DOCSLIB.ORG

1542‐1550 First Street, Sw Design Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1542‐1550 First Street, Sw Design Review COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW 1542‐1550 FIRST STREET, SW DESIGN REVIEW WASHINGTON, DC August 4, 2017 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia Case No. 17-13 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.17-13 DeletedEXHIBIT NO.17A 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 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Study Area Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Major Transportation Features .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Future Regional Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Project Design .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Site Access ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Loading ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Parking ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Transit ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Proposed Transit Service ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Transit Site Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Pedestrian Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Pedestrian Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Pedestrian Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Site Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Bicycle Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Proposed Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Site Impacts .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Summary And Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figures Figure 1: Site Location ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2: Summary of Walk and Bike Scores .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 3: Major Regional Transportation Facilities .................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 4: Major Local Transportation Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 5: Development Plan ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 6: Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 7: Pedestrian Pathways ................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 8: Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 9: Expected Pedestrian Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 10: Existing Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Tables Table 1: Carshare Locations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Proposed Parking Supply ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 3 Table 3: Trip Generation for Development .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 4: Summary of Mode Split Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 5: Metrobus Route Information ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6: Sidewalk Requirements .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 1 to provide the loading facilities within the building. The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY proposed curbside facilities on Q Street, SW will meet the project’s needs without posing a detriment to the local The following report is a Comprehensive Transportation Review neighborhood. (CTR) for the 1542‐1550 First Street, SW project. This report reviews the transportation aspects of the project’s Design Multi‐Modal Impacts and Recommendations Review (DR)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Georgetown - Dc
    2,057 SF OF RETAIL SPACE AVAILABLE ON WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW | GEORGETOWN - DC 1524 WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC By the Numbers Neighborhood 2,057 SF 23,000 (1,319 SF on the First Floor $40.00 NNN Employees (Blended Rate and In Georgetown For Both Floors) 738 SF in the Basement) 35,000 Area Students (Georgetown and GWU) Georgetown The Georgetown neighborhood is one of the premier 250+ National and destinations in Washington. Georgetown sees high foot International Retailers traffic from its office population and residents, as well as from out of town visitors. There is also significant activity generated by the nearby offices of Foggy Bottom and West End, and from Georgetown University and George 98 Washington University students. Walk Score Bill Miller Alex Walker 202.333.0339 202.333.0079 [email protected] [email protected] 2715 M STREET, NW SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 202.333.0303 www.MILLERWALKER.com Bill Miller Alex Walker 202.333.0339 202.333.0079 [email protected] [email protected] 2715 M STREET, NW SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 202.333.0303 www.MILLERWALKER.com Bill Miller Alex Walker 202.333.0339 202.333.0079 [email protected] [email protected] 2715 M STREET, NW SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 202.333.0303 www.MILLERWALKER.com Bill Miller Alex Walker 202.333.0339 202.333.0079 [email protected] [email protected] 2715 M STREET, NW SUITE 200 WASHINGTON, DC 20007 202.333.0303 www.MILLERWALKER.com 1524 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC WISCONSIN AVENUE WISCONSIN FIRST FLOOR PLAN BASEMENT PLAN
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC
