Streetcar Land Use Study

district of columbia phase one

Goody Clancy Kittelson & Associates W-ZHA Zimmerman/Volk Associates EHT Traceries January 2012

Streetcar Land Use Study
district of columbia phase one
January 2012 submitted to the District of Columbia Office of Planning by Goody Clancy

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | i

acknowledgements
Executive Office of the Mayor Vincent C. Gray, Mayor Office of Planning Harriet Tregoning Director, Office of Planning Rosalynn Hughey Deputy Director, Citywide and Neighborhood Planning Kimberly Driggins Associate Director, Citywide Planning Geraldine Gardner Associate Director, Neighborhood Planning David Maloney State Historic Preservation Officer Joel Lawson Associate Director, Development Review Melissa Bird Project Manager, Neighborhood Planning Colleen Mitchell Project Manager, Citywide Planning Jen Hughes Former Capital City Fellow, Citywide Planning Art Rodgers Senior Housing Planner Sakina Khan Senior Economic Planner Consultant Team Goody Clancy W-ZHA ZVA Kittleson EHT Traceries Historic Preservation Agency Resources Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Deputy Mayor, Victor Hoskins District Department of Transportation Director, Terry Bellamy Department of Housing and Community Development Director, John E. Hall DC Housing Authority Executive Director, Adrianne Todman Department of Small and Local Business Development Director, Harold B. Pettigrew Jr. Citywide Resources National Capital Planning Commission WMATA Downtown BID NOMA BID Capitol Riverfront BID Washington DC Economic Partnership River East Emerging Leaders (REEL) Anacostia Economic Development Council H Street Main Street Barracks Row Main Street Ward 8 Business Council DC Surface Transit

ii | Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system

January 2012

Dear Resident: The District of Columbia is committed to bringing a streetcar system to the city to improve transit services available to residents and create walkable, vibrant communities. In the spring of 2010, the DC Office of Planning (OP) initiated a land planning study to ensure that the city and its residents gain the greatest possible benefits from the new system, and that the overarching vision and goals for the District are furthered by the new system. Goals of the DC Streetcar system: • Link neighborhoods with a modern, convenient and attractive transportation alternative. • Provide quality service to retain and grow transit ridership. • Offer a broader range of transit options for District residents. • Reduce short inner-city auto trips, parking demand, traffic congestion and air pollution. • Connect people to jobs and services with frequent, affordable, reliable transit service. • Encourage economic development and affordable housing options along streetcar corridors. The Streetcar Land Use Study provides an assessment of the citywide benefits of the system in terms of access to jobs and schools, quality of life, transportation costs for

households, job growth, and real estate impacts. The study also considers potential challenges to the introduction of streetcar service such as the impact on historic and cultural resources, housing costs and small business retention. The report examines the benefits and challenges along each proposed corridor and proposes adjustments to phasing and small segments to maximize mobility and economic development benefits of the investment. In the months ahead, the Streetcar Land Use Study will provide an initial foundation of analysis that OP, DDOT and other involved agencies will use to make recommendations regarding the District’s streetcar system. Future elements of the Streetcar Land Use Study will examine specific land use recommendations at the corridor and neighborhood level including zoning, retail and residential uses, streetscape and urban design. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) will lead the system design, financing, construction and operation of the streetcar, and DDOT is moving forward with the initial phase of the streetcar system with construction of the H Street/Benning Road line. As DDOT completes system planning for each corridor, extensive public outreach to local residents and businesses will take place. The findings supported in this study will further the dialogue between communities and District agencies as we continue planning for future lines.

Harriet Tregoning Director, Office of Planning

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | iii

iv | Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system

contents

1. Introduction a. planning for a streetcar system > Study purpose and methodology > The District’s suitability for streetcar service > Lessons from other cities > How the streetcar compares to other transit options b. summary of findings > Streetcar benefits (Chapter 2) > Challenges and mitigation strategies (Chapter 3) > Neighborhood analysis (Chapter 4) > Strategies and tools for optimizing land use benefits (Chapter 5) 1 1 4 4 7 8 8 11 11 12

f. provides real estate market benefits > Residential market > Office market > Retail market g. increases tax revenues h. expands the creative economy 3. Systemwide Challenges and Mitigation Strategies > Housing affordability > Market shifts > Small business preservation > Constrained right of way on city streets > Parking > Congestion > Bicycles

24 25 27 29 30 31

2. Systemwide Benefits a. improves access to premium transit b. reduces transportation costs c. offers quality-of-life benefits > Improves walkability > Promotes public health > “Extends the walk” > Encourages development of Main Streets > Broadens access to schools > Preserves historic resources > Expands housing choices d. improves job access e. attracts new jobs and residents

33 35 36 36 37 37 37

13 13 15 15 16 17 17 18 19 21 21 22

4. Corridor/Neighborhood Analysis a. assessing benefits and challenges in each corridor 39 > Corridor 1: MLK, Firth Sterling Avenue, and 40 South Capital Street > Corridor 2: Good Hope Road and Minnesota Avenue 42 > Corridor 3: Capitol Riverfront, Buzzard Point, Capitol Hill, and 7th Street 44 > Corridor 4: K and H streets to Union Station; F, 14th, and 7th streets downtown 46 > Corridor 5: H Street/Benning Road 48

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | v

> Corridor 6: 14th, 18th (Adams Morgan), U streets, Florida Avenue, and 8th Street > Corridor 7: Rhode Island Avenue NE > Corridor 8: Woodley Park, Columbia Heights, Washington Hospital Center, and Brookland > Corridor 9: Georgia Avenue and Takoma b. capturing opportunity through alternative routing or phasing 5. Strategies and Tools for Optimizing Land Use Impacts a. maximizing land use benefits, minimizing implementation costs > Potential development tools > Potential land use and design-guidance tools > Coordination with other infrastructure investments b. funding > Development-driven funding mechanisms > Improved eligibility for federal funding 6. Next Steps

50 52 54 56 58

65 65 67 67 68 68 70

vi | Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system

1. introduction
The streetcar represents an effective strategy for advancing many of the 1a Planning for a streetcar system District’s core economic The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) has initiated a program to reestablish streetcar and social goals. service in the District. The purpose of the DC Streetcar is
he District of Columbia’s decision to build a streetcar network emerged from a long-term assessment of the city’s transportation needs. Integrated with Metrorail and other transit services, the 37-mile system would extend transit to large, underserved portions of the District, and it would expand the benefits of transit for many areas already served by Metrorail.

T

As the District agency responsible for the system planning, design, financing and construction of the project, DDOT has collaborated with other agencies, including the Office of Planning, to ensure that efforts are coordinated and benefits of the investment are maximized. The Office of Planning led this Streetcar Land Use Study to investigate impacts of the proposed system on land uses, as well as job access, quality of life and housing affordability. To reduce disruption to residents and businesses, DDOT has begun building sections of two streetcar lines as part of previously planned roadway reconstruction along H Street/Benning Road NE and Firth Sterling Road SE. Environmental work has begun on other lines, but decisions still need to be made about many routes and other critical aspects of streetcar planning.
study PurPose and Methodology

to provide high-capacity and high-quality transit service to residents and invest in infrastructure that will catalyze economic development. The planned system is the result of 14 years of planning (see Figure 1) and touches every ward in the District. The recommended plan includes a network of streetcar lines operating in eight corridors. The selection criteria for these corridors included ı) ridership potential, 2) demand for additional capacity on existing Metrorail and bus lines, 3) gaps in existing service that connect neighborhoods, employment, and retail centers, and 4) economic development opportunities. Map 3, Full Streetcar System Phasing, shows streetcar segments and project phasing.

Commissioned by the District Office of Planning, this Streetcar Land Use Study constitutes an integral part of the planning for the new system. Among possible land use impacts of a streetcar system, the study examines jobs, quality of life, and the affordability of housing in the District; potential fiscal benefits to the District; the streetcar’s projected effect on real estate development; and

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 1

FIGURE 1 Early Studies
Year StudY SponSor SummarY

1997

Vision, Strategy and Action Plan

DDOT

The plan recommended intracity connections between the radial WMATA rail lines, designating ten corridors for transit improvements that would connect District neighborhoods and help support community economic development initiatives. The plan advanced five corridors for further study. The study identified systemwide Metrorail improvements to accommodate estimated future ridership. The study considered each of the previously identified corridors for surface rail transit and recommended four priority corridors for implementation. The study identified bus improvements to serve inside previously designated corridors and to aid in District circulation and Metrorail system-capacity relief. The study refined a citywide system plan of enhanced, multimodal surface transit on designated corridors. The study resulted in the implementation of the Metro Express (Metro Extra at the time) limited-stop bus service, Route 79, in 2007. The study identified a restructuring of five bus routes, resulting in a combination of local, limited-stop and shuttle routes to serve Wisconsin and Pennsylvania avenues. New Metro Express limited-stop bus services, Routes 37 and 39, were initiated in 2008. The study resulted in the implementation of the Metro Express limited-stop bus service, Route S9, along 16th Street NW. The study identifies improved bus service levels and a planned Metro Express limited-stop service in the heavily travelled corridor 2009 DC Circulator New Routes DDOT Further expansion of DC Circulator to serve Adams Morgan, Woodley Park, Columbia Heights, Capitol Riverfront, Capitol Hill, and the Nationals Park Stadium area. Update DDOT. This updates the plan for a system of streetcars and limited stop bus services in the District.

related issues. Its conclusions about all of these impacts will help inform planning for the system. Certain parameters and methodologies for this study were established in order to analyze the impacts to land use and develop future projections. These include study area boundaries, decisions on timing, data sources, and key criteria to be measured. They are highlighted in Figure 2 and described in further detail in the subsequent chapters. This document represents the first of several study phases and District efforts in planning for the streetcar system. In addition to projecting potential impacts and benefits, it identifies land use opportunities, corridor adjustments, and other actions that can either amplify benefits of building a streetcar system or address challenges its creation might pose. By measuring the economic benefits of the streetcar to the city, this study can help decision makers assess the broad value of the streetcar system and determine whether streetcar-related land use benefits can be tapped to help fund the cost of building the system. DDOT is conducting a comprehensive financing plan that will examine property values and funding of specific projects. Later phases will focus in greater depth on land use issues and will facilitate community engagement in planning for the streetcar.

1999 2001 2002

Transit Service Expansion Plan Core Capacity Study Transit Development Study Regional Bus Study

WMATA WMATA WMATA

2003

WMATA

2004–2010: DC’s Transit Future Alternatives Analysis (DCAA) 2004– 2005 2006 DC’s Transit Future WMATA, Alternatives Analy- DDOT sis (DCAA) Georgia Avenue/7th Street Rapid Bus Service Plan 30s Line Study WMATA, DDOT

2007

WMATA, DDOT

2008

16th Street Line Study Benning Road/H Street Study (Metrobus Routes X1, X2 and X3)

WMATA, DDOT WMATA, DDOT

2009

CURRENT

DC’s Transit Future (DCAA) System Plan

Source: http://ddot.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Mass+Transit+in+DC/DC+Streetcar/DC+Transit+Future/ DC+Transit+Future+System+Plan+-+Planning+Process

2 | introduction

FIGURE 2 Methodology Overview
Streetcar Land uSe StudY phaSe one Streetcar Land uSe StudY phaSe one

Study area

• All streetcar corridors in the DC Transit Future System Plan (2010) • Study area organized into nine corridors that share similar land use characteristics • ¼ mile (1,320 ft.) from streetcar lines, but excluding areas within ¼ mile of existing Metrorail stations where the streetcar’s benefit would be largely redundant • Forecasts order-of-magnitude real estate value and market demand increase attributable to the streetcar over a 10year horizon; analysis assumes entire planned system in operation as of 2010 study • Assumes no zoning changes in this phase • Informed by analysis of demographic data, land use data, and characteristics of urban form (i.e., block size, walkability, neighborhood character) • Historic-resources analysis informed by identification of existing and eligible historic structures and districts along streetcar corridors • Public health benefits analysis informed by published research on health and safety impacts of transportation by transit, car, foot, and bicycle Considerations for transportation benefits assessment: • added transit capacity; • net new premium transit service; • transit service to pedestrian-friendly areas; • service to transit-dependent populations; and • improved transit access to jobs Considerations for corridor-constraints assessment: • roadway congestion; • on-street parking impacts; • pedestrian barriers; • bicycle network overlaps; and • priority bus network overlap Additional analysis addresses how the Streetcar Land Use Plan findings can be used to support future FTA New Starts planning efforts for the DC Streetcar.

Methods of real estate analysis

Informed by review of the major types of market benefits evident where streetcar service has been introduced in other cities
OFFICe

Projected streetcar impact area Timing

Zoning changes Quality-of-life impacts analysis

• Baseline office projection: determined by the Council of Governments Round 7.2 Employment Forecast and District of Columbia, Department of Employment Services’ MSA employment projections by industry and occupation • Streetcar benefit projection: determined by applying four specific criteria measuring the streetcar’s unique officemarket benefit in specific corridor areas to office-inclined employment projections combined with Transportation Analysis Zone data from the Council of Governments

ReSIDenTIAl MARkeT POTenTIAl

Transportation impact analysis

• Determined by applying six specific criteria measuring the streetcar’s unique housing market benefit in specific corridor areas to Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ proprietary target market methodology. This methodology establishes market potential based on housing preferences, demographic trends and socio-economic characteristics of households. • Includes migration analysis (internal and external), Census data from the American Community Survey, and data from the nielsen Claritas PRIZM ne market segmentation tool
ReTAIl MARkeT POTenTIAl

• Determined from the additional retail spending potential of new households and workers attracted by the streetcar Value-capture mechanisms • Projects the order-of-magnitude increment in the value of existing development and projected new development attributable to the streetcar • Discusses strategies for value capture, including taxincrement financing districts, special assessments, business improvement districts, joint development agreements, and property acquisition • Discusses potential land use and design guidance tools, including changes in allowable densities, mandatory inclusionary zoning, and development of design guidelines

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 3

MAP 1 Proposed And Historic Streetcar Routes
ST
13TH ST
CHES TNUT

32ND

ST

HOLLY ST

9TH ST

7TH ST

BIR

WISE RD

BRUMMEL

CT

14TH ST AL AS KA AV

BEECH ST

FLORAL ST FERN ST

12TH ST

CH

ST

E

GERANIUM ST
FLORAL PL

15TH PL

FERN PL ELDER ST

EA

ABERFOYLE PL
ARCADIA PL WORTHINGTON ST
E

ST

ER

7TH ST

13TH PL

15TH ST

12TH ST

EY

OREGON

9TH ST

ST

29TH PL

31

WIL

UR

TENNYSON ST

4TH ST

14TH PL

AVE

6TH ST

OREGON

27TH ST

26TH ST

6TH ST

5TH ST

ZO

2ND PL

33RD ST

PATTERSON PL
PATTERSON ST
OLIVER ST NORTHAMPTON ST
OL IVE R

NORTH CAPITOL ST

W

T ES

ER

RITTENHOUSE ST

VAN BUREN ST UNDERWOOD ST
UNDERWOOD ST TEWKESBURY PL TUCKERMAN ST SOMERSET PL

VAN BUREN ST

7TH PL

BINGHAM DR

1ST ST

N

RUNNYMEDE PL

NSO

N LN

2ND ST

30

29

TH

STE

PHE

WHITTIER ST

VENABLE PL

WHITT
G

E

QUESADA ST PATTERSON ST

QUESADA ST

UNDERWOOD PL

N

UNDERWOOD ST TEWKESBURY PL TUCKERMAN ST

UNDERWOOD ST

AV

HARLAN PL

TH

STEPHENSON PL

13TH PL

E AV

STUYVESANT PL 32ND PL

LA

ASPEN DR

EL

SHERR

ILL DR

MA

W

ES W

MA

31

IN

BUTTERNUT ST

ST

ST

ST

5TH ST

DR

8TH ST

TE

PL

RN

PL

PIN

AV

E ST

VAN HAZEN ST

AVE

AVE

BR

AN

N ST

DAHLIA ST

CH

BA

32

RN

THIN

GTO

RD

ND

AB

PL

Y

ST
WOR

UNNAMED RD

N

AV

DOGWOOD ST
AMBULANCE DR

SP

E

RI NG

DAHLIA ST HIG HLA ND

PL

CEDAR ST

M ¾

ASPEN ST

WHITTIER PL
WHITTIER PL

ST

WHITTIER PL

ST

WALN

UT ST

WHITTIER ST

IER ST

LU

ST

TUCKERMAN ST SHERIDAN ST

4T

H

AV

E
H AV E

OLIVER ST

OLIVER ST

MO

MI LL

ATIO N ST 29TH ST

9TH ST

LEG

H PL

MORRISON ST
31S

S DR

13T

QUACKENBOS ST 3RD ST

TA

1S

MC

VEN

7TH PL

MCKINLEY ST
LIVINGSTON ST LEGATION ST

T PL

QUINTANA PL

DA

SL

MCKINLEY ST

MC

O

KI

NL

EY
KI

12TH ST

HAMPTON ST

PL
EY ST

REL

SOMERSET PL SHERIDAN ST

5T

PL

RD

AND

RITTENHOUSE ST

ROXBORO PL
RITTENHOUSE ST

NL

FOR T STE

NO RT

H

RITTENHOUSE ST

KO

QUINTANA PL
QUACKENBOS ST

AV

8TH ST

7TH PL

RD

2ND ST

NEWLANDS ST

32ND ST

28TH ST

MILITARY RD

GLOVER

29TH ST

6TH ST

3RD PL

5TH

JOCELYN ST JENIFER ST

JOCELYN ST

RD

MONTAGUE ST

4TH ST

3RD ST

MARIETTA PL

MARIETTA PL

MILMARSON PL MADISON ST

CHILLUM

PL

ST

KANAWHA ST

RY ITA MIL

JOY

2ND PL

27TH ST

7TH ST

MA

DR

NC

THOR

HE

STE

PE ST

OGLETHORPE ST

KA

OGLE

RD

RD

R LN

NICHOLSON ST

NICHOLSON ST

NICHOLSON ST

DR

2ND PL

1ST PL

4TH ST

PK

TE

AN

ST

E

NE

ST

H

CH

1ST PL

38TH ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

T RD

CH

GARRISON ST

KENNEDY ST
14TH ST 13TH ST

34T

LIN

IC

A

Y PL

RIG

NE

HARRISON ST

BR

AS

RD

KENNEDY ST

KENNEDY ST

MA

JEFFERSON ST

ST

HARRISON

ST

KE

NN

ED

MIS

1ST ST

LONGFELLOW ST

1ST ST

AS

Y

R

HUNTINGTON ST

GS

Rock Creek Park

MORROW

AV

SHEPH

KA

ERD RD

KENSIN

GTON

PL

SOU

KENNEDY ST

RI AVE

8TH

INGOMAR ST

E

JENIFER ST

MADISON ST

MADISON ST

ST

ST

OGLETHORPE ST SO UT H DA KO TA AV E

OGLETHORPE ST
NICHOLSON ST

6TH ST

NS

RD

CE

AV

MISSO

K FO

AS

URI AVE

RO CK

POWHATAN PL PEABODY ST ONEIDA PL

E
E

CH

CR

ILL

EE

UM

PEABODY ST

PL

ONEIDA ST

MA

DI

SO

N

Two-thirds of the proposed lines follow historic streetcar routes. Existing development patterns, ¾ which the streetcar helped establish, are expected to thrive in the future with renewed streetcar service.
M
EA ST

