K Street Final Environmental Assessment: December 2009 | Street | Cycling Infrastructure

K Street

24th Street NW to 7th Street NW Washington, D.C.

Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environmental Assessment

December 2009

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

Printed on Recycled Paper

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for KSTREET th 24 Street NW to 7th Street NW WASIDNGTON, D.C. DDOT Project Number: l102(027)/SR028A1DC-29
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in conjunction with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), proposes modifications to K Street to create a transportation facility that enhances the mobility, throughput capacity, and economic vitality within the downtown Washington Central Business District. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the FHWA and DDOT prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) which was released for agency and public review on September 29, 2009. A public hearing was held on October 14, 2009. Subsequently, a Final EA has been prepared to fully address all agency and public comments received. The proposed modifications to K Street are intended to accommodate multimodal traffic (bus, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian) that currently uses the corridor. The proposed action would achieve the following obj ectives: • • • Provide efficient travel along K Street for all transportation modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles; Eliminate roadway infrastructure deficiencies along K Street and improving mobility and safety for all K Street users; and Construct a "Green Street" using exceptional urban design principles and innovative and environmentally sustainable design methods.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Following the public comment period, DDOT identified Alternative 2, the Two-Lane Transitway, as the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would provide an exclusive two-way, two-lane median transitway between 20 th Street and 9th Street. Alternative 2 would also include two lO-foot general purpose travel lanes and one l2-foot travel/off-peak parking lane in each direction on K Street between 20 th Street and lih Street. Raised medians would separate the general purpose travel lanes from the transitway and provide width for passenger platforms and landscaping. The transitway would include one l2-foot lane in each direction. Passenger platforms would be located on the raised medians and would be typically 11 feet wide. The medians opposite the platforms would vary between five and 11 feet wide, except where they are constrained by reduced roadway widths at Farragnt Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square parks. Between 12th Street and 9th Street, the existing roadway width reduces to

1

approximately 50 feet; therefore, the medians would be eliminated and the section would include one general purpose travel lane plus one exclusive bus lane in each direction. Eight bus stops would be located in both the eastbound and westbound direction of the transitway. Bus stops would be curb-lane stops without provisions for passing of stopped buses. The bus stops would be approximately 140 feet long to accommodate multiple buses at one time. Left turns would be prohibited from the transitway, with the exception of left turns at 19th Street from the westbound direction. Left turns would be prohibited from the general purpose lanes at all but 14th Street in the eastbound direction and 11 th and 10th Streets in the westbound direction during the peak periods. A complete description of the Preferred Alternative is provided in Section 2.2 ofthe Final EA. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED In addition to evaluating Alternative 2, the EA and Final EA considered the No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and the Two-lane Transitway with Passing Alternative (Alternative 3), as well as other alternatives that were considered but not retained for detailed analysis. Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing roadway, median, service lanes, and sidewalks would remain as they are today, with no major modification to K Street within the study area. Currently programmed, committed, and/or funded roadway projects in the study area (with the exception ofthe K Street project) would be completed. Alternative 3 would provide an exclusive two-way, two-lane median transitway between 20th Street and 9th Street plus provide opportunities for bus passing in blocks that could accommodate a third bus lane. Alternative 3 would include two lO-foot general purpose travel lanes and a five-foot bike lane in each direction. A raised median would separate the general purpose travel lanes from the transitway. The transitway would include one l2-foot lane in each direction, plus an 11-foot center passing lane adj acent to the bus stop area. Passing would be provided at eight locations where the roadway width permits. East of 12th Street, this alternative would be identical to Alternative 2 with one general purpose lane and one bus lane per direction. The typically l40-foot long bus platforms would be located approximately every block on the near side of the intersections. Seven platforms would be located in the eastbound direction and eight platforms would be located in the westbound direction. Eight additional alternatives that were evaluated in the 2005 K Street Transitway Report were also considered during the scoping process conducted for the K Street EA. These alternatives were not carried forward for further study. More detailed descriptions of the alternatives are provided in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the Final EA.

2

ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT As stated in 40 CFR 1508.27(a), analysis of significance as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity: (a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: • Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The degree to which the effects on the quality ofthe human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

• •

3

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection ofthe environment.

Based on the impact analysis presented in Section 3 of the Final EA, the project would not result in significant impacts. Given the project's urban environment, there would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, wild and scenic rivers, farmland, forests, wildlife habitat, or habitat for threatened and endangered species. The project would improve water quality by incorporating Low Impact Development techniques such as rain garden cells, vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. Stormwater would be managed through the use of DCWASA water quality inlets to treat the pavement runoff. In addition, the project would: • • • Not use any Section 4(f) properties; Not result in any increases in noise levels above existing levels; Not result in adverse effects to air quality. The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board has approved the 2010 to 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which includes the "K Street, NW Priority Busway" as a major project; Not result in any changes to land use or zoning; Not result in right-of-way acquisition or in any residential or business displacements; and Result in no adverse effect to historic properties, as concurred by the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Officer on August 27, 2009.

• • •

The project would result in some adverse effects to the human and natural environment. A summary of these effects, and an evaluation of their significance per the CEQ guidance, is provided in the following paragraphs. A detailed analysis of these effects is provided in the Final EA.
Social Characteristics - Neighborhoods and Communitv Cohesion: The K Street project area's neighborhood is defined as the business and residential community that exists on K Street and on the side streets immediately adjacent to K Street. Persons who spend non-work time in the corridor for other pursuits (recreation, school, shopping, dining, and professional appointments) are also part of the community. Social groups include employers and employees, residents, commuters, visitors/shoppers/diners, and through travelers.

Adverse effects to the community and businesses would occur as a result of changes in parking and delivery availability and in travel patterns. One hundred thirty of the approximately 330 curbside, two-hour parking spaces would be removed; and parking, curbside deliveries and valet parking would be restricted to off-peak hours. Approximately 200 curbside parking spaces would continue to be available during off-peak hours. There would be no change in availability
4

of the 409 parking spaces on the side streets within one block of K Street and the more than 8,000 garage parking spaces. Impacts caused by parking and delivery restrictions would include inconveniences to business patrons who normally park on K Street and adjustments in delivery times normally scheduled during peak hours. Deliveries during peak hours would be restricted to side streets or alley loading docks. Any potential for a reduction in business patronage attributable to reduced availability of parking would be offset by improved transit efficiency and reliability that would attract more business patrons who elect to use transit. Urban design improvements of the Preferred Alternative would include increased accessibility due to lowered congestion and higher efficiency of traffic movement along K Street that would attract more consumers to K Street, providing long-term benefits for the K Street business community. Community cohesion refers to the interaction of the business owners and others who populate K Street as employees, customers, or visitors. None of the improvements would change this interactivity; rather, the urban design and streetscape improvements would enhance community cohesion through the creation of a strong sense of neighborhood character on K Street. Based on the analysis summarized above, the direct effects to neighborhoods and community cohesion do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity per the CEQ definition. The improvements would not adversely affect public health or safety. Furthermore, those members of the public who commented on the K Street EA did not consider these effects to the human environment controversial (Final EA, Appendix F). While the proposed action is a site specific action, the effects do not rise to a level of "significance" that would require a higher classification ofNEPA documentation or study.
Social Characteristics - Population and Employment: The Preferred Alternative would not change the availability of housing; therefore, impacts to the residential population are not expected. The Preferred Alternative would attract employment and visitors by providing more efficient transportation that would facilitate faster, more reliable work trips and by creating a more inviting street subsequently creating a beneficial effect directly attributable to the proposed action. The effects of the proposed action on social characteristics were not considered controversial by commenters ofthe EA. The direct effects on population and employment do not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by the CEQ definition. . Social Characteristics - Environmental Justice: There are minority and low-income populations located within the block groups that surround and abut K Street at either end of the project, however, the project improvements would occur away from predominantly low-income or minority populations. Only one block group with a high proportion of low income/minority population would be directly affected by the project's improvements. The impacts to environmental justice populations would primarily occur as a result of the elimination of 130 onstreet parking spaces, making low-cost parking less available. This would impact low-income persons more than others because a higher parking cost would represent a higher proportion of
5

their income. However, the preferred alternative would also provide transportation improvements that would result in improved travel times and more reliable and efficient transit which would benefit all populations. Therefore, the analysis concludes that the project's impacts on minority and low-income populations are neither disproportionately high nor adverse. There would also be no adverse effect to public health or safety of minority and low-income populations. Overall, the effects do not meet the CEQ criteria for either context or intensity; therefore, the impacts of the action on social characteristics do not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by CEQ.
Businesses and Economic Vitality: Completion of the Preferred Alternative would provide a high quality design and streetscape that could attract businesses, consumers and visitors to this already successful street. Design and streetscape strategies would be developed to improve traffic conditions and provide faster, more reliable transit that would enhance and support the continuing economic vitality of K Street. Elimination of some parking and a prohibition on parking and deliveries during peak hours would impact businesses and visitors; however, (1) most on-street parking and loading would remain available during off-peak periods, and side street and garage parking would remain the same as existing conditions; (2) alley loading docks would remain open and available; and (3) the more efficient transit system would attract transit riders, decreasing the number of automobile drivers entering the area. These factors would serve to mitigate the impact on the human environment. Therefore, while there are some anticipated direct impacts to businesses and economic vitality caused by the Preferred Alternative, those impacts do not rise to a level of "significance" regarding their context or intensity as defined by the CEQ definition. . Community Facilities: The Preferred Alternative would improve mobility and access to community facilities as a result of lowered congestion, faster travel times and more efficient, reliable transit. Emergency vehicles would use the transitway to avoid automobile traffic during emergencies, thus improving response times. The Preferred Alternative would directly impact community facilities through changes in the availability of on-street parking and deliveries. Therefore, similar to impacts to businesses, community facility parking and delivery restrictions would not result in severe impacts on community facilities. Based on the analysis provided in the EA, the direct effects of the proposed action to community facilities do not rise to a level "significance" as defined by CEQ. Traffic and Transportation: With the Preferred Alternative, end-to-end travel times in the general purpose lanes would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build Alternative. The K Street transitway would improve bus travel time and reliability, and encourage greater transit usage. End-to end travel times for buses on the transitway would be up to six minutes faster than the No-Build Alternative in 2030. The proposed 140-foot long bus stops would accommodate more than one bus at a time. By placing buses (which carry more persons per vehicle than automobiles) in an exclusive transitway, thus allowing more buses to travel along K Street during a single hour period, the project would provide more person-carrying capacity. The
6

improvements in bus service would facilitate greater accessibility to employment and entertainment destinations. Based on an analysis of the effect of the preferred alternative on vehicular traffic, there would be a benefit providing an increase in travel times through the corridor even with two intersections operating at a LOS F during the AM peak period and one intersection during the PM peak period. The impact of the preferred alternative regarding traffic within the corridor considering the "context" and "intensity" of the site specific action, inclusive of the effect on transit operations, would be beneficial overall and therefore not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by CEQ. The Preferred Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a 12-foot wide curbside general purpose shared lane with automobiles, during the peak periods. During off-peak hours, the curb lane would accommodate bicyclists and parking/loading. Cycle tracks or separated bicycle lanes could not be included with Alternative 2 because of the desire to maintain existing sidewalk widths. The District's Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent parallel streets, L and M Streets. The wider curbside lane would provide approximately two to three feet of accommodation for bicyclists wishing to use K Street during the peak and slightly more space during the off-peak. Pedestrians would continue to be accommodated on wide sidewalks with marked crosswalks, timed crossing intervals, and wider median refuge widths. All pedestrian improvements would be in accordance with the District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan objectives and recommendations to correct pedestrian deficiencies and increase pedestrian safety. The effects of the project on pedestrians and bicycles / pedestrian mobility and safety are not significant either in context or intensity per the CEQ definitions. As discussed previously, parking and loading would be impacted by the removal of approximately 130 of the existing 330 on-street parking spaces within the project area, and the restriction of the remaining approximately 200 spaces to off-peak use only. This would increase the demand for on-street parking on K Street and in the first blocks of the side streets. It is anticipated that this change is expected to cause inconveniences to those seeking to park on the street during peak hours and to those service providers delivering goods requiring loading and unloading on K Street during peak hours; however, parking impacts and restrictions to both the service providers and the general public do not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by the CEQ critieria.
Terrestrial Habitat - Street Trees: The Preferred Alternative would require the removal of all of the street trees within the existing medians between 21 st Street and 9th Street. Existing sidewalk vegetation would be removed as needed; however, existing, healthy mature trees would be preserved as much as possible. All tree removal would be in accordance with the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration guidelines. Replacement and additional trees would be planted in accordance with an urban streetscape design plan that includes green street technologies as
7

determined during final design. Given the provided mitigations, the effects on street trees and vegetation would not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by CEQ.

Visual and Aesthetic Resources: Under the Preferred Alternative, the aesthetic character of K Street would be slightly modified during and following construction. The proj ect would continue to provide the four-row street tree configuration and would utilize DDOT's standards for roadway and sidewalk paving, lighting and streetscape furnishings to provide a consistent and complementary aesthetic view within the corridor. The project goals for urban character would be manifested in landscaping and design that would include plantings, stormwater management LID, and street furnishings. The enhanced landscaping would maintain the historic views and vistas of the L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington within the contemporary dense urban fabric. The effects on visual quality would therefore not be adverse and are not deemed "significant" either in context or intensity per the CEQ guidance. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts: An indirect and cumulative impacts analysis was completed in accordance with CEQ, FHWA and EPA guidance. The project is not anticipated to cause any indirect impacts to land use in relation to what has been proposed in the comprehensive plans and approved development projects. Indirect impacts would be both adverse and beneficial, and include changes in travel patterns that would affect mobility on other streets; potential loss of customer base due to the inconvenience to customers attributable to on-street parking losses and restrictions; potential increases in delivery costs because of loss/restriction of loading times which would likely be passed on by businesses to consumers; increases in transit reliability and efficiency which could result in increases in transit ridership; and improved attractiveness of the area for new business.
Cumulative impacts would include the incremental changes that occur over time in conjunction with other surrounding development. Beneficial cumulative impacts to employment would include the increase in jobs created by the project and other projects as they are constructed (temporary) and completed (permanent employment opportunities); incremental increases to visual impacts that modify the views and vistas associated with the L'Enfant Plan; potential increases in traffic growth due to this and other development projects; and an incremental beneficial impact to water quality improvement within the Rock Creek watershed with the incorporation of green technologies for stormwater management. Regarding CEQ's criteria for "context" and "intensity", indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action do not rise to a level of "significance" requiring further NEPA study or documentation.

Construction Impacts: Business on K Street would be temporarily inconvenienced during construction. Construction would disrupt daily flow of business in the corridor. Landscaping, paving, street and/or sidewalk closures may cause some loss of business clientele as a result of this inconvenience. All utilities (electrical power, water and sewer, telephone and cable) are expected to be maintained throughout construction. Licensed street vendors may be temporarily relocated during construction. Construction noise and dust, although minimized, would
8

temporarily disrupt outdoor dining areas. DDOT would require their contractor to employ noise and dust suppression techniques to limit the impact on outdoor activities such as cafes. A public information program would be used to inform businesses and residents of the duration of construction, phasing, construction methods, and possible effects. Access would be maintained to all businesses during construction, and pedestrian walkways would be protected from construction so that they could remain open to the extent practicable. DDOT would work with businesses, including street vendors, to develop ways to minimize construction impacts as much as possible. The construction-related effects on business activities would be temporary, and would be minimized through a concerted effort to communicate with, and be responsive to, business owners throughout the construction period. Given the temporary nature of impacts associated with construction activities coupled with the proposed DDOT commitments to mitigation during the period of construction activity, in addition to the support expressed by the business community, agency and public stakeholders for the proposed action; construction impacts, based on the analysis provided and with consideration of "context" and "intensity" do not rise to a level of "significance", as defmed by CEQ requiring a higher classification ofNEPA documentation.
MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures would be implemented to mitigate or minimize adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative: • The DC SHPO will be consulted at 60% and 90% design on a landscaping plan, including way-fmding signage, lighting, bus stops, pavement, sidewalks, and any proposed street furniture. The consultation with SHPO will also include NCPC and the Commission on Fine Arts. The proposed landscaping will respect and complement project area viewsheds, including historic vistas. Any trees removed from the corridor will be appropriately replaced through coordination with the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration. During final design, the provision of bus shelters will be coordinated with WMATA. Stormwater will be managed as much as practicable with Low Impact Development techniques such as rain garden cells, vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. A detailed maintenance of traffic plan will be developed during final design to ensure that through traffic is maintained to the extent practicable, pedestrians are provided safe passage through the work zone, businesses are accessible, and deliveries can be made. The contractor will be required to comply with the DC Code of Municipal Regulations with regard to construction noise. Noise levels would be minimized to the extent practicable. During final design, consideration will be given to signage, pavement markings, and other accommodations/amenities for bicyclists.
9

• • • • •

• • • • •

During construction, DDOE regulations will be adhered to regarding protection of workers from exposure to petroleum-contaminated soils and treatment of contaminated soils prior to disposal when petroleum concentrations exceed regulatory thresholds. During construction, activities will comply with the District noise regulations. During construction, dust-suppression measures would be used to mitigate fugitive dust emISSIOns. During construction, pro-active street-side signing would be provided regarding access to businesses and alternative parking locations. During construction, DDOT will work with street vendors to assist them in finding new locations along the corridor. During construction, a public information program will be used to inform the public concerning construction phases, work hours, access/parking changes, avenues for communication, and possible effects.

AGENCY CONSULTATION In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the FHWA has detemIined that the proposed project would have no adverse effect on historic properties. In a letter dated August 27, 2009, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the condition that detailed project plans are provided for the SHPO's review at 60% and 90% design. A scoping meeting was conducted on July 1, 2009, followed by meetings with the interagency team on July 31,2009 and October 14, 2009. The interagency team consisted of representatives from the National Capital Planning Commission, National Park Service, Commission on Fine Arts, Arlington County, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, DC Water and Sewer Authority, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration, DC Office ofPlamIing, and DC Department of the Environment. Individual meetings with each of the agencies were also conducted throughout July, 2009. Agency letters and comments received in response to circulation of the EA are included in Appendix F of the Final EA, along with responses from DDOT. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A public meeting was held on July 29,2009, and attended by 47 citizens. Attendees were provided the opportunity to comment in writing or orally to a court reporter. The major themes of these comments were as follows: • • • • accommodate bicycle lanes, maintain on-street parking, provide loading zones with ample length and maneuvering room, provide separate transit lanes to more efficiently move transit along K Street, and 10

be mindful of sidewalk width and landscaping.

Following circulation of the EA, a Public Hearing was conducted on October 14,2009. The hearing was attended by 36 citizens. Eleven people provided public testimony and six people provided private testimony. Following the hearing, approximately 300 emails and letters were received. Copies of all comments received and responses to those comments are contained in Appendix F of the Final EA. The major themes and concerns were as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • • preference for a particular alternative desire for a dedicated bike facility, bicyclist safety, details on bike lanes, preference for bike lanes on L and I Streets impacts to businesses from loss of curbside parking, impact on valet parking, loss of sidewalk space, loss of loading zones, and effects during construction support for dedicated bus lanes to improve transit travel times, and other accommodations for transit users concerns with landscaping plans maintaining and complementing the historic viewsheds pedestrian safety, preservation of sidewalk widths concerns with left turn prohibitions accommodating emergency vehicles design suggestions automobile congestion and mobility, conflicts with buses/bicyclists, loss of parking construction impacts effects of changing traffic patterns on parallel streets effects to NPS properties

CONCLUSION
The FHWA has determined that the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, will not have a significant impact on the natural, human or built environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the findings of the proposed project's Final Environmental Assessment (EA), and comments submitted during preparation of the EA. The Final EA has been evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately discuss the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement (ElS) is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA.

Approved: Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration
11

Date

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for K STREET 24th Street NW to 7th Street NW WASHINGTON, D.C.

Prepared pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) by U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration and District Department of Transportation

Final: December 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Proposed Action
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are evaluating improvements to the K Street corridor in northwest Washington, DC, to efficiently accommodate multi-modal travel, including an exclusive transitway within a portion of the existing street right-of-way. The study area limits, shown on Figure S-1, are between Mount Vernon Square (7th Street) on the east and Washington Circle (24th Street) on the west, and between L Street to the north and I (Eye) Street to the south. The construction limits would extend from 9th Street to 21st Street along K Street. Figure S-1: Study Area

A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in September, 2009 for this project. The EA was released for 30 day public comment on September 29, 2009. The public and agencies had an opportunity to review and comment on the September 2009 EA until October 30, 2009. A Public Hearing for the EA was held on October 14, 2009. This Final EA addresses comments submitted on the EA at the public hearing and during the associated public comment period. This Final EA also identifies a Preferred Alternative.

i

Final: December 2009

S.2 Purpose and Need
The purpose of the K Street project is to create a transportation facility that supports the mobility, throughput capacity, and economic vitality within the downtown Central Business District (CBD) by: • • • providing efficient travel along K Street for all transportation modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles; eliminating roadway infrastructure deficiencies along K Street and improving mobility and safety for all K Street users; and, constructing a “Green Street” using exceptional urban design principles and innovative and environmentally sustainable design methods.

As the main street of Washington’s CBD, K Street provides important opportunities for a variety of user, mode, service, and urban space objectives. With numerous overlapping needs that must be addressed by the proposed improvements, it is essential that a balanced solution that addresses all needs form the basis for a collaborative K Street vision among a broad range of agency, stakeholder, and public participants. Thus, each need is considered equally in the project evaluation in this Final EA. For clarity, the need elements are grouped into two categories: Transportation Needs and Urban Design Needs. The Transportation Needs stem from an evaluation of the existing deficiencies for moving people and services throughout the K Street study area and include the following: correcting operational deficiencies; connecting modal interrelationships including pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, buses and the Metro users; improving deteriorating roadway infrastructure and variations in travel patterns; improving mobility for all travel modes; and improving safety for automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Urban Design Needs stem from the strong social desire to create a “Green Street” founded on exceptional urban design principles, the desire to create a strong urban design that unifies the corridor, and the desire to construct a street with environmental sustainability.

S.3 Alternatives
Transportation alternatives have been analyzed to address the purpose of the K Street project. Three alternatives, including the No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives, are analyzed in detail in this Final EA. A Preferred Alternative is also identified. K Street is currently a two-way urban arterial roadway with multiple lane configurations within the study area. The roadway generally includes four center travel lanes (two lanes in each direction) and median-separated service roads (with two lanes in each direction) including an outside lane for parking/loading/unloading and a second lane for travel and right turns. Wide, landscaped sidewalks flank the curbs on both sides. Eastbound service lanes are absent where K Street passes Franklin, McPherson, and Farragut Squares. The roadway is narrower and only consists of four lanes (two travel and two parking) between Mt. Vernon Square and 12th Street; however, only westbound traffic is accommodated between Mt. Vernon Square and 10th Street. On the west end of the study area, the primary K Street travel

ii

Final: December 2009

lanes begin descending under Washington Circle at 21st Street; the service lanes continue west at-grade to meet the circle. Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) would retain the existing conditions on K Street. It assumes that the currently programmed, committed, and/or funded roadway projects in the study area would be completed. Alternative 1 provides a basis for comparison for the build alternatives. Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) and Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Two build alternatives were developed and evaluated as part of this NEPA EA. The build alternatives would provide an exclusive two-way center transitway on K Street, flanked by medians on either side that include bus platforms. Alternative 2 would include the two-lane transitway flanked by medians for platforms/landscaping, three general purpose lanes with parking in the curb lanes during the off-peak, and sidewalks. Bicycles would be accommodated in the curb lanes. Alternative 3 would include a two-lane transitway with passing, two general purpose lanes, a dedicated bike lane, and designated loading/unloading areas. Sidewalks would flank the outside lanes in both alternatives. The typical section would narrow for both alternatives adjacent to Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Park resulting in two bus lanes and two general purpose lanes per direction. On the east end, between 12th Street and 9th Street, the roadway would narrow to match the existing width, but it would include one travel lane and one transit lane in each direction. Neither build alternative would require additional right-of-way. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Following the EA comment period, Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 would provide a balance between all of the modes of travel (transit, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians) and the other roadway uses (parking and loading/unloading), while meeting the project’s purpose and need. As described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this Final EA, the end-to-end bus travel times along the study corridor within the transitway would be up to six minutes faster than the 2030 No-Build Alternative. The end-to-end automobile travel times would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build and four to nine minutes faster than Alternative 3. Bicycles would be accommodated in a shared lane with automobiles during the peak period and with parked vehicles during the offpeak. Sidewalks would typically remain at the existing width. Alternative 2 would also provide on-street parking and loading/unloading during the off-peak period in the curbside lane. In summary, Alternative 2 would provide improved operations for buses and automobiles, while still accommodating bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and deliveries.

S.4 Summary of Impacts
The comparison of impacts associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 is summarized in the following section and in Table S.1 at the end of the section. There are no identified physical impacts on properties surrounding the street, as all construction would take place within the

iii

Final: December 2009

existing right-of-way. The No-Build Alternative would not impact resources within the study area. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would not have an impact on land use and zoning; land acquisition and displacements; National Park Service (NPS) and DC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) park properties; Section 4(f) properties; air quality; noise; and some elements of the natural environment (physiography, topography and geology; soils; Waters of the US, including wetlands; aquatic habitat and wildlife; threatened or endangered species). Most of the impacts from Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2. There would also be temporary impacts during construction. Project impacts are evaluated in this Final EA using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition of significance (40 CFR 1508.27). Social Characteristics Social characteristics affected by the project would include neighborhoods and community cohesion, environmental justice, businesses, and economic vitality. The neighborhood affected by the K Street project surrounds this portion of K Street, and includes business owners and employees, commuters, travelers, visitors, and residents. The project’s effects on neighborhoods and community cohesion would be positive, and would include improved safety for pedestrians with reconstructed sidewalks, ADA compliant intersection ramps, and wider refuge areas in the new medians; improved access to transit (buses) with more reliable schedules (greater benefit with Alternative 3 with bus passing lane); general alleviation of congestion and increased mobility of traffic; increased safety and mobility for bicyclists, especially with bike lane in Alternative 3. The project would not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or lowincome populations. Positive benefits to the business community would include increased accessibility due to lowered congestion and higher efficiency of traffic movement along K Street, especially buses. Some impacts to the business community may include a decrease/loss of on-street parking, especially with Alternative 3; and potential changes in delivery schedules due to the peak hour restrictions for on-street loading (Alternative 2) or relocation (Alternative 3) of onstreet parking. Changes in vehicular travel patterns could have a minor indirect effect on communities and businesses, with more automobile travelers shifting from K Street to I (Eye) and L Streets, and more bus transit use shifting to K Street. Community Facilities Community facilities would share the positive effects of lowered congestion and increased access due to the construction of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. The alternatives would potentially improve response times for emergency responders who could use the transitway. Traffic and Transportation Traffic and transportation effects are considered in five areas: travel time improvements, transit operations, pedestrians, bicycles, and parking and deliveries.

iv

Final: December 2009

Travel time improvements: With Alternative 1 (No-Build), 2030 end-to-end automobile travel times would range from 8 to 12 minutes during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Bus travel times for the entire corridor would range from 13 minutes to 17 minutes during all peak hours. With the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, the end-to-end automobile travel times would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build. Under Alternative 3, the end-to-end automobile travel times would be one to 11 minutes slower than the No-Build. Buses traveling in the transitway would experience improved travel times with both build alternatives. End-to-end bus travel times within the transitway would be up to six minutes faster with the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 than with the No-Build. End-to-end bus travel times with Alternative 3 would be six to seven minutes faster than No-Build. With Alternatives 2 and 3, there will be fewer intersections along K Street where left turns would be allowed from the general purpose lanes as compared to the No-Build Alternative. Transit operations: The effects for the bus system operations and for users are anticipated to be positive and include more efficient and reliable service for all bus routes using the exclusive transitway; simplified locations and routes for transit users through the consistent placement of bus stops near- or far-side and improved signage; more access at bus stops and more buses at each stop due to the extended station lengths and the ability of buses to receive/discharge more passengers at one time. With the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, however, buses continuing to operate in the general purpose lanes would experience the same slower travel times as automobiles. With the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, buses that do not stop at each station would be forced to travel behind buses that do, causing delays for buses that do not stop because there would not be an opportunity for passing in the transitway. The implementation of Alternative 3, however, would allow buses to pass, thus eliminating potential delays and resulting in shorter travel times than would be achieved with Alternative 2. Pedestrians: Generally, the project would have a positive effect on pedestrian movements and safety through the corridor through the preservation of wide sidewalks that vary between 25 feet and 12 feet wide; timed crossing intervals and designated crosswalks at intersections; and increased refuge areas due to 11 to 12 foot wide medians provided. Bicycles: The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 may provide a modest increase in safety for bicyclists traveling along K Street by providing a wider 12-foot curb lane for shared use, but bikes would still share the road with vehicular traffic. Alternative 3 would increase safety and mobility for bicyclists by providing a designated bike lane. This dedicated lane could facilitate the connection between the Metropolitan Branch Trail and the Capital Crescent Trail. Parking and Deliveries: The loss or restriction of parking on K Street could negatively impact business and visitor accessibility. Available on-street parking is defined as including the spaces on K Street within the project area and on cross streets within the first blocks to the north and south. The parking on K Street represents approximately 45 percent of the total parking available in the project area. The project alternatives would result in no change in
v

Final: December 2009

parking or delivery areas on the streets that cross K Street. However, with the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, approximately 39 percent of available parking and on-street loading on K Street would be removed, and the remainder would be restricted to off-peak hours. Alternative 3 would eliminate all parking on K Street within the study area. There are approximately 8,000 off-street parking spaces available in various parking garages in the study area which would not be affected by either alternative. The restriction of on-street loading spaces to off-peak hours under Alternative 2 would create a greater impact on delivery times than Alternative 3, which would allow deliveries in peak hours using designated areas. However, with Alternative 3, loading would only be available along K Street at designated areas. The locations of the loading areas are not expected to meet the demands of the K Street’s tenants. Cultural Resources The evaluation of cultural resources was conducted in accordance with the regulations defined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR §800) and in consultation with the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Office. There would be no adverse effects to any historic properties. Natural Environment Stormwater management (SWM) would be incorporated in both build alternatives in accordance with the current DDOT /Department of the Environment (DOE) regulations. Best management practices and low impact development (LID) techniques would be used, such as tree pits, median plantings and planter boxes that would augment green strategies such as bioretention/rain garden cells, enhanced vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would remove all of the trees within the existing medians and replace them with appropriate species in the new medians. Sidewalk trees would be preserved where possible. Removed vegetation would also be replanted with appropriate trees, shrubs, and ground cover in a manner that creates a unifying theme for the K Street project area. Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on street vegetation. Indirect and Cumulative Effects Indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the removal of on-street parking and loading areas could become evident, as they in turn impact other resources, including communities, businesses, employment, and natural resources. These indirect and cumulative impacts may manifest as increased congestion and competition for available open parking spaces during critical AM peak periods and on side streets where local deliveries could affect traffic flow and access. Additional indirect effects would include increased costs to businesses for deliveries which would likely be passed on to consumers as price increases, and the potential loss of business customers due to unavailability of on-street parking. Conversely, many indirect and cumulative impacts of the K Street project are anticipated to be beneficial to businesses, residents and visitors to the downtown DC area and to the area surrounding K Street, as transportation along the street more efficient and more reliable.
vi

Final: December 2009

Temporary Construction Impacts Noise and vibration control measures would be used to minimize the effects on the public during construction. A Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan would be developed to determine how the construction would be completed in phases; how all modes (automobiles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles) would be accommodated in each phase; and how access, parking, and loading/unloading operations would be provided or maintained. The construction impacts to the public would be temporary and could include extended travel times, reduced speed limits and the elimination of on-street parking. Construction impacts to businesses would also be temporary and could include parking losses, slowed business, closure of outdoor café areas, relocated street vendors and modified loading/unloading. Summary Comparison of Alternatives Table S.1 provides a summary comparison of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Based on the evaluation included in the EA and this Final EA, as well as comments received from regulatory agencies and the public, it is anticipated that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment either in context or intensity as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality. Therefore, DDOT recommends that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate for the project. This final Environmental Assessment document complies, to the extent possible, with all applicable environmental laws and Executive Orders, or provides reasonable assurance that their requirements can be met.

vii

Final: December 2009

Table S.1.
Alternative 1 No-Build 8 to 12 minutes AM Peak: 3 Midday Peak: 1 PM Peak: 0 13 to 17 minutes No No No No Yes AM Peak: 2 Midday Peak: 1 PM Peak: 0 7 to 11 minutes Yes 7 to 13 minutes Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Two-Lane Transitway

Comparison of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Alternative 3 Two-Lane Transitway with Passing 9 to 23 minutes AM Peak: 6 Midday Peak: 2 PM Peak: 5 7 to 10 minutes Yes Yes Yes Yes Provides 5-foot paved and signed bicycle lane Fair – Pullout loading zones in selected locations No on-street parking

Evaluation Factor

General Purpose Lanes: Peak end-to-end travel times in 2030

Number of intersections with LOS E or F in 2030

Transit Lanes: Peak end-to-end travel times in 2030 Potential to Increase Person Throughput Potential to Increase Transit Ridership Benefits and Reliability Enhances Pedestrian Compatibility

Enhances Bicycle Compatibility

Effects on Loading / Ease of Loading

Number of parking spaces on K Street

Good – 124 loading parking spaces 332 spaces available in off-peak. 208 for parking and 124 for loading

Yes Yes Provides shared lane with autos during peak and shared lane with parking in off-peak Good – On-street loading in off-peak 200 spaces available in off-peak for parking and loading. No on-street parking during peak Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No

Provides Opportunities for Great Street / Improved No Aesthetic Character Provides Opportunities for Green Street / No Environmental Sustainability Impacts Historic Properties or Parkland No Peak Hours for this study are defined as 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM.

viii

Final: December 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... i S.1 Proposed Action................................................................................................. i S.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. ii S.3 Alternatives ....................................................................................................... ii S.4 Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................ iii 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ...............................................................................................1 1.1 Project Overview ...............................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of Project ..............................................................................................5 1.3 Needs of the Project ...........................................................................................6 1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and Studies............................................................8 1.4.1 The District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis ..............................................................................................8 1.4.2 Great Streets Initiative ...........................................................................8 1.4.3 The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan .................................9 1.4.4 District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan .............................................9 1.4.5 Rehabilitation of New Hampshire Avenue (including Washington Circle Improvements).....................................................9 1.4.6 White House Area Transportation Study...............................................9 1.4.7 Mt. Vernon Square District Planning Study ..........................................9 2. ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................................11 2.1 Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative)...............................................................11 2.2 Proposed Action...............................................................................................14 2.2.1 Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) .................................................15 2.2.2 Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing)............................19 2.2.3 Preferred Alternative............................................................................23 2.3 Other Alternatives Considered.........................................................................24 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................................................27 3.1 Social Characteristics.......................................................................................28 3.1.1 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion..........................................29 3.1.2 Population and Employment................................................................31 3.1.3 Environmental Justice..........................................................................37 3.1.4 Businesses and Economic Vitality.......................................................39 3.2 Community Facilities.......................................................................................44 3.3 Traffic and Transportation ...............................................................................49 3.3.1 Traffic Conditions................................................................................49 3.3.2 Transit Operations................................................................................66 3.3.3 Pedestrians and Bicycles......................................................................71
ix

Final: December 2009

4.

3.3.4 Parking .................................................................................................74 3.4 Land Use and Zoning.......................................................................................76 3.4.1 Land Use and Zoning...........................................................................77 3.4.2 Comprehensive Plans...........................................................................78 3.4.3 Planned Development ..........................................................................82 3.5 Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation Impacts ............................83 3.6 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................83 3.7 Section 4(f).......................................................................................................89 3.8 Air Quality .......................................................................................................90 3.8.1 Regional Conformity ...........................................................................90 3.8.2 Project-Level CO Conformity..............................................................90 3.8.3 Project-level Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Conformity...................95 3.8.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics....................................................................96 3.8.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts .........................................................98 3.8.6 Conclusion ...........................................................................................99 3.8.7 Temporary Construction Related Impacts ...........................................99 3.9 Noise ................................................................................................................99 3.10 Natural Environment......................................................................................100 3.10.1 Physiography, Topography, and Geology .........................................101 3.10.2 Soils....................................................................................................101 3.10.3 Water Resources ................................................................................102 3.10.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat.....................................103 3.11 Visual and Aesthetic Resources.....................................................................105 3.12 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................108 3.13 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................108 3.13.1 Boundaries and Methodology ............................................................109 3.13.2 Land Use – Past/Present/Future .........................................................110 3.13.3 Indirect impacts..................................................................................110 3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................112 3.13.5 Conclusions........................................................................................114 3.14 Construction Impacts .....................................................................................114 3.14.1 Socioeconomic Impacts .....................................................................114 3.14.2 Noise ..................................................................................................115 3.14.3 Vibration ............................................................................................116 3.14.4 Air Quality .........................................................................................116 3.14.5 Hazardous Materials ..........................................................................117 3.14.6 Maintenance of Traffic ......................................................................118 3.14.7 Summary of Construction Impacts ....................................................118 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................121 4.1 Stakeholder Coordination ..............................................................................121
x

Final: December 2009

5. 6.

4.2 Public Meeting ...............................................................................................121 4.3 Public Hearing ...............................................................................................122 4.4 Agency Coordination .....................................................................................123 LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................127 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................129

LIST OF TABLES Table S.1. Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Table 3.5. Table 3.6. Table 3.7. Table 3.8. Table 3.9. Table 3.10. Table 3.11. Table 3.12. Table 3.13. Table 3.14. Table 3.15. Table 3.16. Table 3.17. Comparison of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3........................................................ viii Components of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 .........................................................14 Previous Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration...................................25 K Street Population Characteristics................................................................32 K Street Occupation of Employed Population ...............................................35 Assessment of the Project Alternatives ..........................................................40 on Business Operations and Economic Vitality .............................................40 Community Facilities within the K Street Project Area.................................47 Individual Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) along K Street ...................57 Arterial Traffic Operations along K Street.....................................................58 Permitted Turning Movements.......................................................................63 Traffic Summary of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3..................................................66 K Street Existing Transit Service ...................................................................68 Land Use Within K Street Study Area ..........................................................77 Zoning Within K Street Study Area ...............................................................78 NRHP Listed and Eligible Properties within Area of Potential Effect ..........87 K Street CO Concentrations (ppm) ................................................................92 K Street Estimated Study Area Pollutant Emission Rates (Pounds/Day)..................................................................................................92 K Street Existing Noise Levels.......................................................................99 K Street Predicted Design-Year Noise Levels .............................................100 Summary of Construction Impacts...............................................................120

xi

Final: December 2009

LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1: Figure 1: Figure 2A: Figure 2B: Figure 3A: Figure 3B: Figure 4A: Figure 4B: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7A: Figure 7B: Figure 7C: Figure 9: Figure 8: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Study Area ............................................................................................................ i Study Area ............................................................................................................3 Alternative 1 Typical Sections............................................................................12 Alternative 1 Typical Sections............................................................................13 Alternative 2 Typical Sections............................................................................16 Alternative 2 Typical Sections............................................................................17 Alternative 3 Typical Sections............................................................................21 Alternative 3 Typical Sections............................................................................22 US Census Block Groups....................................................................................33 Community Resources ........................................................................................45 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations 1-6.........................................................51 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations 7-10.......................................................53 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations 11-14.....................................................55 Total Hourly Person Throughput ........................................................................60 Cumulative Bus Delays.......................................................................................61 Zoning and Land Use..........................................................................................79 Architectural Cultural Resources........................................................................85 Air Quality Analysis Locations and Noise Sensitive Receptors.........................93 MSAT Emissions ................................................................................................98 APPENDICES Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Alternative 1: No-Build Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2: Two-Lane Transitway Alternative 3: Two-Lane Transitway with Passing Cost Estimate Correspondence Response to Public and Agency Comments

xii

Final: December 2009

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

1
PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Project Overview
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT), in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is proposing improvements to the K Street corridor in Northwest Washington, DC. The study area of K Street, NW is located in Ward 2 of the District of Columbia and extends from North Capitol Street to Whitehurst Freeway. The proposed project involves the reconfiguration of K Street to efficiently accommodate multimodal travel including an exclusive bus transitway within a portion of the existing street right-of-way. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has agreed to be a cooperating agency for the project. The project study area extends from Mt. Vernon Square (7th Street) on the east to Washington Circle (24th Street) on the west, L Street to the north and I (Eye) Street to the south (Figure 1). The study area is based on the limits of operational and urban design deficiencies along K Street. Beyond Mt. Vernon Square and Washington Circle, these deficiencies are not as evident and traffic is dispersed to other destinations in the city. K Street within the study area is the primary east-west link across the city north of the National Mall and the White House. The roadway is the main street of Washington’s Central Business District (CBD), which provides more than 350,000 jobs north of the National Mall, making the CBD one of the largest employment areas in the nation. The central location of K Street makes it the core of the city’s metropolitan transportation network, providing an important east-west automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle link between Union Station and Georgetown. K Street also connects multiple local activity nodes, such as the Washington Convention Center, World Bank headquarters, George Washington University and Hospital, and the Carnegie Library. Offices, restaurants, retail services, residences, tourist destinations, schools, and parks surround this key street. The K Street corridor plays an important role within Pierre L’Enfant’s historic plan for the nation’s capital that integrates the city’s monumental corridors and waterfront crescent. There are three parks (squares) located along the study area that are owned and maintained by the National Park Service (NPS), including Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square parks. Washington Circle, located on the western end of the study area, is also owned and maintained by NPS. The existing medians and sidewalk areas include nominal landscaping and street trees that provide loose connectivity to the park properties spaced throughout the corridor.
1

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

2

P Street
e Av

Dupont Circle
17th Street 16th Street

Logan Circle
ode Rh
tA ve

Ro

ck
21st Street

Cre
Isla nd

e k P kw y

22nd Street

O Street

ec nn Co

Av e

ire

ve tA ticu

ps h

ssa c hu set ts A ve

m

Ver m

11th Street

Ha

Ne w

M Street
20th Street 19th Street 18th Street 15th Street

25th Street

West End
Study Area

10th Street

Ma

on

N Street

N Street

Mt. Vernon Square

L Street

Washington Circle
K Street

Mt. Vernon Square McPherson Square Franklin Square
I Street

Farragut Square
I Street
Pe nn syl van ia A ve

I Street H Street

e Av ork wY Ne

H Street

24thStreet

23rd Street

H Street

Layafette Park

Chinatown

District of Columbia

Study Area

13th Street

ia Av e

14th Street

12th Street

Vi rg

Maryland

Foggy Bottom
F Street

in

Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic

The White House

F Street

E Street E Street
E S t r e et
in ia Av e

Po

Legend
Study Area

t

Vi rg

K Street
The Ellipse

Virginia

Finaln Environmental Assessment Pe
nsy nia A e Figurev1: Study Area
0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet

lva

Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)

C Street

9th Street

Project Vicinity

G Street

G Street

December 2009

7th Street

om

ac

Rive

r

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

4

Final: December 2009

K Street is currently a two-way urban arterial roadway with multiple lane configurations within the study area. The roadway generally includes four center travel lanes (two lanes in each direction) for automobiles and buses and median-separated service roads (two lanes in each direction) including an outside lane for parking and loading/unloading and a second lane for travel and right turns. Wide landscaped sidewalks flank the curbs on both sides. The roadway is narrower and consists of only four lanes (two travel and two parking) between Mt. Vernon Square and 12th Street; and only westbound traffic is accommodated between Mt. Vernon Square and 10th Street. The eastbound service lanes are also absent where K Street passes Franklin, McPherson, and Farragut Squares. On the west end of the study area, the primary K Street travel lanes begin descending under Washington Circle at 21st Street; the service lanes continue west at-grade to meet the circle. A detailed description of the existing typical section of K Street is provided in Chapter 2 (Figures 2A and 2B) of this Final Environmental Assessment (EA). The current K Street project uses and builds upon a number of prior studies: the May 2005 K Street Transitway Study Final Report, prepared by DDOT and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA); the 2008 DC Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis prepared by DDOT and WMATA; and the July 2004 K Street Urban Design Charrette, sponsored by the NCPC and the Downtown DC Business Improvement District (BID). The objective of the K Street Transitway Study and the two subsequent efforts was to identify a system of transit, roadway, and infrastructure enhancements that would improve the movement of people and goods through the District of Columbia’s central core. Overall, the goal of the system would be to enhance traffic flow and vehicular safety, provide higher quality transit service, establish needed cross-town transit connections, improve pedestrian safety and access, and facilitate the management of parking and loading zones. Conceptual alternatives were developed and evaluated for their ability to meet the transportation objectives and transform K Street into a highly functioning urban boulevard. Results and recommendations from these studies are highlighted throughout this EA. The K Street project is included in the 2009 National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board’s (TPB’s) Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for 2010-2015.

1.2 Purpose of Project
The purpose of the K Street project is to create a transportation facility that supports mobility, throughput capacity, and economic vitality within the downtown CBD by: • • • providing efficient travel along K Street for all transportation modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles; eliminating roadway infrastructure deficiencies along K Street and improving safety for all K Street users; and, constructing a “Green Street” using exceptional urban design principles and innovative and environmentally sustainable design methods.

5

Final: December 2009

1.3 Needs of the Project
As the main street of Washington’s CBD, K Street provides important opportunities for a variety of user, mode, service, and urban space objectives. There are numerous overlapping needs that must be addressed by the proposed improvements. Therefore, it is essential that a balanced solution to addressing all needs forms the basis for a collaborative K Street vision among a broad range of agency, stakeholder, and public participants. Thus, each need is considered equally in the project evaluation in this EA. For clarity, the need elements are grouped into two categories: Transportation Needs and Urban Design Needs: Transportation Needs – These needs stem from existing deficiencies for moving people and services throughout the K Street study area. • Operational Deficiencies: The existing service lanes on K Street create an inefficient use of transportation right-of-way that is confusing to navigate, especially at the intersections where all right turn movements must be made. Through and turning vehicles on the service roads are frequently blocked by delivery and service vehicles, which adds to the severe traffic congestion. In addition, bus service located in these lanes is inefficient and slow because of the congestion and blockages. The traffic and congestion on K Street have been exacerbated by the closure of two major east/west streets near the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street, for security reasons. High traffic volumes and congestion on K Street place additional traffic and transit operational pressure on the study area corridor. • Modal Interrelationships: Located at the center of Washington, K Street is at the heart of the metropolitan area’s transit network. The street serves large numbers of pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, and buses. Multiple bus routes use K Street, including routes operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA) and commuter routes operated from both Maryland and Virginia. The Metro Red, Blue, and Orange Lines each have stations along the corridor (McPherson Square, Farragut Square, Farragut North, and Foggy Bottom). DDOT, along with WMATA, started the Downtown Circulator service that provides a continuous, east-west transit service through this portion of the city. However, this bus service also has to travel on the two general purpose lanes and due to the volumes and congestion on K Street, this bus service also faces many problems including delays. The performance and route structure of the local bus system that serves the CBD does not provide for intra-CBD transit needs. The street network surrounding K Street is inadequate for the existing and future number of bus routes. Congestion on K Street, coupled with illegal parking/loading, results in slow transit travel times and unreliable schedules. Furthermore, transit ridership is hindered by a lack of adequate amenities such as waiting areas and street furniture that provide an attractive environment for transit patrons.

6

Final: December 2009

There are also no marked bicycle lanes on existing K Street. Today, bicyclists must use either the service lanes or through lanes and mix with other vehicular traffic. • Roadway Deficiencies: The roadway infrastructure along K Street is approximately 35 years old. Pavement and crosswalks have deteriorated and are in poor condition. The roadway sections of K Street between Mt. Vernon Square and Washington Circle vary substantially from block to block, resulting in unexpected lane patterns for drivers and bicyclists. Mobility: The roadway and operational deficiencies described above hinder mobility along a potentially convenient east-west connection through the CBD. Traveling from one end of the corridor to the other involves substantial time delays in traffic, navigating bus transfers, or using the crowded Metro Red Line. Transit users experience reduced mobility reaching jobs, shopping, entertainment, and services. In addition, most of the existing medians (where bus stops are currently located) are not accessible for wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Safety: Access to and from the service lanes introduces unnecessary conflict points among pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, and transit. Vehicles entering and exiting the service lanes sometimes make dangerous movements across the main travel lanes, often in front of buses at service stops. The combination of an inefficient crosssection and severe traffic congestion results in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and pedestrian safety issues.

Urban Design Needs – These needs stem from the strong social desire to create a Great Street founded on exceptional urban design principles. • Street Character – Despite its central location and its important role in Pierre L’Enfant’s historic plan for the nation’s capital, K Street is not regarded as one of Washington’s signature streets or grand boulevards. K Street today has an intermittent and incoherent streetscape that lacks an overall theme and does not provide strong viewsheds. The street lacks a strong urban design and unified presence and suffers from inefficient traffic operations. Variable curb lines and poor pedestrian amenities are inconsistent with the attributes of a “Great Street.” The various roadway cross-sections emphasize automobiles and do not provide an appropriate balance of transportation modes. Today, existing K Street does not invoke a defining image of Washington’s monumental character. Environmental Sustainability – Existing stormwater management along K Street is performed separately from the landscaping and is not treated or reused by street vegetation. Traffic congestion contributes to increased emissions and air pollution. In addition, congestion and poor traffic operations substantially increase energy consumption by K Street transportation users and energy is wasted in passenger vehicles and on buses while idling in traffic.

7

Final: December 2009

1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and Studies
DDOT has completed several planning projects, listed below, that are related to the K Street Project. There are some transportation projects approved for implementation adjacent to the K Street Project identified in the 2006 District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan, the 2009 draft update to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP), as approved by the TPB, or in the FY 2010 to 2015 TIP. 1.4.1 The District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis

The District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis (June 2008), commonly known as DC’s Transit Future, was a planning project undertaken jointly by DDOT and WMATA during 2004 and 2005 and updated in 2008 with a Short Term Implementation Plan. The project defines a network of efficient, high-quality surface transit access throughout the District that offers additional connections between the existing Metrobus and Metrorail systems and to key activity centers throughout the region. The report introduces bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar and local bus components that meet the needs for enhanced transit, in order to support the District’s planning and growth initiatives, and sustain continuing economic growth. The K Street Transitway is identified as a critical segment of the Benning Road/H Street/K Street NW streetcar corridor. Consistent with the DC’s Transit Future, improvements to K Street based on the transitway study would not preclude potential future use by streetcars. 1.4.2 Great Streets Initiative

The Great Streets Initiative is a program developed in partnership between DDOT and the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development, assisted by DDOT. The initiative targets public investment along strategic corridors throughout the city. The K Street corridor is not currently one of the proposed Great Streets, but the following guiding principles of the Great Streets Initiative would address social need elements of the purpose and need: • Changing the public and market perceptions of the corridors through streetscape and transportation improvements, and repositioning them as one of the best places to live and work, consequently expanding the city's tax base; Transforming roadways and intersections into environmentally friendly and usable community open spaces; Changing the existing corridor’s function from simply major vehicular arterials into streets that sustain healthy pedestrian and transit based activities, and consequently support the city's air quality and transportation agendas; Transforming corridors into places that are memorable, compelling, and desirable to visit again and again; and Repositioning the street as a major contributing element to a vital neighborhood.

• •

• •

8

Final: December 2009

1.4.3

The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan

The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan (draft, May 2008) was completed by the DDOT Pedestrian Program. One of the plan “visions” is that Washington, DC will be a city where roadways equally serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists. Two primary goals are to reduce the number of pedestrians killed and injured in crashes with motor vehicles and to increase pedestrian activity by making walking a comfortable and accessible mode of travel throughout all parts of the District. The K Street Project would support these goals within the project area. 1.4.4 District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan

The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan (April 2005) proposes more and better bicycle facilities, more bicycle-friendly policies, and more bicycle-related education, promotion and enforcement. The proposed bikeways do not include K Street specifically; however, bicycle mobility is being considered as part of the analysis for all modes of travel in the K Street Project. 1.4.5 Rehabilitation of New Hampshire Avenue (including Washington Circle Improvements)

DDOT is currently working on plans to rehabilitate New Hampshire Avenue, NW, from DuPont Circle to Virginia Avenue, NW, including Washington Circle. The project includes rehabilitation of the roadway as well as drainage, safety, and signal improvements. The K Street project borders this project at Washington Circle. The improvements planned for this project will be coordinated with the K Street project. 1.4.6 White House Area Transportation Study

FHWA, in cooperation with various DC and federal agencies, is currently working on the White House Area Transportation (WHAT) Study. This study is exploring options for improving traffic flow in the center of the nation's capital and examining alternatives such as reconfiguring traffic patterns on the surrounding streets, reopening E Street, or constructing tunnels under the closed streets. 1.4.7 Mt. Vernon Square District Planning Study

Mt. Vernon Square District Planning Study involves the development of a branding and programming concept for Mt. Vernon Square; efforts to integrate and improve retail along 7th and 9th Streets; improvements to the public space within the square and nearby “bow-tie” parks; improvements to pedestrian access around and to the square; developing the square into a multimodal hub and bus transfer point; improvements to bike access to and around the square; improvements to vehicle circulation around the square; and improvements to the design of bus/bike lanes on 7th and 9th Streets.

9

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

10

Final: December 2009

2. ALTERNATIVES

2
ALTERNATIVES

This section presents the alternatives for K Street, including the alternatives carried forward and the alternatives eliminated from further consideration. The No-Build Alternative is Alternative 1 and it is retained throughout this Final Environmental Assessment (EA) as a baseline for comparison. In 2005, the K Street Transitway Report (2005) was completed as a joint effort by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). The study identified a system of transit, roadway and infrastructure enhancements that would improve the movement of people and goods through the District of Columbia’s central core. The system was designed to enhance traffic flow and vehicular safety, provide higher quality transit service, establish needed cross-town transit connections, improve pedestrian safety and access, and facilitate the management of parking and loading zones. The results of the study formed the basis for the alternatives developed in this Final EA. Multiple alternatives have been analyzed to address the purpose and need of the K Street project. A total of three alternatives, including the No-Build, have been carried forward for additional detailed analysis. Additional alternatives, including those developed from the previous studies, were reviewed but eliminated from further consideration.

2.1 Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative)
The No-Build Alternative includes the existing roadway, median, service lanes, and sidewalks. It assumes that the currently programmed, committed, and/or funded roadway projects in the study area would be completed. The Alternative 1 typical sections are shown on Figures 2A and 2B. Plan sheets are presented in Appendix A. Alternative 1 does not meet the project Purpose and Need because it would not address the operational or roadway deficiencies; would not improve modal interrelationships among transit, automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians; would not improve mobility or safety; and would not improve street aesthetic or environmental character. The No-Build Alternative has been developed to provide a basis for comparison with the build alternatives.