    1 Reimagining DC 295 as a vital multi modal corridor: The Case for Reconnecting Southeast Washington DC Jonathan L. Bush A capstone thesis paper submitted to the Executive Director of the Urban & Regional Planning Program at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Masters of Professional Studies in Urban & Regional Planning. Faculty Advisor: Howard Ways, AICP Academic Advisor: Uwe S. Brandes, M.Arch © Copyright 2017 by Jonathan L. Bush All Rights Reserved 2 ABSTRACT Cities across the globe are making the case for highway removal. Highway removal provides alternative land uses, reconnects citizens and natural landscapes separated by the highway, creates mobility options, and serves as a health equity tool. This Capstone studies DC 295 in Washington, DC and examines the cases of San Francisco’s Embarcadero Freeway, Milwaukee’s Park East Freeway, New York City’s Sheridan Expressway and Seoul, South Korea’s Cheonggyecheon Highway. This study traces the history and the highway removal success using archival sources, news circulars, planning documents, and relevant academic research. This Capstone seeks to provide a platform in favor DC 295 highway removal. 3 KEYWORDS Anacostia, Anacostia Freeway, Anacostia River, DC 295, Highway Removal, I-295, Kenilworth Avenue, Neighborhood Planning, Southeast Washington DC, Transportation Planning, Urban Infrastructure RESEARCH QUESTIONS o How can Washington’s DC 295 infrastructure be modified to better serve local neighborhoods? o What opportunities
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region Top 10
    Quarterly Congestion Analysis Report for the Baltimore Region Top 10 Bottleneck Locations 2nd Quarter 2018 Table of Contents About the region .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 How bottleneck conditions are tracked .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Maps Defined ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Top 10 Bottleneck Map .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Top 10 Bottleneck List ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 #1-10 Ranked Bottlenecks with Maps, Timeline, Traffic Counts and Notes .......................................................................................................................... 8-27 Speed Maps for the Baltimore Region (AM and PM Peak) ...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report
    I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study - FINAL REPORT- Presented to: Submitted By: September 2015 Cover Letter Tollway Towers North, Suite 870 15770 North Dallas Parkway Ali K. Soroush, Ph.D. Dallas, TX 75248 Project Manager Tel: 214-245-5300 [email protected] Fax: 214-889-5049 Date: September 23, 2015 To: Morteza Farajian, Ph.D. Program Manager Office of Transportation Public-Private Partnerships Virginia Department of Transportation Subject: I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report Dear Mr. Farajian, C&M Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide you with the Final Report of the I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study. This report presents an overview of the proposed project, an assessment of existing traffic conditions and socioeconomic data in the project area, and an overview of field data collection and analyses. The report also presents details regarding the modeling approach, methodology, and, most importantly, the traffic and revenue forecast. The C&M project team expresses its sincere gratitude to VDOT for providing the opportunity to participate in this project. Respectfully, Carlos M. Contreras, MBA Ali Soroush, Ph.D. President Project Manager I-66 Express Lanes Outside the Capital Beltway Intermediate Traffic and Revenue Study Prepared For: By: Final Report September 2015 Disclaimer The results of this study constitute the opinion of C&M with respect to the tolled facility’s future traffic and revenue. The traffic and revenue projections provided in this report were developed based on standard professional practices and the information available at the time the study was executed, subject to the time and budget constraints of the study’s scope of work.
    [Show full text]
  • Bowie Washington Clinton Oxon Hill Camp Springs
    503 Z7 to/from Laurel to/from Columbia 409 Z2 to/from Olney C8 to/from White Flint to/from Elkridge Z11 to/from Laurel Racetrack Burtonsville Park & Ride Montgomery 295 St 302 Main St Z6 Sandy Spring Rd 89M WESTFARM to/from Burtonsville/ RTA provides local service Castle Blvd Z7 Old Sandy 87 Z2 Z7 to/from throughout Central Maryland, Spring Rd Z8 Z6 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit Center to/from Greencastle/Briggs Chaney (Silver Spring m ) Sweitzer Ln including Laurel. 503 COLUMBIA PIKE 302 Gorman Ave 5th St WHITE OAK 409 K6 Industrial Intercounty Connector Van Dusen Rd 87 Pkwy CALVERTON 141 89 89M 89 Laurel Tech Broadbirch Dr 141 to/from Rd Galway Dr Gaithersburg Park & Ride Calverton Blvd Laurel 301 Washington Blvd Van Dusen Rd Fort Meade Rd B30 Z6 Z7 Regional Z7 302 LAUREL Baltimore-Washingtonto/from Pkwy BWI Airport via Arundel Mills Z7 502 Hospital Ashford 4th St LOCKWOOD DR Blvd 502 to/from Arundel Mills Z11 K9 R2 Beltsville Dr 87 C8 FDA Cherry Ln Z2 C8 Red Clay Rd PATUXENT RIVER Plum Orchard Dr Towne Centre 502 Old Z8 Mulberry St Laurel 87 Annapolis Rd Broadbirch Dr Broadbirch R2 Z6 95 301 White Oak Cherry Hill Rd 89 Cherry Ln Adventist St Cypress 302 502 89M Laurel-Bowie Federal Medical Center 87 Z7 Rd Research South Laurel NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE AmmendaleVirginia Rd B30 Muirkirk Park & Ride Center 86 Manor Ritz Way Baltimore Ave COLUMBIA PIKE Rd Rd Z7 Centerpark Powder Mill Rd Laurel-Bowie Rd89M 87 Office Park Contee Rd 301 89 Z2, Z6, Z7, Z8, Z11 to/from Powder Mill Rd Muirkirk Rd 89M Muirkirk Paul S.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Waterfront Redevelopment