BE AC H DR

28TH PL

LO

ST

UTA H AV E

the district’s suitability for streetcar service

SA ND Y SP

RIN RD

28TH ST

MOR ELAN

A BL

D ST

IR

IG

BRO AD BRA NCH RD

CH

RD

ILL UM

PL

A BE

BLA

30T

NEVADA AVE

IR RD

H ST PL

30T H
T ST

CH DR

S EA

1ST PL

GRAN

JEFFERSON ST INGRAHAM ST

JEFFERSON ST

RIGG

S RD

CHILLUM PL
INGRAH AM ST

30TH PL

FESSENDEN ST EVERETT ST ELLICOTT ST

FESSENDEN ST
30TH ST

SS RO

DR

HAMILTON ST
8T H

ER

N

AV

E

¾
M
GALL

FORT TOTTEN DR

LIN
32ND ST
FORT DR
AN T RD

HAMILTON ST GALLATIN ST

SO

UT

GAL

Maryland

NE

H

30TH ST

10TH ST

DAVENPORT ST CUMBERLAND ST

AN

AV

H PL

T ST

29T

DO

SH

ES

31ST ST

BRANCH

T RD

RA

RD

CH

RD

IRE

AV

1S

CHESAPEAKE ST

GAT

ES

FARADAY PL EMERSON ST

11TH ST

AV

6TH PL

E

TE

13TH ST

14TH ST

RF

13TH ST

E

GR

GRANT

RD

E

IE

LD

PL

FARRAGUT ST EMERSON ST

M ¾

DA

LOW AY ST

KO

TA

GALLATIN ST
AV E
FARRAGUT PL

FARRAGUT PL

FARADAY PL

MP

CO LO

BRANDYWINE ST
ALLE

32ND ST

36TH ST

6TH PL

7TH ST

ALTON PL YUMA ST

BL

BL

CRITTENDEN ST

6TH ST

AV E

M ¾

PINEY

8TH ST

16TH ST

TE

AV

35TH ST

DE

DE

ALBEMARLE ST

DECATUR ST

DECATUR ST

NE

APPLETON ST

NDA

R

LE PL

DELAFIELD PL

W

DELAFIELD PL

DELAFIELD PL

DECATUR PL

DE

12TH ST

GRAN

DELAFIELD PL

E

Fort Totten Park
BUCHANAN ST

HA

LA

FI

EL

D

ST

EMERSON ST

DELAFIELD PL

DECATUR ST

QU

N

N

EE

AG

AG

CRITTENDEN ST

CRITTENDEN ST

NS

CRITTENDEN ST
BUCHANAN ST

CH

AP

AUDUBON

TER

R

17TH ST

BUCHANAN ST

HA WA
ALLISON ST

II

CLERMONT DR HALF PL 1ST PL

TE

14TH ST

17TH ST

LN

LE

INTERNATIONAL

N

WINDOM PL WARREN ST

CT

AV

BAT
E

ES

RD

EL

EA

ST

BUCHANAN ST

TE

ER

R

N

AV

ALLISON

ST

E

RE

DE

NO

AR

ALLISON ST 15TH ST

GY

ALLISON ST

BL A

VEAZEY ST VAN NESS ST UPTON ST

18TH ST

AV

1ST ST

AN

VARNUM ST

T

VARNUM ST

IDAHO AVE

INTERNATIONAL DR

KA

UPSHUR ST

FO

E

RT

UPSHUR ST

12TH PL

NS

2ND ST

UPTON ST

UPSHUR ST
TAYLOR ST

URELL PL

UPSHUR ST TAYLOR ST

TILDEN ST
NGLA SPRI ND LN

37TH ST

CRESTWOOD DR

KA

DG

WIC

ROD

19TH ST

MAN

ST

RODMAN ST
ROWLAND PL

QUEBEC ST
38TH

PA R
LN

RAN

DOL

SHEPHERD ST

SHEPHERD ST

21ST ST

AR

K ST

LINNEAN AVE

SIGSBEE PL

18TH PL

9TH ST

NS

SE

TILDEN ST

AS

TAYLOR ST

AV

DR

TAUSSIG PL

TAYLOR ST

21ST ST

VARNUM ST

VARNUM ST
8TH

13TH PL

VARNUM ST

19TH PL

¾
M
AVE

38TH ST

G

WEBSTER ST

WEBSTER ST

LE

WE

BST

16TH ST

CI

E

VARNUM ST

VICTOR

ER

WEBSTER ST
VARNUM PL

R

ST

ST

TAYLOR ST
BU

SHEPHERD ST

SHEPHERD ST RANDOLPH ST

SHEPHERD ST

NK

QUEBEC PL

K

RANDOLPH ST

PH

ST

RITCHIE PL
RANDOLPH ST

ER

HI

LL

AV

30TH ST

HO

ASHLEY TER

ORDWAY ST

IDA

34TH PL

10TH ST

29TH ST

MOUNT PLEASANT ST

IRE

LIAM

KW OO

HIGH

LAND

24TH ST

HOLMEAD PL

27TH ST

ROSS PL

BR

WALBRIDGE PL

19TH ST

36TH ST

18TH ST

34TH ST

33RD PL

WOODLEY
38TH ST

RD

E ST

17TH ST

PIN

DE

VO

TON

NS

HIR

LAMONT ST KILBOURNE PL
ADA

PAR

K RD
LAMONT ST

LAMONT

ST

LAWRENCE ST
KEARNY ST JACKSON ST
HO RN

ST

E PL

ST

MO

NRO

MORTON

ST

MIC

HIG

HOOVE

LOWELL ST

NR

7TH ST

KLINGLE RD
RD

MO

ST

PARK RD

R RD

ON

NE

MONROE ST

WT

PARK RD

MANO

OE

E ST

AN

AVE

MONROE ST
LAWRENCE ST KEARNY ST
15TH ST

MONROE ST

BRE

NTW

OOD

RD

34T

MACOMB ST

NE

OAK ST

HA

PL

NEWTON

W

PL

NEWTO

R PL

M ¾

H ST

OA

IAN

OAK ST

OTIS PL

N PL

NEWTON ST

28TH ST

BUNK

WIL

MP

RID

OTIS PL

SH

NEWARK ST

M ¾

SBU

OW N ST

ME

OTIS ST
18TH ST

30TH ST

INGLESIDE TER

OA

OTIS

K ST

PL

PRINCE

ER HILL

AV

NORTON PL

PL

PL

OAKVIEW

31ST PL

D TER

TON PL
OTIS PL

OTIS PL

26TH ST

E

OD

30TH PL

QUEB

RD

RG

PKY PINEY BRANCH

PAR

KWO

RY

PL

RD

ROC

M ¾

K CRE

TER

PER

ING

EK

EC PL

PERRY ST

PE

22ND ST

SPRING PL
OG

SPR

CHU

RCH

PARK

EC ST

QUEBEC PL

E

RD

RD SCALE GATE

PL

QUINCY ST

Y RR

ST

QUINCY ST PERRY ST

25TH PL

QUEB

9TH ST

PORTER ST

PL

RD

QUINCY

ST

RANDOLPH ST

RD

QUINCY ST

QUINCY ST

PER

RY

PERRY ST

OTIS

ST

W AL

37
ST

TH

ST

KLINGLE RD

34TH ST

KLINGLE PL

KLINGLE

KE

CLIN

KEEFER

PL

NY

MY

RTL

E AVE
CE NT

NU

T

ST
EL M

ST

CORTLAND PL

KENYON ST
MIL

ON

PL

KENYON

ST

JACKSON ST
14TH ST

FO

CATHEDRAL AVE

CATHEDRAL AVE

25TH ST

33RD PL

BELLEVUE TER

32ND ST

IRVING ST
QU AR

27TH ST

4TH ST

38TH ST

28TH ST

OO

26TH ST

27TH ST

35TH ST

34TH PL

29TH ST

29TH PL

6TH ST

EL

WOODL

36TH PL

9TH ST

AN

EY RD

EDMUNDS ST
VAT SER OR

24TH ST

E

ON

2ND ST

20TH ST

CIR

RY

ST

ERV ATO

31ST ST

ING

38TH ST

12TH PL

NORTH CAPITOL ST

D PL

RD

DO WN

15TH ST

RE

OBS

30TH ST

EA

FLAGLER PL

HM

LM

HIGHWOOD CT 39TH ST

BE

LN RD

35TH ST

SS

WILTBERGER ST

37TH ST

24TH ST

IR

8TH ST

38TH ST

10TH ST

34TH ST

LN

24TH ST

2ND ST

20TH ST

JOHNSON AVE

BL A

HA

RS

15TH ST

PO

7TH ST

&

MP

S ST

S ST

K

AV

3RD ST

SH

EE

S

BANCROFT PL

E

SWANN ST

SWANN ST

SEATON PL S ST

SEATON PL

DE

CR

TT

LINCO

E

T ST

AV

HU

SE

CALIFORNIA ST

PL OY LER BANCROFT PL

1ST ST

RO CK

VER

E

AC

TRACY PL

FL

OR

IDA

AV

WILLARD ST

CAROLINE ST

WALLACH PL

T ST

T ST

T ST

THOMAS ST

TODD PL T ST

TODD PL
T ST
FEN
E ST OKI

T ST

T ST
HICKEY LN

PH

36TH ST

LOVE

19TH ST

NE

AVE

4TH ST

RESERVOIR RD
DENT PL Q ST

AVON PL

MO NT

9TH ST

28TH ST

30TH ST

KINGMAN PL

E

ETT

18TH ST

MILL RD

L AV

ELLIPSE RD

3RD ST

PI TO

35TH ST

COLUMBIA ST

HOPKINS ST

26TH ST

33RD ST

PL

16TH ST

14TH ST

AVE

27TH ST

BATAAN ST

36TH ST

37TH ST

MO NT

POTOMAC ST

20TH ST

KIRBY ST

VER

4TH ST

DA

N ST
OLIVE ST

22ND ST

10TH ST

18TH PL

3RD ST

K ST

1ST TER

THOMAS JEFFERSON ST

26TH ST

DELA WARE

ABBEY PL

H ST

16TH ST

AVE

29TH ST

1ST ST

15TH ST

DE

POTOMAC ST

MO NT

12TH ST

MO

25TH ST

17TH PL

17TH ST

S ST

24TH ST

4TH ST

13TH ST

43RD PL

21ST ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

STA

20TH ST

18TH ST

AN

6TH ST

MP

5TH ST

EAST EXECUTIVE AVE MADISON PL

8TH ST

24TH ST

1ST ST

W

NE

11TH ST

7TH ST

PICKFORD PL

2ND ST

ST

18TH ST

15TH ST

15TH ST

IL W

E

O

AV

CIR

19TH ST

PL

US

23RD ST

ST

3RD ST

9TH ST

ES TE XP

SE

E ST EXPY

MA

21ST ST

13 1/2 ST

17TH PL

23RD ST

9TH ST

INTERSTATE 395

AV

16TH ST

ANACOSTIA RD

DR

NIL WO

46TH ST

ANACOSTIA AVE

5TH ST

BURNS ST

33RD ST

KE

2ND ST

22ND ST

NR Y

12TH ST EXPY

MADISON DR

1ST ST

7TH ST

19TH ST

22ND ST

EAST CAPITOL ST
13TH ST

23RD ST

RAOUL WALLENBERG PL

3RD ST

1ST ST

36TH ST

LENFANT PROMENADE

AVE

MEMORIAL AVE

ARL

C ST

MAR

YLA

SEWARD SQ

AC

HU

BAY ST
SE TTS AVE

13TH ST

DELAW ARE

1ST ST

C ST

C ST 6TH ST

33RD ST

12TH ST

17TH ST

32ND ST

G ST

G ST

G ST

GORMAN TER

46TH PL

4TH ST

ST

WESLEY PL

CIR

6TH ST

EY

CHA

DELA WAR

14TH ST

Y

30TH ST

PK

BRG

E AVE

I ST

I ST
INTE

I ST
RSTA TE 695
PO TO

MA

C AVE

IVES PL IVES PL

NT

PLIN

AL

MAKEMIE PL

ROCHAMBEAU

31ST ST

RI

32ND ST

MO

EAST BASIN DR

DR

3RD ST

W

ME

IO

CROISSANT PL

H ST

H ST

H ST
CA NA L ST

BAYLEY PL

G

OH

EA VE
AT W

4TH PL

5TH ST

6TH PL

RST ATE

VIRG
695

INIA

AVE

F ST SOUTH

7TH ST

INTERSTATE 695

DUDDINGTON PL
INTE

CAR

OLIN

A AVE

NN

MIN

E

MA IN

FRONTAGE RD

SOU

NE

AV

ANA

WE

E ST

E ST

TH CARO

SO

INE

IV

LINA

16TH ST

ST

Y

MA

TA

SCHOOL ST

COS

ST

AVE D ST

AN

BA

D ST
KE NT

ELY PL

PE

SY

E ST

E ST
F ST

ELY PL

ELY PL

40TH PL

¾
M

5TH ST

TIA

AVE

D ST

AV

AC

SI

N

OS

E

DR

D ST

VIRG

INIA

M

TIA

D ST

M ¾

M ¾
D ST

M ¾

C ST

C ST

C ST

BURKE ST

C ST

C ST

TEXAS AVE

ING

TON

ME

RIA MO

L BR

G

MAIN
INDEPENDENCE AVE

E AVE

INDEPENDENCE AVE

M ¾

18TH ST

JEFFERSON DR

17TH ST

MAR

ND

AVE

RT NO

H CA

RO

LIN

34TH ST

B ST
37T H PL

B ST
BA

B ST
SS PL

WALTER PL

MA

SS

BAY ST

2ND ST

D ST

D ST

SOU

TH

CAR

FWY

OLIN

C ST

RD

SEWARD SQ

¾

A AVE

M ¾

CROFFUT PL

DUBOIS PL

C ST

DUBOIS PL D ST

D ST

D ST
BUR

49TH ST

YLA

A AVE

12TH ST

ND

AVE

A ST

A ST

A ST

B

ST
BU RN S PL
E RD

46TH ST

The Mall

EAST CAPITOL ST
EAST CAPITOL ST

HE

EAST CAPITOL ST

EAST CAPITOL ST

CENTRAL AVE

EAST CAPITOL ST

A ST

A ST

E ST

CH

E ST
IN ST
FALLS TER

LVA

APL

F ST

NIA

AVE

INTE

RST VIRG INIA I PL ATE AVE 695

M ¾

F ST

H ST

G ST

FO

G ST
A PL

RT

DU

PO

HILLTOP TER H ST
CH

DR

HA

NN

SYCAM

MADISON DR

A ST

A ST

41ST ST

BA

RTH NO

CO

ALDEN PL
AMES ST

AMES ST

AMES ST

AMES ST

M ¾

48TH PL

35

MA

A ST

ORE RD

TH

36

N

RY

12TH ST

46TH PL

TH

FL

LAN

CONSTITUTION AVE

BLAINE ST

BLAINE ST

45TH ST

INTER

17TH ST

ST

IN

STATE

AVE

CONSTITUTION AVE

43R

RT

ST

T

66

ION

D AVE

A AVE LIN RO CA AMES PL

H

PL

CONS

TITUT

AV E

2ND ST

22ND ST

20TH ST

12TH PL

2ND ST

PARK ST

BAKER ST

CLAY PL

D RD

E

C ST

ST

BANKS PL

47TH ST

IA AVE

WARREN ST

C ST

C ST

LVAN

C ST

AVE

C ST

C ST

14TH PL

NSY

6TH ST

IA

M ¾

6TH ST

PEN

M ¾

ANA

LO

DELA WAR

7TH ST

INDI

INDI

C ST

34TH ST

ANA

CORBIN PL
C ST

18TH PL

20TH ST

GIN

D ST

SI UI

10TH ST

CLAY PL
CLAY ST

35TH ST

34TH PL

AVE

39T

AN

AVE

TE

ELL

E AVE

D ST

A

H

AV

D ST

TTS

18TH ST

IPS

NN

SE

36TH ST

VIR

D ST

DIX ST

ST

E

HU

42ND ST

E RD

ES

D ST

E ST

SS

AC

LEXINGTON PL

DUNCAN PL

ISHERWOOD ST

EADS ST

44TH ST

M ¾

MITCH SNYDER PL

20TH ST

LA

Y

8TH ST

1ST ST

COL

E

E ST

OK

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

10TH ST

E ST

AV

STATE PL

E ST

M ¾

UMB

8TH ST

23RD

24TH

E ST

E ST

ING RD

OT

48TH PL

E

MA

HO

ACKER PL

EMERALD ST

KE N

RY

F ST

BENN

FO

EDSON PL

45TH ST

25TH

LAN

PL

MA

F ST

F ST

F ST

F ST

44TH ST

F ST

F ST

D AVE

47TH PL

AV

FOOTE ST

46TH ST

MORRIS PL

20TH

G ST

14TH PL

NIA

E

G ST

G ST

G ST

G ST

M ¾

ELLIOTT ST

VIR

GI

M ¾

G ST

14TH ST

G PL

M ¾

RT H

G ST

GALES PL GALES KRAM ST ER ST ROSE DALE ST ROSE DALE F ST ST

G ST BENN ING RD

OT

PA

G PL

LINDEN PL

BENNETT PL

KE

FO

NI LW

H ST

RK

H ST

OR

AVE

JACKSON PL

SI DE

HA

NIA

S AVE

H ST

H ST

AV E

TH

LVA

11TH ST

ETT

H ST

BA

PL

TE

I ST

I ST

M ¾

26TH ST

IRE

SH

I ST

NEW

HUS

L RY MA

R

PEN

NSY

YOR

I ST

SAC

WYLIE ST

AC

MAS

AN

OS

I ST

M

I ST M

¾

NORTH CAPITOL ST

27TH ST

26TH ST

9TH ST

19TH ST

3RD ST

K AVE

I ST

I ST

I ST

H PL

RN

ES

ST

IE

HE

HUNT PL

JAY ST LEN BU RR OU HAYES ST

46TH ST

AV

TIA

I ST

AV

K ST

E

PARKER ST

AA VE

VE DA

NA

NN

45TH PL

GH

HAYES ST

S AVE

47TH ST

HUNT PL HAYES ST

E

ST

M ¾
E PL

GAULT PL GRANT ST

47TH PL

K ST

8TH ST

PLE

OR

R ST

K ST

K ST

RID

RE

MT VERNON PL

1ST TER

WATE

RS

E ST

K ST

SHERIFF RD

E

48TH PL

3RD ST

KENT PL

MO

18TH ST

19TH ST

N ST

VER

NE

SOUTH ST

FL O

48TH ST

5TH ST

ST

EADS ST DIX ST CLAY ST

EADS PL

FITCH PL

CLA Y PL

DIX

ST

BROOKS

BLAINE ST

49TH ST

W

KANE PL

45TH

FWY

L ST

L ST

L ST

L ST

L ST

L ST

AL

BLA

HA

EHU

4TH ST

RST

GRACE ST

M ¾ ¾

L ST

NE

L ST

LEE ST

PL 45TH

MP

WHIT

SU

MORTON PL

16T

NT

L PL

SH

NS

ST

LANG PL

Anacostia Park

ST

PIERCE ST

MM

EL

DE SALES ST

S AVE

PIERCE ST

IS

HO LBR

IR

BU

ETT

ORLEANS PL

LEV

LYMAN PL

21ST PL

CANAL RD

23RD ST

LO

E

IT

HUS

OO

M ST

M ST

AV

AV

RG

ST

SAC

E

M ST

AVE

MAS

M ST

OW

RD

E

PROSPECT ST

EN PL OA TE S ST

M ST

40TH ST

TR

PL

RHODO

MEADE ST

MEADE ST

47TH PL

RD

TER

INI

ND

M ¾

PATTERSON ST

18TH ST

WA

JEFFERSON PL

HIG

HLA

NEW

PE

EE

RIDGE ST

NN

ST

N ST

R

D AV

N ST

N ST

N ST

YOR

K AVE

N ST

N ST

E ST

QU

TE

E

OK

KE NIL KE WO NIL WO RTH RT AV E H AV E

O ST

DUMBARTON ST

NEWPORT PL

SUNDERLAND PL

S AVE

11T

DE RHO

ISL

AND

HANOVER PL

M ¾

MO

RS

HO LB

RO

ME

IGS

T RD

CRABTREE RD
NASH ST

KE

AVE

EAGLE

O ST

H

P ST

POPLAR ST

SAC

NIL WO

P ST

P ST

MAS

O ST

HUS

ETT

O ST

O ST

O ST

O ST

WY NE

SIM RA UM

NE

MS

MO
PL

RT

UN

AL

PL

T

OL

P ST

P ST

O

CA

BRE

NTW

W ES

H

VOLTA PL

NEST RD

BE

EC

AV

T

EAST PL

POLK ST

IV

E

DUPONT

M ¾

ST

OOD

E

ST

CIR

VI

BATES ST

ECKIN

CHURCH ST

CHURCH ST

10TH ST

NN

PKY

OO HW

KE

S AVE

Q ST

Q ST

GTON

NIL WO

HUS

VER

SAC

MARION ST

RT

RID

HARR Y THOM

PL

WINFIELD LN

H

DENT PL

CA RG PIT IN IA OL AV AV E E

SCOTT

MAS

HILLYER PL

CORCORAN ST

WARNER ST

FLO

QUINCY PL

AZALEA RD

MEADOW

RD

PO

Q ST

A AV

ND

E

Q ST

S ST

LE

S

AV

PL
32ND ST

AR

E

RESERV

OIR ST

AS WAY

R ST

DE RHO

ISL

R ST

OK

Y

IE

PK

AND

AVE

RANDOLPH PL

RANDOLPH PL

ST

R ST

MA

C

DECATUR PL

PL

W

TO

EL

PS

RIGGS PL

RIGGS PL

RIGGS ST

FRENCH ST

M ¾

S ST

S ST

E ST OKI

VALLEY RD

23RD ST

WHITEHAVE

E

MO NT

MA
AT W

NS BU

N PKY

U ST

1ST ST

U ST

AVE

WYOMING AVE

WYO

MIN

VERNON ST

U ST

M ¾

UHLAND TER

U ST

U ST

U ST

U ST

V ST

RG

SEATON ST

12TH ST

ON

G AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

V ST

V ST

OAKDALE ELM ST

PL

V ST

T

RD

V ST

5TH ST

W

1ST PL

PL

WHITEHAVEN ST

V ST

RD

CK RO

AS

BR

KAL

EN

CR

ORA

10TH ST

TW

W ST

EE

MA

BEE

W ST

W ST

W ST

W ST
W PL

W ST

AD

V ST

SPRING HOUSE RD

33RD ST

K

3RD ST

LA W

RD

KMA

W ST

OO

DR

D

CR

ES

BE

LM

ON

FLOR

ST

NC

OBS

CK RO

ck Ro

ADAMS ST

ADAMS ST

N PL

W DO

ADAMS ST

E

CR

BELMONT RD

BELMONT RD

CE

NT

T ST

BELMONT ST

IDA AVE

BRYANT

13

AV

EE

KA

BARRY PL

ST

ASCOT PL

TH

NI

NG

30TH PL

TOR ERVA

E

Y LN

K

DR

ek Cre

LO

PL

BELMONT ST

M ¾

BRYANT ST

PL

AMES PL

AM

S PL

33

PL

D PL

RA

MA

COLLEGE

ST

BRYANT ST

BRYANT ST

ADAMS ST

RD

ALLEN

MINTWOO

CHAPIN ST
6TH ST

ST

36TH PL CONIFER RD

S ST

HICKEY

HILL RD
TIA AVE

RAND PL R ST

UN

E DR

RD

ST

TH

21ST PL

NST

ST

ON

H

ST

rk Pa

BILTMORE ST

CLIFTON ST

HOWARD

DR

CHANNING ST

CHANNING ST

BR YA

SA

CALVERT ST

MA

28T
R

PL

N

NT

14

CHANNING ST

33RD

PL

NAM ED

PA

NOR

LLA

30TH ST

MI

RA TO

CROMWELL TER

RK

RD

CALVERT ST

GA

EUCLID ST

MC

AV

DOUGLAS ST

REED ST

DAVIS PL

DAVIS ST

OB

CALVERT ST

AV

LA

E

EUCLID ST

CH

DOUGLAS ST DOUGLAS ST

NI NG DOUGLAS ST ST MO NT CHANNING ST AN A AV E BRYANT ST

AN

DOUGLAS ST

DOUGLAS ST

31ST PL

Y CIR

E

TA

RI

O

ER NI

PL

FULLER ST

FAIRMONT ST

FAIRMONT

EUCLID ST
9TH ST

EVARTS ST

EVARTS ST

EVARTS ST

BR

EN

TW

22ND ST

AV

YD CL

PL

24TH ST

D

ES

DA

LE

GIRARD ST
RI O

GIRARD ST

GIRARD

ST
ST

FRANKLI

N ST

FRANKLIN ST

FRANKLIN ST

OO

D

RD

FRANKLIN ST
AVE

APPLE RD

EVARTS ST

EVARTS ST

BAN

EV

AD

PL

AR

5TH ST

FULTON ST

CL

M ¾

AM

IT PL

GIRARD

ST

GIR

BERRY RD

31ST PL

FOR T LINC

SUMM

NN GO

GRESHAM

NEK

GIRARD ST

20TH ST

BR

ST

8TH ST

S

HARVARD ST

1ST ST

GARFIELD

E

PL

GIRARD ST

GIRARD ST

AR

D

OLN

RY HARVARD ST RD

TW

30

LL

ER

EN

MI

PL

PL

DR

HOBART

HAMLIN ST

DR

RD

TH

GARFIELD ST

PL

ST

D

HOBART ST

M ¾

IRVING ST

LU CO

MB

IA

RD

HA WT

RT

PL

IRVING ST
CA

COLUMBIA RD

HOBART PL

HAMLIN ST

RD

E

IRVING ST
DR

IRVING ST

TO RL

N

AV

E

FULTON PL
HAMLIN ST

EA

RL

HAMLIN ST

A ST VI

ST

PL

SU
AV E

MM

IT

CT

ANA

COS

QU

ST

E AV RK

PE

D

RD

DOU

GLA

47

TH

AV

E

S ST

OL

ST

IVE

ORD ST

PL

RA

UM

ST

DENDE

ON VALLEY

RD
MARNE PL

M ¾

MI

NN

ES

A OT

AV

E

LANE PL

LEE ST
KANE PL

The District had an extensive streetcar network between ı862 and ı962, and many of today’s development patterns originally formed around its lines (Map 1, Proposed and Historic Streetcar Routes). Since the late ı970s Metrorail has served as the District’s signature transit service. The second-busiest subway system in the United States, it provides high-quality service every day to hundreds of thousands of area residents and visitors. Metrorail service, however, is not equally available throughout the District and does not reach certain areas with high demand for premium transit. The proposed streetcar system is planned so that it would reach many of those areas, tying them to each other and to Metro. Unlike Metro, the above-ground nature of the streetcar would increase its visibility and expand opportunity for visitors and others to experience the city visually.
lessons froM other cities

1ST ST

R TE

D VA NE

N

NIC

2N D ST

E AV

HO LS ON

A E AV

ST

5T H ST

BLAIR

Y

EV

33

JA

GEORGIA

RD

11TH ST

REN O RD

12 TH

4T H

3RD

ST

7T

2ND ST

H

ST

ST

ST

ST

ILL INO IS

RIDGE RD

FA

AVE

AVE

RR

FA

IO WA AV E

7TH PL

AG UT PL

RR AG UT ST

FARRAGUT ST

ATIN PL

29TH ST

28T H ST

AS

GR

RN

BA

5TH ST

DR

CANAL ST

1ST ST

EY

CUSHING PL

CARROLLSBURG PL

HOWISON PL

11TH ST

CANA

VAN ST

34TH ST

DAHLGREN AVE

ISAAC HULL AVE

12TH ST

PATTERSON AVE

RO CH

LS

10TH ST

HALF ST

PARSONS AVE

29TH ST

AL ST

NF AN

27TH ST

O ST

N PL
O ST

CAN

3RD ST

O ST

LE

O ST

O ST

TE WA

R

ST

ON

T SQ

LS

ST

31ST PL

37TH PL

4TH ST

East Potomac Park

PAULDING AVE

N ST

N ST

TINGEY ST

N ST

NIC

BU

HO

RN

ST

PL

S

N ST

ANA

COS

34TH PL

N

ON

TIA

RD

33RD PL

M ¾

M ¾

9TH ST

L ST

2ND ST

E

10TH ST

CK

G

BR

BU

L ST CAN AL ST

HALF ST

AU

AM BE

18TH PL

WHITE PL

1ST ST

23RD ST

T ST

25TH ST

AN

28TH ST

SOUTH CAPITOL ST

31S

17TH ST

31ST ST

ER

24TH PL

TOV

2ND ST

S ST

S ST

S ST

5TH AVE

23RD ST

TEX

WES

1ST AVE

2ND AVE

4TH AVE

3RD AVE

21

RD

30TH ST

HI GH

24

BA

RD

FIR

TH

STE

MN

ER

BL VD

SCH

PI TT

ER

BO

PITOL ST

NS

MIT

RD

NV

FE

ELVANS RD

18TH PL

18TH ST

SOUT H CA

NG

CUD

ST

Virginia

LA

RD

R

ALABAMA AVE

DR

28

DA

31ST ST

TH

ST

TH

OM AS

CE

RO

ON

ST

PO

ME

FRANKFORD ST

PL

UG DO
POMEROY RD

UC

M ¾

WA

PL

RD Y RT RD HE INS DO BB RO

IC W

DUNB

LAS

S RD

ERIE ST

FO

RT

GE

29TH

PL

K

BIRNEY

DR

AIN

ST

D

RD

RD

25TH ST

AR RD

EATO

N RD

HO W

DE

DE

AR

RR

HU

RD

WE

IS

DE

MO

NT

ER

BB RO
AT W

E

EN

ST

ST

RD

W EN

S

PL

INS

EV

33RD ST

ST

PL

RD

ST

N

RD

RD

R

BRYAN PL

EA TO

ER

HO W

TH

Y RR

RLI

NG

SU

DE

XT

TL

ST

AVE

BU

SK

32ND ST

E ST

RD

D PK

31ST ST

M ¾

18TH ST

D ST D ST

SU

ITL

AR

ST

AN

M ¾
Y

D

RD

SH

AN

31ST PL

D ST

HO W

NO

N

VA
MA PL E

LL

EY

PL

GALE

W ST

W PL

37TH ST

RO BB

PL

AMO ALT

32ND PL

RD

38TH ST

14TH

FEND

19T

INS

W ST

16TH

NT

PL

V ST

FO

V ST

WAR D

13TH

ST

U ST

30TH ST

15TH

ST

H

HO

ALL ST

ST

V ST

U

PL

PARK DR V PL

DA VIS

ST

V

ST

ST

U ST

HOPE

RD

T PL

33RD

ST

ST

U ST

S ST

N ST
GR

W ST

W ST
SUI TLA ND

RD

AR

ER

ER

YL

D

TE

BANGOR ST

ST

SK

AN

AUSTIN ST

RD

SU

ITL

AN

D

TE

R

SO

UT

HE

RN

AV

E

S

W YL AG SK AN NE YL D TE R AN ST R D PL

D

PL

BANGOR ST CAMDEN ST
36 TH PL

DENVER ST
TE

R

PL

R

ERIE ST
FRANKFORD ST

PL

BR

GH HI

E

VI

EW

Y RD

GAINESVILLE ST

GAINESVILLE ST

Y ST

HEM LOC

SPRUCE ST

PLUMB ST

PERSIMMON ST

22ND ST

TH

FRE

ACCE

STANTON RD

DIA

DER

PL

ICK

JASPER

21ST ST

RO JASPER BI RD NS ON PL

20TH ST

PL

12

ST

SS RD

23

RD

INTERSTATE 295

E

ST

SHIPL

28TH ST

PL

M ¾

22ND ST

23RD ST

K ST

23

RD

PL

HARTFORD ST

Y LL HO

PI NE

ST

SUITLA

AHE

ND PKY

IRVING ST
JA SP

IRVING PL

MAPLE SQ

15TH PL

NN

TE

REDWOOD DR

AH

MARR

BR

R

CIR

PL

JOHN

UC

EY TER

M ¾

SYCAMORE DR

SA VA

AH

SOUTH CAPITOL

LE AVE

H PL

proposed streetcar line on the route of a historic line proposed streetcar line not on the route of a historic line Streetcar corridor—1/4 mile on either side of proposed line
SCOTT CIR
D AVE ARNOL

PL

NAPIER AVE

22ND ST

8TH ST

ST

KISLING ST

ICK

DR

7TH ST

HALL

CIR

LORING SOUT

WAY

MACD

GE

ST

ILL BLVD

ST

DR

CO NG

OR

AN

ST

ST

AR

K

RE

OA

OM B KW ST OO D ST

ON

UM

PL

OA

SS

LL

BA

PO

SA VA

NE

NN

4T

WC

ME

LE

RID

H

GE

CR

ST

EST

CT

Maryland
Maryland

PATR

9TH ST

15TH ST

BUT

MALCOLM X AVE PARKLAND PL RALEIGH ST
WAC

DOGW

OOD

DR

LER

ST

RALEIGH PL

M ¾
SAVA NNA

ANN SAV

AH

ST

SMIT
H ST

H PL
TREN

TON

PL

23

RD

PK

Y

FORT DUPONT ST

R

RT

PL

40TH ST

ST

GOOD

41ST PL

Anacostia Park
CH IC

U ST

18TH ST

PL

T ST

T ST

T ST

T ST

41ST ST

T ST

FO

T ST

TE

RT

AS

AVE

S ST

NIA

DA VI S

S ST

LVA

AVE

XA

E S AV S ST

Q

ST

PL

RIDGE PL

RIDGE PL

NN

SY

38T

42ND ST

M ¾

16TH ST

PO

MA TO R ST

A AN

CO

28TH PL

29TH ST

30TH ST

B ST

22ND ST

Q ST
C AVE

IA ST

19TH ST

21ST PL

Y FW

27TH ST

3RD AVE

DR

S BLVD

CAST

13TH ST

DING

JAME

Y AVE

EIG H ST

5TH ST

PPIE

AVE

HE

D ST

RS

MCC

PL

ER ST

SAVANNAH ST

WHEE

LER

HILL

DR

HOR

CON

GRE

SS

ST

OKLE

4TH ST

LUKE

CHA

BR

RAL

ER ST

AVE

OT

AV

TINK

6TH ST

CAN

JR

KELL Y CIR

2ND ST

BRO

G

OX

ON

RU

DUN

KIN

RES NG ST CO AL UPS

N

RD

S ST

TREN

TON

E

PL

PI SIP SIS MIS

14T

ER

AV

ER

LU

CHA

HORNER PL

CIR

OV

E WEST

CH

MAR

OK

VA

OV

IS WAY
MA

ER

EY

DR

HALLEY TER

ST

XE

PL

PL

RN

TRAV

ANG

LO

EY

ELL

HA

LL

W AY

ST

LAND

AV

LACK

REW S PL
ST

MA

AND

2ND ST

REW S CIR

IN

AND

RD

ST

TH

BLAN

RICE

E

RT

Z

RT

ER ST INT AT ER E 295 ST AT E 295

NNOI

GIOVA

T ST

1S

8TH ST

D

INT

IN WAY

SOUTH CAPITOL TER

CHANUT
WRIG HT CIR

ELG

WIN

8TH ST

Park/open space Water

LAI

RD

RD

NS

NS

RD PKY

IO

DR

PERIMETE

R NORTH

RD OP

ER

AT

TON ST IRVING

JOLIET

Proposed streetcar line not correlated with the path of a historic streetcar line Proposed streetcar line following the path of a historic streetcar line

4 | introduction

Y

ST

1ST ST

IVANHO

E ST

SOUTH CAPITOL TER

MASTER LAND USE PLAN M Metro station Streetcar station FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STREETCAR SYSTEM
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

MCGU

IRE

AVE

1ST ST

E PL

BRANDYWINE ST

LIVINGSTON RD

E PL

BR

AN

DY

ATLANTIC ST
BRANDYWINE ST CHESAPEAKE ST 6TH ST

BA

RN

AB

Y

BE

ST

LL

ATLANTIC

EV

UE

YUMA ST
ST

ND CO

2N

YUMA ST

Y RD

ST

CHESAPEAKE ST

7TH

MA

DARRINGTON ST

KEEL RD

LIVIN

GSTO

N TER

DARR

ELMIRA ST

INGT

HELM CT

KNOT CT

FORRESTER ST

FORR

BEYER RD

GALVESTON PL

GALV

GA

UNNAMED RD

GALVESTON ST

UNNAMED RD

ESTE R ST ESTO N PL LVE STO N ST

ON ST BONIN I RD

LABORATORY RD

BA

GA

ZIN

RN

E RD

AB

DANBURY ST

SO

U

TH

ER

N

ST

E AV

BE

T ST

ST

YOUN

ON

LL

XENIA ST

FO

TE

XENIA ST

EV

MI

XH

R

RD

UE

IN

HA

ST

39TH ST
ST

3RD PL

IO A W E AV

13TH PL

SARG

ENT RD

ILL INO

NNE CO CUT CTI

IS AVE

IO WA AV E
7TH ST

HA RE WO

6TH PL

PUE

2ND

OD RD

RTO

TH MA

ST

ACK AVE ORM RICO N MCC JOH

3RD ST

VARN

EW SO N DR

ST

UM

MARLBORO PL

ILL INO

PL

CO NN EC U TIC

IS AVE

5TH ST

RD

7TH ST

EA ST ER N AV

17TH PL

E

REN

38TH ST

O RD
WO OD LA

VE TA

HAREWO

DE N ST

OD RD

RD LL MI CE AVE UNT ER PI EMO ROS

6TH ST

12TH ST

10TH ST

PARK

CH

WARD ER ST

ES

16TH ST

TN

9TH ST

UT

6TH ST

MOU NT PLEA

PL

HIATT PL

11TH ST

12TH ST

RA

13TH ST

TH

L

QU

PIN

AY

AV

MS

W HA TH OR NE ST

ER

E

EEN

EV

SAN

IE

ST

GEORGIA

W

S CH

17TH ST

L RD

CT

T ST

MIL

CE

APE L RD

NT

LS AV

RA L

AVE

5TH ST

SHERMAN

E

YO

WO OD LEY

ST

16T H

PL

AVE

MIL

PL

ND DR
31 ST ST

ON

LS

PL

TA RD

UNIVERSITY

17TH ST

26T

ONTARIO RD

MC GI LL TE

QU EE

H

PL

ST

NS

TUN LAW
HA LL
WH

CH

OBS

AP

25T

PLAIN CHAM

EL

RD PL RY ATO R PL ERV OPE DEK HUI

H PL

24T

RD

H

16T H ST

PL

ST

20T

PL

ITE VE HA N ST
SUT ERS

H ST

3RD ST
4TH ST

16T H ST

17 TH

5TH ST

ER DE SI DR

ST

2ND ST

RV FAI

WIC

9TH ST

PR

K ST

15

IEW AVE

KEN DAL L ST

OV IDE NC

TH ST

Y LL HO

E ST

SP RI

31ST

NG

WIS

RD

NEW

CON

ST

LO GA

LN

SIN

JERS

N CI

AVE

PO

R

EY AVE

LK ST

Y JA

22N D ST

ST

YE HA S ST
BU
DG RI

49TH PL

49TH ST
47 TH ST

WA SH

ST

RN

NEW

LO

S

ING TO N BLV D
G W ME MO RIA L PK Y

ST

37TH

UIS

37

JERS

CHA

TH ST

ST

PL

EY AVE

PLIN ST

BAN K ST

UC KY AV E

BUR NS ST

46T

AD

RAND

RIA

H ST

ER ST

ALA

K ST

K ST L ST

K ST

K ST

K ST

N ST

46TH PL

45T

BA

LE CIR

44T

INTERSTATE 295

L ST
INTE

TE 295 RSTA

M PL
M

H PL

LY

MA

AP

ND

AL

E

M ST
WARRINGTON AVE

PL

Fort Dupont Park
T DAV FOR

H PL

BU RN

LIN ST

AVE

S ST

NA

ST

LOUD PL

SH

PL

NE

M ST

RID

HILLSIDE RD

N ST
NASH PL

MA

GE

IS DR

ST

NASH PL

PO

SS

AC

SICARD ST

P ST
AC

A ST

OS

TIA

DR

AN

AC

OS

FW AV N TIA AW IRL FA

Y

E

ST YO T NA OU UN YL G PR OR ST RD P ST

PE

HU

RD
BO WE N RD
SH

REED TER

BRANCH AVE

O ST

ST

O ST

SE

TTS

AVE
AN ST

QU

IN

PALMER PL PARK PL

P ST

NASH ST

N

ST

Q ST

NAS

POPE ST
POP

H ST

Q ST

E ST

BA

R ST

PE

ST CARPENTER HIGH WOO D DR

RK

ER

ST

NA

H

ST

SH

ST

EL

LIS

ST

E AV
VAL LEY TER

¾
M

DR

UPSAL ST
EY AVE

WI

LM

SO

UT

HE

RN

AV

E

IN

GT

ON

VALL

WAY

PL

WILMINGTON PL

NE

NIA

RT

ST

ST

SS

IS

SI

PP

I AV

E
L PL

AL

HLE WA WH EE LE R

R PL

0

0.25 0.5

1 Miles

Ü

The impact of streetcar systems in other cities has reached well beyond enhanced transportation. While the research and analysis underpinning this study are specific to the District and its neighborhoods, the study also examines the experience of cities that have implemented contemporary streetcar systems, including Portland, San Francisco, and ¾ Seattle.
M

PE AR ST

RA IL ST

35TH

EL

34TH ST

L

LE

ST

BE

BA

Y

CK

ST

ST

RK ER

ST

17TH PL

LN

33 RD
34TH

PL

DE NT ST

BRANCH

36 TH
36TH

PL

LL HI

AG O ST

CR ES

ST

ST

OH IO DR
AR

T DR

AVE

TA LB ER T ST

VIE W PL

CED AR ST

EE N ST

SHERIDAN RD

SO N RD

BU EN A VIS TA TER

TERRACE

15TH PL

RD
YL NA

KNOX ST

ASH ST

OR

MAG NOL IA ST

KNOX TERR

RD

ER ST

PECAN ST

STAN TON

25TH ST

2ND ST

TER

24TH ST

21ST ST

19TH ST

18TH ST

12TH

12TH ST

9TH PL

LARK PL

8TH ST

PL

10TH PL

11TH PL

13TH PL

7TH ST

13 TH ST

BURWELL ST

These cities have experienced compelling land-use-related benefits that include increased real estate investment, improved quality of life, and expanded economic

12 TH ST

9T

TY ND AL L ST

H ST

1ST PL

MO

R

CT

HALLEY

TER

3RD

ST

opportunity.1 This suggests that access to streetcar service can yield a diverse range of positive benefits: • reduced commuting and other transportation costs for households for whom better transit access meant the opportunity to own fewer cars.
1

Portland Streetcar Development Oriented Transit, 2008. Prepared by The Office of Transportation and Portland Streetcar, Inc. (www.portlandstreetcar.org/ pdf/development_200804_report.pdf). Among other results, Portland has seen $3.5 billion in new investment within two blocks of its streetcar system since 1997. The Effect of Rail Transit on Property Values: A Summary of Studies, 2001. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff (www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/show/ bestpractice162). Light Rail Systems and Property Values, 2004. Prepared by The Sacramento Regional Transit District (www.slp2.org/documents/propertyvalfs04. pdf). Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study, 2007. Prepared by HDR and Parsons Brinkerhoff (www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf17754.pdf).

• •

enhanced quality of life for urban neighborhoods, including increased vitality in local commercial districts, greater walkability, improved access to shopping and services, and similar benefits. expanded access to economic opportunity, including employment, training, and education sites and a wider array of services. increased fiscal returns for local governments. a rise in real estate values and development potential, primarily within one-quarter mile of a route and in areas that are relatively underdeveloped.

tarting in the middle of the 19th century, a growing network of streetcar lines helped shape the city’s urban fabric. Electrified streetcars, introduced in the late 1880s, proved faster and better able to handle steep grades than horse-drawn cars, which had served the District from 1862 on. A swift transition to electrified service in the 1890s set the stage for rapid expansion of streetcar lines in the first decades of the 20th century. Real estate developers used the convenience and increasing efficiency of the system to persuade the growing numbers of federal workers to buy moderately priced homes in neighborhoods springing up outside the old city center. By the second decade of the twentieth century, automobiles had become increasingly common on District thoroughfares, and commercial buses joined them in the 1920s. Streetcars continued as a major mode of

S

Back to the Future: The District’s First Streetcar System

transportation, but their popularity began to neighborhoods that grew up around streetcar decline with widespread suburban development routes and stops. and an explosive growth in car ownership after World War II. Competing lines merged into a single company in the 1930s, but a charter transfer in the mid1950s imposed a drastic requirement on the new owner: replacement of the streetcar fleet with buses. Although the last trolley ran in January 1962, the system left a lasting imprint on the city’s physical form— historic commercial Washingtonians throng sidewalks and streetcar stops at F and 10th streets corridors and near Woodward & Lothrop in the 1940s.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 5

Numerous studies have also documented rail transit’s impact and importance in attracting housing, jobs, retail, and other amenities to urban areas. The Center for TransitOriented Development’s 2004 study, Hidden in Plain Sight, calculated unmet national demand for transit-oriented housing, and very recent reports by real estate and economic development organizations such as the Urban Land Institute and CEOs for Cities. The development around Metrorail stations over the past three decades provides clear, if anecdotal confirmation of this trend. In fact, the scale of the District’s proposed system and the history of many of the city’s main commercial corridors and neighborhoods, which grew up around an earlier streetcar network, may actually help the District realize greater benefits from a streetcar system than some of these counterpart cities. For example, more than 50% of District households and a large majority of the city’s jobs would lie within walking distance of the fully built system. The comparable number for Portland is 9% and for Seattle, 6%, although both systems have fewer than ı0 miles of tracks. The District’s streetcar would be in the same league as San Francisco’s, where 65% of households sit within a quartermile of a streetcar line—although that system is twice the size of the one proposed for the District. The study team treated the streetcar experiences elsewhere as helpful guidance, not as substitutes for evaluating the streetcar’s impact on the District’s unique conditions, such as scale of streets and blocks, patterns

San Francisco’s F Line has been demonstrating the community and economic value of streetcars since the ı980s (above). Seattle’s South Lake Union streetcar, funded largely by the private sector, has stimulated substantial development of research, office, housing and retail space (left).