11

BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS

BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND CONNECTICUT AVENUE AT FARRAGUT

Final Environmental Assessment
Not to Scale
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 2A Alt 1: No-Build Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH STREETS

Final Environmental Assessment
Not to Scale
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 2B Alt 1: No-Build Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

Final: December 2009

2.2 Proposed Action
The proposed action consists of the reconfiguration of K Street to efficiently accommodate multimodal travel including an exclusive transitway, bike lanes, sidewalks, parking, and loading/unloading within the existing street right-of-way. Because of the existing physical constraints, not all of the typical section elements desired by the stakeholders could fit within the existing right-of-way; therefore, the two proposed alternatives incorporate different features. For example, Alternative 2 would provide a shared 12-foot outside lane for bicycle use during peak periods and would maintain parking and loading in the off-peak period. Alternative 3 would provide a five-foot bicycle lane adjacent to the curb, would eliminate parking, and would provide pullouts for loading/unloading zones at selected locations along K Street. Table 2.1 provides a comparison of the components for the three alternatives. Table 2.1.
Component General Purpose Lanes Number of Lanes Lane Width (feet) Bus/Transit Lanes Number of Lanes Lane Width (feet) Bus Stops Bus Route Assignment Transitway General Purpose Lanes Sidewalk Width Medians Median Width (feet) Platform Width (feet) Bike Lanes Exclusive or Shared Width (feet) Parking Truck Loading/Unloading Shared N/A Provided in service lanes at all times Provided in service lanes at all times Shared N/A Off-peak only, curbside lane Off-peak only, curbside lane Exclusive 5’ Not provided Available at all times at select locations (one per block) in sidewalk loading pullouts 10’ 10’ 5’ to 11’ 11’ 5’ to 12’ 12’ N/A All buses 19’ and varies DC Circulator, WMATA Commuter and tour/charter buses 19’ and varies DC Circulator, WMATA, Commuter Tour/charter buses 21’ and varies 4 lanes + 2 service lanes 12’ None N/A 22 6 lanes peak / 4 lanes off-peak 12’ curb, 10’ center and median 2 lanes 12’ 16 far side stops in transitway + additional stops for commuter buses in general purpose lanes 4 lanes 10’ outside, 10.5’ median 2 lanes + passing 12’ + 11’ passing 15 near side stops in transitway

Components of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing)

Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative)

14

Final: December 2009

Table 2.1.
Component

Components of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing)

Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative)

Left Turns Allowed at Intersections Eastbound General Purpose Lanes Transitway Westbound General Purpose Lanes Transitway 6 N/A 6 N/A 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1

2.2.1

Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway)

Alternative 2 would provide an exclusive two-way, two-lane median transitway between 20th Street and 9th Street. Alternative 2 would include two 10-foot general purpose travel lanes and one 12-foot travel/off-peak parking lane in each direction of K Street. Raised medians would separate the general purpose travel lanes from the transitway and provide width for passenger platforms and landscaping. The transitway would include one 12-foot lane in each direction. Passenger platforms would be located on the raised medians and they would be typically 11 feet wide. The medians opposite the platforms would vary between five and 11 feet wide, except where they are constrained by reduced roadway widths at Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square parks. Between 12th Street and 9th Street, the existing roadway width reduces to approximately 50 feet; therefore, the medians would be eliminated and the section would include one general purpose travel lane plus one exclusive bus lane in each direction. The Alternative 2 typical sections are shown on Figures 3A and 3B. Plan sheets are presented in Appendix B. The 140-foot long bus platforms would be located approximately every block on the far side of the intersection. Eight bus stops and platforms would be located in both directions at the following locations: Eastbound K Street Bus Stops • • • • • • • • 20th Street intersection 19th Street intersection 18th Street intersection 17th Street intersection 16th Street intersection Vermont Avenue intersection 13th Street intersection 9th Street intersection Westbound K Street Bus Stops • • • • • • • • 19th Street intersection 18th Street intersection Connecticut Avenue intersection 16th Street intersection 15th Street intersection 14th Street intersection 12th Street intersection 9th Street intersection

15

BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS

BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND CONNECTICUT AVENUE AT FARRAGUT

Final Environmental Assessment
Not to Scale
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 3A Alt 2: Two-Lane Transitway Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH STREETS

Final Environmental Assessment
Not to Scale
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 3B Alt 2: Two-Lane Transitway Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

Final: December 2009

Due to the reduced width of K Street at Farragut Square and McPherson Square, the median separating the eastbound general purpose lanes and the two-lane transitway would be eliminated. In addition, the median separating the westbound general purpose lanes and the transitway would be reduced to eight feet wide at Farragut Square and McPherson Square, and to five feet wide at Franklin Square. On both sides of K Street between 20th Street and 12th Street, parking would be limited to off-peak periods only. Where the typical section is constrained at the parks, there would be no parking. On both sides of K Street between 12th Street and 9th Street, parking would be eliminated, including the existing 38 angle parking spaces near 9th Street. In general, the sidewalk widths would not be modified except on the north side of K Street between 16th and 15th Streets where it would be reduced by approximately four feet and at McPherson Square where it would be widened by approximately 6 feet to a width of 12 feet adjacent to the park. The design intent of Alternative 2 would be to minimize impacts to the extensive existing utility network when performing roadway construction, installing light pole foundations, and planting new trees. Coordination with DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) indicates that utilities would be impacted by this project. During agency coordination meetings, the WASA representative noted that they intend to replace K Street water lines and install more subsurface access facilities during street construction. Impacted structures would be relocated following WASA’s standard guidelines, and the design would be approved by WASA. In addition, final design of the location of the medians/transitway platforms will be fine-tuned to minimize adjustments to existing utility systems, including surface features (manholes, handboxes, etc.). The landscape design for Alternative 2 would enhance the existing conditions. The existing landscaped medians would be removed and replaced with new landscaped medians, transit platforms, and trees. In keeping with the existing four-row tree canopy of the corridor and the desire to preserve viewsheds of historic and open space assets, trees would be selected and located to ensure both adequate shade to mitigate the urban heat island effect and to preserve valued viewsheds along the corridor. Alternative 2 would incorporate a variety of tree species to encourage diversity. The curb locations could shift minimally allowing for the preservation of some of the existing healthy trees within the sidewalk along K Street. Continuous tree root zones under the reconstructed sidewalks and along the medians would be utilized to ensure adequate soil for tree growth and vitality. Landscaping at the ground level would incorporate low-impact development strategies such as vegetated swales and infiltration in addition to tree wells with seasonal plantings for enhanced aesthetics. Landscape renderings of Alternative 2 for a typical block and a park block are presented in Appendix B. It is anticipated that K Street under this alternative would be reconstructed in five phases. As part of each phase, several individual sub-phases would be coordinated between the District and the various businesses along K Street to ensure access is maintained to all buildings, parking garages, and alleys. Throughout all phases of construction, the contractor will have to share the work zones with the public which will increase construction time and cost, but
18

Final: December 2009

would be necessary in order to minimize inconveniences on the stakeholders and the public. The five phases of construction would generally include the following elements: 1) remove existing raised medians and repave flush with the roadway surface, 2) shift traffic toward the center of roadway and reconstruct sidewalks and outside edges of roadway, 3) shift traffic toward the edges of roadway and reconstruct center, 4) shift traffic and construct raised medians, and 5) construct final surfaces, architectural treatments, and landscaping. Construction on the intersections would occur from phase 2 through 5. Alternative 2 would improve operational and roadway deficiencies by reconstructing the entire roadway to eliminate the service lanes and create a transitway in the median which would separate the through traffic from the buses that make frequent stops. The typical section proposed for Alternative 2 would accommodate all modes of transportation including improved mobility for automobiles in the general travel lanes, improved travel time for buses in the transitway, accommodation of bicycle lanes in the off-peak period, and replaced/ repaired sidewalks for pedestrian movements. The alternative would also improve mobility and safety by separating the automobile and bicycle traffic from the bus traffic and minimizing left turning vehicles, which would allow all vehicles to flow more easily through the corridor by reducing potential conflict points. The street character and “Green Street” theme would be addressed as part of the reconstruction of the complete street from building face to building face by creating a unified urban design for the roadside area including consistent hardscape materials, enhanced landscaping, improved viewsheds, expanded pedestrian amenities, and the use of low impact development techniques for stormwater runoff needs. Alternative 2 would not require right-of-way acquisitions. The total estimated cost of Alternative 2 would be approximately $139,000,000 (Appendix D). 2.2.2 Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing)

Alternative 3 would provide an exclusive two-way, two-lane median transitway between 20th Street and 9th Street plus provide opportunities for bus passing in blocks that could accommodate a third bus lane. Alternative 3 would include two 10-foot general purpose travel lanes and a five-foot bike lane in each direction. A raised median would separate the general purpose travel lanes from the transitway. The transitway would include one 12-foot lane in each direction, plus an 11-foot center passing lane adjacent to the bus stop area. Passing would be provided in the following eight locations where the roadway width permits: • • • • • • Eastbound and westbound between 20th and 19th Streets Eastbound and westbound between 19th and 18th Streets Westbound between 18th Street and Connecticut Avenue Eastbound between 17th and 16th Streets Westbound between 16th and 15th Streets Westbound between 13th and 12th Streets

The platforms would be located on the raised medians and they would be typically 12 feet wide. The medians opposite the platforms would vary between five and eight feet, except
19

Final: December 2009

where they are constrained by reduced roadway widths at Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square. East of 12th Street, this alternative would be identical to Alternative 2 with one general purpose and one bus lane per direction. The Alternative 3 typical sections are shown on Figures 4A and 4B. Plan sheets are presented in Appendix C. The typical 140-foot long bus platforms would be located approximately every block on the near side of the intersections. Seven platforms would be located in the eastbound direction and eight platforms would be located in the westbound direction at the following locations: Eastbound K Street Bus Stops • • • • • • • 19th Street intersection 18th Street intersection Connecticut Avenue intersection 16th Street intersection 15th Street intersection 14th Street intersection 9th Street intersection (on sidewalk; no platform) Westbound K Street Bus Stops • • • • • • • • 20th Street intersection 19th Street intersection 18th Street intersection 17th Street intersection 16th Street intersection Vermont Avenue intersection 13th Street intersection 9th Street intersection (on sidewalk; no platform)

Due to the reduced width of K Street at Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square, the proposed roadway would shift toward the north curb line through these blocks. At McPherson Square and Franklin Square, the roadway width would be reduced by eliminating the transitway passing lane as well as the median between the eastbound general purpose and bus lanes. At Farragut Square, the roadway width would be further reduced by eliminating the median between the westbound general purpose and bus lanes. Parking would be eliminated along the entire length of K Street under Alternative 3. To accommodate loading/unloading, 7-foot wide pullouts or lay-bys would be located in the sidewalk width, where necessary. Typically, one would be placed in each block along both eastbound and westbound sides, as shown on the plan sheets. They would be located within the sidewalks that are 21’ wide and would be approximately 60 feet long. This alternative would require a sidewalk width change to 21 feet in a few locations; however, sidewalks would not be reduced adjacent to any parks or historic buildings. The design intent of Alternative 3 would be to minimize impacts to the extensive existing utility network when performing roadway construction, installing light pole foundations, and planting new trees. Coordination with DC WASA indicates that a fair amount of their infrastructure would be impacted by this project. During agency coordination meetings, the WASA representative noted that WASA intends to replace K Street water lines and install more subsurface access facilities during street construction. Impacted structures would be relocated following WASA’s standard guidelines, and the design would be approved by WASA. In addition, final design of the location of the medians/transitway platforms will be fine tuned to minimize adjustments to existing utility systems, including surface features (manholes, handboxes, etc.).
20

BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS

BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND CONNECTICUT AVENUE AT FARRAGUT

Final Environmental Assessment
Not to Scale
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 4A Alt 3: Two-Lane Transitway with Passing Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH STREETS

Final Environmental Assessment
Not to Scale
The dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 4B Alt 3: Two-Lane Transitway with Passing Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

Final: December 2009

The landscape design for Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 as previously described in Section 2.2.1. Landscape renderings of Alternative 3 for a typical block and a park block are presented in Appendix C. In addition, the potential construction sequencing for Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 as previously described in Section 2.2.1. Alternative 3 would improve operational and roadway deficiencies by reconstructing the entire roadway to eliminate the service lanes and create a transitway in the median which would separate the through traffic from the buses that make frequent stops. The typical section proposed for Alternative 3 would accommodate all modes of transportation including improved mobility for automobiles in the general travel lanes, improved travel time and passing opportunities for buses in the transitway, accommodation of full-time bicycle lanes, and replaced/repaired sidewalks for pedestrian movements. Alternative 3 would also improve mobility and safety by separating the automobile and bicycle traffic from the bus traffic and minimizing left turning vehicles, which would allow all vehicles to flow more easily through the corridor by reducing potential conflict points and allowing buses to easily pass each other. The street character and “Green Street” theme would be addressed as part of the reconstruction of the complete street from building face to building face by creating a unified urban design for the roadside area including consistent hardscape materials, enhanced landscaping, improved viewsheds, expanded pedestrian amenities, and the use of low impact development techniques for stormwater runoff needs. Alternative 3 would require no right-of-way acquisitions. The total estimated cost of Alternative 3 would be approximately $139,000,000 (Appendix D). 2.2.3 Preferred Alternative

Following the comment period following the September 2009 EA and consideration of comments received from the public and agencies, Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 would provide a balance between all of the modes of travel (transit, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians) and the other roadway uses (parking and loading/unloading), while meeting the project’s purpose and need. As shown in Chapter 3 of this Final EA, the end-to-end bus travel times along the study corridor within the transitway would be up to six minutes faster than the 2030 No-Build Alternative. The end-to-end automobile travel times would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build and four to nine minutes faster than Alternative 3. In Alternative 2, bicycles would share the 12-foot wide curbside lane with automobiles during the peak period and with parked vehicles during the off-peak. Sidewalks would typically remain at the existing width of 19 to 20 feet, and designated crosswalks with timed crossing intervals would continue to be provided for pedestrians. Medians would typically be 11 feet wide at bus platforms to provide landing space for boarding and waiting passengers, which would be one foot wider than existing medians. The elimination of most automobile left turns in Alternative 2 would improve safety and mobility throughout the corridor by limiting potential conflict points.

23

Final: December 2009

Alternative 2 would also provide on-street parking and loading/unloading during the off-peak period in the curbside lane. In summary, Alternative 2 would provide improved operations for buses and automobiles, while still accommodating bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and deliveries. Going forward into final design and eventual operation of the Preferred Alternative/ Alternative 2, one of the benefits of the three peak general purpose/two off-peak general purpose lanes plus curb lane for parking/loading/unloading bicycles configuration is that this layout offers future flexibility in uses for the curb lane. While the initial operating plan for the general purpose lanes is three peak/two off-peak lanes, actual traffic demands (including by bicyclists) could result in this curb lane being reconfigured to become a permanent parking/loading/unloading lane with a defined track for bicycles. This flexible approach for future operations of the general purpose lanes, when coupled with the operational flexibility offered by the two lane transitway, provides Alternative 2 additional advantage.

2.3 Other Alternatives Considered
Several transportation alternatives were evaluated in the 2005 K Street Transitway Report and were considered during the scoping process. Some of the alignments were developed using an exclusive transitway in the center of K Street and utilizing dedicated bus lanes on streets parallel to K Street (H, I, L, and M Streets). Table 2.2 provides a summary description of these alternatives. Alternatives A through H from the 2005 K Street Transitway Report included improvements to K Street as well as surrounding streets including M Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, and Massachusetts Avenue. Alternatives A through F were not carried forward for additional study because they did not meet the purpose and need for the project. Alternatives G and H were identified in the 2005 K Street Transitway Report for future study and were carefully considered during the scoping process for the current project. However, these alternatives were eliminated from this EA in favor of alternatives that better balanced the multimodal needs of the corridor (it should be noted, however, that Build Alternative 2 is similar to previously studied Alternative G).

24

Final: December 2009

Table 2.2.
Alternative Alternative A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Previous Alternatives Eliminated from Consideration

Description Exclusive median transitway All day parking No exclusive transitway in Georgetown or Union Station sections Exclusive median transitway All day parking in blocks between 9th & 10th , 12th & 13th, 14th & Vermont Avenue Off-peak parking elsewhere No exclusive transitway in Georgetown or Union Station sections Exclusive median transitway All day parking in blocks between 9th & 10th, 12th & 13th, 14th & Vermont Avenue Off-peak parking elsewhere Exclusive curbside bus lanes in Georgetown and Union Station sections Exclusive median transitway All day parking in blocks between 9th & 10th, 12th & 13th, 14th & Vermont Avenue Off-peak parking elsewhere Exclusive curbside bus lanes in Georgetown and Union Station sections Fewer bus stops than Alternative C Reroutes some service off K Street to parallel streets Exclusive median transitway Eastbound exclusive bus lane eliminated from 18th to mid-block east of 17th All day parking in blocks between 9th & 10th, 12th & 13th, 14th & Vermont Avenue Off-peak parking elsewhere Exclusive curbside bus lanes in Georgetown and Union Station sections Exclusive median transitway Off-peak parking elsewhere Exclusive curbside bus lanes in Georgetown and Union Station sections Fewer bus stops than Alternative C Reroutes some service off K Street to parallel streets Exclusive median transitway Off-peak parking elsewhere Exclusive curbside bus lanes in Georgetown section No circulator to Georgetown Fewer bus stops than Alternative C Reroutes some service off K Street to parallel streets Exclusive curbside bus lanes All day parking Exclusive curbside bus lanes in Georgetown section No circulator to Georgetown Fewer bus stops than Alternative C Reroutes some service off K Street to parallel streets

Alternative B

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Alternative F

Alternative G

Alternative H

25

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

26

Final: December 2009

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section describes the existing study area environment and the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives. Three alternatives, as described in Chapter 2, were analyzed for impacts: Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative); Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway); and Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing). During the development of this document, the project team coordinated with reviewing agencies, the general public, and interested stakeholders regarding the potential environmental effects of each alternative. Comments and feedback from the agencies and the public have been considered in this analysis. A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in September, 2009. This Final EA addresses comments submitted on the EA, at the public hearing, and during the associated public comment period; and identifies a Preferred Alternative. Project impacts have been evaluated in this Final EA using the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition of significance (40 CFR 1508.27) per NEPA. According to this definition, significance requires consideration of both the context and intensity of impacts. Context refers to the spatial (e.g., region or location) and temporal (e.g., short or long term) setting of the proposed action. Intensity refers to the severity of impact. (a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. More than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity: 1) Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

27

Final: December 2009

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. 8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. Guidance for the determination of indirect and cumulative effects is provided in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508):

Indirect impacts are described in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1508.8(b)) as “…caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” The CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1580.7, 1997) define cumulative effects as “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal, or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions.”.

3.1 Social Characteristics
Social characteristics include neighborhoods, community cohesion, demographics, environmental justice, businesses, and economic vitality.

28

Final: December 2009

3.1.1

Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion

Affected Environment The K Street project is located primarily in the area of DC referred to as “downtown.” The downtown area is bounded by Constitution Avenue, Rock Creek Park, M Street NW, and the US Capitol, and includes several neighborhoods: West End, Foggy Bottom, Mt. Vernon Square/Convention Center, and Chinatown. The downtown area includes the heart of Washington’s Central Business District (CBD). The K Street project corridor is not defined by any residential neighborhood, although several do abut the corridor, such as West End and Mount Vernon, and many persons reside along the streets that surround the project corridor. Rather, for purposes of this discussion, the K Street “neighborhood” refers to the business community that surrounds the street (occupying the buildings that face on K Street and those that adjoin K Street on the many cross streets within the study corridor) and the many individuals that are employed here and interact on a daily basis. Thus, the neighborhood includes many businesses and professional associations, retail establishments, hotels, eateries and other establishments. In addition to those who regularly spend their workdays within the buildings that surround the K Street corridor, the neighborhood includes those individuals who spend their non-work time in the corridor (recreation, shopping, dining, attending church or school, professional appointments, and other pursuits). Social groups in the neighborhood include employers and employees; residents; commuters; visitors/shoppers/diners; and through travelers. The variety of transportation modes in the project area (pedestrian, bicycle, automobile, bus, and Metrorail) provides mobility and access that strengthens the existing sense of community and interactions among these social groups. Community cohesion usually refers to the social effect that binds a neighborhood together to create a community of individuals within a defined area. For this evaluation, community cohesion specifically refers to the interactivity of the business owners and other professional and non-professional people who spend their days or nights employed or visiting along the K Street study corridor. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative would not affect the neighborhood or community cohesion. However, increasing congestion and increasing travel times through and within the corridor could heighten a sense of traffic as a barrier to access or perform commerce on K Street. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would cause direct impacts to K Street neighborhood and community cohesion by affecting the on-street parking that is used by people in the neighborhood. As shown in Section 3.3.4, 39 percent (or 130 spaces) of the on-street
29

Final: December 2009

parking on K Street would be eliminated by Alternative 2 and the remaining 200 spaces would only be available during off-peak hours (9:30 AM to 3:00 PM and 6:30 PM to 7:00 AM). By eliminating these spaces, Alternative 2 would cause inconvenience to those who drive to the area for work or peak-hour appointments and wish to park on the street. Onstreet parking, however, would not be affected on area side streets nor would the capacities of project area parking garages be changed, thereby minimizing this effect. During peak hours, on-street parking on area side streets and in local parking garages is expected to accommodate the spaces eliminated on K Street. Moreover, since approximately 39 percent of the downtown work force already uses public transportation (Downtown Leadership Paper, Number 3, July 2008), improvements in bus operations and more reliable bus schedules are expected to attract more commuters (and visitors) to mass transit. In the 2008 Downtown Pedestrian Study (Downtown BID), it was noted that more than half of the pedestrians surveyed (54 percent) rode Metro to get to downtown and few (19 percent) drive their own cars. In the same survey, only 12 percent of those responding cited a need for more parking garages. Therefore, given the context of the urbanized K Street setting and the high use of transit, the changes to on-street parking would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood or to community cohesion. The transitway would create changes in access and travel patterns by removing the service lanes and separating through bus and vehicle traffic. This would have an effect on community cohesion. However, because the project area is already served by frequent bus service and by median-separated service lanes, and because points for crossing K Street would remain at the existing intersections, the new transitway would not directly affect those who cross K Street, nor present any barrier to cohesion between north and south neighbors on K Street. Based on the above analysis, the direct effects do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity from the CEQ definition. Although impacts to the human environment caused by the loss of some on-street parking are somewhat controversial, it is recognized by the business community that the loss would be offset by the benefits gained by the project (refer to comments summarized in Chapter 4). Therefore, the effects are not considered significant. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Alternative 3 would generally have the same effects to neighborhoods and community cohesion as Alternative 2. However, because all on-street parking on K Street would be eliminated at all times under Alternative 3, the effects to the neighborhood and community cohesion would be slightly greater than Alternative 2. It is still expected that on-street parking on area side streets and in local parking garages would have the capacity to accommodate the eliminated spaces (refer to Section 3.3.4). The three-lane transitway would not create a barrier between neighbors north and south of K Street. Therefore, similar to Alternative 2, the direct impacts from Alternative 3 do not meet the criteria from the CEQ definition of significance either in context or intensity. The loss of all on-street parking was a factor for not identifying Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative.

30

Final: December 2009

3.1.2

Population and Employment

Affected Environment For the purpose of this socioeconomic evaluation, study area population data are based on twelve US Census block groups that are located are directly adjacent to the K Street corridor (Figure 5). Table 3.1 summarizes the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Washington, DC and the study area and provides crucial background information on the project area. In 2008, the US Census Bureau estimated the District of Columbia’s population at 591,833 residents, an increase of about 3.5 percent since 2000. However, because of commuters from the surrounding suburbs, its population rises to over one million during the work week. The Washington Metropolitan Area, which contains the District of Columbia, has a population of 5.3 million and is the ninth largest metropolitan area in the United States. The K Street corridor and study area lie at the center of this metropolitan area and are home to more than 13,000 residents (Table 3.1). The labor force is defined by the US Census as individuals 16 years of age and older. Within the study area, of those people who are an eligible age to work, 55 percent are employed. Nearly 43 percent of the District's labor force walks to work, 30 percent use public transportation, 22 percent use a car, truck or van, and the remaining five percent use other means or work from home. The occupation for the majority of DC residents and people residing within the project area is “management, professional/related occupations” (51 percent in DC and 55 percent in the study area). “Sales and office occupations” is the second most common occupation within DC and the study area (23 percent in DC and 24 percent in the study area). Service occupations are filled by approximately 16 percent of DC residents and 15 percent of residents within the study area. Occupations of the employed population who live within the study area are summarized in Table 3.2. The broader K Street corridor has approximately 230,000 jobs. The majority of the jobs (200,000) are office positions such as lawyer, banker, secretary, librarian, non-profits, etc. The remaining 30,000 jobs are in the service industry and may be divided into seven job types: • • • • • • • 7,000 hotel workers 7,000 retail workers 10,000 restaurant workers 2,000 museum workers 1,000 security workers 400 building management workers 2,000 nurses, medical technicians

In general, 18 percent of the jobs in the downtown area provide salaries of less than $50,000; 34 percent provide salaries between $50,000 and $75,000; and 48 percent provide salaries over $75,000.
31

Final: December 2009

Table 3.1.
BG 4802-2 BG 4902-2 BG 5100-1 BG 5202-1 BG 5302-1 BG 5401-1 BG 5402-1 BG 5500-3 BG 5600-1 BG 5701-1 BG 5800-1

K Street Population Characteristics
BG Total

DC

BG 4700-3

Demographics Total 572,059 1,140 1,797 1,527 783 760 175 1,462 1 1,479 1,821 1,400 1,470 13,815 Population 176,101 52 69 395 471 325 150 1,151 1,244 1,355 993 741 6,946 White 0 (31%) (5%) (4%) (26%) (60%) (43%) (86%) (79%) (84%) (75%) (71%) (50%) (50%) Black or 343,312 956 1,401 941 195 163 7 79 65 87 115 203 4,212 0 African (60%) (84%) (78%) (62%) (25%) (21%) (4%) (5%) (4%) (5%) (8%) (14%) (31%) American American 1,713 10 7 23 6 3 4 3 4 4 2 Indian / 66 0 0 (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (2%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) Alaskan (<1%) Native 15,189 84 243 38 35 154 8 167 1 122 266 238 491 1,847 Asian (3%) (7%) (14%) (2%) (5%) (20%) (5%) (11%) (100%) (8%) (15%) (17%) (33%) (13%) Native 348 1 8 1 7 1 Hawaiian / 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) (<1%) Pacific (<1%) Islander 21,950 11 64 91 34 67 2 11 14 42 23 12 371 Other Race 0 (4%) (<1%) (5%) (6%) (4%) (8%) (1%) (<1%) (<1%) (2%) (1%) (<1%) (3%) Two or 13,446 26 13 39 42 48 8 42 31 66 20 20 355 0 More Races (2%) (2%) (<1%) (3%) (5%) (6%) (5%) (3%) (2%) (7%) (1%) (1%) (3%) Hispanic or 44,953 15 99 378 89 140 23 110 86 123 56 62 1,181 0 Latino (8%) (1%) (6%) (25%) (11%) (18%) (13%) (8%) (6%) (7%) (4%) (4%) (9%) Income Median Household $40,127 $11,898 $23,671 $35,870 $36,250 $28,787 $64,167 $42,148 0 $65,139 $30,168 $11,528 $40,644 $32,522 Income Total N/A 1,106 1,829 1,537 733 782 184 1,221 0 1,508 1,772 324 1,422 12,418 Population* Individuals 2,821 Below 465 381 220 69 203 6 182 265 412 172 446 (20%) 0 Average (42%) (21%) (14%) (9%) (26%) (3%) (15%) (18%) (23%) (53%) (31%) Poverty 21% Level Source: US Census, 2000 * The total population for block groups used to calculate percentages of individuals below poverty level varies for the data on income as not all respondents include income information.

32

Q Street

Dupont Circle Logan Circle
e Av

Shaw

P Street
Ma ssa c
tA ve

16th Street

R

Je New

Georgetown
Av e

oc

kC
d lan

17th Street

reek P k w
hu set ts A ve
on

y

Truxton Circle
rsey

Is ode Rh

O Street

ire

11th Street 10th Street

22nd Street

21st Street

ec nn Co

Ave

m

ps h

Ha

ve tA ticu

West End
Ne w

Ver m

N Street

N Street

M Street

4802 2
ork wY Ne e Av

25th Street

20th Street

19th Street

18th Street

5500 3 5302 1 5100 1 Franklin Square 5401 1 5402 1
K Street I Street I Street
syl van Pe nn

L Street

5202 1

15th Street

Mt. Vernon Square

Washington Circle Farragut Square McPherson Square

4902 2 Mt. Vernon Square 5800 1
I Street
Ma

7th Street

Study Area

4700 3

5600 1

5701 1
H Street

ssa c

hu

set

24thStreet

23rd Street

14th Street

ia Av e

13th Street

12th Street

k Creek Pkw y

Vi rg

in

Foggy Bottom
F Street

The White House
Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic
E S t r e et

F Street

9th Street

Ro c

H Street

ia A ve

Layafette Park

e Av rk Yo ew N

Chinatown
G Street

H Street

ts A ve

G Street

Judiciary Square
E Street

E Street

Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)

iver ac R otom P
The Ellipse
C Street Constitution Ave

Pen n

sylv

D Street
ani aA ve

Legend
Study Area Census Tracts - Block Groups
Madison Drive

Final Environmental Assessment
Figure 5: US Census Block Groups
0 200 400 800 1,200 1,600 Feet

K Street

December 2009

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

34

Final: December 2009

Table 3.2.
BG 4700-3 BG 4802-2 BG 4902-2 BG 5100-1 BG 5202-1 BG 5302-1 BG 5401-1 BG 5402-1 BG 5500-3 BG 5600-1 BG 5701-1 BG 5800-1

K Street Occupation of Employed Population
BG Total

Occupation

DC

134,387 (51%) 0 98 (35%) 0 0 182 (15%) 76 (27%) 287 (41%) 240 (24%) 66 (15%) 82 (17%) 15 (10%) 250 (24%) 199 (28%) 275 (27%) 62 (14%) 115 (24%) 13 (9%) 71 (7%) 34 (3%) 131 (12%) 189 (17%)

60 (21%)

123 (18%)

348 (35%)

299 (66%)

255 (52%)

117 (81%)

673 (67%)

960 (80%)

787 (70%)

155 (37%) 38 (9%) 230 (54%)

421 (50%) 163 (19%) 197 (24%)

4,198 (55%) 1,199 (15%) 1,814 (24%)

42,308 (16%)

59,966 (23%)

146 (<1%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

12,571 (5%) 0

12 (4%)

4 (1%)

87 (9%)

14 (3%)

6 (1%)

4 (1%)

0

10 (1%)

10 (1%)

0

6 (1%)

153 (2%)

Management, professional, and related occupations Service Occupations Sales and Office Occupations Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupation Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance Occupations Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations Total 33 (12%) 86 (12%) 55 (5%) 8 (2%) 31 (6%) 0 11 (1%) 0 6 (1%) 0 0 279 (4%) 699 (9%) 1,005 (13%) 449 (6%) 489 (6%) 145 (2%) 1,009 (13%) 0 1,192 (16%) 1,117 (15%) 423 (5%)

13,730 (5%)

47 (6%)

277 (4%)

469,041

834 (11%)

7,641

Source: US. Census 2000

35

Final: December 2009

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no direct effect to population or employment within the study area. However, over time, continued inefficient operations along K Street are expected to have a detrimental indirect effect on local businesses and employment at those businesses. As noted from studies completed by the Downtown BID in 2009, if workers cannot commute to and through K Street comfortably and efficiently, tenants and jobs will leave the CBD. Thus, any new employment growth in DC will fill in the office space vacated by businesses leaving, rather than generate demand for future development. This would indirectly slow the future employment in emerging areas of the CBD, such as the Mount Vernon Triangle, NoMa, Capitol Riverfront and Poplar Point. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) Although the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would affect the K Street neighborhood (as noted in Section 3.1.1), it would have no effect on the surrounding population or the number of people that reside in the project area. Specifically, there would be no change to the surrounding land use; therefore the amount of available residential space within the K Street corridor would remain the same. There would be effects from construction (e.g., noise, roadway lane closures, and partial sidewalk closures) that would make the project corridor less desirable for new residents and thus reduce the demand for population growth. However, these effects would be temporary. Any adverse effects to population incurred during construction would be temporary and would be offset by the more efficient permanent transportation facility that would eventually generate higher demand for population growth. Similarly, Alternative 2 would have a temporary negative effect on employment in surrounding businesses from noise, lane closures, and partial sidewalk closures. These effects would make employment along K Street less desirable during construction. Temporary effects would be minimized because access for employment locations along K Street would remain open during the entire construction period (Refer to Section 3.13.4). Construction activities would also result in a temporary increase in employment of construction workers. As with effects to population, any negative temporary effects to employment would be offset by a more efficient permanent transportation facility that would generate higher demand for employment. As stated by the Downtown BID (See Appendix E), the K Street project would create a stronger and more attractive K Street that would increase demand for employment directly along K Street as well as indirectly in the emerging markets of the District of Columbia’s Center City area and in neighborhood commercial corridors throughout the city, such as H Street, NE, and Georgia Avenue, NW. Furthermore, land use along the K Street corridor would not change with Alternative 2, so the current amount of employment opportunity would remain. Based on the public and agency comments received, and support from the BIDs, the project is not considered controversial. The level of controversy has been further assessed based on additional public comments received during the EA review period. Overall, based on the above analysis, the direct effects on population and employment do not meet the criteria for either
36

Final: December 2009

context or intensity from the CEQ definition. significant. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing)

Therefore, the effects are not considered

Alternative 3 would have similar temporary and permanent effects to population and employment as Alternative 2. 3.1.3 Environmental Justice

Affected Environment This project has been developed in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1968, and Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice (EJ) in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which requires Federal agencies to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects. A minority person is defined as one who is Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian American, American Indian, Native Alaskan, another non-white race, or two or more races. A low-income person is defined as a person having an income at or below the federal poverty level as defined by the Department of Health and Human Service’s guidelines. The US Census evaluates race separately from the Hispanic or Latino classification. Hispanic or Latino people may therefore identify with one or more races in addition to identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino. As shown in Table 3.2, three block groups (4700-3, 4802-2, and 4902-2) contain a greater percentage of racial minorities than the City-wide average of 69 percent. Four block groups (4700-3, 4802-2, 4902-2, and 5202-1) contain a greater percentage of racial minorities than the study area/block group total (50 percent). The designation of Hispanic or Latino is evaluated separately from race. Four block groups (4902-2, 5100-1, 5202-1, and 5302-1) contain a higher percentage of Hispanic or Latino population than both the City-wide average and the study area/block group total (8 and 9 percent, respectively). The population within seven block groups (4700-3, 4802-2, 4902-2, 5100-1, 5202-1, 5600-1, and 5701-1) has a lower median household income than the City-wide average of $40,127. The population within five block groups (4700-3, 4802-2, 5202-1, 5600-1, and 5701-1) has a lower median household income than the study area/block group average of $32,522. Six block groups (4700-3, 4802-2, 5202-1, 5600-1, 5701-1, and 5800-1) have a higher percent of the population living below poverty level than the City-wide average (20 percent). Five block groups (4700-3, 5202-1, 5600-1, 5701-1, and 5800-1) have a higher percent of the population living below poverty level than the study area/block group total (21 percent). In summary, low income and minority populations are located mostly in the block groups surrounding the ends of the project improvement area. The block groups with the greatest minority populations (74 to 96 percent) are east and north of Mt. Vernon Square and outside of the area of improvements. The block groups with the most persons below poverty level (23 to 53 percent) are east and south of Mt. Vernon Square and south and west of Washington Circle (also
37

Final: December 2009

outside of the area of improvements), and in the block group between Lafayette Park and Dupont Circle (inside the area of project improvements only between 16th Street and Connecticut Avenue). Guidance from the CEQ states that “Throughout the process of public participation, agencies should elicit views of the affected populations on measure to mitigate a disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect…and should carefully consider community views in developing and implementing mitigation strategies.” Public outreach efforts are a critical element in the assessment of environmental justice impacts. Throughout the development of this project, an extensive public involvement program was developed and implemented. Outreach included public notices of both the Public Workshop and the Public Hearing posted on buses in both English and Spanish languages and advertised in both the Washington Post and The Current, a free local newspaper. The outreach efforts to minority and low-income communities are summarized in Section 4.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impact to EJ communities. The No-Build Alternative would not improve transportation and transit operations in the study area. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) As stated above and shown in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, the K Street corridor is located within a highly diverse and economically prosperous neighborhood. Impacts to the K Street neighborhood (described in this section and throughout Section 3.1) would directly affect all populations within the study area equally. Specifically, the implementation of a build alternative would improve transportation and transit operations in the study area, thus resulting in easier mobility for all transit users throughout the corridor. The improved public transportation system would benefit not only the minority and low-income individuals residing within the study area, but also workers and visitors who commute and travel to the area. The exclusive transitway would increase the transit rider capacity, decrease travel time, and relieve congestion on K Street and surrounding streets. The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would cause direct effects to EJ populations, however, these would not be disproportionately high or adverse. Alternative 2 would cause a change in the availability and cost of parking, which would directly affect low-income persons who rely on inexpensive parking as well as all others who park on K Street. Alternative 2 would eliminate 39 percent (approximately 130) of the on-street parking along K Street (refer to Section 3.3.4); however, approximately 200 low-cost curbside parking spaces would remain that would be available during off-peak hours. The current cost of on-street parking ranges from free to $2 per hour. There are also 37 parking garages with 8,000 public parking spaces in the study area. Garage parking generally costs between $7 and $10 for the first hour, with daily maximum costs ranging from $15 to over $20. Because on-street parking would be less available, and parking in garages would be more expensive, it would be more difficult to park in the K Street corridor for all individuals. All individuals who would park on K Street would be impacted alike in the loss of approximately 130 on-street parking/loading spaces throughout the length of the project area,

38

Final: December 2009

but those with lower incomes would be most affected because the higher cost of parking in a garage would represent a larger percentage of their income. However, these effects would be lessened because on-street parking would continue to be available on surrounding side streets in the study area, and on-street parking would remain on K Street during off-peak hours. In addition, the increase in parking cost would be offset by increased bus efficiency and reliability (Refer to Section 3.3.2), which is a less expensive mode of travel than driving and would reduce some of the parking demand. The new transportation alignment would be available for all persons and would not disproportionately affect any specific EJ populations. Temporary construction effects from Alternative 2 (described in Section 3.13) would affect all persons in the K Street neighborhood equally, and would not be disproportionately high or adverse to EJ populations. Based on the above analysis, the direct effects to EJ populations are neither disproportionately high nor adverse. Furthermore, given the context of the project location, project improvements would occur away from predominantly low-income or minority areas. Additional impacts to environmental justice communities caused by removal of on-street parking would be offset by increased transit efficiency and on-street parking in other locations, and are therefore not severe. Therefore, the effects are not considered significant. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) There would be no disproportionately high or adverse effect to EJ populations as a result of Alternative 3. However, Alternative 3 would eliminate all of the on-street parking along K Street, so the indirect effects to low-income communities would be slightly greater than Alternative 2. As with Alternative 2, short-term parking would still be available on side streets and garages, and increased transit capacity would offset the potential increase in parking cost. Thus, similar to Alternative 2, the effects to EJ populations from Alternative 3 are neither disproportionately high nor adverse and are not considered significant. 3.1.4 Businesses and Economic Vitality

Affected Environment The businesses along the K Street corridor were inventoried via a walking survey conducted in June and July 2009. The majority of the businesses along K Street are professional or administrative offices that occupy the commercially zoned buildings. Many restaurants and cafes are located along the corridor. Between 10 and 15 restaurants offer seasonal outside seating along the sidewalks. Several of the larger restaurants offer valet parking during peak and off-peak hours; however, it is permitted during the peak hours only where service lanes exist. There are also approximately ten hotels located within the project area. The K Street corridor has a number of retail businesses operating on the street level of many professional buildings, but the majority of the commercial space is occupied by professional and administrative offices. Wide sidewalks (approximately 19 feet) provide for pedestrian traffic and outdoor seating for restaurants and other businesses. The outdoor areas contribute to the economic viability of the restaurants and also add to the vibrancy of the street.

39

Final: December 2009

The existing configuration of K Street includes on-street parking along the majority of the corridor as well as parking garages along K Street and surrounding side streets (parking details are provided in Section 3.3.4). Most businesses along K Street are equipped with docks accessible via alleys and side streets. In a survey in which 59 businesses provided responses, 79 percent receive deliveries from locations not on K Street or its service lanes. K Street currently allows signed on-street loading between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM along sections of most blocks. This loading is used by commercial vehicles, package delivery trucks, and for front door deliveries. On-street loading is used by both ground floor retail and the multiple floors of office space above. The alleys that allow loading/unloading on most blocks are frequently blocked and difficult to use during business hours, and many of the project area’s cross streets (such as Connecticut Avenue and 17th Street) are thoroughfares that have limited loading space. The K Street study area is economically sound and vibrant. There are few vacant properties or lots within the corridor. One of the goals of the K Street Transitway project is to improve and enhance the character of the K Street corridor to boost the economic vitality and create a Great Street. Environmental Consequences Table 3.3 provides a summary assessment of the effects of the alternatives on business operations and economic vitality. Table 3.3. Assessment of the Project Alternatives on Business Operations and Economic Vitality
Assessment of Effects On: Alternative 1 No-Build Preferred Alternative/ Alternative 2 Two-Lane Transitway Enhances transit efficiency; reduces onstreet parking during peak hours Enhances transit operations; moves buses further from outside dining areas; and reduces on-street parking during peak hours Enhances transit efficiency and reduces on-street parking during peak hours Enhances transit efficiency and reduces on-street parking during peak hours Alternative 3 Two-Lane With Passing Transitway Enhances transit efficiency considerably; eliminates on-street parking during peak hours Enhances transit efficiency; and eliminates on-street parking during peak hours Enhances transit efficiency; and eliminates on-street parking during peak hours Enhances transit efficiency and eliminates on-street parking during peak hours

Professional and administrative offices along K Street

No enhancement in transit efficiency for employees

Restaurants and cafes1 along K Street

No enhancement in transit operations for employees or customers

Hotels2 along K Street

No enhancement in transit efficiency for employees or customers No enhancement in transit efficiency for employees or customers

First floor retail3 along K Street

40

Final: December 2009

Table 3.3. Assessment of the Project Alternatives on Business Operations and Economic Vitality
Assessment of Effects On: Street vendors licensed to operate along K Street On-street parking along the majority of the corridor, as well as parking garages along K Street and surrounding side streets Alternative 1 No-Build Preferred Alternative/ Alternative 2 Two-Lane Transitway Enhanced street character would provide a more amenable condition for pedestrians Further reduces on-street parking on the corridor during peak hours, with parking elsewhere fulfilling these needs4 Alternative 3 Two-Lane With Passing Transitway Enhanced street character would provide a more amenable condition for pedestrians Eliminates on-street parking on the corridor during peak hours, with parking needs elsewhere fulfilling these needs

No changes anticipated from existing condition

No changes anticipated from existing condition

NOTES: 1. Currently, ten to fifteen restaurants/cafes offer seasonal outside seating, and some of these also offer valet parking (valet parking is permissible during peak hours only where there is a service lane). 2. Approximately ten hotels operate along K Street, most of which offer valet parking . 3. A modest level of retail is present along K Street today. 4. There are currently peak hour parking restrictions in place at some locations along K Street, Alernative 2 will eliminate all spaces that currently allow parking during the peak hours.

Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative would not directly impact businesses or economic resources in the project area. However, under the No-Build Alternative, the area would continue to experience traffic congestion which would hinder access to local businesses, thereby hampering economic vitality and discouraging economic development. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would provide a high quality design and streetscape that could attract consumers and visitors to this already successful street which currently has only a few vacant properties. The alternative meets the project goal of improving and enhancing the character of the K Street corridor to support economic vitality. Wide sidewalks would remain throughout the corridor to continue to provide for outdoor seating and landscaping amenities that benefit businesses. From the preliminary engineering phase through final design, specific landscaping strategies would be developed to enhance the length of K Street. Design strategies would focus on key locations adjacent to the public parks (Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square) and on the significant L’Enfant Plan corridors such as Connecticut Avenue, 16th Street and Vermont Avenue. The design strategies would be developed towards the goal of creating a Great Street/green street, with a focus on low impact development, an improved tree canopy, context-sensitive solutions and the integration of public art. Together with improved traffic conditions and reliable, faster transit, these design strategies would serve to enhance and support the continuing economic vitality of K Street. As stated previously, Alternative 2 would eliminate approximately 39 percent of the on-street parking spaces located along K Street. The remaining spaces would only be available during the
41

Final: December 2009

off-peak hours. Reducing parking spaces would affect businesses by causing inconvenience to employees, consumers and visitors wishing to park along K Street during peak hours. The reduced parking would also impact businesses from outside of the area that provide their services on K Street. The large number of on-street parking spaces along cross streets as well as local garage parking capacity would lessen this impact, as would the increased efficiency and reliability of transit (Section 3.3.2). In addition to off-peak hours, valet parking is permitted during peak hours where there is a service lane. The prohibition of parking during peak hours would impact valet parking. In addition, reduced on-street parking during off-peak hours would reduce valet opportunities for hotels and restaurants because of parking space competition with other users. However, valet locations would be able to shift appropriately for changing tenants. Improved transit as provided by the exclusive transitway would make buses a more attractive mode of transportation for employees and visitors to K Street. Moving the buses to the center lanes would also mean more attractive outdoor dining for the restaurants along the street, with bus noise and exhaust being moved to the center of the roadway. Loading access and timing would be changed under Alternative 2. Loading/unloading would be permitted in the third travel lane. Businesses would be required to receive deliveries during offpeak hours along K Street or use their existing loading docks and/or alternate points of access on side streets and alleys. This would cause an inconvenience to businesses, especially those that may not have ready access to side streets or alleys for they would need to make delivery arrangements during off-peak hours. The restriction of on-street loading spaces to off-peak hours would disrupt the timing of deliveries, especially for businesses that generally receive deliveries during peak hours. During peak periods, Alternative 2 would cause delivery persons to travel further between their vehicle and the delivery destination. For businesses that do have access to side streets or alleys, these pathways would become more congested during peak hours. The inconvenience would also affect the delivery businesses that may be located outside of the K Street project area. Temporary impacts caused during construction, such as increased noise, lane closures, and partial sidewalk closures are expected to affect the attractiveness of retail businesses and ease of patron access to businesses. Temporary impacts would beminimized by keeping business access open during the construction period. Additional details on temporary construction effects are described in Section 3.14. The Downtown BID, a group comprised of the major businesses in the project area, has expressed their support for the proposed project. They state that the stronger and more attractive K Street is, the greater the demand would be for new development projects not only in downtown, but indirectly in the emerging markets of the District of Columbia’s Center City area and in neighborhood commercial corridors throughout the city, such as H Street, NE, and Georgia Avenue, NW. As discussed in their statement in Appendix E, these new development projects would provide employment for DC residents and improve the economic vitality of the corridor. Based on the above analysis, the direct effects to businesses and economic vitality caused by Alternative 2 do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity from the CEQ definition.
42

Final: December 2009

Temporary impacts would be offset by the benefits of the completed project. Although impacts to the human environment caused by the loss of some on-street parking are somewhat controversial, it is recognized by the business community that the loss would be offset by the benefits gained by the project (refer to Chapter 4). Therefore, the effects are not considered significant. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) The effects to businesses from Alternative 3 would be similar to those from Alternative 2; however, Alternative 3 would result in greater congestion in the general travel lanes and eliminate all on-street parking on K Street during both peak and off-peak hours, and thus would make travel to businesses more difficult for automobiles. The large number of on-street parking spaces along cross streets and local garage parking capacity would lessen the effects to businesses caused by eliminated parking spaces (Section 3.3.4). In addition, improved bus efficiency and reliability would make them a more attractive form of transportation for employees and business patrons to K Street. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading areas in designated portions of the corridor within the sidewalk width. The pullout loading/unloading areas would be clearly signed and marked and would generally occupy approximately seven feet of the 21-foot wide sidewalk. The remaining sidewalk clear zone of 14 feet would exceed the standard Washington, DC clear zone of 10 feet. Alternative 3 would continue to provide for outdoor seating and landscaping amenities that benefit businesses; however, in some locations, delivery pull-outs would affect the amount of usable sidewalk space, especially while deliveries are being made. This would have an adverse effect on the desirability of business locations. The removal of sidewalk space would reduce the ability to create outdoor eating areas for restaurants and cafes. Because the ability to load/unload along K Street would still be permitted, effects to the timing of loading patterns would be minor compared to Alternative 2; however, under Alternative 3, loading would only be available along K Street at one designated pull-out per block. These limited locations are not expected to meet the loading demands for many of K Street’s business tenants. The limited loading locations would be conveniently located for some tenants, but inconvenient for others, depending on their proximity to a pull-out. Delivery persons would be required to travel further between their vehicle and the delivery destination. Valet parking is expected to be limited primarily to pull-out areas and garage entrances under Alternative 3. Valet service would be permitted during peak and off-peak periods, which would provide more time availability than existing conditions for some restaurants. However, reduced on-street parking would reduce valet opportunities for hotels and restaurants because of parking space competition with other users. In addition, valet locations would be determined by the location of sidewalk pull-outs and not be able to shift appropriately for changing tenants. Wide sidewalks would remain throughout the corridor to continue to provide for outdoor seating and landscaping amenities that benefit businesses. Detailed landscaping strategies would be developed from the preliminary engineering phase through final design. As with Alternative 2, these enhancements to the street’s character would unite the entire length of K Street, with focus on key locations adjacent to the public parks and on the significant L’Enfant Plan corridors. The design strategies would be developed towards the goal of creating a Great Street/green street,
43

Final: December 2009

with a focus on low impact development, an improved tree canopy, context-sensitive solutions and the integration of public art. Together with improved traffic conditions and reliable, faster transit, these design strategies would serve to enhance and support the continuing economic vitality of K Street. Temporary impacts to businesses caused by the construction of Alternative 3 would be the same as those caused by Alternative 2. The effects to businesses and economic vitality do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity from the CEQ definition. As with Alternative 2, temporary impacts would be offset by future increased economic vitality. Although impacts to the human environment caused by the loss of some on-street parking are somewhat controversial, it is recognized by the business community that the loss would be offset by the benefits gained by the project. Therefore, the effects from Alternative 3 are not considered significant. Nevertheless, the loss of all on-street parking was a factor for not identifying Alternative 3 as the Preferred Alternative.

3.2 Community Facilities
Affected Environment The community resources located within the study area shown on Figure 6 and are listed in Table 3.4. Resources identified include schools, libraries, churches and religious institutions, parks and recreational facilities, post offices, emergency services (fire department and police stations), and embassies.

44

P Street
e Av

Dupont Circle Logan Circle
16th Street

Ro

ck

Cre

e k P kw y

Dupont Circle

22nd Street

21st Street

17th Street

M
od Rh
tA ve

d lan e Is

O Street

n Co

tic nec

Av e

sh ire

ve ut A

p

hus etts Ave

m

Ver m

11th Street

Ha

Ne w

M Street
Thomson Elementary School

10th Street

M
Mt. Vernon Sq/7th StConvention Center

20th Street

19th Street

25th Street

18th Street

L Street
Farragut North

M
K Street

15th Street

West End
Study Area
Cornerstone Family Ministries

Mt. Vernon Square

Mt. Vernon Square McPherson Square

Washington Circle Farragut Square
I Street

M
Third Church of Christ, Scientist

M

Franklin Square
I Street
Franklin School Asbury Methodist Church Mt. Vernon Place United Methodist Church

Foggy Bottom/GWU

M
Pe nn syl van ia A ve

I Street H Street

Farragut West

McPherson Square

H Street
e Av rk Yo w Ne

24th Street

23rd Street

H Street

Layafette Park
G Street

Chinatown

M
Metro Center

14th Street

13th Street

12th Street

Vi rg

in

ia Av e

Foggy Bottom
F Street

Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic

The White House

F Street

E Street

E Street
E S t re e t

Legend
Study Area Parks Schools Libraries Embassies Uruguay Tajikistan

Finaln Environmental Assessment Pe
M
Metro Stations Police Stations

K Street
Spain

The Ellipse
C Street

Hospitals Post Office
0 200 400

Fire Stations Places Of Worship
800 1,200 1,600 Feet

Figure 6:ia Ave Community Resources
December 2009

nsy

lvan

Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)

9th Street

G Street

Gallery Place/ Chinatown

M

7th Street

Ma ssa c

on

N Street

N Street

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

46

Final: December 2009

Table 3.4.
Community Facility

Community Facilities within the K Street Project Area
Address/Location Schools 1200 L Street 925 13th Street (corner of 13th and K Streets) 1003 K Street Southwest of study area in Foggy Bottom neighborhood Mt. Vernon Square Churches and Religious Institutions 11th and K Streets Massachusetts Avenue and K Street 900 16th Street Western end of the project limit K Street between 17th and 16th Streets K Street between Vermont Avenue and 15th Street K Street between 14th and 13th Streets K Street between 9th and 7th Streets Post Offices 1400 L Street 800 K Street 1050 Connecticut Avenue Emergency Services 1018 13th Street NW 2301 L Street Embassies 1913 I Street 1005 New Hampshire Avenue 2375 Pennsylvania Avenue

Thomson Elementary School Franklin School (currently vacant) Public Charter School Center George Washington University (outside study area) Carnegie Public Library Asbury United Methodist Church Mt. Vernon Place United Methodist Church The Third Church of Christ Washington Circle Park Farragut Square McPherson Square Franklin Square Mt. Vernon Square MLK Jr. Post Office Techworld Post Office Washington Square Post Office Fire Department Engine #16 Police Station Uruguay Tajikistan Spain

Libraries

Parks and Recreational Facilities

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative would not result in access improvements for community facilities within the project area. Under the No-Build Alternative, congestion and delays along K Street would continue to exacerbate congestion and impede emergency service response times.

47

Final: December 2009

Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would directly affect the community facilities listed above through changes in parking availability. Thirty-nine percent of the parking spaces along K Street, would be eliminated with Alternative 2. In addition, loading zones would only be available during the off-peak hours. However, under Alternative 2 mobility and access to community resources would improve as a result of more efficient and reliable transportation operation, increase in number of bus routes, and decrease in transit travel times. Emergency response times are expected to decrease because emergency services would be permitted to use the transitway lanes which would be free from vehicular traffic congestion. The elimination of service lanes would require some community facilities to limit deliveries or loading operations along K Street to off-peak hours or to utilize side streets, alleys and loading docks for deliveries and loading. This would cause inconvenience for facility employees and delivery services. Temporary impacts to community facilities caused during construction, such as increased noise, lane closures, and partial sidewalk closures are expected to affect the ease of patron access to facilities. Temporary impacts would be minimized by keeping access open during the construction period. Additional details on temporary construction effects are described in Section 3.13. K Street would be open at all times during construction and parallel streets could also be utilized. The community facilities provide employment opportunities in the study area. The proposed transitway would increase employment availability as discussed in Section 3.1.2. In addition, access will be maintained to community facilities during construction (see Section 3.13). Further efforts to reduce adverse impacts to community facilities include improvements to landscaping and streetscapes which will enhance the aesthetics of the community and reduce visual impact of the transitway. Based on the above analysis, the direct effects to community facilities caused by Alternative 2 do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity from the CEQ definition. Effects from less parking and loading availability would be offset by improvements to travel efficiency, thus minimizing the severity of the impact. Temporary impacts would be offset by benefits of the completed project. Therefore, the effects are not considered significant. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Effects to community resources under Alternative 3 are generally the same as Alternative 2. However, all on-street parking would be eliminated under Alternative 3, thus resulting in a slightly greater impact to community facilities. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading areas in designated portions of the corridor within the sidewalk width. The pullout loading/unloading areas would be clearly signed and marked and would generally occupy approximately seven feet of the 21-foot wide sidewalk. The remaining sidewalk clear zone of 14 feet would exceed the standard Washington, DC clear zone of 10 feet; therefore, the pullout loading areas would not affect community facilities. Because the ability to load/unload along K Street would still be permitted, effects to community facilities caused by changes to loading patterns would be minor and would be offset by improvements to
48

Final: December 2009

transportation operational efficiency. Further details on Parking and Deliveries are included in Section 3.3.4. Temporary impacts to community facilities caused by the construction of Alternative 3 would be the same as those caused by Alternative 2. The effects to community facilities caused by Alternative 3 do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity from the CEQ definition. As with Alternative 2, effects from less parking and loading availability would be offset by improvements to travel efficiency, thus minimizing the severity of the impact. Temporary impacts would be offset by the benefits of the completed project. Therefore, the effects are not considered significant.

3.3 Traffic and Transportation
3.3.1 Traffic Conditions Affected Environment A variety of traffic data was collected along K Street in June and July 2009. These data include traffic volume counts, bicycle counts, travel times, inventories of on-street parking and loading zones, surveys of delivery operations, and an investigation of the alley networks within the surrounding blocks north and south of K Street. Additional traffic volume counts were supplied by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), and traffic and pedestrian volumes were obtained from the 2005 K Street Transitway Report. At some locations (primarily along the western section of the corridor), traffic volumes obtained along K Street in 2009 are significantly lower than the traffic volumes shown in the 2005 K Street Transitway Report, which were collected in 2003. However, observations during the 2009 data collection effort indicated highly congested conditions during the peak travel periods, which suggest that demand has increased to the point where the flow rates are lower than the flow rates from the previous study. These highly congested flow rates result in lower peak hour volumes when compared to the 2003 data. Therefore, the volumes counted in 2009 are not representative of the actual baseline travel demand, which would be expected to occur as congestion relief is provided (with increased transit service and/or roadway capacity). The design year (2030) traffic volumes for the K Street project are based on applying a traffic growth rate to the baseline 2009 travel demand – a growth rate that was calculated using results from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) regional travel demand model. To be conservative and avoid underestimating the design year traffic congestion associated with the 2030 No-Build and build alternatives, the baseline 2009 demand traffic was increased to the level of the 2003 counts from the previous 2005 K Street Transitway Report. Both of the proposed build alternatives would increase the person-carrying capacity along K Street by providing a separate roadway for transit vehicles; in addition, the reduction in capacity would be eliminated because the slower-moving transit vehicles with frequent stops would be in their own lanes. The proposed build alternatives would also restrict left turn movements from through travel lanes, which would increase the through traffic capacity on K Street.

49

Final: December 2009

Figures 7A, 7B, and 7C shows the AM, midday, and PM peak hour mid-block traffic volumes along K Street for the conditions under baseline 2009 demand, as well as 2030 No-Build, and 2030 build alternatives. Existing morning and evening peak hours (as defined by existing parking restrictions) are 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM. The project study recommends extending the PM peak hour restrictions from 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM. Midday traffic between 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM experiences a peak traffic hour as well, typically between noon and 1:00 PM, but there are no parking restrictions associated with this midday peak hour. The heaviest traffic volumes are currently located west of Farragut Square (Connecticut Avenue) and the lightest traffic volumes are located east of Franklin Square (13th Street). The current average daily traffic (ADT) volume within the project area is about 28,000 vehicles. On a typical weekday, traffic volumes in the eastern portion of the corridor peak during the middle of the day and are directionally balanced. In the western portion of the corridor, there are more distinct travel periods, with peak flow occurring eastbound during the AM peak period and westbound during the PM peak period. Therefore, the typical pattern of commuters entering the CBD during the morning peak and leaving the CBD during the afternoon peak has a greater impact on traffic operations in the western portion of the corridor than in the eastern portion. Intersection levels of service are also influenced by the volume of cross-street traffic; the peak characteristics of the cross-street traffic vary along the corridor, with some streets carrying higher AM peak volumes and others carrying higher PM peak volumes. Synchro™ version 7.0 was used to analyze the baseline 2009 traffic operations along K Street during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Intersection level of service (LOS) and delay were used as measures of effectiveness. Of the 14 intersections along K Street within the project limits, most operate at LOS C or better during each peak hour with the exception of 13th Street, Connecticut Avenue, and 18th Street during the AM peak hour; 17th Street during the midday; and 14th Street and Vermont Avenue during the PM peak hour. Only the Connecticut Avenue intersection operates at LOS F. The Synchro™ intersection LOS analysis results are summarized in Table 3.5. Synchro™ was also used to evaluate the arterial LOS and travel times along K Street, as shown in Table 3.6. The study corridor between 21st Street and 9th Street is approximately 1.2 miles long. Traveling eastbound within these limits, the baseline 2009 arterial level of service is LOS E during the AM and midday peak hours, which corresponds to travel times of approximately nine minutes per vehicle. During the PM peak hour, the eastbound arterial level of service is LOS D, corresponding to a travel time of about seven minutes per vehicle. In the westbound direction, the arterial operates at LOS D during both the AM and midday peak hours, with travel times between seven and eight minutes per vehicle. During the PM peak hour, the westbound arterial level of service is LOS E, corresponding to a travel speed of just over eight minutes per vehicle.

50

Final Environmental Assessment
Figure 7A: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations 1-6
TM

K Street

EN
D E PA R

T OF TRANSP

OR
TA T

ION

d

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009
UN
IT

E

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank

52

Final Environmental Assessment
Figure: 7B: Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations 7-10
TM

K Street

EN
D E PA R

T OF TRANSP

OR
TA T

ION

d

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009
UN
IT

E

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank

54

Legends for Figures: 7A, 7B & 7C:
2009: 2015: K Street Transitway Final Report, May 2005 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model version 2.2 with Round 7.1 Land Use 2030: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Regional Travel Demand Model version 2.2 with Round 7.1 Land Use

Final Environmental Assessment
Figure 7C Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations 11-14
TM

K Street

EN
D E PA R

T OF TRANSP

OR
TA T

ION

d

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009
UN
IT

E

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank

56

Final: December 2009

Table 3.5.
Intersection

Individual Intersection Levels of Service (LOS) along K Street
Baseline 2009 B C C D F B B C B C E B B B C C

AM Peak Hour 2030 No-Build (Alt 1) 2030 Alt 2 2030 Alt 3 K at 21st B C C K at 20th D C E K at 19th D D F K at 18th D E F K at Connecticut F F F K at 17th B D C K at 16th C B C K at 15th C B B K at Vermont C C C K at 14th D D F K at 13th F F F K at 12th B B B K at 11th C C D K at 10th B B B New York at 9th C C C Massachusetts at 9th C C C Midday Peak Hour Intersection Baseline 2009 2030 No-Build (Alt 1) 2030 Alt 2 2030 Alt 3 K at 21st B B C C K at 20th B B E E K at 19th B B C C K at 18th B B B B K at Connecticut B C C C K at 17th B C E F K at 16th B B B B K at 15th B B B B K at Vermont C C C C K at 14th C C D F K at 13th B C D D K at 12th B B B B K at 11th C C C C K at 10th B B C C New York at 9th B C C C Massachusetts at 9th C B B B PM Peak Hour Intersection Baseline 2009 2030 No-Build (Alt 1) 2030 Alt 2 2030 Alt 3 K at 21st B B C C K at 20th B D B F K at 19th C C B D K at 18th A B B B K at Connecticut C C D E K at 17th A B B C K at 16th C B B C K at 15th B B B B K at Vermont D D B B K at 14th D D D F K at 13th C D E E K at 12th B C C D K at 11th C D F F K at 10th A B B B New York at 9th C C C C Mass at 9th B B B B Green shading indicates LOS A, B, or C; yellow indicates LOS D; orange indicates LOS E, and red indicates LOS F.

57

Final: December 2009

Table 3.6.

Arterial Traffic Operations along K Street

AM Peak Hour: Arterial Level of Service / Travel Time (minutes) Direction Baseline 2009 2030 No-Build (Alt 1) 2030 Alt 2 2030 Alt 3 Eastbound E / 9.2 min F / 12.3 min F / 12.6 min F / 23.1 min Westbound D / 7.7 min D / 7.9 min E / 8.3 min E / 8.9 min Midday Peak Hour: Arterial Level of Service / Travel Time (minutes) Direction Baseline 2009 2030 No-Build (Alt 1) 2030 Alt 2 2030 Alt 3 Eastbound E / 9.4 min E / 9.9 min D / 7.2 min F / 10.7 min Westbound D / 7.2 min D / 7.7 min E / 8.5 min E / 8.7 min PM Peak Hour: Arterial Level of Service / Travel Time (minutes) Direction Baseline 2009 2030 No-Build (Alt 1) 2030 Alt 2 2030 Alt 3 Eastbound D / 7.9 min E / 9.0 min F / 11.5 min F / 22.1 min Westbound E / 8.3 min F / 11.4 min D / 7.2 min F / 11.3 min Yellow shading indicates LOS D; orange indicates LOS E; red indicates failing LOS F.

Although only a few individual intersections are operating at levels of service E or F during the peak hours, the delays and queues caused by these intersections have considerable spillover effect on the upstream intersections in both directions along K Street, which results in relatively slow travel speeds along the entire corridor. In addition, K Street traffic also has an effect on traffic operations along the north-south cross streets. According to the MWCOG model, Version 2.2, Round 7.1 Land Use Forecasts, traffic along the eastern portion of K Street would grow at a relatively slow rate of 0.5 percent per year through 2030, and traffic along the western portion would grow at an even slower 0.3 percent per year. These growth rates were used to develop the 2015 and 2030 No-Build and build alternative traffic projections, shown in Figure 7. Tables 3.5 and 3.6 present the results of the 2030 No-Build and build alternatives. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The 2030 No-Build Alternative analysis showed that there would be three intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F during the AM peak hour, one intersection at LOS E during the midday peak hour, and no LOS E or LOS F intersections during the PM peak hour. End-to-end automobile travel times would range from 8 to 12 minutes during the AM, midday and PM peak hours under the No-Build Alternative in 2030. The arterial analysis of the 2030 No-Build Alternative shows LOS F operations in the eastbound general purpose lanes during the AM peak hour, improving to LOS E during the midday and PM peak hours. Westbound, the general purpose lanes would function at LOS D during the AM and midday peak hours, falling to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The small number of individual intersections that operate at poor levels of service would have an adverse impact on traffic throughout the corridor with queues extending back into adjacent intersections. This spillover would increase the eastbound arterial travel times to LOS F levels during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, although no individual intersections would operate worse than LOS D, the cumulative effect of these intersections would result in arterial LOS F in the westbound general purpose lanes during the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 3.6.

