0059 Category: L – Bicycle and Pedestrian Studies, Planning & Design Prepared for: District Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE Suite 400 Washington, DC 20003 Prepared by: Commun-ET, LLC and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Palisades Trolley Trail& Foundry Trestle Bridge P u b l i c M e e t i n g R e p o r t : Public Meeting #2 P a g e 1 | DRAFT 10/30/19 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Purpose of Public Meeting #2 ...................................................................................... 4 3.0 Public Meeting Location & Notifications ...................................................................... 4 3.1. Public Input Outreach Format & Comment Period… ……………………………………………………………5 4.0 Public Meeting Format & Summary ............................................................................. 6 4.1. Meeting Attendance & Survey Data Obtained………………………………………………………………………7 4.2. Information Station Meeting Process in Detail………………………………………………..……………………9 4.3. Exhibits & Presentations…………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 4.4. Written Comments Received at Public Meeting…………………………………………..…………………….12 4.4.1. Public Comments Captured at the Information Stations……………………………………..13 4.4.2. Title VI Comments Received from Public Meeting #2………………………………………….24
    [Show full text]
  • Final TMDL Fecal Coliform Bacteria Potomac River and Tributaries
    D.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH E nvironmental Health Administration Bureau of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINAL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA IN UPPER POTOMAC RIVER, MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER, LOWER POTOMAC RIVER, Battery Kemble Creek, Foundry Branch, and Dalecarlia Tributary JULY 2004 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FINAL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA IN UPPER POTOMAC RIVER, MIDDLE POTOMAC RIVER, LOWER POTOMAC RIVER, Battery Kemble Creek, Foundry Branch, and Dalecarlia Tributary DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY WATER QUALITY DIVISION JULY 2004 INTRODUCTION Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) states: Each state shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standards applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. Further section 303(d)(1)(C) states: Each state shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculations. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Swimmable Potomac Campaign
    SWIMMABLE POTOMAC CAMPAIGN P O T O M A C R I V E R K E E P E R N E T W O R K M A Y 2 0 1 9 - O C T O B E R 2 0 1 9 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 CITIZEN SCIENCE WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS - 2019 8 CITIZEN SCIENCE VOLUNTEER MONITORING PROGRAM 10 SEA DOG FLOATING LABORATORY 11 LOOKING AHEAD TO 2020 12 WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP? 14 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Potomac River flows through the heart of our nation’s capital on its course to the Chesapeake Bay, providing drinking water for six million people and countless recreational opportunities to millions of residents and visitors drawn to its beauty. The popularity of the Nation’s River for recreation continues to grow, as anyone who has been to the DC waterfront lately can plainly see. People are coming to the river to kayak, row, fish, stand up paddleboard, and swim, encouraged by easy access, beautiful riverfront parks and public boathouses. The one key thing that’s been missing until now is accurate, timely data on whether the Potomac is clean enough to swim and paddle in. To answer the call, Potomac Riverkeeper (PRK) launched its Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Program in 2019. Water samples collected weekly by volunteers are analyzed in certified labs, including on our flagship vessel Sea Dog, and shared with the public every Friday on the free SWIMGuide app. While water quality has improved dramatically since the passage of the Clean Water Act nearly fifty years ago, the Potomac is still burdened with discharges of untreated sewage and polluted stormwater from D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2018 ANS Naturalist Quarterly