6 | introduction

of workplaces and housing; and existing transit-system configuration. Nevertheless, other cities do hold lessons for the District, particularly the importance of early planning to insure that increased values, expanding markets, and other effects do not hinder some residents and businesses in unanticipated ways. They also highlight the value of taking a comprehensive approach to streetcar planning and of integrating it with land use and broader transportation planning.
how the streetcar coMPares to other transit oPtions

decisions require predictability over periods of up to 30 years). Although well-designed BRT systems attract some development, their impacts are typically much less than those for rail2 —and the BRT systems that have generated the strongest development response operate on exclusive rights of way at all times and not in mixed traffic, as the District streetcar would. In cities without the potential to attract much development investment, implementation costs and other factors give buses a clear advantage. In the District, however, streetcar service appears very likely to attract significant real estate investment. The increases in real estate values and development that the streetcar could spur over a ten-year period—looking only at land within a quarter-mile of new routes—would exceed the projected cost of creating the system by 600%
2

This study examined the relative costs and benefits of streetcar service as compared to other transit options, including some with potentially lower construction costs. The comparisons indicate that in the District, streetcar service offers a more cost-effective means of achieving community goals than other options. Bus rapid transit (BRT) and other bus alternatives, like the District’s popular Circulator service, have the advantages of much lower capital costs and much faster implementation. Buses also provide broad flexibility in terms of changing routes and can maneuver more readily in heavy traffic. The primary benefit the streetcar offers, evident in shelters at stops and in the rails themselves, is its visible permanence, which can serve as a powerful attraction to private real estate investment. Although highly visible shelters and stations can raise the profile of bus service, the very flexibility of routes and service levels that represents its biggest advantage also dilutes its ability to spur real estate investment (investment

Further information on transit-oriented development (TOD) associated with BRT systems can be found in TCRP Report ıı8: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, 2007. Prepared by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies (www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/tools/tod/ tool-tcrp-bus-rapid-transit.pdf)

Defining ‘Premium Transit’
“Premium transit” typically refers to high-quality transit, either rail or bus, that provides reduced travel times, enhances regional/local connectivity, uses improved vehicles and features (such as quality of ride, specific branding, simplified routing) and offers improved amenities (bus stop, platforms, shelters, line supervision) compared to typical local bus service. Premium transit services in the District would include limited-stop bus service, bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar, light rail and local rail (Metrorail) services.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 7

to ı,000%. While increased value often precedes the completion of fixed-rail transit, such increases occur along each segment as they connect to Metrorail and do not depend on completion of a full system. Increased real estate investment would translate into stronger fiscal, employment, and population growth for the District. Residents, visitors, and many commuters tend to prefer streetcars to buses and bus rapid transit for their low noise levels, superior ride quality (steel rails and steadier acceleration/deceleration yield a much smoother ride), lower level of vibration in nearby buildings, and limited emission. Evidence also suggests that streetcar vehicles offer better long-term cost-benefit value than buses.3

1b Summary of findings
With the completion of the streetcar system and new housing attracted to it, approximately 50% of District households would be located within one-quarter mile of premium transit service (the streetcar or Metrorail; see Map 2, Net New Premium Transit). This dramatic increase in access to premium transit would open the door to a set of significant land use benefits, and to a smaller group of challenges, that represent major considerations in evaluating and planning the streetcar system. (Note: In order to develop accurate estimates, the report uses 20ı0 dollars. Land-use impacts reflect projected growth over ten years, calculated as if the full system began operation in 20ı0.)

streetcar benefits (Chapter 2) Both light and heavy rail systems would provide faster, Streetcar service: more reliable service than a streetcar because they would • Improves access to premium transit for more than operate in exclusive rights of way. Light rail would likely one-third of the District’s households, including produce somewhat greater real estate investment and 100,000 residents along streetcar corridors who do not related benefits than the streetcar, but a light-rail system have access to a car. would cost two to three times the roughly $40 million • Reduces transportation costs by offering households per mile currently projected for the District’s streetcar within one-quarter mile of the streetcar a realistic system—and acquiring the necessary rights of way would opportunity to be “car light” (that is, own fewer cars) add to the cost considerably. Metrorail’s experience suggests or car-free. Nationally, the average yearly cost of that heavy-rail transit would produce an even larger owning a car reached $8,437 in 20ı0. 4 increase in real estate investment, but heavy rail transit 4 This is a national average calculated annually by the American Automobile costs several hundred million dollars per mile to build.

3

Two recent publications that suggest that maintenance costs can be lower include Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century (Gloria Ohland & Shelley Poticha; 2009, Reconnecting America) and Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities (Patrick M. Condon; 2010, Island Press).

Association (AAA) for a medium-size sedan driven 15,000 miles in a year, with the cost of gas held constant at $2.60/gallon (for the 2010 calucations; www. aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/201048935480.Driving%Costs%202010.pdf, retrieved 1 March 2011). Taxes and fees would push this total somewhat higher for District drivers, as would the rising price of gasoline. Using a more current average for the District of $3.47 for a gallon of regular, reported by AAA on 1 March 2011, brings the figure to $8,902 (http://fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/?redirectto=http:// fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp, retrieved 1 March 2011).

8 | introduction

M ¾
ST WE

MAP 2 Net New Premium Transit
WISE RD

BEA

D CH

KALM

IA RD

R

AL AS KA

AV E

CHESTNUT ST

Takoma Metrorail Station to Buzzard Point Georgetown to Benning Road Metrorail Congress Heights to Washington Circle

SHEP HE

• Offers multiple quality-of-life benefits: > improves walkability: new transit trips translate into new walk trips as local residents typically walk to and from transit in urban settings. Higher rates of walking support local businesses and promote ¾ a greater sense of safety that will encourage still ¾ ¾ more residents to walk. > “extends the walk” by generating more trips on foot ¾ ¾ outside of existing commercial districts and other busy areas, thereby supporting expansion of retail ¾ ¾ and other neighborhood-serving uses. > fosters the growth of main streets, as new residents and ¾ ¾ employees attracted by the streetcar inject more ¾ than $300 million in retail spending annually into ¾ ¾ § ¦ ¨ ¾ local commercial districts. § ¦ ¨ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ > broadens access to schools by more than doubling ¾ ¾ ¾ the number of public and charter schools located ¾ ¾ within a quarter-mile of rail transit, making it ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ easier for parents to commute with their children § ¦ ¨ to school and work and for families to choose from ¾ ¾ a wider variety of schools. ¾ > returns premium transit to disinvested historic commercial districts built around the streetcar in ¾ the late ı9th and early 20th centuries; the new ¾ ¾ investment that would follow the streetcar’s introduction would encourage adaptive reuse of more historic properties, contributing to a stronger net new premium transit access sense of place. existing premium transit access (1/2-mile radius > Expands housing choices by supporting development around metro stations) of market-rate and mixed-income housing in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STREETCAR LAND USE MASTER PLAN M Metro station areas that have witnessed little or none in recent Figure 3: Net New routes DC Circulator Premium Transit decades, spurring demand across the District for Park/open space
ASPEN ST

OREGON AVE

PIN EY BR AN C

M ¾

41ST ST

MCKINLEY ST

MILITARY RD

AV E

SA VE

MIS S

DO

HIR

CO LO RA

KA

AV E

KENNEDY ST

NS A

Rock Creek Park

E

EA VE

OU RI A V

With a fully built streetcar system, ¾ M the share of District residents living within a convenient walk of rail transit would rise from roughly M 16% to 50%. Areas¾ would gain that premium access appear in purple.
Prince George's Plaza

College Park-U of Md

HR D

AH UT

E AV

D IR R BLA

EA N ER ST E AV

AV E

NE W

NE B

LIN NE A

RA S

HA MP S

KA

FESSENDEN ST

S RIGG

RD

M ¾

West Hyattsville

IS INO ILL

N

GALLOWAY ST GALLATIN ST Fort Totten

M

5TH ST

E AV

DE N

16TH ST

Tenleytown-AU ALBEMARLE ST

M

Fort Totten Park

AV E

ENT RD SARG

E AV UT TIC EC NN CO

IO

VAN NESS ST

M

Van Ness-UDC

WEBSTER ST

B

ES AT

BL AG

RD

A W

BUCHANAN ST

NM JOH

E AV

AII W HA

14TH ST

M AS

34TH ST

SA

C

MACOMB ST

M

Cleveland Park

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

R NO RE

TILDEN ST

UPSHUR ST

FO RT DR

RD CK RMA CCO E AV

TAYLOR ST
RANDOLPH ST

D

OOD HAREW

SPR ING

M

ER ST WARD

H UT SO

OTIS PL

CATHEDRAL AVE

HU SE

TT

PA RK RD

M ¾

Brookland-CUA MONROE ST

RD

RD ILL SM AM AD

K DA A OT

SHERMAN

CALVERT ST
Pa rk

LIN COLN

AV E

M
k C

M LU CO

RD

BIA

FRANKLIN ST

EUCLID ST

M O

U ST

VE

11TH ST

IA

RESERVOIR RD

DR

9TH ST

RS I

15TH ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

33RD ST

W ES

T

P ST

T

24TH ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

HUR ST

FWY

66

18TH ST

44TH ST

23RD ST

12TH ST EXPY

Court House

3RD ST

4TH ST

8TH ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

M

17TH ST

INDEPENDENCE AVE

M

MA INE AV E

M Federal M SW Center

IVY

ST

M ¾

MIN NE

M

Potomac Ave

ELY PL

695

BR G

DR

AU

BU CK EY E

Waterfront-SEU

RO CH AM BE

M

M

Navy Yard

§ ¦ ¨
295

M ¾

X TE
Fort Dupont Park

AS

E AV

CAN AL ST

East Potomac Park

M

Pentagon

M TO PO

AC

OS AC AN
Anacostia Park

27TH ST

E AV

TIA

FW

Y

NA YL O

WE BO
LVA NIA

D NR

R

RD

PE

NN SY

GOOD
W ST

HOPE RD

AV E

Pentagon City

V ST

M

SU HOW ITL A AN RD D PK RD Y

M ¾

SU ITL AN

DR D

M

Crystal City

STANTON RD

M

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

25TH ST

M ¾
Congress Heights E A AV BAM ALA

Naylor Road

SOUTH CAPITOL

ST

MALCOLM X AVE

M ¾

M ¾
N E AV

Suitland

AV E

MISSI

SSIP

PI

AVE

M ¾

Southern Avenue

RL OO K

OV E

W HE E

R HE UT SO

LE

R

RD

ATLANTIC ST

0

0.5 Miles

1

CHESAPEAKE ST

Ü

RD PK

LA INS DR

Y

Streetcar Alignments

BL UE P

Metrorail Lines blue green orange red yellow

Congress Heights to Buzzard Point

M ¾

Metro Stations Net New Premium Transit Existing Premium Transit Service Circulator Service LandmarkBldg

Woodley Park/Adams Morgan to Brookland Bolling AFB to Minnesota Ave Metrorail Station Woodley Park/Adams Morgan to Congress Heights

Water

Rhode Island Ave/Eastern Ave to Washington Circle

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 9

51ST ST

Arlington Cemetery

L'Enfant Plaza

C ST

M ¾

SO TA AV E

The Mall

6TH ST

Smithsonian

H RT NO

R CA

IN OL

BS

T

EAST CAPITOL ST

M ¾

Benning Road

Stadium-Armory

50TH ST

M MFederal Triangle

D ST

2ND ST

M

Rosslyn

E ST

M

L RY MA

VE AA

DIVI SI
CENT

AV E

7TH ST

G ST

F ST

M

M

Judiciary Square

M

VE DA AN

Minnesota Ave

ON AV
RAL AV

VIR GIN IA

M

W NE

Gallery Pl-Chinatown

H ST Union Station

BENN ING RD

M ¾

E

MK ST M I ST

L ST

Farragut North

Anacostia Park

M

SHERIFF RD

RK YO

E AV

395

49TH ST

WH ITE

TR INID A

M ST

KE
RID GE RD

N ST

M

DA VE

M

NIL W

OR TH

M

FL OR IDA AV E

35TH ST

VIR G

Dupont Circle

Q ST

PE

NN S

M ¾
Deanwood

AV E

R ST

IN

AV E

DE

U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo

RM ON T

W AT E

M

Shaw-Howard U

BL AD EN SB

1ST ST

M

L E IS OD RH T ST

BR EN TW O

AV E

UR G

R

oc

VE DA AN

O

RD

D

re

ek

ST BRYANT

M ¾

RD

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS TA

EL

AN D

RD

AVE MICHIGAN

ST

M

13TH ST

S

AV E

CL EV

IRVING ST

KENY

ON ST

12TH ST

GEORGIA

E AV

AVE

AVE

AW NL TU

37TH ST RD

IN NS CO WIS

NEW

JERS

AVE

EY AV

E

E

KE KY UC NT

G

W

M

EM

FITCH ST

E AV

O

IA R

L

Y PK

BRANCH AVE

IO OH

IS RR MO

DR

RD

developments of ten or more units subject to inclusionary zoning, and expanding the supply of lofts, smaller units, accessory units, and other housing types sought by an increasingly diverse population. • Improves access to jobs by bringing an additional 72,000 households into walkable distance of premium transit, which guarantees them access to more than 85% of the district’s office jobs and more than half of all jobs—a benefit to both residents and to employers. • Attracts new jobs and residents by improving accessibility and spurring creation of more amenities. Over a ten-year period, the District could expect to draw new households and retain existing ones at a combined annual rate of roughly ı,400 if the system were complete today. At the same time, the proportion

of District workers who also live in the District, making them subject to its income tax, could increase over 20 years from 3ı.5% to roughly 34%. • Strengthens real estate values by adding $5 billion to $7 billion to the value of existing property and sparking an additional $5 to $8 billion in new development in the ten years after completion—in the corridors alone. These benefits extend across housing, commercial, and retail markets and apply in varying degrees to every streetcar corridor. • Increases revenue to the District by strengthening the real estate market, adding new residents, and producing greater sales-tax receipts. Together, these sources would likely generate between $238 million and $29ı million in annual new revenue within ten years of completion of the system.

A streetcar loads at the Portland State University campus, above. The Portland streetcar system has sparked more than $3.5 billion in development, transforming light-industrial districts and railyards into new neighborhoods that mix housing, stores, and commercial uses, like the city’s South Waterfront, pictured at right.

10 | introduction

will likely choose accessible sites over non-streetcar • Strengthens growth in the creative economy (genersites) and by supporting businesses in the corridors, ally, arts, media, and communication businesses) by particularly retailers, concerned about dislocation as offering the enhanced accessibility and amenities, new businesses seek to move to the corridors. improved walkability, and support for local Main Streets that employers and their workers in these fields value • Routing and right-of-way issues arising from some highly. The creative sector already accounts for ı0% of potential loss of curbside parking, traffic congestion, District jobs and adds economic diversity, job growth, and similar issues in specific neighborhoods and and job quality to the District employment market. commercial districts. Mitigation may involve early • Improves public health by offering significantly more identification of route adjustments, alternative parking, or other solutions. people the health benefits of walking, preventing added emissions of unhealthy air pollutants, and providing safer transportation than by automobile. neighborhood analysis (Chapter 4) • The study suggests that all corridors would share in challenges and Mitigation strategies the benefits and challenges brought by the streetcar (detailed reviews of each corridor appear in Chapter (Chapter 3) 4), although these impacts would vary considerably Advance planning can mitigate potential challenges, including: among corridors. Impacts would be most dramatic • Housing affordability, by addressing early in the in areas that today have limited current access to planning process the possibility of dislocation posed by a Metrorail service. 5% to ı2% increase in property values that appears likely to result from improved access to jobs and amenities and • In certain locations, alternative routing or phasing by other benefits. These issues are most likely to appear of the streetcar route would unlock greater where streetcar corridors pass through neighborhoods employment, fiscal, and development benefits with lower household incomes, lower housing prices, and by extending premium transit to land with untapped higher proportions of renters. Although residents in these redevelopment potential. Some of these refinements corridors would benefit from reduced transportation costs would mean higher initial costs, but the additional benefits they would trigger seem likely to outweigh and greater access to jobs—which could offset increased the extra cost and deserve study. Other refinements, housing costs for some households—the District should including earlier construction of particular route monitor these areas and be prepared to step in with segments, would provide better connections to active measures to promote affordability. employment centers, resolve right-of-way issues, or • Potential market shifts within the District by planning provide more convenient service. early for alternative redevelopment on parcels without direct streetcar access (offices and other uses

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 11

Construction of the H Street/ Benning Road NE streetcar segment, August 2010

• Improve access to the streetcar for pedestrians and bicyclists by making sure that new development, streets, and sidewalks appeal to pedestrians and The District can maximize land use benefits and minimize cyclists and assure safe and convenient use. implementation challenges in many ways: • Use multiple mechanisms to capture the value of new • Make use of existing and new development development drawn to the streetcar corridors to help tools to augment the streetcar’s ability to support fund construction and/or operation of the system. neighborhood retail, foster redevelopment of blighted Taxes generated by the rising value of all property property, attract investment in housing and jobs, and could underwrite more than half the system’s capital yield similar benefits. costs through the sale of bonds backed by this revenue. • Optimize existing and potential land use policies and Projects or business improvement districts may see design guidelines to ensure that zoning fully supports self-interest in contributing to construction costs where the District’s ability to realize benefits brought by a new line would increase the value of their property the streetcar and that new development enhances or business. Determining the timing, extent, and best community character and quality. mechanisms for pursuing such strategies will require • Coordinate with other transportation investments, significant additional study. including regional and local bus lines, bikeshare, and other modes to facilitate transfers, share operating lanes and stops, and generally take a comprehensive approach to integrating transportation and land use planning.
strategies and tools for oPtiMizing land use benefits (Chapter 5)

12 | introduction

2. systemwide benefits
he study area for this analysis includes all land within one-quarter mile of the proposed streetcar lines, representing the area within a convenient walking distance (roughly five minutes) of each line. National research indicates that the strongest impacts generated by the introduction of streetcar service occur within one-quarter mile of its routes. Research also indicates that impacts generally extend in a uniform corridor along streetcar routes, owing to the half-mile spacing typically found between stops.

T

FIGURE 3 New Access to Premium Transit
Approximately 95,000 District households are currently located within one-quarter mile of the proposed streetcar corridors.

The streetcar can ,700 D nOw In 72ouseholIDsORS THATe h transform the District’s mil ORR THe C eyonD 1/4 RE b ro A T most underdeveloped oF me areas into thriving This study area has been organized into nine corridors that share similar land use characteristics to provide a neighborhoods, finer-grained and place-specific way of looking at land use or less from the proposed streetcar. The streetcar would enlarge existing changes the streetcar could conceivably bring. Dividing open significant new transportation choices for these the corridors into smaller subareas enabled the study residents, in particular the 44% of the households along commercial districts, team to focus on critical sites or other targeted land use the proposed corridors that do not own a car. and link established issues. Map 4 shows the nine corridors and their sub-areas. 2b Reduces transportation costs neighborhoods to new 2a Improves access to premium The streetcar can enable households to be “car light” (that is, jobs and amenities. transit
“Premium transit” describes transit service that is reliable, predictable, and offers a high-quality ride—in other words, Metrorail or the streetcar. Roughly 72,000 District households now located more than one-quarter mile from a Metro station would be located one-quarter mile own fewer cars) or car-free. Either option offers the opportunity for considerable saving. In 20ı0 the average automobile cost $8,437 to own and operate;5 most transit commutes cost less than one-third this amount when figured on an annual basis. Avoiding the expense of car ownership has an espe5

These households have a five-minute walk (or less) to rail transit with the streetcar

0 NOW 22,3s0holRDRsIDORS e hou

CO In THeARE wiThinro THAT ile oF meT 1/4 m

See footnote 4 on page 8.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 13

MAP 3 District Department of Transportation—Full Streetcar System Phasing
CHES TNUT

MAP 4 Neighborhood Context Corridors
M ¾

AV E

ST

AVE

ORE GON

PIN

( !
AVE NEVADA
AV E AS KA NE BR
MCKINLEY ST

5TH ST

LA U

EY

W

ES

BR

ASPEN ST

RE

R TE

( !

AN

LS

N

T

E AV

¾ ( !
M

As planned, construction of the streetcar system will take place in four phases. The initial phase is already under construction. ¾
M
S EA TE R N E AV

MILITARY RD

( !
AV E
KA N SA

Nine streetcar corridors were identified that share broadly similar contexts and then divided into 34 smaller sub-areas that correspond to specific neighborhoods or development zones.

AL A

SK

A

CH

RD

Rock Creek Park
LO R

UR

I AV

E

O

13TH ST

( !
IL LI

AD

KENNEDY ST

SA VE

EA VE

LIN

NE

CO

AV E

SH

S

( !

IR

SA

AV E

AN

HA

MP

AH UT E AV
AN AV E

IR BLA

A BE C H D R
MIS SO

RD
S RIGG RD

M ¾
GALLOWAY ST

Maryland

NO IS E AV

M ¾

GALLATIN ST

NE W

G

M ¾

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park
S TE BA RD

SA RG

BL A

CO

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W
WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST
FO R TD

JOHN

VAN NESS ST

16TH ST

14TH ST

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

34TH ST

LN RD

AV E

O

S ST

AV E

9TH ST

( !
R ST

VE R

11TH ST

GT ON

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

30TH ST

ILW

( !

ES

P ST

( !

W NE

T AV V E

NT

ID

CANAL RD

24TH ST

21ST ST

20TH ST

WHITEHURST FWY ( ! ( ! ( !

( !
22ND ST

( ( ! ! ¾ K ST ( !
M
19TH ST

L ST

TR IN

MO

( ! ( !H ST ( ! ( !
C ST

AD

M ST

M ¾

EL LO

AV E

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

M ¾

I ST

M ¾

( !

( !
M ¾
E ST

( !
7TH ST

( !
M ¾

( !

L RY MA

AN

VE DA

Anacostia Park

KE N
BE NN ING ( ! RD

N ST

M ¾

W

IA

( ( ! !
3RD ST INTERSTATE 395
F ST

( !

( !

AV E

G ST

23RD ST

EX PY

10TH ST

2ND ST

E ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

6TH ST

M ¾

INT ER

E 66 STAT

M ¾
The Mall

IA IND

M ¾

NA

4TH ST

M ¾

AV

M ¾ E

( ! ( ! ( !

D ST

44TH ST

( !

( !

M ¾

( !

( !

M( ¾!

OR TH

M ¾

YO

IR

( !

RK

AV

M ¾

SHERIFF RD

AV E

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

AA VE

PL

M ¾

F ( !L OR

ID

BL A

TT S

MO

T ST

DE

SE

U ST

( !

1ST ST

NT

U

BR E

NS

SA C

W

H

( !

( !

( ! M ¾

( !RH

E OD

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND IS LA

O

oc

AV ( !E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

RD

re

ek

Pa

rk

( !

LINCO

CALVERT ST

( !

EUCLID ST

( !
M ¾

M

O

( !

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M ¾ ( !

( !

( !

FRANKLIN ST

TA

ST

GARFIELD ST

NO RE RD

A

MACOMB ST

C

TIC
LE V

M ¾

E AV

AII W HA

UT AV
EL AN

MCC

( !

TILDEN ST

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E

E AV
HAREW

ORM ACK RD

ER HI LL

RD
RANDOLPH ST

SP RI

NG

¾
M
KLI LE NG

¾

( ! M

OOD RD

WA RD

( !
DA KO

SO

RD

OTIS PL

H UT

PA R

KR

D

CATH ED

ON KE NY

ST

( !

( !

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

( ! ¾
12TH ST

ER ST

A AD M S M IL L RD

MONROE ST

( !

TA E AV

GEORGIA

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

COLUMBIA RD HARVARD ST

M ¾ ( !

( !
AVE

( !

SHERMAN

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

TB

R

IA

EA S

L

PK Y

INTE

BR

( !

G

RS TA TE

( !
69 5

M ¾

( ! ( !
BRANCH AVE
CO FW Y

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M ( ! ¾
W

M ¾
IV Y

ST

M ¾

M ¾! (

TA AV E

( !

ELY PL

AU

AM

BE

(M ( !¾ !
ST

( !M ¾
E AV

( !

Fort Dupont Park

CH

East Potomac Park

TEX AS

M ¾

AVE

RO

CANA L

M ¾

( !

M TO PO

AC

27TH ST

A AN

NA YL O

25TH ST

Virginia

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

SOUTH CAPITO L ST

29 5

RS

TA TE

IN

TE

HE RD

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
( !
M ¾

M ¾

orange red yellow

SHEP

green

BL U

EP LA

Initial

Park/open space Water

blue

INS

DR

Streetcar station Streetcar Segments

Metrorail Lines
PKY

OVERLOOK AVE

TU W NLA RD

AVE

M Metro station STREETCAR SEGMENTS

14¾ | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS
M

37TH ST

WIS CO

JE RS NEW

Streetcar Stations

NS VE IN A

EY AV E

49TH ST

( !

CONSTITUTION AVE

NO

H RT

CA

RO

A LIN

E AV

M ¾

( !

( !
N KE TU CK VE YA

EAST CAPITOL ST

( !
B ST

( !M RAL AVE ¾ CENT

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G E RD

M AIN E E AV
V ST

IA ST

( !
R RD

W BO

EN

RD

PE N

Anacostia Park
HO

( ! ( !

GOOD

( !
HOPE RD

NS

YLV AN

IA

AV E

M ¾

W

W ST

( !

( !

( ! M RD ¾! (

AR D

OH IO DR

SU IT

LA

ND

M

RD

O

RR

M ¾

IS

RD

M ¾

( !

SU
N R

AN ST TO

IT

( !

LA N

D

PK

Y

M ¾

D

Streetcar phaSing
initial phase 1 phase 2 phase 3
ST

corridor 1
M ¾
AMA AV E

corridor 6 corridor 7 corridor 8 corridor 9

MALCOLM X AVE

( !
AL AB

( !
HA LL EY

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

SO
PL

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

corridor 2 corridor 3 corridor 4 corridor 5
M Metro station
Streetcar station Park/open space Water

W

HE

EL ER

RD

0

0.3

0.6

ATLANTIC ST

1.2 Miles

Ü

CHESA PEAKE

N ST GALVESTO

M ¾

Metro Stations Street Centerlines LandmarkBldg Parks and Open Space Waterbody

MAP 5 Walkability Index

cially powerful impact on lower-income households, which spend a higher percentage of their income on transportation than any other group. District households with $20,000 to $50,000 in yearly income spend 28% of that income on transportation and another 32% of it on housing (for a total of 60%). By comparison, an average American household spends 20% of income on transportation and 27% on housing (for a total of 47%).6

9D

A streetcar system can build on the excellent walkability of the District’s neighborhoods, represented here by red-brown areas. In yellow-highlighted areas, the streetcar could attract new pedestrian-oriented development to replace auto-dominated environments.

9C
Rock Creek Park

Fort Totten Park

2c Offers quality-of-life benefits
Because the streetcar offers premium transit service to areas with large transit-dependent populations, and because it makes both transit and walking more attractive options for all residents, the system would create significant quality-of-life benefits for people visiting, working, and living in streetcar corridors.
4A 8B 8A
R oc k C re ek Pa rk

9B 8D 8C 9A 7A 6A 6C 6B 6D 6E
Anacostia Park

8E 7C

7B

5B 4C 5A 5C 5D 4B

iMProves walKability

Because the bulk of streetcar trips begin on foot, streetcar service would increase pedestrian activity within the streetcar corridors. This added activity would in turn support local businesses and contribute to a greater sense of personal safety. Introducing the streetcar along a corridor may reduce motor vehicle speeds and may include facilities for pedestrians, such as improved crossing treatments and sidewalks. Infrastructure and streetscape improvements would also likely take place as part of streetcar line construction. All of these changes would make the walking environment more comfortable, and streetcar service would enable more pedestrians to take advantage of areas where streets and blocks are already well-scaled for walking (for

The Mall

3D

area where the streetcar and related development can improve poor walkability
exiSting WaLkabiLitY

2C 3A 3C 2B 3B 1E
Anacostia Park
Fort Dupont Park

East Potomac Park

2A

Low

M Metro station
Streetcar station Park/open space Water Criteria
1C

• Block length • Intersection type DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STREETCAR LAND USE MASTER PLAN • Census-block density 6 • Sidewalk presence Figure 4: Pedestrian Friendliness These numbers are based on research by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. • Building setback BASED ON: STREET CONNECTIVITY, SIDEWALK PRESENCE, BUILDING SETBACK, AND POPULATION DENSITY

The full report is available at http://www.cnt.org/repository/heavy_load_10_06. Pedestrian Friendliness Index pdf
Lo w Hi g h

➠➠
high
1A
Landmark Building Parks and Open Space Waterbody

1B

1D

0

0.5 Miles

1

Ü

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 15

example, Capitol Hill, downtown, and Petworth). In more auto-oriented areas, such as portions of Georgia Avenue NW, Rhode Island Avenue NE, and Benning Road in Anacostia, it would bridge distances between destinations that are too far apart for comfortable walking and encourage redevelopment that is oriented to pedestrians. In underdeveloped areas like Buzzard Point, a walkable street network can emerge as new destinations and sidewalks are created through development.
ProMotes Public health

riders than does bus transit. Research has further shown that people are willing to walk further to use rail transit than bus transit. The streetcar will offer additional value in places where it stimulates investment in pedestrianoriented streets and development, as 43% of people with safe places to walk within ten minutes of where they live achieve physical activity targets, compared with just 27% of people living in less-walkable areas.9 Motor vehicles produce a major portion of airborne particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and smog, all of which directly contribute to respiratory health problems. The streetcar’s electric propulsion eliminates such air pollutants that would be introduced along streets by automobiles or buses operating in its place.10 Travel by transit is also associated with much lower rates of traffic injuries and fatalities than automobile travel, which can be 20 times or more as deadly per passenger mile. Rail transit, further, has only 40% the rate of passenger fatalities of bus transit.11 On top of these health benefits, the streetcar can also play an important role providing access to healthy food choices and medical care, particularly for economically and physically disadvantaged populations.12
Todd Litman, “Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits.” Victoria Transport Policy Institute, June 2010 http://apta.com/resources/ reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA_Health_Benefits_Litman.pdj, accessed 23 December 2011. 10 Howard Frumkin, Lawrence Frank, Richard Jackson. Urban Sprawl and Public Health, p.103. Island Press, 2004. 11 Litman, op. cit. 12 ibid.
9

Streetcar service can be expected to offer positive public health benefits in three principal ways: by promoting more walking, which leads to associated health benefits; by promoting healthy air quality; and by encouraging travel on transit and on foot as safer alternatives to driving. People who walk more tend to enjoy better physical fitness, with significantly lower tendency toward obesity or a variety of other serious health problems. On average, transit users get more physical activity than non-transit users, even after accounting for differences in income and other demographic characteristics.7 This added activity is significant in that transit users are, on average, approximately three times more likely than non-users to meet or exceed the CDC recommendation of a minimum of 22 minutes of exercise daily.8 Streetcars offer the advantage of attracting more, and more diverse,
7

8

Ugo Lachapelle and Lawrence D Frank, “Transit and Health: Mode of Transport, Employer-Sponsored Public Transit Pass Programs, and Physical Activity.” Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S73–S94. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.52. David Ebner, “For Healthy People, Build a Healthy City .” Toronto Globe & Mail, www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/health-news/for-healthypeople-build-a-healthy-city/article2251518/page2/, accessed 23 December 2011.