58

Final: December 2009

Transit Vehicle Operations: Bus travel times from one end of the K Street corridor to the other end would range from 13 minutes to 17 minutes during the AM, midday and PM peak hours under the No-Build Alternative in 2030. Figure 8 depicts the cumulative delays for transit vehicles traveling eastbound and westbound during the AM and PM peak hours in 2030 under the No-Build Alternative as well as Alternatives 2 and 3. During the AM peak hour under the No-Build Alternative, the cumulative delay experienced by transit vehicles traveling eastbound along K Street from west of 21st Street to 10th Street would be slightly greater than eight minutes. During the same period, transit vehicles traveling westbound from 9th Street to 21st Street would experience a cumulative delay of approximately four minutes. During the PM peak hour, eastbound transit vehicles would experience about 6½ minutes of cumulative delay, and westbound transit vehicles would experience about nine minutes of cumulative delay. Note that under the No-Build Alternative, transit vehicles would share the mainline travel lanes with general traffic. Person Throughput: Under Alternative 1, all buses would continue to operate in mixed traffic lanes and would be subject to the same delays as automobile traffic along the corridor. Because buses carry significantly more passengers than the typical automobile, it is possible to increase the total person-carrying capacity of K Street by providing exclusive lanes for the transit vehicles. Figure 9 compares the total hourly person throughput along the corridor for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The range of values shown in the figure for each alternative represent the minimum and maximum person throughput, with the minimum based on a 65% bus loading factor applied to the existing number of buses using K Street, and the maximum based on an 85% bus loading factor applied to the highest-possible number of buses that can be accommodated along the corridor. The bus loading factors are the percentage of available seats on each bus that are actually occupied by passengers. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) During the AM peak hour, there would be two intersections functioning at LOS F, the same as under 2030 No-Build (see Table 3.5). During the midday peak hour, there would be no intersections operating at LOS F, compared to one LOS F intersection under 2030 No-Build. However, during the PM peak hour, Alternative 2 would have one intersection operating at LOS F, compared to no LOS F intersections under 2030 No-Build. End-to-end automobile travel times would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build Alternative and four to eleven minutes faster than Alternative 3 (see Table 3.6). The arterial travel time differences between Alternative 2 and the No-Build Alternative during the AM peak hour would be negligible in the general purpose lanes, although the westbound LOS would worsen to LOS E under Alternative 2. During the midday peak hour, the eastbound travel time would be almost three minutes less than under 2030 No-Build, with a corresponding arterial LOS D. However, the westbound travel time would be about one minute longer than under No-Build, resulting in arterial LOS E. The eastbound general purpose lanes would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour, compared to LOS E under No-Build. The westbound level of service under Alternative 2 would be significantly better than the 2030 No-Build, with a travel time reduction of over four minutes per vehicle, resulting in LOS D (compared to LOS F under No-Build).

59

Final: December 2009

Figure 9:

Total Hourly Person Throughput

Compared to 2030 No-Build, Alternative 2 would have longer eastbound travel times during one peak hour (PM), and longer westbound travel times during two peak hours (AM and Midday). Alternative 2 would have shorter eastbound travel times than No-Build during one peak hour (Midday) and shorter westbound travel times during one peak hour (PM). Eastbound travel times during the AM peak hour would be about the same for both No-Build and Alternative 2. Examining each direction separately for each peak hour shows that Alternative 2 has one additional peak hour direction with a longer travel time, compared to No-Build. It is anticipated that a number of changes to the turn restrictions along K Street would be required for Alternative 2, as shown in Table 3.7. These turn restrictions cause some of the travel times for Alternative 2 to be longer than under No-Build during the peak hours described above (also see Table 3.6). Alternative 2 would also include special signal phasing at intersections that give priority to vehicles in the transitway, resulting in increased travel times (delays) for vehicles in the general purpose lanes at these intersections. Transit Vehicle Operations: Alternative 2 would provide a center transitway along K Street, but would not provide passing zones for buses. End-to-end bus travel times along the study corridor within the transitway would be up to six minutes faster than the 2030 No-Build Alternative, but would be up to two minutes slower than Alternative 3, which provides passing zones for buses. Figure 8 depicts the cumulative delays for transit vehicles traveling during the peak periods. During the AM peak hour, transit vehicles traveling eastbound on the transitway from west of 21st Street to 10th Street would experience a cumulative delay of approximately 4½ minutes, compared to over eight minutes of delay under No-Build. During the same period, westbound transit vehicles traveling from 9th Street to 21st Street in the transitway would experience about four minutes of delay, which is about the same delay as under No-Build. During the PM peak hour, eastbound transit vehicles in the transitway would experience approximately four minutes of cumulative delay, compared to 6½ minutes of delay under the No-Build Alternative. Westbound transit vehicles would experience a cumulative delay of slightly more than three minutes, compared to a cumulative delay of about nine minutes under the No-Build Alternative.
60

Legend:

2030 NB: Alternative 1 No Build

Final Environmental Assessment
Figure 8: Cumulative Bus Delays
TM

K Street

2030 Alt 2:Two-Lane Transitway

EN
D E PA R

T OF TRANSP

OR
TA T

2030 Alt 3:Two-LaneTransitway with Passing

ION

d

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009
UN
IT

E

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

62

Final: December 2009

Table 3.7.

Permitted Turning Movements

K St EB

K St WB

Alt 1: No-Build GP Alt 2 Bus GP Alt 3 Bus Alt 1: No-Build GP Alt 2 Bus GP Alt 3 Bus

21 St R R R L -

20 St R R R R R

19 St R R R L L

18 St R R R -

16 St R R R R R R -

15 St LR R R LR R R R

VT Ave L R R R -

14 St LR LR R R LR R R -

13 St LR R R R R LR R R -

12 St L R R R -

11 St LR R R R LR LR LR -

10 St R R R L L L -

K St EB

K St WB

Alt 1: No-Build GP Alt 2 Bus GP Alt 3 Bus Alt 1: No-Build GP Alt 2 Bus GP Alt 3 Bus

21 St R R R L -

20 St L R R R R R

19 St R R R L L L

18 St L R R R -

16 St LR R R LR R R -

15 St LR R R LR R R R

VT Ave L R R R R -

14 St LR LR R LR R R R R

13 St LR R R R R LR R R -

12 St L R R R -

11 St LR R R LR LR LR -

10 St R R R L L L -

K St EB

K St WB

Alt 1: No-Build GP Alt 2 Bus GP Alt 3 Bus Alt 1: No-Build GP Alt 2 Bus GP Alt 3 Bus
-: No Turns are Allowed Bus: Transitway GP: General Purpose Lanes

21 St R R R L -

20 St R R R R R

19 St R R R L L L

18 St R R R -

AM Peak Period CT Ave 17 St R R R R R R R R R R R Off-Peak Periods CT Ave 17 St R LR R R R R R R R LR R R R R PM Peak Period CT Ave 17 St R R R R R R R R R R R R R R 16 St LR R R R R R 15 St R R R R R R R VT Ave L R R R R R 14 St LR LR R LR R R 13 St LR R R R R LR R R 12 St L R R R -

11 St LR R R LR LR LR -

10 St R R R L L L -

L: Only Left Turns are Allowed R: Only Right Turns are Allowed L R: Both Left Turns and Right Turns are Allowed

63

Final: December 2009

Person Throughput: Under Alternative 1, all buses would operate in mixed traffic lanes and would be subject to the same delays as automobile traffic along the corridor. Because buses carry significantly more passengers than the typical automobile, it is possible to increase the total person-carrying capacity of K Street by providing an exclusive running way for the transit vehicles. Therefore, under Alternative 2, a two-lane exclusive transitway would be provided. Figure 9 compares the total hourly person throughput along the corridor for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Alternative 2 would increase the person throughput along K Street by providing exclusive bus lanes within a dedicated transitway. The dedicated transitway would permit a higher number of buses to travel along the K Street corridor during a single hour period. Overall, the impact of Alternative 2 on existing traffic and transportation would be generally beneficial by providing additional person-capacity and a reduction in transit delays. The impact is, therefore, not considered significant. . Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) The provision of only two general purpose lanes in each direction along K Street under Alternative 3 would result in poorer intersection and arterial performance compared to Alternative 2 and the No-Build Alternative. During the AM peak hour, there would be three additional LOS E or LOS F intersections under Alternative 3, compared to Alternative 2 and the No-Build. There would be one additional LOS E or LOS F intersection during the midday peak hour, compared to Alternative 2, but the same number of LOS F intersections as the No-Build Alternative. During the PM peak hour, Alternative 3 would have two additional intersections operating at LOS F compared to Alternative 2, and three additional LOS F intersections compared to the No-Build Alternative. According to the arterial analysis, shown in Table 3.6, the general purpose lanes under Alternative 3 would operate significantly worse in terms of travel times and levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours in 2030, compared to the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 2. End-to-end automobile travel times would be one to 11 minutes slower than the No-Build Alternative, and four to 11 minutes slower than Alternative 2. Eastbound K Street would operate at LOS F during the AM, midday and PM peak hours, whereas westbound K Street would operate at LOS F only during the PM peak hour. During the midday peak hour, both the eastbound and westbound travel times would be approximately one minute slower than the No-Build Alternative. Compared to 2030 No-Build, Alternative 3 would have longer eastbound and westbound travel times during all three peak periods (AM, Midday, and PM). It is anticipated that a number of changes to the turn restrictions along K Street would be required for Alternative 3, as shown in Table 3.7. These turn restrictions cause the travel times for Alternative 3 to be longer than under No-Build during all peak hours (also see Table 3.6). Alternative 3 would also include special signal phasing at intersections that give priority to vehicles in the transitway, resulting in increased travel times (delays) for vehicles in the general purpose lanes at these intersections.

64

Final: December 2009

As with Alternative 2, it is anticipated that a number of changes to the turn restrictions along K Street would be required for Alternative 3 (shown in Table 3.7). Transit Vehicle Operations: Alternative 3 would provide a center transitway along K Street, with passing zones for transit vehicles where permitted by width. End-to-end transit vehicle travel times would be six to seven minutes faster than the No-Build Alternative, and up to two minutes faster than Alternative 2, which does not provide passing zones. Based on the results of the SynchroTM traffic operations analysis, the passing zones within the dedicated transitway would allow some transit vehicles to bypass other transit vehicles that are stopped to pick up or discharge passengers. The non-stopping transit vehicles would, therefore, experience less delay, resulting in a faster average travel time for all transit vehicles in the transitway for Alternative 3, compared to Alternative 2. As shown in Figure 8, during the AM peak hour under Alternative 3, transit vehicles traveling eastbound on the transitway would experience a cumulative delay of just under four minutes, compared to over eight minutes of delay under the No-Build Alternative, but similar to the 4½ minutes of delay under Alternative 2. During the same period westbound transit vehicles traveling in the transitway would experience a cumulative delay just over five minutes with Alternative 3, which is about one minute higher than the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 2. During the PM peak hour, eastbound transit vehicles would experience a cumulative delay of about four minutes with Alternative 3, compared to 6½ minutes of delay under the No-Build Alternative, but similar to the four minutes of delay under Alternative 2. Westbound transit vehicles would experience a delay of about 2½ minutes, compared to a No-Build cumulative delay of about nine minutes, and slightly less than the Alternative 2 delay of about three minutes. Person Throughput: Under Alternative 1, all buses would operate in mixed traffic lanes and would be subject to the same delays as automobile traffic along the corridor. Because buses carry significantly more passengers than the typical automobile, it is possible to increase the total person-carrying capacity of K Street by providing an exclusive running way for the transit vehicles. Therefore, under Alternative 3, a three-lane exclusive transitway would be provided. Figure 9 compares the total hourly person throughput along the corridor for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Alternative 3 would increase the maximum total hourly person throughput by providing passing areas within the dedicated transitway. The passing areas allow some buses to bypass stopped buses at certain stops, increasing the maximum number of buses that can travel along the K Street corridor during a single hour period. Overall, the person-carrying capacity of Alternative 3 would be greater than Alternative 1, so the impact of Alternative 3 on existing traffic and transportation would be generally beneficial and is not considered significant. Summary of Traffic Operations Table 3.8 provides a general summary of the traffic operations for the No-Build Alternative and the two build alternatives.

65

Final: December 2009

Table 3.8.
Evaluation Factor

Traffic Summary of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
Alternative 1 No-Build Preferred Alternative/ Alternative 2 Two-Lane Transitway 7 to 13 minutes AM Peak: 2 Midday Peak: 1 PM Peak: 0 Alternative 3 Two-Lane Transitway with Passing 9 to 23 minutes AM Peak: 6 Midday Peak: 2 PM Peak: 5

Peak End-to-End Travel Times 8 to 12 minutes for General Traffic in 2030 (Provides Congestion Relief) Number of Intersections with AM Peak: 3 LOS E or F in 2030 (Achieves Midday Peak: 1 Levels of Service at Critical PM Peak: 0 Intersections) Peak End-to-End Travel Times for Buses in 2030 (Improves 13 to 17 minutes Travel Times for Buses within Transitway) Increases Person Throughput Poor Provides Transit Ridership Poor Benefits Provides Transit Reliability Poor Rating for Evaluation Factors is Good, Fair, or Poor

7 to 11 minutes Good Good Good

7 to 10 minutes Good Good Good

3.3.2

Transit Operations

Affected Environment The project area, located in the CBD, offers residents, commuters and visitors numerous transit options for travel to and from K Street. The project area includes some of the highest volume of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Metrobus service in the District. The corridor is also served by Metro subway, local, commuter and tour bus services. The K Street corridor is served by the following transit services: • • • • • • WMATA Metrobus Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) – DC Commuter Bus (service to/from Southern Maryland) Loudoun County Commuter Bus (service to/from Loudoun County, VA) DC Circulator – Cross-town service from Union Station to Georgetown Tours/Private Charters – numerous charters from points across the country Metrorail Subway

Twenty-five bus routes are operated along K Street among the four transit agencies; WMATA (14), MTA (7), Loudoun County (4) and DC Circulator (2). Buses typically enter and exit K Street from intersecting streets with most buses operating between 14th and 19th Streets. For example, a large number of eastbound buses enter K Street at 18th Street. In the westbound direction, most buses enter K Street at 12th and 14th Streets. Numerous bus routes cross K Street at various locations along the corridor, with most buses crossing at 18th and 19th Streets. The current alignment of K Street requires some buses to access the service lane for right turn movements, resulting in delays caused by mixing with general vehicular traffic and
66

Final: December 2009

delivery trucks using and parking along the service lanes, particularly during the AM and PM peak periods. The heaviest volume of buses traverses the K Street corridor during the AM and PM peak periods. During the AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:30 AM), approximately 134 buses travel eastbound and 89 buses travel westbound along the K Street corridor. During the PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:30 PM), approximately 245 buses travel eastbound and 91 buses travel westbound. Bus stops are located in each block along the corridor from 9th Street to 23rd Street. They are located near-side (at intersection), mid-block (middle of block) and far-side (after crossing through the intersection) locations. Although bus stops are located in each block, the transit services that operate through the corridor do not share the same bus stop locations. This results in frequent maneuvering of buses between stops. This variation in services and transit stops is confusing for the transit customer, particularly visitors who are unfamiliar to the area or transit system. The following provides a summary of the bus transit services that operate along K Street. Table 3.9 provides a list of the individual bus lines, headways, and hours of service. WMATA Metrobus: WMATA provides the highest volume and most frequent service. Fourteen bus lines operate along the corridor with service varying during peak periods, day and night, weekdays and weekends. Vehicles include 40-foot and 60-foot 2-door standard buses and low-floor articulated buses. MTA Commuter Bus: The MTA provides commuter bus service to DC from selected park and ride lots located in Prince George’s, Charles, and St. Mary’s Counties. The MTA service is through a private contractor using 45-foot long coaches. Bus stops for the MTA commuter bus services are located between 12th Street and 22nd Street in both directions, although all bus lines do not stop at all locations. Loudoun County Commuter Bus: Loudoun County, Virginia provides a commuter bus service, similar to the MTA commuter bus service. A private contractor operates the 40- and 45-foot long coaches from selected park and ride lots located in the Ashburn, Leesburg and Dulles areas to the District along K Street. Service on K Street only operates in the eastbound direction during the AM peak period, with stops at 18th, 17th, 15th, and 14th Streets. DC Circulator: The DC Circulator service is operated as part of a public/private partnership between WMATA, DDOT and DC Surface Transit. The Yellow Line (Union Station to Georgetown) operates along K Street through the entire length of the project on weekdays and weekends. Eastbound bus stops are located between 19th Street and 11th Street and westbound stops are located at between 12th Street and 21st Street. The Green Line (Woodley Park to McPherson Square Metro) services the project area between 13th and 14th Streets with an eastbound stop at Franklin Square (K Street at 13th Street).

67

Final: December 2009

Table 3.9.
Direction on K Street

K Street Existing Transit Service
# of Buses During Peak Period AM PM 6AM– 3PM– 9AM 6PM E W E W Mid-Day Service Mid-Day Peak Hour 12PM–1PM E W Service Levels Average Peak Headway (Min)

Route

K Street Alignment

Service Span

WMATA 3Y 16Y 38B 80 D1, 3, 6 53 D5 G8 L2 S1 S4 S9 MTA 901 902 904 905 909 915 950 11th St – 23rd St 11 St – 20 St 11th St – 20th St 11th St – 20th St 11th St – 23rd St 12th – 16th St 10th – 23rd St 14th St to 18th St 14 St to 18 St 14 St to 18 St 14th St to 18th St 10th St – 23rd St 13 St – 14 St
th th th th th th th th

14th St – 19th St 15th St – 19th St 17 St – 23 St 13 St – 19 St 13 St – 21 St 13th St – 14th St 17 St – 23 St 17 St E – 17 St 15TH St – 21st St 16 St – 19 St 13 St – 16 St 13th – 16th St
th th th th th th th rd th st th th th rd

EW EW E EW EW E EW E EW EW E E

5 14 13 13 18 12 6 10 11 13

17 24 10 23 -

13 13 23 12 12 8 9 6 16

5 13 11 14 5 8 -

0 0 4 4 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0

0 0 0 5 3 0 0 2 0 0 0

35 15 12 10 7 10 15 10 15 5 10 10

Peak Only 6 AM – 10 PM 5:30 AM – 12:30 AM 4:30 AM – 2:30 AM 4:00 AM – 2:30 AM Peak Only Peak Only 4:30 AM – 12:30 AM 5 AM – 1 AM Peak Only Peak Only 6 AM – 8 PM

EW EW EW EW EW EW EW

10 -

26 17 14 21 5 17

27 16 14 19 5 16

17 -

1 1 1 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 10 13 9 40 17 12

4:30 AM – 9 PM AM Peak, Noon – 8 PM AM Peak, Noon – 7 PM AM Peak, Noon – 7 PM Peak Only AM Peak, 2 PM – 7 PM AM Peak, Noon – 7 PM Peak Only Peak Only Peak Only Peak Only 7 AM – 9 PM 7 AM – 12 AM

Loudoun County Ashburn North South Leesburg Yellow Green E E E E EW E 3 12 4 12 18 18 18 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 60 12 60 12 10 10

DC Circulator

Sources:

WMATA Metrobus, www.wmata.com, current bus schedules, effective date(s) varies DC Circulator – www.Dccirculator.com, current on-line schedule, effective July 2005 MTA Commuter bus, www.mtamaryland.com, current bus schedules, effective date(s) varies Loudoun County Government, www.loudoun.gov\bus, current bus schedules, effective May 26, 2009 

68

Final: December 2009

Tour Buses/Private Charters: There are numerous tour buses and private charters that travel along K Street. Since there is not a regular schedule for these buses, the frequency and volume of buses is not provided. Typically, the volume of tour buses is seasonal, with greater volume of service during the spring and summer. These buses do not have regular stops and are more likely to stay at a stop location for an extended period of time. Metrorail Subway: Within the K Street project area, the Farragut North Metrorail Station is located at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and K Street. The Farragut North Station is one of the original five Metrorail stations introduced with the Red Line when the system opened in 1976. Located at the center of the CBD, the Farragut North station continues to be one of the busiest stations in the entire Metrorail system and ranks third among all Metrorail stations, with average daily boardings of over 27,000 (WMATA, 2007). The Farragut North Station provides a transfer location for bus transit riders to continue their trip on Metrorail to destinations in the district and the DC region. In addition, two stations are located adjacent to the K Street project area along I Street: Farragut West (25,000 daily boardings) and McPherson Square (17,000 daily boardings). Both stations are served by the Blue and Orange Lines. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Under Alternative 1, there would be no proposed changes to existing service, frequency, or routes on K Street. The 2005 K Street Transitway Final Report recommended that Metrobus routes D5 and L2 be eliminated from service due to low ridership. WMATA officials have stated that there are currently no plans for the addition, of or deletion to, existing bus service along the K Street corridor. It is assumed that routine minor schedule adjustments for all services would occur as part of regular operational analysis by each of the services providers. Bus stop locations would be maintained at the existing bus stop locations. Bus travel times (end-to-end) would range between 13 minutes and 17 minutes during peak hours in 2030. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would provide a two-way, two-lane median separated transitway. WMATA Metrobus and DC Circulator transit routes would access the transitway from the intersections and use new bus stops located on the raised medians. As recommended in the 2005 K Street Transitway Final Report, additional WMATA Metrobus routes would be rerouted to the K Street transitway from H Street. As noted in Section 3.3.1, the proposed improvements would increase capacity for transit with the separated transitway. Figure 8 indicates that the buses would experience a projected decrease in travel times and delays (up to six minutes faster than with the No-Build Alternative) in 2030. Eight bus stops would be located in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Bus stops would be curblane stops without provision for passing of stopped buses. All new bus stops would be located on the far side of the intersections; however, near side stops could also be considered. The bus stops would be approximately 140 feet long to accommodate multiple buses at one time.

69

Final: December 2009

The effect of the transitway would be the ease of travel for those using the services operating along the two-lane transitway. WMATA Metrobus and the DC Circulator would operate along the transitway and riders would benefit from the reduction in bus stops and reduced congestion, as these routes would be travelling in the exclusive bus transitway, removed from the potential unexpected delays that can occur in the general traffic lanes and impact service. As shown in Appendix B, three general purpose lanes would be provided in each direction outside of the separated transitway. The curb lane would be a regulated lane for peak travel and off-peak parking/loading/unloading. MTA and Loudoun County commuter buses and tour/private charter buses would operate in the general purpose lanes and would maintain existing service and bus stop locations along K Street. Since the MTA, Loudoun County and private charter buses operate in the general purpose lanes today there would be little to no direct impact on these routes, although end-to-end travel times for vehicles in the general purpose lanes are expected to increase up to four minutes compared to the No-Build Alternative during several hours of the day. The impact of Alternative 2 on transit operations would be generally beneficial and is not considered significant in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Alternative 3 would provide a two-way, two-lane median separated transitway with a bus passing lane at eight locations (three eastbound and five westbound). As shown in Appendix C, the bypass lane would provide an area for through buses to pass stopped buses, thereby improving travel time and decreasing the potential for transit delays. Two general purpose lanes would be provided in each direction outside of the transitway. Under Alternative 3, all transit services, WMATA, MTA, Loudoun County, and DC Circulator would operate within the transitway. Tour/private charter buses would continue to operate in the general purpose lanes. Seven bus stops would be located along the eastbound median and eight would be located along the westbound. All new bus stops would be located on the near side of the intersections; however, far side stops could also be considered. As noted in Section 3.3.1, the proposed improvements would increase capacity for transit with the separated transitway. Figure 8 indicates that the buses would experience a projected decrease in travel times and delays (between six and seven minutes faster than with the No-Build Alternative) in 2030. The shifting of all bus services to operate within the transitway would improve connectivity among the WMATA, DC Circulator, MTA and Loudoun County bus services. It would be easier for travelers to identify the bus stop locations, as the reduction in the number of stops avoids the confusion of the existing environment (a multitude of bus stops and signs that vary by agency). As with Alternative 2, the effects of Alternative 3 would be generally beneficial and not considered significant in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition.

70

Final: December 2009

3.3.3

Pedestrians and Bicycles

Pedestrians Affected Environment K Street is designed to accommodate pedestrians, with sidewalks widths ranging between 12 and 25 feet, designated crosswalks with timed pedestrian crossing intervals, and bus stop areas located adjacent to sidewalks or within medians to provide safe landing areas for boarding and alighting passengers. In a few locations, sidewalk café seating constrains walking areas. Sidewalk trees and planter boxes are plentiful and sidewalk vendors are licensed in many locations. The K Street corridor is designated as an area of high pedestrian activity. Pedestrian volume data from the 2005 K Street Transitway Study shows that, on average, about 700 or more pedestrians cross K Street at most intersections in the corridor during the morning and evening peak hours. However, the pedestrian crossing volume varies significantly along the corridor, with some intersections having fewer than 100 pedestrians while other intersections have over 1,500 pedestrians crossing K Street during the peak hours. There is a relatively low number of pedestrians crossing K Street from Washington Circle to 21st Street, a high volume crossing K Street from 20th Street to 14th Street, and a relatively low number crossing K Street from 13th Street to Mt. Vernon Square. There are significant pedestrian facility deficiencies (defined as areas with higher traffic volumes and speeds, wider streets and higher numbers of pedestrian involved accidents) between Washington Circle and 21st Street; moderate facility deficiencies between 21st and 11th Streets; and low facility deficiencies between 11th Street and Mount Vernon Square (District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan, 2009). In the District, there was an average of 609 pedestrian-involved accidents per year during the seven-year period from 1997 to 2003 with an average of 17 fatalities per year. Pedestrian collisions averaged 3.84 percent of all collisions within the District. There was a higher instance of pedestrian crashes in the CBD when compared to other locations within the District (District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan, 2009). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Alternative 1 would not change the efficiency of pedestrian travel through the K Street corridor. Assuming regional growth, pedestrian activity would continue to increase. Continuing District programs for sidewalk repair and maintenance, ongoing improvements in access and safety at controlled intersections and bus stops, as recommended in the Pedestrian Master Plan, would continue to provide safe and convenient pedestrian pathways. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) As with Alternative 1, assuming regional growth, the pedestrian activity in the corridor would continue to increase. Continuing District programs for sidewalk repair and
71

Final: December 2009

maintenance, ongoing improvements in access and safety at controlled intersections and bus stops, as recommended in the Pedestrian Master Plan, would continue to be implemented to provide safe and convenient pedestrian pathways in the build alternatives. The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would continue to provide wide sidewalks that would typically average 19 feet in width and would be reduced in some locations where constricted by existing pavement width. Sidewalks adjacent to the parks (Farragut Square, McPherson Square and Franklin Square) would not be narrowed. Alternative 2 would continue to provide designated crosswalks with timed crossing intervals for pedestrians. Medians would typically be 11 feet wide where bus platforms would provide landing space for boarding and alighting passengers; medians would vary between 5 and 11 feet wide outside of bus stop areas. These wide median spaces would also provide refuge areas for pedestrians crossing K Street. The distance to cross K Street would not change; however, the locations of higher numbers of pedestrians crossing could occur at the planned bus stop locations. The prohibition of non-transit vehicular left turns would improve safety and mobility throughout the corridor by limiting potential conflict points, but locations of bus stops within the medians would require riders to cross traffic before and after their rides. The Pedestrian Master Plan has set objectives and recommendations to correct pedestrian deficiencies and increase pedestrian safety; Alternative 2 would be constructed in coordination with this program. Therefore, the effects of Alternative 2 on pedestrians and pedestrian safety are beneficial and are not considered significant either in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definitions. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Alternative 3 would also continue to provide wide sidewalks that would typically average 21 feet in width and would be reduced in some locations where constricted by existing pavement width. In some locations, loading/unloading zones would be provided on the sidewalks, possibly delineated using bollards, which would narrow the available pedestrian space by seven feet, but leave the minimum required pedestrian clear zone of at least ten feet. Alternative 3 medians at platform locations would be between 10 and 12 feet wide, providing refuge areas for pedestrians crossing and landing space for boarding and alighting bus passengers. The distance to cross K Street would not change; therefore, impacts to pedestrians would be similar to Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative). The prohibition of non-transit vehicular left turns would improve safety and mobility throughout the corridor by limiting potential conflict points. Alternative 3, like Alternative 2, would continue the District’s ongoing program of pedestrian improvements and would be constructed in coordination with the objectives and recommendations of the Pedestrian Master Plan. Overall, the effects of Alternative 3 on pedestrians and pedestrian safety are beneficial and are not considered significant either in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definitions.

72

Final: December 2009

Bicycles Affected Environment K Street is currently not designed with bicycle lanes nor is it designated as a bicycle route in the District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan (2006). During the development of the Master Plan, it was assumed that K Street would not be reconstructed in the near future; therefore, L and M Streets were designated as possible routes which would provide improvements to accommodate bicycles. To date, these improvements have not been implemented. Bicycle levels of service (LOS) range between D and E within the corridor. The Master Plan also rates K Street within the project area as poor to fair for bicycle accessibility and safety. According to the 2000 Census, less than two percent of workers commute by bicycle within the K Street corridor. There are several bicycle paths that approach, but do not intersect K Street, including the Metropolitan Branch Trail, which ends at Union Station, and the Capital Crescent Trail, which ends in Georgetown. Within the District, bicycle travel is supported and encouraged. The District was the first city in the United States to implement bike sharing, and DC SmartBike currently has 10 stations with approximately 100 bikes in the program. One station is located within the project area at 17th and K Streets in the southeast corner of Farragut Square; other nearby stations are located in McPherson Square at the corner of 14th and H Streets and at 23rd and I Streets. The District plans to expand the SmartBike program to 90 stations with over 1,000 bikes within the next 18 months. All offstreet parking garages are also required to provide bicycle parking areas. On average, there were 265 collisions per year involving bicycles in the District from 1997 to 2003. Over this seven-year period, 1.67 percent of the total reported crashes in the city involved bicycles. Higher numbers of crashes involving bicycles occurred within the CBD than elsewhere in the city. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Alternative 1 would not include any of the bicycle lane improvements. As a result, Alternative 1 is not anticipated to have any impacts on bicycle safety or mobility, although the number of bicycles traveling along K Street is expected to increase. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would be constructed in coordination with the recommendations of the Bicycle Master Plan which are designed to increase bicyclist safety and security while improving connectivity and accessibility. Alternative 2 would accommodate bicycles in a shared lane with automobile and truck traffic in the 12-foot wide curbside lane of the three proposed general purpose lanes in each direction, during the peak period. During the off-peak, the curb lane would accommodate parking and bicycles. The shared lane would provide two to three feet of operational space for the bicyclists. The prohibition of non-transit vehicular left turns would improve safety and mobility for bicyclists throughout the corridor by limiting potential conflicts. Alternative 2 would,
73

Final: December 2009

therefore, offer a modest improvement in bicycle services and safety in comparison to Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative). Alternative 2 would also support connectivity between the Capital Crescent Trail and the Metropolitan Branch Trail through downtown. The overall effects of Alternative 2 on bicycles and cyclist safety are beneficial and not considered significant in either context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definitions. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Alternative 3 would also be constructed in coordination with the recommendations of the Bicycle Master Plan which are designed to increase bicyclist safety and security while improving connectivity and accessibility. Alternative 3 would provide a separate 5-foot wide curbside lane in each direction, marked and signed for the exclusive use by bicyclists. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a more positive impact on bicycle safety and mobility along K Street compared to Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) and Alternative 2. Bicycle commuters would not be required to share travel lanes with other vehicles under this alternative (although they would be adversely affected by vehicles illegally stopping in the curbside lanes and blocking the bike lanes). The prohibition of non-transit vehicular left turns would also improve safety and mobility for bicyclists throughout the corridor by limiting potential conflicts. This alternative would also provide the flexibility to consider a left-side bicycle lane which could improve safety and mobility as the bicyclists would not encounter any turning vehicles except for buses from the transitway. Alternative 3 would also support connectivity between the Capital Crescent Trail and the Metropolitan Branch Trail through downtown. Providing a marked and signed bicycle lane on K Street could encourage more cyclists to use K Street rather than other streets that could provide a similar or more direct route that does not have a dedicated bike lane. The overall effects of Alternative 3 on bicycles and cyclist safety are beneficial and not considered significant in either context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definitions. 3.3.4 Parking

Affected Environment K Street includes service lanes along the eastbound and westbound directions for the majority of the project limits. Parallel parking is provided in one of the two service lanes; however, parking is restricted along the corridor based on the time of day corresponding to the peak travel times. Parking meters and payment kiosks are both used to collect payment; parking generally costs $2 per hour with a two hour maximum stay. The individual parking spaces are not physically delineated on the roadway; therefore, the number of vehicles able to park between identified parking limits is dependent on the size of the vehicles. For the purposes of this study, parking spaces were assumed to be 22 feet long. There are approximately 332 on-street parking spaces available directly along K Street. Of the 332 spaces, 208 are available for parking 24 hours per day but the meters and kiosks are only in effect from 7:00 AM until 6:30 PM. Of the remaining 124 spaces, the majority are signed as no parking except for loading during the peak hours, loading zones from 7:00 AM until 6:30
74

Final: December 2009

PM, 15-minute hotel guest parking, or unknown/blocked due to construction activities at the time the parking inventory was taken; however, all of these parking spaces are available for parking during the off-peak hours. In addition to the 332 parking spaces available along K Street, there are 409 metered and kiosk parking spaces available along the roadways intersecting K Street from 21st Street to 9th Street and between L and I Streets. Approximately 171 of the 409 parking spaces along the intersecting roadways are available for parking 24 hours per day. The parking cost on these roads varies from free to $2 per hour. Combined with the on-street parking along K Street, there are a total of 742 on-street parking spaces available within the project limits. Of the 742 spaces, 379 are available for parking all day. Off-street parking is also provided within the project limits. There are 37 parking garages that have access directly on K Street or on an intersecting roadway within one block of K Street. There are approximately 8,000 public parking spaces available in these garages. Parking is available in the garages during the peak and off-peak hours until capacity is reached. Garage parking generally costs between $7 and $10 for the first hour with daily maximum costs ranging from $15 to over $20. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The number of parking spaces and availability of loading zones would not change with Alternative 1. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) Under the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, approximately 130, or 39 percent, of the onstreet parking spaces directly along K Street would be eliminated, leaving approximately 200 total spaces. All 200 parking spaces remaining along K Street would only be available during the off-peak hours (between 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM and between 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and all day on weekends). No on-street parking spaces along the intersecting roadways would be affected, nor would the number of parking spaces available in the parking garages. Therefore, of the 740 on-street parking spaces currently available within the project area, 130 spaces, or 17 percent of the total, would be eliminated with Alternative 2. In addition, loading zones would only be available during the off-peak hours. Eliminating 39 percent of the parking directly on K Street would have impact parking on surrounding streets and in nearby parking garages. Specifically, there would be more demand for the remaining available on-street parking spaces, which will make parking more difficult to find, particularly during peak hours. There would also be more demand for parking garages. This would be reasonably expected to result in increased revenue for these garages, as more of the garage capacity is filled, or in higher parking garage rates to balance the higher demand. Additional information on the effects of reduced on-street parking on K Street caused to businesses and community facilities is described in Section 3.1.

75

Final: December 2009

Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Under Alternative 3, all 332, or 100 percent, of the on-street parking spaces directly along K Street would be eliminated. In order to provide the proposed bike lane, an additional 25 on-street parking spaces would be eliminated along K Street between 22nd and 21st Streets. No on-street parking spaces along the intersecting roadways would be affected, nor would the number of parking spaces available in the parking garages. Therefore, of the 741 spaces currently available within the project area, 332 spaces, or 45 percent of the total, would be eliminated. This total does not include the additional 25 spaces removed to maintain the proposed bike lane. Pullouts or lay-by loading zones would be proposed at the following selected locations; however, these locations will be adjusted in final design: Eastbound K Street Pullouts for Loading • Between 21st and 20th Streets • Between 20th and 19th Streets • Between 19th and 18th Streets • Between 18th and Conn. Avenue • Between 17th and 16th Streets • Between 16th and 15th Streets • Two between 15th and 14th Streets • Between 13th and 12th Streets • Between 10th and 9th Streets Westbound K Street Pullouts for Loading • Between 21st and 20th Streets • Between 20th and 19th Streets • Between 19th and 18th Streets • Between 18th and Conn. Avenue • Between 17th and 16th Streets • Between 16th and 15th Streets • Between Vermont and 14th Street • Between 14th and 13th Streets • Two between 13th and 12th Streets • Between 11th and 10th Streets

Additional information on the effects of reduced on-street parking on K Street caused to businesses and community facilities is described in Section 3.1.

3.4 Land Use and Zoning
The Federal government and the local District of Columbia government are both responsible for land use planning and control within the City. Some of the planning agencies include the District of Columbia Office of Planning (DCOP), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), and the National Park Service (NPS). The NCPC is designated as the agency through which all other Federal entities responsible for public development must cooperate and correlate their work. The NCPC publishes a six-year plan (the current 2009-2014 Strategic Plan) that guides short-term projects within the long-term vision for the entire National Capital Planning Region. Zoning in the District is governed by the District of Columbia Zoning Act (DC Code sections 6-641.01 et. seq.). Planning is guided by the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements, which guides planning within the governmental core, and District Elements, which establishes policies and guidelines for city-wide and area land use and planning.

76

Final: December 2009

3.4.1

Land Use and Zoning

Affected Environment The District of Columbia contains a large and intensely developed CBD. K Street, NW is one of DC’s main east-west thoroughfares located in the northwest quadrant of the city. Land use patterns and zoning surrounding K Street reflect the current trends in land use and development that are based on the Downtown Action Agenda, published in 2000 by the District of Columbia Office of Planning (DCOP) and guidelines established in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. In the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, K Street is located almost entirely within the Central Washington Planning District and is entirely within the Central Employment Area (CEA). The 2006 Comprehensive Plan has designated growth in this area as expanding from its current office use to a mixed-use of high density residential, office, retail, cultural, and open space. The Downtown Action Agenda established a clear direction for future growth within the downtown area of DC, noting the need to strengthen the neighborhoods as “vital and vibrant” areas. With the goals to refine the vision of a “vibrant, versatile, living downtown”, the Downtown Action Agenda sought to attract people to the downtown area by directing growth in various sections of downtown. The land use vision included the K Street transitway as a part of the “transportation hub” of downtown, and K Street is clearly one of the city’s foremost employment centers. Land uses surrounding K Street are summarized in Table 3.10 and shown on Figure 10. The majority of the study area is commercial (34.9 percent). The next largest land use within the study area is roads, which includes alleys (31.4 percent). Transportation right-of-way makes up 19.6 percent, and the remaining areas are parks and open space, public, institutional, residential, mixed use and transport, communications, and utilities. Table 3.10. Land Use Within K Street Study Area
Land Use Commercial Industrial Institutional Mixed Use Parking Parks and Open Spaces Public (Federal and Local) Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional Residential Roads Transport, Communications, Utilities Transportation Right-of-Way Water Total Acreage 65.3 0 4.7 0.5 0.1 9.3 8.4 0 2.9 58.8 0.4 36.7 0 187.1 Percent of Study Area 34.9% 0 2.5% 0.3% 0 5% 4.5% 0 1.5% 31.4% 0.2% 19.6% 0 100%

77

Final: December 2009

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) No changes in land use or zoning are anticipated under the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) There are no anticipated direct effects to land use or zoning resulting from the implementation of the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2. The completion of the K Street project, with its median transitway, would support existing and future land use and future transportation planning elements identified in the comprehensive plans and would not alter the development pattern described in those plans. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) There are no anticipated direct effects to land use or zoning resulting from Alternative 3. The completion of the K Street project, with its median transitway, would support existing land future land use and transportation planning elements identified in the comprehensive plans and would not alter the development pattern described in those plans. Zoning within the study is summarized in Table 3.11. The majority of the study area is zoned commercial (86 percent). Residentially zoned areas make up 9.8 percent of the study area, and special purpose – government makes up 4.1 percent. Table 3.11. Zoning Within K Street Study Area
Zoning Commercial Residential Special Purpose- Government Total Acreage 161.0 18.5 7.6 187.1 Percent of Study Area 86.0% 9.8% 4.1% 100%

3.4.2

Comprehensive Plans

Affected Environment The 2006 Comprehensive Plan details development goals and objectives for the City and sets policies to direct that development. The plan’s Transportation Elements lists the “K Street Busway” as one of the City’s ongoing transit improvement initiatives. According to the plan, the busway would provide two travel lanes for exclusive use by buses between Washington Circle and Mt. Vernon Square, with further extensions to Georgetown in the west and Union Station in the east. The Comprehensive Plan goes on to stress the importance of improving transit accessibility and service by providing relief for traffic congestion and improving cross-town connections, noting that “a well-balanced and multi-modal transportation system is integral to the city’s efforts to sustain and enhance the quality of life and key to its future

78

P Street
e Av

Dupont Circle
17th Street 16th Street

Logan Circle
Isla nd

Ro

ck
21st Street

Cre
ode Rh
tA ve

e k P kw y

22nd Street

O Street

ec nn Co

Av e

ire

ve tA ticu

ps h

ssa c hu set ts A ve

m

Ver m

11th Street

Ha

Ne w

20th Street

19th Street

25th Street

18th Street

15th Street

West End C-2-C
Study Area

Mt. Vernon Square C-2-C C-2-C C-4 C-4 C-3-C
C-3-C
Franklin Square

R-5-B C-3-C
K Street

L Street

R-5-E C-4
Farragut Square

Mt. Vernon Square

Washington Circle

R-5-D
I Street
Pe nn syl van ia A ve

SP-2

McPherson Square

7th Street

M Street

10th Street

Ma

on

N Street

N Street

I Street H Street

I Street

H Street
e Av rk Yo ew N

24thStreet

23rd Street

H Street

Layafette Park

Chinatown

14th Street

Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic

13th Street

ia Av e

12th Street

Vi rg

F Street

F Street

in

Foggy Bottom

The White House

E Street E Street

Legend
Study Area Zoning
Commercial: C-2-C; C-3-A; C-3-C; C-4 Residential: R-5-B; R-5-D; R-5-E Special Purpose: SP-2

Existing Land Use 2004
Residential Commercial/Industrial Institutional Mixed Use Parking Parks and Open Spaces Public (Federal and Local) Transportation, Utilities
0 205 410 820 1,230 1,640 Feet

Finaln Environmental Assessment Pe
The Ellipse
aA Figure i10:ve Zoning and Land Use nsy lvan

K Street

Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)

C Street

9th Street

G Street

G Street

December 2009

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

80

Final: December 2009

economic growth”. The plan also seeks to improve multi-modal connections, improve pedestrian connections, and increase bicycle safety. The Downtown Action Agenda was published in 2000 by the DCOP. The Downtown Action Agenda established a clear direction for future growth within the downtown area of DC, noting the need to strengthen the neighborhoods as “vital and vibrant” areas. With the goals to refine the vision of a “vibrant, versatile, living downtown”, the Downtown Action Agenda sought to attract people to the downtown area by directing growth in various sections of the district. The plan included the provision of retail centers for shoppers, cultural districts for art patrons, convention destinations for visitors, employment centers for workers, sports and theatrical entertainment center, and the “hub of the region’s transportation network”. The land use vision included the K Street transitway as a part of the transportation hub. Extending the Legacy: Planning for America’s Capital in the 21st Century (Legacy Plan) was first published in 1997 by NCPC. The Legacy Plan provided a comprehensive vision that would guide DC’s development over the next 50 to 100 years. The 2006 Comprehensive Plan transforms the vision into policies that enable the fulfillment of this vision. MWCOG is the designated metropolitan planning agency for transportation in the region that includes the District of Columbia. In their 2009 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP), approved by the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (TPB) on July 15, 2009, the “K Street Busway” project is identified as being delayed for approximately five to nine years from is former completion date of 2010. The TPB also approved the 2010 to 2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), which includes the “K Street, NW Priority Busway” as a major project that will provide improved transit and vehicular mobility, reduce congestion and air pollution and improve transportation safety. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Alternative 1 is not consistent with the comprehensive plans as it would not increase or improve transit and traffic operations. The No-Build Alternative would not support or promote pedestrian or bicycle improvements. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 is consistent with local comprehensive plans, including the 1997 NCPC Legacy Plan, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, and the 2009 CLRP and TIP. The proposed transitway and other reconfigurations along K Street would support the increase of commuters and tourists alike by promoting transit options and improving traffic operations, improving connectivity within the City, and promoting pedestrian node improvements. The project would support the 2006 Comprehensive Plan’s goal of increasing transit options for intra-District trips. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Like Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would also be consistent with local comprehensive plans.
81

Final: December 2009

3.4.3

Planned Development

Affected Environment Several planned development projects are located along the K Street corridor. These projects include the following:
• •

K Street and Connecticut Avenue office and retail complex will provide 294,000 square feet of office space and 17,349 square feet of retail space. Square 54 at K Street and 23rd Street is a mixed use development including 342 dwelling units, 430,000 square feet of office space and 80,000 square feet of retail space.

Three planned developments are adjacent to the project area; these projects include the following:

City Center mixed use development on the site of the former D.C. Civic Center will provide 686 dwelling units, 462,500 square feet of office space and 244,000 square feet of retail space. Headquarters Hotel (Marriott Marquis Convention Center Hotel) at 9th Street and Massachusetts Avenue will provide 1,125 hotel rooms and 130,000 square feet of convention space. Mount Vernon Triangle Community Improvement District (CID) will provide 744 dwelling units, 1,108,000 square feet of office and retail space that includes a new Safeway and an additional 266,000 square feet of office space or 266 dwelling units in eleven buildings. Approximately one-third complete, the project is anticipated to open by 2012.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative would have no effects on planned development within the study area. As the planned development within the study area is implemented, increased traffic is anticipated. The No-Build Alternative would not accommodate theses increases. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Alternative) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would have temporary effects on planned development along K Street. Changes in transit patterns, changes in parking restrictions and maintenance of traffic during construction may impede or interfere with construction efforts, but are not anticipated to have permanent impacts. Construction effects are discussed in Section 3.13. When completed, Alternative 2 would support transit and traffic elements of new development along K Street and within the adjacent area. The K Street project is not dependent on the completion of any other planned development projects, nor are there any development projects dependent upon the K Street project. The project would not permanently affect the completion of any of these projects.
82

Final: December 2009

Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Alternative with Passing) Alternative 3, like Alternative 2, would not have a direct effect on planned development within the study area. There may be temporary effects caused by the construction of the K Street project, but these are not anticipated to be permanent. Construction effects are discussed in Section 3.13. The direct on planned development may include changes in traffic patterns.

3.5 Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation Impacts
All improvements are located within existing right-of-way. No displacements or relocations would result from any of the project alternatives.

3.6 Cultural Resources
Affected Environment The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 and other applicable federal, state, and local legislation govern the identification, analysis, and treatment of cultural resources. During the planning process, the lead federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is required to take into account the effect of their proposed project on historic properties which are listed in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Historic properties are defined as properties that are listed in or eligible for the NRHP. The properties that are greater than 45 years of age and had not been previously listed or evaluated were evaluated using the criteria of the NRHP, as described in Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR §800). The identification and evaluation studies have been completed through coordination with the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Officer (DC SHPO). Any potential effects and adverse effects to historic properties that would result from the project were also addressed. No archaeological studies were required for this project due to the disturbed nature of the layers beneath the existing roadway. This section identifies and, when necessary, evaluates potential historic properties in the defined Area of Potential Effects (APE) of the project, shown on Figure 11. The historic architectural APE was discussed and refined during consultation with DDOT, FHWA, NCPC, and DC SHPO. The APE was determined to be where all permanent and temporary project impacts are expected to occur. The APE also includes additional areas to account for potential indirect effects (visual, noise, vibratory, etc.) on the built environment. The APE is known to include 24 properties already listed in, or eligible for, the NRHP, including several National Historic Landmarks (NHL). The previously listed properties also include the L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington that has contributing streets, reservations, and vistas within the APE. The APE boundaries are L Street on the north, the east side of Mount Vernon Square on the east, I Street on the south, and the western end of Washington Circle on the west. The APE includes L and I Streets themselves which are
83

Final: December 2009

contributors to the NRHP listed L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington historic district. In addition, the APE extends one block in each direction for avenues and streets within the study area that were determined to be part of a “Contributing Associated Vista” in the L’Enfant Plan NRHP designation. These were included to take into account any additional visual effects that the project may have on these designated vistas. Field visits were conducted to identify additional buildings, structures, and features located within the APE that are greater than 45 years old. Twenty-four properties were identified that had not been previously identified and evaluated. General and building specific contextual research of the project area was then conducted in order to identify significant local historical events and personages, development patterns, and unique interpretations of architectural styles. The four NRHP criteria (36 CFR §60.4) for evaluation, as outlined in National Register Bulletin 15 on How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, were applied to properties identified within the APE that had not been previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility [36 CFR §800.4 (c)(1)]. For a property to be eligible for the NRHP, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the NRHP criteria but also must have integrity. Therefore, each of the properties were also evaluated against the seven aspects of integrity that include location, setting, feeling, association, materials, design and workmanship, as outlined in National Register Bulletin 15. Of the 24 properties evaluated, 15 were determined to be potentially eligible for the NHRP. Figure 11 shows the locations of these historic properties; Table 3.12 summarizes all of the historic properties within the APE.

84

P Street
Ma ssa c hu set ts A ve
Wire Building Individual / District Contributor (15th St. Potential Boundary Increase) James Talty House Individual Almas Temple Individual / D.C. Historic Site Hamilton Hotel Individual Engine Co. 16 / Truck Co. 3 Individual / D.C. Historic Site Carpenters Building Individual Investment Building District Contributor (15th St. Potential Boundary Increase) Alexander H. Holt House Individual

Dupont Circle Logan Circle
O Street
17th Street 16th Street

y

Ro

22nd Street

21st Street

ode Rh

Isla

Av e

ve tA ticu

N Street
Statler Hotel (Hilton Hotel) District Contributor (16th St. Boundary Increase)

10th Street

ck Cree k P k w
n

11th Street

ve dA

ec nn Co

N Street

m

p

sh ire

Schneider Triangle District

Ha

Ne w

M Street
Tower Building Individual Commonwealth Building Individual

20th Street

18th Street

15th Street

West End
Farragut Park Building Individual

Mt. Vernon Square Federation American
of Labor Individual

Thaddeus Stevens School Individual / D.C. Historic Site

Ver m

on

Washington Circle District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington) 1001 Connecticut Ave Individual

L Street

tA ve

Reservation 70 District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

7th Street
Central Public Library (Carnegie Library) Individual

World Center Building District Contributor (16th St. Boundary Increase) Strong John Thomson School Individual / D.C. Historic Site

Tudor Hall (Henley Park Hotel) Individual / D.C. Historic Site

Washington Circle
K Street
Farragut Square District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

Farragut Square

McPherson Square

Franklin Square
e Av

Mt. Vernon Square

25th Street

Professional Building Individual

I Street
Pe nn syl van ia A ve
3rd Church of Christ, Scientist, and Christian Science Monitor Building Individual / D.C. Historic Site Carlton Hotel Individual / District Contributor (16th St. Boundary Increase) Army and Navy Club Individual / D.C. Historic Site The American Legion Individual Mt. Vernon Square District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

I Street

Arts Club of Washington (Caldwell-Monroe House) Individual

H Street

ork wY Ne
The Champlain (Orme Building) Individual Benjamin Franklin School (and Interiors) Individual

Reservation 175 District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington) Asbury United Methodist Church Individual

H Street

24th Street

23rd Street

H Street
Arts Club of Washington (General Robert MacFeely House) Individual

Layafette Park

Chinatown

19th Street

G Street G Street
Moreschi Building District Contributor (16th St. Boundary Increase)

Franklin Square District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington) Davidson Building Individual / District Contributor (15th St. Potential Boundary Increase) Anton Eberly's Sons, Inc. Individual

Mt. G Street Vernon Place Church United Methodist Individual / D.C. Historic Site

Vi rg

F Street

14th Street

12th Street

Southern Railway Building Individual / District Contributor (15th St. Potential Boundary Increase)

E Street

Legend
United Mine Workers of America (University Club)Individual

13th Street

E Street

Area of Potential Effect NRHP Listed NRHP Eligible

Pen n

sylv

ani aA ve

Final Environmental Assessment
The Ellipse
NHL Listed
0 205 410 820 1,230 1,640 Feet

K Street

Note: All Streets / Avenues within the APE are Contributors to the NRHP listed L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington

Figure 11: Architectural Cultural Resources
December 2009

Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)

C Street

9th Street

in

ia Av e

Peyser Building District Contributor (15th St. Potential Boundary Increase)

Foggy Bottom

The White House

F Street
McPherson Square District Contributor (L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

86

Final: December 2009

Table 3.12. NRHP Listed and Eligible Properties within Area of Potential Effect
Name Location Bounded by Washington Circle, New Hampshire Avenue, K Street, 22nd Street, and L Street, NW 2100 K Street, NW Between K and L Streets on 21st Street, NW, west side 2017 I Street, NW 2015 I Street, NW 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW 1701 K Street, NW 1627 I Street, NW 1625 K Street, NW 1608 K Street, NW 1601 I Street, NW /900 16th Street, NW 1600 K Street, NW 1001 16th Street, NW Build Date Listed/Eligible

Schneider Triangle Professional Building Thaddeus Stevens School Arts Club of Washington (CaldwellMonroe House) Arts Club of Washington (General Robert MacFeely House) None Farragut Park Building Army and Navy Club Commonwealth Building The American Legion Third Church of Christ, Scientist, and Christian Science Monitor Building World Center Building

1889 1960 1868, enlarged 1883, largely rebuilt 1896 1802-06, altered 1881-1929, 1963 ca. 1860, altered 1881-1929 1952-53 1953 1911-1912 1941 1950 1968-1971

NRHP listed district NRHP individually eligible D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) NHL individually listed NRHP individually listed NRHP individually eligible NRHP individually eligible D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) NRHP individually eligible NRHP individually eligible D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) NRHP listed district contributor (16th Street Historic District, Boundary Increase) NRHP listed district contributor (16th Street Historic District, Boundary Increase) NRHP individually listed and district contributor (16th Street Historic District, Boundary Increase) NRHP listed district contributor (16th Street Historic District, Boundary Increase) NRHP eligible district contributor (15th Street Historic District, Potential Boundary Increase) NRHP eligible district contributor (15th Street Historic District, Potential Boundary Increase) NRHP individually eligible and eligible district contributor (15th Street Historic District, Potential Boundary Increase) NHL individually listed NRHP individually eligible and eligible district contributor (15th Street Historic District, Potential Boundary Increase)

1950

Statler Hotel (Hilton Hotel)

1941

Carlton Hotel

923 16th Street, NW

1930

Moreschi Building

905 16th Street, NW

1958-59

Peyser Building

1518 K Street, NW

1928

Investment Building

1501 K Street, NW

Southern Railway Building United Mine Workers of America (University Club) Wire Building

1500 K Street, NW

1928 1912 with 1937 alterations 1949

900 15th Street, NW 1000 Vermont Avenue, NW

87

Final: December 2009

Table 3.12. NRHP Listed and Eligible Properties within Area of Potential Effect
Name Location
th

Build Date

Listed/Eligible NRHP individually eligible and eligible district contributor (15th Street Historic District, Potential Boundary Increase) NRHP individually listed NRHP individually listed NRHP individually eligible D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) NHL individually listed D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) NRHP individually eligible NRHP individually listed NRHP individually eligible NRHP individually eligible NRHP individually listed D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) D.C. Historic Site individually listed (NRHP individually eligible) NHL individually listed NRHP individually listed

Davidson Building

927 15 Street, NW

1918

The Champlain (Orme Building) Tower Building Hamilton Hotel Almas Temple Engine Co. 16/Truck Co. 3 (pending landmark) Benjamin Franklin School (and interiors) Strong John Thomson School Anton Eberly’s Sons, Inc. Asbury United Methodist Church James Talty House Alexander H. Holt House Carpenters Building Tudor Hall (Henley Park Hotel) Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church American Federation of Labor Central Public Library (Carnegie Library) Contributing Streets: I Street, K Street, L Street, Connecticut Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, New York Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue, Vermont Avenue, 9th-22nd Streets Contributing Parks and Reservations: Washington Circle, Farragut Square, McPherson Square, Franklin Park, Mount Vernon Square, and Reservations 70 and 175 Contributing Associated Vistas: Pennsylvania Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, Vermont Avenue, New York Avenue, Massachusetts Avenue, K Street, 13th Street, 16th Street, and 19th Street NW

1424 K Street, NW 1401 K Street, NW 1001 14th Street, NW 1315 K Street, NW 1018 13th Street, NW K Street, NW and 13 Street, southeast corner 1200 L Street, NW 1108 K Street, NW 11th and K Streets, NW 1017 K Street, NW 1015 K Street, NW 1001 K Street, NW 926 Massachusetts Avenue, NW K Street, NW and 9th Street, northwest corner 901 Massachusetts Avenue, NW At Mount Vernon Square
th

1905 1929 1921 1929-1930 1932 1865-69 1910 with 1924 addition 1931 1915-1916 1878 1878 1926 1918 1917 1916 1899-1902 1791 (modified in the early twentieth century)

various

NRHP listed district contributor (L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

various

1791 (modified in the early twentieth century)

NRHP listed district contributor (L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

various

1791 (modified in the early twentieth century)

NRHP listed district contributor (L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington)

After identifying the historic properties located within the APE, the potential effect that the alternatives would have on the historic properties was assessed by applying the criteria of adverse effect. Potential effects include whether the project would alter the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in, or eligibility for, the NRHP (36 CFR
88

Final: December 2009

§800.16(i)). An adverse effect is found when a project may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) Alternative 1 (No-Build) would not have an effect on any historic properties within the APE. Therefore, the criteria of adverse effect were not applied to this alternative. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 may directly affect K Street, as well as the sections of 10th Street to 21st Street, Connecticut Avenue, and Vermont Avenue that cross K Street. There would be potential indirect effects to some historic resources due to construction activities; however, these effects are temporary and are not considered adverse in nature. The potential impacts of this project on the vistas of the L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington are described in Section 3.11. FHWA consultations with the DC SHPO regarding the effects on historic resources within the APE for Alternative 2 proposed for the undertaking, resulted in a determination of No Adverse Effect for the undertaking. Therefore, the impacts of the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 are not considered significant either in context or intensity according to the criteria from the CEQ definition. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Effects from Alternative 3 on cultural resources would be similar to those from Alternative 2. FHWA consultations with the DC SHPO regarding the effects on historic resources within the APE of Alternative 3 proposed for the undertaking resulted in a determination of No Adverse Effect for the undertaking. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 3 are not considered significant either in context or intensity according to the criteria from the CEQ definition. Concurrence for the finding of No Adverse Effect was received from the DC SHPO on August 27, 2009. A copy of this correspondence and others between DC SHPO, FHWA, and DDOT are located in Appendix E. Consultation with DC SHPO will continue through final design.

3.7 Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 CFR 774; 49 USC 303(c)) states that the proposed use of land from any publicly-owned public park, recreation area or significant historic site, is permissible only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use. Section 4(f) properties are identified as all of the historic resources listed in Table 3.12 in Section 3.6. These resources, in addition to historic properties, include all of the publicly-owned public parks in the project area, as they are contributing elements of the L’Enfant Plan. The project would have no adverse effect on any historic
89

Final: December 2009

resource. The project would also not use any parkland. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply.

3.8 Air Quality
A project-level air quality analysis for the K Street project was conducted in accordance with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FHWA guidelines. The purpose of this project-level air quality analysis was to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed alternatives on the air quality, including the analysis of carbon monoxide (CO), ozone precursors (NOx and VOC), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). A qualitative PM2.5 hot spot analysis is not required because, as discussed hereinafter, the K Street project is not a project of air quality concern in accordance with 40 CFR 93.123. Future MSATs are expected to be lower than current MSATs within the project area. 3.8.1 Regional Conformity

The K Street project is included in the current TIP, and the two Build Alternatives under consideration are not significantly enough different from each other that the regional analysis of the TIP would be affected. The National Capital Region 2009 CLRP and the 2010-2015 TIP have been determined by MWCOG to conform to the intent of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Air Quality Conformity Analysis of the 2009 Update to the CLRP and the FY 2010-2015 TIP was approved by the National Capital Region TPB, MWCOG on July 15, 2009. There have been no significant changes in the project’s design concept or scope since that approval. (The CLRP and TIP are currently being reviewed by FHWA. A FHWA Conformity Determination will be made upon approval of a Selected Alternative prior to the approval of the FONSI. At that time this Air Quality Analysis will be updated to state: “There are a currently conforming transportation plan and TIP in accordance with 40 CFR 93.114. The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. Therefore, the project comes from a conforming plan and program in accordance with 40 CFR 93.115.”) 3.8.2 Project-Level CO Conformity

Washington DC’s air quality status for CO is as a maintenance area. Concentrations of CO were estimated under 1-hour (peak) and 8-hour (average) traffic conditions in accordance with EPA regulations and guidance. In addition, procedures established by EPA were used to estimate localized CO concentrations. Concentrations of CO were estimated under AM peak hour, mid-day peak hour, and PM peak hour traffic conditions for five of the worst-case study area intersections. The results were compared with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by EPA. For comparison to NAAQS time frames, worstcase 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations were estimated. The result of this analysis demonstrates that estimated future air pollution levels under the No-Build Alternative, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 are all below the NAAQS and, therefore there will be no violations of the NAAQS.