    SOUTHWEST WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT STAGE 2 PUD – PHASE I HOFFMAN-STRUEVER WATERFRONT, L.L.C. APPLICATION TO THE D.C. ZONING COMMISSION FOR A SECOND STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT February 3, 2012 Submitted by: HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 955-3000 Norman M. Glasgow, Jr. Mary Carolyn Brown ZONING COMMISSION Counsel for the Applicant District of Columbia ZONING COMMISSION Case No. 11-03A District of Columbia CASE NO.11-03A 2 EXHIBIT NO.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE .......................................................................................................................................... iii DEVELOPMENT TEAM ...................................................................................................................... v LIST OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................................................... viii I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 A. Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1 B. The Applicant and Development Team .......................................................................... 2 II. APPROVED STAGE 1 PUD DEVELOPMENT PARAMETER ............................................................. 4 III. PROPOSED VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dupont Circle Neighborhood Focuses on the History and Architecture of Part of Our Local Environment That Is Both Familiar and Surprising
    Explore historic d Explore historic CHILDREN’S WALKING TOUR CHILDREN’S EDITION included DUPONT CIRCLE inside! NEIGHBORHOOD WASHINGTON, DC © Washington Architectural Foundation, 2018 Welcome to Dupon Welcome to Welcome This tour of Washington’s Dupont Circle Neighborhood focuses on the history and architecture of part of our local environment that is both familiar and surprising. The tour kit includes everything a parent, teacher, Scout troop leader, or homeschooler would need to walk children through several blocks of buildings and their history and to stimulate conversation and activities that build on what they’re learning. Designed for kids in the 8-12 age group, the tour is fun and educational for older kids and adults as well. The tour materials include... • History of Dupont Circle • Tour Booklet Instructions • Dupont Circle Neighborhood Guide • Architectural Vocabulary • Conversation Starters • Dupont Circle Tour Stops • Children's Edition This project has been funded in part by a grant from HumanitiesDC, an affiliate of the National Endowment for the Humanities. This version of the Dupont Circle Neighborhood children’s walking tour is the result of a collaboration among Mary Kay Lanzillotta, FAIA, Peter Guttmacher, and the creative minds at LookThink, with photos courtesy of Ronald K. O'Rourke and Mary Fitch. We encourage you to tell us about your experience using this children's architecture tour, what worked really well and how we can make it even better, as well as other neighborhoods you'd like to visit. Please email your comments to Katherine Adams ([email protected]) or Mary Fitch ([email protected]) at the Washington Architectural Foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Director Inter-American Defense College Fort Lesley J
    DIRECTOR INTER-AMERICAN DEFENSE COLLEGE FORT LESLEY J. McNAIR WASHINGTON, DC 20319-5066 Crisis Action Team (CAT) Message #94 (CAT – 9420) D.C. Road Closures and Parking Restrictions for Friday, 28 August March for Racial Justice . 27 August 2020 SG: “Social Distancing does not mean Social Disengagement, Keep in touch with each other” 1. Purpose. To communicate to all IADC assigned personnel, the latest guidance, directive, orders, and news received regarding the IADC response to crises. 2. Applicability. This guidance applies to all IADC assigned personnel, including military members, civilians, and contractors. 3. General. The College priority is maintaining the welfare and safety of personnel and families while ensuring the continuity of our mission. Although all U.S. jurisdictions have commenced easing of some COVID-19 restrictions previously implemented, many regions are experiencing an uptick in cases, including the NCR. All personnel should remain attentive to updated guidance or directives issued by local, state, and national level authorities designed to minimize the spread of the virus and prevent a resurgence. 4. Information. The District of Columbia March for Racial Justice will occur on Friday, 28 August. Drivers can expect major road closures in D.C. on Friday as thousands are expected to participate in a march against police brutality. a. Protesters with the "Commitment March: Get Your Knee Off our Necks” will gather starting at 7 a.m. and eventually march from the Lincoln Memorial to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 1 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (1 of 3)