16 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

MAP 6 New Retail Potential
CHES TNUT

AV E

ST

AVE

ORE GON

“eXtends the walK”

PIN

LINCO

CALVERT ST
re ek Pa rk

8B 6A
15TH ST
Q ST

LN RD

As the streetcar generates more trips on foot outside of traditionally busy areas, such as the vicinity of Metrorail stations and existing commercial districts, it expands the area in which intense pedestrian activity helps support re¾ tail and other neighborhood-serving uses. Local stores can benefit significantly from this new activity (as the Main Streets discussion below confirms), and as local retail activity grows, the additional amenity and increased number of destinations would promote even more pedestrian activity.
M

5TH ST

LA U

EY

W

ES

BR

ASPEN ST

9D

RE

R TE

AN

LS

N

T

E AV

CH

M ¾

MCKINLEY ST

New retail demand generated by the streetcar would reinforce existing neighborhood Main Streets and support creation of new¾ones.
M
S EA TE R N E AV

AL A

SK

A

M ¾

RD

AH UT E AV

AV E

AV E

AD

13TH ST

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

SA

Rock Creek Park
LO R

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

AS

KA

CO

AVE NEVADA
NE BR
VAN NESS ST

IR BLA

A BE C H D R

RD

MILITARY RD

9C
IL LI

MIS SO

S RIGG

RD

M ¾
GALLOWAY ST

AV E

AN

EA VE

LIN

Maryland

NE

NO IS

SH

AV E

S

IR

M ¾

GALLATIN ST

E AV

AV E

AN

HA

NE W

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park
S TE BA RD

SA

MP

SA RG

BL A

CO

G

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W
WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST
FO R TD

JOHN

16TH ST

14TH ST

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

34TH ST

AV E

EUCLID ST

M

O

11TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

SOUTH CAPITO L ST

As increased development along streetcar corridors attracts new residents and employees, these additional people can drive the establishment of more retail. The analysis indicates that roughly every ı,000 additional households can spur the creation of one new block (30,000-50,000SF) of “main street” retail space. Map 6 shows where this new demand would likely be strongest. Combined with spending by employees of new businesses attracted to the corridors (primarily office workers), these new households could introduce a projected $305 million to $370 million in new retail spending into areas along the streetcar system. Such a broad wave of spending would significantly strengthen existing neighborhood retail and support new retail clusters. Key areas where the streetcar would likely encourage additional pedestrian-oriented retail, a priority for the District and a stated goal of the Retail Action Roadmap 13 (20ı0), include:
13

30TH ST

NT

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST

M ¾

EL LO

6B

ES

P ST

W NE

T AV V E

ILW

AV E

24TH ST

21ST ST

20TH ST

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

22ND ST

19TH ST

4A WHITEHURST FWY
IA

L ST

¾ K ST M M ¾ I ST ¾
M

TR IN

7TH ST

AV E

G ST

23RD ST

EX PY

10TH ST

2ND ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

INT ER

E 66 STAT

M ¾
The Mall

N DIA INM

4TH ST

M ¾

E ST

M ¾
E A AV

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

E ST

D ST

¾

C ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

6TH ST

NO

H RT

CA

RO

A LIN

E AV

5D
EAST CAPITOL ST

44TH ST

4B M ¾ F ST

4C
M ¾

5A
M ¾

5B
H ST

MA

RY

N LA

VE DA

Anacostia Park

MO

KE N

N ST

M ¾ 6E

W

5C

BE NN

ING RD

M ¾

OR TH

encourages develoPMent of Main streets

S ST

AV E

VE R

9TH ST

GT ON

R ST

M ¾

6D

YO

RK

IR

AV

M ¾

SHERIFF RD

AV E

G

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

AA VE

PL

M ¾

FL O

RID

BL A

TT S

6C

MO

T ST

DE

SE

U ST

M ¾

1ST ST

NT

U

BR E

NS

SA C

W

H

O RH

DE

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND IS LA

AV

O

oc

7A

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

RD

9A

7B M ¾

O

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M 8A ¾

FRANKLIN ST

TA

HARVARD ST

ST

GARFIELD ST

NO RE RD

A

MACOMB ST

C

TIC
LE V

M ¾

E AV

AII W HA

UT AV
EL AN

MCC

TILDEN ST

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E

E AV
HAREW

ORM ACK RD

ER HI LL

RD
RANDOLPH ST

SP RI

NG

M ¾
N KLI GLE

¾
M
OTIS PL

RD

PA R

KR

D

CATH ED

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

8C M ¾ COLUMBIA RD

9B
GEORGIA AVE

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

8E ¾
12TH ST

OOD RD

WA RD

SO H UT

ER ST

A AD M S M IL L RD

MONROE ST

DA KO TA E AV

8D

7C

SHERMAN

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

EA S

L

PK Y

TB

R

IA

INTE

M ¾
RS TA TE 69 5

BR

G

MIN

EM

O

2C
BRANCH AVE

NE SO

G

W

M ¾ 3A
M AIN E

M ¾
IV Y

ST

M ¾

3D M ¾

TA AV E

ELY PL

AM

BE

M ¾
ST

M ¾
CANA L

CH

East Potomac Park

3C
27TH ST
A AN S CO

AU

Fort Dupont Park

RO

¾
M

3B

M TO PO

AC

E AV

2A
Anacostia Park
GOOD
W ST

NA YL O

25TH ST

T IA

FW

Y

TEX AS

¾
M

AVE

Virginia

M ¾

1A 1D
MALCOLM X AVE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

29 5

OVERLOOK AVE

NEW RETAIL POTENTIAL
Potential for new neighborhood retail M Metro station
(from new households and jobs) Streetcar station Park/open space < 0.5 block development potential M ¾ 0.5 - 1.5Water development potential blocks
M ¾
SHEP

IN

TE

0.5-1.5 blocks of development potential

RS

TA TE

PKY

HE RD

http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Across+the+City/Other+Citywide+ Initiatives/Retail+Action+Strategy/Retail+Action+Roadmap

BL U

EP LA

INS

DR

TU W NLA RD

AVE

37TH ST

potentiaL For neW neighborhood retaiL (From neW houSehoLdS and neW jobS)

WIS CO NS VE IN A

JE RS NEW EY AV E

49TH ST

M ¾

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M ¾

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G E RD

N KE TU CK VE YA

E AV
V ST

2B
R

W BO

EN

RD

RD

PE N

NS

YLV AN

IA

HOPE

AV E

RD

M ¾

1B

HO

W

M ¾

AR D

RD

1E

OH IO DR

SU IT

LA

ND

M

RD

O

RR

M ¾

IS

RD

SU
N R D

AN ST TO

IT

LA N

D

PK

Y

M ¾

M ¾
AMA AV E

1C

AL AB

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

< 0.5 block of development potential

HA LL EY

SO
PL

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

W

HE

EL ER

RD

0

0.25 0.5

ATLANTIC ST

1 Miles

Ü

1.5–4.0+ blocks of development potential

CHESA PEAKE

ST

Criteria

N ST GALVESTO

• Number of new households attracted by ¾ Streetcar Segments Metro Stations streetcar • Typical household retail spending profiles blue Streetcar Stations • Number of new jobs attracted by streetcar green Parks and Open Space • Typical worker retail spending profiles
M

Water

orange red yellow

1.5 - 4.0+ blocks development potential

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 17

( ! ! ( MAP 7 Improved Access to Public and Charter Schools
CHES TNUT

SK

A

AV E

ST

AVE

OVERLOOK AVE

( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( !! !! (( (( • ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ( • !! (( Maryland ( ! ! ( • ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( !! ! (( ( (( !! • ! ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! !! (( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ( ! ! !! (( ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ! • ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ! ! ( ! !! ! (( ( • ( ! ( ( !! (( ( ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ( (( ! !! ( ! ! ! ! ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ! ( ! !! ( (( ( ! Streetcar service can also rebalance auto-oriented ( ! ( ! !! ! !! (( ( (( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! !! (( commercial streets such as Georgia Avenue NW and ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! !! ( (( ( ! ( ! portions of Rhode Island Avenue NE, by increasing foot ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( ( (( !! ! !! ( (( ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ! ! ( ( traffic, better serving bicyclists, and creating a more ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! (( !! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( walkable “Main Street” character. ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ! !! ! ( ( (( ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ( ! ! !! ! (( ( ( ! ( ! ! ! !! ( ( (( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( !! (( The streetcar’s support of Main Streets extends to a broader ( ! ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! !! ! ( (( ( ( ! variety of services and job opportunities, strengthening ! ! ( ! ( ( ( ( ! ! !! (( ! ! ( ( ( ! !! (( ! ( ( ( ! ! !! (( ( ! the self-sufficiency of each neighborhood. Residents would !! (( ! ( ! ( enjoy access to a wider range of local shopping, civic ( ! ! ( ( ! (( !! !! ! ! (( ( ( services, schools, jobs and other necessities. ( ! ( ! ! ( !! ! (( ( ( ! ( ! broadens access to schools !! (( ( ! ! ( !! (( The streetcar would increase the share of public and Virginia SchooLS: StudentS pubLic ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( outSide oF each SchooL’S charter schools located within a quarter-mile walk of rail diStrict boundarY ! ( no info available ( ! ! ( transit from ı8% to 39%. Many of these schools are already ! ( > 50% inside boundary Maryland ! ( ( ! !!! ! ! ((( ( ( ( ! accessible by bus, but the fact that more than 85% of the > 50% outside boundary ( ! ( ! !! ! (( ( District’s office jobs are located along streetcar routes ( ! charter SchooLS !! (( means that many more parents would be able to travel ( ! charter school ! ( ( ( ! ! !! (( with their school-age children to and from school and work STREETCAR ACCESS: PUBLIC AND CHARTER SCHOOLS
MCKINLEY ST

Minnesota Avenue SE/NE and Benning Road NE (subareas 2C, 5D) 13 ( ! ! ( Downtown Anacostia (ıE) Georgia Avenue NW (9C) 41 ! ( 21 ! ( The Atlas District and Florida Avenue NE/NW in !! (( ( ! ! ( ¾ NoMa (subsections 5B, 6E) ( ! ! ( ¾ Rhode Island Avenue NE at the Rhode Island Avenue 88 ( ! ! ( Metro (7B) ! ( 67 Southwest Waterfront (3A) ( ! ! ( U Street NW (6C)
W ES R TE

AN

ORE GON

BR

EY

PIN

50 24

5TH ST

LA U

ASPEN ST

RE

LS

N

T

E AV

( ! ! (
46
CH

M ¾

The streetcar would provide access to approximately two-thirds of the District’s public schools and over half of its charter schools, expanding education ¾ choices for families.
M M ¾

M ¾

AL A

RD

AH UT

E AV

AV E

AV E

AD

13TH ST

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

SA

Rock Creek Park

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

LO R

KA

AVE NEVADA

IR BLA

A BE

C

S EA

RD

H

D

TE

R

R

N

E AV

MILITARY RD

25

MIS SO

43

NE BR

EA VE

LIN

NE

AV E

AN

20
NO IS

AS

CO

S RD RIGG

IL LI

SH

AV E

SA

AV E

AN

NE W

D

M

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

G

36

HA

MP

59

GALLOWAY ST

S

IR

M ¾

GALLATIN ST

E AV

Fort Totten Park

SA RG

BL A

CO

S TE BA

RD

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN

IO

EC

JOHN

W

VAN NESS ST

M

16TH ST

14TH ST

TILDEN ST

19 37 29
NG RD

WEBSTER ST

M ¾

MACOMB ST

34TH ST

NG KLI

LE

RD

58

M 49 ¾

PARK PL

PORTER ST

O

1ST ST

S ST

11TH ST

GT ON

R ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

30TH ST

24TH ST

21ST ST

20TH ST

WHITEHURST FWY

L ST

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

22ND ST

19TH ST

M ¾ K ST M M ¾ I ST ¾

54
M ¾

20

NT

61

18

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST

M ¾

EL LO

AV E

TR IN

MA

L RY

D AN

E AV

17

Anacostia Park

MO

KE N

68

ES

P ST

85

N ST

M ¾

AV E

37

W NE

47

ILW

W

OR TH

M ¾

70

T

YO

VIR

RK

AV

M ¾

AV E
EN

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

79

9TH ST

56

VE R

88

AV E

AA VE

PL

M ¾

FL O

RID

41

BL A

TT S

MO

73

T ST

DE

SE

M ¾

NT

U

U ST

RH

BR E

NS

SA C

W

H

70

52

OD

E IS

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND LA

AV

O

oc

72

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

RD

re

ek

Pa

rk

LINCO

CALVER 70 T ST

62

LN RD

AV E

EUCLID ST

30

37

M

O

NT AN

40

A

M ¾

AV E

VIS

D

M ¾

FRANKLIN ST

52

TA

HARVARD ST

ST

GARFIELD ST

NO RE

A

TIC

E AV

AII W HA

UT

MCC

UPSHUR ST

FO R

TD

R

TAYLOR ST

40

RD

AV

BUNK

E

E AV

ORM

ER HI LL

RD

ACK

HAREW

SP RI

RANDOLPH ST

RD

OOD RD

OTIS PL

40

WA RD

SO

PA R

KR

D

C

LE V

CATH ED

EL AN

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

M ¾ 41 RD COLUMBIA

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

¾

MONROE ST

34

H UT

ER ST

A AD

DA

M

KO

S

TA

M

12TH ST

IL L

E AV

GEORGIA

RD

57

AVE

SHERMAN

7TH ST

23RD ST

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

EX PY

10TH ST

2ND ST

E ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

INT ER

E 66 STAT

M ¾

IND

M ¾

IA N

4TH ST

M ¾

E ST

M ¾

E A AV

D ST

80

53

44TH ST

6TH ST

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

EA S

L

TB

R

IA

PK Y

BR

G

56

20

INTE

M ¾

RS TA TE

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M ¾

M ¾

W

IV Y

ST

M ¾ 72

M ¾

76 69

58

TA AV E

TEX AS

M ¾

AVE

AU

AM

BE

CH

ST

RO

CANA L

¾
M

M TO PO

AC

27
HO

23

27TH ST

E AV

A AN

CO

NA YL O

25TH ST

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

SOUTH CAPITO L ST

29 5

RS

TA TE

TE

IN

HE RD

SHEP

Streetcar Segments Streetcar Stations Area with 1/4-mile of streetcar
M ¾

BL U

by rail transit. The increased number of schools accessible

PKY

! ( ! (
( !

Streetcar station More than Half in-boundary Park/open space M ¾ Water More than Half out-of-boundary
No Info Available
M ¾

EP LA

Label = % of students out of boundary

! (

DR

Charter School Locations

INS

TU

W NLA

AVE

RD

37TH ST

Public Schools: Students out-of-boundary

WIS

CO

JE RS NEW

NS

VE IN A

EY AV

17

E

SHERIFF RD

IA

H ST

AV E

G ST

M ¾

F ST

M ¾

78

BE NN

58

ING RD

29

32

M ¾

42

49TH ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

76

C ST

70

The Mall

NO

H RT

CA

LIN RO

VE AA

66 37

39

19

EAST CAPITOL ST

M ¾

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M ¾

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

27

G

E

RD

N KE

35

41 ELY PL

55

TU

CK

VE YA

East Potomac Park

M

AIN

69 5

M ¾

M ¾

Fort Dupont Park

56

E

E AV

BRANCH AVE

ST

IA

FW

Y

52

W BO

RD

R

RD

59

PE N

NS

YLV AN

Anacostia Park

GOOD

IA

V ST

M ¾

HO

W

W ST

39PE RD

AV E

M ¾

AR D

23 RD

48

OH

SU IT

LA

IO

ND

M

RD

DR

O

RR

M ¾

IS

RD

38

17

35

M ¾

SU

24

MALCOLM X AVE

56

AL AB

AMA AV

E

M ¾ 47

11

SIS MIS

AN ST

IT

LA N

D

PK

36
Y

S 42IPP

TO

M ¾

N

R

D

M ¾

VE IA

HA LL EY

PL

31

20

SO

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

W

HE

ATLANTIC ST

34

EL ER

RD

0

0.25 0.5

CHESA PEAKE

58

ST

21

8

1 Miles

Ü

M Metro station

GALV Charter Schools

ESTO N ST

Metrorail Lines blue green orange red yellow

Street Centerlines

Parks and Open Space Waterbody

Metro Stations

18 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

MAP 8 Historic Districts and Structures
CHES TNUT

AV E

ST

AVE

ORE GON

EY

PIN

5TH ST

LA U

W

ES

BR

ASPEN ST

9D

RE

R TE

AN

LS

N

T

E AV

CH

M ¾

16TH ST

14TH ST

by premium transit will also expand the school choices available to the District’s students. The streetcar would also greatly increase transit capacity during peak hours for students traveling to and from school, a key benefit because¾ so many students depend on transit to reach school.
M

MCKINLEY ST

The streetcar would help revitalize historic buildings, neighborhoods, and commercial corridors by attracting market-driven reinvestment. ¾
M
S EA TE R N E AV

AL A

SK

A

M ¾

RD

AH UT E AV

AV E

AV E

AD

13TH ST

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

SA

Rock Creek Park
LO R

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

AS

KA

CO

AVE NEVADA
NE BR
VAN NESS ST

IR BLA

A BE C H D R

RD

MILITARY RD

9C
IL LI

MIS SO

S RIGG

RD

M ¾
GALLOWAY ST

AV E

AN

EA VE

LIN

Maryland

NE

NO IS

SH

AV E

S

IR

M ¾

GALLATIN ST

E AV

AV E

AN

HA

NE W

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park
S TE BA RD

SA

MP

SA RG

BL A

CO

G

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W
WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST
FO R TD

JOHN

34TH ST

Preserves historic resources

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

NO RE RD

A

TIC

M ¾

E AV

AII W HA

UT AV E
TILDEN ST

MCC ORM

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E AV

ER HI LL

SP RI

NG

9B
M ¾
OTIS PL

RD
RANDOLPH ST

ACK

HAREW OOD RD

RD

WA RD

M ¾
MACOMB ST

NG KLI

LE

RD

PA R

An earlier streetcar system spurred development of many of the District’s commercial corridors and residential neighborhoods. These development patterns remain largely intact and constitute a majority of the city’s historic districts and landmarks (see Map 8; these patterns also include districts and buildings eligible for designation). After streetcar service ended in ı962, some of these areas—such as the corridors along Rhode Island Avenue NE, Georgia Avenue NW, and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE—suffered from a lack of access to efficient transit and other factors that drove subsequent disinvestment. Others, including M Street NW (Georgetown) and ı6th Street NW, continued to thrive and have become important contributors to the District’s sense of place. Implementation of a new streetcar system would trigger reviews by multiple agencies investigating impacts on historic resources. Meeting this obligation would require significant effort.14 The reviews would address a
14

KR

D

C
GARFIELD ST

O

1ST ST

S ST

AV E

VE R

9TH ST

11TH ST

GT ON

R ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

ES

P ST

30TH ST

NT

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST

M ¾

EL LO

AV E

24TH ST

21ST ST

20TH ST

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

22ND ST

19TH ST

4A
M ¾

WHITEHURST FWY

L ST

M ¾ K ST M ¾ I ST

TR IN

M ¾

7TH ST

IA

AV E

G ST

4B M

4C
M ¾
E ST

23RD ST

EX PY

M ¾
E A AV

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

10TH ST

2ND ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

E 66 STAT INT ER

M ¾
The Mall

N DIA INM

4TH ST

E ST

D ST

¾

C ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

6TH ST

N

TH OR

CA

RO

A LIN

E AV

5D
EAST CAPITOL ST

44TH ST

¾ F ST

¾
M

5A

H ST

5B

MA

L RY

D AN

E AV

Anacostia Park

MO

KE N
BE NN ING RD

6B

W NE

T AV V E

ILW

N ST

M ¾ 6E

W

5C

M ¾

OR TH

M ¾

YO

RK

IR

AV

M ¾

SHERIFF RD

AV E

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

AA VE

6D

PL

M ¾

FL O

RID

BL A

TT S

6C

MO

T ST

DE

SE

M ¾

NT

U

BR E

U ST

R

NS

SA C

W

H

6A

D HO

E IS

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND LA

AV

O

oc

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

7A

RD

re

ek

Pa

rk

LINCO

CALVERT ST

8B

LN RD

AV E

EUCLID ST

9A

M

7B M
¾

O

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M ¾ 8A

FRANKLIN ST

TA

ST

LE V

CATH ED

EL AN

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

COLUMBIA RD HARVARD ST

8C M ¾

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

8E ¾
12TH ST

SO H UT

ER ST

A AD M S M IL L RD

MONROE ST

DA KO TA E AV

GEORGIA AVE

8D

7C

SHERMAN

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

EA S

L

PK Y

TB

R

IA

INTE

M ¾
RS TA TE 69 5

2C
BRANCH AVE
FW Y

BR

G

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M ¾
W

¾
M
IV Y

3A
M AIN E E AV

ST

¾
M

TA AV E

3D M ¾

ELY PL

AM

BE

M ¾
ST

M ¾
CANA L

CH

East Potomac Park

3C
27TH ST
A AN C

AU

Fort Dupont Park

M ¾

3B
OH

M TO PO

AC

E AV

Anacostia Park
V ST

GOOD
W ST

2A
HOPE RD

NA YL O

25TH ST

T OS

IA

2B
R

TEX AS

M ¾

AVE

RO

Virginia

M ¾

1A 1D
SOUTH CAPITO L ST
MALCOLM X AVE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

TU W NLA RD

AVE

37TH ST

WIS CO NS VE IN A

EY JE RS NEW AV E

49TH ST

M ¾

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M ¾

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G E RD

N KE TU CK VE YA
RD
PE N NS

W BO

EN

RD

YLV AN

IA

AV E

M ¾

1B

HO

W

M ¾ RD

AR D

SU IT

LA

IO DR

ND

M ¾

1E

M

RD

O

RR

IS

RD

SU
N R D

AN ST TO

IT

LA N

D

PK

Y

M ¾

M ¾
AMA AV E

The proposed routes pass through 18 districts protected under the District’s 1978 Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act. All local historic districts are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. These protections require local and federal historic-preservation and environmental review processes through the District’s State Historic Preservation Office and its Historic Preservation Review Board. These reviews would be coordinated with other design-review processes conducted by the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, both of which also assess impacts on historic resources.

historic district historic district and park
RS TA TE

1C

AL AB

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

historic structure Benefit cluster subarea
IN
OVERLOOK AVE

HA LL EY

SO
PL

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

W

29 5

HE

EL ER

RD

0

0.25 0.5

HISTORIC DISTRICTS & STRUCTURES
CHESA PEAKE ST

Historic Structures

Park/open space Water M ¾

HE RD

BL U

Streetcar Park Historic District and station

INS

DR

M Metro Historic Districts station

TE

ATLANTIC ST

1 Miles

Ü

Parks and Open Space Waterbody
PKY
EP LA

N ST GALVESTO

Streetcar Segments Streetcar Stations Streets
M ¾

Metrorail Lines blue green orange red yellow

SHEP

Metro Stations

M ¾

M ¾

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 19

The Question of Overhead Wires

For more than 120 years the District of Columbia has prohibited overhead power and telephone lines in the Old City of Washington (often referred to colloquially as the “L’Enfant City.”) In January 2011 the City Council amended the ban to permit use of overhead wires on the H Street–Benning segment and requiring DDOT to submit a plan for the use of wires on other proposed streetcar routes. The issue of overhead wires is not unique to the District, and streetcar manufacturers have responded with experimental models that use alternative power

sources. Some of these alternatives are designed solely for short wireless segments of a route and others are designed to operate without an overhead-wire system over longer stretches. The Federal Transit Administration recently awarded DDOT funding to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of alternative streetcar propulsion systems and provide a recommendation for this and future streetcar lines as part of the Alternative Analysis study of the Union Station-to-Washington Circle extension.

Examples of potential historic resources include (left to right) 16th Street and Columbia Road NW; Florida Avenue and 3rd Street NW; and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE.

range of issues, including the impact of overhead wires, particularly on historic view sheds; the streetcar’s effect on the character of historic districts and landmarks; introduction of new infrastructure (such as tracks, transformer boxes, streetcar shelters, and medians); and potential changes in the width and general character of historic thoroughfares. The density and significance of resources in some corridors—such as K Street NW, Columbia Road NW, 8th Street SE, and ı4th Street NW— would present particular challenges in the review process.

Alongside these challenges, the streetcar could deliver notable benefits. Roughly two-thirds of the proposed system would retrace earlier routes, restoring the transportation context that shaped many historic areas and areas eligible for designation. A new system could build on this inherited urban fabric, particularly in areas that have endured disinvestment, and deliver benefits that include: • revitalizing historic commercial corridors by making them more accessible, thus attracting reinvestment; • promoting use of historic-rehabilitation tax credits for both commercial and income-producing residential properties; • establishing above-ground transit connections to help expand visitor access to and interest in historic and cultural destinations outside the city’s core; and • bringing communities together around cultural and heritage resources that contribute to a stronger sense of place.

20 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

M ¾
ST WE C BEA

Silver Spring

Bethesda

MAP 9 Improved Household Access to Jobs via Transit
KALM IA RD

AV E

CHESTNUT ST

WISE RD

OREGON

VE RM O

9TH ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

In areas that have seen little or no development of marketrate and mixed-income housing in recent decades, the streetcar would support development within roughly a five-minute walk of each new line. As demonstrated in othM ¾ er cities, streetcar service also tends to spur development of new housing that responds to current market needs and preferences. This newer development often takes the form of lofts, smaller units, and accessory dwelling units that expand the diversity of housing choices and enable people to find the kind of housing they want within a given neighborhood. Young professionals, for instance, can more easily find affordable starter housing close to employment, family or friends, and empty nesters can more easily shift to smaller units without leaving their community. Although the streetcar is projected to raise housing values and rents in neighborhoods along each line, the size of the increase—roughly 5% to ı2%—appears unlikely

KE NIL W

24TH ST

18TH ST

7TH ST

23RD ST

12TH ST EXPY

3RD ST

8TH ST

6TH ST

4TH ST

MA INE

AV E

Federal Center SW

MIN N

Arlington Cemetery

M ¾

M ¾

L'Enfant Plaza

M ¾

S IVY

C ST

T

M ¾

ES O

INDEPENDENCE AVE

17TH ST

M ¾

Anacostia Park

3D M ¾

M ¾

Stadium-Armory

TA AV E

Smithsonian

R NO

C TH

B

ST

EAST CAPITOL ST

Benning Road

BE AU

KE YE

Waterfront-SEU

HA M

BU

C

3A

§ ¦ ¨
ST

695

Potomac Ave

M ¾

M ¾
VE CA

Navy Yard

RO C

CAN AL

3C

BR

D

§ ¦ ¨
1E

295

M ¾

2C 2B
R RD

ELY PL

S XA TE

E AV

G

R

impACT oF improveD Pentagon M ¾ TrAnsiT ACCess

high Low

3B
IO OH

medium M ¾

Pentagon City

V ST

M ¾

STANTON RD

M Metro station¾

M

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

1A
SOUTH CAPITOL ST

25TH ST

Crystal City

1B

SU HOW ITL A A N RD D PK RD Y

¾

M

W ST

GOOD

HOPE

RD

2A

27TH ST

MA TO PO

O AC AN

IA ST

Y FW

NA YL O

PE NN S

W BO

EN

RD

YL VA NIA

AV E
SU ITL A

ND

RD

Streetcar station Park/open space Water Criteria

1D 1C
Congress Heights E A AV BAM ALA

M ¾ M ¾

Naylor Road

MALCOLM X AVE

AV E

MISSI

SSIP

E PI AV

• Population density 0 • Existing transit access to jobs • Walkable proximity to Figure 6: streetcar Streetcar Impact on Access to Jobs BASED ON: EXISTING TRANSIT ACCESS TO JOBS, DISTANCE TO PROPOSED STREETCAR LINE, NEW JOBS CREATED, AND • Transit-dependent TRANSIT-DEPENDENT POPULATION population • New jobs created
OV ER LO
EL E
CHESAPEAKE ST

W HE

SO

OK

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Southern Avenue

M ¾

ATLANTIC ST

R

RD

Miles

0.5

1

Ü

Streetcar Benefit on Access to Jobs M Metro Stations
Low Medium High

¾

Landmark Building Waterbody

Parks and Open Space

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 21

50TH ST
Suitland

Court House

M ¾

Federal Triangle

M ¾

D ST

2ND ST

E ST

East Potomac Park

CONSTITUTION AVE

O AR

VE AA LIN

44TH ST

M ¾

Rosslyn

4A

20TH ST 19TH ST

21ST ST

22ND ST

ST F W

Y

§ ¦ ¨
VIR GIN

66

IA

AV E

M ¾

¾ ¾

¾

G ST

4B

W NE

YO

F ST

M ¾

E AV RK

M ¾

Gallery Pl-Chinatown

§ ¦ ¨

395

M ¾

Judiciary Square

4C

M ¾5A

H ST Union Station

5B
LA RY MA

SHERIFF RD

E AV ND

BENN

ING RD

Fort Dupont Park

5C
RID

M ¾

Minnesota Ave

5D

M ¾

49TH ST

TR IN

WH ITEH UR

MK ST M I ST M
L ST

M ST

Farragut North

The Mall

IDA DA VE

N ST

M ¾

NORTH CAPITOL ST

M ¾

33RD ST

AV E

6E

W ES T

OR TH

P ST

¾

RID A

VI RG

Dupont Circle

6B

11TH ST

IA

FL O

ST

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

M

Q ST

PE NN

IN

AV E

SI D

E

DR

R ST

Shaw-Howard U

6D

Anacostia Park

BL AD E

The streetcar would expand mobility to and from a large and diverse mix of housing choices. As noted above, the fully built streetcar system would place an additional M ¾ 72,000 households within a quarter-mile walk of the streetcar, greatly expanding access to a variety of jobs (see “Office Market” in section 2f). When these are combined with the approximately 40,000 households already within a quarter-mile walk of Metro stations and another 12,000 (approximately) new households that the streetcar could attract to its corridors over 10 years, more than 50% of all District households would sit within a quarter-mile walk of the streetcar or Metro by the time the system is completed.
Friendship Heights

PIN E

ASPEN ST

YB

RA NC

eXPands housing choices
MCKINLEY ST MILITARY RD

AL AS KA

AVE

HR

D

HD

R

¾

9D
IR BLA

M

Between 40% and 50% of residents would experience improved access to jobs within the District.
M ¾
Prince George's Plaza

M ¾

E AV AH UT

41ST ST

N ER ST EA

43RD ST

KA NS AS AV E

N

AV E

9C

RD

W ES TE R

NE BR A

16TH ST

BL AG

Tenleytown-AU ALBEMARLE ST

D

M ¾

AV E

NE W

RI VE R

RD

LIN

NE AN

HA MP SH

CO L

SK A

FESSENDEN ST

AV E

OR

KENNEDY ST

EA VE

MIS SO U

E AV

AD O

RI A VE

AV E

RIGG

S RD

AV E

GALLOWAY ST GALLATIN ST Fort Totten

M ¾

M ¾

West Hyattsville

IR

ILL INO IS E AV
5TH ST

SARG

VAN NESS ST

M ¾

Van Ness-UDC
TILDEN ST

Rock Creek Park

14TH ST

PARK PL

PORTER ST

CATHEDRAL AVE

13TH ST

SE TT S

34TH ST

M AS SA C

HU

MACOMB ST

M ¾

Cleveland Park

SPR IN

GR

D

9B

UPSHUR ST

WEBSTER ST

SR TE BA
FO RT D R

D

EN

N CO VE TA ICU CT NE

IO A W E AV

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

JOH

NM

AII W HA

N RE OR
AV E

CK RMA CCO E AV

M ¾

Fort Totten Park

TAYLOR ST
RANDOLPH ST

LIN

W AT ER

U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo

6A

M ¾ 6C

1ST ST

U ST

M ¾

NT AV E

BR EN TW

O RH T ST

NS BU R

IS DE

LAN

O

O

G

RD

R

VE DA

D

RD

oc

k

C

re

e

CO LN

CALVERT ST

L CO

Pa EUCLID ST k

rk

9A

RD

D

AV E

8A

BIA UM

FRANKLIN ST

ST BRYANT

7A

7B M

M O

¾

NT AN A

AV E

VIS

TA

ST

D
CL E VE L AN

HAREWO

RD

PA R
IRVING ST

OTIS PL

M ¾

8B

KR D

RD

8C M ¾

KENY

ON ST

8D
MICHIGAN AVE

8E M ¾

ER WARD

OD RD

Brookland-CUA MONRO E ST

U SO TH

S AM AD L MIL RD

DA

ST

TA KO

7C

N AVE SHERMA

12TH ST

GEORGIA

E AV

AVE

NL TU R AW

ST D 37TH
CO WIS NS VE IN A

NEW EY JERS

M ¾

Deanwood

AVE

GE RD

UC NT KE

G W M EM O AL RI Y PK

KY E AV

BRANCH AVE

OR M RIS

DR

RD

to cause widespread displacement or in other ways dramatically transform neighborhood character. (Chapter 3 includes a more detailed discussion of this point.) The streetcar should indirectly spur creation of affordable housing in higher-income areas in developments subject to mandatory inclusionary zoning, which is discussed further in Chapter 3.

2d Improves job access
As noted above, more than 50% of all District households would sit within a quarter-mile walk of the streetcar or Metro by the time the system is completed. More than twothirds of new housing units and 85% to 95% of all new office employment over the next ten years are projected to be located in the corridors (section 2e, below, examines these figures in more detail), underscoring the streetcar’s value in connecting jobs and housing. Map 9, Improved Household Access to Jobs via Transit , shows how access increases within corridor subareas. The map reflects both the level of new accessibility that streetcar service adds and the proportion of residents who would gain strong benefit from it.

Adding streetcar service in corridors with a high demand for additional transit service will provide residents in those areas with better links to downtown, other employment centers, and higher education that can improve workforce readiness. These include Howard University, Washington Hospital Center, the St. Elizabeth’s hospital site, Walter Reed Medical Center, and Georgetown University, all of which currently lack premium transit service. Additionally, the proposed network will improve connections to Metrorail stations, allowing resident access to job centers throughout the region.

2e Attracts new jobs and residents to the District

While this area requires further study, initial figures suggest that the added accessibility and amenity of the streetcar appear likely to attract new jobs and residents to the District. Preliminary projections suggest that as the system grows, it would draw an additional 6,300 to 7,700 jobs and 4,000 to ı2,000 households to the District over a ten-year period, compared to a scenario with no streetcar. Figures 4 and 5 compare the two scenarios for residential growth and job growth, respectively. Better Map 9 shows that the proposed streetcar corridors cross access and amenities would also help the District retain neighborhoods that today lack access to premium transit yet whose residents rely heavily on transit. As noted earlier, some households that might otherwise move. Taken together, these two trends could translate into a projected roughly 44% of households now in the corridors do not increase of more than ı,400 households annually once the own a car. The streetcar would improve transit service system is complete. This would increase the proportion of in these areas, particularly along Martin Luther King Jr. the District workforce that also lives in the District from Avenue SE, Minnesota Avenue SE/NE, Benning Road NE, 3ı.5% today to approximately 32.5% over ı0 years and M Street SE, Florida Avenue NE/NW, and the northern roughly 34% over 20 years (Figure 5). stretches of Georgia Avenue NW (dark purple).

22 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

FIGURE 4 Projected Residential Growth Over Ten Years
PROJECTED STREETCAR IMPACT Figures in parentheses show percentage increase over base condition. Assumes full implementation of streetcar network.*

BASE (WIthoUt StREEtcAR)
POPulATION

COMBINED (BASE + StREEtcAR IMPAct)

Net new District residents
HOuSEHOlDS

34,340 22,000 16,360 39,500 (16% of 248,300 households) 43,500 to 48,500 (16–18% of 270,300 new)

15,500–18,900 (45–55%) 10,800–13,200 (49–60%) 7,400–9,000 (45–55%) 72,400 more existing households (29%) 96,200 to 97,800 (34–35% of 278,300)

49,800–53,200 32,800–35,200 23,800–25,400 About 112,000 (45% of 248,300 households) 139,700 to 146,300 (50–52% of 278,300 households)

Net new District households Of net new households, those located along streetcar corridors Existing households within 1/4 mile of rail transit Existing and new households within 1/4 mile of rail transit
*

See “Residential Market” on page 24 for explanation of the streetcar’s potential to attract and retain households.