90

Final: December 2009

Carbon Monoxide Micro-scale Evaluation Carbon monoxide (CO) impacts were analyzed as the accepted indicator of vehicle-generated air pollution. The US EPA CAL3QHC (1993) dispersion model was used to predict CO concentrations for air quality sensitive receptors for the year of opening (2015) and the design year (2030). The detailed analyses predicted air quality impacts at each receptor location from CO vehicular emissions for the No-Build Alternative, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Modeled 1-hour and 8-hour average CO concentrations were added to background CO concentrations for comparison to the State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (S/NAAQS) in order to evaluate the effect the proposed improvements would have on the local ambient air quality relative to the S/NAAQS. Air quality is assessed to determine whether the proposed transportation improvement project conforms to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Air quality receptors were selected to represent air quality sensitive locations within the study area. As described in the Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (EPA, 1992), the criteria for intersection determination for localized air quality analyses depend on the project’s traffic operating characteristics and its vicinity to areas where the public has general access. The combination of signalized intersections and high traffic volumes would occur at the following five intersections (shown on Figure 12): • • • • • K Street and 13th Street K Street and 14th Street K Street and 16th Street K Street and 18th Street K Street and Connecticut Avenue

For this study, 20 receptor locations were identified at each of the above intersections; all of which are located adjacent to the roadways at the corners of the intersections. There are two CO monitoring stations located in Washington, DC: the Verizon Site and the 34th & Dix site. The study area is in downtown DC, which consists of numerous city streets and many buildings. The Verizon site is located within the study area. The 34th &Dix site is in a more open area of the city and is primarily affected by traffic on Benning Road and a nearby power plant. Background levels consist of CO from vehicles on those numerous streets which are outside the limits of the CO analysis, as well as building heating sources. Therefore, the Verizon Building site more closely reflects the background conditions for the K Street Project, and was selected for this analysis. The monitoring station data were retrieved from the EPA Airs Database (www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html). The highest maximum impacts for CO were used as the background concentrations in the model. The background concentration equal to 3.4 ppm was used for the 1-hour analysis, and 2.4 ppm was used for the 8-hour analysis. The analyses indicate that the 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations of CO will not exceed the NAAQS at any receptor locations within the project area for any of the alternatives (see Table 3.13). The 1-hour CO NAAQS is 35 ppm and the 8-hour NAAQS is 9 ppm.

91

Final: December 2009

Burden Analysis In accordance with DDOT samples of analysis and reporting, a burden analysis was done as part of the air analysis for the K Street project to estimate the project study area daily overall pollutant emission rates associated with the study area. CO, NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 emission rates were provided by MWCOG and used as part of the burden analysis to provide an indication of the effects of the project alternatives throughout the project study area on those air pollutants. The emission rates were calculated for an average travel speed on K Street of 20 miles per hour. Only direct emissions of each of these pollutants were estimated. No attempt was made to estimate secondary formation downwind of the release. Note that NOx is also a PM2.5 precursor. Table 3.13. K Street CO Concentrations (ppm)
Intersection K Street/13th Street K Street/14th Street K Street/16th Street K Street/18th Street K Street/Connecticut Ave Alternative 1 (No-Build) 2015 2030 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 4.9 3.5 4.7 3.3 5.0 3.5 4.6 3.2 4.7 3.3 4.6 3.2 4.9 3.5 4.7 3.3 4.9 3.5 4.8 3.4 Alternative 2 2015 2030 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 4.8 3.4 4.6 3.2 5.4 3.8 4.9 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.6 3.2 5.2 3.7 4.8 3.4 5.2 3.7 4.8 3.4 Alternative 3 2015 2030 1-hr 8-hr 1-hr 8-hr 4.8 3.4 4.6 3.2 5.1 3.6 4.8 3.4 5.0 3.5 4.7 3.3 5.0 3.5 4.7 3.3 5.0 3.5 4.6 3.2

Estimated study area pollutant emission rates are based on average daily traffic (ADT) and length of the study area calculated in pounds per day (lbs/day) for the year of opening (2015) and the design year (2030). The 2015 ADT is estimated as 29,600 and the 2030 ADT is estimated as 31,400 for both No-Build and build alternatives. The study area emissions provide a comparison between existing and future conditions for the project alternatives, but not a calibrated estimate of actual emissions. The values obtained are useful to compare the build alternatives but are not meant to predict air quality effects to the region. The estimated existing daily pollution emission rates are shown in Table 3.14. Table 3.14. K Street Estimated Study Area Pollutant Emission Rates (Pounds/Day)
Year 2015 2030 CO 319 262 NOx 55 18 VOC 12 0.9 PM10 2.6 2.3 PM2.5 1.6 0.9

Although average daily traffic is forecast to increase between 2015 and 2030, a comparison between year of opening (2015) and design year (2030) demonstrates the trend towards cleaner operating vehicles for all examined pollutants in 2030. Recognizing that the project study area is a subset of the air quality region (the Washington, DC metropolitan area), the estimate does not account for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and emissions occurring elsewhere in the region.

92

P Street
e Av

Dupont Circle Logan Circle
17th Street 16th Street

Ro

ck
21st Street

Cre
ode Rh
tA ve

e k P kw y
Isla nd

22nd Street

O Street

ec nn Co

Av e

ire

ve tA ticu

ps h

ssa c hu set ts A ve

m

Ver m

11th Street

Ha

Ne w

20th Street

19th Street

25th Street

18th Street

L Street
R-3 R-4 R-1 R-2 R-5

Washington Circle
K Street

15th Street

West End
Study Area

Mt. Vernon Square

Mt. Vernon Square Franklin Square
I Street

Farragut Square

McPherson Square

I Street
Pe nn syl van ia A ve

I Street H Street

H Street

24thStreet

23rd Street

H Street

Layafette Park
G Street

e Av rk Yo ew N

Chinatown

G Street

13th Street

ia Av e

14th Street

12th Street

Vi rg

in

F Street

Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic

The White House

F Street

E Street E Street

Legend
Study Area
Noise Receptors

Finaln Environmental Assessment Pe
ns

K Street
The Ellipse
CO Analysis Locations
0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet

ylv Figure 12:anAir Quality Analysis Locations ia A ve and Noise Sensitive Receptors

Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)

C Street

9th Street

Foggy Bottom

December 2009

7th Street

M Street

10th Street

Ma

on

N Street

N Street

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

94

Final: December 2009

3.8.3

Project-level Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Conformity

The K Street project is located in the Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 nonattainment area. The area was designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 on January 5, 2005 by the EPA, effective on April 5, 2005 and applied on April 5, 2006. On March 10, 2006, EPA issued amendments to the Transportation Conformity Rule to address localized impacts of particulate matter: PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-Spot Analyses in Project-level Transportation Conformity Determinations for the New PM2.5 and Existing PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (71 FR 12468). These rule amendments, listed below, require the assessment of localized air quality impacts of Federally-funded or approved transportation projects in PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas deemed to be projects of air quality concern as identified in 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1): (i) New highway projects that have a significant number of diesel vehicles, and expanded highway projects that have a significant increase in the number of diesel vehicles; Projects affecting intersections that are at Level-of-Service D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to Level-of-Service D, E, or F because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project; New bus and rail terminals and transfer points that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; Expanded bus and rail terminals and transfer points that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and Projects in or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites which are identified in the PM10 or PM2.5 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation.

(ii)

(iii) (iv) (v)

According to the traffic analyses, Alternatives 2 and 3 traffic volumes (ADT) are essentially equal to the No-Build traffic volumes (ADT). The No-Build truck percentages are assumed to be equal to Alternative 2 truck percentages. The truck percentages for Alternative 3 are slightly greater than that of Alternative 2; however, the increase is not considered to be significant. Although the Build Alternatives will shift bus lane-use, there will not be a significant increase in daily bus traffic due to this project. In addition, there are currently both diesel and CNG compressed nature gas buses in use within Washington, DC, and this project is not expected to affect the percentage of each used. The current SIP contains onroad control strategies for PM2.5. These strategies consist of the following: • High-Tech Inspection/Maintenance • Evaporative Standards • National Low Emissions Vehicle Program • Transportation Control Measures and Vehicle Technology, Fuel or Maintenance Measures The Build Alternatives for the K Street project and vehicles using the facility will comply with these control measures.
95

Final: December 2009

The above assessment demonstrates that the K-Street Transitway project is not a project of air quality concern as defined under 40 CFR 93.123(b)(1)(i). Since the project would meet the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 93.109 requirements, the project will not be expected to cause or contribute to a new violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, or increase the frequency or intensity of a violation. 3.8.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). MSATs are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The FHWA Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (Guidance, February 3, 2006) requires analysis of MSATs under specific conditions. The EPA has designated six prioritized MSATs, which are known or probable carcinogens or can cause chronic respiratory effects, for analysis: benzene; acrolein; formaldehyde; 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde; and diesel exhaust (diesel exhaust gases and diesel particulate matter). As determined in the traffic analysis, Alternatives 2 and 3 traffic volumes (ADT) are essentially equal to the No-Build traffic volumes (ADT), the No-Build truck percentages are assumed to be equal to Alternative 2 truck percentages, and the truck percentages for Alternative 3 are slightly greater than that of Alternative 2, but not significantly. None of the 2030 traffic volumes exceeds 140,000 ADT. Therefore, the K Street Transitway project would be a “minor widening project[s]…that serves to improve operations of highway…without adding substantial new capacity or creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase emissions” (Guidance) and would be considered a Project with Low Potential MSAT Effects. Because Alternatives 2 and 3 ADTs and truck percentages are essentially equal to the No-Build ADTs and truck percentages, the K Street Transitway project will not result in any meaningful changes in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, or any other factor that would cause an increase in emissions impacts. As such, FHWA has determined that this project will generate minimal air quality impacts for the Clean Air Act criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns. Included herein is a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emissions impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable a prediction to be made of the projectspecific health impacts of the emission changes associated with either of the build alternatives. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information. Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSAT on a proposed
96

Final: December 2009

highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project. The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSAT in the context of highway projects. The tools to predict how MSAT disperse are also limited. Even if emission levels and concentrations of MSAT could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure assessment and risk analysis preclude reaching meaningful conclusions about project-specific health impacts. Research into the health impacts of MSAT is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses. The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. Even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of MSAT at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSAT, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the build alternatives. For each alternative, the amount of MSAT emitted would be proportional to the annual average daily traffic (AADT), or VMT. Although the build alternatives’ ADT and truck percentages are essentially equal to the No-Build ADT and truck percentages, the VMT within the study area estimated for the build alternatives may be slightly greater than that of the No-Build, because the build alternatives will reduce congestion and increase efficiency of the roadway, and may attract additional trips from elsewhere in the transportation network. This slight increase in VMT may lead to slightly higher MSAT emissions along K Street for the build alternatives. The emissions increase due to increased VMT is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds, since according to EPA's MOBILE 6.2 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs, except diesel particulate matter, decrease as speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models. The reconfiguration of lanes may have the effect of moving some traffic slightly to nearby businesses; therefore, there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under the build alternatives than the No-Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the side where the roadways shift towards the residences and businesses. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the No-Build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In summary, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the build alternatives could be higher relative to the No-Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and
97

Final: December 2009

reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations where traffic shifts slightly away from them. Furthermore, at both the project location and regionally, MSAT concentrations will decrease in future years, as shown in Figure 13, due to EPA's vehicle emission and fuel regulations. MSAT dispersion studies have shown that air toxics from the roadway start to drop off at about 100 meters, and that by 500 meters, most studies have found it very difficult to distinguish the roadway air toxic concentrations from background air toxic concentrations in any given area. Sensitive receptors are those facilities most likely to contain large concentrations of the more sensitive population. There are no sensitive receptors within 100 meters or 500 meters in the study area. 3.8.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts Carbon dioxide is the principle man-made greenhouse gas, representing approximately 82 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Among other sources, approximately 34 percent of the total carbon dioxide is produced by the burning of fossil fuel (gasoline) in internal combustion engines in motor vehicles. The K Street project would not increase the capacity of the roadway nor would it cause an increase in vehicle emissions or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of traffic using the roadway. Therefore, the project would not contribute to an increase in greenhouse gases (www.eia.doe.gov). Figure 13: MSAT Emissions

VMT (trillions/year) 6

U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions, 2000-2020

Emissions (tons/year) 200,000

Benzene (-57%)
VMT (+64 %)

DPM+D EOG (-87% )

3
Fo rmald ehyde (-6 5%)

100,000

Acetald ehyde (-6 2%) 1 ,3 -Butadi ene (-60 %) Acrol ei n (-63%)

0 2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

Notes: F or on-road mobile sources. Emissions factors were gener ated using MOBILE6.2. MT BE proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are held constant. VMT : Highway Statistics 2000 , Table VM- 2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth r ate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE6.2- generated factor s for elemental carbon, or ganic car bon and SO4 from diesel-powered vehicles, with the par ticle size cutoff set at 10.0 micr ons.

98

Final: December 2009

3.8.6

Conclusion

The air quality analysis indicates that no exceedances of the NAAQS are anticipated, and no adverse air quality impacts would be expected to result from Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. No indirect or cumulative effects to air quality would be anticipated. Therefore, the effects to air quality from the build alternatives are not considered significant in either context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition. 3.8.7 Temporary Construction Related Impacts

Construction impacts on Air Quality are described in the Construction Impacts portion of this Chapter, Section 3.14.3.

3.9 Noise
Affected Environment Existing noise measurements were recorded on July 9, 2009 and July 10, 2009 at several critical locations on K Street along the project corridor: one 24-hour measurement at 15th Street and several short-term measurements at 13th, 15th, 17th, 18th and 20th Streets. The noise sensitive receptor locations are shown on Figure 12. A 24-hour receptor, co-located with receptor R-4 on 15th Street, recorded noise levels of at least 71 dBA for all hours of the day, and although typical nighttime noise levels are lower, overnight construction activity may have influenced the overnight measurements of noise levels. Short-term noise levels were measured in 15-minute intervals during the morning and afternoon hours of July 9, between 11:00 AM and 2 PM, and ranged from 66 to 73 dBA at receptors R-1 through R-5 (See Table 3.15). Table 3.15. K Street Existing Noise Levels
Receptor R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 Location K St near 20th K St near 18th K St near 17th K St near 15th K St near 13th Date July 9, 2009 July 9, 2009 July 9, 2009 July 9, 2009 July 9, 2009 Time 12:59 to 13:14 13:20 to 13:35 12:29 to 12:44 11:15 to 11:30 12:05 to 12:19 15-min Leq (dBA) 67 73 66 72 71

The transit service along the corridor currently operates at a high frequency, and an increase in bus routes and bus frequency is expected in the design year. The volume of dieselpowered public transit buses is projected to increase by 16 buses per hour (combined eastbound and westbound) with the implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Design-year bus speeds would be expected to average 6.5 to 7.0 mph for Alternatives 2 and
99

Final: December 2009

3, respectively. Bus lanes would also be located in the center of the roadway, rather than the curbside; this change would increase the distance of the noise source to the receiver, and have a beneficial effect on the noise environment. The analysis method calculates the levels of project-only traffic noise and cumulative noise at noise-sensitive receptors. The analysis incorporates the increase in vehicle frequency (16 vehicles per hour), vehicle type (diesel-powered buses), speed (6.5 for Alternative 2 and 7.0 mph for Alternative 3) and distance from the source to receptor. With the source location represented as the centerline of the bus lanes, distances from source to receptors on the sidewalks ranged from 55 feet (Receptor R-4) to 70 feet (Receptor R-3). Environmental Consequences Using these parameters, noise levels calculated for the project-only improvements range from 43 to 45 dBA for both Alternatives 2 and 3. Project-only noise levels are added to existing noise levels to determine the new cumulative design-year noise level. Since the predicted project-only noise levels are significantly lower than existing noise levels (-23 to -29 dBA difference), cumulative design-year noise levels are predicted to be unchanged from existing levels; no increase in design-year traffic noise is predicted to occur (see Table 3.16). No further noise analysis is warranted beyond this analysis. Because there would be no effect to existing noise levels from Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, effects from noise would not meet any of the criteria for significance from the CEQ definition provided at the beginning of Chapter 3. Table 3.16. K Street Predicted Design-Year Noise Levels
Receptor R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 Existing Leq (dBA) 67 73 66 72 71 Project Leq (dBA) 44 44 43 45 44 Increase (dBA) 0 0 0 0 0 Alt 2/Alt 3 Design-Year Leq (dBA) 67 73 66 72 71

3.10 Natural Environment
This section describes the existing conditions, regulatory requirements, and the impacts of the project on natural resources including physiography, topography and geology; soils; water resources including surface and groundwater resources, floodplains (none present), Waters of the United States including wetlands (none present); and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and habitat (no aquatic wildlife or habitat present) including threatened and endangered species.

100

Final: December 2009

3.10.1 Physiography, Topography, and Geology Affected Environment The project site is located in the Foggy Bottom Area of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province, which is composed of medium-to-coarse grained sand and gravel, with cobbles, boulders, silt, and clay. The topography is gently sloping and ranges from approximately 45 feet to approximately 86 feet above sea level (www.mgs.md.gov, July 9, 2009). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) There would be no impacts to physiography, topography or geology from the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would not impact physiography, topography or geology. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Alternative 3 would not impact physiography, topography or geology. 3.10.2 Soils Affected Environment The general soil classification from the District of Columbia Soil Survey shows project area soils as Urban land association. This association is described as nearly level to moderately sloping areas occupied predominately by structures and works on all landscape positions. The soils series within the project area consist of Urban land (Ub), Udorthents (U1), and Udorthents, sandy (U3). Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) There would be no impacts to soils from the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would not impact soils within the limit of disturbance, as the soils are already highly disturbed, and all construction would occur within the footprint of existing disturbance. Street landscaping would provide appropriate soil areas to support the growth of the proposed urban landscape.

101

Final: December 2009

Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) The impacts for Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2. 3.10.3 Water Resources Affected Environment Surface Water The entire study area and vicinity are developed and/or surrounded by paved surfaces, dwellings/businesses, and small park settings. There are no natural or man-made surface water bodies, streams, canals, drains, wetlands, floodplains, or special aquatic sites within the study area. The project area is located within the Rock Creek watershed and is part of the middle Potomac River basin. Water Quality Water quality is regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376). Generally, water quality in the district remains impaired and many water bodies do not support designated uses for human activities. Groundwater The District of Columbia receives its drinking water supply from the Potomac River. Currently, the entire District is served by public water supplies, with no reliance on groundwater for potable sources (DC Department of Health, 2003). Floodplains There are no floodplains within the project area. Waters of the US, including Wetlands There are no Waters of the US or wetlands within the project area. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) There would be no impacts to water resources from the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would not result in adverse impacts to surface waters, water quality, groundwater, floodplains, or Waters of the US, including wetlands. The proposed project would incorporate several green street and visual quality elements to improve water quality and meet stormwater management (SWM) requirements. These would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and various applicable Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to provide sustainability, achieve groundwater recharge, and enhance water quality. The stormwater management design would include water quality and water quantity management evaluation for the project and would meet current DDOT/Department of the Environment (DOE) SWM criteria.
102

Final: December 2009

Potential LID strategies could include reduction of impervious areas by increasing greening measures (larger tree wells along the sidewalk, landscaped median areas, etc.), treatment of impervious sidewalk/bike path areas through bioretention/rain garden cells/enhanced vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. These techniques would meet the intent of DC WASA’s Long Term Control Plan to the extent practicable. All proposed inlets would be DC WASA water quality inlets to treat runoff from impervious travel lanes. It is assumed that no increase in runoff would occur between the existing and proposed condition; therefore, no storage and attenuation for water quantity management would be required. Overall, the impacts of Alternative 2 on water quality would be beneficial and are not considered significant in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) Alternative 3 would also not result in adverse or significant impacts to surface waters, water quality, groundwater, floodplains, or Waters of the US, including wetlands. Green street and water quality treatment would be similar to Alternative 2. In addition, permeable pavers could be used for the pullout loading areas in the sidewalks. Overall, the impacts of Alternative 3 on water quality would be beneficial and are not considered significant in context or intensity accordance with the CEQ definition. 3.10.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat Affected Environment Aquatic Wildlife and Habitat There is no aquatic wildlife or habitat within the project area of disturbance. Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat There are no terrestrial habitats or wildlife within the project area. The project area is located in an urban streetscape setting with street trees and landscaped areas with ground cover. There are approximately 314 street trees that are either in the existing medians or on the sidewalks (shown in Appendix A). Adjacent parklands are landscaped and consist of park trees and grassed lawns. Common species include Japanese zelkova (Zelkova serrata), American elm (Ulmus americana), and willow oak (Quercus phellos). These trees average 10.5 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and are generally in good condition. Generally, urban trees contribute to the ecological well-being of a street by absorption of carbon dioxide emissions during the day (reducing the carbon footprint) and providing relief from the urban heat signature of the city street. Urban trees provide shade for pedestrians and for park visitors. Street trees in stressed environments (congested urban streets with less available soil) are likely to have a shorter life span and younger maturity than trees in more park-like or forest settings, due to several factors including pollution, soil compaction, and physical damage.

103

Final: December 2009

Threatened and Endangered Species The entire study area is located within a highly urbanized area. The potential for the presence of threatened or endangered species without their critical habitat is unlikely. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) There would be no impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitat and wildlife from the No-Build Alternative. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 would require the removal of all of the street trees within the existing medians between 21st Street and 9th Street and would replace them with a similar number of new trees. Sidewalk trees would be removed, as necessary, to accommodate changes in sidewalk widths. Existing healthy mature trees would be preserved as much as possible. Existing trees would be removed and replaced in accordance with the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration (UFA) guidelines. The alternative would also remove existing ground cover from the existing medians and in sidewalk areas as required. The exact number of trees to be removed and replanted will be determined during final design. All construction would be conducted in accordance with the Urban Forest Preservation Act of 2002. DDOT will review the project and approve tree removal and replacement as part of the Public Space Permit review process. The removal of Special Trees (equal to or greater than 17.5” diameter at breast height (DBH)) within the project area would require a Special Tree Removal Permit from the UFA. Special Trees will require inch for inch DBH replacement. The replacement ratio for removal of street trees less than 17.5” DBH would be determined through coordination with UFA. The project may increase the required number of trees to create a greener corridor in keeping with the concepts of Great Streets/green streets. Replacement and additional trees would be incorporated into the streetscape design, where possible, using approved species. The selection of ground cover plantings for the tree wells and medians would focus on regionally appropriate types. Alternative off-site planting locations or fee in lieu payments are usually required by UFA if all replacement trees cannot be provided within the project limits. Based on the analysis in the previous paragraphs, the impacts of Alternative 2 on terrestrial habitat would be addressed through the streetscape design and are not considered significant in context or intensity accordance with the CEQ definition. Alternative 3 (Two-lane Transitway with Passing) The impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are not considered significant in context or intensity accordance with the CEQ definition.

104

Final: December 2009

3.11 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Affected Environment The project area is located within an urban environment consisting of mostly business and commercial development. There are some residential areas in the western portion of the project area. The viewshed along the length of the project area contains large multi-story buildings and store fronts. The wide sidewalks (primarily between 12 feet and 25 feet) provide space for pedestrians, restaurant seating, benches, street trees, planters, and other vegetation. The existing corridor provides a sequence of visual and aesthetic characteristics from the west end of K Street adjacent to Washington Circle to the east end of the project area adjacent to Mt. Vernon Square. Between 22nd and 12th Streets, the existing configuration generally creates four tree lines, two along the curbside within the sidewalks and two along the medians. The majority of the building frontages within this section extend to the lot line, providing a consistent edge to the right-of-way with a few setbacks. The tree canopy and roadway configuration within this section creates a consistent aesthetic for K Street. Roadway lighting includes both cobra head and ornamental tear drop lights. Sidewalk lighting is predominantly Single 16 ornamental lights. The medians include red brick paving with small tree wells consistently throughout the corridor. Sidewalk materials vary by property, and include the use of scored concrete, concrete pavers, red brick, granite and exposed aggregate concrete. Tree well landscaping varies by property. Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square extend into the right-of-way along K Street resulting in the elimination of the southern median. East of 12th Street the existing roadway is narrower (approximately 50 feet) and does not contain medians within the roadway. This narrower roadway configuration accommodates wider sidewalks and some front lawn areas within the existing right-of-way. Sidewalk paving between 12th and 9th Streets also varies; however, the use of London Pavers is predominant. The project area is part of the NRHP listed 1791 L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington (later modified by the McMillan Plan), which includes several planned vistas that are contributing elements of the historic district. Vistas are distant views along avenues and streets, especially as seen through an opening resulting from rows of buildings or trees. The project area vistas are listed west to east beginning with the avenues, and are then followed by the streets. The vista view descriptions are indicated in parentheses following the street names. Eleven vistas located in the project area were identified in the NRHP nomination, and they are the following: • • • • • • • K Street (various parks) Pennsylvania Avenue (White House Precinct) New Hampshire Avenue (various parks) Connecticut Avenue (White House Precinct) Vermont Avenue (White House Precinct) New York Avenue (Central Public Library and White House Precinct) Massachusetts Avenue (Central Public Library)
105

Final: December 2009

• • • •

19th Street (DuPont Circle) 16th Street (White House) 14th Street (Thomas Circle) 13th Street (Logan Circle)

In addition, there are additional significant vistas of the Plan of the City of Washington that are located within the project area: • • • • • Views to and from Lafayette Park and the White House, from north of K Street along 16th Street Views of Farragut Square and the adjacent intersections of K Street and Connecticut Avenue, and K and 17th Streets from the north and south Views of McPherson Square and the adjacent intersections of K Street and Vermont Avenue, and K and 15th Streets from the north and south Views of Franklin Square and the adjacent intersections of K and 13th Streets, and K and 14th Streets from the north and south Views along K Street and intersecting streets of historic buildings such as the University Club, Tower Building, Benjamin Franklin School, and Southern Railway Building Views to and from Washington Circle along K Street Views to and from Carnegie Library and Mount Vernon Square along K Street

• •

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on the aesthetic character of the project area. Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) Under the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, the aesthetic character would be slightly modified during and following construction. Alternative 2 would allow for the four-row street tree configuration. This alternative would utilize DDOT’s standards for roadway and sidewalk paving, street and pedestrian lighting, and streetscape furnishings to provide a consistent and complementary aesthetic within the corridor. A goal of the project is to strengthen and enhance the urban street setting in a way that would complement the existing corridor. Because the proposed project is already in an urban setting, visual impacts would be minimal. Instead, business patrons and residents would see a new transitway designed to be aesthetically integrated into the existing streetscape. Landscaping and street trees planted as part of the build alternatives would create a greener looking street. This visually pleasing environment would likely increase the number of visitors to K Street and help to improve their experience. Areas with additional landscaping include medians between five feet and eleven feet which would sustain large vegetation, except where constrained by underground utilities and reduced roadway widths surrounding Farragut Square, McPherson Square and
106

Final: December 2009

Franklin Square parks. The width of the associated sidewalks would be maintained. Alternative 2 would also accommodate an increase of landscaping in the sidewalk furnishing zones and medians. The station structures would be designed to both look good and be compatible with their surroundings. The identity for the corridor would also be enhanced through the provision of improved way-finding signage and public art. These factors, particularly the added trees and vegetation, would have a beneficial impact on the quality and livability of the environment and its sustainability. Regarding the L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington vistas, the physical fabric of K Street, including the sections of the cross streets and avenues, have already changed significantly since K Street was originally established. The street had its beginnings under the L’Enfant Plan as an unpaved road. It was only in 1872, well after the Civil War, that this section of K Street between Washington Circle and Mount Vernon Square was paved with wood. It was also during that decade that government owned yards in front of each property along K Street were established, separating the property line from the sidewalk. As the twentieth century progressed, and the street transitioned from being residential to commercial, changes occurred to K Street. The section from 12th Street west to Washington Circle was widened and service lanes were added some time during the 1950s (as already noted above, the section east of 12th Street retains its original width). In 1961, the section of K Street just west of Connecticut Avenue was widened in order to provide an underpass at Washington Circle. Except for some remnants at residences between 10th and 11th Streets (where K Street was not widened), the government owned yards are now gone. In addition, the street has been repaved (and possibly reconstructed), sections of the sidewalk have been replaced, and street lighting and other features have changed over time. Therefore, the physical features of K Street, including the sections of the cross streets and avenues, have continually evolved. The significance and integrity of the historic layout of the streets and avenues, which would remain intact, are more important than the physical fabric itself. The L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington vistas would be maintained along the project area’s streets and avenues within what is already a dense urban fabric. This includes K Street which would continue to visually link, just as well as it does currently, the various parks that are on either end (Washington Circle and Mount Vernon Square) and adjacent to it (Farragut Square, McPherson Square and Franklin Square). K Street will also continue to showcase the views of the historic buildings such as the University Club, Tower Building, Benjamin Franklin School, and Southern Railway Building. The additional views at cross streets, such as at 14th Street (which has views of Franklin Square and Thomas Circle), and 16th Street (with its view to and from Lafayette Park and the White House) will remain intact. Based on the analysis in the previous paragraphs, the effects of Alternative 2 on visual quality and aesthetics would not be adverse, nor would they be considered significant in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition.. Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with Passing) As part of Alternative 3, loading/unloading pullouts or lay-bys would be installed in the K Street sidewalks as necessary. However, as noted in the section on Alternative 2, changes such as these have continually occurred along K Street (and the intersections with cross
107

Final: December 2009

streets and avenues) since the establishment of the L’Enfant Plan and the McMillan Plan. Therefore, the significance and integrity of the historic layout of the streets and avenues, qualities that would not change, are more important than the physical fabric itself. Alternative 3 would have the same impacts to visual and aesthetic resources as Alternative 2 and are not considered significant in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition.

3.12 Hazardous Materials
A hazardous materials investigation was performed to determine the presence of documented contamination that may have resulted in subsurface contamination in or near the K Street corridor. The geographically based regulatory database search was performed by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) and covered a study area approximately one city block around K Street NW, from 7th Street to 24th Street. The search determined that two locations within the corridor, 1725 K Street NW and 1101 K Street NW, experienced petroleum product leaks from underground storage tanks in 1998 and 2004, respectively. Both of the sites remain as open cases, meaning that petroleum contaminants may be present in soils surrounding the leak sites. Considering the site history and urban setting, the most likely contaminant of concern during construction would be petroleum hydrocarbons. The study results indicate that excavation for the proposed construction may encounter localized areas of petroleum-contaminated soils. Appropriate measures to minimize the risks of worker contact with contaminated soil should be implemented and documented in the project’s Health and Safety Plan. Confirmation testing should be performed on soils that contain evidence of contamination. Soils that contain petroleum concentrations exceeding regulatory limits would be removed for off-site treatment or disposal, in accordance with DDOE requirements.

3.13 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
An indirect and cumulative impacts (ICI) analysis was conducted according to the regulations and guidance offered in:
• • • •

FHWA Position Paper, Secondary [Indirect] and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development Process, April 1992; Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Handbook, Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act, January 1997; USEPA, Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (EPA 315-R-99-002), May 1999; and FHWA Memorandum Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact in the NEPA Process, January 31, 2003.

The analysis was completed to determine what changes in land use, if any, may occur as a result of indirect and cumulative impacts of the K Street Project. Indirect and cumulative impacts are defined in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR Sections 15001508):
108

Final: December 2009 • •

Indirect impacts (40 CFR § 1508.8(b)) are “…caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Cumulative effects are “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal, or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions.” (40 CFR § 1580.7, 1997).

3.13.1 Boundaries and Methodology Initial analysis for identifying indirect and cumulative impacts includes a determination of the geographic boundaries for the analysis; identifying the resources to be evaluated (those that are directly affected by the project); and a determination of known proposed development projects that are scheduled to take place within the geographic boundary that may cause impacts that will add to the cumulative impacts of the project. Geographic Boundary The geographic boundary of the ICI analysis is determined as between G and N Streets NW and between 27th and 4th Streets NW. The geographic boundary is set based upon the approximate area that may be influenced by changes in traffic from the build alternatives. Resources to be Evaluated Resources directly impacted by the K Street project include socioeconomic resources (neighborhoods and community cohesion, employment and businesses) and terrestrial vegetation (street trees). Indirect and cumulative impacts to traffic, transit, pedestrians and bicycles are also assessed. Proposed Development There are a number of proposed projects within the ICI boundary that may cause indirect or cumulative effects to resources either in conjunction with or independently from the K Street project. These projects include transit projects as well as development projects.
• • •

The project to rehabilitate New Hampshire Avenue (including improvements to Washington Circle), as described in Section 1.4.5. K Street and Connecticut Avenue office and retail complex that will provide 294,000 square feet of office space and 17,349 square feet of retail space. Square 54 at K Street and 23rd Street is a mixed use development including 342 dwelling units, 430,000 square feet of office space and 80,000 square feet of retail space. City Center mixed use development on the site of the former D.C. Civic Center will provide 686 dwelling units, 462,500 square feet of office space and 244,000 square feet of retail space. Headquarters Hotel (Marriott Marquis Convention Center Hotel) at 9th Street and Massachusetts Avenue will provide 1,125 hotel rooms and 130,000 square feet of convention space.
109

Final: December 2009 •

Mount Vernon Triangle Community Improvement District (CID) will provide 744 dwelling units, 1,108,000 square feet of office and retail space that includes a new Safeway and an additional 266,000 square feet of office space or 266 dwelling units in eleven buildings. Approximately one-third complete, the project is anticipated to be completed by 2012. Mount Vernon Square District planning study involves development of a branding and programming concept for Mount Vernon Square; efforts to integrate and improve retail along 7th and 9th Streets; improvements to the public space within the square and nearby “bow-tie” parks; improvements to pedestrian access around and to the square; developing the square into a multi-modal hub and bus transfer point; improvements to bike access to and around the square; improvements to vehicle circulation around the square; and improvements to the design of bus/bike lanes on 7th and 9th Streets.

3.13.2 Land Use – Past/Present/Future Changes in land use patterns can be an indication of indirect or cumulative impacts. Existing land use within the ICI boundary is generally a mix of high-density residential and business/ commercial uses. Based on the 2006 Comprehensive Plan, land use within the boundary is planned to become more mixed-use with the inclusion of high-density residential development within the business/commercial district. There will be no direct changes to land use caused by the K Street project, as improvements are confined to the existing street rightof-way boundaries. Completion of the K Street project could influence the timing of this planned increase in residential uses, but is not expected to directly influence land use (refer to Section 3.4 of this Final EA). Planned residential uses are identified for: • West end of K Street – institutional (George Washington University) residential areas south of Pennsylvania Avenue and medium to high density residential areas north of Pennsylvania Avenue North and south of K Street – will remain high density commercial except along 16th Street, which is designated as a medium-high residential corridor East end of K Street – from approximately 4th Street will see a mixture of mixed use, residential, and commercial uses with medium to high densities

• •

3.13.3 Indirect impacts Indirect impacts to socioeconomic resources are related to the changes in traffic, transit, and parking and loading/unloading opportunities that would occur on K Street with the implementation of a build alternative. These include:

Indirect impacts of either build alternative to neighborhoods and communities are expected to be caused by automobile traffic that would shift from K Street to other streets (likely I (Eye) and L Streets) during construction and remain on these streets even after completion of the project. Furthermore, some bus traffic would shift to K Street from these other streets to take advantage of the decreased travel time. These
110

Final: December 2009

shifts would affect mobility within the neighborhood as well as the cohesion among community members. For automobile and truck traffic, this impact would likely be less with Alternative 2 (which will provide three travel lanes during peak periods) than with Alternative 3 (provides two travel lanes during peak periods). Bus shifts to use the exclusive transitway would likely be greater with Alternative 3 (with passing) than with Alternative 2 (no bus passing). With either build alternative, it is reasonably expected that buses on the tranitway will faster than buses on other streets, which may cause some bus congestion as the transitway buses enter the surrounding street grid. However, it is anticipated that bus schedule reliability would be greatly improved along K Street; therefore, bus headways and schedules could be properly timed to minimize inefficient stacking.

Indirect impacts to businesses would include potential loss of customers due to the inconvenience of having to park elsewhere, including in parking garages, other than along K Street to visit the business. As a result of loading area and time restrictions, businesses would also likely be subjected to higher rates for deliveries that would have to be carefully scheduled. These higher costs for delivery may be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. This impact would likely be greater with Alternative 3. Even though Alternative 3 would continue to allow deliveries during peak hours, deliveries could only occur from designated sidewalk pull-off areas, alleys, or cross streets, which would likely not meet delivery demand. Indirect impacts to community facilities would include inconvenience for patrons who normally park along K Street and would need to park elsewhere, including in parking garages with higher rates. Loading and deliveries for community facilities would also be inconvenienced by the time constraints that would lead to higher rates for deliveries that would have to be rescheduled to off-peak periods or be restrained by designated sidewalk pull-off areas. Higher rates to community facilities would likely be passed on to users of the facilities, similar to the impacts to consumers noted above.

There would be no indirect impacts to development projects beyond temporary impacts during the construction effort. Once completed, the attraction of an improved K Street would provide enhancement to new development. Indirect impacts to traffic and transit includes changes in transit, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian travel patterns as well as increased use of transit by commuters and visitors. • Indirect impacts of Alternative 2 on traffic would include changes in travel patterns. Automobiles would likely shift to K Street to use the three general purpose lanes to make east-west trips through the CBD during the peak periods. Bus routes would also likely be shifted from other locations to K Street. Also, the additional restrictions of left turns from the general purpose lanes at intersections on K Street would reasonably be expected to cause drivers to take alternate routes to their destinations. These net effect of these changes would be longer travel times for general purpose traffic on L and I Streets during the AM peak hour, compared to the
111

Final: December 2009

No-Build scenario, while bus travel times on I Street would decrease in the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, travel times for all vehicle types on L and I Street, compared to the No-Build scenario, would not change. The indirect impacts of Alternative 3 would be similar to those caused by Alternative 2. However, under Alternative 3, general purpose lane capacity would be reduced, resulting in a shift of some automobiles and trucks from K Street to other routes to avoid the increased congestion in the proposed general purpose lanes. • Indirect impacts to transit upon completion of Alternative 2 include the increased connectivity between transit modes and ease of use with more reliable operations. This improved and expanded level of service could increase the number of visitors to the area above that projected, which could bring additional tourist dollars to the corridor. It may also increase the attractiveness of the area for new businesses. The indirect impacts of Alternative 3 on transit would be the same as those from Alternative 2. Indirect effects on bicycles and pedestrians include additional users of these modes on K Street. Bicyclists often use the existing K Street service lanes for bicycle travel. Under Alternative 2, some bicyclists may continue to use K Street in the proposed shared use curbside lanes, however, it can also be reasonably expected that bicycle use would shift to I and L Streets as an indirect effect of changes to K Street. Under Alternative 3, it is anticipated that the reverse would occur; cross-town bicycle traffic on I and L Streets would likely shift to the proposed K Street bicycle lanes. In general, pedestrian use of Alternatives 2 and 3 would maintain or increase sidewalk space; therefore, indirect effects to pedestrians are not expected from either alternative.

Indirect impacts to natural resources include those to water quality and to terrestrial habitat (street trees).

There would be a positive indirect effect on downstream water quality as a result of the implementation of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Installation of green technologies would enhance water quality. Indirect impacts to street trees would include non-survival of new trees, thus requiring replacement, or damage occurring from abuse. Because the project is anticipated to lower congestion and idling and decrease travel time through the area, the effect of vehicle pollution would be lowered from existing conditions. Replacement trees would require several years to reach maturity, thus changing the visual aesthetic associated with existing mature trees. Indirect impacts to visual quality and the visual aesthetic beyond the time needed for new trees to mature are not anticipated as a result of the implementation of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3.

3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to socioeconomic resources are also related to changes in traffic, transit, and parking and loading/unloading opportunities that would occur on K Street when added to
112

Final: December 2009

the effects of other projects. These impacts would be similar between Alternatives 2 and 3 and are likely to include:

Cumulative impacts on neighborhoods and community cohesion due to the implementation of a build alternative would occur from changes in travel patterns caused by the project that contribute to the constant change of travel patterns caused by other unrelated projects, such as potential circulation changes at Mt. Vernon Square from the ongoing planning study; periodic changes to bus schedules and service routes; and frequent changes to turning movement restrictions. Employment along K Street after implementation of a build alternative would be benefitted substantially by the project by providing decreased and more reliable travel times and increased transit opportunities for employees. With the other projects within the ICI boundary, opportunities for employment would include temporary construction jobs as well as permanent positions. Existing businesses may also benefit by the influx of workers that would be drawn to new and existing job opportunities.

Cumulative impacts on development projects would be due to evolving changes in traffic patterns associated with ongoing development projects. These changes, with any changes caused directly by the implementation of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, would contribute to the cumulative evolution of the urban environment. Either build alternative of the K Street project would also likely contribute incrementally to visual impacts of the vistas and viewsheds in the project area that would also altered by other building construction along the corridor. Changes to street vegetation and bus shelters from the K Street project, together with new or modified buildings, would alter the character of K Street. Cumulative impacts to traffic and transportation would include adding K Street’s impacts to those of other projects on travel patterns, transit, and parking. • Alternative 2 would add to the cumulative impacts to traffic resulting from incremental changes in travel patterns caused in conjunction with other development projects, in particular the modifications under review as part of the Mt. Vernon Square District Planning Study. The Square is proposed as a multimodal transit hub, which, if implemented, will result in the extension of transit lines along K Street to the Square. This will increase transit vehicles on the eastern end of the K Street project limits to the Mt. Vernon Square area. The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to those caused by Alternative 2. The added impacts of increased employment due to other development projects may also increase traffic beyond that which is anticipated. Overall cumulative effects of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 on transit would be minor, as they are merged with the continually evolving traffic of an urban environment. The reliability and travel time savings of the K Street project could cause a larger increase in ridership when added to additional development projects in the area. Competition for loading/delivery space may also contribute incrementally to cumulative impacts on costs for deliveries.
113

Final: December 2009

It is anticipated that the K Street project would contribute to the cumulative impacts to parking that may result from the impacts of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Some of the other development projects may be reasonably expected to affect the number of parking spaces that are available in the project area, by both increasing and decreasing the number of spaces depending on the nature of the development project.

Cumulative impacts to water quality may occur as a result of other projects’ use of green technologies, providing a cumulative improvement within the Rock Creek watershed. Cumulative impacts from Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2. After completion of landscaping and planting described in Section 3.10, the K Street project would not contribute to any cumulative impact on street trees. 3.13.5 Conclusions Overall, indirect and cumulative impacts of the K Street project are not expected to be significant either in context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition. While some of the impacts are considered negative, many of the effects are expected to be beneficial to businesses, residents and visitors to the downtown DC area and to the area surrounding K Street. Given that there are no other developments that are dependent upon the K Street project, it is not reasonably expected that additional indirect impacts would occur. The K Street project would not contribute significantly to the cumulative impacts of other projects within the area considered for indirect and cumulative effects.

3.14 Construction Impacts
Temporary impacts to the environment that could occur during the construction of a build alternative could be related to noise, vibration, air quality, and changes in traffic patterns (maintenance of traffic) and would be similar between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Methods to avoid or minimize the impacts are included in each section. A public information program will be used to inform the public of the duration of construction phasing, construction methods, possible effects, quality control measures, and communication available to them. Based on the analysis summarized in the following sections, construction impacts resulting from Alternatives 2 and 3 are not considered significant in either context or intensity in accordance with the CEQ definition. Temporary impacts would be minimized as discussed, and would be offset by the beneficial long-term effects of the project. 3.14.1 Socioeconomic Impacts During construction of either build alternative, businesses that operate along K Street may be temporarily disadvantaged by various elements of the construction process. Although the flow of traffic along K Street will be maintained, the phasing of the street and landscaping work may disrupt the daily occurrence of business on the street. All utilities (electrical power, water and sewer, telephone and cable) would be maintained throughout construction, although unforeseen brief, temporary outages may occur during connections. These would be maintained to a minimum and the public would be given advance notice of any planned
114

Final: December 2009

outages. Construction noise and dust, although minimized, would temporarily disrupt outdoor dining areas. Street vendors would be inconvenienced by city-assisted relocations as a safety precaution during various phases of the construction, but would be returned to their regular locations as soon as conditions become amenable for their return. DDOT will work with the street vendors to assist in finding them new locations along the corridor during the construction phase of the project as required or appropriate. Access would be maintained to all businesses during construction. Loading/deliveries would be hampered during the construction of K Street, by the loss of curbside delivery zones and by the consequent congestion at loading/delivery docks located in the many alleys. Pedestrian walkways would be protected from construction so that they could remain open to the extent practicable. Valet parking drop-off zones, too, would be temporarily removed during various construction phases. Some loss of retail and service customers due to construction inconveniences may occur, as customers would possibly avoid the area during construction. DDOT will work with businesses to develop ways to minimize construction impacts as much as possible. Sidewalk closures will be kept to a minimum and announced as much in advance as possible. Signs would be provided to assist consumers by stating that all businesses remain open and providing directions, as appropriate, to their entrances. Because of the potential loss of parking spaces during construction, alternate parking facilities would be identified on signage posted along the street and provided to all businesses to pass on to their customers. 3.14.2 Noise Noise impacts from construction activities are a function of noise generated by construction equipment, the proximity of sensitive uses to construction activities, and the duration of the construction effort. Construction noise is regulated by Title 20 of the D.C. Code of Municipal Regulations and all construction noise shall be compliant with the regulations. Because the majority of this project’s construction is not in a residential zone, residential construction noise limits generally would not apply. The noise control measures listed below could be used to minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, the noise levels in all areas surrounding the construction limits.
• • • • • •

Use of shields, impervious fences or other physical sound barriers to reduce noise. Use of sound retardant housings or enclosures around noise producing equipment. Use of effective intake and exhaust mufflers on internal combustion engines and compressors. Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations so that noise is kept to a minimum. Advise the engineer in writing of the proposed haul routes prior to securing a permit from the local government. Subject to the approval of the engineer, place stationary equipment to minimize noise impact on the community.

115

Final: December 2009

3.14.3 Vibration Construction activities have the potential for producing vibration levels that may be perceptible. Some construction activities could generate vibration levels high enough to cause architectural and structural damage. Even where vibration levels are lower or imperceptible, vibrations could produce ground-borne noise. The effects of ground-borne vibration could include rattling of windows and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. In extreme cases, the vibration could cause damage to buildings. The vibration of building surfaces and objects within the building could also result in a low-frequency rumble noise. The rumble is the noise radiated from the vibration of the room surfaces, even when the vibration itself cannot be felt. Recognizing the possibility that some damage could occur to adjacent structures, a preconstruction survey, including a detailed photographic record of existing structures, could be conducted and restitution or repairs made based on actual damages if they are determined to be a result of construction activities. Suggested vibration control measures to minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, the vibration levels include the following:
• • • • • •

Specify realistic vibration limits in contract documents. Require the contractor to submit a list of operations that may generate vibration and work with the contractor to reduce their magnitude and/or duration. Conduct a monitoring program during construction. Monitor vibrations at nearest sensitive locations throughout the construction period. Route construction equipment to avoid impacts to sensitive receptors. Minimize the duration of vibration impacts.

3.14.4 Air Quality Construction impacts on air quality are evaluated qualitatively due to the limited availability of detailed information regarding equipment used during construction. Construction activities are estimated to be completed within two to five years in the study area. Therefore, a project level conformity analysis is not required, and construction emissions do not need to be accounted for in a “hot spot analysis” per 93.123(c)(5). Air quality impacts could occur primarily as a result of emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, and cranes; diesel-fueled mobile sources such as trucks; diesel and gas-fueled generators; and on and offsite project-related vehicles such as service trucks and pickups. Fugitive PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are associated with site preparation, demolition, ground excavation, grading, cut-and-fill operations, and structure erection. Fugitive dust emissions could also be generated as a result of construction-related traffic and wind erosion of uncovered demolition and excavation areas. PM emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Hot, dry weather conditions could aggravate particulate matter emissions. Emission rates would depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount and type of operating equipment. Larger dust particles (PM10) would
116

Final: December 2009

settle near the source and fine particles (PM2.5) would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. In addition, there would be engine exhaust from construction workers’ personal vehicles, heavy trucks, and construction equipment. These emissions would primarily consist of NOx, SO2, PM, CO, and VOCs, which are common at construction sites. Emissions from operating equipment and vehicles during hot summer months would contribute to ozone formation. If construction traffic and lane closures were to increase congestion in the area, emissions from traffic would increase temporarily and would be limited to the area surrounding the construction site. Some construction phases (particularly during paving operations using asphalt) would result in short-term odors, which could be detectable to some people near the project site, but would be diluted as distance from the site increases. District regulations regarding dust control and other air quality emission reduction controls would be followed. Every effort would be made during the construction phase to limit disruption to traffic, especially during peak travel hours. The amount of construction dust generated could be reduced through the following:
• • • •

Mist water over demolition or excavation operations. Cover trucks when moving materials. Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. Provide vegetative cover for all exposed soils during and upon completion of construction.

Construction impacts could be reduced by incorporating the above measures into the construction specifications for the project. 3.14.5 Hazardous Materials The introduction of hazardous materials into the air, soil or groundwater is specifically prohibited by the Clean Air Act (regulating both mobile and stationary source emissions), the Clean Water Act (regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (ensuring worker/workplace safety), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (addressing the use and disposal of specific chemicals), and regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although well regulated, accidental discharges of petroleum products such as engine motor oils or fuels could occur within a construction site. All necessary precautions would be taken to ensure that construction equipment would be properly operated and maintained, so that accidental spills would not occur. Use of petroleum products by construction equipment would be similar under Alternatives 2 and 3. Emissions of volatile materials from construction machinery are regulated through EPA and are discussed previously in Section 3.13.3. Actions to be taken in case of an accidental petroleum spill would be included in the project’s Health and Safety Plan, approved by DDOT during the procurement process to select a contractor for the project.

117

Final: December 2009

3.14.6 Maintenance of Traffic A detailed Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan would be developed during final design and it would indicate how the construction would be completed in a number of phases. The plan would include details on how all modes (automobiles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycles) would be accommodated in each phase. It would also address how access, parking, and loading/unloading operations would be provided or maintained. In general, the impacts to the public would be temporary and could include extended travel times, reduced speed limits, the elimination of on-street parking, and modified loading/unloading. It is anticipated that K Street would be reconstructed in five phases which would generally include the following elements: 1) remove raised medians and repave flush with roadway surface, 2) shift traffic toward center of roadway and reconstruct sidewalks and outside edges of roadway, 3) shift traffic toward edges of roadway and reconstruct center, 4) shift traffic and construct raised medians, and 5) construct final surfaces, architectural treatments, and landscaping. Reconstruction of the intersections would occur from phase 2 through 5. In addition to the physical construction phases, the MOT plan would also address the following key concerns: • • • • • • Maintain the current number of travel lanes during peak hours. Accommodate pedestrians by providing temporary walkways for safe passage through the work zone. Maintain access to businesses and building front doors by providing temporary paths through the sidewalk reconstruction. Provide access to parking garages that do not have alternate entrances by using temporary pavement and phasing the construction around the entrances. Where alleys and loading docks do not provide adequate loading/unloading opportunities, provide mid-block bump-outs in the temporary construction zones to allow service vehicles to make necessary deliveries. Develop a comprehensive public information plan that would provide a continuous stream of information about the construction stages and access changes.

In essence, throughout all phases of construction, the contractor would have to share their work zones with the public. This sharing of space would increase both construction time and cost, but would be necessary in order to minimize inconveniences on the stakeholders and the public. 3.14.7 Summary of Construction Impacts Temporary construction factors such as noise, vibration, air quality, and maintenance of traffic can have a potential impact on different businesses, organizations, and people. The construction would result in localized inconveniences for businesses/commercial enterprises, professional agencies and institutions, parking facilities, delivery services, emergency services, access to Metro facilities, and cultural institutions and resources. These are inconveniences due to reduced direct access to destinations along K Street, which could add nominal time and cost to those involved such as the proprietors, customers, and others.
118

Final: December 2009

Businesses/commercial enterprises, and professional agencies and institutions may also experience some minor disruptions of their services. In addition, restaurants are expected to experience levels of noise and dust which could cause some disruptions, especially at outdoor locations. Street parking would likely be prohibited during construction, and service lane use would likely be removed early in the phasing sequence. No direct or indirect impacts for historic resources are anticipated during construction. Safe access would be maintained for pedestrians, whether they are within crosswalks or sidewalks. Efforts would be made to reduce inconveniences for buses and their passengers and to minimize public and private utility disturbances. Consequently, the removal of trees and the existence of on-site construction equipment would affect the visual environment. Some localized construction related noise and air impacts would be anticipated. These temporary impacts are summarized in Table 3.17.

119

Final: December 2009

Table 3.17. Summary of Construction Impacts
Assessment of Construction Impacts on: Businesses/commercial enterprises Professional agencies and institutions Restaurants (outdoor eateries, etc.) Licensed cart vendors Alternative 2: Two-Lane Transitway and Alternative 3: Two-Lane Transitway with Passing Minor disruptions and localized inconveniences Minor disruptions and localized inconveniences Levels of noise and dust expected to cause some disruptions DDOT will work with the street vendors to assist in finding new locations along the corridor during the construction phase (Section 3.14.1) Some localized inconveniences for garage access; onstreet likely to be prohibited Likely to be removed early in phasing sequence Some localized inconveniences Some localized inconveniences Some localized inconveniences Care will be taken to continue safe access along and across K Street Coordination with WMATA will reduce inconveniences Some localized inconveniences, but safe access will be maintained Some localized inconveniences, but safe access will be maintained No direct or indirect impacts Removal of trees and on-site construction equipment will affect visual environment Coordination with public and private utilities will minimize disturbances and ensure that interruptions of service do not occur or are minimized (Section 3.14.1) Localized construction related noise impacts expected; see Section 3.14.2 Localized construction related air impacts expected; see Section 3.14.4

Parking facilities (metered and garaged) Service lane usage Access to alleys for deliveries Deliveries Emergency services (fire, police, ambulance, response times, etc.) Pedestrians (crosswalks, sidewalks) WMATA and other bus operations Access to Metro facilities Cultural institutions and resources Historic resources Visual environment Infrastructure (Stormwater, sanitary sewers, water supply, electrical communications, street lighting, telephone, cable, etc.) Noise Air quality

120

Final: December 2009

4. AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

4

AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This section describes the coordination conducted with the stakeholders, agencies and general public, including a description of the components of the public meeting held on July 29, 2009.

4.1 Stakeholder Coordination
Stakeholder coordination continues to be an essential element in completing the planning process for the K Street project. The project team has met with the Downtown DC Business Improvement District (BID), the Golden Triangle BID, the study area Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs), and individual stakeholders, as listed below, to inform them of the current project, identify issues, and gather input.
• • • • •

July 1, 2009: Public, Downtown BID, Golden Triangle BID, ANC representatives July 15, 2009: Downtown BID, Golden Triangle BID July 23, 2009: Downtown BID & Golden Triangle BID Boards of Directors July 29, 2009: Downtown BID & Golden Triangle BID Boards of Directors October 9, 2009: Downtown BID and Golden Triangle BID

The BID organizations have indicated their strong support for Alternative 2. Their concerns include improving urban design, maintaining flexible loading and valet parking along K Street, maintaining existing sidewalk width, and managing vehicle congestion. Additional comments received from the BIDs are included in Appendix F.

4.2 Public Meeting
A public meeting was held on July 29, 2009 at the Four Points by Sheraton Hotel, 1201 K Street NW, from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM to afford all interested persons the opportunity to provide their views regarding the project. The meeting was attended by 47 citizens. Announcements of the meeting were published in The Current, a free local newspaper, and the Washington Post newspaper and posted in English and Spanish in buses. Announcements were also mailed and emailed to agency representatives, the Downtown BID and Golden Triangle BID for dissemination among their members, ANCs for dissemination among their members, and individual business owners and posted on the project’s website, http://ddot.dc.gov/kstreetEA. A statement was included on the notice indicating the

121

Final: December 2009

availability of free accommodations for persons with disabilities and of translation services for limited and non-English proficient individuals. Information and displays were available throughout the meeting to provide attendees an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the various aspects of the project, including Purpose and Need; alternatives under consideration (typical sections and roll plans); historic resources and Section 106 process; summaries of the previous studies; current bus operations; comparisons of the alternatives under consideration; traffic and transit operations; streetscape and landscape opportunities; environmental sustainability; and the project schedule. Members of the project team were on hand to assist attendees to understand how the project would affect the streetscape, traffic, bus transportation, loading/unloading, parking, and other areas of concern and interest. All meeting displays have been posted on the project website. Attendees were provided the opportunity to comment on the project during the workshop in writing or orally to a court reporter. The major themes from the 20 written comments and two oral comments submitted include the following:
• • • • •

Need to accommodate bicycle lanes Maintaining on-street parking Providing loading zones with ample length and maneuvering room Need for separate transit lanes to more efficiently move transit along K Street Sidewalks width and landscaping

Comments received from the public at the July 29, 2009 public meeting, as well as additional comments received from the public prior to the availability of the EA, have been responded to in this Final EA in Appendix F..

4.3 Public Hearing
A Public Hearing was held on October 14, 2009 at the Carnegie Library located at 801 K Street NW, from 6:00 PM to 8:30 PM. The hearing was attended by 36 citizens. Announcements of the hearing were published in The Current, a free local newspaper, and the Washington Post newspaper on September 30, 2009 and posted in English and Spanish in the Circulator buses. Announcements were also mailed and emailed to agency representatives, the Downtown BID and Golden Triangle BID for dissemination among their members, ANCs for dissemination among their members, and individual business owners, and also posted on the project’s website, http://ddot.dc.gov/kstreetEA. A statement was included on the notice indicating the availability of free accommodations for persons with disabilities and of translation services for limited and non-English proficient individuals. The hearing provided individuals the opportunity to comment on the proposed project and on the September 2009 Environmental Assessment (EA). A presentation was given to provide background on the project. Maps, displays, and copies of the EA were available. Members of the project team were on hand to assist attendees to understand how the project would affect the street configuration, traffic, bus transportation, loading/unloading, parking,

122

Final: December 2009

environmental issues and historic properties, and other areas of concern and interest. All meeting displays were posted on the project website. Eleven people provided public testimony at the hearing. Six people provided private testimony. Six written comments were received at the hearing and 274 comments were emailed or mailed to the project team during the designated comment period (ending October 30, 2009). Copies of all comments received and responses to the comments are included in Appendix F.

4.4 Agency Coordination
Throughout the process of preparing this Final EA, Federal and local agencies were contacted to inform them about the project, identify issues of concern, and obtain information about environmental resources within the project area. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) decided to be a cooperating agency for this project. Three general agency coordination meetings were held on July 1, July 31, and October 14, 2009. Coordination was initiated on June 26, 2009, with an email invitation to the appropriate agencies from the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) to attend the initial agency coordination and scoping meeting on July 1, 2009. Agencies represented at the July 1, 2009 meeting included Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), NCPC, National Park Service (NPS), Commission on Fine Arts (CFA), Arlington County, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration (WMATA), District of Columbia Office of Planning (DCOP) and District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DOE). Members of the project team included representatives from DDOT and consultants RK&K and ZGF. Important issues identified during the July 1, 2009 meeting included the following: • • • • The accelerated schedule for completion of the EA and a reasonable expectation that FHWA would approve the document on or before September 15, 2009; Public involvement and public input is essential for the NEPA process; Elements of the draft Purpose and Need, including transportation elements and “Great Street”/urban design elements; and, Environmental resources and study methods.