    Figure 38: Phase 1 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (1 of 3) 76 Figure 39: Phase 1 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (2 of 3) 77 Figure 40: Phase 1 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (3 of 3) 78 Figure 41: 2022 Interim (with Phase 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (1 of 3) 79 Figure 42: 2022 Interim (with Phase 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (2 of 3) 80 Figure 43: 2022 Interim (with Phase 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (3 of 3) 81 Figure 44: Outbound Trip Distribution and Routing 82 Figure 45: Inbound Trip Distribution and Routing 83 Figure 46: Phase 2 Access Specific Outbound Trip Distribution and Routing 84 Figure 47: Phase 2 Access Specific Inbound Trip Distribution and Routing 85 Figure 48: Phase 2 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (1 of 3) 86 Figure 49: Phase 2 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (2 of 3) 87 Figure 50: Phase 2 Site-Generated Peak Hour Volumes (3 of 3) 88 Figure 51: 2022 Future (with Phase 1 and Phase 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (1 of 3) 89 Figure 52: 2022 Future (with Phase 1 and Phase 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (2 of 3) 90 Figure 53: 2022 Future (with Phase 1 and Phase 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (3 of 3) 91 Figure 54: 2022 Background without Development Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls (1 of 3) 92 Figure 55: 2022 Background without Development Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls (2 of 3) 93 Figure 56: 2022 Background without Development Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls (3 of 3) 94 Figure 57: 2022 Interim with Phase 1 Lane Configurations and Traffic Controls (1 of 3) 95 Figure 58: 2022 Interim with Phase
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Capital Beltway and Its Impact on Industrial and Multi-Family Expansion in Virginia JULIA A
    The Washington Capital Beltway and Its Impact on Industrial and Multi-Family Expansion in Virginia JULIA A. CONNALLY and CHARLES O. MEIBURG, Bureau of Population and Economic Research, University of Virginia This paper reports on the impact of the Washington Capital Beltway on industrial and multi-family expansion in Northern Virginia. Between 1960 and 1965 industrial employment grew 71 percent, primarily because of the many industries which located near the Beltway. Interviews with 48 industry execu­ tives indicated that access to the circumferential was a sig­ nificant factor in their location decision. The wholesale­ distribution and research and development firms gave the greatest weight to accessibility to the Beltway. As well as promoting industrial growth, the Beltway has altered the com­ muting patterns of the industrial workers. One-half of 2, 100 employees surveyed used the circumferential to commute. The Beltway has expanded the labor market to include Maryland and a much larger section of Northern Virginia. The Beltway area also spawned more than 3, 000 new apartment units be­ tween 1964 and 1966. Like the industrial workers, 50 percent of the apartment residents commute via the Beltway, but their travel pattern is quite different. The large majority are em­ ployed in the District and Arlington County; only a few work in nearby industries. The implications of the study include the continued growth of industrial and multi-family development in the Beltway area, resulting in increased traffic on both the radials and the Beltway, with the greatest pressure occurring at the interchanges. The study concludes with an approach toward the control of land development in interchange areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT
    MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Alfred D. Lott, ICMA-CM, CPM City Manager SUBJECT: Status Report DATE: November 9, 2017 Status Report 1. Purchase of Road Deicing Salt The Public Works Department has located a contract for the purchase of road deicing salt with Montgomery County (IFB# 1041647) through two (2) vendors, upon which we will be able to piggyback. The current price for salt with Morton Salt, Inc. (Primary Vendor) is $68.12/ton and we intend to purchase up to 1,460 tons as needed this winter. We will sign a contract and issue a purchase order to Morton Salt, Inc. in the amount of $99,455.20. This is within the amount budgeted for FY18 in the Public Works Streets Operating Supplies Account. The current price for salt with Eastern Salt Co., Inc. (Secondary Vendor) is $77.10/ton. We will sign a contract and issue a purchase order to Eastern Salt Co., Inc. in the amount of $10,000. As provided for in the Montgomery County Contract, the Secondary Vendor would serve only as a backup salt supplier should the Primary Vendor be unable to fulfill a required order. As provided in Section 62 of the City Charter, this will serve as the required seven (7) day notice of intent to purchase. 2. Economic Development Committee (EDC)) The EDC held their regular meeting Wednesday and heard a briefing on the Prince George’s County Competitive Retail Market Strategic Action Plan given by Derick Berlage from MNCPPC and Larry Hentz from the County EDC. One of the ways the Plan is implemented is through a targeted effort to recruit grocery stores, high-quality restaurants, and women’s apparel stores.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking “x” in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter “N/A” for “not applicable.” For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District (boundary increase); Fourteenth Street Historic District (name historic name change) other names 2. Location street & number 1400 blocks of P St., Rhode Island Ave., N St., and Massachusetts Ave. not for publication city or town Washington vicinity state District of Columbia Code DC county code 001 zip code 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]