FIGURE 5 Projected Job Growth Over Ten Years (Office and Retail)
PROJECTED STREETCAR IMPACT Figures in parentheses show percentage increase over base condition. Assumes full implementation of streetcar network.

BASE (WIthoUt StREEtcAR)

COMBINED (BASE + StREEtcAR IMPAct)

Net new jobs* Net new workforce Number of jobs in District held by residents—2010 Number of jobs in District held by residents—2020 Number of jobs in District held by residents—2030
* **

78,133 22,900 248,220 (31.5% of 788,160 jobs) 271,116 (31.5% of 860,760 jobs)* 294,013 (31.9% of 922,259 jobs)

6,300–7,700 (8–10%)** 10,300–12,600 (45–50%)*** N/A 10,300–12,600 more workforce; 6,300–7,700 more office and retail jobs 10,300–12,600 more workforce; 6,300–7,700 more office and retail jobs

85,096 33,200–35,500 N/A 281,400 to 283,700 (32.4–32.7% of 866,293 DC jobs)* 314,600 to 319,200 (33.4–34% of 941,558 DC jobs)

These projections are preliminary and reflect conservative assumptions. Further study of the streetcar’s impact on the District’s regional competitiveness appears likely to identify greater opportunities for job growth. See “Office Market” on page 26 for explanation of the streetcar’s potential to attract and retain tenants and associated jobs. *** Based on residential market benefits.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 23

2f Provides real estate market benefits
This initial assessment of the streetcar’s impact on real estate markets conservatively projects that if the system were in place today it would add $5 billion to $7 billion to the value of existing property and attract an additional $5 billion to $8 billion in new investment in the study corridors over ten years (Figures 5 and 6). These projections align with studies of real estate impacts from new streetcar lines completed in Portland and Seattle and projections of the impact of a 15 proposed line in Los Angeles. The study team believes that more detailed assessment in Phase II of the streetcar’s impact on real estate values and investment would likely show that the streetcar can make the District more competitive for a range of real estate investments. Further assessment will also look at the extent to which the streetcar would make the District more competitive for jobs within the region.

FIGURE 6 Property Value Increases Along Streetcar Corridor (approximate)
aggregate increase in value of existing property aggregate value of new property

CORRIDORS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Please refer to Map 4 on page 14 for the location of the corridors.

FIGURE 7 Expected Ranges for Existing Property Appreciation (typical)
Most residential property will fall in the lower end of the appreciation range shown for each corridor. Properties at the upper end of each range will be primarily offices.
CORRIDORS �

15

Estimated real estate investment in Portland from the time the city identified its 7.3 miles of streetcar routes to 2008 was $3.5 billion (http://www.portlandstreetcar. org/pdf/development_200804_report.pdf). In Seattle, approximately $2.4 billion in investment, including 2,500 housing units and 12,500 jobs, has taken place in the last eight years along the 2.6-mile streetcar line that connects the South Lake Union neighborhood and downtown. The line was financed and built within three years, with one-half of the $52.9 million cost coming from adjacent property owners (South Lake Union Investment Analysis, Seattle Department of Transportation, 2008). A 2011 study for the city redevelopment agency and Los Angeles Streetcar, Inc., L.A. Streetcar Economic Analysis, found $1.1 billion in economic impact for a proposed 5.0-mile streetcar route in downtown Los Angeles. That figure includes the value of new commercial and residential construction (respectively, 2,600 units and 675,000 square feet) and 2,100 new non-construction jobs (www.lastreetcar.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Downtown.L.A.Streetcar. Economic.Impact.Report_Feb.08.2011.pdf).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Please refer to Map 4 on page 14 for the location of the corridors.

24 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

The streetcar’s impact on property values and new investment is particularly pronounced in three situations: ı. Where it improves access to underdeveloped areas. Most real estate investment in the District over the past three decades has visibly clustered within a half mile of a Metro station. The premium transit offered by the streetcar would expand market interest in areas such as Buzzard Point and the Washington Hospital Center, which have extensive underdeveloped land but lack convenient transit service today. 2. Where it encourages further expansion of existing commercial districts and intensively developed transit nodes by “extending the walk.” In areas such as New York Avenue NE (particularly east of the rail underpass), ı4th and U streets NW, portions of Anacostia, and Eastern Market, the streetcar supports growth of existing lively commercial districts along streetcar corridors, in part by making them more readily accessible to nearby neighborhoods. 3. Where it increases accessibilty to areas with existing amenities. Established markets, such as K Street NW, and growing areas like NoMa would realize increased property and business value from more convenient access to restaurants and other amenities in places like the H Street corridor. They would also benefit from the addition of premium accessibility for a larger pool of employees. Similarly, residential markets would benefit, particularly in areas with expanded access to jobs, amenities, schools, and services

residential MarKet

This study measures opportunities for new housing development in each corridor subarea by identifying undeveloped or underdeveloped sites large enough to accommodate significant multifamily housing, and evaluating the development capacity those sites have under current or anticipated zoning. The streetcar would stimulate residential market demand, translating into increases in values for existing housing and investment in housing construction and rehabilitation.16 Map ı0, Impact on New Residential Market Demand, highlights areas where the streetcar system appears likely to intensify market demand for new housing. The streetcar system would increase existing residential property value by $ı.0 billion to $ı.6 billion, and the increases would be especially pronounced near the District’s core, in locations that are currently less well served by Metrorail. Most property values would increase 5% to ı2%, with values likely to rise even higher in areas that have many prime redevelopment sites.17 The
16

The yardstick used to assess the streetcar’s impact on housing markets in each corridor was how well it increased accessibility to six destinations that affect housing values and demand for development: workplaces, Metro stations, shopping and services, entertainment, eating and drinking establishments, and green space/parks/recreation. In addition, the study team evaluated the extent of publicly owned, vacant, and underdeveloped sites in each corridor that would be readily available for redevelopment. While individual property values could increase 5% to 12%, the study utilized more conservative estimates in calculating corridor-wide totals: between 2.5% and

17

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 25

MAP 10 Impact on New Residential Market Demand
9D
M ¾

The streetcar could increase market demand by up to 50% over ten years, attracting up to 1,200 net new households to the District each year.
M ¾

M ¾

Rock Creek Park

9C
M ¾ M ¾
Fort Totten Park

Maryland

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

¾ 9B
M

¾ 8EM

8A
R oc k C re ek Pa rk

M ¾

8C 8B 6A
M ¾

¾
M

8D 9A
M ¾ 6C

7C 7B M ¾

strongest growth in demand for both existing and new development would occur adjacent to downtown: • U Street/Logan Circle/Florida Avenue/NoMa/Howard University/western Rhode Island Avenue (subareas 6A–6E, 7H, 9A) • H Street/Benning Road (4C, 5A–5C) • Buzzard Point (3B) • Capitol Riverfront (3C) • Other significant increases in demand would occur in Downtown Anacostia (ıE), Washington Hospital Center (8D), Takoma Park (9D), and Georgetown (4A). Figure 8 suggests how the streetcar’s impact on new housing development would vary in different settings. It reflects both the degree to which streetcar service heightens market demand and the availability of land that could support development to meet that demand. The chart highlights where the greatest value and strongest potential for new residential development would occur once the streetcar system is in place. The chart’s vertical axis shows the relative increase in market demand for housing that the streetcar would add in each subarea. The horizontal axis shows the potential number of new housing units developed annually, taking into account site availability. For instance, subarea 6C (U Street) would experience a greater increase in market demand than subarea 8E (Brookland/CUA), but more new units could be
5% for residential values and between 5% and 10% for commercial values.

7A
M ¾

6B
M ¾ M ¾ M ¾

6D
M ¾ 6E
Anacostia Park

M ¾

4A
M ¾

M ¾

M 4B ¾

4C
M ¾ M ¾ M ¾ M ¾ M ¾

5A

5B

5C 5D

M ¾

¾
M

The Mall

M ¾ M ¾

3D
M ¾ M ¾ M ¾ M ¾ M ¾

¾
M

¾ impact on reSidentiaL market demand
M

negligible: Baseline capture (as if no streetcar present) moderate: 20 to ¾ 50% above baseline capture ¾ Significant: 50% or more above baseline capture ¾
M M M

3A
¾
M
East Potomac Park

2C
Fort Dupont Park

¾
M

3C 2B 2A
Anacostia Park

3B 1B M 1A 1D
M ¾

¾

1E

Virginia

¾ M Metro station
M

Streetcar station Park/open space Water Criteria—reSiDeNtiaL aCCeSS tO:

M ¾

1C

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

STREETCAR'S IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL MARKET DEMAND: NEW DEVELOPMENT
M

• Job locations • Metrorail • Goods/services • Entertainment • Eating/drinking establishments Negligible: Baseline Capture (as if no streetcar present) • Green space/parks/ recreation Example - 20 to 50% avove baseline capture Moderate: ¾
M ¾

0

0.25 0.5

1 Miles

Ü

Significant: Example - 50% or greater above baseline capture
26 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS ¾
M

CRITERIA - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS TO: - Job locations - Metrorail - Goods/services - Entertainment - Eating/drinking establishments - Green space/parks/recreation

FIGURE 8 Variations in Streetcar’s Impact on Housing Development
The streetcar’s impact on housing development would vary by subarea based not only on market impact, but also on availability and character of development sites.

Criteria fOr avaiLabiLity Of DeveLOpmeNt SiteS

• Sufficient site size to accommodate mixed-use development • Scale and character of context • Site proximity to streetcar corridors

produced in 8E because it has more underdeveloped sites. Subarea ıB (Poplar Point) appears twice to illustrate the difference between developing a large site with no direct streetcar access (the current plan) and developing it with direct access, which would significantly increase market demand.

office MarKet

The streetcar would bring similar benefits to the markets for existing and new office development along the proposed streetcar corridors. The value of existing office space would increase most in locations without convenient Metrorail access. Map ıı, Impact on New Office Market Demand, shows how streetcar service would increase market demand for new office development

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 27

MAP 11 Impact on New Office Market Demand
CHES TNUT

AL A

SK

A

AV E

ST

AVE

O

M

M ¾

28 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

M ¾

SHEP

BL U

Specifically, • The streetcar would increase demand for office development within streetcar corridors by 2.5 million to 3.0 million square feet or roughly ı5%. The streetcar would make nearly all locations within the streetcar corridors moderately to significantly more competitive for office development than they are today. The streetcar would increase the market share of new office development for these corridors from roughly 85% to more than 90% of new office investment in the District. • More than 80% of this demand would occur in parts of the streetcar corridors that today have substantial underdeveloped land and poor transit access. These include Buzzard Point (subarea 3B); portions of the Southwest Waterfront (3A); the eastern part of the Navy Yard (3C); parts of NoMa near New Jersey Avenue NW (4C) and New York Avenue NE east of the train tracks (6E); the Washington Hospital Center (8D); and the eastern reaches of Rhode Island

S ST

AV E

VE R

9TH ST

11TH ST

GT ON

R ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

ES

P ST

30TH ST

NT

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST

M ¾

EL LO

AV E

24TH ST

21ST ST

20TH ST

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

22ND ST

19TH ST

4A
M ¾

WHITEHURST FWY

L ST

¾ K ST M M ¾ I ST ¾
M

TR IN

7TH ST

IA

AV E

G ST

4B M
F ST

4C
M ¾
E ST

¾
10TH ST

23RD ST

EX PY

M ¾
AVE NA

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

2ND ST

4TH ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

INT ER

E 66 STAT

¾
M
The Mall

DIA INM

E ST

D ST

¾

C ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

6TH ST

NO

H RT

CA

RO

LIN

VE AA

5D
EAST CAPITOL ST

44TH ST

M ¾

5A

H ST

5B

M

A YL AR

ND

E AV

Anacostia Park

MO

KE N

6B

W NE

ILW

N ST

M ¾

6E

AV E

W

BE NN

ING RD

5C

M ¾

OR TH

M ¾

T

YO

VIR

RK

AV

M ¾

SHERIFF RD

AV E

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

AA VE

6D

PL

M ¾

FL O

RID

BL A

TT S

6C

MO

T ST

DE

SE

U ST

M ¾

1ST ST

NT

U

BR E

NS

SA C

W

H

6A

RH

OD

E

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND IS LA

AV

O

oc

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

7A

RD

around the core of the District as well as along radial corridors. Roughly $ı billion to $ı.3 billion in office development would occur in streetcar corridors within the next ten years (the figure combines new construction and rehabilitation). The streetcar corridors were designed to pass through existing concentrations of jobs and areas of greatest anticipated growth in office development, which they will reinforce. In some underdeveloped areas, introduction of streetcar service will likely play a more transformative role, putting these locations “on the map” for office development.

ORE GON

PIN

5TH ST

LA U

EY

W

E

ER ST

AN

BR

ASPEN ST

9D

RE

LS

N

T

E AV

CH

M ¾

The vast majority of new District office jobs would be accessible by streetcar.
M ¾
S EA TE

M ¾

RD

AH UT E AV

AV E

AV E

AD

13TH ST

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

SA

Rock Creek Park
LO R

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

AS

KA

CO

AVE NEVADA
NE BR

IR BLA

MCKINLEY ST

A BE C H D R

RD

R

MILITARY RD

9C
IL LI

N E AV

MIS SO

S RIGG

RD

M ¾
GALLOWAY ST

AV E

AN

EA VE

LIN

Maryland

NE

NO IS

SH

AV E

S

IR

M ¾

GALLATIN ST

E AV

AV E

AN

HA

NE W

G

M ¾

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park
S TE BA RD

SA

MP

SA RG

BL A

CO

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W
WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST
FO R TD

JOHN

VAN NESS ST

16TH ST

14TH ST

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

34TH ST

re

ek

Pa

rk

LINCO

CALVERT ST

8B

LN RD

AV E

EUCLID ST

9A

M

7B M
¾

O

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M ¾ 8A

FRANKLIN ST

TA

ST

GARFIELD ST

NO RE RD

A

MACOMB ST

C

TIC
LE V

¾
M

E AV

AII W HA

UT AV
EL AN

MCC

TILDEN ST

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E

E AV

ORM ACK

ER HI LL

SP RI

NG

9B
¾
M
OTIS PL

RD
RANDOLPH ST

HAREW OOD RD

RD

WA RD

M ¾
N KLI GLE

RD

PA R

KR

D

CATH ED

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

COLUMBIA RD HARVARD ST

8C M ¾

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

8E ¾
12TH ST

SO H UT

ER ST

A AD M S M IL L RD

MONROE ST

DA KO TA E AV

GEORGIA AVE

8D

7C

SHERMAN

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

EA S

L

PK Y

TB

R

IA

INTE

M ¾
RS TA TE 69 5

2C
BRANCH AVE
FW Y

BR

G

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M ¾
W

M ¾
IV Y

3A
M AIN E E AV

ST

M ¾

TA AV E

3D M ¾

ELY PL

AM

BE

M ¾
ST

M ¾
CANA L

CH

East Potomac Park

3C
27TH ST
A AN CO

AU

Fort Dupont Park

M ¾

1A 1D
SOUTH CAPITO L ST
MALCOLM X AVE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

negligible: 0–5% above baseline capture ¾ moderate: 5%–10% above baseline capture ¾ Significant: 10%–20% Virginiaabove baseline capture
M M

impact on oFFice market demand M
RO

¾

3B
OH

M TO PO

AC

E AV

Anacostia Park
V ST

GOOD
W ST

2A
HOPE RD

NA YL O

25TH ST

ST

IA

2B
R

TEX AS

M ¾

AVE

29 5

RS

TA TE

IN

TE

OVERLOOK AVE

PKY

HE RD

EP LA

INS

DR

TU W NLA RD

AVE

0 0.150.3 0.6 • Access to premium transit Miles • Employers’ access to target employees STREETCAR'S IMPACT ON NEW OFFICE MARKET DEMAND • Businesses’ access to clients/customers CRITERIA: • Employers’ access to above baseline capture Negligible: 0-5% - Access to premium transit services and eating/ - Employers' access to target employees Moderate: 5%-10% above baseline capture drinking establishments ¾ - Businesses' access to clients/customers Significant: 10%-20% above baseline capture - Employers' access to services and eating/drinking establishments
PL

37TH ST

Criteria

WIS CO NS VE IN A

JE RS NEW EY AV E

49TH ST

M ¾

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M ¾

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G E RD

N KE TU CK VE YA
RD
PE N NS

W BO

EN

RD

YLV AN

IA

AV E

1B

HO

W

M ¾

AR D

RD
M O RR

SU IT

LA

IO DR

ND

RD

1E

IS

RD

SU
N R

AN ST TO

IT

LA N

D

M Metro station
Streetcar station Park/open space Water

PK

Y

M ¾

D

M ¾
AMA AV E

1C

AL AB

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

HA LL EY

SO

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

W

HE

EL ER

RD

ATLANTIC ST

Ü

CHESA PEAKE

ST

N ST GALVESTO

Avenue NE (7C). Improving access to Poplar Point, as described on page 57, could give development prospects a significant boost, increasing demand by more than 20%. The streetcar could increase existing office property values by roughly $3.7 to $5.8 billion. Office property values would increase between roughly 2% and ı0% along individual corridors. In areas that are already substantially built out, 2% represents the likely upper limit, while in underdeveloped areas with significant capacity for new development, property values could rise by 20% or more.18 Adjusting the proposed system routing in a limited number of areas, particularly Buzzard Point and Poplar Point, could significantly increase office-development opportunity in those locations.

FIguRe 9 Potential new retail spending*
CORRIDOR SAlES SquARE FEET

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
TOTAl FISCAl BENEFIT

$22,800,000–$27,900,000 $4,800,000–$5,800,000 $54,300,000–$66,400,000 $60,200,000–$73,500,000 $22,900,000–$28,000,000 $53,000,000–$64,900,000 $21,300,000–$26,100,0000 $29,200,000–$35,700,000 $36,500,000–$44,600,000 $305,000,000–$373,000,000

80,600–98,000 17,000–21,000 192,000–235,000 213,000–260,000 81,000–99,000 188,000–229,000 75,000–92,000 103,000–126,000 129,000–158,000 1,100,000–1,300,000

* Projections assume a 10-year time frame and that all corridors receive similar spending potential for each new household or job. Sources: Claritas I nc., Retail Market Power; International Council of Shopping Centers, Office Worker Retail Spending Patterns (2003); W-ZHA

retail MarKet

Increased residential and office market activity along streetcar corridors would benefit retail values and raise demand for retail space nearby. As shown in Figure 9, the streetcar would add a projected $305 million to $373 million to the District’s retail spending potential, which in turn would generate approximately ı.ı to ı.3 million square feet of new retail space after ı0 years. New households would provide the most significant support: preliminary analysis determined that each ı,000 new households could
18

spur development of roughly 30,000–50,000 square feet of additional retail space within a five- to ten-minute walk (a quarter- to a half-mile). This new demand would take different forms in different places. Areas that see substantial new housing and/or jobs, such as Buzzard Point, could support one or more blocks of new retail space. In areas with substantial existing development, new market demand would both increase business for existing retailers and attract new infill retail where space permits it. Because retailers prefer to locate near other retailers, these new businesses would likely attract additional stores that serve broader markets.

Some cities have seen commercial property values rise substantially as a result of building a streetcar system. Portland, Oregon, experienced a 400% property-value increases after completing its system, but much of the land in question began as railyards and vacant industrial sites. The District’s streetcar corridors would not see such dramatic rises, because real estate values typically start at much higher levels .

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 29

2g Increases tax revenues
Existing real estate within the proposed corridors represents roughly $ı00 billion in property value (Figure 10). As noted above in the discussion of real estate market benefits, the streetcar would likely add roughly ı0% to ı5% to this aggregate figure, increasing District real estate tax revenues by a corresponding amount. Figure 6, as noted earlier, shows the impact the streetcar would likely have on values of both existing and new properties. Most noticeably, increases vary broadly across the streetcar system: some areas would gain value mostly from appreciation of existing properties, other from new development, and still others from both (also see Figure
FIGURE 10 Projected Fiscal Benefit of Streetcar Over Ten Years
BASE (WIthoUt StREEtcAR) COMMERCIAl

7). The difference owes largely to the density of existing properties and the availability of land for development. For example, increased value from new property would significantly outweigh increases in existing properties’ value in Anacostia because of large planned projects, such as mixed-use redevelopment of the eastern portion of the St. Elizabeth’s hospital site (subarea ıD) and Poplar Point (ıB). By contrast, heavily built-out areas such as downtown (4B) would see minimal gains from new properties but substantial gains in the value of existing property. For parts of the city with both significant new development opportunities and larger volumes of high-value property, such as Capitol Riverfront and NoMa, major value increases would come from both sources.

PROJECTED STREETCAR IMPACT

COMBINED (BASE + StREEtcAR IMPAct)

Existing commercial property tax New commercial development property tax
RESIDENTIAl

$1,260,000,000–$1,540,000,000 $135,000,000–$165,000,000

$79,200,000–$96,800,000 $5,700,000–$6,900,000

$1,339,200,000–$1,636,800,000 $140,700,000–$171,900,000

Existing residential property tax New residential development property tax Income tax (new residents due to streetcar) Retail sales tax (additional sales tax due to streetcar) TOTAl FISCAl BENEFIT

$244,800,000–$299,200,000 $136,800,000–$167,200,000 $117,900,000–$144,100,000 $21,600,000–$26,400,000 $1,916,100,000–$2,341,900,000

$9,000,000–$11,000,000 $68,400,000–$83,600,000 $64,300,000–$78,600,000 $11,900,000–$14,500,000 $238,400,000–$291,400,000

$253,800,000–$310,200,000 $205,200,000–$250,800,000 $182,200,000–$222,700,000 $33,500,000–$40,900,000 $2,154,500,000–$2,633,300,000

30 | SYStEMWidE BEnEFitS

MAP 12 ‘Cool Space’ Potential
CHES TNUT

AL A

SK

A

AV E

ST

The District would also benefit from additional income taxes paid by new residents attracted by the streetcar (Figure 10), projected at $65 million to $80 million annually after full system buildout.19 Additional retail spending by new residents and employees after full buildout is projected to generate roughly $ı4 million in new annual tax revenue.

AVE

ORE GON

PIN

5TH ST

LA U

EY

W

ES

BR

ASPEN ST

9D

RE

R TE

AN

LS

N

T

E AV
AH UT E AV

CH

M ¾

MCKINLEY ST

MILITARY RD

AV E

AV E

AD

13TH ST

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

SA

Rock Creek Park
LO R

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

9C
CO
IL LI

MIS SO

The streetcar would encourage reoccupancy of vacant upper-floor office space, historic structures, and other smaller, unique spaces that creative ¾ industries seek, with particular benefit to neighborhood “Main Streets.”
M M ¾

M ¾

RD

AS

KA

AVE NEVADA
NE BR

IR BLA

A BE C H D R

S EA

RD
S RIGG RD

TE

R

N

E AV

EA VE

LIN

Maryland

NE

NO

AV E

AN

SH

AV E

GALLOWAY ST

S

IR

M ¾

GALLATIN ST

IS E AV

AV E

AN

HA

NE W

G

M ¾

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park
S TE BA RD

SA

MP

SA RG

BL A

CO

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W
WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST

JOHN

VAN NESS ST

16TH ST

14TH ST

NO RE RD

A

U TIC

M ¾
VE TA
TILDEN ST

E AV

AII W HA

MCC

FO R

TD

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E AV

ORM ACK

ER HI LL

34TH ST

2h Expands the creative economy
Creative Capital: The Creative DC Action Agenda, released in 20ı0 by the District’s Office of Planning and The Washington Economic Partnership, stresses the importance of the “creative economy” to the city’s economic diversity, job growth, and job quality. The District defines the creative economy, which already accounts for ı0% of District jobs,20 as economic activity related to museums and heritage, building arts, culinary arts, performing arts, media and communications, and visual arts and crafts. The enhanced accessibility to jobs and amenities and the improved walkability the streetcar system would create represent critical strategic advantages in the District’s effort to retain existing creative-industry businesses and attract new ones. Studies prepared for CEOs for Cities include two key findings particularly relevant to the District: that the U.S. faces a long-term shortage of the kinds of skilled
An estimated ı,200 net new households would move into the District annuallyas a result of the full streetcar system buildout, generating $65 million to $80 million annually in new income tax revenue, assuming an average taxable household income (after deductions) of $70,000. 20 Creative Capital: The Creative DC Action Agenda, 2010 (http://newsroom. dc.gov/show.aspx/aency/planning/section/2/release/20010, retrieved 1 March 2011)
19
TU W NLA RD

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

SP RI

NG

9B
M ¾
OTIS PL

RD
RANDOLPH ST

HAREW OOD RD

RD

WA RD

M ¾
MACOMB ST

NG KLI

LE

RD

PA R

KR

D

C
GARFIELD ST

O

1ST ST

S ST

AV E

VE R

9TH ST

11TH ST

GT ON

R ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

ES

P ST

30TH ST

NT

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST

M ¾

EL LO

AV E

24TH ST

20TH ST

21ST ST

19TH ST

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

22ND ST

4A
M ¾

WHITEHURST FWY

L ST

M ¾ M ¾

K ST I ST

M ¾

7TH ST

IA

AV E

G ST

4B M
F ST

4C
M ¾
E ST

¾
10TH ST

23RD ST

EX PY

M ¾
E A AV

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

2ND ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

E 66 STAT INT ER

M ¾
The Mall

N DIA INM

4TH ST

E ST

D ST

¾

C ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

6TH ST

N

TH OR

CA

RO

A LIN

E AV

5D
EAST CAPITOL ST

44TH ST

¾
M

5A

H ST

5B

MA

L RY

A

E AV ND

Anacostia Park

TR IN

MO

KE N
BE NN ING RD

6B

W NE

T AV V E

ILW

N ST

M ¾

6E

W

5C

M ¾

OR TH

M ¾

YO

RK

IR

AV

M ¾

SHERIFF RD

AV E

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

AA VE

6D

PL

M ¾

FL O

RID

BL A

TT S

6C

MO

T ST

DE

SE

M ¾

NT

U

BR E

U ST

R

NS

SA C

W

H

6A

D HO

E IS

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND LA

AV

O

oc

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

7A

RD

re

ek

Pa

rk

LINCO

CALVERT ST

8B

LN RD

AV E

EUCLID ST

9A

M

7B M
¾

O

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M ¾ 8A

FRANKLIN ST

TA

ST

LE V

CATH ED

EL AN

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

COLUMBIA RD HARVARD ST

8C M ¾

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

8E ¾
12TH ST

SO H UT

ER ST

A AD M S M IL L RD

MONROE ST

DA KO TA E AV

GEORGIA AVE

8D

7C

SHERMAN AVE

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

EA S

L

PK Y

TB

R

IA

INTE

M ¾
RS TA TE 69 5

2C
BRANCH AVE
FW Y

BR

G

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M ¾
W

M ¾
IV Y

3A
M AIN E E AV

ST

M ¾

TA AV E

3D M ¾

ELY PL

AM

BE

M ¾
ST

M ¾
CANA L

CH

East Potomac Park

3C
27TH ST
A AN CO

AU

Fort Dupont Park

M ¾

3B
OH

M TO PO

AC

E AV

Anacostia Park
V ST

GOOD
W ST

2A
HOPE RD

NA YL O

25TH ST

IA ST

2B
R

TEX AS

M ¾

AVE

RO

M ¾

1A 1D
SOUTH CAPITO L ST
MALCOLM X AVE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

OVERLOOK AVE

COOL SPACE POTENTIAL ALONG STREETCAR ROUTES
CHESA PEAKE ST

EP LA

HE RD

• Scale • Character • Price point • Walkability No • Proximity to amenities

RS

TA TE

Criteria

29 5

IN

TE

PKY

INS

DR

SHEP

BL U

37TH ST

no ¾ maybe Virginia maybe/Yes Yes
M

WIS

M ‘cooL ¾ Space’ potentiaL

CO NS VE IN A

EY JE RS NEW AV E

49TH ST

M ¾

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M ¾

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G E RD

N KE TU CK VE YA
RD
PE N NS

W BO

EN

RD

YLV AN

IA

AV E

1B

HO

W

M ¾ RD

AR D

SU IT

LA

IO DR

ND

1E

M

RD

O

RR

IS

RD

SU

AN ST TO N R D

IT

LA N

D

PK

Y

M ¾

M Metro station
Streetcar station Park/open space Water

M ¾
AMA AV E

1C

AL AB

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

HA LL EY

SO
PL

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

W

HE

EL ER

RD

0

0.25 0.5

ATLANTIC ST

1 Miles

Ü

Streetcar Segments Streetcar Stations
M ¾

N ST GALVESTO

Metrorail Lines
blue green

orange red yellow

Maybe
M ¾

Maybe/Yes Yes
M ¾ M ¾

Metro Stations

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 31

and educated workers that are essential to creative industries and that creative-industry employers understand the necessity of locating in areas preferred by their workforce.21 CEOs for Cities surveys indicate that these workers are roughly 50% more likely than the general population to prefer living and working in urban neighborhoods with lively commercial districts; they also are far more likely to value short commutes by transit and convenient transit access to a wide range of shopping, entertainment, and other urban amenities. 22 The streetcar appeals directly to these preferences. Seeking distinctive character but sensitive to cost, creative-economy employers tend to search for “cool space”—rehabilitated industrial or commercial buildings, upper floors above retail, and similar nontraditional spaces. Often found in older commercial districts and

other neighborhood locations that offer restaurants, unique shopping, and similar amenities, such spaces become more competitive as locations for these businesses once they are accessible by streetcar. Map ı2, Cool Space Potential, shows each subarea’s potential to attract creative-economy businesses.23 Areas well supplied with “cool space” that would likely see strong interest by creative-economy businesses, include: • Capitol Hill along 8th Street NE/SE (subarea 3D) • Georgia Avenue NW (9A–9C) • Logan Circle, U Street NW (6B,6C) • Atlas District/H Street NE (5B) • Downtown Anacostia (ıE) • Adams Morgan (6A, 8B)

23

Calculations to determine subareas’ cool space potential appear in Appendix E.

Wanted: ‘Cool Space’
21

City Advantage. CEOs For Cities http://www.ceosforcities.org/files/ • interesting/historic buildings CityAdvantage.pdf. Retrieved 17 February 2011. locate in “cool space” 22 The Young and Restless in a Knowledge Economy, 2005. Joseph Cortright, • ample natural light • fine arts/artists Impresa Consulting for CEO for Cities

Common characteristics:

Industries that frequently include: • communications/advertising/ marketing • media • information technology • entertainment • health services

• easy walking distance to restaurants • sidewalks in front of buildings • not necessarily inexpensive • convenient size for emerging and growing businesses

32 | SYStEMWidE challEngES & Mitigation StratEgiES

3. systemwide challenges and mitigation strategies
rom right-of-way constraints to housing affordability, building a successful streetcar system raises an array of issues that require early and close coordination of planning for both land use and transportation. This chapter identifies challenges facing the proposed District system and potential strategies for mitigating them across the system. Chapter 4 examines how these challenges and strategies could play out in each of the nine corridors.