The balance of the meeting was devoted to identifying agency issues and concerns. Issues and concerns most often voiced included design, identity/sense of place, and landscaping; functionality of transitway, transit, and bus operations; pedestrian safety; connectivity and integration of design; support for Great Street concept. Other agency concerns are listed below: • Federal Highway Administration: aggressive schedule would require active input from all
123

Final: December 2009

• • • • • • • •

National Capital Planning Commission: streets in the District are historic; parks avoidance; compatibility with future possible streetcar system National Park Service: landscape and design; sense of place; pedestrian friendly and safe; accelerated schedule impact on oversight of crucial elements Commission on Fine Arts: importance of design elements and viewsheds; negatives associated with elimination of on-street parking, identity and integration of design Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments: bicycle opportunities, inclusion of Bike Sharing/Smart Bikes District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority: many utilities located under street, maintenance/additional lighting, existing 1860 water main Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration: bus operations, design of transit stops, where buses enter and exit transitway District of Columbia Office of Planning: improving the function of K Street as affected by the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street District of Columbia Department of the Environment: stormwater management concepts including collection and disposal

The project team met with each of the agencies individually throughout the month of July, as listed below, to discuss and resolve issues. • • • • • • July 7, 2009: July 8, 2009: July 8, 2009: July 13, 2009: July 27, 2009: July 28, 2009: WMATA DC State Historic Preservation Officer NCPC DDOE WASA CFA

The project team also met with the agency group on July 31, 2009 and October 14, 2009. Agency members made comments about the following at these meetings: • • Federal Highway Administration – Eastern Federal Lands Division: use of qualitative analyses; cumulative effects for surrounding bus traffic Commission on Fine Arts: coordination with the Mount Vernon Square Planning Study; additional traffic modeling / analysis of the off peak periods; landscaping; and unifying street design; address bicycle concerns on H and I Streets, rather than K Street; long-term improvements should not be precluded between 9th and 12th Streets; involvement during design phase. DC State Historical Preservation Officer: no adverse effect to historic properties for both alternatives, additional review during design. DC Office of Planning: save existing trees to the extent possible. National Capital Planning Commission: maintain sidewalk width. National Park Service: supported no park impacts, and incorporation of transit and marked bike lane; 9th to 12th Street segment should be consistent with overall project theme.

• • • •

124

Final: December 2009

• • • • • • •

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments: stressed multi-modal needs and regional significance of the project; importance of commuter bus connectivity; more differentiation between the alternatives. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority: intends to replace K Street water lines and install more subsurface access facilities during street construction; maintain curb locations to limit additional utility relocations. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: maintain bus schedule times and cross street bus stops; preference for Alternative 3; verify platform height to work with WMATA buses; review transit dwell times DC Department of the Environment: supports “green street” concepts; noted the SWM regulations are being updated and may be followed during design. Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission (PRTC): acknowledge the regionally significant transportation network needs; no current PRTC bus lines on K Street, but may consider if K Street is more transit-friendly. Loudoun County: noted K Street bus accommodation is important. District of Columbia Office of Planning: noted long loading zones may disrupt street tree pattern; consider diagonal streets for views rather than only along K Street.

Written comments received from the agencies on the September 2009 EA are provided in the beginning of Appendix F.

125

Final: December 2009

This page is intentionally blank.

126

Final: December 2009

5
5. LIST OF PREPARERS

LIST OF PREPARERS

District Department of Transportation
Karina Ricks Faisal Hameed Austina Casey Eulois Cleckley Charles Whalen Levon Petrosian Chris Ziemann Amy Vance Jim Sebastian Tomika Hughey Hayat Kelil-Brown Mike Goodno

Federal Highway Administration
Michael Hicks

Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP (RK&K)
David Wallace, P.E. Partner Karen Kahl, P.E., PTOE Associate Barbara Hoage, P.E., PTOE Associate Henry Bankard, Jr. Associate Eric Almquist, A.I.C.P. Project Manager Kevin Hughes Senior Engineer Denny Finnerin, P.E. Project Engineer Amy Archer Engineer

127

Final: December 2009

Barbara Hughes, P.E. Project Manager Jeffrey Parker, P.E., PTOE Project Engineer Stephen McCarthy, AICP Transportation Planner Maggie Berman Environmental Planner Christeen Taniguchi Architectural Historian

George Tye Acoustic Engineer Helen German, AICP Environmental Planner Ryan Sless GIS/Graphics Coordinator Deb Wooley CADD/Graphics Coordinator

Zimmer, Gunsul, Frasca Architects LLP (ZGF)
Gregory Baldwin, F.A.I.A. Design Partner Otto Condon, A.I.C.P. Urban Design Principal Brian McCarter, F.A.S.L.A., A.I.C.P. Landscape Principal Greg Matto, A.S.L.A. Designer Debbie Chow, A.S.L.A. Designer

Wilson T. Ballard Company
Michael Kelly, P.E. Air Quality Engineer

Toole Design
Bill Schultheiss, P.E. Transportation Engineer

128

Final: December 2009

6. REFERENCES

6
REFERENCES
36 CFR Part 800 - Protection of Historic Properties. 40 CFR, § 51 – Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. Print. 40 CFR § 93 – Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans. 40 CFR § 93-123(b)(1) (2003). Print. 40 CFR § 1500-1508 – Council on Environmental Quality Regulations on Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act. Air Quality System Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2006. Web. July-Aug. 2009. <www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html>. DC Office of Planning. Web. <www.planning.dc.gov>. Decennial Census. US Census Bureau, 2000. Web. <http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=sp4_decennial>. District Department of Transportation. Environmental Policy & Process Manual; Highway Noise Policy and Regulations. 2008. Print. “District Municipal Groundwater Regulations, Title 21, Section 1150.” District of Columbia Department of Health. Web. 09 July 2009. <http://app.doh.dc.gov/>. District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan. April 2005. Print. District of Columbia. Office of Planning. Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: District Elements. Dec. 2006. Web. <http://planning.dc.gov/planning/cwp/view,a,1354,q,639789,PM,1.asp>. District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan. April 2009. Print. District of Columbia Department of Transportation and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis – Needs Assessment. June 2004. District of Columbia Office of Planning. Downtown Action Agenda Report.

129

Final: December 2009

“District of Columbia Water Quality Assessment Executive Summary.” District of Columbia Department of Health. Web. 9 July 2009. <http://app.doh.dc.gov/>. Downtown DC Business Improvement District. 2008 Downtown Pedestrian Study. “A Pedestrian Survey conducted for Washington D.C. Business Improvement District”. May 2008 Downtown DC Business Improvement District. Downtown Leadership Paper – Greening Downtown DC: Strategies for Protecting the Planet, People and Profit. Number 3, July 2008. Executive Order No. 12898, 3 CFR (1994). Print. Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Web. Federal Highway Administration. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. February 3, 2006. Print. Federal Highway Administration Noise Policy Title 23, § 772. Print. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. Report no. EPA454/R-92-005. North Carolina: Research Triangle Park, 1992. Print. “Known Wetlands within the District of Columbia.” District of Columbia Department of Health. Bureau of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division Website. Web. 9 July 2009. <http://app.doh.dc.gov/>. Maryland Geological Survey. www.mgs.md.gov. National Capital Planning Commission. Extending the Legacy: Planning America’s Capital for the 21st Century. 1997. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Downtown D.C Business Improvement District (BID). K Street Urban Design Charrette. July 2004. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 40 CFR, § 50. Print. National Park Service, National Register Publications. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1990; Revised 1991, 1995, 1997. Revised for Internet 1995, 2001, 2002. “Physiographic Map of Maryland (Draft).” Maryland Geological Survey. Print. Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2000. Print. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Map Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14. Map. Soil Survey of District of Columbia, Maryland. Washington, DC, 1976. Print.
130

Final: December 2009

United States Environmental Protection Agency. AirData. www.epa.gov/oar/data/index.html. Urban Forest Preservation Act of 2002, § 50-888 (2002). Print. “Watershed Profiles-Rock Creek.” Maryland's Surf Your Watershed. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Web. 9 July 2009. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. District Department of Transportation. K Street Transitway Final Report. May 2005. Print.

131

APPENDIX A

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

APPENDIX B

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

N

TYPICAL BLOCK

PARK BLOCK

W S

E

K STREET NW

METRO FARRAGUT NORTH

M

K STREET NW

12'
PEAK HOUR TRAVEL / OFF PEAK PARKING / LOADING

12' 10' 8' 12'

TRAVEL

TRAVEL TRAVEL

10' 0' 1

TRAVEL PLANTED MEDIAN

11'
PLATFORM

1

BUS ONLY

BUS ONLY

12'

BUS ONLY

12' 2'

BUS ONLY

10'

11'

12'

TRAVEL

10'

19TH STREET NW

10'

TRAVEL

12'

PEAK HOUR TRAVEL / OFF PEAK PARKING / LOADING

18TH STREET NW

TRAVEL

FARRAGUT SQUARE

LEGEND

LEGEND TRANSIT SHELTER TREE WELL STORMWATER PLANTER STREET LIGHTING WASHINGTON TWINS
STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE PENDANTS

TRANSIT SHELTER

TREE WELL

STORMWATER PLANTER

STREET LIGHTING WASHINGTON TWINS

STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE PENDANTS

VENDING LOCATION

VENDING LOCATION

Final Environmental Assessment
Sheet 6 Alt. 2: Landscape Rendering
U.S .

K Street

DE

ENT RTM PA

OF TRAN

SP O

December 2009
RA RA LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

TIO N

17TH STREET NW CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW
TRAVEL

BUS ONLY
BUS ONLY PLANTED MEDIAN

BUS ONLY
BUS ONLY
ON ATI RT
E FED

APPENDIX C

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

N

TYPICAL BLOCK

PARK BLOCK

W S

E

K STREET NW

METRO FARRAGUT NORTH

M

K STREET NW

5'

BIKE LANE TRAVEL TRAVEL PLANTED MEDIAN

BIKE LANE TRAVEL TRAVEL

10'-6"

10'

8'

1

10'-6" 10'-6" 5'

12'

BUS BUS ONLY NLY

12' 2'

BUS ONLY

BUS ONLY

11'

BUS O ONLY

BUS ONLY

TRAVEL TRAVEL BIKE LANE

12'

CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW

12'

19TH STREET NW

10'-6"

TRAVEL TRAVEL BIKE LANE

5'

10'

18TH STREET NW

FARRAGUT SQUARE

LEGEND

LEGEND TRANSIT SHELTER TREE WELL STORMWATER PLANTER STREET LIGHTING WASHINGTON TWINS STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE PENDANTS VENDING LOCATION

TRANSIT SHELTER

TREE WELL

STORMWATER PLANTER

STREET LIGHTING WASHINGTON TWINS

STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE PENDANTS

VENDING LOCATION

Final Environmental Assessment
Sheet 6 Alt. 3: Landscape Rendering
U.S .

K Street

DE

ENT RTM PA

OF TRAN

SP O

5' 10'-6" 10'-6"

PLATFORM

December 2009
RA RA LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

TIO N

17TH STREET NW

BUS ONLY

BUS ONLY
BUS ONLY
ON ATI RT
E FED

BU BUS ONL ONLY NL NLY

APPENDIX D

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

K STREET PROJECT 21 STREET NW TO 9TH STREET NW PROJECT COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
ST

Under contract to DDOT, Transportation Policy and Planning Administration, RK&K was retained to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the two Build Alternatives and a No-build Alternative for the K Street Project on an accelerated nine-week schedule. As a part of this effort, RK&K prepared cost estimates based upon conceptual plans and typical sections included in the Environmental Assessment dated August 2009. Project limits extend from approximately 100 feet west of 21st Street to 9th Street, a length of 6,700 feet. No R/W impacts are anticipated due to this construction. Full details on the project alternatives and an assessment of their impact are presented in the EA. This cost estimate memo summarizes the Key Assumptions and Exclusions for the two Build Alternatives. Costs have been developed at this conceptual level for both “TOTAL NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST” (i.e., what a contractor may reasonably be expected to bid for the construction effort under a traditional Design-Bid-Build approach) and a “TOTAL PROJECT COST” which includes funding for design, construction management, construction claims, change orders, and an owner’s reserve of $10 million. The following table summarizes these costs estimates EA LEVEL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Alternative Alternative 2: Two-Lane Transitway Alternative 3: Two-Lane Transitway with Passing “Neat” Construction Cost $92.0M $92.1M DDOT Program Management Cost $46.8M $46.8M Total Project Cost $138.9M $139.0M

Details on the Assumptions and Exclusions made by RK&K in the development of these costs are as follows; separate estimates for each alternative are also included. ASSUMPTIONS MADE IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Roadway: 1. Complete reconstruction of K Street with the following: GP/bus lanes - 2” hot mix, 12” PCC base, 12” Graded Aggregate Base Course (GABC) Bus Pads – 12” reinforced PCC, 12” GABC Intersections – 12” PCC colored/scored, 12” GABC Crosswalks – 12” PCC colored/scored, 12” GABC, Zebra striped Curb and gutter – 8x12 inch granite curb, PCC gutters along lanes wider than 10 feet 2. Complete reconstruction of sidewalks with the following:
M:\projects\2006\06102_ddot\Task 8 K Street\Cost Estimate\K Street EA Cost Estimate Assumptions & Exclusions.doc

August 12, 2009

1 of 7

2” concrete London pavers 3/4” sand-cement setting bed 4” PCC base 4” GABC 3. Loading areas located within sidewalk footprint (Alternative 3 only) to be constructed with the following: Traffic-bearing pavers 6” PCC base 6” GABC

Utilities: 1. Cost for replacement of existing water mains 6” to 12” diameter, built prior to 1945, with same size ductile iron pipe (DIP) are included. Assumes none of these pipes have not been cleaned and lined since their installation. 2. Cost for relocation/replacement of water mains larger than 12” diameter is not included. Assumes larger pipes (24”to 36”) have been cleaned and lined, and that these water mains will not be impacted by the proposed roadway construction. 3. Costs for new access structures on larger water mains (24”to 36”) for future cleaning/lining/joint repair operations are not included. 4. Cost for relocation/replacement of sanitary sewers the K Street right of way is not included.

Drainage:
1. From 13th east to 9th Streets, all occurrences of 12" outfall pipe were assumed to be under capacity/to be removed and replaced with 15" RCP. 2. Conditions assessment and video inspection of existing drainage system that will be connected to is not included in the cost. These pipes are assumed to remain in place, be in working condition, and have adequate capacity. 3. Where separate outfall runs are not provided on each side of K Street, costs are provided, including the associated manholes. 4. Inlet quantities are based on DDOT’s inlet spacing design criteria rather than water quality (WQ) volume design criteria. 5. One continuous run of underdrain will be installed behind the curb on each side of the street to convey treated SWM runoff from under bioretention/porous pavement areas into roadside inlets. 6. The 6' wide tree space along the entirety of both curbs will be comprised of approximately 50% bioretention/rain garden and 50% porous pavers. 7. All drainage inlets will be replaced with new DC WASA WQ inlets. Costs for existing structures removal in addition to the cost of excavating for the new inlet are included.

2 of 7

8. At each of the 15 intersections with K Street, two existing inlets will be replaced with DC WASA WQ inlets at curb returns located on the upstream approach of cross street. 9. From 15th Street east to 9th Street, in the combined sewer outfall area, all existing inlets and associated connect pipe will be replaced.

EXCLUSIONS FROM THE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Conditions assessment and video inspection of existing drainage system to remain Replacement of water mains larger than 12" in diameter Access structures for larger water mains (24" to 36") Relocation/replacement of sanitary mains Smart Bike Racks, vending carts, multi-space meters Bus Shelters

M:\projects\2006\06102_ddot\Task 8 K Street\Cost Estimate\K Street EA Cost Estimate Assumptions & Exclusions.doc

3 of 7

K Street Transitway Cost Estimate 21st Street to 9th Street Length: 6,700 lf, 1.3 mi
Alternative 2: 2-Lane Transitway
Description
1. Grading a. Removal of Existing Roadway b. Removal of Existing Median c. Removal of Existing Sidewalk e. Excavation f. Borrow 2. Drainage a. Install WQ Inlet b. Remove Existing Inlet c. 6" Underdrain d. Install 48" I.D. Manhole e. 15" RCP Pipe f. Adjust Top of Manhole g. Erosion and Sediment Control 3. Roadway - General Purpose Lane Paving a. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, 12" b. 2" Superpave, Type C Hot-Mix, 160 Gyrations, PG 64-22 c. 12" Graded Aggregate Base Course 4. Roadway - Bus Lane Paving a. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, 12" b. 2" Superpave, Type C Hot-Mix, 160 Gyrations, PG 64-22 c. 12" Graded Aggregate Base Course 5. Sidewalk/Platforms a. Granite Curb b. Portland Cement Concrete Gutter c. Portland Cement Concrete Median (less than 5' wide) d. London Paver Sidewalk Section e. London Paver Platform Section (15 total platforms) 6. Decorative Barrier (at bus platforms)

8.10.2009

Quantity
19,380 9,255 9,226 65,000 97,000

Unit
CY CY CY CY CY

Unit Cost
$60.00 $60.00 $125.00 $40.00 $50.00

Amount
$1,162,783 $555,280 $1,153,190 $2,600,000 $4,850,000

130 130 15,000 30 16,400 90 1

EA EA LF EA LF EA LS

$16,000.00 $2,000.00 $35.00 $8,150.00 $130.00 $1,000.00

$2,080,000 $260,000 $525,000 $244,500 $2,132,000 $90,000 $400,000

41,015 4,825 41,015 17,712 2,084 17,712 11,440 13,841 493 265,156 22,808 2,400

SY TON SY SY TON SY LF LF SF SF SF LF

$110.00 $100.00 $30.00 $110.00 $100.00 $30.00 $100.00 $35.00 $15.00 $20.00 $20.00 $150.00

$4,511,626 $482,527 $1,230,443 $1,948,332 $208,378 $531,363 $1,144,000 $484,435 $7,395 $5,303,120 $456,160 $360,000

Structures
1. Utility Vaults 20 EA $25,000.00 $500,000

Landscaping
1. 2. 2. 4. Median Plantings Tree Well Plantings Trees (assume 6" caliper) Furnishings (see note 1) 40,117 23,500 450 1 SF SF EA LS $15.00 $20.00 $3,100.00 $352,500.00 $601,755 $470,000 $1,395,000 $352,500

Mobilization, Maintenance of Traffic, Const. Engineering Traffic
1. Signing Structures a. Signing 2. Lighting a. Sidewalk (Washington Globe twin-20 19' pole) b. Median (Washington Globe twin-20 19' pole) c. Intersection (Teardrop 30' pole) 3. Pavement Marking a. 4" Thermoplastic Pavement Markings b. 12" Thermoplastic Pavement Markings c. Thermoplastic Bike Lane Symbol 4. Signals a. New b. Temporary 5. ITS a. Cameras b. Concrete Encased Multi Duct (4) 80 154 64 58 42,700 18,000 112 14 14 7 6,800

45% of Grading, Roadway Paving, Sidewalks & Structures

$12,370,064.37

EA EA EA EA LF LF EA EA EA EA LF

$500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00 $2.00 $3.00 $350.00 $200,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 $100.00

$40,000 $1,232,000 $512,000 $696,000 $85,400 $54,000 $39,200 $2,800,000 $700,000 $140,000 $680,000

4 of 7

K Street Transitway Cost Estimate 21st Street to 9th Street Length: 6,700 lf, 1.3 mi
Alternative 2: 2-Lane Transitway
Description Environmental Mitigation 1. Stormwater Management a. Bioretention Area b. Porous Pavers Utility Relocations/Adjustments 1. Water 2. Lump Sum Budget for Other - 10% of Grading, Roadway Paving,
Sidewalks & Structures

8.10.2009

Quantity

Unit

Unit Cost

Amount

45,000 108,500

SF SF

$20.00 $8.00

$900,000 $868,000

9,650

LF

$150.00

$1,447,500 $2,748,903

Subtotal Base Construction Cost Construction Contingency TOTAL NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST DDOT Program Management Cost Public Art Construction Escalation (Fall 2009 to Fall 2010) Final Design Construction Management Construction Claims Change Orders Owner's Reserve (Lump Sum) Subtotal DDOT Program Management Cost

50% of Base Construction Cost

$61,352,855 $30,677,000 $92,030,000 $921,000 $5,522,000 $11,044,000 $7,363,000 $4,602,000 $7,363,000 $10,000,000 $46,815,000

1% 6% 12% 8% 5% 8%

of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost

TOTAL PROJECT COST

$138,845,000

Note 1) Furnishings include: Trash cans - 4 per block face, 120 total at $900/ea = $108,000 Benches - 2 per block face, 60 total at $1200/ea = $72,000 Bike Racks (Inverted U) - 10 per block face, 300 total at $500/ea = $150,000 Newspaper Corrals - 1 per block, 15 total at $1500/ea = $22,500 Note 2) Exclusions: Conditions assessment and video inspection of existing drainage system to remain Replacement of water mains larger than 12" in diameter Access structures for larger water mains (24"-36") Relocation/replacement of sanitary mains Bus Shelters Smart Bike Racks, vending carts, multi-space meters

5 of 7

K Street Transitway Cost Estimate 21st Street to 9th Street Length: 6,700 lf, 1.3 mi
Alternative 3: 2-Lane Transitway with Passing
Description
1. Grading a. Removal of Existing Roadway b. Removal of Existing Median c. Removal of Existing Sidewalk e. Excavation f. Borrow 2. Drainage a. Install WQ Inlet b. Remove Existing Inlet c. 6" Underdrain d. Install 48" I.D. Manhole e. 15" RCP Pipe f. Adjust Top of Manhole g. Erosion and Sediment Control 3. Roadway - General Traffic Lane Paving a. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, 12" b. 2" Superpave, Type C Hot-Mix, 160 Gyrations, PG 64-22 c. 12" Graded Aggregate Base Course 4. Roadway - Bus Lane Paving a. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement, 12" b. 2" Superpave, Type C Hot-Mix, 160 Gyrations, PG 64-22 c. 12" Graded Aggregate Base Course 5. Sidewalk/Platforms a. Granite Curb b. Portland Cement Concrete Gutter c. Portland Cement Concrete Median (less than 5' wide) d. London Paver Sidewalk Section e. London Paver Platform Section (15 total platforms) 6. Decorative Barrier (at bus platforms)

8.10.2009

Quantity
19,380 9,255 9,226 65,000 97,000

Unit
CY CY CY CY CY

Unit Cost
$60.00 $60.00 $125.00 $40.00 $50.00

Amount
$1,162,783 $555,280 $1,153,190 $2,600,000 $4,850,000

130 130 15,000 30 16,400 90 1

EA EA LF EA LF EA LS

$16,000.00 $2,000.00 $35.00 $8,150.00 $130.00 $1,000.00

$2,080,000 $260,000 $525,000 $244,500 $2,132,000 $90,000 $400,000

38,769 4,561 38,769 19,585 2,304 19,585 11,440 13,788 694 273,861 23,274 2,250

SY TON SY SY TON SY LF LF SF SF SF LF

$110.00 $100.00 $30.00 $110.00 $100.00 $30.00 $100.00 $35.00 $15.00 $20.00 $20.00 $150.00

$4,264,639 $456,111 $1,163,083 $2,154,387 $230,416 $587,560 $1,144,000 $482,580 $10,410 $5,477,220 $465,480 $337,500

Structures
1. Utility Vaults 20 EA $25,000.00 $500,000

Landscaping
1. 2. 2. 4. Median Plantings Tree Well Plantings Trees (assume 6" caliper) Furnishings (see note 1) 43,228 21,400 415 1 SF SF EA LS $15.00 $20.00 $3,100.00 $352,500.00 $648,420 $428,000 $1,286,500 $352,500

Mobilization, Maintenance of Traffic, Const. Engineering Traffic
1. Signing Structures a. Signing 2. Lighting a. Sidewalk (Washington Globe twin-20 19' pole) b. Median (Washington Globe twin-20 19' pole) c. Intersection (Teardrop 30' pole) 3. Pavement Marking a. 4" Thermoplastic Pavement Markings b. 12" Thermoplastic Pavement Markings c. Thermoplastic Bike Lane Symbol 4. Signals a. New b. Temporary 5. ITS a. Cameras b. Concrete Encased Multi Duct (4) 80 154 64 58 41,000 18,000 112 14 14 7 6,800

45% of Grading, Roadway Paving, Sidewalks & Structures

$12,417,587.37

EA EA EA EA LF LF EA EA EA EA LF

$500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00 $2.00 $3.00 $350.00 $200,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 $100.00

$40,000 $1,232,000 $512,000 $696,000 $82,000 $54,000 $39,200 $2,800,000 $700,000 $140,000 $680,000

6 of 7

K Street Transitway Cost Estimate 21st Street to 9th Street Length: 6,700 lf, 1.3 mi
Alternative 3: 2-Lane Transitway with Passing
Description Environmental Mitigation 5. Stormwater Management a. Bioretention Area b. Porous Pavers Utility Relocations/Adjustments 1. Water 2. Lump Sum Budget for Other - 10% of Grading, Roadway Paving,
Sidewalks & Structures

8.10.2009

Quantity

Unit

Unit Cost

Amount

45,000 108,500

SF SF

$20.00 $8.00

$900,000 $868,000

9,650

LF

$150.00

$1,447,500 $2,759,464

Subtotal Base Construction Cost Construction Contingency TOTAL NEAT CONSTRUCTION COST DDOT Program Management Cost Public Art Construction Escalation (Fall 2009 to Fall 2010) Final Design Construction Management Construction Claims Change Orders Owner's Reserve (Lump Sum) Subtotal DDOT Program Management Cost

50% of Base Construction Cost

$61,409,310 $30,705,000 $92,115,000 $922,000 $5,527,000 $11,054,000 $7,370,000 $4,606,000 $7,370,000 $10,000,000 $46,849,000

1% 6% 12% 8% 5% 8%

of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost of Neat Construction Cost

TOTAL PROJECT COST

$138,964,000

Note 1) Furnishings include: Trash cans - 4 per block face, 120 total at $900/ea = $108,000 Benches - 2 per block face, 60 total at $1200/ea = $72,000 Bike Racks (Inverted U) - 10 per block face, 300 total at $500/ea = $150,000 Newspaper Corrals - 1 per block, 15 total at $1500/ea = $22,500 Note 2) Exclusions: Conditions assessment and video inspection of existing drainage system to remain Replacement of water mains larger than 12" in diameter Access structures for larger water mains (24"-36") Relocation/replacement of sanitary mains Bus Shelters Smart Bike Racks, vending carts, multi-space meters

7 of 7

APPENDIX E

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Transportation Policy & Planning Administration

June 29, 2009
Mr. David Maloney State Historic Preservation Officer District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office 2000 14th Street, NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20009 RE: Section 106 consultation for the K Street Transitway Project Dear Mr. Maloney: The District Department of Transportation (DDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the K Street Transitway Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The project will consider effects to historic properties in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §470) and its implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. The purpose of this letter is to formally initiate Section 106 consultation for the K Street Transitway Project. The K Street Transitway Project is located in Washington, DC along K Street NW, and is reviewing the area between 8th Street and 23rd Street.The purpose of the project is to provide a continuous high-quality, high-performance transit link from the eastern end of the Central Business District (Union Station) to Georgetown to address transit connectivity, operational deficiencies, safety, and aging infrastructure needs. This project includes evaluation of the no-build alternative and build alternatives that would construct an exclusive transitway in the center of the roadway. All build alternative improvements would be within the current K Street right-of-way. Improvements would extend from approximately 10th Street to 21st Street NW. We will contact you shortly to set up meetings to discuss this project. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact me. Thank you very much, and we look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely,

Faisal Hameed, Manager, Project Development & Environment Branch 202-671-2326
Cc: Mike Hicks, FHWA DC Division; Andrew Lewis, DC HPO; Nancy Witherell, NCPC; David Levi, NCPC

2000 14th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009 (202) 671-2730

APPENDIX F

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS PO
ON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Laura Richards, The Committee of 100

Response to Laura Richards: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: October 30, 2009

Mr. Gabe Klein, Director District Department of Transportation

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. The total width of the Preferred Alternative is essentially equal to the existing cross section width.

Mr. Mark Kehrli, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration D. C. Division Office

Gentlemen:

Re: K. Street Environmental Assessment

The Committee of 100 on the Federal City is pleased to comment on the K Street Environmental Assessment issued by the Federal Department of Transportation and the District Department of Transportation.

The loss of approximately 130 low-cost, curbside parking spaces could have an economic impact on businesses. Overall, however, the Preferred Alternative should have a positive effect on businesses. The increased accessibility to businesses afforded by the transitway, and the improvement in the appearance of the corridor should benefit business by attracting more clientele and spurring more commercial development.

The pursuit of additional capacity for mass transit along the K Street corridor is a widely supported goal. The current proposal will fundamentally reconfigure the travel patterns along K Street between Washington Circle and Mt. Vernon Square; indeed, it will change the structure and character of K Street itself. We will miss the broad, open swaths that have characterized K Street for decades and that will be sacrificed to enable development of this project.

We believe the Transportation Departments have reasonably identified the areas of potential effect of the project, and we concur with the State Historic Preservation Office’s evaluation of the historic assets. We strongly support the call for SHPO review
Appendix F-1

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

of 60% and 90% drawings, allowing SHPO input on design and location of bus stops, landscaping, signage, medians, pavement, sidewalks, and related elements.

We are pleased that no parkland will be required to accommodate the proposed busway along this section of K Street. We would look to SHPO and the National Park Service review to monitor in particular the reservations at Mt. Vernon Square, Franklin Square, McPherson Square, Farragut Square, Washington Circle, and the L’Enfant Plan for the City of Washington itself.

We further concur with the National Capital Planning Commission’s judgment that no work in connection with this project be intended to initiate §106 review of the much larger plans for an integrated trolley or tram system throughout the District. Such a system would require a full, independent EIS, and we look forward to participating in its development.

We caution that this project, however well designed and executed, is subject to the same limitations that bedevil the current roadway: double-parked and standing delivery vehicles servicing office buildings that line the street. The EA’s characterization of the project’s impact on services to these buildings as “some localized inconveniences” seriously understates the likely consequences. Even a project that will command nearly $140 million can be frustrated by failure to effectively control seemingly minor concerns.

We look forward to the further development of plans for the K Street corridor.

Sincerely,

Laura M. Richards Chair

Appendix F-2

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Nancy Gourley

Response to Nancy Gourley: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need.

From: "Gourley, Nancy" <Nancy.Gourley@loudoun.gov> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:18:02 -0400 Subject: Loudoun County Comments on K-Street EA

Dear Mr. Hameed,

Thank you for allowing the Loudoun County Office of Transportation Services (OTS) to comment on the options presented for the K Street Transitway. As you may or may not know, Loudoun County provides a significant amount of public commuter bus service between Loudoun County and the District. The majority of our ridership works in the NW side of DC, however we also have a portion or our ridership that works on or near Independence Ave between 14th St & 6th St SW and the Navy Yard. Below is an overview of our existing service that would be directly affected by the K St Transitway reconfiguration.

Between 6:00 AM and 9:30 AM, Loudoun has 28 commuter coaches that travel east along K Street from 18th St NW to 14 St NW. The buses travel North on 18th St NW, turn right onto K St NW, proceed east on K St NW and then turn right onto 14th St NW. Obviously, it is important to us that the Loudoun buses continue to be able to use K St NW in the AM as well as enter and exit K St from the above mentioned streets.

In the afternoon, there are 29 Loudoun County commuter coaches that currently travel on I St NW (westbound between 14th St NW and 19th ST NW) between 3:20 PM and 6:20 PM. Loudoun County commuter coaches proceed north on 14th St NW, turn left onto I St NW and then turn left onto 19th St NW. I St NW is extremely congested in the afternoon which makes entering onto and exiting off of I St NW in this stretch a difficult and sometimes hazardous situation. OTS staff is optimistic that improvements to K Street will have positive effects on I Street (e.g., by relocating some existing I Street Metrobus services to K Street).

The Loudoun County commuter bus service is an important player in
Appendix F-3

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

the District, transporting in excess of 2000 riders weekday mornings and afternoons. We want to continue to remove SOV’s from the District travel corridors, and contribute to improved air quality in the Region. Assuming the K St Transitway will be open to our commuter buses, Loudoun is amenable to modifying our current route(s) to use the Transitway, anticipating that this would improve travel times and safety. We have long established corridors and stops in NW and SW DC (described above) that we need to continue serving, but have no issues with changing the route(s) to serve them.

As PRTC mentioned in their comments, Loudoun, PRTC, and MTA have been meeting with DDOT regarding plans designed to improve commuter bus travel times and reliability in the District and reduce the sometimes negative impact commuter buses have on other traffic. One option being considered is to relocate current K Street commuter bus service onto L Street. Were this to transpire, changes made to K Street that worsened travel in the GP lanes (as depicted in Alternative 3) would clearly result in more vehicles using L and degrading travel times/consistency as former K Street users(SOV’s) seek better options. This increased congestion would potentially decrease the level of safety for buses and bus patrons on L Street.

Thank you for considering our comments, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on this important project.

Nancy Gourley Chief, Transit & Commuter Services Loudoun County Office of Transportation Services

Appendix F-4

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Barbara Rudnick

Response to Barbara Rudnick, EPA Thank you for your comments. Response to 1st Bullet: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Under the Preferred Alternative, bus stops would be provided at almost every intersection, in both directions. Response to 2nd Bullet: The Final Environmental Assessment contains additional information concerning the advantages of Alternative 2 and the reasons for its selection. Response to 3rd Bullet: Level-of-service (LOS) D is typically the desired goal for urban areas, although many jurisdictions allow greater highway congestion where transit options are available. Due to physical or environmental constraints, it is not always possible to achieve the desired LOS. Furthermore, achieving the desired LOS is not the only objective on this project. On this particular project, the goal is to balance the operations of motorists, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians, and the Preferred Alternative best accomplishes that objective. Response to 4th Bullet: Compared to the No-Build Alternative, person through-put would be enhanced with either Build Alternative, including Alternative 3 which has a greater number of failing intersections than the No-Build Alternative. This is possible because bus ridership and operation is substantially enhanced by the construction of a separate transitway.

Appendix F-5

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Barbara Rudnick

Response to 5th Bullet: Restricting left turns actually improves travel time because it eliminates the need for a separate signal phase to accommodate turns. In this case, there would be a need for a separate left turn phase for buses, and another left turn phase for the general purpose lanes, since these could not be accomplished simultaneously. Safety was another consideration in restricting left turns; i.e., the desire to avoid conflicts between turning buses and turning automobile/truck traffic. The number of lanes is the factor that most influences the disparity in travel times between Alternative 2 (which has 6 general purpose lanes) and Alternative 3 (which has 4 general purpose lanes). Response to 6th Bullet: The Final Environmental Assessment contains a section devoted to Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Bus traffic is expected to shift from the parallel streets to K Street to take advantage of the improved travel time afforded by the separate transitway. Response to 7th Bullet: Answers to these questions may be obtained from the April 2009 District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan which may be reviewed at http://www.ddot.dc.gov/ddot/cwp/view,a,1245,q,646782,ddotNav_GID,1761,ddo tNav,%7C34416%7C.asp It should be noted that with the Preferred Alternative, the width of the street will remain essentially as it exists today, and pedestrian crossings will be aided by pedestrian signal phasing. Pedestrian crossings would be made safer by the restrictions on left turns. Bus platforms will be in a median located between the transitway and the general purpose lanes, but the platforms would be 11 feet wide and 140 feet long, to ensure pedestrian safety. Response to 8th Bullet: Cross walks will comply with ADA requirements.

0-Barbara Rudnick

Appendix F-6

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to 9th Bullet: A discussion of Indirect and Cumulative Effects has been added to the Final Environmental Assessment. Response to 10th Bullet: Low income and minority populations are located mostly in the block groups surrounding the ends of the project improvement area. The block groups with the greatest minority populations (74 to 96 percent) are east and north of Mt. Vernon Square and outside of the area of improvements. The block groups with the most persons below poverty level (23 to 53 percent) are east and south of Mt. Vernon Square and south and west of Washington Circle (also outside of the area of improvements), and in the block group between Lafayette Park and Dupont Circle (inside the area of project improvements only between 16th Street and Connecticut Avenue). Outreach included public notices of both the Public Workshop and the Public Hearing posted on buses in both English and Spanish languages and advertised in both the Washington Post and The Current, a free local newspaper. There would be no direct effects from the improvements to any of these EJ populations, as the impacts would only affect the existing roadway right-of-way. The primary parking impact to all populations, including minority and lowincome populations, would be the loss of 39 percent of the least expensive parking spaces ($2 or less per hour). More than 200 low-cost, curbside parking spaces would remain that could be used during off-peak hours. All individuals who would park on K Street would be impacted alike in the loss of approximately 100 on-street parking/loading spaces throughout the length of the project area, but those with lower incomes would be most affected because the higher cost of parking in a garage would represent a larger percentage of their income. The new transportation alignment would be available for all persons and would not disproportionately affect any specific EJ populations.

Appendix F-7

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-David Levy

Response to David Levy Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: A section has been added in the Final Environmental Assessment to discuss the cumulative effects of the Alternatives. Response to Comment 2: A section has been added in the Final Environmental Assessment to discuss potential visual impacts of the Preferred Alternative on each of the historic viewsheds. Response to Comment 3: The project plans will be coordinated NCPC and the D.C. SHPO during final design.

1

2

Appendix F-8

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-David Levy

3

Appendix F-9

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-David Levy, NCPC

Response to David Levy: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Information regarding vistas that contribute to the L’Enfant Plan of Washington are included in Section 3.11 of this Final EA. Response to Comment 2: Information regarding the review of design alternatives for the K Street project has been included in Chapter 2 of this Final EA. Response to Comment 3: An analysis of the effects of improvements on K Street to I and L Streets was completed as part of the 2005 K Street Transitway Study. In general, the net effect of changes on K Street would be longer travel times for general purpose traffic on L and I Streets during the AM peak hour, compared to the No-Build scenario, while bus travel times on I Street would decrease in the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, travel times for all vehicle types on L and I Street, compared to the No-Build scenario, would not change.

1

Appendix F-10

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-David Levy, NCPC

Response to Comment 4: DDOT is committed to not encroaching onto NPS land. Section 3.7 of the Final Environmental Assessment contains a statement that the project would not use any parkland. Response to Comment 5: 2

3 Response to Comment 6: 4 5 6

The purpose of this study was to evaluate travel along K Street between 7th Street and 24th Street. The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan would evaluate and address connectivity between bicycle facilities within the city. The importance of other nearby facilities and planning studies is noted in Chapter 2 of this Final EA.

Public involvement efforts for the K Street project include stakeholder coordination with the Downtown DC Business Improvement District (BID), the Golden Triangle BID, and the study area Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) as well as individual stakeholders. A public meeting was held in July 2009 to afford all interested persons the opportunity to provide input and share their opinion of the project. Federal and local resource agencies were coordinated with throughout the project planning process. A public hearing was held in October 2009 to receive testimony and comments from the public. Response to Comment 7:

7

The transit component of the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, as described in this Final EA, would consist of a two-lane busway in the center of the roadway, and does not consist of streetcar improvements. If the streetcar system should be advanced at some future date, DDOT would revisit the appropriate level of NEPA and Section 106 clearance.

Appendix F-11

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-David Levy, NCPC

7 cont.

Appendix F-12

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-David Levy, NCPC

Appendix F-13

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Eric Marx

Response to Eric Marx: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: As you noted, the EA indicates that travel patterns in the study area could change as a result of the improvements to the general purpose lanes on K Street, and traffic could shift from other streets to K Street. Response to Comment 2: The K Street study assessed the effects of the proposed K Street improvements on I Street and L Street traffic. There would be increases in travel time for non-bus 1 traffic during the AM peak hour, while bus travel times in the AM peak hour would decrease on I Street. During the PM peak hour, travel times for non-bus vehicles would increase slightly on L Street, compared to the No-Build scenario. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. With the Preferred Alternative, travel times on the K Street transitway are projected to decrease by as much as six minutes in 2 the design year 2030, compared to the No-Build scenario. Response to Comment 3: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading / unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Response to Comment 4: Existing morning and evening peak hours (as defined by existing parking restrictions) are 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM. The project study recommends extending the PM peak hour parking restrictions to prohibit parking from 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM. Midday traffic between 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM experiences a peak traffic hour as well, typically between noon and 1:00 PM, but there are no parking restrictions associated with this midday peak hour.

Appendix F-14

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Eric Marx

Response to Comment 5: The purpose of the K Street project is to provide efficient travel for all transportation modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles. 3 Finding the appropriate balance for all modes will create an efficient and effective corridor.

4

5

Appendix F-15

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Harriet Tregoning, Agency Letter

Response to Harriet Tregoning: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: The text regarding person throughput has been clarified throughout this Final EA, particularly in Section 3.3.1.

1

Appendix F-16

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Harriet Tregoning, Agency Letter

Response to Comment 2: Additional clarification of loading zone use and parking availability has been added to Section 3.1.4 of this Final EA, including a discussion on the percentage of businesses that use loading on K Street and cross streets. Information on who uses K Street parking facilities is currently not available. As stated in your comment, it is assumed that most on-street parking is used by members of the community for shorter visits to local businesses. Although detailed information on the number of low-income users is not available, it is also assumed that – even if they use a small percentage of the parking – the loss of on street parking would have a greater effect on these users, simply because garage fees require a larger portion of their income.

2

Appendix F-17

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Harriet Tregoning, Agency Letter

Response to Comment 3 Additional text has been added to Sections 3.2 and 3.3.3 regarding the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative for bicycles. Response to Comment 4:

3

Issues such as enforcement are difficult to address during the planning stage. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the parking and loading enforcement would generally be simplified under both build alternatives, since there would not be the mix of parking/loading use as there is today. Enforcement officers would be more easily able enforce illegal parking during peak periods under Alternative 2 and anytime under Alternative 3. Loading outside of designated loading zones under Alternative 3 would also be easier to enforce. Signal prioritization would be optimized for either alternative; thus, this specific topic would not be a criterion for differentiating among the alternatives. Section 3.3.1 provides detailed information on how the general purpose lanes and the transitway would operate with optimized signal conditions under both build alternatives.

4

Appendix F-18

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Jessica Demoise

Response to Jessica Demoise: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Thank you for providing detailed information on water and sewer utilities in the project area. This information will be helpful to the project team in the design phase.

September 30, 2009

Mr. Faisal Hameed Project Development and Environment Branch Transportation Policy and Planning District Department of Transportation 2000 14th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington DC 20009

Re: K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment

Dear Mr. Hameed:

This correspondence contains DC Water and Sewer Authority (DC WASA) comments on the District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) proposal to construct a high performance transit link on K Street, NW between Mount Vernon Square and Washington Circle with construction completed by February 2012. As this DDOT project includes major road reconstruction work, it presents an opportunity to rehabilitate, replace, and assess DC WASA water and sewer infrastructure assets. As requested, this correspondence summarizes required work located within this project area, and to the extent possible the potential impact of the three alternative designs on DC WASA infrastructure. We have divided our input into two parts, water and sewer.

Water Comments:

There is not much difference between the two alternatives with regards to impact on DC WASA’s water mains. However, we envision that a fair amount of our infrastructure will be impacted by this project. Those structures negatively impacted must be relocated following DC WASA’s standard guideline and design will require DC WASA’s approval.

It should be noted that DC WASA requires that the final proposed curb alignment not be located horizontally on top of water mains. In the event that the curb alignment is inevitably located horizontally on the water main, we would require that the water main be relocated. Placement of a tree box on a water main is also unacceptable, and would require that the water main be relocated if the tree box could not be repositioned.

Appendix F-19

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Jessica Demoise

(continued)

1. Small Water Mains

Two existing small (8-inch and 12-inch) diameter water mains are located in K Street and were installed between 1907 and 1969. Small diameter water mains in the DC WASA system installed prior to 1941 are unlined cast iron pipe, a material which is known to tuberculate over time, leading to reduced hydraulic capacity and causing a potential water quality concern. Therefore, cast iron water mains built prior to 1941 should be replaced in this area in coordination with the DDOT project. The estimated construction cost (which does not include paving, design, CM or contingency) to replace 2.9 miles of small diameter water mains in this project area is estimated to be approximately $7.5 million.

2. Large Water Mains

A 30-inch cast iron water main, installed in 1860 is located within this section of K Street. The general 30-inch water main configuration does not have any major alignment issues but at the following intersections with K Street small water main connections have been abandoned/plugged off the 30-inch water main: 11th Street; 14th Street; 15th Street; 16th Street; 17th Street; and 20th Street. These abandoned/plugged small water main connections on the 30-inch water main could potentially present a weak link more susceptible to issues like leakage and main breaks.

The DDOT project can eliminate the abandoned/plugged small water main connections on the 30-inch water main by installing a spool piece or access point. Refer to Figure 1 below for details of a typical entry arrangement into a large diameter cast iron water main. At this point, it is recommended that three or four access arrangements be provided in K Street during the construction of the DDOT project. This will provide future access into the 30-inch water main for possible further pipe assessment or even rehabilitation work without the need for excavation in K Street. The estimated construction cost (which does not include paving, design, CM or contingency) for each access point approximately $75,000.

Figure 1: Access Arrangement Detail

Appendix F-20

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Jessica Demoise

(continued)

As the DDOT project requires that construction be completed by February 2012, it is not viable to coordinate major rehabilitation/replacement work on the 30-inch water main as part of the DDOT project. However, DC WASA should conduct a detailed condition assessment of the 30-inch water main in coordination with the project. This will allow DC WASA to determine rehabilitation options and pipe route alternatives to ensure the best hydraulic and most cost-effective solution for future large diameter water main renewal projects in the project area.

The detailed condition assessment will determine the expected remaining useful life of the 30-inch water main and include:

o Visual Examination: The interior and exterior of the pipe will be visually examined at each location where access is provided. The surface of the pipe will be impacted with a chisel and hammer to detect and determine the depth of surface graphitization. A pit gauge will used to determine the depth of pitting. o Sonic/Ultrasonic Testing: In addition to the visual examination, sonic/ultrasonic testing of the pipe wall thickness will be conducted. The purpose of this test will be to evaluate the strength of the iron, detect cracking and to determine the wall thickness. o Soil Testing: Sample of the soil bonded to the pipe will be removed for laboratory analysis. Resistivity tests and pH of the soil will be measured. o Metallurgical Analysis: Pipe samples / coupons will be analyzed in laboratory including: energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy; flame atomic absorption spectroscopy; tensile strength testing; and examination using a metallographic microscope.

Please refer to Attachments A1 and A2 for a map showing the location of these water mains.

3. Hydrants

Included as Attachment B is a list of hydrants in the vicinity that need to be replaced or upgraded. With many of the hydrants fed off an 8” main, it may be beneficial to connect the leads to a larger main if available.

Sewer Comments:

Regarding impacts on DC WASA’s sewer lines, there is not an advantage between selection of one of the two alternatives over the other. However, we estimate that about 60 catch basins must be relocated. The relocated catch basins need to be connected to stormwater or combined sewers following DC WASA’s standard guideline. This may result in some redundant sewers at the middle of street which will be made inactive. For ease of operation and maintenance of sewer infrastructure, alignments of road curbs need to be

Appendix F-21

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Jessica Demoise

checked with the layout of existing sewer infrastructure. Finally, prior arrangement should be made among DC WASA, DDOT and affected customers for work periods when lateral connections will be out of service.

(continued) Note: Numerous engineering drawings were included with this letter, but they have not been included in this Appendix. Citizens desiring to see the attachments can contact DDOT.

Attachment C lists the extent of sewer infrastructure that will be affected by the proposed DDOT project on K-Street. Attachments D1 and D2 show the location of sewers affected by this Project.

Accordingly, DC WASA will initiate a field investigation to evaluate the representative condition of the sewer infrastructure. Based on our findings, DC WASA may decide to rehabilitate or replace certain sewer infrastructure elements as part of DDOT’s Project.

Following DDOT’s selection of a design alternative, DC WASA would like to meet in order to discuss our comments and recommendations for this particular street configuration in greater detail. I have been designated as the DC WASA point of contact for follow-up on the proposed project and can be reached at 202-787-2699 or by email at jessica.demoise@dcwasa.com.

Sincerely,

Jessica Demoise

Appendix F-22

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response to David Hayes: Thank you for your comments. Response to General Comments: The Final EA has been reviewed and modified to include a statement, where there are impacts (adverse or beneficial), recognizing the significance of the impact in accordance with the CEQ definition (found on pp. 27-28). With many resources, including air quality, there are no impacts identified and thus no mitigation required. Section 3.8.6 in the air quality section has been renamed “Conclusion” and the reference to mitigation has been removed. For many of the impacts, the adverse impacts are offset by the benefits of the completed project, and thus mitigation is not required. In the construction section (formerly pp. 92-96), temporary impacts during construction are minimized to the extent practicable according to the methods recommended in the text. Impacts to street trees are addressed through landscape design and replanting according to UFA regulations. No additional mitigation measures are proposed. Response to Specific Comments: Washington Circle has been shaded and labeled on Figure 11. A sentence has been added to the end of Section 3.6 stating “Consultation with DC SHPO and other consulting parties will continue through final design.” A sentence has been added in Section 3.10.3 stating “Techniques incorporated would meet the intent of DC WASA’s Long Term Control Plan to the extent practicable.”

Appendix F-23

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Appendix F-24

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Mary Lynch and Shaun Pharr (Testimony)

Response to Mary Lynch: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading / unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Response to Comment 2: Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative, and would not have the extent of impacts to businesses you described for Alternative 3.

Appendix F-25

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Mary Lynch and Shaun Pharr (Testimony)

(continued)

1

Appendix F-26

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Mary Lynch and Shaun Pharr (Testimony)

(continued)

2

Appendix F-27

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Mary Lynch and Shaun Pharr (Testimony)

(continued)

Appendix F-28

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Mike Silverstein

Response to Mike Silverstein Thank you for your comments. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. With the Preferred Alternative, approximately 200 low-cost, curbside parking spaces would remain available during off-peak hours. While Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak-hour automobile travel. There is no guarantee of funding for bike lanes and other improvements on I and L Streets, and K Street is used by bicyclists today. Consequently, the Preferred Alternative does make accommodation for bicyclists. We acknowledge that the bicycle groups prefer a dedicated bike lane, however, Alternative 2 could not accommodate a dedicated bike lane without sacrificing either a travel lane or a portion of the sidewalk, both of which were viewed as untenable by the business community. The Preferred Alternative would reduce the travel time for general purpose traffic, as compared to the No-Build Alternative, by as much as 4 minutes in the westbound direction in the PM peak hour, but would increase the travel time, as compared to the No-Build Alternative, by 2.5 minutes in the eastbound direction in the PM peak hour. Changes in westbound and eastbound travel times in the AM peak hour are negligible.

Appendix F-29

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Mike Silverstein

Appendix F-30

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Rebecca Coder

Response to Rebecca K. Coder Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1:

From: Coder, Rebecca K. (ANC 2A02) Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 9:10 AM To: Klein, Gabe (DDOT); Hughey, Tomika (DDOT); Ziemann, Christopher (DDOT); Ziemann, Christopher (DDOT) Cc: Armando Irizarry; Asher Corson; Malinen, Eric (ANC 2A05); Florence Harmon; David Lehrman; williamsja@gmail.com Subject: K Street Corridor - ANC 2A02 input

October 30, 2009

Gabe Klein Director DC Department of Transportation RE: K Street Corridor improvements

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. With the Preferred Alternative,130 of the existing 332 parking spaces along K Street would be eliminated. Parking would be permitted at the remaining spaces, but only in the off-peak hours. Valet parking would continue to be permitted during off-peak hours, and the sidewalk would continue to accommodate outdoor dining. Response to Comment 2: As you noted, there is a separate study underway for Washington Circle, which will take into consideration the improvements proposed under the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Response to Comment 3:

Dear Mr. Klein:

The comments below represent my thoughts as commissioner, acting in my individual capacity for SMD ANC 2A-02 which includes Washington Circle in the West End. In reviewing the options, I more inclined to support Plan 2.

Parking and Deliveries

Parking needs to be part of any plan for K Street. The types of businesses along the western edge (K at 20th and 21st Streets) of the plan include mainly medical offices that either directly or indirectly are related to George Washington University’s medical center. These offices receive many sick and frail visitors by car throughout the day for short visits. It is well-known to this commissioner that typically the private parking lots are “full” during doctor’s hours and unable to accommodate these types of short-term visits, therefore any loss of parking in this area would be profound for these visitors.

1

The Preferred Alternative represents the best balance of the various transportation needs: automobiles, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and parking. Providing a separate bike lane, as in Alternative 3, would necessitate reductions in the sidewalk and elimination of all curbside parking spaces. The Preferred Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a shared-use general purpose lane. It is noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan promotes the adjacent I and L Streets as designated bicycle corridors. Response to Comment 4: DDOT would work with the K Street businesses to develop a maintenance-oftraffic and construction phasing plan that would addresses access, deliveries, and parking during construction.

In addition, as DDOT has outlined the intent is to ensure K Street remains a grand boulevard with outdoor dining along its expanses of sidewalk. The mix of restaurants along the western half of K is representative of the restaurant clientele – more so business and visitors who dine downtown, hold a business meeting and/or attend a show at the Kennedy Center. They have a need for drop-off, valet areas and parking during the non-peak evening hours.

Deliveries tend to occur throughout the day and the residential areas on the Western border of K Street are very specific that these occur after 7:00 am per DC regulations regarding noise disturbances. There needs to be space for deliveries throughout the day so that it does not put a burden on residents in the evening and early morning hours.
Appendix F-31

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Washington Circle and Historic Areas

It is unclear to this commissioner how the plan impacts Washington Circle and the historic homes and residences on the northern side of the circle. Without thought about traffic calming as part of Washington Circle (which has a separate plan for improvements in Fiscal Year 2010), the plan as outlined may exacerbate an already difficult issue related to the bottlenecks throughout the day at the circle. Further study and thought needs to be put into Washington Circle and the arteries that extend from it on the western side including Pennsylvania Avenue, K Street and 23rd Streets, and how the addition of expedited buses will impact a fragile area.

2

Bicycles

This commissioner is supportive of bicycles as a mode of transportation however feels DDOT should focus on executing on the Master Plan for bike lanes which recommends that bike lanes be added to the wide, one-way streets that run parallel to K Street. This commissioner feels that adding bikes to K Street may be trying to solve for too many objectives along one street.

3

Construction Impact

Given the timeframe outlined, there is the potential for significant impact to the businesses along K Street which are already suffering from the current state of the economy. Significant coordination is required to lessen any impact to these small businesses if the plan is accepted.

4

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely, Rebecca K. Coder, ANC 2A-02, Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner

Appendix F-32

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Scott York/Lori Waters

Response to Lori L. Waters: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: DDOT understand the importance of facilitating transit operations that are generated from outside of the District of Columbia, including Loudoun County. Safely accommodating bus transit is an important element of the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2. Section 3.3.2 of this Final Environmental Assessment describes how commuter buses would be accommodated in the Preferred Alternative. Based on current analysis of bus operations, commuter buses would not be accommodated in the transitway because of their longer dwell times. However, as more detailed information is developed during project design, and following construction of the project, it may be determined that commuter buses can be efficiently accommodated in the transitway.

Appendix F-33

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
0-Scott York/Lori Waters

Appendix F-34

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Ebony Payne

Response to Ebony Payne: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-35

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Eric Anspach

Response to Eric Anspach: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: The single eastbound lane between 12th Street and 9th Street will not be limited to vehicles that are destined for the parking garage. The lane will extend through to 9th Street for all traffic. 1

Appendix F-36

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Eric Anspach

Response to Eric Anspach (#2): Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Alternative 3 was not selected as the Preferred Alternative, however, with the Preferred Alternative, bicycles will be accommodated in a shared-use lane that will be signed and/or marked to alert motorists to the potential presence of bicyclists. Response to Comment 2:

1

2

With the Preferred Alternative, parking for deliveries would be permitted along K Street during off-peak hours. Bicyclists would share the curbside lane with parked vehicles during the off-peak hours. With the Preferred Alternative, delivery trucks would be able to park along the entire length of the 12-foot wide, curbside general purpose lane, whereas with Alternative 3, trucks would be limited to one 7-foot wide pullout per block. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative provides a substantially greater length and width for delivery truck parking, which will minimize the potential for conflicts between bicyclists and parked trucks.

Appendix F-37

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Geoffrey Hatchard

Response to Geoffrey Hatchard: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1:

1

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Response to Comment 2: All construction would be conducted in accordance with the Urban Forest Preservation Act. Existing healthy trees will be preserved as much as possible. The project may increase the required number of trees to create a greener corridor in keeping with the concepts of Great Streets/Green Streets. The curb locations could shift minimally allowing for the preservation of some of the existing healthy trees within the sidewalk along K Street. Continuous tree root zones under the reconstructed sidewalks and along the medians would be utilized to ensure adequate soil for tree growth and vitality. Landscaping at the ground level would incorporate low-impact development strategies such as vegetated swales and infiltration in addition to tree wells with seasonal plantings for enhanced aesthetics.

2

Appendix F-38

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Geoffrey Hatchard

Response to Geoffrey Hatchard: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-39

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-George Dalton

Response to George Dalton: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: The Preferred Alternative allows bicycles to share the curbside general purpose lane. In general, bicyclists and buses are not preferred to share lanes due to safety concerns.

Appendix F-40

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-H. G. deGast

Response to H.G. deGast: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: It is possible that the dedicated transit lanes could be utilized by taxies and merchant vehicles during off peak hours. This option will be further explored by DDOT following this EA.

1

Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. With the Preferred Alternative, the pavement markings will serve to divert general purpose traffic away from the bus lanes. Also, incoming buses from Washington Circle that desire to access the transitway will be aided by signal phasing at the 21st Street intersection that will stop traffic coming from the underpass while traffic on the service road proceeds in the eastbound direction.

2

Both build alternatives provide fewer intersections along K Street where left turns would be allowed from the general purpose lanes as compared to the NoBuild Alternative. Section 3.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details on the turning movements.

3

WMATA makes a determination if bus shelters would be provided. This level of detail will be determined during final design. Pedestrian safety is of the utmost importance and has been considered throughout the planning and design process. Bus platforms were located only at intersections so that bus patrons would not be induced to cross K Street in the middle of a block. Consequently, all bus users will be able to safely access the bus platforms by crossing K Street during the pedestrian signal phase. Response to Comment 2: Medians will increase the safety for pedestrians crossing K Street by providing a safe refuge area. The distance to cross K Street would not change, as the roadway will not be widened. The K Street project will be consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan.

Appendix F-41

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-H. G. deGast

Response to Comment 3: The Preferred Alternative would depart from the more conventional multi-lane highway with center median, and provide a beautifully-landscaped corridor that separates the automobile traffic from bus traffic, substantially enhances transit operation and usage, provides an appropriate balance between transportation modes, reduces air pollution, and changes the public perception of the corridor to a desirable place to live and work.

Appendix F-42

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Jeffrey Miller

Response to Jeffrey Miller: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-43

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-John Stinson

Response to John Stinson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-44

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-John Stinson

Response to John Stinson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-45

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Kathy Haines

Response to Kathy Haines: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-46

FINAL: December 2009

1-Laura Walsh

Response to Laura Walsh: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Court Transcripts July 31, 2009 Witnessed by William A. Bodenstein

Appendix F-47

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Linda D. Lee

Response to Linda D. Lee: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. All of the bus platforms were located at intersections, so they could be safely accessed by crossing K Street during the pedestrian signal phase at the intersection. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. This study did not evaluate whether bus routes on other city streets would be relocated to K Street to utilize the transitway. This effort would be completed as part of a full operations plan during the design phase.

Appendix F-48

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Liz Guertin

Response to Liz Guertin: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-49

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Lynn Riewe

Response to Lynn Riewe: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: There may be periods during the construction of K Street where the outermost portion of the roadway is being used for through-traffic (e.g., while the transit lanes are under construction in the center of the roadway). Permission to temporarily close a travel lane during such a period may be denied. This matter is under the purview of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

Appendix F-50

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Mark Plotz

Response to Mark Plotz: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Refer to EA, Section 3.8: Air Quality Response to Comments 2 and 3: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. Response to Comment 4: Pedestrian safety is of the utmost importance and has been considered throughout the planning and design process. The sidewalks will be between 19 and 21 feet wide. Medians will increase the safety for pedestrians crossing K Street by providing a safe refuge area approximately 11 feet wide (between 5 and 11 feet wide outside of bus stop areas). The distance to cross K Street would not change, as the roadway will not be widened. The K Street project will be consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan.

Appendix F-51

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Matthew Steil

Response to Matthew Steil: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. Response to Comment 2: Existing stormwater management along K Street is performed separately from the landscaping and is not treated or reused by street vegetation. The proposed project would incorporate several green street and visual quality elements to improve water quality and meet stormwater management (SWM) requirements. These would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) and various applicable Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to provide sustainability, achieve groundwater recharge, and enhance water quality. The stormwater management design would include water quality and water quantity management evaluation for the project and would meet current DDOT/DOE SWM criteria.

