E V A T A S I G H R T 6 O 1 E MILITARY RD G 1 W C 4 O T I S N H C N S O E T N C S T I I N C U A T V E A V E E E M AV V A A S AN D S G N A HI LA C IC IS H M E U D S O E RH T T CALVERT ST AppendixS B: A V EvaluationE Screening Results The 2005 DCAA and System plan included analysis and study identifying the best performing corridorK segments. ST These corridors form the basis for the recommmended streetcar system plan. As part of thatH SprocessT a three-stepBE NNIN screening approach was used to review all of the potential high-capacity transitG RD corridors that had emerged from previous studies or that wereT suggested through S E V the public and agency review process andT then identify the best performing H A S T A segments relative to the goals and objectives established for8 the project. The H INDEPENDENCE AVE T T O process included three successive screenings7 of potential corridors and segments S E to narrow the list of the best performing segments. These segments were then N N considered in determining the recommended system and the phasing strategy I M for system implementation. For the System PlanM (2010ST Update), a re-evaluation of the corridors was conducted that reflected the most up to date population and PE employment estimates, ridership forecasts, development and redevelopment plans,NN SY LV economic development strategies, and public and stakeholder comments. AN G IA O A The screening process used for the evaluation included the through the public and community outreachOD activities. VE H following steps: This included additional corridors suggested forO the PE P R Screen 1: Transit Modes – For Screen 1, a wide range System Plan (2010 Update). Based on the results of Dthe • o Screen 3 analysis theE segments that form the basis of of transit modes and technologies were evaluated basedt V o the recommended A streetcar system were identified for on their ability to provide “premium” transit service along R m further review and refinement based on feedback from J the corridors considered for the study. The modes con- a sidered included Light Rail Transit, Streetcar, Diesel Mul- the project stakeholdersK and general public. L c tiple Units (DMU), Monorail, Automated Guideway Transit The following sectionsM provide a summary of each of the (AGT), and Heavy Rail. The modes were screened R results of each of these successive screenings. based on their ability to provide a surface running facility,i v Screen 1: Transit Modes engineering feasibility, and neighborhood compatibility.e As a result of this process the Streetcar and Enhancedr The Screen 1 Evaluation was conducted in two steps Bus options were identified for further consideration. with the purpose of identifying the modes to be evaluated • Screen 2: Initial Corridors – For Screen 2, an initial set of further in later screening phases of the study. The purpose corridors identified from previous studies were evaluated of Screen 1 was to: against performance measures that relate to each of the • Identify a universe of modes to be considered for goals and objectives established for the project. This evaluation in the analysis; screening resulted in some corridors being advanced Complete a screening of the modes based on to more detailed study as part of the third screening • compatibility with project policies and general criteria as possible streetcar corridors with the other corridors related to overall feasibility; and recommended for potential enhanced bus services. Complete a final screening of surviving modes utilizing Screen 3: Detailed Corridors and Segments – For • • more detailed engineering analysis and an assessment Screen 3, more detailed criteria and measures were of the compatibility of the mode with surrounding used to evaluate the potential streetcar corridors. The neighborhoods. corridors considered included those corridors from the Screen 2 analysis and additional corridors suggested LEGEND DC’s Transit Future Streetcar Lines Rhode Island Ave/U St/14th St/K St System Plan B-1 MLK Jr. Ave/M St Florida Ave/8th St/U St/Calvert St K St/H St/Benning Rd Minnesota Ave Georgia Ave/14th St/7th St Calvert St/Columbia Rd/Irving St/Michigan Ave 0 0.5 1 Miles 8th St/MLK Jr. Ave/K St/H St Screen 1 was completed in two steps. The first step Table B-1 summarizes the results of first step of the focused on identifying appropriate modes, and the second mode screening. step screened those down to the two modes, streetcar Based on this analysis, the modes remaining for further and enhanced bus services, to carry forward in the evalu- evaluation in the second step of the mode screening were ation. Enhanced Bus, LRT, Lightweight DMU, and Streetcar. The first step in the study process was to identify a uni- More extensive engineering analysis was completed to al- verse of modes to be considered for the project. A mode low for this more detailed assessment of potential impacts is a system for carrying transit passengers that can be within each corridor. The screening criteria used in this step described by specific features that include vertical and of the mode screening process included: horizontal right of way requirements, turning radii require- • Traffic impacts ments, vehicle technology, and operational elements such as service frequency and stop spacing. Seven potential • Neighborhood scale and impacts to adjacent structures modes were identified for this study: BRT, Light Rail Transit and properties (LRT), Streetcar, lightweight Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU), Au- • Parking impacts tomated Guideway Transit (AGT), Monorail, and Heavy Rail. • Transit capacity issues Each of the modes identified for this study was screened • Community support against an initial set of evaluation criteria. Modes that met these criteria were carried forward for further and more As noted, the purpose of this process step was to com- rigorous evaluation. Those modes that did not meet the plete a final screening of modes that are not feasible in criteria were eliminated from further consideration. the corridors selected for analysis. Findings of the mode screening include: The criteria used in this first step of the mode screening included: • No modes were screened out based on traffic impacts; • Surface-Running Transit System - The selected • LRT was eliminated based on potential impacts to mode(s) should be entirely surface running. DDOT and adjacent structures or properties related to turning WMATA have stated a preference for a surface-running requirements; transit system to limit costs and to limit visual impacts • DMU was eliminated based on turning requirements and and related issues associated with aerial alignments. impacts to adjacent neighborhoods resulting from size • Engineering Feasibility - The selected mode(s) and and bulk of vehicle; affiliated stop requirements must be able to fit within • No modes were screened out due to parking impacts; the existing corridor right of way, both vertically and • No modes were screened out due to lack of passenger horizontally and operate in existing transportation right of carrying capacity; and way. • No modes were screened out due to unusually strong • Neighborhood Compatibility - The selected mode(s) community support or opposition. must be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods from the perspective of both horizontal and vertical scale. Table B-1: Mode Screening Enhanced Lightweight Heavy Criteria Bus Streetcar LRT DMU AGT Monorail Rail Surface-Running Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Engineering Feasibility – Sufficient Cross Section Horizontal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vertical Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Sufficient Space for Passenger Facilities Horizontal Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Vertical Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Neighborhood Compatibility Scale Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat No No No Visual/Aesthetic Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat No No No Yes = Results in Acceptable Impacts B-2 Appendix B: Evaluation Screening Results 95 Based on the analyses outlined above, the second step of Figure B-1: Major Employers the mode screening process resulted in the elimination of two additional modes under consideration, DMU and LRT. While DMU and LRT both represent high-quality rail transit E V modes, the size of the vehicles and their large turning A T A S I radii make them incompatible with the alignments under H G T W R 6 I C O S MILITARY RD 1 O E consideration. While DMU and LRT may have worked in C O N G N N E S C one or two of the alignments, the system inter-operability I N T I A C requirement dictates that any mode found infeasible in one V U M E T A A E E S V V V A A S D or more corridors would be eliminated from further consid- A E N N C GA A H I SL U CH I S MI E eration. Two modes that remained under consideration for E OD T CALVERT ST H T R S A further evaluation were Enhanced Bus and Streetcar. The V E Table B-2 shows the results of the screening evaluation. K ST H ST BEN NING RD E T V S A T Screen 2: Initial Corridors S A H T T H 8 O T S The purpose of Screen 2 was to identify an initial set of 7 E N M ST N PE I corridors for more detailed study that are appropriate for NNM SY G LV O AN the implementation of premium transit services over the OD IA H AV OP E P E E next 10 to 20-year time frame.