F

Strategies are available to help mitigate Addressing challenges challenges that would housing affordability The accessibility and amenity benefits that the streetcar come with streetcar would bring could create affordability issues in multiple implementation. locations along the streetcar corridors. To pinpoint where
these issues might appear, the study team devised an index that combines five indicators of the potential for increased housing costs: • Projected rise in the value of existing housing (as calculated for this study) • Median household income (existing) • Proportion of rental to ownership housing in any area (existing rental housing is more susceptible to shortterm cost increases)

M Street SE

• •

Median home values (existing) Proximity to existing Metrorail

Map ı3, Housing Affordability Pressures, shows how each streetcar corridor subarea fared when measured against the index. The analysis found that nearly a third of subareas stand a relatively higher chance of experiencing strong upward pressure on housing prices. Another group of subareas, roughly half, would likely face more moderate upward price pressures. Together, these indicate the advisability of applying city policy to preserve and

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 33

MAP 13 Housing Affordability Pressures
CHES TNUT

AL A

SK

A

AV E

ST

AVE

expand affordability in a substantial portion of the streetcar corridors for District residents. Financial benefits generated by streetcar service could help some of these same households offset potential #¾ * increases in housing costs. Introduction of premium rail transit would create an opportunity for households to reduce the number of cars owned (or to become carfree). These households would pocket much of the cost of owning and operating a car—as noted earlier, more than $8,000 annually for a mid-sized sedan. That would # * constitute a particularly significant saving for households earning between $20,000 and $50,000 per year, which, on average, spend nearly as much on transportation as they do on housing. Many of these households would also benefit from improved access to jobs as a result of the streetcar’s introduction.
M

ORE GON

MCKINLEY ST

# *
R
MIS SO

5TH ST

# *
AVE NEVADA
A BE C H D
MILITARY RD

PIN

LA U

EY

W

E

ER ST

AN

ASPEN ST

# *

BR

9D

RE

LS

N

T

E AV

CH

M ¾

In locations where the streetcar’s housing-market benefits would place pressure on housing costs, active policy efforts can help preserve affordability. ¾
M
S EA TE R N E AV

M ¾

RD

13TH ST

AS

CO

LO R

KA

# *
LIN NE AN AV E

AV E

AD

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

# *
NE BR

AV E

SA

Rock Creek Park

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

EA VE

AV E

SH

S

IR

SA

AV E

AN

HA

MP

NE W

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

G

BL A

AH UT E AV

IR BLA RD

9C # * # # * * ## ** # *

# * # *

# * # * # * # *

S RIGG

RD

GALLOWAY ST

M ¾

# *
RD

M ¾
GALLATIN ST

Maryland

IL LI

NO IS E AV

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park
S TE BA

SA RG

CO

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W

JOHN

VAN NESS ST

11TH ST

GT ON

R ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

33RD ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

P ST

W NE

ES T AV V E

30TH ST

ILW

W

NT

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST

M

EL LO

AV E

24TH ST

20TH ST

21ST ST

WHITEHURST FWY

L ST

TR IN

M

19TH ST

VIR

G ST

23RD ST

10TH ST

2ND ST

M

EX PY

E ST

M

4TH ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

INT

AT E 66 ERST

M

DIA INM

E ST

AVE NA

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

D ST

44TH ST

F ST

M

7TH ST

AV E

18TH ST

GIN

M

22ND ST

M

K ST

I ST

M

M

A YL AR

ND

E AV

Anacostia Park

MO

KE N

N ST

M

IA

H ST

M

BE NN

M

ING RD

M

OR TH

M

ECKIN

YO

RK

IR

AV

M

SHERIFF RD

AV E
EN

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

The District could adopt several strategies to promote preservation and construction of affordable housing: • Mandatory inclusionary zoning—the District’s 2009 ordinance will apply to most new housing development with more than ı0 units in streetcar corridors. The ordinance would make more than 8% of new units affordable, and these units could offset a small portion of affordable units lost in areas where displacement appears most likely to occur.24 The bulk of new housing construction, however, would take place in areas where strong housing demand has already increased values. While that outcome would expand affordable options
24

OVERLOOK AVE

Assumptions: 80% of new units are in developments of 10 or more units; 60% of eligible units are of wood-frame construction; 40% of concrete- or steel-frame construction; and no density bonuses are used.

Park/open space Medium¾

Higher

Water

M

• Proportion of rental to Public Housing ownership housing Benefit Subareas • Median home values • Proximity to Metrorail Streetcar Stations
PKY HE RD
BL U EP LA INS

DR

# * # * # * # * # * 9B # * ¾ ¾ # * ## # ** * * # * 8E# # * ¾ # * # * # * # * # * # ## # # * ** * * 8C 7C # * ¾ # # # ### ## * * * *** ** ## # ** * 8D ## # ** * # * # # * * ## # ** * # * ¾ 8A # * ## ** # * #### # # **** * * * ** # * # * # * 8B # # # # ## * ** 9A # # 7B * * ## ## # ** ** * ## # # ** * * ¾ # # # * * * # * # * ## 7A # # ** # * # ¾ * * * # * 6A # # * * # * # * 6C # * ¾ # * # * # ## * ** * # * ## ** # * ## ## ** ** ## 6D ** # # * # * ¾ # * ¾ # # # * * * #6B# # ## * * * ** # ¾ 6E * # * ## ¾ ** # * ## # ** * # * # * # # * * # * ## ** ¾ ## ** 4A # # * * # * # * ¾ ¾ # * # * * 5B # # * ¾ * ## 4C ** 5A# # * 4B ## # ** * ## ** # * # * ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ 5C # ¾ * ¾ # # * * # * 5D ¾ ¾ # * # * # ¾# * * # * ## ** ¾ ## # ** * ¾ 3D # # * * ¾ ¾ # # * * ¾ # ¾ # * * ¾ # * 3A # * # # * * # * # * # * # # ¾ * # 2C * * ## ** # * ## ** # * #¾ * # * * # * ¾ #3C * ## * # * # * ## ** 2B # * # * # * ¾ 3B # * 2A # * # * * ¾ 1B #*# ** * # * * ¾ # # ## # * * #* # #* # # * * * potentiaL degree oF # * # 1E# # * # * # * # * * # * chaLLenge to ¾ houSing # * # # * * aFFordabiLitY # * # * # ## * ** 1A # # * * Virginia ¾ Lower # # # * * * # * ¾ 1D # * ## # ** * medium ### * *** # # # * * ¾ # # * * # # # * * * ¾ higher Maryland # Maryland 1C * # * # * ¾ # * nLihc dc property # # # * * * ## ** # # ** # * # * public housing 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles # * * # development ## ** # * # * # * # ### # * *** * Criteria Benefit subarea # * # * HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PRESSURES # # * * • Rise value of existing housing • Median household income Potential Degree of Challenge to Housing Affordability # * # *
UT

¾
M

WEBSTER ST

16TH ST

14TH ST

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

34TH ST

LN RD

AV E

O

S ST

AV E

VE R

9TH ST

AA VE

PL

M

FL O

RID

BL A

TT S

MO

T ST

DE

SE

U ST

M

1ST ST

NT

U

BR E

NS

SA C

W

H

RH

OD

E

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND IS LA

AV

O

oc

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

M

RD

re

ek

Pa

rk

LINCO

CALVERT ST

EUCLID ST

M

O

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M

FRANKLIN ST

TA

ST

GARFIELD ST

NO RE

A

TIC

E AV

TILDEN ST

UPSHUR ST

# *

AII W HA

MCC

FO R

MACOMB ST

RD

AV

TD

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E

E AV

ORM

ER HI LL

RD

ACK

HAREW

SP RI

RANDOLPH ST

RD

NG

OOD RD

M

M

WA RD

SO

N KLI

GLE

RD

OTIS PL

H UT

PA R

KR

D

C

LE V

CATH ED

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

ER ST

A AD

MONROE ST

DA

M

KO

S

TA

M

12TH ST

IL L

E AV

GEORGIA

RD

EL AN

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

COLUMBIA RD HARVARD ST

M

AVE

SHERMAN

6TH ST

17TH ST

M

DR

IN

M

AS

EA S

L

PK Y

TB

R

IA

INTE

M

BR

G

RS TA TE

69 5

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M

M

W

IV Y

ST

M

M

TA AV E

ELY PL

AU

Fort Dupont Park

AM

BE

M

M

CH

ST

East Potomac Park

RO

CANA L

M

M TO PO

AC

27TH ST

E AV

A AN

CO

NA YL O

25TH ST

ST

IA

FW

Y

TEX AS

M

AVE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

SOUTH CAPITO L ST

29 5

RS

TA TE

IN

TE

SHEP

TU

W NLA

AVE

RD

37TH ST

WIS

CO

JE RS NEW

NS

VE IN A

EY AV

E

49TH ST

C ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

The Mall

NO

H RT

CA

RO

LIN

VE AA

EAST CAPITOL ST

M

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G

E

RD

N KE

TU

CK

VE YA

M

AIN

E

E AV

R

RD

PE N

BRANCH AVE

W BO

RD

NS

YLV AN

Anacostia Park

GOOD

IA

HOPE

AV E

RD

V ST

M

HO

W

W ST

M

AR D

OH

RD

SU IT

LA

IO

ND

M

RD

DR

O

RR

IS

M

RD

M

SU

AN ST

IT

LA N

TO

D

N

PK

Y

M

R

D

MALCOLM X AVE

M

AL AB

AMA AV

E

M

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

HA LL EY

SO

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M

PL

W

HE

EL ER

RD

ATLANTIC ST

Ü

CHESA PEAKE

ST

N ST GALVESTO

M Metro station Lower Streetcar station

Metrorail Lines
blue green
M ¾

orange red yellow Metro Stations

# *
34 | SYStEMWidE challEngES & Mitigation StratEgiES
M ¾

¾ NLIHC DC Properties
M

Streetcar Segments

in more affluent neighborhoods, it could not address all potential lost affordability, and additional measures may be needed to assure that affected households can remain in their communities. Use of public land—either vacant or in need of redevelopment—for mixed-income housing with specified affordability targets could yield a significant number of units. Roughly ı00 acres of publicly owned land (about 40 of them at the former McMillan sand filtration site) lie within the corridor subareas identified on Map ı3 as places where the streetcar would likely have the strongest effect on housing costs. Approximately ı40 more acres of public land lie in the remaining portions of the corridors; more than half of that total represents the District’s portion of the former St. Elizabeth’s Hospital campus. Targeted use of tax-credit and other affordable housing funds could encourage additional mixedincome housing on sites within the streetcar corridors. Preserving existing public, subsidized, and/or other affordable housing in or near the streetcar corridors, also shown on Map ı3, represents one of the most cost-effective ways of maintaining affordablehousing choices. Encouraging creation of accessory dwelling units within existing properties, by converting basements or garages to apartments, could generate units to meet additional demand in well-established neighborhoods.

MarKet shifts

While the streetcar would likely attract new development into the District, it would also draw some commercial development to the streetcar corridors from other areas of the District. This is particularly true of office space. Of the roughly 19 million square feet of additional office space the streetcar corridors are projected to receive over ten years, ı.9 million square feet (about ı0%) would likely be attracted by the streetcar from elsewhere in the District. Planning should examine redevelopment strategies for places where: • Market interest may diminish. Identify other marketbased uses that do not seek locations close to premium transit, like light industry, and determine the best strategy for directing investment in those uses to neighborhoods outside the streetcar corridors. • Market interest will likely intensify. Review the District’s zoning and development policy to ensure promotion of mixed-use, transit-oriented development where it has not historically occurred. Examples include the Washington Hospital Center, Buzzard Point, and portions of autooriented street corridors, such as portions of Rhode Island NE and Minnesota Avenue NE. Focusing development along streetcar corridors also has a variety of positive impacts. It would: • Make more efficient use of District infrastructure (transit, utilities, streets, sewers) and service delivery. • Better support environmental sustainability and cut energy and time costs for residents and businesses by reducing auto-oriented development and dependence.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 35

As in any highly urbanized area, there are many demands for the existing roadway space in the District. Vehicles • traveling on the road (private cars, buses, trucks, bicycles), in addition to users parking, loading, and walking along the road all compete for limited space. While adding streetcar provides a desirable and sustainable sMall business Preservation transportation choice for residents, in some cases it Owners and residents have expressed concern that will require tradeoffs with other modes and users. For streetcar service, by inducing higher rents and heavier example, it may require allowing parking on only one competition, poses a threat to small businesses in Anacostia and possibly other areas. Other cities’ experience side of the street, dedicating sidewalk space for shelters, or reducing travel lanes for motor vehicles. In locations that with streetcar systems suggests that many existing experience particularly severe congestion, the addition of retailers, including smaller “mom and pop” businesses, streetcar service poses a design challenge: balancing the would benefit from the new streetcar-related spending described in Chapter 2, in part because a large part of such needs of each mode of travel as well as the needs of local residents and businesses, and designing a right of way that spending would flow to existing commercial areas. The is efficient and effective. Other cities have shown that a District maintains several programs designed to support 25 streetcar system can be successfully integrated into this commercial areas and individual businesses. Although type of congested urban environment with appropriate program funding remains limited, streetcar planning design and mitigation. offers an opportunity to determine strategic ways to use these programs to help existing and future small Mitigation strategies include giving transit vehicles businesses benefit from streetcar service, reinforcing the priority over other vehicles by changing signs, lane 25 “Tools and Resources” in Section Four of the Office of Planning’s report, configuration, and/or signalization. The most effective Retail Action Roadmap: The Future of the District of Columbia’s Retail Markets (2010) describes a number of these programs in more detail (http:// form of mitigation may be the streetcar itself, since its planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Across+the+City/Other+Citywide+Initiatives/ availability can reduce the use of private automobiles, Retail+Action+Strategy/Retail+Action+Roadmap). which require more roadway space and parking per

Protect large parcels further from the core, preserving long-term development capacity to accommodate unanticipated uses that may emerge as future priorities. Retain more space for service and light-industrial businesses that support core economic sectors and help diversify the District’s job base with more bluecollar jobs. Reduce development pressure in neighborhoods where it is inappropriate.

diversity and unique character of individual commercial areas. Such planning may also involve addressing parking and traffic concerns, discussed below.
constrained right of way on city streets

36 | SYStEMWidE challEngES & Mitigation StratEgiES

person than public transit. Through DDOT’s system planning, each proposed corridor will undergo detailed design to address the impacts of streetcar on other modes.
ParKing

native routings for the limited number of locations where congestion may reach levels too high to accommodate the streetcar. Other cities have successfully shown that a streetcar system can be designed to operate efficiently under such conditions. Mitigation strategies include giving transit vehicles priority over other vehicles by changing signs, lane configuration, and/or signalization. The most potent form of mitigation, however, may well be the streetcar itself, since its availability lessens the need to use automobiles. Devising specific strategies for addressing congestion will require further, more localized study.
bicycles

For streetcars to run safely and efficiently, on-street parking needs a permanent, dedicated lane or must be removed. Streetcars cannot operate on roadways with peak-hour on-street parking restrictions, which occur along roughly 40% of the proposed corridors. Eliminating on-street parking or limiting on-street loading may restrict vehicular access to nearby businesses or residences, but that may prove acceptable when comparing the new riders and street-level activity that streetcar service is expected to generate. The question of how to handle on-street parking and loading zones will be addressed case by case at the planning stage, will involve all key community stakeholders, and will reflect the needs of affected properties, traffic requirements, transit users, and pedestrians.
congestion

Attention to detail in the design phase will be essential to ensuring that bicyclists and streetcars can share the road safely. Bicyclists and transit vehicles often leap-frog each other at transit stops creating a weaving pattern that can slow transit operations and increase hazards for all roadway users. Streetcar tracks can also pose a hazard to cyclists, as bike tires can get caught in the rails. Several options are available to mitigate potential conflict. One-way streets can accommodate bicycle lanes on one side of the street and streetcar tracks on the other. Alternately, bike routes can be designated on streets parallel to streetcar routes. In addition, several cities have developed coordinated lane markings for bikes and streetcars that could serve as models for the District.

As in any highly urbanized area, many District streets experience daily vehicular congestion. This study evaluated daily traffic volume per peak-hour travel lane, and Figure 8 shows the areas of potential concern it identified. The analysis found the highest levels of congestion within the proposed streetcar network along K Street NW, Columbia Road NW, Florida Avenue NW/NE, Benning Road SE, and Georgia Avenue NW. This chapter outlines potential alter-

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 37

38 | SYStEMWidE challEngES & Mitigation StratEgiES

4. corridor/neighborhood analysis
This chapter examines the specific opportunities and challenges the streetcar could bring to the neighborhoods along its corridors. 4a. Assessing benefits, opportunities, and challenges in each corridor
MAP 14 Neighborhood Context Corridors

To clearly describe how the streetcar system will influence particular neighborhoods, this study divides the proposed network into nine corridors (with additional subareas) that reflect similar land use characteristics (see Map ı4, Neighborhood Context Corridors). As stated earlier, the full streetcar system would create different opportunities and challenges in different neighborhoods. Generally, the most dramatic benefits will occur in neighborhoods that currently lack access to fixed-route transit and have underdeveloped land and commercial districts. All areas, however, will experience some level of benefits. Section 4b, “Capturing opportunity through alternative routing or phasing” describes changes in proposed routes that may deliver further benefits. This chapter describes the location or other key local benefits of streetcar service, as distinct from the discussion in Chapter 2 of benefits that would accrue across the system and the District itself. Similarly, while this chapter identifies locations where challenges such as housing affordability and rightof-way constraints might arise, Chapter 3 describes in a more general way strategies for addressing these challenges.

corridor 1 corridor 2 corridor 3 corridor 4 corridor 5
M Metro station
Streetcar station Park/open space Water

corridor 6 corridor 7 corridor 8 corridor 9

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 39

Martin luther King Jr. avenue, firth sterling avenue, and south capital street

1
CORRIDOR
1

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

13TH ST

AWA RE

HALF ST

5TH ST

K ST
M ¾

SOUTH CAPITOL ST

I ST

HALF ST

PARSONS AVE 10TH ST

DEL

M M ST ¾

PATTERSON AVE PAULDING AVE

I ST K ST L ST

I ST

INTERS

TATE 295

14TH ST

AVE

INTE

RSTA TE 6 95

15TH ST

H ST

11TH ST

M ¾

H ST

East Potomac Park

AL S

N ST
O ST

N ST

TINGEY ST
N PL

R TE WA

ST

T

AN

AC

TIA OS

DR

The portion of this corridor along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue SE had streetcar service for much of the 20th century. The corridor begins in downtown Anacostia, an area of significant cultural importance that also contains opportunities for reinvestment in properties and businesses. The corridor passes south through the former St. Elizabeth’s Hospital campus, currently being redeveloped west of MLK as headquarters for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which will ultimately employ approximately ı4,000 people here. The campus east of MLK will likely host mixed-use redevelopment. The corridor ends south of a cluster of neighborhood retail and schools in Capitol Heights. A spur from the Anacostia Metro station serves the Barry Farm public housing development and the U.S. Naval Annex.1

H 12T

2ND ST

2ND AVE

4TH AVE

ST AT E

S ST T ST T ST
Anacostia Park

13TH ST

T ST GOO D HO
V ST W ST

ROBBINS RD

V ST

BL VD

ER R

CH

SUITLAND PKY

E

HI G H

D

E ST

SU M

M ¾S

1E

NS

MIT S

M O RR

DE FE

IS

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

RD

BR 12T UC H P L E ST 15TH PL

INTERSTATE 295

NE W

1D 1D
AU M ST
O AK DR
M ¾

20TH ST

CO

M B

LE B

ST

JAM ES B LVD LUK E AV E C BRO OKL ASTLE AVE EY A DUN VE CAN AVE

WESTOVER AVE

MALCOLM X AVE RALEIGH ST

2ND ST

4TH ST

OO KA VE

HORNER PL

CHA

Virginia

6TH ST

PPIE

OT HE

1C

AM ALAB

A AVE

PL

A NN SAV

AH

ST

RS

M ¾

BR

1ST ST

Maryland

S 1S T TS T

2N D

LIVINGSTON RD

3RD ST

6TH ST

KEEL RD

M ¾

red 40 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS ELMIRA ST Metro Stations yellow

BA

RN

CHESAPEAKE ST Streetcar Segments DANBURY ST
Streetcar Stations

orange

AB

green

YR

Other Benefit Cluster Areas

blue

Waterbody Streets

D

B

STREETCAR BENEFIT V ATLANTIC ST AREAS
Benefit Cluster 1 Subareas Metrorail Lines

EL LE V

U

IS M

H

E AV PI IP SS SI

OV ER L

AL

Y LE

ST

A

E AV

TZ

8T H

R

ST

YUMA ST

SO

E

U

TH

ER

N

D

E AV
00.045 0.09 0.18 Miles

Ü
This spur is under construction as a pilot segment of the streetcar system.

R

Parks and Open Space

22ND ST

RO BB

1A 1A
2ND ST

INS

ELVANS RD

GAINESVILLE ST

BR

UC

ERIE ST

E

PL

RD

16TH ST

D ST

PL ON NN HA HO W EA NE AR ST R D EV TON RD RD EN R S D RD

1B

ST

18TH ST

1B

PE RD

S ST T ST

IN TE R

U ST

U

PL

23RD ST

RIDGE PL

R ST

29 5

22ND ST

B ST

Q ST

MA TO PO

AN

17TH ST

A ST

O ST P ST

VE CA

A

Y FW IAMaryland ST P ST CO

CAN

ST

Downtown Anacostia (MLK Jr. Avenue SE)
Q ST

benefits: The streetcar would bolster the area’s access to premium transit and strengthen its connections to both neighborhood and citywide amenities. It would link Anacostia, Barry Farm, Congress Heights, and surrounding neighborhoods to employment opportunities at the future DHS headquarters and other development planned on the St. Elizabeth’s site. Equally beneficial, streetcar service would connect new employees at these sites to Anacostia’s commercial districts, broadening the market for existing and new businesses and housing.

IC W K D

R

CED AR D R
T HS AS

AN ST N TO RD

22ND ST

H 18T

ST 19TH ST

21ST ST

12TH ST

H 15T

10TH PL

P 13TH

WHEELER RD

ST

L

7TH ST

TH 13 ST

H 9T ST

NOTABlE INDICATORS • job growth projections suggest this area will add 25,000 jobs by 2030. That includes the 14,000 DHS jobs as well as others in downtown Anacostia, Poplar Point, and Congress Heights. • One of the largest public housing developments in any streetcar corridor, Barry Farm, gives this corridor a substantial concentration of low-income

households (80% earning less than $35,000) and households without cars (75%). median household incomes are significantly higher elsewhere in the corridor. • The corridor has one of the largest inventories of public land available for redevelopment among the corridors.

The streetcar would further support mixed-use development planned or anticipated along MLK SE between Chicago and U streets, at Barry Farm, and at the Anacostia Metro station. Existing and new development in these areas and Congress Heights would benefit from improved access to and from District and regional destinations via Metrorail Green Line connections and direct streetcar connections to areas west of the river. Certain routes in Anacostia could increase the economic benefits that streetcar service brings. Running the streetcar under I-295 for direct access to Poplar Point would expand redevelopment possibilities for the large parcels of land there and improve public access to the Anacostia waterfront. A second alternative would extend service from Congress Heights east along Alabama Avenue to the Congress Heights Metro station, creating stronger connections for Congress Heights, St. Elizabeth’s, and Metrorail’s Green Line. (See section 4b for more detailed discussion of these routings.) challenges: The proposed MLK Avenue corridor could present a design challenge if the right of way proves too narrow to accommodate the streetcar, customer and delivery parking, traffic, and existing transit services simultaneously. However, DDOT is working with the Federal Transit Administration to conduct a NEPA analysis to refine and improve the plan for proposed streetcar service in this area.

Solomon G. Brown Corps Community Center on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 41

good hope road and Minnesota avenue

2
CORRIDOR

Minnesota Avenue at 16th Street NE

As proposed, this corridor passes mostly through established residential development with clusters of neighborhood retail at Good Hope Road SE and Pennsylvania Avenue SE. The plan proposes extending streetcar service to the Minnesota Avenue Metro station, with its large municipal office building. The corridor runs next to Fort Dupont Park, one of the District’s largest, and runs within a half mile of Anacostia Park. Redevelopment opportunities exist on several sizable commercial parcels north of East Capitol and where Pennsylvania Avenue SE crosses the corridor. Note: Corridor 5 describes the Minnesota Avenue corridor north of East Capitol Street NE. benefits: Streetcar service would better connect the corridor’s neighborhoods —Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Twining, Greenway, and Fort Dupont—to local retail, jobs, and Metrorail and streetcar lines in downtown Anacostia and at the Minnesota Avenue Metro station. The streetcar has the potential to intensify retail/commercial activity, particularly at Pennsylvania Avenue SE and along Minnesota Avenue NE between East Capitol Street and Benning Road, if stops are located close to commercial properties. challenges: Implementation of the streetcar may affect on-street parking.

42 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

NOTABlE INDICATORS • median household incomes and home values are solidly in the middle range of streetcar corridors. However, 40% to 50% of households earn less than $35,000, a high proportion compared to other corridors.

The intersection of Good Hope Road and Minnesota Avenue SE

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 43

capitol riverfront, buzzard Point, capitol hill, and 7th street

3
CORRIDOR

Redevelopment of the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg public housing site to create a new mixed-income community

Most of this corridor once enjoyed streetcar service. The Capitol Riverfront has seen some of the District’s most intensive recent development, including new federal offices, the Arthur Capper/ Carrollsburg mixed-income housing redevelopment, and Nationals Park. Significant redevelopment opportunities remain at the Southwest Waterfront, Buzzard Point, and several other underdeveloped sites. The north-south legs of the corridor pass through Capitol Hill, L’Enfant Plaza, and the National Mall, areas already largely developed and/or under historic protections. They contain a variety of important travel destinations and Metro connections and connect areas separated by the Southwest and Southeast freeways.

Buzzard Point

benefits: Streetcar service would enhance connectivity in this area and generate additional economic benefits by offering an additional premium transit option to these neighborhoods. This is particularly true in Buzzard Point and the Southwest Waterfront, both of which have large supplies of underdeveloped land that could greatly increase in value and development potential once a streetcar connection exists. The routing of the spur to Buzzard Point has flexibility and could respond to proposed mixed-use development. (Section 4b, “Capturing opportunity through alternative routing or phasing” describes alternative route options.) A

44 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

route that provides convenient service to both downtown and Anacostia’s St. Elizabeth’s Hospital site would be especially beneficial. A route could also serve Nationals Park, strengthening its connection to the region. The mixed-income community that will emerge near M Street SE from redevelopment of the Arthur Capper/ Carrollsburg public housing could take significant advantage of the streetcar. The project will attract public housing residents as well as higher-income professionals—groups that typically have higher rates of transit ridership. Public housing sites near the WaterfrontSEU Metro station could present further opportunities for mixed-income redevelopment. Both they and the mixed-use development envisioned on Maine Avenue at the Southwest Waterfront would benefit from streetcar service. A more direct streetcar connection to the

Southwest Waterfront would make its planned hotel, stores, and restaurants more accessible to visitors at the National Mall or downtown, as well as to residents and jobs elsewhere in the Capitol Riverfront. The 7th Street NW/SW leg of the streetcar route would establish a critical connection among the Capitol Riverfront and Anacostia, downtown, multiple Metro and commuter rail lines, and visitor destinations to the north. This service would create important workplace-tohousing and business-to-business connections and would open new options for visitors beyond the National Mall. It could also support walkability enhancements needed around L’Enfant Plaza. Capitol Hill would benefit from improved connections to Metrorail stations and direct streetcar routes to a other District neighborhoods. Among other benefits, this would make businesses at Barracks Row, Eastern Market, and Massachusetts Avenue more accessible destinations. While streetcar will not markedly increase the magnitude of mixed-use development already completed or planned along M Street SE from South Capitol to the Navy Yard, it will expand access between this significant development and other centers of jobs and housing. challenges: 8th Street NE/SE offers only a single travel lane in each direction, but it could function as a streetcar corridor with an appropriate redesign to manage traffic and parking-related issues.

Barracks Row on 8th Street SE

NOTABlE INDICATORS

more varied household-income levels. Nevertheless, wide disparities will almost certainly persist. • median household income varies within the corridor. Capitol Hill is tied for the second-highest • South of the freeway, as few as 20% of median income among streetcar corridors, but households own cars, one of the lowest carsouth of the freeway income drops substantially. ownership rates among streetcar corridors. A concentration of public and other affordable housing means that as many as two-thirds of • The M Street corridor contains 80,000 jobs households earn less than $35,000—one of the today—second among streetcar corridors—and, largest concentrations of low-income households together with Buzzard Point, is projected to add in any streetcar corridor. Household incomes rise about 25,000 new jobs by 2030, more than any markedly from east to west along M Street, which other corridor. has a large supply of market-rate housing built during the urban-renewal era. Major projects recently • A significant expanses of redevelopable land has drawn strong development interest. About 16 completed or under way—including redevelopment million square feet of new development has been of the Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg public housing proposed for completion by 2015, including major as a mixed-income community that will retain its housing and office projects. current count of 900 public units—will produce

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 45

K and h streets to union station; f, 14th, and 7th streets downtown

4
CORRIDOR

NoMa (K and ıst streets, NE)

K Street NW from Georgetown to Mount Vernon Square includes some of the District’s densest and highest-value development—mostly office space, but with housing as well. Between Mount Vernon Square and Union Station the corridor takes on a different character, with much less development and large parcels cleared for urban renewal, construction of I-395, or industrial uses near Union Station. This area has attracted intense redevelopment activity in recent years, particularly east of North Capitol Street in NoMa. Overall, approximately ı0 million square feet of development, split about equally between offices and housing, has been proposed to be built by 20ı5. The corridor crosses three business improvement districts: Georgetown, Downtown, and NoMa. Although the downtown portion of the corridor has several Metro stations, Georgetown and New Jersey Avenue lack rail transit. Streetcar service along this corridor would also enhance east-west connectivity in the downtown core.

benefits: By filling the gaps between the Metro stations at Mount Vernon Square, Gallery Place, Judiciary Square, Union Station, and New York Avenue, the streetcar system would reduce barriers that now make it hard for pedestrians to reach Metro stations and would add new transit connections. These improvements would reinforce favorable conditions for new development and raise the value of existing properties. On a systemwide basis, the streetcar’s added transit capacity would also help address

46 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

capacity challenges on Metro lines in the downtown core. Section 4b discusses alternative routing intended to strengthen redevelopment sites east of North Capitol Street in NoMa. Areas of the corridor that are mostly built out would also gain from the streetcar. The streetcar’s visibility and sense of permanence would enhance K Street as an address and thus tend to bolster property values. Because K Street property is already quite valuable, even an increase as small as 2% would yield a major boost in tax revenues to the District. The streetcar would also benefit the convention center by offering visitors simpler, more direct connections to hotels, Metrorail, and Union Station. The streetcar would create a stronger east-west connection to Georgetown, enhancing existing premium bus service. In a built-out neighborhood like Georgetown, most streetcar benefits would accrue to existing properties and residents. The proposed corridor extension beyond Phase 3—

extending the line north to M Street, Georgetown University, and/or further north along Wisconsin Avenue—would bring rail transit’s benefits to important destinations; section 4b includes a more detailed discussion of this option. The 7th, F, and ı4th Street NW routings downtown also add important connections to the extensive jobs, Metro stations, and amenities that already exist here. Additionally, streetcar service would encourage more residents to use transit and could reduce levels of car ownership. challenges: Building the streetcar line will require a major redesign and reconstruction of K Street. The corridor’s intense economic activity and traffic volume demand special attention in order to mitigate construction impacts. 7th, F, and ı4th streets NW in downtown present challenges, including street widths, intersection geometry, and traffic levels; see section 4b, “Capturing opportunity through new connections or phasing” for routing alternatives that avoid these potential problems.

NOTABlE INDICATORS • This corridor contains the most significant concentration of jobs in the streetcar system—more than one third of all jobs in the District. Projections show it attracting nearly 20,000 more by 2030. • The corridor is one of the most important centers of planned development activity in the streetcar system. Substantial office and housing development are planned or under way, particularly on sizeable parcels east of Mount Vernon Square.

• At nearly $120,000, median household income at the Georgetown end of the corridor leads all streetcar corridors by a wide margin. Elsewhere, the corridor matches most other corridors with a median income of about $50,000. • Outside of georgetown, the corridor contains some of the lowest household rates of car ownership within the streetcar system, averaging about 40%.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 47

h street/benning road

5
H Street NE

H Street NE, an historic streetcar route, has endured a decades-long decline that ended only when the revival of cultural facilities like the historic Atlas Theater and construction of the first modern streetcar segment in 2009 began to spur reinvestment. High-density mixed-use development has occurred close to Union Station on former industrial parcels at the edge NoMa.

CORRIDOR The H Street NE commercial corridor along

Other portions of H Street and Benning Road NE generally contain small commercial or mixed-use parcels with wellestablished residential development on flanking streets, most commonly two- and three-story townhouses and single-family houses. Only the Hechinger Mall and several vacant parcels near the “starburst” intersection of H Street and Benning Road break this pattern. Two sizeable multifamily developments are planned northwest of the mall, and the rest of the vacant sites offer significant redevelopment potential. East of the Anacostia River walkability remains poor and most development is light industrial or commercial in nature. The Benning Road and Minnesota Avenue Metro stations have attracted little redevelopment compared to other stations in the District, and most new development has relied on District financing or subsidy. The area’s poor walkability, a legacy of auto-oriented development, is one factor discouraging development in the area.

48 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

benefits: Under construction since 2009 • median household income at the east end of this corridor ranks as part of the Great Streets behind other corridors, with 50% or more of households reporting less than $35,000. Toward the west, however, median incomes rise Streetscape project, the significantly, with more than 80% of households near Union Station H Street/Benning Road reporting income of more than $35,000, high compared to other streetcar route represents corridors. a pilot segment for the • car-ownership rates tend to reflect income patterns. In the lowerfull system. It will bring earning east, 30% to 50% or more of households do not own cars premium rail transit access (relatively high compared to other corridors); this rate shrinks to nearly 20% in the west. to more than two miles of H Street and Benning Road and • median home values and densities tend to be somewhat below other introduce a variety of new corridors. development opportunities. Connecting to Union Station would increase access to jobs and many other transportation modes for residents of the corridor’s many neighborhoods—the Atlas District, Trinidad, Carver Langston, Kingman Park, Mayfair, River Terrace, Mahaning Heights, and Benning.
NOTABlE INDICATORS

parcels, and lower-density residential zoning on adjacent blocks. However, significant potential exists on several underdeveloped parcels, including the shopping center at 8th Street NE, the proposed housing redevelopment north of Hechinger Mall, and in the long term, potentially the Hechinger site itself. Medium-size sites assembled from smaller parcels might be able to support mixed-use redevelopment that, if pedestrian-friendly, could help knit together the four neighborhoods that meet there. Existing properties would see moderate to significant increases in values with the streetcar. Mixed-income redevelopment on public housing sites in the corridor, potentially coordinated with Hechinger Mall redevelopment, could offer a good opportunity to expand affordable and market-rate housing choices. Areas with auto-oriented uses and heavier traffic, particularly around the Hechinger Mall and east of the Anacostia River, will need updated pedestrian facilities to meet current standards for sidewalks, crossings, pedestrian-oriented land uses, and street-level activity—all key to deriving full advantage from the streetcar’s presence. challenges: New street infrastructure with smaller blocks and better pedestrian accommodations must complement development in this area to help it take full advantage of the streetcar. Restoring the street grid across the shopping center at the corner of Benning Road and Minnesota Avenue NE could improve both walkability and traffic flow, making Benning more attractive as a retail destination and residential neighborhood.