Appendix F-52

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Nikmil Nadkarni

Response to Nikmil Nadkarni: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-53

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Noah Kuzis

Response to Noah Kuzis: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-54

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Ronnie Mervis

Response to Ronnie Mervis: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1:

1

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading / unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Response to Comment 2:

2

The purpose of the K Street project is to provide efficient travel for all transportation modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles. Finding the appropriate balance for all modes will create an efficient and effective corridor. The elimination of some on street parking will be offset by the increase in mobility for other transportation modes. Response to Comment 3:

3

The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan includes proposed bike lanes on I and L Streets. While Alternative 2 does not include designated bicycle lanes on K Street, the alternative does include a shared use curbside lane in order to accommodate those bicycle users that choose to use K Street.

Appendix F-55

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Steve Dubois

Response to Steve Dubois: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative.

Appendix F-56

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Unsigned

Response to Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Response to Comments 2 and 3: Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-57

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Unsigned

Response to Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-58

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Unsigned

Response to Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: 1 2 3 Response to Comment 2: 4 5 The project will preserve the wide sidewalks within the corridor wherever possible. Current sidewalk widths vary between 25 feet and 12 feet wide. In general, the sidewalks cannot be widened further due to the constraints from the urban built environment and limited ROW. Under the Preferred Alternative / Alternative 2, the sidewalk widths would not be modified except at McPherson Square where they would be widened by approximately 6 feet to a width of 12 feet adjacent to the park. Response to Comment 3: The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan includes proposed bike lanes on I and L Streets. Response to Comment 4: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading / unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Response to Comment 5: Creating an efficient transitway is the priority of the K Street project. The build alternatives would provide an exclusive transitway flanked by medians containing bus platforms and landscaping. The medians provide a safe refuge for pedestrians. While Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, it would also have a greater number of failing intersections, resulting in an eleven-minute increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the NoBuild Alternative.

Appendix F-59

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-Unsigned

Response to Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Bicycle amenities will be considered during the design phase of the project.

Appendix F-60

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1-William Leg

Response to William Leg: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1:

1

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. Response to Comment 2: The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, would accommodate bicyclists during peak hours in a shared-use curbside travel lane. During off-peak hours, the curbside shared-use travel lane would be available for bicycle traffic and automobile parking.

2

Appendix F-61

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Anthony J. Calabrese

From: "Anthony J. Calabrese" <anthonyjcalabrese@gmail.com> Response to Anthony J. Calabrese Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:28:15 -0400

Subject: Option 2

Good afternoon,

I am writing in support of option 2 for the proposed K Street Transitway. I am also for placing one-way bike lanes along I Street and L Street to work with the transitway without getting in the way of pedestrians, cars, buses, and streetcars.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Right now K Street is a nightmare.

I live at 225 I Street NE and I travel to Thomas Jefferson and M Street NW every morning.

It can take almost an hour to get from Union Station to Georgetown using the Circulator.

The X2 bus gets across town way quicker even though it is not a straight shot.

K Street as it is currently laid out is poorly planned and it desperately needs to be improved.

Thank you,

--

Anthony J. Calabrese

Appendix F-62

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mark Lerner

Response to Mark Lerner: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Mark Lerner" <m.lerner180@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:57:53 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Alternative 3 will be the only way to really make a safe way for bikers. Currently, cars park in bike lanes and doors of parallel parked cars open into bike lanes. For these reasons, a bike lane protected by a curb is important. To have no bike lane on K Street would make it too dangerous at all for bikers. The benefits of having more bikers in the city are obvious, and much outweigh the costs. After several near accidents while avoiding opening car doors, I speak from personal experience that designs as Alternative 3 stipulates are vital to protect DC bikers.

Please consider the safety of DC citizens when making construction plans.

Thank you.

-Mark

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-63

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mary Schellentrager

Response to Mary Schellentrager: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Mary Schellentrager" <mschellentrager@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:42:40 -0400 Subject: cycle track!

Hello,

I am writing in support of WABA's recommendation regarding the K St.

Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward: • The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained. • The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary. • To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles. • Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored. • A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections. • A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Make it happen! Thanks, Mary

Appendix F-64

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Parrie Henderson-O’Keefe

Response to Parrie Henderson-O’Keefe: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Parrie Henderson" <elodie0808@mac.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:37:34 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway

I am an avid cyclist, go all over the city by bike, and I'm a member of WABA so you would assume that I would be a big supporter of option 3 for the K Street re-model. The fact is if I were queen-of-the-world and could have anything I wanted, I would go with option 2 for K Street, BUT, BUT, BUT on Eye Street and L Street -- which are oneway-streets north and south of K Street -- there I would put cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. Why there and not on K? As a cyclist, I find operating on one-way-streets -- e.g. making left-hand-turns -- to be much easier than on a huge street like K. I avoid K Street and will probably avoid it even if there are bike lanes because navigating K will still be tough. Please consider your renovation of K Street to include at least one, if not both, of the streets north and south of K as a critical part of that renovation!

Sincerly, Parrie Henderson-O'Keefe

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-65

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul Sieczkowski

Response to Paul Sieczkowski: Thank you for your comments.

From: "Paul Sieczkowski" fourthandeye@gmail.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:27:46 -0400 Subject: K Street Commets

Hello,

I wanted to say that I am a Ward 6 DC residents and I support the Option 2 plan for the K Street Transitway.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

My feeling is that Option 3 stuffs too many modes of travel onto one road. This will lead the K Street being a jack of all trades and master of none. With Option 3 UPS, Delivery trucks and cabs would inevitably stop or park half in the bike lane half in the road effectively choking vehicle traffic down to one-lane. This is unacceptable for our drivers and even the cyclists would be in uproar. Additionally it will hinder the ability for many K Street businesses to offer valet parking services.

Option 2 allows for 3 auto lanes on each side of the transitway. During rush hour that 3rd lane can be for auto travel and bus stops for the commuter buses. During other hours of the day it can offer meter parking and curb space for valet parking. This maximizes flexibility for the most users.

Option 2 does leave cyclists out of the party on K Street. The Golden Triangle BID offered what I feel is the perfect solution: Install grade separated bicycle lanes on the parallel one way streets of L and Eye. Those parallel streets have excess capacity compared to K Street. In my view it's better to have 3 improved streets than improve cycle infrastructure on K to the detriment of everyone else. WABA views this compromise as unacceptable. I give them credit they have a strong respected voice because they are so organized and prepared. But they do not have everyone's best interests nor what is practical in mind. They simply want the infrastructure included on K Street as that's where the public discussion is focused and the funding potentially available.

Sincerely,

Paul Sieczkowski 811 4th Street NW Unit 715 Washington, DC, 20001

Appendix F-66

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ravenna Motil-McGuire

Response to Ravenna Motil-McGuire: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Ravenna Motil-McGuire" <ravennaelizabeth@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:25:52 -0400 Subject: Bike Track

To whom it may concern:

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained. • The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary. • To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles. • Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored. • A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections. • A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

-Ravenna Motil-McGuire American University School of International Service

Appendix F-67

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sankar Sitaraman

Response to Sankar Sitaraman: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "sankar S" <sankarman@hotmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:11:53 -0400 Subject: I support Alternative 3

I support Alternative 3 for the K street transit way project. DC needs to be more bike friendly. We pay taxes too.

Sankar Sitaraman Associate professor mathdept, Howard University

Appendix F-68

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sarah McLauglin

Response to Sarah McLauglin: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Sarah McLaughlin" <bozorboso@hotmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:00:32 -0400 Subject: bike friendly dc!

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Appendix F-69

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Stacy Swartwood

Response to Stacy Swartwood: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Stacy Swartwood" <sswartwood@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:55:24 -0400 Subject: K Street Bicycle Accomodations Desperately Needed

To Whom it May Concern,

As a bicycle commuter of seven years who uses the 14th Street bike lanes, I would like to express my support for Alternative 3 but make an additional suggestion. Every day I am forced out of the bicycle lanes on 14th Street and into traffic by cars and trucks that are double-parked in the bike lane. This is often a more dangerous maneuver than simply riding in the vehicle travel lanes, and avoiding the bicycle lanes all together. In addition, by riding in the vehicle travel lanes I reduce the risk of being hit by a car door again - the last time this happened was this Spring when I was over six months pregnant. The accident was extremely upsetting and painful, and any chance to prevent similar accidents in the future should be seriously considered.

The opportunity to install cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb should not be missed. It will lead to higher usage of the bike lanes by cyclists and reduce the risk and occurance of vehiclebicycle accidents, including bicycles being hit by vehicle doors and either injured by the door or another vehicle in the adjacent travel lane. Furthermore, it will reduce any perceived impedence of traffic by cyclists that choose or are forced to use vehicle travel lanes instead of bicycle lanes due to obstructions or safety reasons.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

Sincerely,

Stacy Swartwood

Appendix F-70

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Aaron Huertas

Response to Aaron Huertas: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

 

I can not attend tonight's meeting, but as a regular commuter between NoMa and K Street, I support Alternative 3.

Thanks, Aaron Huertas

Appendix F-71

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Aaron L. Connelly

Response to Aaron L. Connelly: Thank you for your comments.

From: "Aaron Connelly" <aaron.connelly@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:43:00 -0400 Subject: Support for Option 2

Dear DDOT:

I bike to and from work, and occasionally use K Street to get to meetings downtown by riding my bike-- but I generally try to use roadways parallel to K Street when riding downtown because these are relatively safer than K Street. I also often use the Circulator to travel from work in Georgetown to after-work events downtown.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

I support option 2. The option moves more people on buses, making buses a more viable option for K Street (currently, during rush hour, walking is faster in many spots). And it moves so many more people in personal vehicles more quickly. I have to be considerate of my fellow commuters using other forms of transportation-- adding 50% more time to a commuter's trip in a personal vehicle is too high a cost to pay for a bicycle lane, when I can use the roadway on K Street (though less safely), and other, parallel roadways.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

I also support the Downtown BID's proposal to establish one-lane bike paths on I and L Streets to make up for the absence of a bike lane on K Street in Option 2. DDOT must be serious about these bike lines if it is to pursue Option 2, and ideally would only pursue Option 2 on the condition that a good faith effort will be made to seek funding for bike lines on I and K Streets.

Thank you for considering my comment on the proposals. Best of luck in your decision.

Aaron L. Connelly 1616 T Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-72

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Abby Lindsay

From: "Abby Lindsay" <abbylindsaynh@gmail.com> Response to Abby Lindsay: Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:47:51 -0400

Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Regarding K Street -

I know the process for determining the future of K Street is underway, and I just want to add my two cents. Alternative 3 is the only good option to help accommodate bikers, and I feel that we are currently in a crucial point of time in regards to the city's transportation future. Myself, as well as many of my colleagues, are part time bikers, and a sample of the population. If K Street were bike-friendly, it would make us feel much safer biking to and from work, and encourage us to bike instead of drive. I have worked for years on bikeways in other parts of the country, and I know that it is often a chicken or egg debate (which comes first - the physical infrastructure or the people biking), but given the conversations going on around me, I can assure that the bikers are ready. DC has made strides in this respect, but K Street is needed to connect the dots.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Thanks for all of your hard work,

Abby Lindsay

--

Abby Lindsay

Office of Environmental Policy

U.S. Department of State

Appendix F-73

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Adam Dexter

Response to Adam Dexter:

I second the recommendations of WABA to not only implement a cyclist friendly Thank you for your comments. plan, but also a make it not just a lane against the curb but instead a buffered bike Response to Comment: lane or cycle track. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of Adam Dexter operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the (617) 791-1005 project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-74

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Adam Froehlig

Response to Adam Froehlig: Thank you for your comments. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. The proposed improvements to K Street would not preclude potential future use by streetcars. In general, bicyclists and buses are not encouraged to share lanes due to safety concerns.

From: "Froggie" <froggie@mississippi.net> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:01:06 -0500 Subject: Comments on the K Street Transitway project

Good evening. Would like to offer the following comments for the K Street Transitway project.

- Given the recently announced plans for several streetcar routes in DC, including up to 3 along K Street, I think Alternative 2 would be more easily reconfigured for streetcars, so Alternative 2 should be the baseline.

- Once streetcars are running along K Street, with 3 lines there would be considerable streetcar frequency, especially during rush hour. Because of this, having buses and streetcars running together would result in operational issues for both. For this reason, suggest revising Alternative 2 so that the segments of K Street with 3 lanes running in a given direction be reconfigured so that the rightmost lane of the 3 become a combination bus/bicycle/right-turn-only lane, similar to what was recently done with Hennepin Ave in downtown Minneapolis, MN.

R,

Adam Froehlig

"Froggie"

Appendix F-75

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Adrian and Liana Pidlusky

From: "Adrian Pidlusky" <apidlusky@speakeasy.net> Response to Adrian and Liana Pidlusky: Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:02:56 -0400

Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please choose Alternative 3 for the K Street Transitway project. Alternative 3 is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and I strongly believe that to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists. While Alternative 3 provides for bike lanes, I urge the DC Department of Transportation to instead construct cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists. WABA's detailed comments on the project can be found at http://www.waba.org/documents/K_Street_Transitway_Comments.pdf.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Adrian and Liana Pidlusky

1411 Massachussetts Ave. SE #1

Washingon, DC 20003-1510

Appendix F-76

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Alex Trempus

Response to Alex Trempus: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Alex Trempus" <atrempus@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 11:31 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Sincerely,

Alex Trempus

Appendix F-77

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ally Schweitzer

Response to Ally Schweitzer: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Ally Schweitzer" <allison.schweitzer@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:45:21 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I am writing to express my sincere support for a K Street design that accommodates bicyclists. As many know, K St is already a welltraveled artery for professional bicycle couriers, but as bicycle commuting catches on among average Washingtonians, we need to do all we can to make sure they can get to work safely.

In order to reduce congestion in the Washington region, we must encourage bicycling as a safe, economical, and practicable mode of transit. Disregarding the needs of bicyclists only worsens our critical traffic problem, which in the long term poses a threat to the local economy.

As of now K Street presents numerous dangers and challenges to bicycle commuters. I am sure these have been brought to your attention. The side streets parallel to the main K Street corridor are dominated by speeding taxi cabs, parked cars (which pose a "dooring" threat), and delivery trucks. The main thoroughfare-- chaotic during peak hours-- provides no shoulder or viable, protected area for bicycles. Bike riders are forced to share a perilous and often unpredictable lane with stopped taxis, buses, and car drivers. Drivers hate it, and it puts our lives in danger.

Some drivers, business owners, et al may suggest that bicyclists take an alternate route on one of the east-west streets below K, but during rush hour, most streets downtown are dangerous for those of us who are ultimately doing a service to the city. The DC government ought to be encouraging more people to bike to and from work. Please invest in the future of DC rather than continuing on the same dead-end path!

Concerned downtown bicycle commuter and DC resident,

Ally Schweitzer

Appendix F-78

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Amanda Babson

Response to Amanda Babson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K Street Transitway Project "Amanda Babson" <babsona@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 9:42 PM KStreet.comments@dc.gov

Dear District Department of Transportation, I would like to advocate for option 3 for the K Street Transitway project. I am a bicycle commuter. I am the kind of bicyclist who feels much safer when there are bike lanes. This is an important artery to get across town and having bike lanes would increase safety and increase the number of people happy to bike in DC. I would feel even safer if you added WABA's suggestion of separated bike lanes protected by a curb. If you wanted to come up with an enforcement mechanism for cars not to block the bike lane, that would be a great option too.

Thanks for your consideration of my input. Sincerely, Amanda Babson 2452 Ontario Rd NW Washington DC 20009

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-79

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Amy Heller

Response to Amy Heller: I am glad you are discussing re-designing K St. I work on K St and bike to work Thank you for your comments. everyday. Unfortunately, I am not able to come to tonight's meeting however here are my suggestions to improve the flow of traffic for cyclists. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option. 2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters. 3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Amy Heller, PhD Senior Manager, Health Services Research UMWA Health and Retirement Funds 2121 K St, NW Washington, DC 20037 (202) 521-2384

Appendix F-80

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Amy Smith

Response to Amy Smith: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: <asmith609irving@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:43:55 -0400 Subject: Comments!

Hello:

Please consider my preference for Alternative #3, to also include raised curbs for the bike lanes. The lanes will merely become free parking spaces if they are not raised. Bikes really are growing as a tranportaion mode, despite the difficulties of riding downtown. I commute from Columbia Heights to work @ 1575 I Street every day and so ride on and cross K every day.

Thank You.

Amy Smith 609 Irving Street NW

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-81

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Andrew Etter

Response to Andrew Etter: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Dear Sir or Madam, I am unable to attend tonight's K Street Transitway meeting at the Carnegie Library, but I wanted to make sure that my voice was heard and considered regarding the different options presented by DDOT.

I am a DC resident and bicyclist residing in the Gallery Place/Chinatown area. I work on K Street on the west side of DC. As you know, it is illegal to ride my bicycle on sidewalks in the downtown area. And west of 15th Street, there are no bicycle lanes which makes bicycling extremely hazardous for me, if not impossible. For this reason, I view the K Street Transitway project to be the most important project for DC bicyclists because it would provide access to the downtown area for this mode of transportation. In my opinion, there is no access to the western downtown DC area for bicyclists.

I hereby request that the K Street Transitway project include high-quality separated, painted and buffered bicycle lanes so that DC residents and bicyclists can enjoy a safe mode of transportation to and from home, work and play. I ask for buffered bicycle lanes because, as experienced every time I ride up and down 14th Street, the bicycle lanes are used for double parking of delivery trucks, taxi cabs, retail patrons and even Metro buses occupy the lanes during their stops.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Thank you, Andrew Etter 777 7th St NW Apt 1022

Appendix F-82

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Angel Nawrot

Response to Angel Nawrot: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

To whom it may concern:

As a bicycle commuter in the DC area, I strongly urge you to choose a modified Alternative C for the K Street Transitway that would include cycle tracks with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanes at intersections, and ample bike parking throughout the corridor.. This would ensure the safety of bicyclists in the downtown area. The safety of bicyclists will also increase the number of people riding bikes and decrease the number of cars thus decreasing the ill effects of carbon as well as make commuting easier for everyone.

Thank you for considering the safety and general health of Washington DC citizens and workers in the area.

Sincerely, Angel Nawrot

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-83

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ann Bissell

Response to Ann H. Bissell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Please give us a cycle track!! Bicycling has increased 90% since 2000. Let’s continue to get people out of their cars and into the fresh air!

Ann H Bissell WABA member AVID cyclist

Appendix F-84

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ashley Hansen

Response to Ashley Hansen: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

To whom it may concern:

As a DC Resident and bike commuter I've been seeing a rise in the number of cyclists in the city. As K Street is redesigned, please take bikers into consideration. I highly support a buffered bike lane or cycle track! I commute from Rosslyn back into the city and there are very few roads that take me all the way from west to east. Separating bikes into their own lane on K Street would make it safer for the drivers and bikers to travel together but it would also encourage more people to bike resulting in fewer cars clogging up the road.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design Here's to you taking a stand for reducing the District's carbon footprint by taking solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes the lead on redesigning roads with cyclists in mind! cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses Sincerely, would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the Ashley Hansen design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including ashleyhansen@gmail.com; 202.255.2235 increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-85

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Barbara Stauffer

Response to Barbara Stauffer: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Barbara Stauffer" <bwstauffer@verizon.net> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 06:39:22 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

As you redesign K Street, I urge you to construct cycle tracks/bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists - important steps in moving DC forward in its goal of becoming a bicycle-friendly city.

Barbara Stauffer Mt. Pleasant resident

Appendix F-86

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ben Welle

Response to Ben Welle: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

I am unable to attend the meeting tonight about K Street, but I am excited that DDOT is moving forward on a reconfiguation.

My main concern is twofold: I want good facilities for both transit and bikes. I strongly encourage DDOT to create a buffered cycle track as recommended by the Washington Bicyclist Association. This would be a great spot for a cycle track in downtown DC, a place that I find frightening to bike.

Thanks.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Ben Welle 2445 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-87

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Beth Kingsley

Response to Beth Kingsley: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Beth Kingsley" <ejk@zzapp.org> October 27, 2009 9:04 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I am writing to express my hope that your final plans for the K Street redesign project will include dedicated bicycle lanes. The comments submitted by WABA explain why a dedicated lane protected by a curb are preferable, and I certainly agree. However, whatever approach you take, to undertake such a major road reconstruction project without making accommodation for bicycles should be unthinkable.

I have only recently purchased a bicycle and started using it for commuting to work. The existence of dedicated bike lanes on some of the major streets on my commute, especially 14th street, was a significant factor in my decision to take this step. DC has made great progress recently in being bike-friendly, something of which it should be proud. In a region so plagued by traffic woes, and an era of growing concern over our continued dependence on fossil fuels, we should be doing everything possible to encourage use of bikes not cars. How could Dc even consider reconstructing a major traffic corridor without provision for bicycles?

Thank you for considering these comments.

Beth Kingsley 1401 Longfellow St., NW Washington, DC 20011

Appendix F-88

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Bill Brown

Response to Bill Brown: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative will provide a dedicated bus lane in each direction, improving the flow of bus traffic compared to the No-Build Alternative. Response to Comment 2: Having the dedicated bus lane along the curb, while allowing the adjacent lane to be used for right turns, would introduce conflicts between buses and right-turning vehicles. Using the curb lane for right-turning general purpose traffic, with the general purpose through-lanes located in the center of the roadway, would require right-turning traffic to cross in front of the bus lanes, increasing the potential for conflicts. Response to Comment 3: Both build alternatives provide fewer intersections along K Street where left turns would be allowed from the general purpose lanes as compared to the NoBuild Alternative. Section 3.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details on the turning movements. 1 Response to Comment 4: The Preferred Alternative does not provide a center median. Emergency responders would be allowed to use the median transit lanes.

Appendix F-89

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (continued)
2-Bill Brown

Response to Comment 5: The reduction in the number of through lanes adjacent to National Park Service (NPS) property coincides with an unacceptable level-of-service at only two intersections (Connecticut Avenue and 13th Street). Both intersections would also result in a failing level-of-service under all three alternatives. Therefore, the decision to avoid the NPS property has not resulted in the diminution of traffic operations compared to the No-Build Alternative. If the decision to avoid the parks had resulted in impacts of an extraordinary magnitude on traffic operations, DDOT may have considered impacting those properties.

2

3

4

5

Appendix F-90

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (continued)

2-Bill Brown

Appendix F-91

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Brendan McIntyre

Response to Brendan McIntyre: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Brendan McIntyre" <brendan.david.mcintyre@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:17:43 -0400 Subject: K Street Environmental Assessment

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a person who cycles to work through the downtown area, I strongly support the installation of a dedicated bicycle lane in the K Street corridor.

Sincerely,

Brendan McIntyre

Appendix F-92

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Brenna Barber

Response to Brenna Barber: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

As a DC cyclist I support a bicycle friendly city. The redesign of K street offers a great opportunity for the city to recognize and value forms of transportation besides cars. To design traffic ways with little thought of cyclists, with the idea that cyclists will simply "make it work" once the environment is built, is detrimental and lacks foresight. Continuing the dependence on cars is not good for our communities and does not show vision with regard to the problems of pollution and obesity. Transportation policy is an extraordinary tool - if you continue with uninspired design that continues the status quo that is exactly what one will see on K street, a car dominant area where cycling is not: encouraged, simple or safe. If however you see this as an opportunity to improve upon an area, to give an alternate form of transportation equal footing I think you will see that cycling along K street will flourish, while becoming easier and safer.

Points made by WABA (a local group that definitely has my support): A standard bike lane would turn into a parking lane for delivery vehicles. Instead, WABA is recommending a buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Transitway. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the lane and would be a more attractive facility for less experienced cyclists.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

And additionally: 1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option. 2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters. 3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Thank you

Brenna Barber

1833 New Hampshire Ave #507 NW Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-93

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Brian Amstutz

Response to Brian Amstutz: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Brian A. Amstutz" <bamstutz@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:26:37 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway

To whom it may concern:

I strongly support "Alternative 3" for the K Street Transitway project. I commute to work by bicycle and often feel unsafe due to vehicular conditions in this area. Please develop "Alternative 3" and keep DC bicycle friendly.

Sincerely, Brian Amstutz

Appendix F-94

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-C. Randolph Whipps

Response to C. Randolph Whipps: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-95

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Carol Guest

Response to Carol Guest: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Carol Guest" <guest.carol@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:01:02 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Dear K Steet Transitway Folks,

The K Steet transitway is a unique opportunity to make this city a leader in environmentally friendly and healthful bicycle transportation. Please choose option three to set the stage for this transformation.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Best, Carol

Appendix F-96

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Catharine Pear

Response to Catherine Pear: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Catharine Pear" <cat@bikethesites.com> October 28, 2009 9:32 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Catharine Pear Marketing Director Bike and Roll Washington DC Downtown DC, Union Station, and Old Town Alexandria

Appendix F-97

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Charles Koppelman

Response to Charles Koppelman: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Charles S. Koppelman" <ckoppel@alumni.gwu.edu> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:34:07 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I love the direction the DC government has taken to ensure the bikability of our city. Creating a raised curb between cars and bikes, like the new Broadway expansion in Manhattan, makes for a safer bike experience and a happier car experience. Alternative 3 provides the best option for reducing four-wheeled traffic. Thank you,

Charles Koppelman

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-98

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Charley Tharp

Response to Charley Tharp: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Charley Tharp" <charleytharp@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:37:17 -0400 Subject: Support for Alternative #3

Hello,

As a dedicated citizen of the community I would like to express my support for Alternative 3 in regards to the K street reconstruction. This is a phenomenal opportunity to improve bicycle access in Washington DC, and encourage people with less experience cycling to begin commuting on their bikes. This can bring about more green strides, reduce congestion, and improve the feel of the city. As someone who loves this city and wants to see it continue to develop I am urging adoption of Alternative 3 for the K St. reconstruction.

Thank you, ~Charley Tharp

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-99

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Cheryl La Mar

From: "cheryl aka chompo" chompo@gmail.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:43:28 -0400

Response to Cheryl La Mar: Thank you for your comments. Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I am a 15-year resident of DC, a homeowner who made a conscious decision to live and work locally. Part of this decision is based on my desire to cut down on traffic congestion in the city I love. I took the metro or bus to work until a year ago, when money started getting tight. Then I got a bike. Now, Monday through Friday, I cycle from my home in Eckington to the intersection at 17th & K where my office is located. Although the ride along Florida Avenue can be scary during the morning commute, I love the flexibility and freedom (and exercise and absence of any pollution) my bike ride affords.

I am eager to see dedicated cyclist pathways in the redesign of K Street. I especially urge you to create a low-curb buffer between cycle lanes and both the drive lanes for cars and the street parking. This is because cars and especially delivery trucks routinely stop or park in current lanes now; if bike lanes are simply striped in (i.e., marked with paint), I am certain they will simply begin stopping and parking in the bike lanes. This already happens with frequency in other areas where bike lanes are located.

I'm not a particularly experienced bike commuter, but I would say that I am a fairly smart biker. I routinely use arm signals because I'm also a car owner and I know how important and helpful signalling can be to car drivers. I am supremely conscious of cars as I bike, have taken a bike safety course and routinely follow the rules of the road. But even given all this, I am not comfortable riding along K Street in any regard and avoid it at all costs -- which is a real pain since I work on K Street and have many things to do along it. I am consistently riding out of my way to avoid it. And while painted bike lanes along it may seem like a good idea, I'm not convinced it is. I think most bikers will still avoid K Street since it will be so easy for cars and delivery trucks to routinely and blatantly disregard the painted bike lanes. It could actually make it more dangerous for everyone -- since bikes will have to weave in and out and cars will get impatient that the bikes aren't in the bike lanes. (I say this from experience -- I have been cursed several times by car drivers who are incensed that I have entered "their" lane in order to pass a stopped car who is in the bike lane -- even when I look ahead, wait for a passing opportunity, and signal!)

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

I urge you to please make the right decision and make K Street a thoroughfare for all modes of transport, not just the biggest and heaviest among us.

Sincerely, Cheryl LaMar, 45 Q St NE, WDC
Appendix F-100

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Chloe Feinberg

Response to Chloe Feinberg: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Chloe Feinberg" <chloe.feinberg@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:57:00 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway Project

To whom it may concern,

I am writing about the current K Street Transitway project being conducted by the Department of Transportation. I understand that of the three options being considered for the new build, the third alternative provides bike lanes. As a DC resident, who has lived, worked, and studied in the district for over 8 years, I believe it would be a serious mistake for DDOT to undertake a project such as reconstructing K street with anything less than this alternative. I consider myself a typical DC resident in that it takes me about 40 minutes to commute (from Columbia Heights to Rosslyn) each day by metrobus and metrorail. Alternatively, it takes me only 30 minutes to commute to work via bike. When I worked in Dupont Circle, I could commute in 12 minutes or less. However, K street is a road in DC I try to avoid on my bike if possible, simply because I find it to be dangerous for bikers. This is very unfortunate considering the businesses on K street (from CVS to doctors offices to restaurants) I tend to frequent. I do not like riding my bike on the sidewalk, but often on K street I am forced to do this.

Providing bike lanes on K street is necessary.

However, I am writing in support of the Washington Area Bike Association's recommendation to build cycle-tracks on K street. I think this opportunity should not be missed. I have traveled quite extensively, and as a biker I appreciate cities which put the safety of its residents at the forefront. Safety in this case extends to creating environments for people to live active and healthy lifestyles. By building cycle-tracks more people would be encouraged to cycle, thus making pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists more comfortable with cycling, and ultimately safer. Cycle-tracks are nothing new, and it would be a shame for DC to miss this opportunity. K street is such a
Appendix F-101

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

thoroughfare, that making this lane bike friendly would not only increase traffic to area business, but would promote a more active city.

Furthermore, if DC is really to become a "green" city and reduce emissions, we need more bikers on the road, not less. Let's take this opportunity and create an environment where bikers feel safe.

I hope that the Department of Transportation understands that this is an opportunity to lead in terms of urban development and will continue to push DC in the right direction.

I am happy to provide further comments if necessary.

Best regards,

Chloe Feinberg

Appendix F-102

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Chris Molitor

Subject: Response to Chris Molitor: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Sent By: On: To:

Comments regarding the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment "Chris Molitor" <cmolitor@yahoo.com> October 27, 2009 10:30 PM KStreet.comments@dc.gov

As an avid cyclist I would like to align my opinion with that of WABA. Any new project that offers dedicated facilities for cyclists seems to make sense. Also, their recommendation that the proposal should include a segragated lane specifically for cyclists that meets the following qualifications or as many of these as are feasible:

* The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

* The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

* To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

* Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

* A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

* A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters

I hope that this project will offer the city and the entire DC metro area a look into the future of transportation in the area and provides unique and interesting proposal that works for all different types of vehicles and pedestrians including cyclists!!!

-Chris Molitor, 3250 Q Street NW, Washington, DC 20007

Appendix F-103

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Christa Lachenmayr

Response to Christa Lachenmayr: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-104

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Christa Lachenmayr

Response to Christa Lachenmayr: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Christa Lachenmayr" <CLachenmayr@CFTC.gov> October 29, 2009 3:51 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

To Whom it May Concern:

I support a K Street renovation that includes bike lanes which are protected by raised curbs. In the event that is not possible, I support Alternative 3. It seems as though there are rarely opportunities to revisit projects such as the K Street Transitway, so it is vitally important that DC DOT anticipate the future needs of a growing population of cyclists in the city.

Thanks,

Christa Lachenmayr

*********************************

Christa Lachenmayr Economist Commodity Futures Trading Commission 1155 21st Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20581

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-105

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Chuck Pfleeger

Response to Charles P Pfleeger: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

I strongly encourage dedicated space for bicycles as part of the K St transit plan. There are already many bicycles downtown. Projects such as the bike storage facility at Union Station and short term bicycle rentals will increase the amount of bike traffic.

Bicycles need a protected, dedicated space. Merely painting a lane stripe along a road will not ensure the space is available for cyclists; witness the unfortunate death of a cyclists by a garbage truck driver who cut across the painted bike path without noticing there was a cyclists there. The dense commercial space along K St will continue to require many delivery trucks; if there is only a painted bike lane at the edge of the road surface, delivery vehicles will understandably park in the bike lane, which forces the bicyclists to swerve into traffic--good neither for the bicyclists or the motorized traffic. The only reasonable solution is to create a separate bicycle lane, protected with curbing or other barriers so delivery vehicles will not park there and drivers will not appropriate it as another traffic lane.

If there is dedicated bicycle space on K St, that will move bicycle traffic off the adjacent I, L and M Sts, making K St the recognized bicycle connector from 7th St to Penn near Georgetown. (Of course, the connector could just as easily be located on I, L or M St, if installation of a dedicated and protected bicycle space is created on one of them concurrent with the redesign of K St.)

Chuck

Dr Charles P Pfleeger, CISSP Pfleeger Consulting Group +1 (202) 680-0540 Computer and Information Systems Security Consulting chuck.pfleeger.com

Appendix F-106

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Clinton Ewell

Response to Clinton Ewell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Clinton Ewell" <clintonewell@hotmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:45:36 -0400 Subject: K St Transitway

DC Gov,

Biking is the future for urban development; to not choose Alternative 3 or a variant of it would be truly myopic. Cities such as Copenhagen, Denmark where thousands of people bike everyday, highlight tremendous opportunities when progressive thinking is employed.

Please help bring change to the American urban way of commuting by setting the example right here in our city.

Thank you.

DC resident and biker

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-107

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Cody Rice

Response to Cody Rice: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Cody Rice" <rice_cody@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:46:25 -0400 Subject: Comments in support of Alternative 3

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my support and agreement with the comments of the Washington Area Bicyclists Association with respect to the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment. As someone who resides and works in DC, I use my bicycle quite frequently. I currently avoid K Street NW and the businesses along its length because it does not provide a bicycle-friendly travel environment. Alternative 3 would entice me to use my bicycle more when traveling downtown for shopping or across town.

Of the build options presented in the Environmental Assessment, only Alternative 3 includes any dedicated facilities for cyclists. Bike facilities should extend for the entire length of the K Street project, and it would be advisable to use a more innovative bikeway design: cycle tracks. Cycle tracks, which are a type of bike facility that separate the bikeway from both the sidewalk and parking or travel lanes by means of a barrier, usually a low curb.

As a former resident of Montreal, Canada where cycle tracks have been installed, I can attest that cycle tracks are more effective than painted bicycle lanes in separating bicycles from automotive traffic, in encouraging less experienced riders to adopt bicycles as a transit mode, and in keeping delivery and other vehicles out of the bicycle travel lane. They also encourage cyclists to stay off the sidewalk, which reduces conflicts with pedestrians.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Ideally, the cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. However, a bi-directional cycle track on just one side of K Street would also be acceptable to me. I also support additional bike parking facilities in the public space.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Cody Rice

1238 C St NE, Washington, DC 20002

Appendix F-108

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Dan Foster

Response to Dan Foster: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Daniel Foster" <drdfoster@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 2:02 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a DC resident and I feel strongly that the K-street renovation should include cycle-tracks and bike lanes. I believe that this city will benefit in numerous ways by accomodating not only autos but also people and bikes. For the past 50 years the balance has been tilted strongly in favor of cars and against pedestrians/cyclists and the result is poor air quality (red air days), serious congestion on the streets, many accidents, obesity. Please include bikes and people in your transit plans.

Dan Foster 1433 W street NW

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-109

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Daniel Foster

Response to Daniel Foster: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Daniel Foster" <drdfoster@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:02:25 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am a DC resident and I feel strongly that the K-street renovation should include cycle-tracks and bike lanes. I believe that this city will benefit in numerous ways by accomodating not only autos but also people and bikes. For the past 50 years the balance has been tilted strongly in favor of cars and against pedestrians/cyclists and the result is poor air quality (red air days), serious congestion on the streets, many accidents, obesity. Please include bikes and people in your transit plans.

Dan Foster

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-110

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Daniel Schwartz

From: "Daniel Schwartz" <dschwartz8@hotmail.com> Response to Daniel Schwartz: Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:41:22 -0400

Subject: K street transitway

To Whom It May Concern,

I strongly support the construction of the K Street transitway. Currently buses move extremely slowly along this route, increasing commute times. I do not have a preference between option #2 and #3, as long as some version of the transitway is built. Washington needs more dedicated bus or street car lanes, and I would like to see this as the first step among many to improve our city's public transportation. Thank you for your time.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Regards,

Daniel Schwartz

Daniel Schwartz Photography

Appendix F-111

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Dario Hidalgo, PhD

Response to Dario Hidalgo: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the sidewalk width would remain the same as the existing width.

Alternative 3 is the best option

Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:56:21 PM

From: DHidalgo@wri.org To: kstreetcomments@rkk.com

The K Street busway will be a great addition to the transit options in the heart of the capital region. Option 3 is the one that makes it more attractive to users of the corridor. Passing capability will increase bus speeds and hence will reduce travel times. It will also reduce the total bus fleet required (or help in reducing the headways with the same fleet, which is also a very improtant service improvement: reduce wait time)

Expanding sidewalks and including bikelanes is also very important to make it a better, sustainable, corridor.

Hope the plans advance fast, a layout is selected and the project moves to final design and implementation soon.

DARIO HIDALGO, PhD

Appendix F-112

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Dave

Response to Dave: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

What is needed on K St is the following:-

a buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Transitway. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the lane and would be a more attractive facility for less experienced cyclists.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the WABA is also asking for: project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated 1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. a formal cycle track is not a option.

2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters. 3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Listen to the people who use it !!!

-Dave

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-113

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-David Cranor

Response to Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-114

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-David Mann

Response to David Mann: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "David Mann" <wdavidmann@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:43:14 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I am a cyclist and live in DC.

I would like to express my support for Alternative 3. I think that cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb is the best way to ensure a cyclist-friendly corridor. This design will also help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Sincerely,

David Mann 2112 Huidekoper Pl, NW

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-115

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-David Manuel

Response to David Manuel: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "David Manuel" <david@dcmanjr.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:49:56 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I would like to express my support for the cycling recommendations on K Street outlined by WABA (http://www.waba.org/documents/K_Street_Transitway_Comments.pd f) regarding the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment.

Sincerely, David

Appendix F-116

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-David Wilson

Response to David Wilson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "David Wilson" <drdavewilson@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:41:57 -0400 Subject: Option 3 looks best

Sir or madam-

As a bicyclist who commutes by bike from Union Station to McLean, I am quite interested in how the K Street Transitway affects bicycle travel. Having reviewed the options listed in the EA, I recommend that you select Option 3.

I know that you need to consider the needs and desires of many different constitutencies in making your decision. But given the overall positive impact that increased cycle riding could have on both traffic and health problems in the District, I urge you to consider the modest extra cost of Option 3.

Very truly yours, David S. Wilson

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-117

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-David Wright

Response to David Wright: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-118

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Demian Rybock

Response to Demian Rybock: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Demian Rybock" <drybock@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:19:09 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Hi,

I am an avid bike commuter and am always impressed when I see DC development add new safe and convenient ways for me to travel around the city. I support Alternative 3 for bike lanes on K Street. Please continue to make this city a safer place for bicyclists and a more convenient alternative mode of transportation.

Thank you.

Demian Rybock DC resident

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-119

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Diane Miller

Response to Diane Miller: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Diane Miller" <dancin.di@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:17:27 -0400 Subject: Support for Alternative 3-WABA

To Whom It May Concern:

As a DC resident and bicycle commuter, I am writing to express my support of WABA's Alternative 3 for K Street. DC is ready to make its streets safer for cyclists. With the tragic, fatal losses of fellow cyclists and DC residents, it can no longer wait! It is time for DC to get on board 100% with supporting alternative ways of commuting to work that are friendly to the environment as well as healthy to its residents. Alternative 3 is a step in the right direction!

Support WABA's initiative, Alternative 3. Thank you, Diane Miller

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-120

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Don Hawkins

Response to Don Hawkins Thank you for your comments. The No-Build Alternative, while considered in the Environmental Assessment, does not meet the purpose and need for this project. Section 2.1 in the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Left turns would be prohibited from the general purpose lanes in the eastbound direction at all intersections except 14th Street.

From: Don Hawkins [mailto:donhawkins@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 5:00 PM To: Hughey, Tomika (DDOT) Subject: K Street Transitway Report

K STREET IS A GREAT STREET ALREADY It has many more functions to perform that to act as a funnel for traffic. DDOT’s program for deconstructing a great work of planning which serves the city extremely well, is badly skewed by its obvious prejudice in favor of a long-outmoded type of transit. The compulsion to impose tracks and their attendant problems on the city of Washington is irrational and unsupportable by any statistical analysis DDOT has put forward..

The person-throughput improvement of Alternate B over Alternate A is entirely attributable to Alternate B’s assumption of 100% parking and traffic compliance. If the no-build alternative were to be followed, but with 100% compliance, the person-throughput figures would be higher than with either “B” or “C”. The statistics supporting this conclusion used to be hidden in DDOT’s presentation materials. Recent presentations have entirely left out any such useful information that would clarify the inutility of the proposed changes to K Street.

The traffic patterns imposed by the transitway scheme will make it impossible for eastbound vehicles to access the part of the city north of K Street anywhere between 35th Street and 14th Street, except by going through Washington Circle. How will the additional traffic be accommodated at that already existing bottleneck?

Appendix F-121

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Douglas Hall

Response to Douglas Hall: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Subject:

Public hearing for k street project

Sent By: "Douglas Hall" <halldjh@hotmail.com> On: October 14, 2009 7:46 PM To: kstreetcomments@rkk.com Cc: kstreetcomments@dc.gov

I am submitting this 'comment' in favor of a "modified alternative 3" including the following:

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

- a separate signal system for cyclists; - painted bike lanes at intersections; and - ample bike parking throughout the corridor.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses Physical separation of the bicycle lane is CRITICAL to ensure the safety of would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the cyclists. The use of standard bicycle lanes would not adequately protect cyclists. design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved Designated cycle tracks should be wide enough to permit bicycles to pass each bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master other safely. Loading zones should NOT be allowed to infringe on designated Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is bicycle lanes. promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Surely the safety and well-being of cyclists should take precedence over 'valet parking' and other considerations driven primarily by a desire to maximize corporate profits.

Thank-you for your consideration of this comment.

Respectfully,

Douglas Hall, PhD

7208 Blair Road, NW Washington, DC

Appendix F-122

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Edward Doheny

Response to Edward Doheny: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Edward Doheny" <eddoheny@hotmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:53:35 -0400 Subject: K Street transit way

Dear sir,

As part of the proposed modification of K Street NW I hope that you will consider a dedicated path for bicycles. Such a path should be protected from moving traffic and parked motor vehicles by a raised curb. Without such a barrier you may be certain that the bike path will be less safe for the bicyclists.

Edward J. Doheny 2603 Klingle Road NW 20008-1202

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-123

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Elizabeth Edgar

Response to Elizabeth Edgar: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Elizabeth Edgar" <ecedgar@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:37:57 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Thank you. -Elizabeth Edgar
Appendix F-124

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Elizabeth Falk

Response to Elizabeth Falk: Thank you for your comments.

From: "Elizabeth Falk" ulttraviolet@yahoo.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:46:42 -0400

Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Dear Decision Makers:

I am writing to urge you to adopt Option 3 for the redevelopment of K St. NW. It is crucial that any urban roadway construction or redevelopment include facilities for the growing number of DC cyclists. It is only by making this vital downtown corridor not merely bicycle-friendly, but bicycle safe, that DC will be able to fulfill it's promise as a modern urban center.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Meeting this promise however, will require taking these plans a step further to ensure that lanes marked for cyclists are not only highly visible to motorized traffic, by designed in such a way that they cannot be co-opted by the delivery vehicles that regularly double park in bike lanes throughout the city.

When delivery vehicles and personal car owners park in bicycle lanes, they render the lanes useless to cyclists and indeed increase the danger to cyclists who are forced to move from the cycle lane into the regular flow of traffic and back to the bike lane. This cycling pattern aggravated harried and aggressive drivers, increasing the danger to cyclists and discouraging less experienced cyclists who would otherwise prefer to travel around the city by bike.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

To prevent this problem, I urge you to take up the suggestions of the Washington Area Bicyclists Association and build into the redevelopment plan, cycle tracks that are separated from the motorized vehicle lanes by a physical barrier, such a low curb. Designated loading areas could be created beyond this curb area to ease deliveries and further encourage respect of non-motorized traffic.

Given the danger of oblivious drivers making right hand turns into the cycle lane, it is also important that the bike lanes be painted a bright color (as is the practice in cities that have successfully promoted nonmotorized transportation such as Copenhagen) along with the bicycle
Appendix F-125

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

symbol currently in use on some of the city's bike lanes.

When considering the options for this redevelopment plan, it is important to look at biking not as some sort of alternative/fringe form of transportation, but as an important and viable means of reducing congestion and pollution, improving commuting and other movement throughout the city, minimizing strain on the roads themselves and reducing the burden on costly public transportation. This, however can only be done if ours is a city that makes bike traffic a priority in it's urban planning, not just an afterthought.

Thank you for your support of this critical redevelopment opportunity.

Sincerely yours,

Elizabeth Falk

Appendix F-126

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Elizabeth Latham

Response to Elizabeth Latham: I bike to work most mornings, but am not one of those “experienced cyclists” who can zoom along with traffic. I typically ride on sidewalks because it is the Thank you for your comments. only way to ensure that people don’t hit me with their cars and trucks (I have Response to Comment: been almost hit by many people when riding in designated bike lanes on capital Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred hill). Moreover, people tend to park in the bike lanes. Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of So that I can safely ride to work, I fully support the WABA proposal to make a operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the bike lane SEPARATE from the roadway. You can see their recommendations project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated at http://www.waba.org/documents/K_Street_Transitway_Comments.pdf bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. I fully support this effort so that my staff and I can ride safely to work. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Latham Executive Director U.S. Committee for the UN Development Program

Appendix F-127

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Emily Mazurak

Response to Emily Mazurak: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K Street Bike Path "Emily Mazurak" <mazurake@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 9:56 AM kstreet.comments@dc.gov

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Thank you,

Emily E. Mazurak

Appendix F-128

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Emily Peckenham

Response to Emily Peckenham: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Emily" <emily.peckenham@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:29:06 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Hi there,

I'm writing to voice my support for the WABA push for a bike-friendly K-street redevelopment. As a daily cylclist who works downtown, I avoid K Street at all costs. Unfortunately, lots of doctor's offices, office space and other necessities are located along K Street, where I feel very unsafe there due to high-speed traffic headed for the tunnel, motorists suddenly turning in and out of the raised side-lane, inability for cyclists to ever make a safe left hand turn, and parked cars and obstacles everywhere.

Thanks for your consideration.

Emily Peckenham

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-129

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Eric Malinen

Response to Eric Malinen Thank you for your comments.

From: "eric malinen" ericmdc@yahoo.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:45:36 -0500 Subject: Public Comment, K Street EA

October 30, 2009

To: Mr. Faisal Hameed, DDOT Project Manager TPPA, 2000 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

By e-mail

Re.: K Street Environmental Assessment (EA)

PUBLIC COMMENT

Dear Mr. Hameed:

I am the ANC Commissioner for 2A-05, serving on the Foggy Bottom and West End ANC (ANC 2A). I am submitting this present Comment in my individual capacity.

I support the concept of bus/transit lanes, and currently do not have a preference between Alternatives 2 and 3. I have a concern, however, that the proposed "sidewalk loading pullouts" in Alternative 3 might not work well: loading/unloading would sometimes take much longer, single drivers might need to attend much more to securing their trucks (perhaps repeatedly), and longer hauls of hand carts on the sidewalks might prove difficult for pedestrians. While the idea of pullouts seems ingenious and would save valuable space -- and is a good idea if it can work -- I respectfully request that DDOT and FHWA assess precedent from other cities (if available) before choosing such a feature.

Sincerely yours,

Eric Malinen Commissioner, ANC 2A-05 Foggy Bottom and West End ANC (ANC 2A) 2a05@anc.dc.gov

Appendix F-130

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Eric Weisz

Response to Eric Weisz: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Eric Weisz" eric.weisz@gmail.com October 28, 2009 10:46 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I am writing in regards to the options being considered for transformation of the K St. corridor. I am a cyclist, and I think that any design implemented must include cycling facilities. Currently, loading zone and parking restrictions are routinely ignored, which contributes to congestion. I agree with the Washington Area Bicyclists Association (WABA) that any standard bike lane that is not separated from traffic will be quickly filled with parked vehicles and delivery trucks ultimately rendering the facility virtually useless. I join WABA in calling for the inclusion of cycle tracks in the design. Additionally, as traditional parking meters are replaced with the multi-space meters, it is important that attention be paid to providing alternative facilities for bike parking (well-designed racks, etc.).

Whatever the final determination, I'd like to reiterate that cycling facilities need to be a key element of the K St plan. It is the environmentally friendly solution and would be a big boost to the cycling infrastructure in downtown DC.

Sincerely, Eric Weisz

Appendix F-131

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Eryn Rosenblum

Response to Eryn Rosenblum Thank you for your comments.

From: "Eryn Rosenblum" eryn.rosenblum@gmail.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:55:41 -0500 Subject: Comments: K-Street Transitway

October 30, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

Regarding the DDOT K Street Transitway Environmental Assesment, I am writing in favor of the project option that provides three dedicated bus lanes, two vehicular travel lanes in each direction, and a dedicated bike lane in each direction ("Option #3").

This option is particularly beneficial for bus and vehicular traffic, as well as the various bus riders, because it provides for local *and* commuter buses to use the transit way, moving more people and allowing for the dedicated loading/unloading zone for passengers. If we're going to build dedicated busways, it would be frustrating to still have commuter buses in mixed traffic, forced to deal with vehicular congestion, and with no reliable space for passengers to disembark. Especially with all the people who work downtown coming in via commuter buses, providing for them as well as local bus passengers is absolutely crucial to this project, and will improve the experience (as well as the efficiency) of public transportation in the city and the region.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. Alternative 2 would also create less of an impact for off-street loading than Alternative 3, by providing an off-peak lane for parking/loading throughout most of the corridor. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Bicycle lanes are another element that should be included in this project: they are inexpensive, consume the least space, and will help efficiently move more people along this busy direct corridor (it would certainly be part of my commute to work). Including a bike lane also improves safety (especially when adjacent to the sidewalk rather than parked cars) for bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers. There has been suggestion of providing bike lanes on adjacent "Eye" and L streets, but 1) that is not a part of this project, and 2) why shouldn't there be provisions for biking on every street, as there are for cars? Why should bicyclists have to go out of their way before cars do?

As far as loading and deliveries: Alleys and side streets are more appropriate for loading/unloading. Moving traffic (bus, bike,
Appendix F-132

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

pedestrian, and car) important goals of this project, and with all the alleyway and side-street space, there is ample opportunity to provide for deliveries and loading/unloading (especially with commuter buses using the transitway).

Any change is an improvement over the current layout of K Street with benefits for *all* street users. I am thrilled about the development of dedicated busways and boarding zones, and I hope this entire street will be more accessible to buses and bicyclists than it is currently. As a DC resident, an employee downtown, and a biker, busrider, and walker, I thank you for pursuing this project and seeking public comment, and look forward to the outcomes of this project.

Sincerely,

Eryn Rosenblum 741 Harvard St. NW Washington, DC 20001

Appendix F-133

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Eve Bratman

Response to Eve Bratman: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Eve Bratman" <ebratman@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:26:44 -0400 Subject: Bicycling facilities

Comments on the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment: I would like to support ONLY the option Three of the latest Environmetnal Assessment build projects proposed, but to note that a more innovation solution to addressing bicyclists' needs in the K Street corridor are needed. A dedicated, separate track for bicycles, perhaps separated by a low curb, would be the ideal solution to keep bicyclists and pedestrians safe from traffic and car-door incidents with parked cars. As an avid bicyclist and neighborhood resident I hope that at a minimum the plan will include bicycling infrastructure and walkability as emphatic design elements throughout the corridor. Thank you.

Eve Bratman

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-134

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Frank Shewmaker

Response to Frank Shewmaker: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Shewmaker, Frank (NIH/NIDDK) [F]" <franksh@niddk.nih.gov> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:20:34 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway

I want DC to be among the greatest international cities. To do this we must make DC as livable as possible. We must integrate bicycles into our future transportation infrastructure. A good way to start is to include protected bicycle lanes on the K Street Transitway.

Sincerely,

Frank Shewmaker

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-135

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Galen Alexander

Response to Galen Alexander: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Galen Alexander" <alexander.galend@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:42:50 -0400 Subject: remake K street cyclist friendly, support option three

To Whom it May Concern:

The proliferation of cyclist in the District over the past few years has highlighted the lack of bike safe routes downtown and particularly on K Street. In considering design of the K street transitway, i urge you to integrate a bicycle lane that is safe, separate and accessible to cyclist. The only option that resembles a cyclist friendly design is Option Three (3) in the Environmental Assessment.

Mayor Fenty's has stated goals of making the District cyclist friendly and econ-friendly. Incentivizes to increase cycling through increased access to dedicated bike lanes will work toward meeting these goals. My reelection vote for Fenty counts on his ability to deliver on promises he made to residents of DC and the Environment, in this case it depends on delievering remade K Street that is cyclist friendly.

Regards, Galen Alexander

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-136

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Garrett Young

Response to Garrett Young: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Garrett Young" <gyoung2@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:36:40 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

DC Council:

As a resident of downtown DC and a frequent cyclist on K Street, I strongly support WABA's proposals, particularly with regard to cycle tracks which separate the cyclist from both the sidewalk and the road.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Thanks for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions at the number below.

Best, Garrett Young

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-137

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Gary Falk

From: "Gary Falk" <glfalk@verizon.net> Response to Gary Falk Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:18:41 -0500

Subject: K street bike lanes

As a long time cyclist, both for the purposes of commuting and recreation, and DC resident, I strongly recommend that you adopt Option 3 (the WABA recommendation) on the subject issue. If Washington is going to serve as a model for the nation as a livable, people friendly, green city, and continue the remarkable renaissance and growth that it has experienced in this century, its important we take measures like this that encourage lower impact transportation and help do our part for the country and the world to reduce our carbon footprint.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Respectfully,

Gary Falk

Appendix F-138

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Gene Dixon

Response to Gene Dixon: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

To K Street Transit-way Decision Makers;

My name is Gene Dixon and I have been a resident of the District of Columbia for 10 years. I have also been for the most of those 10 years and totally for the last three a bicyclist in the District. I do own a car, but it is rare when I drive it more than 20 miles per week. I bicycle to work, for errands and to may places of entertainment in the evenings. I can on most occasions get to where I am going faster and with greater ease on my bicycle than others who may be accompanying me to the same places but using car and metro.

Having heard the many platitudes from various City Council members and the current Mayor, also a bicyclist, I am appaled with the lack of bicycle lanes and bicycle racks through out the city and especially in the major business and entertainment areas of the District of Columbia. Especially, when the above mentioned City Council members and Mayor say that they want the District of Columbia to be a bicycle and green city.

I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, October 14, where I would be able to comment on the K Street Transit-way. I want to say in no uncertain terms I want you to choose the plan that WABA is supporting, the modified Alternative 3. It is my understanding that this would put cycle tracks with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanes at intersections along this corridor. And, it would include the desperately needed bicycle parking along the entire corridor.

The District of Columbia has the opportunity to make a positive statement by choosing the alternative that WABA is presenting and that I unequivocally support. You have the opportunity to support your community by making it safer for the current bicyclist and the those who want to be but do not feel safe. When you make this decision, you will move the District of Columbia closer to other great bicyling cities in the United States such as Portland, Oregon or international cities such as Amsterdam, both of which I have visited and cycled in. You will also be moving the District of Columbia toward the green future that we must all embrace. Finally, by making the decision that I advocate, you will give courage and example to other cities who want to do the same thing but do not know how.

Say yes to the the modified Alternative 3 plan for the K Street Transit-way!

Sincerely, Gene Dixon

Appendix F-139

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Golden Triangle Business Improvement District

Response to Golden Triangle: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. Response to Comment 2: Section 3.1.4 of the Final Environmental Assessment states has been modified to add additional information on urban design character, as well as information on sidewalk width, and loading lay-bys (or pull-outs). Prototype renderings have been added to Appendix B and C. Response to Comments 3 and 4: 1 Additional information on curbside loading and valet parking has been added to Section 3.1.4 of this Final EA.

2

Appendix F-140

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Golden Triangle Business Improvement District

Response to Comment 5: Additional information on effects to sidewalks has been added to Section 3.1.4 of this Final EA. With the Preferred Alternative / Alternative 2, the existing sidewalk width would not be modified. Sidewalk bumpouts cannot be accommodated in the Preferred Alternative because it would require the sidewalk width to be reduced or the third travel lane to be eliminated. Pedestrian signal phasing will be considered at the Connecticut Avenue intersection during final design.  

3

4

5

Appendix F-141

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Golden Triangle Business Improvement District

Response to Comment 6: We concur with your assessment that unacceptable levels of congestion are predicted in future scenarios. Response to Comment 7: As a transportation project that is federally funded, the he purpose and need for this project must be focused on improving K Street transportation facilities. Distinctive designs are an important part of the urban design social need, but are not appropriate as part of the transportation need for the project.

6

Additional text was added to Chapter 4 of the EA to describe the feedback from the BIDs. Furthermore, your comments have been printed in this Appendix so that your preferences are clearly stated without edit.

7

Appendix F-142

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Golden Triangle Business Improvement District

(Continued)

Appendix F-143

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Grant Smith

Response to Grant Smith: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Grant Wilder Smith" <romerodep2@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:41:03 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway

To Whom It May Concern:

I work on K Street, am a bicyclist and a member of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA).

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

I prefer Option 2 but would also like to see dedicated bicycle infrastructure in the way of a raised bike lane similar to the adjacent sidewalk. Ideally, the bike lane(s) along K street would be level with the sidewalk to notify delivery truck drivers and others that no parking or idling on the bike lane is allowed, and a different appearance or color would help pedestrians distinguish the sidewalk from the bike lane.

I appreciate that the city is installing more bike lanes, and would like to see the city improve the safety of bike lanes by raising their surface level or putting in physical barriers between lanes and vehicular traffic.

Thank You!

Grant Smith Apt. 844 2480 16th St NW Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-144

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Greg Seaberg

Response to Greg Seaberg: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Greg Seaberg" <gseaberg@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:10:57 -0400 Subject: Please include bike lanes in the K Street Transitway project

Please include bike lanes in the K Street Transitway project. I commute to work on my bicycle daily (and ride my bike almost anywhere further than a few blocks from home), and I consider myself rather adept at bicycling safely through city streets. I do not, however, ride my bicycle on K Street. There's simply too much traffic moving at high speeds to make K Street, which should be a transportation artery for all vehicular traffic, safe for bicyclists. Given the tendency for cars and delivery trucks to block painted bike lanes, the best option is to construct cycle tracks, with a low curb separating bicycle and automotive traffic.

Mayor Fenty pledged to make DC a world-class bicycling city, and I appreciate his efforts to date. Please support his vision as you move forward with the K Street Transitway project, and help make K Street safer for everyone.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Thanks, Greg Seaberg

Appendix F-145

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Gretchen Anderson

Response to Gretchen Anderson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Gretchen Anderson" <gretchen.s.anderson@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:44:51 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Good afternoon,

I wanted to put a vote in for a bike friendly redesign of K Street. I'm not wedding to option 2 or 3, but if option 3 is the only way to integrate bike lanes into the design I would much prefer that to option 2. I use K street on a regular basis and, given the volume and speed of the traffic, bike lanes would go a long way toward making it a safe place for cyclists.

Thank you,

Gretchen Anderson Ward 2 resident

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-146

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Hayden Brockett

From: "Hayden Brockett" <haydenbrockett@gmail.com>

Response to Hayden Brockett
Thank you for your comments. Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:09:29 -0400

Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

As a citizen and a cyclist, I strongly support Alternative 3 in the K Street Transitway decision process. DC is in many ways ideal for biking: it's relatively flat, the streets are wide, and its downtown is compact. Biking is the fastest and most efficient way to get around our town.

I regularly bike downtown, but K street NW is particularly dangerous for bikers. It doesn't need to be that way. We need dedicated lanes to make this transitway truly live up to our city's potential. Alternative 3 is the best proposal and I strongly believe that DDOT should implement Alternative 3 as in goes forward in the K Street Transitway project.

Sincerely,

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Hayden Brockett

660 Morton Pl NE #4

Washington DC 20002

Appendix F-147

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Henk Brands

Response to Henk Brands: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Henk Brands" <HBrands@paulweiss.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:49:13 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I am strongly in favor of WABA's proposal, Alternative 3. I work as an attorney downtown, and ride my bike from the Palisades to downtown (20th and K) every day. Overall, the ride is great, but the stretch between 20th and the Whitehurst Freeway is extremely dangerous. Something needs to be done before people get killed. Also, the City should encourage commuters to ride bikes. Too many cars go into the downtown area. This is not sustainable.

Henk Brands Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-148

FINAL: December 2009

2-Howard Crystal

Response to Howard Crystal: Thank you for your comment.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES From: Howard Crystal [mailto:HCrystal@meyerglitz.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 2:52 PM To: Hameed, Faisal (DDOT) Subject: RE: K Street Transitway

Thanks so much for your prompt response. I will look out for the EA in September. I am a biking commuter who rides from NE to NW (near Dupont) every day. I strongly support any alternatives that would increase the safety and convenience of bicycling through the City. Thanks for considering my comments.

Howard Crystal 813 A St NE Washington DC

Appendix F-149

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Hugh Hilliard

Response to Hugh Hilliard: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K Street Corridor Comments "Hugh Hilliard" <hugh.hilliard@gmail.com> October 27, 2009 10:13 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I regularly commute by bicycle between my home in upper northwest DC and my workplace at 12th and I. Part of my route goes along K Street, and I observe many other bicyclists using K Street (typically making use of the parking, loading/unloading lanes that are separated from the main roadway). Some type of bicycle lane along K Street would help to make bicycle trips along K Street safer and would encourage others to use K Street for commuting by bicycle. It also would provide a safe bicycle route from downtown to Georgetown and to the Rock Creek Park and Capital Crescent bicycle trails. Washington DC is making important strides toward becoming more bicycle friendly and should not pass up the opportunity to continue down this path as it refurbishes the K Street corridor.

Thanks very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Hugh Hilliard 6316 31st Place Washington, DC 20015

Appendix F-150

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ian Morrison

Response to Ian Morrison: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Ian Morrison" <ianbikemorrison@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:41:59 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Bicycle Friendly

As a regular bicycle commuter to 19th and K street I support Alternative 3 for the K Street transit way. It is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists. While Alternative 3 provides for bike lanes, I am urging the DC Department of Transportation to instead construct cycle tracksbike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Thank You,

Ian Morrison

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-151

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ilona Blanchard

Response to Ilona Blanchard: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: Ilona Blanchard [mailto:ilona_brazil@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:42 PM To: KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Cc: Wells, Thomas (COUNCIL) Subject: K Street Design - Add Cycle Tracks!!!!

RE: Request for comments from DC GOV re: K Street Design -

I am a frequent cyclist in DC, and while I brave the streets take the lane and ride on the rare bicycle lane between parked cars and traffic, frankly I would much much prefer to make my trip via a cycle track. On some downtown streets, I ride on the sidewalk because I just don't feel safe in traffic.

As I become older, I become more cautious and what was once an exhilerating challenge is frankly very scary, and I often have to steel myself to push off in the morning. On street bike lanes are still on the street and often between two rows of cars. Cycle tracks create a safer space for bicyclists and the many younger and older people I see biking around Capitol Hill. They would probably also take bikes downtown if it appeared safer there too - right now it is not very inviting and full of jockying cars.

Cities with lots of cycle tracks often have double digit percentages of people riding bicycles.

Please add cycle tracks to downtown DC as you rebuild and reconstruct streets.

Ilona Blanchard 201 18th Street SE Washington, DC 20003

Appendix F-152

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-J. Peter Byrne

Response to J. Peter Byrne: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Peter Byrne" <byrne@law.georgetown.edu> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:37:22 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I strongly support Alternative 3. We need fresh thinking about transportation that embraces bicycles, which emit no carbon at all, as central to the future of urban transportation. Thanks.

J. Peter Byrne Professor of Law Faculty Director, Georgetown Climate Center Faculty Director, Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Program Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20001

Appendix F-153

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jake Mello

Response to Jake Mello: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Jake Mello" <jqmello@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:50:23 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Hi,

I am writing in on behalf of WABA and all of the under-represented bicyclists in the area. I bicycle through DC a lot, and whenever I'm going somewhere it's my favorite mode of transportation (better than Metro, don't have to park, and don't have to wait for the bus). I am currently terrified of the K St corridor, and would like to see some bicycle-friendly planning when the streets are re-done.

Thanks, ~~Jake Mello~~

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-154

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-James Clark

Response to James Clark Thank you for your comments.

From: "James Clark" <jayemmsee@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:23:36 -0400 Subject: Support for Option 3 for K Street Transitway

Hello,

I would like to see Option 3 implemented for K Street. Bike lanes must be considered an important mode of transit for the existing roadway. I realize car drivers don't like this but all transitways must be fully multi-modal.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Thank you,

James

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-155

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-James Sinclair

Response to James Sinclair: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "James Sinclair" <jamesinclair@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:47:29 -0400 Subject: Comments

Hello, here are my comments:

I am in favor of bus exclusive lanes.

I believe that two lanes are all that is needed, buses should be able to pass each other without an added lane like on any other striped (instead of solid) painted street. That is a feature that buses have over streetcars.

The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, would accommodate bicyclists in a shared-use curbside travel lane, rather than in cycle tracks. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

It is very important that bike infrastructure be addressed. A bike lane is needed, either on the side of the road or even inside the busway. Having bike lanes on parallel streets is not a suitable alternative.

I support option 2 with changes to add a bike lane. This can be done by narrowing the car lanes to 10 feet, which is the recommended minimum.

James Sinclair

Appendix F-156

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jamie Cepler

Response to Jamie Cepler: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Jamie Cepler" <jcepler1@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:09:17 -0400 Subject: k street transit way

I support WABA's modified option 3, a three-lane center busway with 2 traffic lanes and a buffered bike lane or “cycle track” in each direction. A standard bike lane that is not separated from traffic will be quickly filled with parked vehicles and delivery trucks ultimately rendering the facility useless. K street is a corridor heavily frequented by loading vehicles or vehicles that park illegally. DDOT should definitely explore WABA’s concept very seriously, since these facilities have proved extremely successful in other cities and a solid bike facility on K Street could really improve the stature of biking in the District. The 3rd land bus lane could also be used by emergency vehicles to safely pass buses on the way to their destination.

Jamie Cepler

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-157

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Janelle Phillips

From: "Janelle Phillips" <janelle.phillips07@gmail.com> Response to Janelle Phillips Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:42:35 -0400

Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to express my support for Alternative 3 in the K Street Transitway project. Bike lanes along K St. would make the area more bike friendly and accessible. Also, I strongly support the proposed construction of cycle tracks-bike lanes and are protected by a raised curb. I frequently bike in order to commute to work, and often feel that even with a bike lane cars come dangerously close to me while I'm biking.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

I hope that DC will continue to make bike and environmental friendly decisions.

Sincerely,

Janelle Phillips

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Ward 1 Resident and concerned biker.

Appendix F-158

FINAL: December 2009

2-Janna Marks

Response to Janna Marks: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Subject: K Street Plan - safe cycling Sent By: "Janna Marks" <janna20814@gmail.com> On: October 29, 2009 11:07 AM To: KStreet.comments@dc.gov

I love to bike into the city and cycling down K street would be ideal.

I have been follwoing the K St Transit proposals and am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Thank you.

J. Marks

Appendix F-159

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jason Kopp

Response to Jason Kopp: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Jason Kopp" <jason.f.kopp@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:13:53 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Please take into consideration cyclists when you rebuild K street. It is an important route for many currernt and would-be communters, but we do not currently feel safe do to the need to ride with traffic. Bikers need their own lane, and it needs to be isolated from both moving and parked vehicles. We greatly appreciate your efforts to make K street a safer place of transit for the entire community, including cyclists.

Best regards,

Jason Kopp

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-160

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jeb Stenhouse

Response to Jeb Stenhouse Thank you for your comments.

From: "Jeb Stenhouse" jeb.stenhouse@gmail.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:20:20 -0400 Subject: big vote of support for Option 3

Dear DDOT,

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

As a taxpaying resident of downtown Washington, I would like to strongly support Option 3 for the K Street Transitway. It is clear from DDOT's excellent work on the streetcar proposal that your staff really understand the value of multimodal planning. Many DC residents, including myself, do not have a car, and yet we must contend with all of the pollution and congestion caused by car-centric community planning. That is changing, happily, because of projects DDOT is conducting such as the K Street Transitway. Option 3 is the best option because it is the most sustainable and has the most promise for improving quality of life in Washington DC. If people see that buses have their own dedicated space and will proceed very rapidly due to having the dedicated bus lanes in the middle (including a third bus lane for passing slower buses or even future streetcars), then more people will gravitate toward using public transit. This will improve everyone's lives, including the drivers who will enjoy less crowded roadways as more people switch to transit.

Please put your planning emphasis on Option 3, with whatever modifications you deem successful (such as raising the bicycle path to the level of the sidewalk but keeping it clearly separated from pedestrian traffic with a color/surface scheme). It is critical that DDOT support true transportation improvements by providing better networks for ALL transportation modes - pedestrians, buses, streetcars, bicycles, and automobiles. Option 3 makes the most progress on that front for the K Street Transitway.

Sincerely, Jeb Stenhouse Homeowner, 1130 5th St NW APT 1 Washington, DC 20001

Appendix F-161

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jeff

Response to Anonymous: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K Street Transitway "Jeff" <jeff32jeff@hotmail.com> October 28, 2009 7:34 AM kstreet.comments@dc.gov

DC Department of Transportation should construct cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb on K Street. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Appendix F-162

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jeff Blackwood

Response to Jeff Blackwood: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K street needs elevated bike tracks "jeff blackwood" <blackwoodjeff@hotmail.com> October 29, 2009 9:31 AM kstreet.comments@dc.gov

Hi there! My name is Jeff Blackwood and I'm a homeowner in Ward 6 (ANC 6C). My wife and I both commute to our jobs in DC on bicycle and we'd like to see more bike infrastructure added around the city.

We especially want to endorse the WABA's modified proposal to option 3 for the K street transitway rebuild. I bike this stretch of road regularly now and can affirm that it's not a good situation. The drivers of cars don't like me being there and definitely let me know it. There needs to be some accommodation for bikes on this important corridor. Cyclists will continue to use K street even if there is no dedicated bike lane. This will slow down traffic and frustrate both bikers and drivers. It would be better to accommodate all users of K street and make elevated cycle track lanes that are protected by an elevated curb. If there is not enough support for that option, please include dedicated bike lanes so that district residents who live east of downtown have a full range of options when traveling on K street.

Thanks, -Jeff Blackwood 642 I street NE

Appendix F-163

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jeff Peel

Response to Jeff Peel Thank you for your comments.

From: "Jeff Peel" <jeffrypeel@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:15:11 -0500 Subject: Support for a Modified Option Three

Public Comment on the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment:

Support for a Modified Option Three

The K Street Transitway project offers the city of Washington, DC a unique opportunity to transform the central street within the Central Business District from a mostly auto dominated environment into a world-class multimodal corridor. It is also an opportunity to employ innovative design solutions in a way that further demonstrates the city’s commitment to a more bicycle friendly transportation network. This commitment is often publicly repeated by District Department of Transportation Director Gabe Klein. While a variety of options for K Street are under consideration, the goal for the project should be to design a street that is safe and attractive to all of its users.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. The Preferred Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a shared-use curbside travel lane, rather than in cycle tracks. The Preferred Alternative cannot accommodate a dedicated bicycle lane or cycle track without encroaching further into the sidewalk. DDOT’s Great Streets and Public Realm Design Handbook specifies a minimum 10-foot sidewalk width for pedestrians. While there are some areas where the sidewalk currently exceeds a 10-foot width, the additional sidewalk space is currently used for landscape plantings, sidewalk cafes, street lighting, and other amenities that would be compromised if a cycle track were added to the Preferred Alternative.

Of the two build options presented in the Environmental Assessment, only Option Three included any dedicated facilities for cyclists, and fulfills the mission of DDOT to accommodate all roadway users. While it shows great progress that consideration was given to cyclists in this option, I believe that a more innovative bikeway design solution is needed. Cycle tracks, a type of bike facility that is increasing being used in the US including current construction on 15th St. NW, separate the bikeway from both the sidewalk and parking or travel lanes by means of a physical barrier. An ideal solution for K Street and should be considered in the Environmental Assessment regardless which transitway and travel lane configurations move forward. Inclusion of such on-street bike facility design along arterial roads is currently being implemented in New York City, Philadelphia and Portland, OR among others with great success. Such facilities are common best practice in many European nations.

As changes to the travel lane arrangement require addressing the needs of cyclists, so do changes to loading zones and parking. Loading zone
Appendix F-164

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

and parking restrictions are routinely ignored, which contributes to congestion. Cycle tracks will help prevent parked vehicles and delivery trucks blocking access to this dedicated space. A bike parking plan for the corridor should be developed to address the reduction in of parking though impromptu parking to standard meter and signage poles that will be removed by the switch to multi-space meters.

Thousands of cyclists either work on K Street or use the corridor as part of their daily bike commute, including myself. Forgoing dedicated, safe space for cyclists along this corridor in lieu of parallel streets is not an option for us. The District has already positioned itself as having the potential of being one of the nations- if not the world’sgreat cities for cycling through its bike-sharing program and BikeStation parking facility. Cycle tracks or other dedicated bikeways along K Street continue this visionary approach.

Jeff Peel

Bicycle Advisory Council

Chairman Gray Appointee

Appendix F-165

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jeffrey Lovshin

Response to Jeffrey Lovshin Thank you for your comments. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

From: "Jeffrey Lovshin" <jeff.lovshin@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:51:46 -0500 Subject: Option 2

To Whom It May Concern:

I support option 2 for the K Street Transitway. Although I think it is important to include bike lanes on any street possible, due to the space constraints of the ROW I feel that the general tradeoffs are too large to support Option 3 provided the following occurs:

1) Commuter buses use the general lanes in Option 2 (which I believe was mentioned)

2) Outer lanes become parking lanes after rush hour

3) Bike lanes are striped on L and I streets in comparison.

I personally don't feel that bikes would be that safe in Option 3, as the traffic would not be inherently slower due to a lack of parked cars on the street.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input.

Jeff

Appendix F-166

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jennifer Leeman

Response to Jennifer Leeman: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-167

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jennifer Marsh

Response to Jennifer Marsh: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Please consider a buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Transitway. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the lane and would be a more attractive facility for less experienced cyclists.

Cyclists, safety advocates and citizens also support

1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option. 2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters. 3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Thank you,

Jennifer Marsh, RN

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-168

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jennifer Thomas

Response to Jennifer Thomas: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Jennifer Thomas" <jennifer.thomas@stanfordalumni.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:26:20 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I highly recommend the adoption of alternative 3 for the development of K St. I also strongly support the modification which proposes separating automobile traffic from bike traffic by raised curb. I find it shocking that, given the horrible traffic problems in the city, there are not more safe cycling options in the city. Even where there are bike lanes, such as the 14th St. corridor, there is absolutely no enforcement of the existing bike lanes against automobiles. Rather, city police simply allow drivers to use bike lanes as right hand turn lanes and double parking lanes. As a former bike commuter in the city, I would highly welcome improve safety for cyclists.

I'm a former bike commuter, because I was recently in a serious accident with a car. I was heading south on a sidewalk (well north Of Massachusetts Ave. and Therefore in the area in which bicycles are permitted to ride on the sidewalk). The car made an illegal left turn in dense traffic and was forced to come to an immediate stop to avoid hitting the car in front of it. Unfortunately for me, the car stopped in the crosswalk. I struck the car while it was still in the process of turning left because I simply had no time to stop. The driver of the car stated in the accident report that he'd seen me and yet he didn't bother to stop to give me the right of way though he was making an illegal left turn. As a result of this accident, which occurred 2 months ago, I have very little use of my right hand, I can scarcely bend my left leg, and I have a huge scar that runs diagonally across my face. Had the car behaved legally and not make the left turn, or had the car yielded to me as oncoming traffic, I would be fine.

Given the disrespect of drivers in the city for cyclists, and the refusal of drivers to honor bike lanes (or the police to require that they honor bike lanes), it is absolutely critical that a safe bike lane be developed for K St.

It bears noting, of course, that currently between Q St. and D St., there are no eastwest bike lanes and no safe areas for bikes to move east to west and west to east. While I applaud the steps the mayor has taken to make the city more bike friendly, the failure to adequately separate automobile traffic from bike lanes and the lack of east-west bike lanes in the downtown area is a serious shortcoming. I therefore endorse the proposal endorsed by WABA.

Appendix F-169

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jessalyn Dingwell

Response to Jessalyn Dingwell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Jessalyn Dingwell" <jessiedingwell@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:34:57 -0400 Subject: Cycling Accommodation

I strongly support the WABA comments on the K Street project.

Alternative 3 is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists.

Additionally, I support the WABA's comments to construct cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. We need to keep cyclists safe and encourage more people to bike to work, etc.!

Jessalyn Dingwell

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-170

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jessica & Justin Martin

Response to Jessica and Justin Martin: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Dear Representative,

As the parents of a newborn, we are unable to attend tonight's meeting in person. However, as daily commuters on K Street, we wanted to share our comments on the project. I work at 21st and L and my husband works on the other side of the Key Bridge. We both come from the neighborhood adjacent to Howard University, so we commute on K street during the work week. Because of finances and convenience, we do not own a car and so we normally bike for transportation. Recently, my husband was cut off by a taxi who was pulling over to take a passenger at 15th and K, resulting in a serious broken arm that required surgery to repair. These are the reasons why we need to ensure safe options for bicycles on the proposed redesign of K Street.

Of the three "build options" for the K Street Transitway, only Alternative 3 included any facilities for cyclists. However, given the large number of deliveries made on K Street, or taxis like the one in my husband's accident, we feel that a standard bike lane would turn into a drop lane for cars and a parking lane for delivery vehicles. We strongly urge you to consider WABA's recommending a buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Transitway. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from cutting off cyclists or parking in the lane and would encourage more cyclists, which enhances visibility and safety and results in less traffic in general.

Thank you for taking the time to read and incorporate our comments. We hope that you will consider the safety of cyclists during the redesign of K Street.

Sincerely,

Jessica and Justin Martin 17 Rhode Island Ave NW Washington, DC 20001

Appendix F-171

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jessica Hall

Response to Jessica Hall: Thank you for your comments.

Hello!

My name is Jessica Hall. I am a Ward 2 resident, a Washingtonian for nearly 10 Response to Comment: years, a 2nd grade schoolteacher, and a bicycle commuter and enthusiast. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of I am writing ( based on the many deliveries made on K Street) in support of a operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the buffered bike lane (or cycle track) for the K Street Transitway. I believe a project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated standard bike lane could potentially turn into a parking lane for delivery vehicles, which doesn't really help cyclists the way a buffered bike lane or cycle bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. track would.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design I am also writing to explicitly request painted bike lanes at intersection crossings solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes and ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters. cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not Thank you for your time! Sorry I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the Jessica Hall design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved (202) 906 9180 bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-172

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jessica Jones

Response to Jessica Jones: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Jessica Jones" <jonesica@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 10:37 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

To Whom It May Concern:

Hello, I wanted to express my support for the cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb (a suggestion made by WABA to the DC Department of Transportation for the upcoming K Street Transitway project).

In fact, I was just discussing last night how dangerous it is for bikers in this city. The poor habits of drivers in the region is distinctly reflected in the relationship between car drivers and bikers. I have a number of friends, who biked in other cities, but have refused to do so in DC because they are concerned about their safety.

Bike lanes separated by a curve would serve a number of purposes, namely ensuring the safety of bikers in the bustling part of the city. However, considering that this is a particular busy area, it would serve as a great platform to teach the DC commuter community about the rights of the various demographics that use the road.

Looking forward to hearing the status. Thank you for your efforts.

Sincerely, Jessica Jones

Appendix F-173

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jim Godfrey

Response to Jim Godfrey: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan includes proposed bike lanes on I and L Streets. While Alternative 2 does not include designated bicycle lanes on K Street, the alternative does include a shared-use curbside lane in order to accommodate those bicycle users that choose to use K Street.

I am a DC bicyclist. I live in Trinidad in NE and commute by bicycle to work near McPherson Square, so I ride on K Street. I strongly urge you to have vision: the world, of necessity is greening. Bicycling is part of that trend. Include bicycling accommodations in the K Street plan now because once the plan is enacted it will be years before another wave of change happens. Europe and Asia are ahead of the U.S. in integration of bicyclists into the culture. Here the emphasis is on cars. That needs to change. The emphasis in DC should be on liveability for the human residents of DC, not accomodation of automobiles that congest, pollute, and increase obesity and sedentary, unhealthy living. Do what you can to encourage cyclists for the sake of making DC a liveable, attractive environment for people. Designated bike lanes on K Street is a specific, doable step for encouraging cyclists that will show the world that DC is on the vanguard of progressive change in American cities. Cars should always take a back seat to people.

Sincerely,

Jim Godfrey DC Resident and Bicyclist 1227 Owen Place NE Washington, DC

Appendix F-174

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jimmy Edgerton

Response to Jimmy Edgerton: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Jimmy Edgerton" <jimmy.edgerton@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:28:53 -0400 Subject: K Street Transportation Development

Hi

My name is Jimmy Edgerton and I am a DC resident. I want to see alternative 3 for the K Street re-development.

The more bike friendly DC becomes, the less traffic, less reduction in productivity, less unhappiness, and more fun and smiles around DC after 4pm.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Thank you!

Jimmy

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-175

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Joan Darby

Response to Joan Darby: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Darby, Joan" <DarbyJ@dicksteinshapiro.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:18:29 -0400 Subject: dedicated bus lanes

Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative I regularly commute by Metrobuses that travel on K Street. I highly favor will provide a dedicated bus lane in each direction, improving the flow of bus dedicated bus lanes. The congestion on K St. is more often than not the cause traffic compared to the No-Build Alternative, and eliminating potential conflicts of buses running late. I lived in Europe and experienced fabulous -- on-time -- with parked vehicles, cabs, and turning vehicles. public transportation for my daily commute there. The biggest difference that I observed there was the dedicated bus lanes that allowed buses to run timely. I believe that if buses become more efficient, buses will attract more riders who currently drive and contribute to the congestion on K Street. Efficient public transportation will reduce private car congestion but we need to achieve efficient public transportation. Thanks for considering dedicated bus lanes,

Joan Darby

Appendix F-176

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-John Falvey

Response to John Falvey: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "John Falvey" <John.Falvey@fcc.gov> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:30:43 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I am a frequently bike to work commuter. My cycling route to work takes me from the Capitol Crescent Trail to my office in SouthWest Washington, DC.

This involves a fair amount for cycling on city streets in heavy traffic. I can fully appreciate from experience the advantages of the recommendations of the WABA for the improvements to be made to K Street, NW.

Specifically the inclusion of cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb would be greatly appreciated.

I hope you will continue your excellent work in making the streets of Washington, D.C. mare accessible for commuting by bicycle.

Very truly yours

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

John P. Falvey

Appendix F-177

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-John Hart

Response to John Hart: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1:

From: "John Hart" <johnhartaia@verizon.net> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:33:20 -0400 Subject: I believe the proposed options are worse than the current conditions

I support the development of a flexible and multimodal system, where the roadway can accomodate a multitude of functions from transit to pedestrian activity. The proposed alternative designs remove the current flexibity of K Street, which accomodates through traffic in the center lanes, allows midblock turning movements for taxi and other service vehicles and provides protected zones for loading and service vehicles. The service lanes provide 1 slow traffic areas for entry to parking garages and drop-off areas for the buildings and businesses along the corridor. Response to Comment 2:

The existing roadway consists of a dual roadway that separates through-traffic from turning, loading, and parking vehicles, thereby improving the flow of through-traffic. Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative, would maintain this dual roadway concept, but would separate a different component of the traffic stream, i.e., the transit vehicles, from the mix. This approach, in combination with other transit amenities such as wheelchair platforms and bus shelters, substantially enhances transit in the corridor. Furthermore, the Preferred Alternative would maintain the same number of lanes dedicated to automobile through-traffic as currently exist, and would improve operations by limiting left turns. Consequently, while the Preferred Alternative substantially enhances transit, it also improves operations and safety for motorists.

The Preferred Alternative would not substantially increase travel time for the general purpose lanes. Response to Comment 3: The deterioration of the roadway surface along K Street dictated the timing of the repaving project. Response to Comment 4:

By forcing bus traffic to the center of K Street and creating unbroken medians, the flexibility of traffic is eliminated. Bus traffic that must turn from K Street to the numbered streets will be crossing multiple lanes of traffic, creating a condition that will increase congestion and reduce safety. The unbroken medians will constrict the access to loading areas and alleys, forcing service vehicles, trash collection and other necessary vehicles to obstruct through vehicular traffic. Currently, vehicles maneuvering to park in the service street do not affect through traffic. With the new options, either there will be no parking and loading or two of the three non-bus lanes will be affected, leaving only one through lane.

Dedicating two to three lanes of the street to bus traffic is a proposal to constrict the amount of road used by the majority of traffic - to the determent of the greater public. This is not in the best interest of the city. 2

The purpose and need statement indicates that the service road portion of K Street is often blocked. This may be true, but if all non-bus traffic is forced to share the edges of the roadway, any similar blocking and double parking will create a more disruptive condition. The solution is enforcement, not chanellization.

During final design, efforts will be made to preserve large trees. The Urban Forest Preservation Act of 2002 requires replacement with an equal number of trees, and, for Special Trees (i.e., trees greater than 17.5 inches in diameter), a quantity of saplings whose aggregate circumference equals the circumference of the Special Tree. A permit must be obtained from the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration.

Repaving of K Street has recently been completed in the eastern half of the street, eliminating much of the poor pavement conditions. Reconstruction 3 will show the investment to have been wasted money.
Appendix F-178

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES While the new designs are claimed to create a green street, by reconstructing the street, relocating the landscaped islands, all the large shade trees that now exist will be destroyed. It will take decades for new street trees to grow to the size of the current trees. 4 Response to Comment 5:

I advocate better enforcement, better maintenance and wiser expenditure of 5 public funds. Leave K Street as-is.

We appreciate your comments regarding Alternative 1 and your reasons for this preference. The No-Build Alternative, while considered in the Environmental Assessment, does not meet the purpose and need for this project. Section 2.1 in the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details.

Appendix F-179

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-John Ikeda

Response to John Ikeda: I am a long-time cyclist and 5-year resident of the district. It is my experience that DC is significantly behind other cities in developing bicycle-friendly routes Thank you for your comments. through the city. I am writing to support the Washington Area Bicycle Response to Comment: Association's call for a modified proposal 3 - including dedicated bike lanes Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred with separate curbs (as are seen in NY) on the redesigned K St. Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of K St is an important East-West Corridor in DC, and I (and many other cyclists) operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the travel it frequently. WABA's proposal will encourage more Washingtonians to project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated commute by bike, reducing carbon emissions in the district and cutting down on bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside car traffic on our streets. lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. Sincerely, In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design John Ikeda solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-180

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-John Mitchell

Response to John Mitchell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan includes proposed bike lanes on I and L Streets. While Alternative 2 does not include designated bicycle lanes on K Street, the alternative does include a shared use curbside lane in order to accommodate those bicycle users that choose to use K Street.

Appendix F-181

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-John Petrakis

Response to John Petrakis: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "john petrakis" <jpnp7@comcast.net> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:24:01 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway Comments

As a cyclist using city streets, I want to urge adoption of the WABA stated recommendation for the project that a cycle track with the clearly stated design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

WABA's preferred option, Alternative 3, is strong. It is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and I believe that to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and in direct opposition to the Mayor and the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists.

John Petrakis

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-182

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jonathan Fichter

k street plans: make it bike-friendly
Response to Jonathan Fichter: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Date: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:00:05 AM From: writejon2345@yahoo.com To: kstreetcomments@rkk.com

Dear Planners,

I urge you to create a buffered bike lake on K street so that cyclists can be physically separated from cars and--especially--delivery trucks. I also support WABA in its requests for:

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option.

2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters.

3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Fichter

2745 29th St NW, Apt 203 Washington, DC 20008

Appendix F-183

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jonathan Horsford

Response to Jonathan Horsford: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: <djonathanhorsford@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:56:10 -0400 Subject: K Street Comments

Hi,

- The bus way is important to improve transit in the DC core - It allows for future improvement to light rail - Option 2 is the best, but ONLY if bike lanes are added to L and I streets. Otherwise Option 3 should be considered.

Thanks,

Jonathan

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-184

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Jordan D. Maurand

Response to Jordan D. Maurand Thank you for your comments.

From: <MaurandJ@usa.redcross.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:47:09 -0400 Subject: K Street Public Comment

As a Washington resident, I would like to submit a comment on the upcoming K Street redesign. I support any design that includes dedicated bike lanes.

Thank you,

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Jordan D. Maurand American Red Cross National Headquarters Office of the General Counsel 2025 E Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006

Appendix F-185

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Joshua O'Donnell

Response to Joshua O’Donnell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

To whom it may concern,

I write in support of a cycle track (curbed bike lane) with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanes at intersections, and ample bike parking to be incorporated in the redesign of K Street.

Please support your cyclists!

Thank you,

Joshua O’Donnell (202) 692-2521 jodonnell@peacecorps.gov

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-186

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Joshua Stearn

Response to Joshua Stearns: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Response to Comment 2: Both alternatives separate buses from cars. The greater overall benefit in travel time is afforded by Alternative 2, which would result in end-to-end travel times in the general purpose lanes that are 4 to 11 minutes faster than with Alternative 3, while the transitway end-to-end travel time would be only one minute slower than with Alternative 3. Response to Comment 3: We share your conclusions.

From: "Joshua Stearns" <joshua_stearns@mac.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:09:28 -0400 Subject: comments

1. I am strongly in favor of taking some action here. Choosing either option 2 or 3 versus taking no action is more important than which of the two to pick.

2. I travel occasionally on K street via bus. I almost never drive or ride a bike or walk on K Street. My travel on K street is limited to weekdays during the rush hours. I think both buses and cars would benefit by separating the two. Convenience and speed improvements are important, but probably the most important benefit would be reduced risks of accidents. Cars do not like to get "stuck" behind a bus and will behave erratically and illegally to avoid it.

3. I prefer option 2. I think that the additional transit way lane in option 3 would end up being wasted space most of the time. There are certainly a lot of buses that travel along K street during the morning and evening rushes M-F, but there are a lot of cars all day long and in the weekend. The infrastructure should be built to maximize moving people rapidly 24 hours a day, not just during the rush hours. Giving the buses the dedicated lane will itself make a huge difference. The marginal improvement gained by adding the third (reversable) lane for buses would be less than the marginal loss by removing a car lane, even if that lane is only available part of the day. Furthermore, under option 3, with only two lanes in a particular direction available for cars, should someone decide to park or double park on K street, it would have a much more serious impact on traffic flow than the same scenario in option 2. Finally, while I have been a bike commuter myself and generally believe that there needs to be more infrastructure added in the city for bicyclists, I think in this case the fact that option 2 does not have a dedicated bike line should not mean that it is not chosen. I note that under current conditions, many bicyclists use K street regularly. Option 2 will reduce the chaos on K street and thus improve the situation for bicyclists. In a perfect world, this option could be built with a bike lane. But we must exist within the restrictions we have.

Thank you. Joshua Stearns

Appendix F-187

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Joy Ferrante

Response to Joy Ferrante: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-188

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-JT Roy

Response to JT Roy: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Roy, JT" <JTRoy@goodwinprocter.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:37:14 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Please include a bike lane and protected if you can for bike's on K street. We need to share the road.

Thank you, DC Resident

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

JT Roy 1703 Harvard Street NW WDC 20009

Appendix F-189

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Julie Erickson

Response to Julie Erickson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Julie Eden Erickson" <julieeden@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:11:55 -0400 Subject: Please make the new K St. transitway bike-friendly!

I strongly encourage you to consider Alternative 3 for the new K St. Transitway. Bicycling is becoming increasingly popular in DC and it is important that when major changes are made to highways and roads in the city that the needs of cyclists are kept in mind.

Thank you.

Julie Erickson 14th St. NE

Appendix F-190

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Julie Serfass

Response to Julie Serfass: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-191

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Justin Mortensen

Response to Justin Mortensen: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Justin Mortensen" <justin.mortensen@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:21:30 -0400 Subject: Alternative 3

As an avid bicycle commuter and advocate of high quality transit, I am writing to express my preference for Alternative 3. While I also support Alternative 2, I am afraid that without dedicated funding for high quality bicycle lanes on adjacent roadways these facilities will never be built. I also understand local business concerns over the impact of the bike lane and reduced vehicle lanes, but feel confidently that the economic benefits of the Transitway will outweigh the longterm costs. Option 1 is unacceptable.

Thank you,

Justin Mortensen 1460 Fuller St NW Washington, DC 20009

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-192

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Justin Nunez

Response to Justin Nunez: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Justin Nunez" <justin@NEWPARTNERS.COM> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:47:02 -0400 Subject: Bike Lanes Needed

I support Alternative 3 for the transitway debate. The city of DC needs to follow suit with other national leaders and become as bike friendly as possible. While I recognize the need for as much car space as possible, a dedicate bike lane on one of the most important streets in DC would be a major step for this city.

Not only would it motivate more people to begin cycling around the city, thus reducing DC’s environmental footprint, but residents will begin to recognize DC as a bike-friendly city.

Additionally, we need to think about the idea of a specific lane for cyclists that is separated from the cars. This helps street safety and prevents cars from taking over the bike lane, which ultimately causes further problems than before a bike lane was created.

Justin Nunez

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-193

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Karen LoParco

Response to Karen LoParco: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Karen L~" <kmlop2@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:06:23 -0400 Subject: K Street Bikeability!

Dear DC-DOT,

Thank you for taking comments on the K Street Transitway project. What a great opportunity for the city to show the nation and the world that we are a bikeable community. When thinking about this project and what it means to the community as a whole I hope that all of the stake holders consider the benefits of accommodating bicyclists in the plan.

We have seen that when prices soar on fossel fuels, folks turn to alternative forms of transportation. The most efficient, cost effective and healthy way (if you don't get smooshed by a car) is the bicycle. The K Street transitway project, accommodating or incorporating bicycle lanes is the best alternative.

For example, when making my way across town from Capitol Hill by bicycle there are limited sections of street that accommodate bicycles (see the attached map from DC.gov that shows bike lanes). K street offers a perfect opportunity to connect some of the existing bike lanes all the way to the C & O towpath!

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Thank you again for taking comments on this project, I look forward to riding across town in the near future, in the bike lanes on K street!

Respectfully,

Karen M. LoParco

Appendix F-194

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Kate Porter

Response to Kate Porter: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Kate Porter" <dos@thequincy.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <kstreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:54:34 -0400 Subject: FW: Redesign of K Street

I strongly favor option 3 for the simple fact that it’s the only one to offer a bike line. The best way to discourage too much traffic downtown without discouraging business downtown is to encourage alternate forms of transportation, such as the metro, busses and bicycles. In my experience drivers and cyclists are each others worst enemies. Alleviate the frustration for both of them by curbing the bike lines for safety and to encourage abiding by the law for all involved parties. The absence of a delivery lane seems a little risky, but most of the buildings on K Street are offices, so they should have limited delivery needs (as opposed to retail and restaurant locations, for example) and those who do require deliveries can surely obtain them through the suggested lay-bys, access via alleys or other side streets, and proper scheduling. I realize the goal is to facilitate traffic easily, but all new construction should involve bike lines in order to eliminate excess traffic instead of managing it. Best of luck!

Kate Porter Director of Sales

1823 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20036

Appendix F-195

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Kathleen Rooney

Response to Kathleen Rooney Thank you for your comments.

From: "Kathleen Rooney" <krooney80@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:52:43 -0500 Subject: In favor of Option 3

To whom it may concern:

After reviewing the EA, I support Option 3. Although I understand the concern of local businesses regarding the loading and unloading, I believe it more important to improve the bike options on the east-west level. The loading/unloading should occur on the local side streets/alleys and ideally not during rush hours. I also agree with WABA's recommendation to raise the bike lane (or create a cycle track) in order to prevent illegal parking.

Thanks,

Kathleen Rooney

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. The Preferred Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a shared-use curbside travel lane, rather than in cycle tracks. The Preferred Alternative cannot accommodate a dedicated bicycle lane or cycle track without encroaching further into the sidewalk. DDOT’s Great Streets and Public Realm Design Handbook specifies a minimum 10-foot sidewalk width for pedestrians. While there are some areas where the sidewalk currently exceeds a 10-foot width, the additional sidewalk space is currently used for landscape plantings, sidewalk cafes, street lighting, and other amenities that would be compromised if a cycle track were added to the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-196

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Kelton Zacharias

Response to Kelton Zacharias: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Kelton Zacharias" <kelton.zacharias@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 9:37 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Thank you!

Kelton Zacharias kelton.zacharias@gmail.com 860-716-7051 (c)

Appendix F-197

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ken Ashton

Response to Ken Ashton: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Ken Ashton" <KAshton@corcoran.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:40:08 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To whom it may concern,

I would like to add my support for the proposals made by WABA. The K street corridor is a route that I avoid as a cyclist. As the city changes so does the destinations for the people who live and work here. Traveling across town has become more of a necessity and K st as well as some of the other cross town routes are getting more crowded. There are more people riding bikes every week despite the weather, so I urge you to consider the cycling travelers in the improvements planned for the city’s future.

Thank you,

Ken Ashton

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-198

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Kevin Cross

Response to Kevin Cross: I wish to state my support for the curbed bike lanes on K Street. I commute on K Thank you for your comments. Street daily and find it quite dangerous. I am convinced that without curbing, vehicles would ignore the bike lane, as they do elsewhere. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Yours, Kevin Cross DC Resident

Appendix F-199

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Kirstin Corris

Response to Kirstin Corris: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Kirstin Corris" <ultrarunnergirl@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:56:56 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express my wishes on the K Street Transitway project. I am a sometimes bike commuter who uses K Street,14th Street and U street as part of my regular route.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Alternative 3 is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists. To rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a squandered chance to improve traffic flow and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists. While Alternative 3 provides for bike lanes, please strongly consider implementing cycle tracks - bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. In my commute down 14th Street, the bike lanes are often blocked by automobiles and delivery trucks who use it as a parking lane, forcing me to join the lane of automobile traffic. The cycle track design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and consequently jutting out into the automobile lane, thus impeding all traffic flow.

We are at a crucial place in urban planning. Bicycles and automobile traffic currently compete directly for space in much of our city. This is an important opportunity to design K street to accommodate both bicycles and automobiles - resulting in better mobility for everyone.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kirstin Corris 2711 Woodley Road NW Washington DC 20008

Appendix F-200

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Kirstin Johnson

Subject: Response to Kristin Johnson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Sent By: On: To:

K Street Transitway Environmental AssessmentComment "Kirstin Johnson" <kirstinj@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 9:48 AM KStreet.comments@dc.gov

I support the building of separated (curb/divider) bike lanes on K St.

The getting downtown on a bike safely requies that atleast one dedicated path bisects the city.

"Of the two build options presented in the Environmental Assessment, only Option Three included any dedicated facilities for cyclists."

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Thank you,

Kirstin Johnson

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-201

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Larry Martin

Response to Larry Martin: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "larry martin" <lmartindc@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:51 -0400 Subject: K St. Reconstruction

Thanks for the great thinking that has gone into options for reconstructing K st. to better accomodate bus traffic. I drive it daily from 17th to the Whitehust Freeway and its a nightmare when the busses are trying for their left turns. I also bike downtown, and strongly urge you to select alternative 3 for its inclusion of bike lanes. I've noticed with great satisfaction the growing number of bicyclists in DC in recent years, and with the expansion of the bike sharing project we can only expect this transportation mode to grow. Reconstructing K st. without bike lanes would be missing a huge opportunity to advance complete streets in DC - serving all transporataion modes effectively. However, I recommend that rather than just painting bike lanes such as described in alternative 3, cycle track bike lanes should be installed with a raised curb both to protect bicyclist on a very busy street, as well as to discourage the lane from being used by motorists.

Thanks,

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Larry Martin

Appendix F-202

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Laura Beaufort

From: "Laura Beaufort" <laurabeaufort@gmail.com> Response to Laura Beaufort Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:10:06 -0400

Subject: Option 3 for K Street

Dear DDOT,

I greatly prefer Option 3 (transitway with passing lane, 2-lane side roads, bike lane) for the K Street Environmental Assessment.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

I have been a resident of DC for 24 years, and I currently work a block from K street downtown. I used to ride my bike to work, but the dangerous conditions have made me focus more on other modes of transportation.

A bike lane makes it safer for pedestrians and cyclists - the commuters that cause the least pollution. I have tried to bike down K street in the past - the street is too dangerous for cyclists, and the sidewalk is too dangerous for pedestrians. Not only does biking cause zero polution and little traffic, it is accessable for those with less expendible income.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

I believe DC should continue to improve its bikability, and Option 3 is the best way to do that.

Sincerely,

Laura Beaufort

Appendix F-203

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Leanne Sedowski

Response to Leanne Sedowski: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

To whom it may concern:

As a bicyclist who knows what a mess K Street is, I’m excited that the District of Columbia sees an opportunity to make K Street more public transit and pedestrian transit friendly. While I cannot attend the meeting this evening, I hope that you take into account the needs of bicyclists in Washington, DC, especially as bike traffic increases. Specifically, I hope that you consider the Washington Area Bicycle Association’s (WABA) recommendations, including:

1. A buffered bike lane or cycle track

2. Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

3. Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters.

4. A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Thank you so much for listening and incorporating the needs of your constituents and taxpayers.

Yours sincerely,

Leanne Sedowski

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Leanne Sedowski Research Associate, Agricultural Markets Global Development Program The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Direct: +1 202 683 2657 BB: +1 202 251 0799 Washington DC Address: 1700 18th Street NW Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-204

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Lee Watkins IV

Response to Lee Watkins IV: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1:

From: "Lee Watkins IV" <lee.watkins@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:46:46 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway - public comments

K Street needs the dedicated bicycle infrastructure of Option 3. Additionally, the passing lane for buses is needed to help prevent "bunching" of buses or buses that are out-of-order. The these needs outweigh the benefits of a third traffic lane for automobiles. Bikes and transit should have a higher priority than automobile traffic on a major transitway, and most truck loading should be happening in alleyway loading docks, which are already required by zoning codes. However, trucks will park in the bicycle lane without grade separation. Therefore, DDOT needs to raise the bike lane to the level of the sidewalk, as many cities do, especially in Europe. The bike lane would retain a different paving material and/or color to distinguish it from the regular sidewalk. 1

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/ unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Downtown BID suggests supplementing Option 2 with one-way protected bicycle lanes on the adjacent one-way I and L Streets, similar to the 8th and 9th Avenue bike lanes in Manhattan. This would not be any help to the many people going to and from destinations on K Street who will need to ride there. Bicycle and Transit facilities work best when they are connected to each other. This is why we ought to accommodate bicycles on every street, especially major transitways with dedicated bus facilities. Plus, there's no guarantee those other cycle tracks would happen, nor is there a grant proposal or funding currently on the table to build them. At the same time, one really good east-west bicycle route through downtown (and perhaps two good north-south ones) would make a huge difference in bicycle safety and ease. 2

3

Response to Comment 2: The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan includes proposed bike lanes on I and L Streets. While Alternative 2 does not include designated bicycle lanes on
Appendix F-205

Loading and valet parking is important to downtown businesses. However, there's also a strong argument that most loading should take place in alleys. The UPS and FedEx trucks could use the cut-outs in Option 3, while more substantial loading should use the loading docks which zoning requires all buildings to have. Many property owners successfully petitioned the DC Government in the past to close parts of the alleys to maximize development. For them now to say that they

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES K Street, the alternative does include a shared use curbside lane in order to accommodate those bicycle users that choose to use K Street. Response to Comment 3: Although businesses along K Street may be impacted during construction, DDOT would work with the businesses to develop a maintenance of traffic and construction phasing plan that would minimize these impacts and allow the street to remain open, thereby allowing all business activities to continue including access to businesses, deliveries, and some level of parking. Response to Comment 4: Design for inclusion of streetcars in not included as part of this project; however, consistent with the DC’s Transit Future, improvements to K Street based on the transitway study would not preclude potential future use by streetcars.

need K Street for loading seems a bit hypocritical. DDOT has already cracked down on alley closings for this reason.

If alleyways are being used efficiently for substantial loading as zoning codes encourage, then K street then be able to effectively handle bikes, buses, and automobile traffic in an orderly manner with grade separation, bollards, and distinguishing colors. Bikes and Transit both function best when connected in complement. Bus facilites have a much greater catchment area when they car connected to bicycle networks. Bike facilities function best for the broader population when they are ubiquitous (especially all major streets), interconnected with transit networks, and are protected from automobile traffic by bollards, parked cars, or grade-separation. 4

It would also be wise to install streetcar tracks at the same time as other work on the K-street transitway in order to reduce long-term costs, as is being done now on H St NE.

Lee Watkins IV 3130 Wisconsin AVE NW Washington, DC

Appendix F-206

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Leo Muraro

Response to Leo Muraro: I'm a DC resident and I've been cycle commuting for several years. The WABA Thank you for your comments. has briefed me about the proposals for K Street redesign. Response to Comment: I have to say that at this point the district must start building separate bike lanes. I have never, ever, ridden a bike lane in this city that was not obstructed Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred by a parked car or truck. Not a single commute in a marked bicycle lane in Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of years of riding has been without this great danger. This is much more operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the dangerous for a cyclist than simply riding in the road. Bicycle lanes must have project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated physical dividers that prevent people from parking in them. They are used a bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside parking spots now. lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. I have noticed a great increase in the number of cyclist commuters in the last In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design few years. Encouraging people to cycle is good for the city. It reduces the solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes number of cars on the roads, fights congestion and pollution and helps people cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not stay in shape. The city's population will continue to grow. How will the city be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses cope with the additional cars? It can't. Bicycles are the solution. DC has great would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the potential for cyclist commuters, the weather is good, the terrain is flat but the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including city's streets are hostile to bicycles. The city must do more than lay down increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved stripes of paint for a few blocks here and there. There must be a system of bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master separated bikeways and ample bike racks. It costs more than a bit of paint but if Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is you build it people will get out of their cars. Many people won't ride in this city, promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. and I don't blame them, the streets are terrifying.

I hope to make it to the community meeting tonight but I may not be able to. Please follow the advice of the WABA.

Leo Muraro

Appendix F-207

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Lindsley Williams

Subject:

Comments on K Street Transitway

Response to Lindsley Williams: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: The Final Environmental Assessment includes a discussion (see Section 3.13) of the indirect and cumulative effects of the project on parallel streets. Response to Comment 2: You make an excellent point that the landscaping should frame the historic focal points, rather than obstruct the view of them. During the development of the landscaping plan, we will ensure that plants are chosen that complement the historic vistas, rather than obstructing them. Response to Comment 3: It will be our intent to develop a landscaping plan that respects the historic vistas along K Street. Response to Comment 4: The landscape plan will be coordinated with NCPC and the DC SHPO. Response to Comment 5: WMATA will be consulted to determine which bus platforms will warrant shelters, and the appropriate style and materials for shelters. Response to Comment 6: Maintenance for sidewalks and bus shelters will be discussed following final design; however, the current policy for this maintenance is not likely to change. Response to Comment 7: Even if the medians were constructed with mountable curbs, the landscape plantings would prevent emergency responders from driving across the medians. Response to Comment 8: In the District of Columbia Motor Carrier Management and Threat Assessment Study, K Street is designated a Tier II truck route (capable of accommodating 2axle, 6-tire trucks or smaller)
Appendix F-208

Sent By:

"Lindsley Williams" <LWilliams@his.com>

On:

October 29, 2009 3:30 PM

To:

KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

Cc:

Karina.Ricks@dc.gov; michael.weil@ncpc.gov; harriet.tregoning@dc.gov

To Whom It May Concern:

Below I set out some observations, concerns and suggestions regarding the potential K Street Transitway based on the three Alternatives now specifically set out for public comment (through October 30).

I am familiar with the area involved having lived and worked in the area for over 40 years, the last 15 of which have been as an active land use planning professional with a focus on land and property within the District of Columbia, iterations of the Comprehensive Plan, and evolution of the land use maps and enacted zoning.

I am also familiar with the factors leading to the idea that K Street should be studied and possibly restructured, with this Environmental Assessment ("EA") being one of the documents I have now studied. I have also seen and broadly support the comments already in the record about this EA provided you in a "scoping report" by staff of the National Capital Planning Commission earlier this year.

Background:

K Street has, over much of the distance between Mt. Vernon Square and Washington Circle, one of the widest rights of ways of any L'Enfant streets, surpassed only by the width of Pennsylvania Avenue between Capitol Hill and Rock Creek.

The proposal would revise the allocation of that right of way between sidewalk and roadway and introduce a dedicated "transitway" under either option to change; nothing would change under the "no build" option.

1 The EA proposes a study area that examines the effects of the options within a narrowly described area between Mt. Vernon Square (at 7th Street) and Washington Circle (at 24th Street) on the eastern and western limits respectively, and along flanking Eye (I) Street to the south and L Street to the north. To me, this study area is too tightly framed to give a full picture of effect of the two selected alternatives or earlier rejected ones. The assessment should, instead, be expanded to ensure it takes in the full area impacted by changes such as those proposed based on existing and contemplated transportation resources and options for their deployment. Accordingly, my first recommendation is that the EA expand its "study area" to the external sides of the following streets: M Street to the north, 6th Street to the East, H Street to the south, and 25th or 26th

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Street to the east and, at the same time, provide for analysis of transfers at the Mt. Vernon Green/Yellow Metrorail stop to both existing and potential future north-south surface transit but also ways to serve now unmet east-west demand with new surface (bus/ trolley/light rail) routes that would reduce the burden on the Gallery Place/Chinatown station where those two rail lines meet the red line, a station approaching its capacity even now. More narrowly, even the present EA study limits should be declared, even if not yet graphically shown this way, that they extend to the far side of both L and I Streets as they are actually aligned in the L'Enfant plan, including segments presently closed (such as at the "old Convention Center" site.

The EA shows options in classic "plan" view, an important step but one that fails to consider the vertical changes along the corridor, a factor that impacts urban design and that should inform any decision on how and whether to proceed. K Street is not flat. It has discernable peaks, such as at 19th Street, and lower points (such as at 21st Street; even more in the underpass under Washington Circle, of course).

2

At the eastern terminus at Mt. Vernon Square, the focal point is the historic Carnegie Library. This asset is all but ignored in the design, and tree plantings that may be sensible elsewhere may well obscure the view instead of framing it. Accordingly, my second and third recommendations are to Develop, Consider and Reflect Vertical Data in the EA and Identify and Honor Historic Visual Elements along the Alignment such as the Carnegie Library, the statue in the center of Washington Circle, and even more distant landmarks that are "on the bead" of K Street in not-so-distant Georgetown to the west.

3

An important related issue is selection and placement of trees. While they look attractive "in plan view," when actually in place toward the center of the roadway, they will potentially disrupt vistas of significance. Accordingly, I suggest that the landscaping be re-evaluated to add focus to the landmarks noted above and others not specifically identified.

4 I fault the diagrams in the two potential alternatives, as I understand them, for not showing where there would be changes in existing patterns of allowed, partially restricted, or fully restricted left turns from non-transitway segments of the roadways. This is not solely academic. The concept is to have buses use a center area for their travel and, thus, there will be both bus stops and, I would assume, bus shelters (more on that below). Bus shelters, when placed near intersections, obscure the view so that both pedestrians and operators have less of a view of each other, a factor that adds to safety concerns. Passengers waiting cannot be seen through and the opacity of a shelter multiplies by many fold if it has walls with placards; even clear glass limits views by sheen and reflection. Thus I suggest the EA Study Bus Shelter Design, Placement and Maintenance with an Eye to Safety Factors Introduced, Mitigated or 5 Resolved.
Appendix F-209

I also note that the diagrams and images reflect hoped for conditions on what are

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

essentially warm, clear days. The reality is that days can be dark in storm events and nothing short of treacherous in times of snow and ice. It may seem a small point, but having to reach bus stops that are located at some distance from flanking sidewalks, essentially now mid-street, in inclement times may be too risky for some to pursue. Will the DC Department of Public Works, another city Agency, or the two Business Improvement Districts be tasked with keeping them and the crosswalks leading to them free of snow and ice? Accordingly, I suggest that Bus Stop Shelter Treatment and Protection in Winter Storm Events be factored in initially if such is to result.

6

As noted above, my own thinking is that the greatest east-west flows can be more readily attained by restructuring not just K Street, but also flanking I and L Streets with the two flanking streets having dedicated counterflow of buses on side closest to K Street (i.e, the north side of I Street and the south side of L Street – along those curbs), and using the remaining lane(s) for other vehicles in the opposite direction and, where appropriate, parking and loading.

Such a change would allow even more Metrobus routes to flow immediately past more Metrorail stations than the present proposal which passes only by one of three portals of the Farragut North Red Line Station. Using I and L Streets passes by more stations and portals – and is within a very short walk from the Mt. Vernon station as well, a major transportation resource all but ignored in the EA and its analysis. It seems very possible, to me, that much of present alignment might actually be sufficient if more east west load could be shifted to flanking I and L Streets with Metrobus mostly on them in counterflow operation (as described above). This would facilitate east-west Metrorail-Metrobus and vice-versa transfers, which I believe are extensive and could optimally be increased, while allowing Maryland and Virginia commuter buses to remain on K Street picking up and dropping off from medians now in place (where I observe little movement of commuters between Metrorail and those suburban services).

With imagination and foresight, developing a way to separate east-bound and blend west-bound vehicles under Washington Circle could ultimately (in a separate effort now just in my imagination) work well. This would open up an optional east-bound flow along Pennsylvania Avenue and to bear left on I Street at 21st eastbound and for westbound vehicles operating along L Street might to optionally bear left at 22nd on New Hampshire and blend into the K Street flow below Washington Circle to continue westward from there. Together, this would diminish the overall burden on K Street and achieve, overall, greater east-west capacity than now exists, and partly offset the unilateral Federal closings of Pennsylvania Avenue and E Streets as they pass through "the President's Park" at the White House (and justify full Federal funding for this correction/offset as well.).

Clearly, improving east-west flow benefits the community. It also could benefit emergency vehicles, but this benefit could be further enhanced if the medians
Appendix F-210

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

were such that they could be readily "mounted" from the center portion of the roadway so that buses could move aside for emergency vehicles to pass relatively unimpeded. This would greatly improve rapid movement of police and 7 fire responses vehicles and of those needing hospital care to emergency rooms. Accordingly, I recommend that the median and curb design, along with signalization, be considered so as to benefit emergency vehicles now often stuck in gridlock situations.

I also note that a major study of Truck Management and Security was completed several years ago and is still among the policies that the Department of Transportation is considering. Its recommendations are at fundamental odds with many issues relating to truck management and goods delivery that surface in the present EA (many unanswered) and are of legitimate concern to many owning land and properties, and operating businesses within even the overly narrow "study area" of the present EA. Accordingly, I conclude the EA fails to lead t a Finding of No Significant Impact unless and until it is reconciled with the propositions of the Truck Management and Security Plan and the concerns of those owning property within the study area or operating businesses in those properties.

8

Thank you.

Lindsley Williams | 3307 Highland Place NW | Washington. DC

Appendix F-211

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Liz Strange

Response to Liz Strange: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Liz Strange" <elizabeth.strange@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 7:25 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

In an era where it is clear that alternative modes of transportation are needed, I urge you to rebuild K Street with cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. Many, many more people would cycle downtown if there was adequate protection for cyclists. If the city is serious about protecting the environment and serious about improving the quality of life in DC, this is not an option, but an absolute necessity.

Liz Strange DC citizen

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-212

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mariele Wardian

Response to Mariele Wardian: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

All,

I am a DC resident and bike commuter and would like to express my support for modified alternative 3 for the K St redevelopment plan. K St is one of the least safe sections of DC for cyclists and I purposefully avoid using it for this reason. Even when I worked on K St I would use another thoroughfare. Please consider making K St safer for bicyclists, this will make a real difference to everyone.

Thank you and best regards, Mariele Wardian mwardian@gmail.com

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Appendix F-213

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mark Farrell

Response to Mark Farrell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Mark Farrell" <f_mark_farrell@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:50:35 -0400 Subject: Support Alternate 3

Dear DDOT,

I would strongly advocate for a raised and separated bike lane along the K St. Corridor. As a consumer, cyclist, and parent; I make decisions as many families do in this city on where to spend money and time. Competing urban and suburban destinations that attract families like mine have created multi-use transit corridors.

As a District resident, I would be delighted to see DC and DDOT leading the curve instead of following or worse off of it. Often Europe and Asia are ahead of the US on smart urban design that maximizes the usage of public space for consumers, employees, and employers. I have experienced these smart designs both as a child and as an adult. It would nice to see our Nation's Capitol setting the lead in this country and following well established principles to make our city as friendly to all users.

By presenting the user with more options from public transportation, walking, driving, and biking; DC will create a tangible result of a dynamic, marketable street and city. The indirect results will be a healthier, greener, and more inclusive environment.

I want my city and DDOT to make the choice to support Alternate

3.

Mark Farrell, Ward 4

Appendix F-214

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mark Jenkins

Response to Mark Jenkins: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

I strongly support the third alternative, with a separated bikeway. I'd like to use my bicycle more, but it's just too dangerous on city streets, since there's essentially no enforcement of traffic laws. Separated bike lanes would make a big difference.

Mark Jenkins 1612 Corcoran St NW WDC 20009

markjenkins@starpower.net

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-215

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mark Oh

Response to Mark Oh: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Mark M. Oh" <ohmarkm@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:17:59 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To Whom It May Concern:

I fully support Option Three of the K Street Transitway project. I also strongly support, as WABA has commented, the use of bicycle tracks that are separated from the auto traffic by a physical barrier.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

As a cyclist, I worry about riding on important roads like K Street because there are so many distracted and reckless drivers, especially during rush hour. To ensure the safety of cyclists, it is critical to have a physical barrier between cyclists and autos.

I also suggest that bicycle lanes be created all the way from 21st Street NW westward to the Capital Crescent Trail. Many bicycle commuters use the Capital Crescent Trail and ride eastward onto surface streets like K Street. However, there are certain dangerous portions along this route like the K Street underpass between the Whitehurst Freeway and 21st Street. Having dedicated bicycle lanes on these sections would certainly help bicyclists' safety by isolating them from dangerous drivers.

Thank you for reading these comments. I truly hope that you will make K Street as bicycle friendly as possible. Such a step would go a long way to making DC a world class city that encourages bicycling to promote better health and a cleaner environment.

Sincerely, Mark Oh

Appendix F-216

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mark Plotz

Response to Mark Plotz: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Mark Plotz" <mark@bikewalk.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:30:51 -0400 Subject: Comment on proposed K Street Transitway

Hello. I attended one of the public hearings on the proposed redesign of K Street. I work on K Street. I bicycle on K Street. I experience K Street as a pedestrian. There is too much traffic on K Street and I support any redesign that will: 1) reduce traffic volume; 2) improve air quality; and 3) improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. While I favor design alternative #3, I am concerned about providing a safe place for bicycling--especially given the high volume of traffic on K Street. I believe that cycle-tracks (similar to what NYC's DOT has implemented) should be considered in the redesign. Conventional bicycle lanes will experience problems with double-parking by taxis, commuter buses, and delivery vehicles.

Mark Plotz

-Mark Plotz Program Manager National Center for Bicycling & Walking

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-217

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Martin Mellett

Response to Martin Mellett: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Marty Mellett and I am a daily bike communter. I work at 1825 K St NW and regularly travel by bike on K St NW in the vicinity of Connecticut and 18th St NW.

I am unable to attend tonights planning meeting, but I am in support of a cycle track with a curb to protect and encourage more bicycle traffic in the area. I am also in support of additional bike parking and locking opportunities along the K St Corridor. Many of the parking meters have been taken out and these meters had been used for bike parking.

Thank you.

Martin Mellett

Martin Mellett Director - Community Development Support Collaborative Senior Program Officer - LISC 1825 K St NW Suite 1100 Washington DC 20006 (202)(296-4582) - phone (202)(785-4331) - fax mmellett@lisc.org - email www.cdsc.org - web site

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-218

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Martin Thomas

Response to Martin Thomas: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Martin Thomas" <parkrdhouse@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:17:07 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Dear Dept of Transportation:

I am writin g to urge you to adopt Alternative 3 for K St Transitway project design because it is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and I strongly believe that to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists. While Alternative 3 provides for bike lanes, I urge you to instead construct cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Sincerely yours,

Martin Thomas

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-219

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mary Cittadion & Mike Flanigon

Response to Mary Jo Cittadino and Mike Flanigon: We ask that you provide a buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Thank you for your comments. Transitway. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the lane and would be a more attractive facility for less Response to Comment: experienced cyclists. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Thank you, Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of Mary Jo Cittadino and Mike Flanigon operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-220

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mary Greer

Response to Mary Greer: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Hi: I am a DAILY DC biker and I wanted to let you know my thoughts on the proposals involving K Street:

1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option.

2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters.