    AUDUBON NATURALIST SOCIETY Naturalist Quarterly Spring 2018 ANSHOME.ORG Nature for All - Creating a Thriving Natural Oasis at Woodend by Alison Pearce, Director of Restoration ANS NATURE ACTIVITIES & NEWS The Audubon Naturalist Society OFFICERS inspires residents of the greater PRESIDENT Scott Fosler (’20) Naturalist Quarterly Washington, DC region to VICE PRESIDENT Megan Carroll (‘19) appreciate, understand, and treasURER Alice Ewen (‘18) ANShome.org Spring 2018 protect their natural environment SecretarY Becky Turner (‘18) through outdoor experiences, BOARD OF DIRECTORS education, and advocacy. Wendy Anderson (‘18), Cecilia Clavet From the Director 3 HEADQUARTERS (‘19), Diane Hoffman (‘19), Ryan Matney Woodend, a 40-acre wildlife (‘20), Jane McClintock (‘18), Tim Nature for All by Alison Pearce 4 sanctuary in Chevy Chase, MD McTaggart (’18), Carolyn Peirce (‘19), Nancy Pielemeier (‘19), Rob Timmons OFFICE HOURS Children and Nature 7 (‘20), Bonnie VanDorn (‘18), Larry Monday-Friday 9 AM-5 PM Wiseman (‘19), Beth Ziebarth (‘20) STORE HOURS Conservation 8 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Monday-Friday 10 AM-5 PM Lisa Alexander Saturday 9 AM-5 PM Children and Family Programs 11 Sunday 12-5 PM OPERATIONS Amy Ritsko-Warren, Director of Operations GROUNDS HOURS Rust Classes/Programs 15 Dawn to dusk FINANCE ANS MEMBERSHIP Lois Taylor, Comptroller, Dupe Cole, Adult Programs 16 Student $15 Senior Accountant/Benefits Manager; Individual $50 Barbara Young, Accountant CALENDAR 20 Family $65 MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS Nature Steward $100 Caroline Brewer, Director
    [Show full text]
  • Slade and Paragon Formations New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks Along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky
    Slade and Paragon Formations New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1605-B Prepared in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey Chapter B Slade and Paragon Formations New Stratigraphic Nomenclature for Mississippian Rocks along the Cumberland Escarpment in Kentucky By FRANK R. ETTENSOHN, CHARLES L. RICE, GARLAND R. DEVER, JR., and DONALD R. CHESNUT Prepared in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey A major revision of largely Upper Mississippian nomenclature for northeastern and north-central Kentucky which includes detailed descriptions of two new formations and nine new members U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1605 CONTRIBUTIONS TO STRATIGRAPHY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 For sale by Distribution Branch Text Products Section U.S. Geological Survey 604 South Pickett Street Alexandria, Virginia 22304 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Slade and Paragon formations. (Contributions to stratigraphy) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin; 1605B) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1605-6 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Mississippian. 2. Geology Kentucky. I. Ettensohn, Frank R. II. Kentucky Geological Survey. III. Series. IV. Series: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin ; 1605B. QE75.B9 no. 1605B 557.3 s [551.7'51] 84-600178 [QE672] CONTENTS Abstract 1 Introduction 1 Historical review
    [Show full text]
  • Phase Ia Archaeological Assessment of the North Campus Parcel of the St
    PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTH CAMPUS PARCEL OF THE ST. ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL EAST CAMPUS Prepared For: General Services Administration National Capital Region 301 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20407 January 2010 PHASE IA ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE NORTH CAMPUS PARCEL OF THE ST. ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL EAST CAMPUS Prepared For: General Services Administration National Capital Region 301 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20407 Prepared By: Paul P. Kreisa, PhD, RPA and Jacqueline M. McDowell, MA Paul P. Kreisa, PhD, RPA Principal Investigator Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc. 6110 Frost Place Laurel, Maryland 20707 In Cooperation With: Jones Lang LaSalle 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 January 2010 Phase IA Archaeological Assessment North Campus Parcel MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The General Services Administration is considering the North Campus parcel of St. Elizabeths Hospital East Campus in Washington, D.C., for the potential construction of federal agency office space and associated parking. At present, several potential alternatives for the use of the North Campus parcel are being considered. Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc. was contracted by the General Services Administration National Capital Region to conduct an initial assessment of the impact of this proposed federally-sponsored undertaking upon archaeological resources. The initial assessment included historical and archaeological background research, a field visit to the North Campus parcel, the creation of a model of archaeological site potential, and recommendations for additional identification-level investigations. Based on this research, the North Campus parcel has a moderate to high probability for the presence of archaeological resources. There appears to be a moderate to high potential for Historic period resources, dating to the period before and after the federal acquisition of the property, and a moderate potential for Prehistoric Native American resources, in the western one-half of the North Campus parcel.
    [Show full text]
  • DC Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 0 2 0 Table of Contents Dear Friends of the River
    WAter DC Citizen Science Water Quality Monitoring Report 2 0 2 0 Table of Contents Dear Friends of the River, On behalf of Anacostia Riverkeeper, I am pleased to share with you our first Annual DC Citizen Science Volunteer Water Quality Report on Bacteria in District Waters. This report focuses on 2020 water quality results from all three District watersheds: the Anacostia River, Potomac River, and Rock Creek. The water quality data we collected is critical for understanding the health of the Anacostia River and District waters; as it serves as a gauge for safe recreation potential as well as a continuing assessment of efforts in the Methodology District of Columbia to improve the overall health of 7 our streams and waterways. As a volunteer program, we are dependent on those who offer time out of their daily schedule to work 8 Anacostia River with us and care for the water quality. With extreme gratitude, we would like to thank all our volunteers and staff for the dedication, professionalism, and enthusiasm to execute this program and to provide high quality data to the public. Additionally, support 10 Potomac River from our partner organizations was crucial to running this program, so we would like to extend an additional thanks to staff at Audubon Naturalist Society, Potomac Riverkeeper, and Rock Creek 12 Rock Creek Conservancy. We hope you find this annual report a good guide to learning more about our local DC waterways. We believe that clean water is a benefit everyone should experience, one that starts with consistent and 14 Discussion publicly available water quality data.
    [Show full text]
  • Government of the District of Columbia Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation 1100 4Th Street Sw, Suite E650 Washington, Dc 20024
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAYOR'S AGENT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1100 4TH STREET SW, SUITE E650 WASHINGTON, DC 20024 In the Matter of: APPLICATION OF WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY FOUNDRY BRANCH TRESTLE HPA No. 18-297 Square 1321, Lot 822 Square 1324, Lot 817 DECISION AND ORDER The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) filed this application to demolish the Foundry Branch Trestle, an elevated railway track that traverses Glover Archbold Park and contributes to the Glover Archbold Historic District. WMATA argues that a failure to permit demolition of the historic trestle would impose an unreasonable economic hardship on it as the owner, within the meaning of DC Code § 6-1106(e). For the reasons explained here, the application is CLEARED. The Trestle was built in 1896 as part of the Washington and Great Falls Electric Railway Company trolley line connecting Georgetown and Cabin John, Maryland. It connects two plots of land owned by WMATA: Lot 817, which is accessible from Foxhall Road and Lot 822, which is surrounded land owned by the National Park Service and Georgetown University. The trolley service ceased in 1960, and the trestle became the property of D.C. Transit, which then operated local bus service. The trestle was largely ignored for many years and fell into disrepair. WMATA acquired the bus lines of D.C. Transit in 1973. In 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit conveyed the trestle, along with more than $9 million and other D.C. Transit assets to WMATA to settle long-running litigation between the now-defunct D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Selection and Justification Technical Memorandum
    Technical Memorandum Model Selection and Justification Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1 2. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................1 3. Technical Approach................................................................................................................................ 2 4. Results and Discussion .........................................................................................................................15 Analysis References .................................................................................................................................................. …17 Attachments .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Comprehensive Baseline Comprehensive – , 2014 , December 22 December Consolidated TMDL Implementation Plan Implementation TMDL Consolidated Technical Memorandum: Model Selection and Justification List of Tables Table 1: Modeling Approach used in Mainstem Waterbodies for MS4 Areas ............................................... 4 Table 2: Modeling Approach used in Tributary Waterbodies for MS4 Areas ................................................ 4 Table 3: Modeling Approach used in Other Waterbodies for MS4 Areas .....................................................
    [Show full text]