Redevelopment opportunities along H Street NE are limited because of established development patterns, with numerous historic buildings, relatively few larger

Minnesota Avenue at Dix Street NE

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 49

14th street, 18th street (adams Morgan), u street, florida avenue and 8th street

6
CORRIDOR

These former streetcar corridors just north of downtown suffered decades of decline prior to 2000, when reinvestment began to transform the blocks around the Metro stations at U Street-Cardozo, ShawHoward University and New York Avenue. Much more development is planned near the New York Avenue station. Existing development, some of it historic, limits the corridor’s potential for new development, yet opportunities remain in NoMa, at Howard University, and on a handful of larger commercial parcels. High ridership and demand for the streetcar will likely come from Howard and Gallaudet universities (student and staff populations) as well as restaurant and entertainment destinations in the Adams Morgan/U Street area. benefits: The streetcar’s significance in this corridor stems from its ability to extend the walkable area from existing Metro stations along five streetcar corridors that will radiate from the area. Nearly all of this corridor would experience greater market interest for existing and new residential and commercial space, amplifying the revitalization already spurred by Metrorail. Development potential varies along the corridor. Much of U Street NW in Shaw is built out or subject to historicpreservation restrictions, yet several commercial parcels could be redeveloped. Several large parcels also stand out in blocks adjoining ı4th Street NW, which otherwise is also mostly developed.

U and 14th streets NW

50 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

Along Florida Avenue in LeDroit Park, Bloomingdale, Eckington, and Truxton Circle, the streetcar would complement existing bus service, which is relatively light compared to demand. Streetcar service would particularly improve access to the New York Avenue Metro station, where conditions present barriers to walkability: roadway width and traffic volume on New York Avenue, the railroad embankment, and the auto-oriented character of most existing development. These challenges have severely limited the benefits of the station. Streetcar service would improve access by attracting pedestrianoriented development that can gradually make New York and Florida avenues more walkable. By improving access here, the streetcar would enhance some of the District’s most important redevelopment opportunities in NoMa and the Florida Avenue Market. New streetcar service would provide valuable support in Adams Morgan, where stakeholders say that limited parking and auto capacity have constrained growth of the restaurant/retail district along ı8th Street NW (see “Challenges” section below). streetcar corridor also connects to Metrorail’s Red Line at Woodley Park,

NOTABlE INDICATORS • The corridor contains one of the highest residential populations among the streetcar corridors, and strong household growth is projected through 2030. • The area contains the third largest concentration of jobs in the corridors. Taken together, NoMa and The Florida Avenue Market area will add a projected 13,000 jobs by 2030. • By 2014 the area around the new York Avenue Metro station will likely add about 6 million square feet of development, almost evenly balanced between offices and housing. The rest of the corridor has relatively little land suitable for redevelopment. • The 14th Street and Adams Morgan portions of the corridor have the highest housing-unit densities of all streetcar corridors. Densities in NoMa and the area near Gallaudet University rank at the bottom of the corridors. • median household income just surpasses the middle range of values among all the corridors. • median home values drop by about 50% from west to east along the corridor.

an important link that helps local destinations and adds mobility for residents and workers across the full Metro/ streetcar network. challenges: Streetscape conditions for pedestrians need improvement, particularly along Florida Avenue. Demand for on-street parking and traffic congestion in the area are high. Construction of the streetcar line would require refinement of existing on-street parking. Neighborhoodscale approaches to parking and congestion management can offer appropriate ways to address these challenges.

Gallaudet University at Florida Avenue and 8th Street NE

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 51

rhode island avenue

7
CORRIDOR
Rhode Island Avenue at 2nd Street NE

Once served by streetcars east of 3rd Street NE, this corridor divides neatly into three segments. From Florida Avenue NW to 4th St NE, Rhode Island Avenue contains a median with landscaping and shade trees and runs through well-established residential neighborhoods. A half-mile from the Rhode Island Avenue-Brentwood Metro station the avenue’s character shifts to automobileoriented commercial uses—although a new mixed-use project may signal the arrival of a new development model in this section. East of the station lower-density residential neighborhoods line the corridor, with clusters of underdeveloped, auto-oriented commercial parcels near Montana Avenue NE and at the Maryland border. benefits: The streetcar would provide much of the corridor with its first premium transit service in decades and would strengthen the connection between Brookland, Langdon, Woodbridge, Brentwood, and other neighborhoods and the city’s core. A relatively broad right of way and moderate traffic volumes on Rhode Island mean that the streetcar could travel at higher speeds, a distinct benefit for residents and workers.

As in other corridors, isolated walkable areas would be extended along the corridor. Important opportunities for higher-value pedestrian- and transit-oriented redevelopment would be created, particularly around the station, near the commercial node at Montana Avenue NE, in the Woodbridge commercial district, and at Brentwood Shopping Center.
52 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

Adding a future spur to or an alternative terminus at Fort Lincoln and the Gateway neighborhood along South Dakota Avenue NE would open additional opportunities for development and connectivity. Section 4b examines these ideas in more detail. challenges: Areas dominated by auto-oriented development today will need pedestrian and streetscape improvements; updated zoning and design guidelines and implementation procedures could help achieve these goals. Due to the corridor’s relatively small number of jobs, ridership seems likely to be dominated by one-way peak travel compared to other corridors.

NOTABlE INDICATORS • The corridor contains considerable redevelopable land in both public and private hands, primarily east of the Metro station. • The concentration of public housing near the Rhode Island Avenue Metro station corresponds to relatively high numbers of corridor households earning less than $35,000 (more than 50%) and lacking a car (more than 60%). An additional group of public housing units sits just outside the corridor on Montana Avenue NE. • Overall, median household incomes and home values fall within the middle range of values for all streetcar corridors.

Auto-oriented commercial properties with transit-oriented redevelopment potential near Rhode Island and Montana avenues NE

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 53

woodley Park, columbia heights, washington hospital center and brookland

8
CORRIDOR

The McMillan Sand Filtration site—a development opportunity

Streetcars formerly ran on Calvert Street NW in Woodley Park/Adams Morgan and on Michigan Avenue NE in Brookland. The west end of the corridor links to Metrorail’s Red Line at Woodley Park. The corridor’s intermediate section passes through Columbia Heights, where highdensity mixed-use development has recently taken root around the Metro station, and through the Washington Hospital Center, a major employment center. The hospitals, the McMillan Sand Filtration site, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home possess great near- and long-term development potential for residential, biomedical and other uses. The eastern end of the corridor contains Catholic University, Trinity University, other religious and educational institutions, housing, and a light industrial area near the Brookland Metro station that has drawn redevelopment interest. benefits: This route ties together neighborhoods and districts that have long been separated by Rock Creek, large institutional uses, and a rail corridor. It would also relieve capacity constraints on core Metrorail lines by shortening interline connections among Woodley Park, Columbia Heights and Brookland-CUA stations.

While Woodley Park offers limited development opportunities, a streetcar connection to the Metro station would play a key role in expanding access options for residents and easing capacity constraints across the full Metrorail/

54 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

west, and the Brookland/CUA Metro station could emerge as a mixed-use center offering a greater range of amenities to the corridor. An alternate corridor could consolidate the planned track configuration into a single route through the hospital campus. See section 4b for a more detailed discussion. challenges: Columbia Road NW presents one of the most stringent right-of-way constraints in the entire streetcar network, with just one travel lane each way and substantial traffic. Due to congestion east of ı6th Street NW, additional routes merit consideration for streetcar operation, such as Harvard Road NW. Near the hospital campus and the Brookland-CUA Metro station, autooriented development dominates the corridor, which might benefit from new zoning and design guidelines to encourage more walkable development and streetscapes.
NOTABlE INDICATORS • Already important as a jobs destination, the washington Hospital Center is expected to see significant job growth in coming decades. • The Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights portions of the corridor have some of the highest population and housing-unit densities per acre among all streetcar corridors. • There are significant opportunities for higher-value redevelopment around the washington Hospital Center and Brookland-Cue Metro station, though relatively little development is planned for the near term. • woodley Park has one of the highest median household incomes of any portion of the corridors in the streetcar system. The remainder of the corridor contains a range of median household incomes and property values, including a public housing component.

New Columbia Heights development within the one-quarter -mile streetcar corridor

streetcar network. It can also serve the area’s many hotels. The streetcar would give Columbia Heights’ dense population and burgeoning retail destinations important east-west connections on premium transit, and it would improve access to the thousands of jobs at the Washington Hospital Center. That area also holds strong potential for additional jobs in the biomedical and other sectors. The streetcar would expand development potential at the McMillan Sand Filtration and Armed Forces Retirement Home sites —two of the District’s largest neighborhood development opportunities. Further east, Catholic University and other institutions would gain better connections to destinations and Metrorail lines to the

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 55

georgia avenue and takoma

9
CORRIDOR
Georgia Avenue near Jefferson Street NW

Streetcars formerly served the four-mile stretch of Georgia Avenue NW that forms the heart of this corridor. Howard University’s campus dominates the corridor’s southern end, and extensive mixed-use development has arisen around the Georgia Avenue-Petworth Metro station, but neighborhood and auto-oriented retail backed by low-density residential neighborhoods define much of the rest of the corridor. At Butternut Street NW the corridor reaches Walter Reed Army Medical Center, slated to add significant mixeduse redevelopment, then turns east toward the Takoma Metro station, which offers only modest opportunities for multifamily housing or other transit-oriented development on infill sites.

benefits: The streetcar can transform auto-oriented portions of Georgia Avenue NW into more transit-oriented areas with higher-value development and improved access options. Streetcar service would expand the walkable area now concentrated at the Georgia Avenue-Petworth Metro station. Similarly, it would make the northern part of the Howard campus, an important employer, more accessible to the Shaw-Howard University Metro station. The streetcar would also amplify Georgia Avenue’s appeal as an office location for creative-economy industries. As households and jobs increase along the corridor in response to the streetcar, thousands of square feet of new neighborhood-oriented retail could be created. These

56 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

NOTABlE INDICATORS • median household income rises along Georgia Avenue from about $35,000 at the corridor’s southern end to about $70,000 at the north, placing it in the upper-middle range of streetcar corridors • At the southern end of the corridor, with many public housing residents and university students, more than 50% of households earn less than $35,000, and nearly 60% lack a car. • The corridor is expected to add a large number of households by 2030.

changes would make Georgia Avenue’s neighborhoods more self-sufficient in terms of jobs and services. Many commercial parcels hold strong potential for infill redevelopment, like the former Curtis Chevrolet dealership at Peabody Street NW. Such sites could reinforce neighborhood commercial nodes and attract employers to locations along Georgia Avenue in Brightwood, Manor Park, 16th Street Heights, and Petworth. The corridor’s marquee opportunity, however, is the Walter Reed campus, where planning has begun to introduce major redevelopment that combines commercial, government, and housing uses over a decade. Extending the streetcar line north on Georgia Avenue to Silver Spring, instead of ending it at Takoma as now planned, would open opportunities in this part of the District. The District’s northern neighborhoods would gain much better transit access to regional job centers and housing. This could, in turn, significantly raise land value and neighborhood connections along Georgia Avenue. Shifting the route would not markedly affect Takoma, because it already has Metro service. Section 4b contains a more detailed explanation of this alternative routing. challenges: The biggest design challenge involves integrating the streetcar into the right of way along Georgia Avenue, a thoroughfare that currently experiences high volumes of bus, motor vehicle, and pedestrian traffic. Areas now dominated by auto-oriented development will need pedestrian and streetscape improvements.

New development on Georgia Avenue NW

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 57

ST

R

14TH

TAYLOR ST

CK RMA E

34TH ST

M AS SA C
CATHEDRAL AVE

MACOMB ST

M ¾

Cleveland Park

NG

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

RD

O HAREW

SPR I

M ¾

RAN

RD

ER WARD

OD R D

U SO

OTIS PL

HU

11TH ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

33RD ST

¾
7TH ST

24TH ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

§ ¦ ¨

¾
23RD ST

¾ ¾

¾

§ ¦ ¨

18TH ST

¾
12TH ST EXPY

¾ ¾ ¾

Court House

¾

2ND ST

¾

¾

¾

3RD ST

6TH ST

Clarendon

¾

17TH ST

M ¾

4TH ST

8TH ST

TR IN

IDA DA VE

¾

W ES T

¾

VI RG

IN

IA

RESERVOIR RD

VERT ST NT C capturing added value through AN rk he Office of Planning evaluated each streetcar Pa A ek AV alternate routing: connecting the h and K re M C ST E line proposed oin the DC Transit Future Plan ck BRYANT VE R A D street nW/ne segmentsLalong 1st street ne inAN to determine whether minor adjustments IS DE avenue nW would extend W M stead of new JerseyO RH along the 37-mile system could, in areas U ST AT ER T underdeveloped land transit access to more ST U Street/African-Amer S Shaw-Howard U close to the corridors,IDcapture even moreCivil War Memorial/Cardozo value or E along K street ne in noma while preserving DR M benefit from existing and future development. ThisR ST access to the Union station metro station for unPE evaluation—which entailed an analysis ofQ ST line’s each Dupont Circle NN FL ST derdeOR P ST M route, construction phasing, and “service profile” (trip I DA AV veloped E frequency, projected ridership, and capacity)—identified N ST M M M M sites M ST several possible opportunities that could yield significant WH ITEH along URS L ST minor dividends in the future as the result of theseFarragut North 66 T FW MK ST K ST Y the adjustments. The Office of Planning, alongside the E 395 AV M I ST M VI RK planned H ST District Department RGIN M of Transportation, will continue EW YO BENN Gallery Pl-Chinatown N ING R IA Union Station new VE D AV M to study the potential for E G ST M M DA M F ST Judiciary Square AN capturing added vaLue Jersey Rosslyn L capturing this extra value. RY through aLternate routing E ST M M M MA avenue D ST current proposed VE M streetcar route route. AA MFederal Triangle LI N CONSTITUTION AVE O possible alternative this H CAR path of the route RT The Mall NO alternative eliminates a need to rebuild tracks metro lines Smithsonian M and the Union station streetcar INDEPENDENCE AVE stop as part of M Metro station MStadium-A L'Enfant Plaza line to the west. C ST Arlington Cemetery extending the Streetcar station

CAL

O

LIN CO LN

¾ AN 4b. Capturing opportunity through RD D A AV BI M M new connections or phasing EUCLID ST ¾ E LU
VE L

13TH ST

SE TT S

PA R
IRVING ST

M ¾

KR D

Brookland-CUA MONROE ST

TH

S AM AD LL MI

DA

ST

T KO

AV E

CL E

ON S KENY

T

N SHERMA

12T H ST

GEORGIA

M

9TH ST

T
C WIS ON SIN

RD

N MICHIGA

K, 1st, and H Streets AVE FRANKLIN at UnionSTStation M
O

RD

NT AV E

BR EN TW

O

O

D

RD

VE RM O

1ST ST

AV E

¾

¾
M

Park/open space Water

MA I NE

M Federal M SW Center

¾

ST IVY

M ¾
695

¾
M

¾

AV E

§ ¦ ¨
Waterfront-SEU

Potomac Ave

BR

D

BE AU

HA M

BU

CAN AL S T

East Potomac Park

M ¾

M ¾
VE CA MA TO PO

RO C

C

KE YE

Navy Yard

§ ¦ ¨
295

M ¾

G

R

M ¾

Pentagon

AC AN
Anacostia Park

Y FW IA ST O

BL AD E

¾

NA YL O

GOO
W ST

D HO

PE R D

58 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

Pentagon City

V ST

M ¾

SU HOW ITL A A N RD D PK RD Y

M ¾

NS BU
R

FOXHALL RD

AVE

AVE

NL TU

R AW

¾

ST D 37TH

NEW

JER

AVE

SEY

AVE

UC NT KE

G W M EM O AL RI Y PK

KY E AV

R

IO OH DR

OR M S RI RD

NORTH

24TH ST

22ND ST

Y

20TH ST 19TH ST

21ST ST

ST F W

66

7TH ST

23RD ST

12TH ST EXPY

M ¾
The Mall

Federal Triangle

M ¾

D ST

2ND ST

M ¾

Rosslyn

E ST

¾

L RY MA

3RD ST

4TH ST

6TH ST

SOUTH CAPITOL

ST

T Smithsonian added opportunity through BS added opportunity through M INDEPENDENCE AVE alternate routing: Poplar Point is one of alternate routing: several strategies MStadium-Armory L'Enfant Plaza C ST gton Cemetery the district’s largest planned-development and could help fit streetcar service into the M M M M M ST metro lines waterfront parkFederal Center SW IVY sites, yet conditions strongly constrained mLK right-of-way in downtown ELY PL MA I NE Potomac Ave AV discourage walking to it from the nearest anacostia in ways that benefit businesses and E M M Metro station 695 Streetcar station metro station, anacostia. a future spur or loop institutions there. these strategies include 295 Park/open space directly serving Poplar Point would dramatically Navy Yard Water Waterfront-SEU creating alternate traffic routes, such as Fort Dupont Park M improve access toM site by the shannon Place se or Poplar Point; East Potomac Park public transit and make i-295 a creating a one-way couplet for the Y FW less-daunting barrier. by shifting VE streetcar using shannon Place se NA IA ST CA YL Pentagon CO PE MA development from auto-oriented O and limited development-parcel NN NA TO R A SY PO RD M L to transit-oriented form, the AN area together with mLK;Vand/ IA GOO AV Anacostia Park D HO spur or loop option would also or routing streetcars throughE PE R D W ST provide powerful support for V ST Poplar Point between Good hope Pentagon City SU HOW ITL AR SU AN M Poplar Point to succeed as a and howard roads instead ofITLA D D ND Poplar Point P RD M KY RD major mixed-use development on mLK. applying one or more and a park/recreation Crystal City of these strategies would avoid STANTON RD M destination for the entire district. removing on-street parking and M new development value created loading spaces on mLK—vital to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport by streetcar service would likely anacostia’s principal commercial M Naylor Road justify the cost of the modest district— to create streetcar stops. M route extension.

capturing added vaLue through aLternate routing

8TH ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

Poplar Point

MI NN

¾

current proposed streetcar route possible alternative path of the route

ES O

¾

17TH ST

¾

¾

¾

¾

¾

TA AV E

R NO

C TH

AR

VE AA LI N O

Downtown Anacostia
D RI GE RD

44TH ST

IA AV E

18TH ST

VI RG

IN

M ¾

MK ST M I ST M

L ST

TR IN

WH ITEH UR

E

§ ¦ ¨

¾ ¾

Farragut North

¾
W NE

R YO

VE KA

§ ¦ ¨
395

Anacostia Park

I

SHERIF

G ST

M F ST

¾

¾
M

Gallery Pl-Chinatown

M Judiciary Square M

¾

H ST Union Station

VE DA AN

BENN ING R D

M ¾

Minnesota Ave

EAST CAPITOL ST

M ¾

Ben

UC NT KE

BR

G

BE AU

D

R

KE YE

HA M

BU

C

CAN AL S T

RO C

¾

¾

¾

¾

¾

M.L.K. JR. A VE

25TH ST

27TH ST

AV E

OK

OV ER LO

G

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨

¾

S XA TE

E AV

W

KY

M

EM

E AV

O

AL RI

Y PK

¾

¾

E BRANCH AV

W BO

IO OH

OR M

S RI

DR

MALCOLM X AVE

Congress Heights E A AV AM LAB A

M ¾

MIS

AVE IPPI SISS

RD
R

¾

W HE

SO
EL E

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Southern Avenue

RD

ATLANTIC ST
CHESAPEAKE ST
Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 59

34TH ST

NT AV E

BR EN TW

R

O

NS BU R

1ST ST

VE RM O

9TH ST

ID

U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo

LIN CO KE LN RD NI LW OR TH AV E

11TH ST

IA

R ST

D

15TH ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

W ES T

NT AV E

24TH ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

7TH ST

35TH ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

23RD ST

2ND ST 33RD ST

12TH ST EXPY

3RD ST

8TH ST

4TH ST

6TH ST

24TH ST

20TH 17TH ST ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

§ ¦ ¨

18TH ST

M ¾

M ¾
23RD ST

7TH MI ST NN ES OT AA VE

12TH ST EXPY

3RD ST

HA M

RO C

L ST l st

Clarendon East Potomac Park

1st st se

BU

M ¾ ¾ M

4TH ST

M ¾

Pentagon

BE AU

HA M

M ¾

Crystal City

¾

M ¾

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Pentagon City

25TH ST

CAN AL S T

¾

RO C

BU

C

KE YE

agon City

streets sW, Arlington Cemetery if justified by WY F E e IA M AV av buzzard Point ST C C CO MA ma A TO to AN development po PO value. OO G in Anacostia Park Buzzard D HO P Point either case, E RD W ST HO V ST SU routes and ITL WA R AN M D D R operations PK D Y should STANTON RD conveniently connect buzzard Point to both Pentagon M downtown and the former st. elizabeth’s site.
A NA 2nd st sW Cana

M ¾

27TH ST

¾

and north to INDEPENDENCE AVE D C ST L’enfant Plaza EN R M M M BOW M M Federal Center SWor, preferably, NA M ST YL IVY PE O MA NN R I NE Potomac Ave to the national SY RD AV LV E AN M 695 IA mall and AV E 295 downtown. Navy Yard Waterfront-SEU these M M M SU ITL AN East Potomac Park connections DR D would improve VE CA access, MA A TO AN PO particularly for visitors, an important GOO target market for planned hotel, retail, and Anacostia Park D entertainment uses. Naylor Road W

M M ¾

C

¾

L'Enfant Plaza

¾

¾

6TH ST

BE AU

KE YE

¾

8TH ST

BR

D

§ ¦ ¨

¾
M

G

M ¾

M ¾

R

2ND ST

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾ M ¾ § ¦ ¨

M ¾

¾
M

51ST S T

¾ ¾ ¾
M M M

50TH ST

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

§ ¦ ¨

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

§ ¦ ¨

BR

D

§ ¦ ¨

G

R

¾

¾

SOUTH CAPITOL

M ¾
MALCOLM X AVE Congress Heights CityE CrystalA AV BAM ALA

M ¾

V ST

SU HOW ITL A A N RD D PK RD Y

ST

M ¾

ST

MM ¾¾
IPPI

60 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

M ¾
Southern Avenue Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport VE A

STANTON RD Suitland

AVE

M M ¾ ¾

TR IN

M ¾ M ¾

W ES T

M ¾

44TH ST

M ¾

VI RG

G ST

15TH ST

IA AV E

18TH ST

M ¾

M ¾

11TH ST

RG

9TH ST

IN

M ¾

M ¾

§ ¦ ¨

VE RM O

§ ¦ ¨

M ¾ M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

1ST ST

TR IN

M ¾

M ¾

49TH ST BR EN TW

capturing added vaLue through aLternate routing M ST

D Deanwood AN ISL DE added opportunity through capturing added value through O W Anacostia Farragut North U ST RH AT L ST current proposed Park streetcar route alternate routing: adding Ebuzzard Point alternate routing: relocating theTstreetcar RD ST SHERIFF R U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo K ST SI Shaw-Howard U D 395 possible alternative AVE I ST E access along 1st street se and Potomac from maine avenue sW to Water street sW path of the route ORK DR H ST RESERVOIR RD R ST WY BENN Gallery Pl-Chinatown NE avenue se/sWUnion Station would expand streetcar would improve access to the largeMinnesota Ave mixed-use ING R metro lines D PE E Q ST AV Dupont Circle D FL F ST access to nationals Park and to development development proposed for Water street, as well NN ST Judiciary Square AN OR P ST YL M Metro station ID R E ST MA planned along half and 1st streets se. it would as to public waterfront areas, with negligibleA AVE Streetcar station D ST N ST Park/open space also connect future development in buzzard A AVE impact on route length. Water M ST Federal Triangle IN WH CONSTITUTION and RO Benning Road ITEH Point to the storesAVE restaurants nearCtheL Farragut North A URS L ST 66 TH T FW The Mall OR sole stadium. this route couldY serve as N the through Kcapturing added value T ST EAST CAPITOL ST Smithsonian 395 S B VE I ST Vaccess to alternate K A R phasing: the southwest IR O INDEPENDENCE AVE H ST GI Stadium-Armory EW Y Gallery Pl-Chinatown NI N Union Station AA buzzard G ST Point Waterfront development project appears likely L'Enfant Plaza C ST VE VE DA F ST Judiciary Square AN or it could to start before Phase 3 streetcar construction ST Rosslyn L Federal Center SW IVY ELY PL RY E ST E MA MA supplement a begins for this segment. the project ST S AV I NE Potomac Ave D would AV T XA E 695 FITCH S TE second route benefit from coordinated inauguration of Federal Triangle Court House CONSTITUTION AVE R 295 along 1st, streetcar service east to nationals stadium-navy CA TH Navy Yard Waterfront-SEU Fort Dupont Park The Mall OR N canal, and 2nd yard metro Smithsonian

O

N ST

M ¾

IDA DA VE

¾
M

R

o

O

AV E

ck

C

D

re

RD

M ¾

FL O

RID A

Buzzard Point
ek P

ST

VI RG

Dupont Circle

Q ST

PE NN

IN

AV E

M ¾

AV E

E

DR

M ¾

Shaw-Howard U

T ST

VE L

AN

CALVERT ST
k ar

L CO

A BI UM

RD

M ¾

13TH ST

BL AD E

U ST

¾
M

CATHEDRAL AVE

SE TT S

R AV H E

OD

E IS

KR D

G

oc

HU

D LAN

O

k

S SA BRYANT C

E AV

¾

VE

PA R
IRVING ST

M ¾

D

MONROE

R ST

S AM AD

CL E

O KENY

N ST

N SHERMA

12T H ST

GEORGIA

LL MI RD

FOXHALL RD

N MICHIGA

AVE

AVE

AVE

FRANKLIN ST

NEW JER SEY AVE

EUCLID ST

M

NL TU R AW

M ST Southwest Waterfront¾ ¾M BRYANT E AV

ST D 37TH

C WIS

ON

NEW

SIN

JER

AVE

SEY

AVE

D RI

GE

RD

UC NT KE

KY

M EM O AL RI Y PK

E AV

E BRANCH AV

U NT KE

G

W

¾

M

EM

O

AL RI

Y PK

IO OH DR

OR M

S RI

RD

IO OH DR

OR M S RI RD

34TH S

NT AV E

NORTH CAPITOL ST 23RD ST 22ND ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

21ST ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

33RD ST

18TH ST

W ES T

7TH ST

M ¾

M ¾

20TH ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

3RD ST

4TH ST

6TH ST

8TH ST

18TH ST

7TH ST

M ¾ ¾ M
23RD ST

M M

24TH ST

¾
M

§ ¦ ¨

M ¾
M

12TH ST EXPYTR IN

§ ¦ ¨

¾ ¾

¾
M

2ND ST

¾
M

M ¾

IDA DA VE

M ¾

M M ¾

VI RG

M ¾

IN

IA

RD

2ND ST

M ¾

12TH ST EXPY

6TH ST BR G

BE AU

KE YE

HA M

C

RO C

MA I NE

IVY

CAN AL S T

East Potomac Park

MI NN

Arlington Cemetery

M ¾

¾
BR G
D R

M Federal M SW Center

L'Enfant Plaza

¾

C ST

ES O

M ¾

17TH ST

INDEPENDENCE AVE

R

295

Waterfront-SEU Stadium-Armory

M ST

¾
§ ¦ ¨
695

¾
M

BU

M ¾ M ¾

M ¾
VE CA

Navy Yard

TA AV E

E IS OD N AVE W U ST RH MICHIGA AT D A FRANKLIN ST ER AV T ST BI U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo M SI Shaw-Howard U E M LU D O EUCLID ST CALVERT ST O E NT C DR AN RESERVOIR RD rk R ST Pa A k AV ee r PE Q ST C ST E Dupont Circle NN ck BRYANT E o FL R AV ST OR D P ST I DA LAN IS AV E E W U ST added opportunity throughHOD added opportunity through N ST R AT ER T ST U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo M ST alternate routing: tight turning geometry alternate routing: introducing a one-way SI Shaw-Howard U WH D ITEH Farragut North E URS L ST DR and traffic congestion at 14th and f streets couplet can avoid impacts on the constrained 66 T FW R ST K ST Y nW both make persuasive arguments for right of wayEalong 7th street nW and expand 395 PEI ST Q ST AV Dupont Circle NN VI RK FL ST H YO GI OR identifying an alternate route,Rsuch as 15thD streetcar access toST P ST W Gallery Pl-Chinatown NI I A NE Union Station AA AV E VE G ST E street and Vermont avenue to thomas circle. a broader corridor. AV N ST F ST ND Judiciary Square Rosslyn LA RY this alternate a couplet could E ST M ST MA WH D ST ITEH Anacostia Farragut North would also follow 9th st and URS L ST Park 66 T FW Federal Triangle Y CourtK ST House INA improve rail constitutionAVE CONSTITUTION avenue OL E 395 I ST AV AR K VI HC OR RG transit access H ST nW between f and RT WY The Mall BENN Gallery Pl-Chinatown IN NO Minnesota Av NE ING R IA Union Station Smithsonian D AV E for blocks 7th for southbound AV E G ST Clarendon F ST ND Judiciary Square INDEPENDENCE AVE Rosslyn LA Y located further streetcars, with E ST AR L'Enfant Plaza C ST M Arlington Cemetery D metrorail fromST northbound service ST VEFederal Center SW IVY AA Federal Triangle stations. AVE using 7th to f streets IN MA CONSTITUTION I N E R OL Potomac Ave AV CA E nW. TH 695 R The Mall EAST CAP NO T Smithsonian BS

LIN CO LN

M

VE RM O

RD

AN

¾

RD

9TH ST

BR EN 15TH ST TW O O D RD

35TH ST 11TH ST VER MO NT ST 33RD AV E 9TH ST

NORTH CAPITOL ST

NS BU R

1ST ST

M M

24TH ST

§ ¦ ¨

M ¾

¾
M

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾ M ¾ M ¾ M ¾

¾
M

¾

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

M ¾

TR IN

M ¾

§ ¦ ¨

¾ ¾

AV E

BL AD E

M ¾

3RD ST

8TH ST

4TH ST

§ ¦ ¨

D

§ ¦ ¨

M ¾

AV E

Potomac Ave

ELY PL

BE AU

KE YE

Waterfront-SEU

¾
M
CAN AL S T

Pentagon

HA M

BU

East Potomac Park

M ¾

M ¾
VE CA MA TO PO Crystal City

Navy Yard

§ ¦ ¨
295

M ¾

MA TO PO

E AV AS IA X T TE COS A AN
GOO
W ST

Fort Dupont Park

Anacostia Park

C

RO C

Pentagon City

V ST

27TH ST

M ¾

Pentagon

M ¾

O AC AN
Anacostia Park

Y FW TIA S

NA YL O

R

¾
M

RD

PE NN S

SU HOW ITL A A N RD D PK RD Y

M ¾

Pentagon City

V ST

M ¾

M ¾

PE R D W ST HO SU W Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport ITL A A N RD D PK RD Y

GOO

D HO

YL VA NIA

AV E

STANTON RD

M ¾

SU ITL A

ND

RD

¾
M

STANTON RD

M ¾

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 61 Congress Heights A AV BAM MALCOLM X AVE ALA