3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

I appreciate your considerations, Mary Greer 1321 Fairmont St NW Washington DC 20009 202 662 1975 pewefan@gmail.com

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-221

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mary Jo Cittadino and Mike Flanigon

Subject: Response to Mary Jo Cittadino and Mike Flanigon: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Sent By: On: To:

Safer Bicycle Lanes Integrated into K Street via Raised Curbs "Pub Pers" <pub.pers@yahoo.com> October 28, 2009 12:24 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

We urge the DC Department of Transportation to construct cycle tracks-bide lands that are protected by a raised curb on K Street. This design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane.

Mary Jo Cittadino and Mike Flanigon

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-222

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mary Kapsak

Response to Mary Kapsak: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Hello,

I want to encourage the committee to provide safe transit options for cyclists on K street. The third build option, which includes a dedicated bike lane, is needed. Given Metro's recent hit history, asking cyclists to share a dedicate bus lane is not a safe option. Twenty five thousand pounds of steel and limited visibility is no match for a low to the ground, 20 pound aluminum bicycle.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the For this reason, I ask you to go one step further and consider a cycle track that project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated would create a barrier between cyclists and cars. A friend of mine was recently bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside thrown from his bike on K street when a stopped delivery truck opened his side lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. door without looking back to check for cyclists. I believe many delivery trucks In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design will abuse the bike lane as a parking lane and more such accidents will occur. solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes

At the least, provide a bike lane that is not shared with Metro's bus drivers. To ensure safety and encourage future carbon free travel, build a cycle track that will let people ride in the city with confidence.

Thank you for taking this into consideration.

Mary Kapsak Resident of Cleveland Park, Washington, DC.

cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-223

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Matt Malinowski

Response to Matt Malinowski Thank you for your comments Response to Comment 1:

From: "Matt Malinowski" <mattxmal@MIT.EDU> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:02:06 -0500 Subject: Comments on the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment

Faisal Hameed District Department of Transportation TPPA, 2000 14th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Hameed,

We acknowledge that Alternative 3 would help reduce bunching of buses by providing some limited opportunity for buses to pass one another in the transitway. However, the end-to-end travel time in the transitway would only be one minute faster with Alternative 3, compared to Alternative 2, while the endto-end travel time in the general purpose lanes would be 4 -11 minutes slower. Response to Comment 2: We appreciate your suggestion for creating cycle tracks along I and L Streets. In fact, the 2006 DC Bicycle Master Plan designates these streets as possible routes to be improved to accommodate bicycles. However, improvements outside the K Street corridor are beyond the scope of this project. Furthermore, the conversion of a travel lane to a bike lane would impact capacity and operations for vehicular traffic, and such impacts would have to be thoroughly evaluated before such a conversion could be undertaken. Any future projects to improve these parallel streets would include consideration of bicycle accommodations.

After reading through the alternatives outlined in the K Street Transitway Environmental Assessment, published September 2009, I tentatively support alternative 3---transitway with bus passing lanes and bicycle lanes.

I am a DC resident and travel daily within the study area. Furthermore, I have used all the modes imaginable, with the exception of an express commuter bus, to reach my office at 18th and K Streets. My experiences travelling by bus, rail, bicycle, car, and on foot make me well suited to comment on the alternatives under consideration in the environmental assessment.

During the morning and afternoon rush hours, travel by rail, bicycle, and on foot is preferable because the crush of cars makes travel by other modes time consuming, both on K Street as well as the side streets. The situation is hardly better in the middle of the day, when multiple travel lanes are taken out of use by parked and double-parked cars and trucks. (This is a problem on the side streets, not K Street itself, but nonetheless impacts travel throughout the area).

The first priority should consist of improving the performance of modes that have the potential to save the most person-hours of travel. Buses are currently the worst performing mode in the corridor in this regard, due to a lack of dedicated lanes along K Street or any of the side streets. Therefore, either of the build alternatives (alternative 2 or 3), are preferable over the no-build alternative, as either would provide dedicated lanes for the many buses that travel along K Street. However, another factor in decreasing bus performance is frequent stops and .bunching., the condition where multiple buses follow one another, travelling only as fast as the slowest bus in front. Only alternative 3, with the addition of a bus-only passing lane near bus stops, attempts to address this problem, making it the preferred alternative.

1

The second priority should consist of further promoting modes that are
Appendix F-224

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

already efficient, which would involve improving pedestrian connections to rail stations through the widening of sidewalks and improving cycling through the addition of dedicated bicycle lanes. Alternative 3 is the only alternative that accomplishes both these tasks. Nonetheless, I agree with the Washington Area Bicyclist Coalition (WABA) that the bicycle facilities as proposed in alternative 3 are insufficient to allow for easy cycling along K Street. As mentioned above, double-parking in the area is a persistent problem, and may render bicycle lanes ineffective. Only cycle tracks with raised curbs separating them from the automobile lanes have the potential to provide sufficient accommodation for cyclists.

In case cycle tracks separated by a raised curb are not feasible along K Street, a further alternative would involve separated cycle tracks along the side streets, I (Eye) and L. These could be constructed following the construction of the transitway using the following two-step process:

1. During transitway construction, buses currently traveling along K Street are rerouted to I (Eye) and L Streets. Since these streets are already filled with cars and trucks, the buses are provided dedicated lanes to maintain mobility for passengers.

2. Following transitway construction, the buses return to K Street, and the dedicated bus lanes along I (Eye) and L Streets are converted into cycle tracks separated from automobile traffic. This alternative is less preferable to alternative 3 with separated cycle tracks (the WABA proposal), as the tracks under this proposal would be on different streets two blocks apart. Nonetheless, such a configuration would be in broad agreement with the District.s Bicycle Master Plan.

2

I am grateful for the chance to provide comments on the Environmental Assessment and look forward to the continuation of the planning/design process for the K Street transitway.

Best Regards,

Matt Malinowski Resident of the District of Columbia

Appendix F-225

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Matt Wilson

Response to Matt Wilson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K St biking "Matt Wilson" <mojjo5552@yahoo.com> October 28, 2009 10:36 AM KStreet.comments@dc.gov

I am writing in support of WABAs

recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Appendix F-226

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Matthew Huggins

Response to Matthew Huggins: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Cycle Track "Matthew Huggins" <MHuggins@ifc.org> October 28, 2009 2:37 PM KStreet.comments@dc.gov

Please consider seriously installing a bicycle track on K Street as part of the K Street reconstruction, according to WABA's proposal. A dedicated bicycle lane will help get more bikes on the street and more car traffic off the street, which will improve the quality of life for everyone.

Thanks!

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

___________________________________ Matthew Huggins Senior Counsel IFC Legal Department 2121 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20433 Tel: +1 (202) 473-6728 Fax: +1 (202) 974-4362 Email: mhuggins@ifc.org Web: www.ifc.org

IFC is a member of the World Bank Group

Appendix F-227

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Matthew Quirk

Response to Matthew Quirk: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Subject: bike facilities on K St.

Date: Friday, August 14, 2009 3:30:14 PM

From: mquirk@gmail.com

To:

kstreetcomments@rkk.com

Hello,

I am writing you to voice my support for option three in the K Street transitway, which includes facilities for bicyclists. The bike lanes proposed in this option, however, given traffic on K St, would quickly turn into a parking lane for delivery vehicles. As someone who rides regularly on K St. and can attest to its danger to cyclists, I urge you to consider a buffered bike lane or cycle track.

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Sincerely

Matthew Quirk

2101 New Hampshire Ave. NW Apt. 304 Washington DC 20009

Appendix F-228

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Matthew Steenhoek

Response to Matthew Steenhoek: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-229

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Matthew Steil

From: "Matthew Steil" <MSteil@wri.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:53:28 -0400 Subject: Comments on K St. alternatives Response to Matthew Steil:

Greetings,

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 provided a third lane in the transitway, this lane afforded only limited opportunities for buses to pass one another. The third transit lane resulted in approximately a one-minute reduction in travel time for buses, compared to Alternative 2. However, the loss of two additional general purpose lanes during peak hours resulted in Alternative 3 having travel times in the general purpose lanes that are from 4 to 11 minutes longer than with Alternative 2. While Alternative 3 provided a dedicated bus lane, it also eliminated all the curbside parking. This was viewed as a serious impact by the businesses along K Street, who depend on these 2-hour parking spaces for deliveries. Furthermore, while parking spaces are plentiful in the parking garages, parking in the garages is much more expensive. Consequently, the higher parking costs necessary for deliveries would have been passed onto the businesses, and the higher cost of parking would have substantially curtailed the number of people choosing to dine at the restaurants.

After attending a previous meeting on the K St. renovation back in July (?) and now having the opportunity to comment on the EIA of this project, I would like to once again throw my support behind a somewhat enhanced version of Alternative 3.

In brief, I’d like to see Alternative 3 adopted, but with protected bikes lanes to avoid the inevitable issue of cars or delivery vehicles using them as parking.

As someone who uses either my bike or transit to get to work at Union Station via K St., I’m a strong advocate for seeing the efficiency and safety of both these options promoted. As things currently stand, there are essentially 6 lanes for vehicles, 2 parking/loading lanes and no real dedicated lanes for transit or bikes. During rush hour (especially but not exclusively), K St. is largely a parking lot, and with no real advantage to transit in terms of speed or bike in terms of protection, there is little incentive to get people out of their cars and into transit or on bike in order to alleviate the congestion for those vehicles that MUST use the lanes. In July, I remember seeing that Alt 3 would actually have buses crossing this distance in less time than Alt 2, at certain periods during the day. This modeling exercise remains mindboggling to me given that Alt 3 has 3 transit lanes (for most of it) vs only 2 in Alt 2. It would be interesting to see some of the assumptions behind this calculation.

Major challenges/issues:

1. car parking. Today there are an insignificant number of spots on K St – this space could much more effectively be used for transit or bikes/pedestrians and these cars could go in nearby garages.

2. Deliveries. There will be the delivery zones on each block. Outside of these, trucks should be obligated to use alleys/docks at buildings. With a protected bike lane, delivery trucks would not be
Appendix F-230

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

able to park there so the illegal ones would likely choose to block a lane of traffic. Here it comes down to enforcement.

3. car lanes. As mentioned, it is already a parking lot here during rush hour, so hard to make that situation worse by reducing car options from 6 to 4 lanes. In Alt 3 though, we are getting rid of parking and buses in the car lanes…so I would actually expect the car traffic to improve in Alt 3 versus status quo. Plus biking and transit options will be substantially improved, providing much better incentive to get folks out of their cars to buses, bikes or feet.

If necessary, I’d be happy to provide further insight or clarification on my above comments.

Thanks and best regards,

-----------------------------------

Matthew Steil | World Resources Institute Forest Information and Governance Initiative - Central Africa

Appendix F-231

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Meg Guroff

Response to Meg Guroff: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: <Mguroff@aol.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:39:41 -0400 Subject: In support of cycle tracks for K Street

Hi--

I am a DC resident, and I am writing to support Alternative 3 for the K Street Transitway project. I commute to work by bicycle, and I currently use the service lane on K Street for part of my commute. I urge you to accommodate cyclists in the rebuilt K Street. Ideally, this accommodation would feature dedicated bike lanes protected by a raised curb. I realize this is not the current design of Alternative 3, but it is my strong preference as a taxpayer and a cyclist.

Thanks for whatever you can do to include the environmentally and financially (lower repaving costs, lower health care costs) beneficial practice of cycling in your K Street plans.

-- Meg Guroff, 2115 37th St. NW, 202-434-6842

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-232

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mellissa Esposito

Response to Melissa Esposito: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Hello,

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of bicyclists who need a safe way to ride on K Street. Right now, I avoid K Street entirely, but it is unfair to me that I am unable to use it when it is often the most convenient route. I was recently in Montreal where all their major streets seemed to have segregated bike lanes, and I felt far safer riding there than I ever have in DC. As a daily rider, I have to constantly endure cars and delivery trucks parked in the bike lane, causing me to have to merge into vehicular traffic. A plain bike lane without separation from vehicles is not an effective way to move bicycles, and I sincerely hope that you decide to separate bicycle traffic from vehicular traffic with a raised curb or a parking lane. Painting the bike lanes on just doesn't work as well as it should.

I look forward to hearing your views and ultimate decision on this matter.

Sincerely,

Melissa Esposito 1629-B R St NW, 20009

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-233

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Meredith J Begin

Response to Meredith Begin Thank you for your comments.

From: "Meredith Begin" <mbegin@umich.edu> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:35:17 -0400 Subject: K Street transit-way EA comments

Attached, please find comments on the K Street Transit-way Environmental Assessment.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.

Sincerely, Meredith J Begin Ward 1, Chair DC Bicycle Advisory Council

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

(continued)

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-234

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Meredith J Begin

Appendix F-235

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Meredith J Begin

Appendix F-236

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Meredith J Begin

Appendix F-237

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Micah Dammeyer

Response to Micah Dammeyer: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Dammeyer, Micah" <micah.dammeyer@danaher.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:33:54 -0400 Subject: K Street Option 3

Dear D-Dot,

I’m writing to throw a vote in the box for option #3. As a DC resident and cyclist I feel this is the best of the forward thinking designs. While I do occasionally drive to work I pay for the convenience of parking in a garage. Most of my commuting is done by bike or METRO/Metro Bus. I feel a real thinking shift will have to occur before traffic gets any better in the district. Both District residents and suburban commuters need to understand that there simply isn’t enough room for everyone to drive their cars into DC every workday. Smart investments in roadway design that accommodate busses, street cars and bicycles needs to be a priority as DC grows and becomes the first class city it deserves to be.

I think a design making a bold statement in favor of bikes and transit gives the District a chance to set examples to neighboring states and across the globe.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion on the topic. I look forward to finding out which design is the winner.

Micah Dammeyer

Appendix F-238

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Donnellan

Subject: Response to Michael Donnellan: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Sent By: On: To:

K Street Transitway - support alternative 3 plus cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb "e identity" e_identity@hotmail.com October 28, 2009 10:23 AM kstreet.comments@dc.gov

I am a bicycle commuter who regularly commutes from my residence in Silver Spring to downtown Washington, DC. I support the comments of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association on the K Street Transitway dated July 30, 2009.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

I support Alternative 3 because it is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and I strongly believe that to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists. While Alternative 3 provides for bike lanes, I support WABA in urging the DC Department of Transportation to instead construct cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Michael Donnellan 9113 Wire Ave Silver Spring, MD 20901 _____________________

Appendix F-239

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Donnelly

Response to Michael Donnelly: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Michael Donnelly" <michaeljoshuadonnelly@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:28:54 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To whom it may concern:

I am writing as a concerned bicyclist in Washington, DC to support WABA's amended Alternative 3 for K Street redevelopment. K Street is one of the most dangerous yet important bike routes for commuters. As a daily commuter myself, I can personally testify to the increased safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists this proposal would provide. Also, as a tax-paying District resident, I believe this proposal would make K St and the rest of downtown Washington more relaxing to visit on the weekends and increase commerce, generally.

I hope you will eventually be persuaded by these appeals and support Alternative 3.

Sincerely, Michael Donnelly 1843 Ingleside Terrace NW Washington, DC

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-240

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Durr

Response to Michael Durr: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

I would be at the Oct. 14 meeting but I just found out about it today and I can't make it.

I wish publicity was better for the meeting.

I travel across town by bike every day to and from work all year, but don't take K street because it is not very safe. If there were a safer cross town route I would take it. I go all the way down to G and H streets, which are one way and safer, but not direct routes.

The city needs a cross town cycle track and K street is the perfect place. Count another vote for option 3. However we need to separate the cycle track fro the cars. If not it will be full of illegally parked cars. If cars can park in a bike lane on K street they most certainly will.

We also need:

1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option.

2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters.

3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

4) More infrastructure for bicycles.

Thanks, Michael Durr

Appendix F-241

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Rogers

Response to Michael Rogers Thank you for your comments.

From: "Michael Rogers" <mrogers@pageonenewsmedia.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:33:25 -0500 Subject: K Street

Please try to include some version of a bike lane. It's a busy street and the lane will make it much safer for cyclists and encourage people to use less cars.

--

Michael Rogers

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Appendix F-242

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Sams

Response to Michael Sams: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Michael Sams" <planetmikeus@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:46:32 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I wanted to generally support WABA's comments regarding bike lanes. From a novice point of view, we need lanes where cars can not park or drive onto them. The current painted lanes in the city are often used for double parking.

Kind Regards, Michael Sams DC Citizen

Appendix F-243

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Vladimer

Response to Michael Vladimer: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-244

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michael Wilson

Response to Michael Wilson Thank you for your comments.

From: "Mike" mofozzie@gmail.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:54:37 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing in support of WABAs recommendation regarding the K St Transit that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bicycle design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parking created by the move to multi-space meters.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-Michael Wilson 1223 Decatur St NW Washington, DC 20011
Appendix F-245

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michelle Harburg

Response to Michelle Harburg: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Michelle Harburg" <harburgm@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:08:40 -0400 Subject: Make

I'd love for safer bike paths on K St. As the most convenient 2 - way street downtown it just makes sense.

Thanks! Michelle

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Michelle Harburg Assistant Director, ACHIEVE

Appendix F-246

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Michelle Webster

Response to Michelle Webster: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

To whom it may concern,

I am a K street lawyer and bike commuter. I request that you please consider cyclists and bicycle safety when selecting plans for the K Street Transitway.

It is important for cyclist to have a safe means to travel through business districts – this will encourage more people to opt to commute by bike, reduce reliance on carbon powered vehicles, and reduce traffic in a very congested area of the city. Increased bicycle parking will further encourage bicycle use in the downtown area.

Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, After reviewing the options for the K Street Transitway, it is clear that loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 3 is the only plan that takes cyclist and their safety into account. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, Please proceed with this option and help to protect cyclist and the environment. bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Thank you for your time and your attention to this very important Alternative for the K Street project. environmental and public safety issue. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

Michelle Webster 167 Adams Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 _________________ Michelle N. Webster Mayer Brown LLP 1909 K Street NW Washington DC 20006 t: 202.263.3714 f: 202.762.4201

Appendix F-247

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mike Galvin

Response to Mike Galvin: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, would result in two planted medians, as well as plantings along each curb.

From: Mike Galvin [mailto:mgalvin@caseytrees.org] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 2:57 PM To: Hughey, Tomika (DDOT) Cc: Mark Buscaino; Maisie Hughes; Carol Herwig; Sue Erhardt Subject: K Street Transitway Report 

   Dear Ms. Hughey:  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the K Street Transitway study.  Casey Trees is a  DC‐based non‐profit whose mission is to restore, enhance, and protect the tree canopy of the  Nation’s capital.     We are very pleased that your design team is recommending Option 3 for the configuration of  the K Street Transitway; we support this option also. Option 3 will provide for four planting  areas across the cross‐section (two in the sidewalk and two in medians) as is the case presently.  This will allow the project to maintain similar tree cover post construction as is the case pre‐ construction. Options 1 and 2 both reduce the number of medians from two to one, with a net  result of a loss in tree canopy over K Street.      Option 3 will maintain the environmental and aesthetic features of this important corridor.     Many thanks for your time. If you have any questions or I may be of any further assistance,  please feel free to contact me. Regards ‐ Mike     Mike Galvin | Deputy Director | Casey Trees  1123 11th Street NW | Washington DC 20001 | p 202 349 1909 | f 202 833 4092 | m 410 562 6723 

Appendix F-248

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Mitchell Strickler

Response to Mitchell Strickler: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

I am an experienced (over 20 years) bike commuter to downtown DC. The WABA suggestions for K Street are sensible and important. One example of inadequate thought in the current plans: Parking meters are essential places to lock bikes; removing them requires racks as a substitute or the utility of the bike lane will be crippled. I support all the WABA proposals.

Mitchell Strickler 4201 Cathedral Ave. NW T14E 202 244-1072 mstrickler557@gmail.com

Appendix F-249

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-P J Park

Response to PJ Park: I would support the recommendations made by WABA for the redesign of KThank you for your comments. Street. Please take these recommendations seriously. Our city can continue to make steps and strides to becoming a very effective cycling city, and eventually Response to Comment: a world-class cycling city, like Copenhagen, Denmark. Thank you for your time Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred and consideration. Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of PJ Park operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated Manager, Mount Rainier Bicycle Cooperative bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside -lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. 350 In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design Clean Energy Revolution solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-250

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul Basken

Response to Paul Basken: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Hi... I fully agree with what WABA is saying here... Please support the buffered bike lane or cycle track, as they are suggesting... There are far too few bike lanes in DC, and along the few that do exist, the lack of enforcement means they are routinely used by motorists as places to stop for a few minutes, run into the store, drop off a package, pick up a friend, move a couch, or hundreds of other things other than keeping a clear path for bicyclists... And of course bicyclists in DC who ride in the car lanes feel the wrath of drivers who don't understand that bikes have a right to be there... It's a huge problem, and the K Street project could take a big step toward helping to fix that by building a proper dedicated lane for bicyclists that won't just become another stopping place for cars and trucks. Thanks, Paul Basken / 202-210-3071

Appendix F-251

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul Couto

Response to Paulo Couto: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Hello,

I cannot make it to the meeting tonight, but I am in support for a modified Alternative 3, which would include cycle tracks with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanesupport for a modified Alternative 3, which would include cycle tracks with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanes at intersections and ample bike parking throughout the corridor.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the I think it is really important to follow the proven examples from similar systems project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated from our sister countries in Europe. There would be so much less congestion if bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside people had the option to safely ride their bike on the K St. corridor. It would be lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. really exciting to see. Let's be progressive and adopt this proven system! In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Respectful DC Citizen, -- Paulo Couto RPCV Thailand 06-08

Appendix F-252

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul DeMaio

Response to Paul DeMaio: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-253

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul DeMaio

Response to Paul DeMaio: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Paul DeMaio" <paul@metrobike.net> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:09:10 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'd like to vote for Alternative 3 for the K St. Transitway, however, with cycle tracks (physically separated bike lanes) instead of standard bike lanes. This is a great opportunity to make K St. and much of downtown DC bike-friendly. With oil prices certainly to rise sharply over the next decade, now is the time to do K St. right and make it a lasting design, rather than following another alternative without bike facilities and needing to retrofit it in the future at a greater expense.

Thank you.

Paul DeMaio 2802 Devonshire Pl., NW, #106 Washington, DC 20008

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-254

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul Karrer

Response to Paul Karrer: As a regular bicycle commuter with the city of Washington, DC, I strongly urge Thank you for your comments. that the proposed design of the K Street Transitway include the recommendations of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association detailed at Response to Comment: http://www.waba.org/documents/K_Street_Transitway_Comments.pdf. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Briefly, these recommendations include: Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the • A buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Transitway. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane and would be a more attractive facility for less experienced cyclists. lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. • Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design a formal cycle track is not a option. solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes • Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters. cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses • A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track. would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the Sincerely, design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved Paul Karrer bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master -----------------------Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is Paul Karrer promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. Program Associate Building Codes Assistance Project (BCAP) | Alliance to Save Energy 1850 M Street NW, Suite 600 | Washington, DC 20036 (202) 530-4347 | pkarrer@ase.org| www.bcap-energy.org

Visit BCAP's new website OCEAN at www.bcap-ocean.org

Appendix F-255

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Paul Strand

Response to Paul Strand: Please, please consider only Alternative 3 when it comes to the K Street Transitway. I work near K on M, and use K frequently as I bike all around town Thank you for your comments. for my job as a journalist. It’s always a scary ride on K. Response to Comment: The kind of bike lane proposed in Alternative 3 would help a bit. Much better Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for would be what the Washington Area Bicyclist Assoc is asking for: a buffered transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to bike lane or some other arrangement that would keep us bikers away from the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or delivery trucks and double-parkers. loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 Thank you for your consideration, would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, Paul Strand, CBN News loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. 1919 M St NW, Suite 100 Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, Washington DC 20036 bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following 202-236-8473 the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-256

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Peter Smith

Response to Peter Smith: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Peter Smith" <psmithsf@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:42:00 -0400 Subject: Install full bicycle infrastructure -- cycletracks -- Be sweet to pedestrians and cyclists

Hello,

I'm not currently a resident of DC, but I lived there for a couple of years (1100 block of 13th Street, just off K), and it's back on my radar during my job hunt.

I hope you choose the WABA-suggested design - a modified Option 3 that provides for a cycletrack in both directions on K Street (a cycletrack is a grade-separated 'sidewalk' just for cyclists). Don't relegate cyclists and would-be cyclists to the side streets -- they, like pedestrians, deserve to get from Point A to Point B in the most direct fashion, and that means they should be allowed to travel on K Street just like everybody else. If there is not enough room for private cars on K street, then so be it, but pedestrians and cyclists should be taken care of, first.

If you truly wish to make K Street 'sustainable', then cyclists have to be able to travel on it with safety, and in comfort -- a normal bike lane will not cut it -- it's not enough. New York City is already installing buffered bicycle lanes, Portland has built a cycletrack -- let DC's reconstructed K Street be worthy of mention as a truly sustainable street.

Thank you. --peter

Appendix F-257

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Peter Smith???

Response to Peter: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-258

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Peter Warner

Response to Peter Warner: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

K Street Transit "Peter Warner" <pwarner@digisourcesolutions.com> October 28, 2009 12:36 PM KStreet.comments@dc.gov

To whom it may concern,

I wholeheartedly believe that Alternative 3 is a must for this project. As a daily bike commuter through the streets of downtown DC, it is rare that I ever feel “safe” while riding on already crowded roads. If the safety of the people who live and work in DC is paramount, then alternative 3 would be a progressive step in the right direction. We’ve seen far too many bike related fatalities in this great city the last few years. It’s time to give those that choose an alternative form of transportation besides a car the ability to ride safely without fear for their life.

Thank you

Peter Warner

Appendix F-259

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Phil Lepanto

Response to Phil Lepanto: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Phil Lepanto" <phil.lepanto@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:54:11 -0400 Subject: Prefer Modified Option 3

In my experience as a cyclist, our cycling road infrastructure is hampered by a chronic lack of traffic enforcement during regular business hours and even more exacerbated by delivery companies accepting what few tickets they do get as ‘the cost of doing business’, even more infuriating to the average tax payer like me, it seems that the District Government forgives many of these parking violations at the end of each year for large companies.

Cycling is a vital part of our city’s needed strategy for curbing vehicle emissions and reducing traffic on our roadways. We need to make sure that every roadway includes cycling infrastructure that is protectful of and useful for cyclists.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. The business owners along K Street have stressed the importance of the curbside parking on K Street, as it is significantly less expensive than parking in a garage. Consequently, it is important to those business patrons who only need an hour or two to conduct their business, or make deliveries, or dine at a restaurant.

For several years, my office was located on the corner of Vermont and L Streets NW. I would routinely visit K Street to meet with clients, go to lunch, shop, etc. It was very rare that I would even consider attempting to park my car on K Street. Not only is most of the side road parking routinely utilized by street vendors who park all day, but there is simply so much activity through there that it is unreasonable to think that the average person would consider driving and parking on K Street. Most everyone that I know would probably use a garage if they were going to drive to that area.

-Phil

Appendix F-260

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-R Hodgson

Response to R. Hodgson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Rex Plut" <rhcraiglist@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:59:26 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

It is important that bicycle facilities be included in any redesign of K Street NW. At a minimum this includes striped bicycle lanes, but really more should be done. Ideally, a cycletrack (or bicycle facility separated from traffic) would be provided. NYC is leading the way and showing that cities can make space for cyclists on constrained urban streets. I find it hard to believe that we cannot find solutions to accommodate bicycles in DC, when NYC is achieveing so much in this regard. This may mean getting creative and being willing to take some chances and try "new" things. The residents of the nation's capital deserve nothing less.

Thank you for your consideration,

R Hodgson 2298 17th St NW Washington DC 20009

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-261

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Rebecca Mills

From: "Rebecca Mills" <vena.cava@gmail.com> Response to Rebecca Mills Thank you for your comments.

To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov>

Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:14:47 -0500

Subject: Option 3

Hello,

As a bicycle commuter, I hope you will consider Option 3 for K Street's restructuring, as that option includes a much-needed bike lane.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Mills

Appendix F-262

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ricardo Espitia

Response to Ricardo Espitia: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Ricardo E Espitia" <respitia@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:30:49 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I support the construction of cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb on K street. Please note that it's important that we continue improving the city for the use of bicycles and definitely protect cyclists.

Many thanks, Ricardo Espitia

Appendix F-263

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Richard Layman

Response to Richard Layman: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest increase in travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. 1 Response to Comment 2: The Preferred Alternative would impact approximately 130 of the 332 parking spaces on K Street. Section 3.3.4 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details on parking there are many competing needs to be served by the project: automobiles, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and parking; parking was one of these elements and did not receive addition consideration over the other needs.

Appendix F-264

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Richard Layman

(continued)

2

Appendix F-265

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Richard Layman

(continued)

Appendix F-266

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Rob Jordan

Response to Rob Jordan: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Rob Jordan" robmjordan@gmail.com October 28, 2009 9:03 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I urge the DC Department of Transportation to consider a separated bicycle track for the K Street Transitway project .

Such a lane, set off by a curb or other barrier, would create a uniquely safe and efficient transit rout for the city's ever-growing bicycle community. Thank you, -Rob Jordan

Appendix F-267

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Rory Finnerin

Response to Rory Finneren: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Rory Finneren" <rory.finneren@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:54:44 -0400 Subject: K Street Transitway

Good morning,

I am writing to express my strong support for Alternative 3 in the restructuring of K Street. Alternative 3 is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and I strongly believe that to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists. While Alternative 3 provides for bike lanes, I would urge the DC Department of Transportation to instead construct cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. This design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Thanks for everything that you do.

All the best,

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Rory Finneren

Appendix F-268

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Ross Frazier

Response to Ross Frazier: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

To Whom It May Concern:

I hope in considering the redesign of the K Street transitway, you will choose to follow a slightly modified Alternative 3 that encourages safe cycling. Alternative 3 doesn't really offer any accomodations for cyclists because a bike lane on such a busy street would simply turn into a delivery lane for large trucks. The unintended effect would actually be to make K Street more dangerous for cyclists, who would have to stop behind delivery trucks and then switch in and out of auto traffic lanes.

A better alternative would be to follow a modified Alternative 3, which would include a buffered bike lane or cycle track for K Street. This option would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the lane and would be a more attractive facility for less experienced cyclists. Where this isn't an option or at intersections, a painted bike lane is necessary. A separate signal system for bikes in a buffered bike lane is also a good idea.

I realize you are facing difficult cost decisions and a number of options for improving K Street. As DC has grown, cyclists have become an unavoidable and helpful part of the District's landscape. I hope your decision will take into account that cyclists are already an important part of the District whose safety should be taken into account. I also hope your decision will acknowledge that remembering cyclists when planning development can encourage more people to bike. More cyclists in the District would be a good thing, helping improve our long-term fiscal, environmental and traffic congestion challenges.

Sincerely,

Ross Frazier -rossfrazier@gmail.com tel: 202.713.9633

Appendix F-269

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Samantha Smith

Response to Samantha Smith:

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your comments. I am writing to express my very strong desire for a protected bike lane for the K Response to Comment: Street build plans. A bike lane will not accomplish the goals we should be accomplishing: safe and attractive biking facilities that will decrease motorized Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred traffic in that busy corridor. Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of Please assure that these goals are addressed in the final plan. Options that do no operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated separate bikes from motorized transit will always be substandard. bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside Thank you for your attention, lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. Samantha Smith In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design DC bike commuter solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-270

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Samantha Smith

Response to Samantha Smith: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: K street needs protected bike lane Sent By: "Samantha Smith" <samgsmith@yahoo.com> On: October 28, 2009 9:17 AM To: KStreet.comments@dc.gov

I am writing in strong support of WABA's recommendation that the K street improvements include a protected bike lane (aka "bike track"), with a curb to decrease vehicle parking in the lane.

Please ensure we take this opportunity to build the infrastructure our growing bike community needs. The city we all want does not have more cars, it has more bikes!

Sincerely, Samantha Smith 2914 18th St, NW

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-271

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Samir Kelada

Response to Samir Kelada: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Samir Kelada" <samir.kelada@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:33:30 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Hi, I am a resident of Washington DC and am writing to express my support for WABA's proposed plan for the development of bike lanes on K-street.

Thanks, Samir Kelada 1943 Biltmore St NW Apt A Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-272

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Samuel Pepple

Response to Samuel Pepple: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: <SPepple@ngs.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:28:55 -0400 Subject: WABA-modified Option 3

I certainly see the advantages and disadvantages to both proposals 2 and 3, but I believe that it is in the best interest of a city committed to becoming bike friendly to support the accommodation of safe cycling on all city streets. Therefore, I would support proposal 3. I am, however, a bit concerned about the high likelihood of motor vehicles parking in the proposed bike lanes and feel that the best way to discourage this practice is create cycle tracks that WABA supports: I support a WABA-modified Option 3.

Thanks, SAM

Cartographer National Geographic Maps 1145 17th St. NW Washington DC 20036

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-273

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sara Goldhawk

Response to Sara Goldhawk: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Sara Goldhawk" <saragdc@netscape.net> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:08:14 -0400 Subject: K Street Bike Lanes

I wanted to add my vote for Alternative 3 on the new design for K Street as I am a bike commuter who is often fearful of getting to my job in Dupont Circle via K Street. I live on Capitol Hill and typically ride along the Mall and then head north because I don't feel that drivers would be accommodating to cyclists on K Street. I know this option has been requested by others who are urging the creation of cycle tracks or bike lanes that would be protected by a raised curb. My feeling is that if vehicles and pedestrians can make their way along K Street, why can't cyclists? As of now, its incredibly difficult and yet there is no other reason for me to not commute on my bike. I think this option would go a long way in making DC a much more bike friendly city (and I do not ever ride on sidewalks unless it is absolutely necessary.) I hope you will vote for an alternative that allows for proper bike lanes that are protected from vehicles. Thank you.

Sara Goldhawk

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-274

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sarah Diamond

Response to Sarah Diamond: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Sarah Diamond" <sarita22@gwmail.gwu.edu> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:26:20 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Hello,

As an experienced cyclists who commutes to work daily via bike, I strongly support alternative 3--WABA's preferred option.

Cheers,

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

~~~~~~~ Sarah Diamond Academic Program Coordinator MBA Programs

School of Business Duques Hall, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20052

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-275

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sarah Graddy

Response to Sarah Graddy: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Hi,

I cycle around D.C. every day and find it an extremely unsafe and un-bikefriendly place. There are very few bike lanes and those that are there are routinely ignored by aggressive drivers.

Please, please include a bike lane in the K Street Transitway, and please separate it from the road with a curb to keep it safe. We bicyclists would appreciate it!

Plus, bicycle-friendly cities attract young, creative types who contribute to a vibrant culture. (A great editorial about this can be found here: In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/sharedgen/blogs/dayton/opinion/entries/2009/08/12/guest_column_vibrant_creative.ht solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not ml) be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses Thanks! would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the sarah graddy design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-276

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sarah Hanson

Response to Sarah Hanson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to advocate my strong support for the modified Option 3 design for the K Street transitway proposed by WABA (http://www.waba.org/documen/K_Street_Transitway_Comments.pdf). I am a bicycle commuter from Bethesda to Gallery Place everyday, all year round. My commute is always much more hazardous as soon as I begin my ride along K Street. WABA mentions that it is currently dominated by cars, which is why I have begun taking Pennsylvania and G street to work. At least with this route, there are fewer cars and a bicycle lane. However, I do appreciate the bike lane on G street NW, but it has become a turning/waiting/parking lane for cars. I am only able to bike in the bike lane approximately 60% of the time. Having a modified option with a buffered bike lane or cycle track would make the commute much safer, faster, and less frustrating for myself and auto commuters alike.

I hope that you will consider these comments in your meeting tonight.

Thank you for your time in reading this,

Sarah Hanson

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-277

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sarah Low

Response to Sarah Low: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Low, Sarah" <SLOW@ers.usda.gov> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:44:59 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

Greetings:

To not adopt Option 3, the only option providing opportunities for significant multimodal transportation, would be a serious mistake. Downtown DC is already challenged with poor bike accessibility, a situation that must be remedied for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists but also the ability to get people downtown and moving in an efficient manner.

Right now, only the most kamikaze of cyclists brave the downtown commute. Why? Fear. Drivers get frustrated and don’t think about others using the road. This morning on K Street, my bicycle was almost hit by a minivan driver, who, in an attempt to maneuver around a stopped vehicle, pulled into my lane. I immediately approached the driver after he heard me scream; his response was, “Sorry, I didn’t see you.” At 8:30 a.m., when I’m lit up like a Christmas tree riding down the center of the center lane, the only excuse for not seeing me is not looking—and this happens all too often. Perhaps I should apologize for taking a whole lane—but I feel it is necessary to safely negotiate my way downtown when cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This is just one example, but it illustrates the need for at least one bicycle-friendly route east-west through the central business district; we do not need to encourage more non-commercial vehicles in the central business district.

That cyclists cannot ride on the sidewalk compounds difficulties for those cycling to work or to run errands and further illustrates the need for dedicated cycle tracks. Yesterday, walking on the sidewalk along M Street I was nearly hit by a bicycle ramping onto the sidewalk from the road. When the cyclist passed me, I was amused but also disheartened to see, “Metropolitan Police” emblazed on the back of the officer’s shirt. A policeman on a bicycle has to resort to the sidewalk to negotiate his way west of 18th on M Street! The policeman continued to ride on the sidewalk for several blocks until he disappeared from my sight.

These two examples occurred in the last 24 hours and do not even come close to illustrating the hazards presented to pedestrians and cyclists in the central business district. I hope that Option 3 for the K Street Transitway is approved and that the City does not abandon its commitment to a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly transportation network, particularly it its hub—the central business district.

Regards,

Sarah A. Low U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service 1800 M St. NW Washington, DC 20036
Appendix F-278

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sarah Shoenfeld

Response to Sarah Shoenfeld: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Sarah Shoenfeld" <sarah_shoenfeld@yahoo.com> October 28, 2009 9:45 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

To whom it may concern:

I am writing to urge you to construct a bike lane with a raised curb along K Street, in order to prevent cars from parking in it and to make it more friendly to less experienced cyclists.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Sincerely,

Sarah Shoenfeld Gallatin St NW

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-279

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Scott Kelly

Response to Scott Kelly: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 3 would provide loading/unloading throughout the day; however, loading/unloading would be restricted to one designated pull-out area per block. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Design for inclusion of streetcars in not included as part of this project; however, consistent with the DC’s Transit Future, improvements to K Street based on the transitway study would not preclude potential future use by streetcars.

From: <scott.kelly1@usbank.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:51:20 -0400 Subject: K Street

I wanted to submit my comments regarding the K Street re-design.

I favor option 3 not because of the bike lanes included but primarily because it seems like it would be the best solution for buses to have a dedicated passing lane in the event that streetcars are eventually running down the bus lanes as well. I am really most in favor of developing streetcars for the K street corridor. The proposed options (opt 3 being the best) but even option 2 are a good start but streetcars and other forms of mass transit systems are our future.

Scott Kelly U.S. Bank Government Services 1025 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20036

Appendix F-280

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Scott Morgan

Response to Scott Morgan: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Unfortunately I am not able to attend tonight's public hearing to discuss the three "build options" for the K Street Transitway.

As both a district resident and daily bicycle commuter, I'd like to express my strong support for a buffered bike lane, instead of the traditional painted bike lanes. While a thoughtful gesture to the cycling community, a standard painted bike lane on K Street would undoubtedly turn into a parking lane for delivery vehicles (just like the north/southbound lanes on 14th Street).

Best, Scott -::: R. Scott Morgan ::: 2120 Vermont Ave NW, Apt 215 ::: Washington, DC 20001 ::: rscottmorgan@gmail.com :::

Appendix F-281

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sean Robertson

Response to Sean Robertson Thank you for your comments. Alternative 3 would provide the greatest travel time savings for transit, but would result in an increase in travel time for automobiles compared to the No-Build Alternative. Except for one pull-out area per block, Alternative 3 would not accommodate parking or loading/unloading in the curbside lanes, both of which are important for community and business activities along the K Street corridor. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

From: "Sean Robertson" <seanr@ngpsoftware.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:12:57 -0500 Subject: K Street Transitway

Thanks you for opening this up for public comment. I'm am writing to express my strong support for Option 3. The state of transit on K Street is currently a disaster because of the fact that buses are forced to share the same road space with heavy traffic, all but eliminating the natural advantages of transit. I think a separate transit way on K Street with a passing lane is key to making the buses and the Circulator as effective as they should be. I do not believe Option 1 (doing nothing) is a viable option at this point.

Furthermore, I think the bike lanes offered by Option 3 are sorely needed downtown. There is woefully little infrastructure for bicyclists to use downtown even though many people commute by bike or use them as part of their jobs. The unfortunate result of that has been many people riding on sidewalks in the downtown area in violation of the law out of fear for their safety on DC's largely unpoliced roads (when was the last time a driver got a ticket for anything other than parking in DC?).

I think the only good alternative to Option 3 would be Option 2 combined with protected bike lanes on I and L streets.

Thanks for your consideration.

--

Sean Robertson

Web Developer NGP Software, Inc.

Appendix F-282

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Shannon Hiller

Response to Shannon Hiller: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-283

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Shawn Gallagher

Response to Shawn Gallagher: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

All-

Please seriously consider WABA's proposed solutions for a cycletrack on K St. This is a great moment where Washington can move forward on the rising popularity and necessity of pedal powered vehicles.

In addition to a cycletrack or buffered bike lane, please also consider

1) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option.

2) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

3) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Thank you.

Shawn Gallagher dc/va cyclist.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-284

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sheila Driscoll

Response to Sheila Driscoll: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Sheila Driscoll" <skdriscoll@stanfordalumni.org> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:31:20 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

As a frequent bike commuter, anything that will help make biking downtown easier and safer would be greatly appreciated. A bike lane separated by a curb would be ideal, as many delivery trucks do ignore the painted bike lanes and K Street is so busy, that just painted lanes would not be sufficient.

Thank you, Sheila

Appendix F-285

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Sheneka

Response to Sheneka: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Kanelle" <toocherrys@yahoo.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:35:56 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike Friendly

I would like to express my support for a modified Alternative 3 of the K Street Transitway Project which would include cycle tracks with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanes at intersections and ample bike parking throughout the corridor.

Thanks, Sheneka

Appendix F-286

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Si Kailian

Response to Si Kailian: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-287

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Stanley Stemp

Response to Stan Stemp: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Hello,

I cannot attend the meeting tonight, but I am in favor of WABA's recommendation of a buffered bike lane (cycle track).

Thank you very much.

Cordially,

Stan Stemp

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-288

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Stephanie Hydal

Response to Stephanie: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Hello,

As a bike commuter I am concerned by the construction plans for K Street and the options for making the commute bike friendly. The bike lane option worries me and I do not consider it a safe nor viable option for my commute. All too often, on heavy commerce streets, vehicles of all sorts- notably delivery trucks will occupy bike lane space. This is not merely a convenience but by forcing a biker to switch in and out of a bike lane puts bicyclists, like me, at risk.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside The bike lane buffer plan is a much more conscientious option that will show and implement genuine concern for the safety of individuals on bikes. Choosing lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. to make bikes a priority will support and encourage a sustainable transportation In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design with a lower carbon impact and better health impact. solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes

Furthermore, choosing options for transportation routes that are bike friendly will definitely increase the reputation of the city.

Thank you,

Stephanie

cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-289

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Stephanie Laporte

Response to Stephanie Laporte: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Stephanie Laporte" <sllaporte@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:43:14 -0400 Subject: Please accommodate bikes!

Hello,

I am a DC citizen who strongly favors a K street plan that includes provisions for bicyclists (alternative 3). This would be good for our city's health, environment, and economy. As more and more DC residents are becoming interested in biking, it would be backwardlooking to embark on a major project that did not include provisions for bicyclists. Bicycling is a cleaner, quieter, healthier, and in man ways more fun way of getting around the city. We should be promoting this healthy habit, rather than leaving bikes out of the picture. Furthermore, bicyclists can frequent local businesses much more easily than motorists, who have to worry about parking, and would help the economy.

DC should be a model for the country. To build this project without bike lanes is mediocre and does not befit our great city.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Thank you for considering my comments,

Stephanie Laporte

88 V Street NW Apt. B Washington, DC 20001

Appendix F-290

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Stephen Carlson

Response to Stephen Carlson: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-291

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Steve Hill

Response to Steve Hill: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-292

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Steve McKinney

Response to Steve McKinney: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Steve McKinney" <stevemckinney@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:05:39 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

I would like to express my support for a modified Alternative 3 of the K Street Transitway Projecct, which would include cycle tracks with a separate signal system for cyclists, painted bike lanes at intersections and ample bike parking throughout the corridor.

-Steve

Appendix F-293

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Steve Wardell

Response to Steve Wardell: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

From: "Steve Wardell" <steve.b.wardell@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:42:36 -0400 Subject: Option 3 with raised bike lanes

Hello,

I am writing in support of Option 3 with raised bike lanes. First off, I think the busway in general will be a HUGE improvement to K Street to speed up the many buses that run along K Street for some portion of a time or another. As for the bike lanes as currently specified in Option 3, I am concerned that it will be dangerous for riders both from traffic as well as from delivery vehicles who may park in the bike lanes. As such, I would suggest that raised bike lanes be used at the same height as sidewalks but painted in a different color. This is commonly done in Europe to bring safety with not traveling at street height and the colors to increase the visibility difference between sidewalks and the bike lanes. I look forward to these improvements on K Street.

Steve Wardell 1771 Church St NW #4 Washington, DC 20036 202-459-2102

Appendix F-294

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Steven Sandhoff

Response to Steven Sandhoff: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment 1: Mapping of the alternatives, and a typical landscape rendering, is contained in Appendix B and Appendix C of the EA. Response to Comment 2:

From: "Steven Sandhoff" <notalawyer@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:37:45 -0400 Subject: The proper and cost effective alternative

I'd like to contribute to the betterment of the presentation of the current study as well as my preferred alternative. First, each alternative is only verbally described and it becomes difficult to determine the salient 1 differences. Please put some images about how key aspects of the corridor will look with each alternative to help the public understand what's being contemplated.

My Preferred alternative

I can't quite tell whether my version or something similar is considered in any alternative. I'll refer to the current existing cross-section below. I am very supportive of public transit and would gladly turn the whole corridor for exclusive public transit if it showed cost and transit effectiveness. However, I'm very concerned about the cost effectiveness of the more elaborate proposals. From the diagram below, this is what needs to happen. Both local/service roads in each direction should used for car traffic, with parking restricted until night time (Thus not negating the 2 parking revenue/machines already in place and offers some parking. On the central portion, the outer lanes ought to be exclusive bus lanes with raised bumps separating the bus lane from the center lane. The centermost lanes should be for car traffic moving all the way through downtown with no turns. This would effectively only cost 1) signs for restricting parking on the outer local/service road, 2) painting bus lanes and installing raised bumps on the outer central lanes and 3) no turn signs on the central lanes. It should be very cost effective, gives an exclusive bus lane without having to construct any new structures, still retain some parking when traffic is low and not cost anything in removal and maintain decent throughput for car traffic.

Thank you for your alternative suggestion. The two alternatives in the EA were previously selected from a wide range of options that were considered in the 2005 K Street Transitway Report, see Section 2.3. Alternative 2 would provide a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project.

Appendix F-295

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Appendix F-296

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Steven Shyu

From: "Steven" zinear@gmail.com To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" KStreet.Comments@dc.gov Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:27:21 -0500

Response to Steven Shyu Thank you for your comments.

Subject: Comments on K Street Transitway

To whom it may concern:

As a resident and worker in downtown DC, I wish to voice my support for the K Street Transitway project. I often ride the Circulator to and from work, and I think reconfiguring K Street to allow for a dedicated right-of-way for buses would greatly improve the downtown neighborhood by reducing traffic and pollution. Also, the transitway could offer greater accessibility in the future if, for example, street cars were run along the transitway.

Giving buses their own right-of-way would save time for both buses and also other users of K Street. Reducing the travel time of buses along this route also enables transit agencies to keep buses running without adding more buses to account for increase congestion. Faster travel times also increase the appeal and practicality of using the buses as a means of getting around downtown DC.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent I and L Streets. Alternative 2 would create less of an impact for off-street loading than Alternative 3, by providing an off-peak lane for parking/loading throughout most of the corridor.

I also feel that it is important to support biking as a way of commuting. At peak travel times in DC, it is often the fastest way to get around. In addition, it doesn't create more pollution and is good for the health of the community (the cyclists get exercise). Improving safety for cyclists would enable more people to use biking as a mode of getting around DC. This reduces the strain on our already crowded roads and transit systems.

In addition, the needs of businesses and residents must also be considered. A lane for deliveries, maintenance vehicles (plumber, utilities, etc.) is also very important. If these vehicles block travel lanes, this reduces the potential benefit of the new K street configuration, especially during peak travel times.

Given all of these considerations, I think the best option is the one with a two-lane transitway and three general traffic lanes in each direction. A protected one-way bike line on I and L streets would be one option for supporting people who travel by bike.

Best, S. Shyu Washington, DC

(Note: I offer my comments as a private citizen. My views are not necessarily those of my employer.)

Appendix F-297

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Tanya Snyder

Response to Tanya Snyder: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Subject: Sent By: On: To: Cc:

please include bike lane "Tanya Snyder" tanya.c.snyder@gmail.com October 28, 2009 10:12 AM KStreet.comments@dc.gov waba@waba.org

I've been commuting on my bike in DC for ten years now, and the conditions can be harrowing. Cars, buses, and even pedestrians often don't even see us and pull in front of us. As the death of Alice Swanson last year showed us, even cyclists following all the safety rules can be killed in DC's streets.

Biking is the best thing I do: for my health and wellbeing, for the planet, and for the city. And for my job, since biking is the fastest way for me to get to work and get around to meetings around town. K Street is the center of the city's heart and needs to encourage cycling, not more traffic congestion. If DC is serious about supporting bicycling - as a way to have a more liveable city - we need to implement WABA's Alternative 3 with raised curbs.

Thank you, Tanya Snyder 2298 17th Street NW, Apt. 9 Washington DC 20009

Appendix F-298

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Teal Edelen

Response to Teal Edelen: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "Teal Edelen" <Teal.Edelen@NFWF.ORG> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:33:35 -0400 Subject: Option 3

I am writing to voice my support of option 3 for the K Street corridor, which would include a bike lane in each direction. As a bicyclist, and a friend to many bicyclists in this city, improved safety and accessibility for bicyclists should be a top priority in this initiative.

Thank you, Teal Edelen

Teal Edelen Project Administrator National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1133 Fifteenth St., N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-299

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Terrance Lynch

Response to Terrance Lynch Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Gabe Klein Director DC Dept. of Transportation 2000 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

Re: K Street Environmental Assessment

Dear Mr. Klein,

I wish to fully support the concepts of K Street being a "Great" Street and a "Green" Street. I believe those can be achieved, while not undermining the very purposes of the corridor - for retail, commercial activity, evening and weekend uses as well. As you know, I had the good fortune to be amongst those that called for and worked for a living downtown - a mix of uses that enhances the safety, economic vitality, and vibrancy of the city.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of improved operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians, parking, and loading/unloading while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Section 2.2.3 of the Final Environmental Assessment provides additional details regarding the selection of Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative.

At this time, I firmly believe that alternative 1 or alternative 2 make greater sense than alternative 3. Alternative 2 provides two lanes for transit and three lanes for traffic / loading which is better for the street life and commercial / retail activities of the corridor than proposed by Alternative 3. Alternative 2 will allow for wide sidewalks, potential outdoor cafe uses, enhanced landscaping, and valet parking options. Alternative 3 does not address adequately the delivery, service, and taxi needs for the area as well as reduces sidewalk widths. Alternative 3 would likely diminish the vitality of the street and actually be counterproductive for the goals sought for the neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Respectfully, Terrance Lynch Executive Director

Appendix F-300

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Theresa Silla

Response to Theresa Silla: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Zendo Gedye" <theresa.silla@gmail.com> October 28, 2009 1:20 PM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

As someone that is fairly new to the world of biking, I really appreciate WABA's ideas for the Alternative 3. Please consider constructing cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. Anything that will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane is much appreciated.

Thanks, Theresa

-Zendo Gedye is a Warrior in Training

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-301

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Thomas Taylor

Response to Thomas Taylor Thank you for your comments.

From: "Thomas Taylor" <thomas.taylor.dc@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:40:37 -0500 Subject: K Street Comments

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. First and foremost: build it. A no-build choice would be very short-sighted. Please proceed with the option that is most likely to reach a consensus and to be actually built, which I suspect is the option with a two lane transitway.

Following the Public Hearing, Alternative 2 was selected as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. The proposed improvements to K Street would not preclude potential future use by streetcars. Details on landscaping, way-finding signs, and street furniture will be developed during final design.

Do everything possible to make this project compatible with the future streetcar system. If at all possible within the allotted time frame, build with the anticipated streetcar tracks, as DDOT did on H Street, NE.

Though not part of this project, separated bicycle lanes on I and L Streets would do much to quell the clamor for bicycle lanes on K Street. I do not support bicycle lanes, transit passing lanes, and the loss of non-rush-hour parking at the expense of adding the large increase in through-time for cars (without a substantial increase in through-time for transit, which is not the case).

Give pedestrian traffic the highest priority; add as much flora, way-

finding signs, and street furniture to the streetscape as practical.

Use street furniture that discourages vagrants from loitering, i.e., use benches with mid-bench armrests.

Regards,

Thomas Taylor 400 Massachusetts Ave., NW Unit 1311 Washington, DC 20001

Appendix F-302

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Thomas Wells

Response to Thomas Wells: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "Wells, Thomas (COUNCIL)" <TWells@DCCOUNCIL.US> To: "Ilona Blanchard" <ilona_brazil@yahoo.com>, "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:36:30 -0400 Subject: RE: K Street Design - Add Cycle Tracks!!!!

Thank you very much for your email. I’m working with DDOT to add a cycle track for M Street SE and SW, but I’d love to see one on K Street as well.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Tommy

Appendix F-303

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Tim Hampton

Response to Tim Hampton: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

From: "tim" <grendel4@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:18:21 -0400 Subject: K Street

To K Street planners:

I support cycle tracks for K street -- raised bike lanes. I think this key street needs to have bike infrastructure, and that it shouldn't be pushed aside to maybe be part of I and L.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

Also, I have heard very lukewarm support toward the different options presented for K Street so far... perhaps this means another option or two is needed?

Thank you for reading my comments.

Tim Hampton

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Appendix F-304

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Tim Jones

Response to Tim Jones: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

As a bicycle rider as well as a pedestrian and car driver, I believe that the K Street Transitway project offers the city of Washington, DC a unique opportunity to transform a critical street in the Central Business District from a vehicle dominated environment into a truly multimodal corridor. It is also an opportunity to employ innovative design solutions in a way that further demonstrates the city’s commitment to a more bicycle and pedestrian friendly transportation network. While a variety of options for K Street are under consideration, the overall goal for the project should be to design a street that is attractive to the widest variety of users.

I agree with WABA's recommendation that a cycle track with the following design characteristics be considered as the Environmental Assessment moves forward:

• The cycle tracks should be one way, but wide enough to allow cyclists to pass each other if necessary. In general, the recommended width of cycle tracks is six and a half feet, but can be narrowed to five feet where right of way is constrained.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

• The cycle track should be at a slightly lower grade than the sidewalk to avoid pedal strikes and be constructed with a beveled curb to allow for mounting of the curb in case an emergency maneuver is necessary.

• To the left of the cycle track, loading zone areas can be created, but a minimum of a two- to three-foot buffer between the loading areas and the cycle track is required. The curb between the cycle track and loading zone areas should be mountable by emergency vehicles.

• Roadway crossings should be well marked and colored bike lanes should be striped through intersections. Bike lanes on segments of K Street where formal separation of the bikeway is not an option, should also be colored.

• A separate traffic signal system for bikes should be installed at the intersections.

In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

• A bike parking plan should also be developed to address the lack of bike parked created by the move to multi-space meters.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project.

Sincerely, Tim Jones

1801 Calvert St, NW Apt 402 Washington, DC 20009

Appendix F-305

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Timothy Ryan

Response to Timothy C. Ryan: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

I agree with WABA's recommendations and support:

1. A buffered bike lane or cycle track for the K Street Transitway, that would protect the bike lane with a curb to prevent vehicles from parking in the lane and would be a more attractive facility for less experienced cyclists.

2) Painted bike lanes at intersection crossings and on segments of K Street where a formal cycle track is not a option.

3) Ample bike parking to replace the loss of parking meters.

4) A separate signal system for bikes in the cycle track.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets.

Timothy C. Ryan General Manager Sawyer Miller Advertising 700 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 T: 202.585.2757 | M: 202.285.8906 | F: 202.383.0079 tryan@sawyermiller.com

Appendix F-306

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Timothy Wojan

Response to Timothy R. Wojan: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment:

Subject: Sent By: On: To:

Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly "Tim Wojan" <TWOJAN@ers.usda.gov> October 28, 2009 8:39 AM KStreet.Comments@dc.gov

I am a Federal worker in the CBD and I have been working to have our office certified as a Bike Friendly Business by the League of American Bicyclists. This effort is supported both by the Green Government and Feds Get Fit Initiatives of the Obama Administration. Part of that certification requires that the route to the workplace is accessible to bikes. Option 3 for the K Street Transitway is the only option that provides opportunities for significant multimodal transit and would make access to our offices much easier, especially for cyclists who are not highly skilled in mixing with motor vehicles on the major east-west routes of K, L, and M streets. This access problem is made worse by the prohibition against bike riding on sidewalks in the CBD that less experienced cyclists often resort to. The increase in this illegal practice over the past year has led to an increase in ticketing of cyclists, which clearly demonstrates the need for the multimodal alternatives available in Option 3.

Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel. In general, the recommendations provided for a more innovative bikeway design solution would not be applicable for Alternative 2, because designated bike lanes cannot be included in this alternative. Five-foot (or wider) cycle tracks could not be included because sidewalk space used by pedestrians and many businesses would be reduced and parking and loading may be impacted. However, the design for Alternative 2 could incorporate bicycle enhancements including increased signage or pavement markings for the shared use lane, and improved bicycle parking facilities. It should be noted that the District’s Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on adjacent I and L Streets. Additional information on the effects to businesses caused by the alternatives is found in Section 3.1.4.

I understand that shop owners on the ground floor of K Street buildings are opposed to Option 3 as they claim it would adversely affect the ability for customers to park in front of their stores and shop. This objection is easily dismissed if one envisions how a bike accessible K Street would be transformed. First, the trickle of customers silly enough to think they can find a parking spot to do their shopping on K Street will be greatly outnumbered by the steady flow of bike commuters who can easily lock their bikes and shop. Twenty shoppers on bikes would command the same parking space as a single shopper in a car. Second, and most importantly for the health of K Street developers, is that the big money comes from everything above the ground floor and the highly skilled and educated workers who populate this office space are increasingly demanding active transportation options to work. This is in fact the primary interest our management has in the Bike Friendly Business certification—as a tool to recruit new employees. It would indeed be ironic if the other Transitway options are approved, as it would demonstrate that the short-term interests of some low-rent tenants prevailed over the long-term interests of the landlords on K Street, and beyond.

I sincerely hope the planning process is not plagued by shortsightedness and that Option 3 for the K Street Transitway is approved.

Please feel free to contact me if you would like me to clarify or elaborate our position.

Timothy R. Wojan, PhD Economic Research Service/USDA 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036

Appendix F-307

FINAL: December 2009

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
2-Tom Lalley

Response to Tom Lalley: Thank you for your comments. Response to Comment: Following the comment period, Alternative 2 has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K Street project. Alternative 2 provides a balance of operations for transit, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians while meeting the project’s purpose and need. Although Alternative 3 would provide a designated bicycle lane that Alternative 2 does not, Alternative 2 provides a shared curbside lane for bicycle users, parking, and peak automobile travel.

From: "tom lalley" <tlalley@gmail.com> To: "Comments, KStreet (DDOT)" <KStreet.Comments@dc.gov> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:40:28 -0400 Subject: Make K Street Transitway Bike-Friendly

To DDOT:

I am a strong supporter of Alternative 3 for the K Street Transitway. I am a car driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian and believe that Alternative 3 best suits my needs and the needs of the District. It is the only design that provides any sort of accommodation for cyclists and we strongly believe that to rebuild K Street without facilities for cyclists would be a missed opportunity and would run counter to the city's stated desire to improve conditions for cyclists.

Ideally, I'd like to see construction of cycle tracks-bike lanes that are protected by a raised curb. I've seen these in use in Europe and they work really well. I believe this design will help prevent vehicles from parking in the bike lane and would present a more attractive option for less experienced cyclists.

Sincerly, Tom Lalley

In gen