UTH CAPITOL ST

Crystal City

25TH ST

M ¾

Naylor Road

IDA DA VE
KY
D HO

M ¾

M ¾

W ES T

M 14th Street/F Street M NW ¾
ON SIN

M ¾

1ST ST VI ST A ST

VE L

M ¾
11TH ST

BR EN TW

M ¾

13TH ST

O

TS

KR D

AV E

CL E

IRVING ST

R

D LAN

O

O KENY

oc

k

E AV

D

N ST

C

re

ek

ST BRYANT

RD

Pa

rk

LIN CO

PA R

CALVERT ST

C

M ¾

MONROE ST

O

D

M ¾

NT AN

¾

7th Street/F Street NW
RD G

VI RG

IN

IA

AV E

S AM AD RD LL MI RD

R ST

NL R AW
N SHERMA

DA TA KO

12T H ST

GEORGIA

ST D 37TH

E AV

AVE

AVE

C WIS

R AW

NEW

ST D 37TH

JER

AVE

SEY

AVE

C WIS

ON

NEW

SIN

JER

AVE

SEY

AVE
W

UC NT KE

G

M

EM

E AV

O

AL RI

D RI

Y PK

GE RD

UC NT KE

G W M EM O AL RI Y PK

KY E AV

PE

E BRANCH AV

IO OH

OR M S RI

DR

RD

IO OH DR

OR M

S RI

RD

KA NS AS A

AV E

4

W ES TE R

Rock Creek Park

AD O

AV E

NE BR A

AV E

NE W

RI VE R

SK A

RD

NE AN

CO L

FESSENDEN ST

LI N

HA MP SH

KENNEDY ST

IR E

AV E
S RIGG RD

M ¾

N

OU

RI A VE

OR

INO ILL IS E AV

GALLOWAY ST G Fort Totten

M ¾

5TH ST

46TH ST

16TH ST

D

Tenleytown-AU ALBEMARLE ST

EN

M ¾

Fort Totten Park

AV E

BL AG

N CO VE TA I CU CT NE

capturing added vaLue through aLternate routing

11TH ST

RESERVOIR RD

23RD ST

12TH ST EXPY

Court House

M ¾

Federal Triangle

M ¾

3RD ST

The Mall

Clarendon Arlington Cemetery

M ¾ M ¾
G
MA I NE

Smithsonian

M ¾
W M
AV E

L'Enfant Plaza

Federal Center SW

M ¾

C ST

S IVY

T

M ¾

6TH ST
295

M ¾

4TH ST

INDEPEND

M ¾

62 | corridor/nEighBorhood analYSiS

§ ¦ ¨
695

§ ¦ ¨

RG

R

8TH ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

2ND ST

¾

streetcar access to the hospital center, a major employment destination, PE Q ST Dupont Circle NN FL could translate into earlier demand elsewhere in the district for housing. it ST OR P ST M I DA AV would further benefit columbia heights and adams morgan, high-density E N ST M neighborhoods that would see significant benefit from the new service. M M ST WH Iaccelerated construction would also help free up critical capacity in metro’s TEH Farragut North URS L ST 66 TF Mamong Woodley Park, columbia core by WY allowing inter-line connections K ST E 395 AV M I ST M VI heights, and brookland-cUa stations. the segment also offers the chance to RK M RG H ST YO W Gallery Pl-Chinatown IN NE IA Union Station add a streetcar-maintenance facility on metrorail’s red Line near brooklandAV M M E G ST M F ST Judiciary Square cUa, which could serve Phase 1 and 2 segments along Georgia avenue, U Rosslyn E ST M M street, florida avenue and/or 14th street nW. M D ST
35TH ST

9TH ST

E IS OD W U ST RH AT ER T ST added opportunity through alternate phasing: building this U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo SI Shaw-Howard U D E segment earlier than Phase 3 could offer multiple benefits. Providing earlier DR R ST

1ST ST

VE RM O

M ¾

NT AV E

added opportunity through alternate routing: eliminating F M OR UPSHUR ST TD the route split planned on irving street/michigan avenue nW/ne in favor of TILDEN ST R a single route through or along the south side of the hospital campus would provide convenient access for employees andSvisitors while eliminating the metro lines PORTER ST M PRI G Cleveland Park need for about one mile of double track, a savingsNofR$25–$40 million. the D M Metro station M A consolidated M routing would remain OTIS PL Streetcar station S MACOMB ST S Park/open space AC PA sufficiently close to the mcmillan HU RK Water SE RD ON S T TT sand filtration site to encourage CATHEDRAL AVE KENY S AV CL IRVING ST development there. Less E EV M EL N AVE AN convenient access to the streetcar MICHIGA RD D A AV BI M from the armed forces retirement UM E L EUCLID ST CALVERT ST C home campus may be acceptable, O rk Pa ek given the modest quantity and longre C ST k BRYANT oc R term nature of potential development there.
14TH ST
VAN NESS current proposedST streetcar route possible alternative path of the route

¾

Van Ness-UDC

Washington Hospital Center
E AV
WEBSTER ST

A W IO

SR TE BA

D

BUCHAN

CK RMA CCO NM VE JOH IA

AI W HA

¾

PARK PL

34TH ST

¾

13TH ST

N RE

OR

TAYL

D

O HAREW

¾

RD

ER WARD

OD R D

M ¾

S AM AD

ST

N SHERMA

GEORGIA

LL MI

RD

LIN CO LN

M ¾

NORTH CAPITOL ST

33RD ST

¾

15TH ST

¾
7TH ST

¾

24TH ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

§ ¦ ¨

¾

¾ ¾

¾

§ ¦ ¨

18TH ST

¾

¾

¾

¾

B

FOXHALL

AVE

AVE

¾

RD

FRANKLIN ST

NL TU

RD

R AW

VE DA LAN

M ¾

ST D 37TH

C WIS

ON

NEW

SIN

JER

AVE

SEY

AVE

EM O AL RI PK

EN

Park

16TH ST

M ¾

E SARG

A

A W IO

BL AG

s-UDC ST

RA NC

M ¾

WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST

D SR TE BA

D

D

HR

BUCHANAN ST

NT RD

E AV

CK RMA CCO NM VE JOH IA

AI W HA

YB

PIN E

14TH ST

N ST

FO RT D

R

TAYLOR ST
RANDOLPH ST Prince George's Plaza

O HAREW

M ¾

Cleveland Park

NG

RD

PARK PL

SPR I

M ¾

KA NS AS AV E

E

CALVERT ST
ek Pa rk

NE W

NT AV E

BR EN TW

R

O

VE RM O

11TH ST

IA

DR

9TH ST

SI D

NORTH CAPITOL ST

24TH ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

22ND ST

21ST ST

§ ¦ ¨
13TH ST

¾
GEORGIA
23RD ST

¾ ¾

¾

§ ¦ ¨

18TH ST

7TH ST

ST

12TH ST EXPY

RD 3RD ST

4TH ST NS BU 6TH ST RG RD

8TH ST

O

¾

NT AV E

BR EN TW

1ST ST

VE RM O

BL AD E

ES O

¾
11TH ST
EM

¾

17TH ST

9TH ST

VI RG

NORTH CAPITOL ST BU C KE YE D R

W ES T

BR

BE AU

N ST

HA M

¾
M M
ST

Waterfront-SEU

CANT ALI S RN IT A D DA VE

M ¾

East Potomac Park

RO C

OR WY

M M

¾

Gallery Pl-Chinatown

H ST Union Station

M ¾

27TH ST

VE KA Pentagon

§ ¦ ¨
395

Anacostia Park

49TH ST

¾
M

M ¾

Navy Yard

KE NI LW

RID A

G

ST

AV E

§ ¦ ¨
295

OR TH

FL O

AV PE E

NN

§ ¦ ¨
695

AV E

IN

AIN E

AV E

¾

MI NN

¾

¾

¾

¾

Potomac Ave

M ¾

S XA TE

A

IA

M ¾
Deanwood

Fort Dupont Park

E AV AC OM BENN T ING R PO D VE

R SHERIFF RD EN Y Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system BOW | 63 FW NA TIA YL OS PE O AC NN R Minnesota Ave AN SY RD LV

D

51ST S T
T FITCH S

¾

TA AV E

50TH ST

¾

O

¾ ¾

LIN CO LN

D

2ND ST

RD

¾

44TH ST

¾

¾

VI ST A

¾

¾

49TH ST

TR IN

¾ ¾

PARK PL

IDA DA VE

¾

KE NI LW

¾

W ES T

T

capturing added value through M M alternate routing: this route along south N ST I NG M Deanwood RD M E Mt. dakota avenue ne to a terminus at fort Lincoln M ST AV D Rainier AN Brookland-CUA OTIS PL Anacostia Farragut North SL I would reachPark large parcels of underdeveloped L ST 66 M DE MONROE ST SHERIFF RD MK ST HO R land that the district’s comprehensive Plan has 395 VE T M I ST M KA VI M KENYON S OR RG H ST designated for high-density housing and largeWY BENN Gallery Pl-Chinatown IN Minnesota Ave NE ING IA Union Station M AV G ST scale RD retail. fort Lincoln could provide a more VE M M E DA M F ST N Judiciary Square N AVE LA MICHIGA compelling terminus for the rhode island avenue RY E ST FRANKLIN ST M MA Fort M D ST segment than mount rainier. Given its lower-density Lincoln O CLID ST NT VE M AA AN MFederal Triangle development patterns and significant grades, fort IN CONSTITUTION AVE A OL Benning Road AV AR M E Lincoln itself offers only modest opportunity for M HC NT ST BRYA E RT V The Mall EAST CAPITOL ST NO D A Smithsonian streetcar-related redevelopment, butTindustrial LAN BS E IS M OD INDEPENDENCE AVE parcels along south dakota avenue hold very M RH MStadium-Armory L'Enfant Plaza C ST T ST ardozo strong potential. this alternative also offers the opportunity to create a Shaw-Howard U M Federal M SW Y ST M M Center IV ELY PL M streetcar-service facility. M VE
O HAREW
JER
RID A

ST AV RANDOLPH ST E

OR TH

M ¾

FL O

VI RG

Dupont Circle

15TH ST

Q ST

TAYLOR ST

PE NN

¾

AV E

UPSHUR ST

FO RR ST TD R

IN

AV E

E

M ¾

Shaw-Howard U

T ST

BL AD E

TE R

BA U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo WEBSTER ST

1ST ST

¾

NS BU R

G

oc

O

k

M Metro station

Streetcar station Park/open space Water

RD

C

D

re

RD

¾

LIN CO LN

M

HA MP SH

¾

RD

¾

metro lines

VI ST A

KENNEDY ST

IR E

¾

current proposed streetcar route possible alternative path of the route

ST

¾

13TH ST

AV E

MIS SO U

RI A VE

Brookland-CUA added opportunity through M MONROE ST PA RK alternate routing: due to congestion RD T ON S KENY and one-way travel on columbia road IRVING ST east of 16th street nW, additional routes M N AVE West Hyattsville D D MIC IGA in theHarea, such as harvard street, R R FRANKLIN ST IA RIGGS M B M should be considered for streetcar MO LU EUCLID ST NT CO GALLOWAY ST GALLATIN ST AN operation. this could also reduce impacts MFort Totten A AV M T Son neighborhood parking, and spread E Fort Totten BRYANT E AV Park ND streetcar benefits across a broader A ISL D DE U ST ES R M M BUCHANAN ST corridor. HO R T

OTIS PL

Columbia Road ¾ NW M
RD
OD R D

I BLA RR D

ER WARD

U SO

AVE E GEORGIA AV N ER N AVE SHERMA ST EA

¾

TH

S AM AD LL MI RD

DA

ST

TA KO

12T H ST

capturing added vaLue through aLternate routing

E AV

INO ILL
E AV
W M

5TH ST

IS

E AV

E SARG

A W

NT RD

CK RMA CCO NM VE JOH IA

AI W HA

Fort Lincoln

NEW

SEY

RD

ER WARD

AVE

OD R D

U SO

M

A

TH

R

y

DA

LA

ST

N

TA KO

D

N SHERMA
O

12T H ST

E AV

AVE

AVE

D RI

GE

RD

UC NT KE

G

KY

NEW

E AV

AL RI Y PK

JER SEY AVE

E BRANCH AV

E AV

43RD ST

N

Silver Spring
W ES TE R

Friendship Heights

41ST ST

MCKINLEY ST

¾
M M

MILITARY RD
Rock Creek Park

SE RD

capturing added value through alternate routing: a major employment and residential center, silver spring makes a more compelling origin and destination for Silver Spring FESSENDEN ST RI VE streetcar trips than takoma Park. terminating the Georgia M Silver Spring M R RD avenue nW segment at takoma requires riders to transfer to the metrorail’s red Line to travel on to silver spring. MTenleytown-AU ALBEMARLE ST adding silver spring expands opportunities to increase housing and commercial values and attract neighborhoodKALM IA RD oriented infill development along Georgia avenue. the VAN NESS ST route also creates synergies between silver spring and the mixed-use redevelopment planned at Walter reed medical center. finally, the streetcar could make a direct connection PORTER ST to marc’s brunswick Line at silver spring, linking Walter M M Takoma Walter reed and the rest of the Georgia avenue corridor to M Reed Army AS Medical SA counties northwest of the district. these benefits could well Center C HU ASPEN ST SE justify the costs of the 1.5- to 2-mile extension, which would TT CATHEDRAL AVE S require funding from the state of maryland. AV
NE BR A

AV E

¾
R y

AV E

LI N

SK A

NE AN

AV E

46TH ST

¾

O

¾
M

Van Ness-UDC

TILDEN ST

AV E

RA NC

¾

34TH ST

MACOMB ST

M ¾ M ¾

AL AS KA

D

HR

Cleveland Park

PIN E

YB

E

CL E

capturing added vaLue through aLternate routing

Wisconsin Avenue NW¾ M
RD

Prince George's Plaza

VE L

AN

D

AV E

M ¾
oc k C re

CALVERT ST
Pa rk

KA NS AS AV E

AV E

ark

HA MP SH

metro lines ST KENNEDY
M Metro station

E

AV E

current proposed streetcar route MIS possible alternative SO UR path of the Iroute AV

NE W

35TH ST

Streetcar station Park/open space Water
5TH ST
IS E AV

24TH ST

WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST

14TH ST

VI RG

IN

M ¾
23RD ST

PA R

K

NG RD 64 | StratEgiES and toolS For optiMizing land uSE iMpactS Brookland-CUA OTIS PL MONROE ST

PARK PL

SPR I

M ¾

RANDOLPH ST

M ¾
Court House

Rosslyn

IA AV E

M ¾

22ND ST

Y

G ST

20TH ST 19TH ST

21ST ST

capturing added value through alternate routing: this proposed route would run from K street nW to the friendship heights metro station, with a potential spur West Hyattsville along reservoir road nW to Georgetown University and S RD RIGG M its hospital. the strongest case for streetcar service along GALLOWAY is GALLATIN ST this corridor ST the connection it would provide to existing MFort Totten jobs and the addition of Georgetown University to the city’s Fort Totten Park transit network. Job growth will not match the system’s top D corridors but projected job growth and population density SR BUCHANAN ST TE BA are comparable to rhode island avenue. benefits do not now appear as strong as those in some other corridors and FO RT alternate routes. DR TAYLOR ST
E AV

ek

R

CO L

¾

OR

W AT ER

AD O

IR E

SI D

U Street/African-Amer

¾

RESERVOIR RD

E

DR
Dupont Circle

AV E

16TH ST

BL AG

WH ITEH UR

33RD ST

EN

Georgetown University

P ST

M ¾

D

ST F W

§ ¦ ¨
66

B

ST WE C BEA HD R

M

A

LA

N CO

N

D

VE TA I CU CT NE

N RE

OR

D

S AM AD LL MI RD

FOXHALL

I BLA RR D
N ER ST EA

NL TU R AW

C

ST D 37TH

INO ILL

C WIS ON SIN AVE

E SARG

A W IO E AV

NT RD

N JOH

AI W HA

A CK OR M M CC E V IA

O HAREW

RD

ER WARD

OD R D

U SO TH DA

ST

KO

M

S

5. strategies and tools for optimizing land use impacts
Thoughtful District development policy, infrastructure planning and funding strategies are vital to achieving 5a Maximizing land use benefits, minimizing implementation costs the streetcar’s potential benefits. The District already employs several potentially
effective development tools, in some cases as a partner with other entities, that could effectively enhance the development benefits from streetcar service. Further planning should address the ability of the streetcar to reinforce the effectiveness of each of these tools— particularly for areas in which the District seeks to encourage and shape investment. aximizing the cost-effectiveness of the streetcar depends on pursuing policies that reap the greatest benefit from new streetcar-related investments in development and infrastructure, and on funding strategies that make implementation possible. This is a preliminary assessment; further analysis of specific conditions and locations along the streetcar corridor is needed. DDOT is developing a thorough funding plan to determine the most effective funding tools for the District.

M

To identify areas where anticipated development pressures might most merit updated development tools, the study team performed a development-capacity analysis for all the streetcar corridors. Available development capacity under current zoning was determined for all parcels within a quarter mile of the proposed streetcars lines and then compared against ten years of potential residential and commercial development attracted by the streetcar. Map ı5 highlights the areas where development capacity is low compared to predicted demand.
Potential develoPMent tools

The District can create or call on several entities to encourage development along the streetcar corridors: • Tax-increment financing districts, special assessment districts These tools can help finance street infrastructure and/ or other public investments that support development by increasing development capacity, providing better pedestrian connections to existing neighborhoods and development, and encouraging greater investment by developers.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 65

NE W

BL A

• Local/business improvement districts (bids) Expanding existing BIDs or encouraging formation of new ones along the streetcar corridors bolsters private-sector resources that can assist with marketing, tenanting, managing local services, and/ or other functions that support existing and new development—magnifying the streetcar’s ability to attract new investment and vitality. ¾
M

MAP 15 Potential Development Pressures
CHES TNUT

AV E

ST

AVE

ORE GON

PIN

5TH ST

LA U

EY

W

ES

BR

ASPEN ST

9D

RE

R TE

AN

LS

N

T

E AV

CH

M ¾

MCKINLEY ST

MILITARY RD

AV E

AV E

AD

13TH ST

KENNEDY ST

KA N

O

SA

Rock Creek Park
LO R

UR

I AV

E

SA VE

9C
CO
IL LI

MIS SO

AS

S RIGG

KA

RD

NE BR

EA VE

LIN

NE

AV E

AN

SH

AV E

AV E

AN

HA

D

ALBEMARLE ST

AR K

EN

DECATUR ST

Fort Totten Park

S TE BA

As increased development occurs within the streetcar corridors, development capacity limitations under current zoning could constrain future projects (areas highlighted ¾ in red). Updated zoning and design guidelines should be considered in these areas as appropriate ¾ enable Maryland to streetcar¾ driven reinvestment to best support community goals.
M
S EA TE R N E AV

AL A

SK

A

M ¾

RD

AH UT E AV

SA

S

MP

IR

G

VAN NESS ST

16TH ST

AVE NEVADA

IR BLA

A BE C H D R

RD

M

NO IS E AV

GALLOWAY ST

M

GALLATIN ST

SA RG

CO

RD

BUCHANAN ST

ENT RD

NN EC

IO W
WEBSTER ST UPSHUR ST
FO R TD

JOHN

NO RE RD

A

TIC

M ¾

E AV

AII W HA

UT AV E
TILDEN ST

MCC ORM

NORTH CAPITOL ST

24TH ST

21ST ST

20TH ST

• Joint development agreements, publicprivate partnerships Cooperative agreements among property owners, developers, and/or government agencies can spell out approaches to complex development projects, improving the District’s ability to influence the mix of uses, scale, character, and other qualities in new development. • The Property Acquisition and Disposition Division and other agencies This District entity can aggregate, land bank, and offer for redevelopment strategic parcels that advance planning goals—an especially effective way to insure that the streetcar’s potential to attract investment translates into projects that benefit particular neighborhoods and commercial districts. The effectiveness of these entities as tools for promoting development can vary widely, depending on context. Phase II of this study will examine which combinations of these and other tools make the most sense for each streetcar corridor and its unique redevelopment opportunities.

14TH ST

R

TAYLOR ST

BUNK

E AV

ER HI LL

RD

PARK PL

PORTER ST

SP RI

NG

9B
¾
M
OTIS PL

RD
RANDOLPH ST

ACK

HAREW OOD RD

RD

WA RD

M ¾
MACOMB ST

34TH ST

N KLI

GLE

RD

PA R

KR

D

C
GARFIELD ST

O

S ST

AV E

VE R

9TH ST

11TH ST

GT ON

R ST

15TH ST

35TH ST

28TH ST

ECKIN

33RD ST

ES

P ST

30TH ST

NT

ID

CANAL RD

AD

M ST L ST

M ¾

EL LO

AV E

VIR

18TH ST

GIN

M ¾

22ND ST

19TH ST

4A
M ¾

WHITEHURST FWY

¾ K ST M M ¾ I ST ¾
M

TR IN

7TH ST

IA

AV E

G ST

4B M

4C
M ¾
E ST

23RD ST

EX PY

M ¾
E A AV

3RD ST INTERSTATE 395

10TH ST

2ND ST

12TH ST EXPY

8TH ST

INT ER

E 66 STAT

M ¾
The Mall

N DIA INM

4TH ST

E ST

D ST

¾

C ST

CONSTITUTION AVE

6TH ST

NO

H RT

C

O AR

A LIN

E AV

5D
EAST CAPITOL ST

44TH ST

¾ F ST

M ¾

5A

H ST

5B

MA

RY

N LA

VE DA

Anacostia Park

MO

KE N
BE NN ING RD

6B

W NE

T AV V E

ILW

N ST

M ¾

6E

W

5C

M ¾

OR TH

M ¾

YO

RK

IR

AV

M ¾

SHERIFF RD

AV E

G

Q ST

E

IN

IA

AV E

RESERVOIR RD

AA VE

6D

PL

M ¾

FL O

RID

BL A

TT S

6C

MO

T ST

DE

SE

U ST

M ¾

1ST ST

NT

U

BR E

NS

SA C

W

H

6A

O RH

DE

BU R

AV E

NT

G

M

AS

R

ND IS LA

AV

O

oc

E

RD

D

k

C

BRYA NT

ST

7A

RD

re

ek

Pa

rk

LINCO

CALVERT ST

8B

LN RD

AV E

EUCLID ST

9A

M

7B M
¾

O

NT AN

A

AV E

VIS

D

M ¾ 8A

FRANKLIN ST

TA

ST

LE V

CATH ED

EL AN

RA L

IRVING ST

AV E

COLUMBIA RD HARVARD ST

8C M ¾

KE NY

ON ST

MIC

HIG

E AV M AN

8E ¾
12TH ST

SO H UT

ER ST

A AD M S M IL L RD

MONROE ST

DA KO TA E AV

GEORGIA AVE

8D

7C

SHERMAN

17TH ST

M ¾

DR

IN

M

AS

CANA L

M

3B
OH

M TO PO

AC

27TH ST

Less than 50% ¾ 50% to 100%
M ¾

E AV

A AN

S CO

Anacostia Park
V ST

GOOD
W ST

2A
HOPE RD

NA YL O

25TH ST

% oF avaiLabLe capacitY under exiSting zoning required For neW deveLopment (20-Year eStimate)
IA L PK Y

TB

R

EA S

INTE

M ¾
RS TA TE 69 5

2C
BRANCH AVE
FW Y

BR

G

MIN

EM

O

NE SO

G

M ¾
W

M ¾
IV Y

3A
M AIN E E AV

ST

M ¾

TA AV E

3D M ¾

ELY PL

AM

BE

M ¾
ST

M ¾

CH

East Potomac Park

3C
T IA

AU

Fort Dupont Park

2B
R

TEX AS

¾
M

AVE

RO

Virginia

M Metro station

SOUTH CAPITO L ST

M ¾ Streetcar station Park/open space Water

1A 1D
MALCOLM X AVE

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE

29 5

RS

TA TE

OVERLOOK AVE

% OF AVAILABLE FAR REQUIRED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
CHESA PEAKE ST
N ST GALVESTO

IN

TE

INS

DR

PKY

HE RD

BL U

EP LA

SHEP

TU W NLA RD

AVE

37TH ST

• Analysis of development capacity only includes parcels larger than 10,000 square feet. • Excludes all properties with historic structures or within historic districts. % of FAR needed (20 year estimate)
Less than 50% 50% to 100%

WIS

noteS

CO NS VE IN A

EY JE RS NEW AV E

49TH ST

M ¾

B

ST

CENT RAL AVE

M ¾

RID

INDEPENDENCE AVE

G E RD

N KE TU CK VE YA
RD
PE N NS

W BO

EN

RD

YLV AN

IA

AV E

more than 100%
M ¾

1B

HO

W

M ¾

AR D

RD
M O RR

SU IT

LA

IO DR
HA LL EY PL

ND

RD

1E

IS

RD

SU
N R D

AN ST TO

IT

LA N

D

PK

Y

M ¾

M ¾
AMA AV E

1C

AL AB

SIS MIS

PI SIP

E AV

SO

U

TH

ER

N

E AV

M ¾

Maryland

M ¾

W

HE

EL ER

RD

0

0.25 0.5

ATLANTIC ST

1 Miles

Ü

Streetcar Segments Streetcar Stations

Metrorail Lines blue green orange red yellow

66 | StratEgiES and toolS For optiMizing land uSE iMpactS

M ¾

Parks and Open Space Metro Stations

Over 100%

M ¾

* Analysis of floor area ration (F.A.R.) only includes parcels larger than 10,000 square feet. M ** Excludes all¾ properties with historic structures or within historic districts

Potential land use and DESIGN-GUIDANCE TOOLS

coordination with other infrastructure investMents

Streetcar planning presents an opportunity to refine zoning and other tools the District already employs to manage development and promote design quality. As with the potential development tools, reviewing and finetuning can help insure that streetcar-related development reinforces the quality and character of neighborhoods and commercial districts, takes full advantage of increased development potential, and moves the District toward its employment and fiscal goals. • Changes in allowable densities to allow welldesigned, potentially higher-density developments in streetcar corridors where appropriate (see Map ı5).

Coordinated planning of transportation and infrastructure investments will make the streetcar more cost-effective. Phase II of this study will address this coordination in more detail.
STREET INFRASTRUCTURE DDOT achieved major cost savings by including two

streetcar segments—H Street/Benning Road NE and Firth Sterling Road—as part of already planned street improvements. Any potential changes in the phasing of other segments should follow this model, taking into account and aligning with future plans for infrastructure investment.

• Recommendations for changes in land WALkABILITy use mix to make the most of new transit service and Because the streetcar will be useful only if people can add flexibility in responding to market demand. safely walk to its stops, implementation plans must take full account of the convenience and safety of pedestrian networks. Specifically, many locations will require • Mandatory inclusionary zoning (Miz) to upgraded sidewalks, improved crossing treatments, specify a share of new construction that is affordable and pedestrian-friendly development. According to the to households with low to moderate incomes. The District’s 2009 Pedestrian Master Plan, pedestrians worry District adopted an inclusionary zoning ordinance in most about the safety of crossing streets, and the plan 2009. recommends crossing improvements near transit stops. • Development of design guidelines to ensure high design quality throughout all streetcar corridors. BUSES WMATA recently introduced a Priority Corridor Network (PCN) for its highest-performing local bus routes, which many of the streetcar corridors overlap. The PCN program aims to improve bus travel times, reliability, capacity,

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 67

and system access.1 Developing the streetcar system to complement rather than compete with the PCN program will ensure that streetcars increase overall transit service along each corridor. In particular, many Metrobus lines extend to destinations outside the District, and it will be important to maintain these transit connections. The design of streetcar and PCN bus facilities should be coordinated to allow for seamless transfers between the two networks and to take maximum advantage of infrastructure investments. This includes designing stops that both buses and streetcars can share; coordinating other transitpriority treatments, such as signal priority and transit-only lanes; and integrating fare structures and ticketing.

challenges identified in section 3a. To make bicycling a convenient extension of streetcar trips for more people, the proposed streetcar system should provide secure bike storage and bike-share facilities at every stop.
CAR SHARINg

It will also be important to build connections between the streetcar system and car-sharing programs. Integrating these programs will not only improve mobility and options for residents, but will also reinforce the District’s goal of fostering sustainable transportation.

5b Funding
DEVELOPMENT-DRIVEN FUNDING MechanisMs

Streetcar service will complement Washington’s growing range of transportation choices. BICyCLINg Transit and bicycling complement each other in two important ways: bicycling can serve as an extension of the transit trip and transit can provide an alternative to the bicycle trip. Many existing or proposed bicycle routes in the District follow proposed streetcar corridors, highlighting the need for careful coordination of both systems. This includes addressing the bicycle/streetcar
1

Federal funds, which can cover up to 50% of a system’s cost, are a common funding source for large-scale transit projects. Some communities prefer to find other sources to avoid the expense, delay, or uncertainty a federal application can introduce. Benefits from real estate investment spurred by the streetcar could fund roughly 40% to 60% (and possibly more) of the streetcar system’s projected $ı.5 billion completion cost. Of a variety of local private- and public-sector funding tools that systems across the country have used, three appear particularly promising for the District based on this study’s analysis of the streetcar’s potential land use benefits.
• Municipal funds repaid through increased property tax revenue. This approach capitalizes on the growth

The PCN program includes a significant investment by WMATA in methods to help buses tavel more efficiently and cross intersections with minimal delay, including queue-jump signals, transit-signal priority, and bus-only lanes

in property taxes (and/or related revenues from

68 | StratEgiES and toolS For optiMizing land uSE iMpactS

fees) that occurs as a result of streetcar investment: over time existing property appreciates in value and development adds new properties to the tax rolls. Tax-increment financing (TIF) is a common form of this approach, although other models exist. Under TIF, a municipality obtains near-term capital funding by floating bonds that are repaid over time from the increased revenues. As an example, a 5% to 7% appreciation of the roughly $ı00 billion in aggregate property value that exists today along the streetcar corridors would add $5 to $7 billion in value. If half of the tax revenue produced by this new value were dedicated to streetcar-bond repayment, approximately $300 to $400 million worth of bonds could be sold. An equally reasonable scenario projects the addition of $5 to $8 billion worth of new development attributable to the streetcar over a tenyear period. Half of the added tax revenue this development generated would support the sale of another $300 to $500 million worth of bonds. Together, these two sources could generate roughly $600 to $900 million of bond-backed FIGURE 11 Buzzard Point: 2010–2020 funding to Fair Share oF deveLopment Streetcar impact reaLized vaLue help pay for Office square feet 1,534,000 1,882,650 construction of the FAR foot value $20 $40 Value $30,680,000 $75,306,000 $44,626,000 system.
Cost to develop the streetcar segment Internal rate of return
Source: W-ZHA, Inc.

• Direct payments from developers or property owners who stand to see a return on their investment. This approach recognizes that

individuals with large land holdings may see a business advantage in funding streetcar segments that connect their property to the larger transit network and thereby substantially increase development potential on their parcels. Buzzard Point, Poplar Point, and NoMa are areas where such an approach could make a measurable difference in property value. As Figure 11 shows, a reasonable scenario in Buzzard Point would involve streetcar service’s doubling the value of certain parcels from $20 to $40 per developable square foot. At the same time, by making the area more accessible and reducing parking requirements, the streetcar would increase feasible development from over ı.5 to nearly ı.9 million square feet. Together, these two changes would create additional value worth nearly $45 million. The possibility of realizing significant new value from the new transit system would represent a compelling incentive for some developers to contribute to the cost of building it.
• Payments from business improvement districts (BIDs) or other local organizations that stand to see a return on their investment. Business and

$12,050,000 14%

property owners within organized areas may find their interests served by directing a portion of their BID contributions toward streetcar implementation costs. Such contributions could extend streetcar service to their area sooner than scheduled, delivering

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 69

earlier financial returns that justify the investment. This funding approach would prove effective, for instance, on K Street through contributions from the Downtown, Georgetown, and/or NoMa BIDs.
iMProved eligibility for federal funding The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced in

• New Starts—provides up to a 50% federal match for

rail transit projects.
• Small Starts—provides up to $75 million of federal

funding for projects with total capital costs of $250 million or less. • Very Small Starts—provides federal funding for projects with a total capital cost of $50 million or less. A full description of the process and criteria for seeking FTA funding appears in the Transportation Analysis appendix, which also evaluates how well the District’s streetcar project aligns with the current FTA selection criteria.

early 20ı0 that it plans to revise its funding guidelines by expanding the primary criteria—cost and time saved—to include consideration of land-use-related contributions to livability, such as expansion of economic development opportunities and environmental benefits. U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood pledged that a more expansive approach to project proposals “will work to promote livability rather than hinder it.” Details of the change are not available at the time of this writing, but it appears likely that it will improve chances for streetcar projects to receive funding. The impacts of streetcars are often more evident in livability issues than in traditional transit-evaluation criteria. The streetcar’s ability to generate value that can be tapped to help fund the system is important because the FTA’s discretionary Section 5309 Capital Investment Program, the primary source of federal funding in support of rail transit investment, can provide only a portion of the system’s development costs:

70 | StratEgiES and toolS For optiMizing land uSE iMpactS

6. next steps
he Office of Planning commissioned this study to gauge the nature and extent of land use impacts associated with reintroducing streetcar service into the District. The study’s fundamental finding is that the streetcar represents an effective strategy for advancing many of the District’s core economic and social goals. The streetcar’s benefits would extend, to varying degrees, to each of the streetcar corridors. Increased real estate values and other financial benefits associated with the system can be tapped to help fund the system’s construction. At the same time, the findings also indicate that the streetcar will pose manageable challenges. Integrating land use considerations into the next stages of planning will play a critical role in achieving the streetcar’s full potential. The study provides a clear outline of benefits and challenges, and in the process establishes the value of additional analysis. Further work can more clearly define the metrics associated with each of the findings, including the extent to which real estate and other financial benefits could help fund system construction. Further study can also more precisely project the impacts on each corridor and on other parts of the District. An assessment of regional economic

T

development trends would more fully establish the extent to which the streetcar would make the District a more competitive place to live, work, and invest. The District can also explore the kinds of policies and initiatives that would maximize benefits and mitigate and manage challenges that arrive with the streetcar. This study and the work that follows create an essential foundation for broad and informed community dialogue. This dialogue is critical to compete for federal funding and to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). More important, the dialogue that this study supports will enable the community to participate in tailoring the streetcar to the unique characteristics and aspirations of every District neighborhood.

Community dialogue and targeted technical analysis are critical next steps toward unlocking the opportunities of the streetcar.

Land Use PLan for the district of coLUmbia streetcar system | 71

how to reach us

1100 4th Street, SW, Suite E650 Washington, DC 20024 planning@dc.gov Phone: 202-442-7600 Fax: 202-442-7638 TTY: 311

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful