Rock Creek West 2 Livability Study - Final Report

R c Ce k s I o k re WetI L a i y tdy i bl Su v i t
Fn l e ot i Rpr a
F bu r 2 1 e ray 0 1
Roc Cre We II L ck eek est Livability Stu udy

Fin Report nal
Feb bruary 2011
Lead Ag gency
Con nsultant
DistrictD Departmento ofTransporta ation Policy,Pla anning,andSu ustainabilityA Administration n AnnaCham mberlin,Proje ectManager 200014thStNW,Washi ington,DC200 009
Pars sonsBrinckerhoff Jessi icaJuriga,PE,AICP,ProjectManager 1401 1KStNW,Ste e701,Washing gton,DC2000 05
Thestakeh holderswhod devotedtheirt timetothede evelopmentof ftherecomme endationsinclu ude,butaren not limitedto: : DDOTPo olicy,Planning g,andSustaina abilityAdmini istration DDOTIn nfrastructureP ProjectManag gementAdmin nistration DDOTTr ransportation nOperationsA Administration n DCMetrop politanPoliceDepartment DCOfficeo ofPlanning Councilme emberMaryC ChehsOffice ANC3E,3F,and3G DealMidd dleSchool,JanneyElementa arySchool,Laf fayetteElemen ntarySchool,M MurchElemen ntarySchool, WilsonHig ghSchool ConnecticutAvenuePed destrianActio on ResidentsofFriendship pHeights,Chev vyChase,Fore estHills,Tenle eytown,andA AmericanUniv versityPark
Rock Creek West II Livability Study
Contents
1 Introduction TransportationLivability TrafficCalmingTools StudyArea History PreviousEffortsandPlans ProjectScope 2 ExistingConditions Neighborhoods TransportationNetwork StreetNetwork BicycleandPedestrianFacilities TransitService TrafficSafety CommunityPerceptions 3 NetworkAnalysis NewStreetClassifications LocalStreet BicycleBoulevard CollectorStreet ArterialStreet ScreeningofHotSpots FocusAreas 4 Recommendations SystemRecommendations LocalStreets BicycleBoulevards CollectorStreets ArterialStreets FocusAreaRecommendations ChevyChase FriendshipHeights ForestHills
Final Report
1 1 2 2 7 8 10 11 11 12 12 16 18 19 22 27 27 27 27 29 29 30 32 37 37 37 41 43 43 45 45 52 58
ii

TenleytownandAmericanUniversityPark 5 Implementation ProjectCosts PerformanceMeasures NextSteps References 63 74 74 77 84 85
Appendices
AppendixAPublicandStakeholderInput AppendixBSummaryofPreviousDocuments AppendixCAnalysisDetails AppendixDRecommendationDetails
List of Figures
Figure1:RCW2StudyArea........................................................................................................................................................................3 Figure2:Screenshotfromprojectwebsite...................................................................................................................................... 0 . 1 stStreetintheFriendshipHeightsneighborhood................................................................................................. 1 Figure3:41 1 Figure4:StudyAreaFunctionalClassifications.............................................................................................................................. 3 1 Figure5:TrafficVolumesintheStudyArea..................................................................................................................................... 5 1 Figure6:BicycleandPedestrianFacilities........................................................................................................................................ 7 1 Figure7:StudyAreaTransitOptions................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Figure8:TrafficCollisionsinRCW2..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Figure9:IntersectionsReceivingOneorMoreCommentsfromOnlineSurvey.............................................................. 3 2 Figure10:SummaryofConcernsfromPublicSurvey.................................................................................................................. 4 2 Figure11:IntersectionswithFourorMoreCommentsfromOnlineSurvey..................................................................... 6 2 Figure12:PortlandBikeBoulevard(flickrCC)............................................................................................................................... 7 2 Figure13:ProposedStreetClassifications........................................................................................................................................ 8 2 Figure14:StudyAreaHotSpots............................................................................................................................................................ 1 . 3 Figure15:StudyFocusAreas.................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 Figure16:Curbextensionexample...................................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Figure17:ProposedGreenCurbExtensions.................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Figure18:Berkeleywayfinding.............................................................................................................................................................. 1 4 Figure19:Pavementmarking................................................................................................................................................................. 1 4 Figure20:Bikebox....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 4 Figure21:ProposedBicycleBoulevards............................................................................................................................................ 2 4 Figure22:ChevyChaseRecommendations...................................................................................................................................... 6 4 Figure23:PedestriansCrossingChevyChaseCircle.................................................................................................................... 7 . 4 Figure24:ChevyChaseCircleShortTermRecommendations................................................................................................ 8 4 Figure25:Sightdistanceat41stStreetandLegationStreet..................................................................................................... 0 5 Figure26:FriendshipHeightsRecommendations......................................................................................................................... 3 5
iii Final Report

Figure27:RiverRoad.................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 5 Figure28:ForestHillsRecommendations....................................................................................................................................... 9 . 5 Figure29:36thStreetandFessendenStreetRecommendation............................................................................................... 0 6 Figure30:TenleytownAreaRecommendations............................................................................................................................. 4 6 Figure31:42ndStreetandBrandywineStreetRecommendation........................................................................................... 6 6 Figure32:Morningrushhourat42ndStreetandAlbemarleStreet..................................................................................... 7 6 Figure33:42ndStreetandWarrenStreetRecommendation.................................................................................................... 8 6 Figure34:40thStreet/FortDriveRecommendation................................................................................................................... 2 7
List of Tables
Table1:DDOT'sTrafficCalmingToolbox............................................................................................................................................4 Table2:TrafficCollisionsbyIntersection,20072009................................................................................................................ 9 1 Table3:CollisionsInvolvingPedestriansbyIntersection,20072009................................................................................ 0 2 Table4:IntersectionswithMostCommentsfromOnlineSurvey.......................................................................................... 5 . 2 Table5:AreasofFocusandTheirCharacteristics......................................................................................................................... 4 3 Table6:ComparisonofExistingandProposedCurbsideUsesfor40thStreetandFortDrive.................................. 2 . 7 Table8:ConstructionCostEstimates.................................................................................................................................................. 5 7 Table9:ProposedPerformanceMeasuresforRCW2Improvements................................................................................... 8 7 Table10:PerformanceMeasureCategorybyRecommendation............................................................................................ 0 8
Final Report
iv
Introduction
TheDistrictDepartmentofTransportation(DDOT)initiatedtheRockCreekWestII(RCW2)LivabilityStudy totakeabigpicturelookatthestreetnetworkandidentifyconcreteactionstoincreasetransportationand safetyoptionsinthestudyarea.TheRCW2areaisshowninFigure1.Thisprojectfocusesontransportation safetyandqualityoflifeissuesforallusers.
Transportation Livability
Livabilityisatermthatreferstocommunityqualityoflifeasexperiencedbythepeoplewholive,work,and recreatethere.Livabilityrecognizesthatstrongcommunitiesrelyontheinterplayamongtransportation, publichealth,housing,culturalresources,andthenaturalenvironment. Transportation,inparticular,iscentraltolivability.Travelchoicesgovernourabilitytogetaround;the operationsofourtransportationfacilitiesimpactsafetyandcomfort;andthedesignsofourpublicspaces directlyaffecttheprosperityandenjoymentofthecity. DDOTsLivabilityprogramincludestransportationstudiesforvariousneighborhoodsoftheDistrict.The studiestakeabigpicturelookatthestreetnetworkandidentifyconcreteactionsthatadheretothe principlesoutlinedintheDDOTActionAgenda.Thegoalsofthisstudyareto:
Ensure safe passages for all users of the street network. This involves special attention to the most vulnerable users of the system (pedestrians, bicyclists, children, and the elderly); and taming traffic while maintaining overall mobility.
Prioritize sustainable living in DC communities. This means providing a robust set of transportation choices and designing streets to encourage physical activity. It also means designing streets in ways that help preserve, protect, and/or restore ecological systems. Foster prosperous places by building and operating streets as unique urban places that support retail and employment districts. Enhancing prosperous places also may entail the expansion of civic open spaces within or along streets.
TheRCW2LivabilityStudyisoneofthefirstthreetobeinitiatedin2010.
1 Final Report
Rock Creek West II Livability Study Traffic Calming Tools

Acentralgoaloftransportationlivabilityistoprovidesafestreetsforallusers.Trafficcalming,ortheslowing ofmotorvehicletraffictocreateasaferandmorecomfortableenvironmentforacommunity,tiesintothe conceptoflivabilitythroughthecommongoalofimprovingqualityoflife.Thefocusofthisstudyison livability,usingtrafficcalmingasatooltocreatesafer,healthierneighborhoods.Andbecausetrafficcalming ismostapplicabletolocalandcollectorstreets,thisstudyfocusesonrecommendationsonthesestreets. Thereareanumberoftoolsthatcanaidintrafficcalming,rangingfromvisualtrafficcalmingtophysical devices(includingdiversionandnondiversiontools).Asummaryoftrafficcalmingtools,theiradvantages, andappropriateuseisshowninTable1.
Study Area
TheRCW2area,showninFigure1,islocatedinthenorthwestquadrantoftheDistrict,inWard3.Itincludes thecommunityorientedneighborhoodsofAmericanUniversityPark,ChevyChase,ForestHills,Friendship Heights,andTenleytown;andcommunityanchorssuchaspublicschools,recreationcenters,community centers,libraries,andthreeuniversities.ThestudyareaisboundedbyRockCreekPark,amajorrecreational andscenicamenityforthecity,andbythestateofMaryland. Althoughtheneighborhoodsinthestudyareaarelargelyresidential,majorcommuterroutessuchas ConnecticutAvenueandWisconsinAvenuepassthroughtheareaandactasbarriers.Anumberof transportationissuesinthestudyareahavebeenidentifiedbyDDOTandresidents,including:aggressive drivingsuchasspeedingandblockingcrosswalks,insufficientpedestriancrossingtimesatintersections, unsignalizedcrosswalks,cutthroughtrafficonresidentialstreets,missingsidewalks,andwidestreetsand intersections.Theseconditionscausepedestrianandbicyclesafetyissues,particularlyfortheelderlyand children. TodeterminetheboundariesfortheLivabilityprogram,DDOTsStrategicPlanningbranchreferredtoand consideredtheComprehensivePlanareaelementboundaries,locationsofDDOTplanningworkoverthelast 10years,naturalandbuiltbarriers,andMWCOGtrafficanalysiszones.Theboundariesrepresentreasonable subareasoftheDistrictforwhichtodeterminestreetgridcharacteristicsandevaluatemultimodal transportationconditions.
Final Report
Figure 1: RCW2 Study Area
Final Report
Table 1: DDOT's Traffic Calming Toolbox Traffic Calming Measure Advantages Appropriate Use Local street that is not a bus route with speeding issues
Diversion
Chicane Reduced vehicle speed Enhanced landscaping opportunities
Neighborhood Traffic Circle
Reduced vehicular speed Improved vehicular safety Enhanced streets aesthetic value
Local street with speeding and safety issues, that could benefit from a gateway
Forced Turns
Reduced conflict points Reduced traffic volumes
Street with turning movement related safety issues
Diagonal Diverter
Reduced traffic conflict points Reduced traffic volumes Enhanced streets aesthetics
Local street with safety issues that does not serve key purpose in larger network
Half Closures/ Semi-diverters
Reduced conflict points Reduced traffic volumes
Local street with safety issues that does not serve key purpose in larger network
Final Report

Traffic Calming Measure Full Street Closures Advantages Reduced conflict points Reduced traffic volumes Appropriate Use Local street that does not serve key purpose in larger network
Speed Bumps
Reduced vehicle speeds
Limited use; spot location with major speeding issue
Speed Humps
Local street with speeding issue (that is not a bus or emergency vehicle route)
Speed Tables
Local or collector street with speeding issue
Raised Crosswalk
Reduced vehicle speeds Improved pedestrian and motorist visibility
Local and possibly collector street with speeding or safety issue
Raised Intersection
Reduced vehicle speed Provide better pedestrians and motorists visibility
Local and possibly collector street with speeding or safety issue
Final Report

Traffic Calming Measure Rumble Strips Advantages Reduced vehicle speeds Appropriate Use Limited use; spot location with major speeding issue
Non-diversion
Curb Extensions Reduced pedestrian crossing distance Increased pedestrian visibility Reduced speed for right turning vehicles Enhanced landscaping opportunities Local or collector street with pedestrian safety issues
Median Barriers
Reduced turning movement conflicts Pedestrian refuge Reduced vehicle speeds
Street with speeding or safety issues that would benefit from placemaking
On-Street Parking
Gateways / Entry Treatments -
Reduced vehicle speed Increased safety with buffer between vehicles and pedestrians/bikes Works well with curb extensions Psychological cue that the street is more than just for cars Reduced entry speeds Improved aesthetics
Street with speeding and pedestrian safety issues that would benefit from parking Street with speeding issues that would benefit from placemaking
Final Report
Rock Creek West II Livability Study History

TransportationimprovementshavebeenthesubjectofmuchrecentdiscussionintheRCW2area.Thoughthe areasmajortransportationinfrastructurewasbuiltlongago,smallerchangessuchastrafficcalming, additionalsidewalks,andsafeschoolroutesareatoppriorityforresidents.Theneighborhoodsarehometo majorarterialstreetsandlargetrafficcircles,anddestinationsaresometimesdividedbythesefacilities. Additionally,becausetheseroadwaysservearegionalroleinthetransportationnetwork,commuterand throughtrafficmovesthroughthearea.Thedemandfortrafficcalminginparticular,speedhumpshas increasedinrecentyearsasaresponsetotheseconditions. Althoughtheinstallationofspeedhumpsandothermeasuresrespondedtorealproblems,theneedfora broaderviewofsystemwidetransportationissueswasidentifiedanddemandedbyresidents.Bylookingat theentirestudyareanetworkfromamultimodalperspectivewithlandusesinmind,competing transportationneedscanbebalanced.Thatiswhatthisstudyaimstoachieve.
Final Report
Previous Efforts and Plans

Notsurprisingforsuchalargestudyarea,therehavebeennumerousstudiesandplanscompletedforpartsof RCW2inrecentyears.Thesearesummarizedintheparagraphsthatfollow,anddetailedinAppendixB.As theprojectteamcollecteddataaboutthestudyareaandsurveyedresidents,recommendationsfromthese previousstudieswererecorded.Developingacomprehensiveunderstandingofpreviousrecommendations helpedinformtheultimaterecommendationsofthisstudy.Thepreviousrecommendationsthatalignedwith thelivabilityprojectgoalsandwerestillapplicablein2010werecarriedforward. TheDistrictofColumbiaPedestrianMasterPlan2009 (DCPMP)proposesimprovementstothepedestrianenvironment throughouttheDistrict,inordertoreducepedestriansinvolvedin crasheswithmotorvehiclesandbymakingitacomfortableand accessiblemodeoftravelthroughoutallareasoftheDistrict. WithinWard3,itidentifiesbothWisconsinAvenueNW(from WesternAvenuetoWoodleyRoad,NW)andConnecticutAvenue NW(fromWesternAvenuetoCalvertStreet,NW)aspriority corridorsthatrequireimprovementstothepedestrian environment. TheDistrictofColumbiaBicycleMasterPlan2005(DCBMP) enhancestheimageofagrowing,bicyclefriendlycityand developsguidelinestoestablishhighqualitybicyclefacilitiesand programsthatwillprovidesafeandconvenientbicycle transportation.TheDCBMPalsoproposesnewinfrastructure includingnewbikelanesandmultiusetrails. TheDistrictofColumbiaStrategicHighwaySafetyPlan2007(SHSP)developsacomprehensive frameworkthatidentifieskeytransportationsafetyneedsandguidesinvestmentdecisionstoimprovethe Districtstransportationsystemforallusers.Inordertoachieveitsgoals,theSHSPidentifiesfiveCritical EmphasisAreas(CEAs)thatplaykeyrolesincreatingsafetransportationenvironments.ThesefiveCEAs includeHighRiskDrivers,BicyclistandPedestrianSafety,Engineering/FacilitiesInfrastructure,Special Vehicles,andSpecialTargetAreas. WisconsinAvenueCorridorTransportationStudy2005examinestheexistingandfuturetraffic conditions,identifiesissues,andprovidesshorttermandlongtermtrafficmanagementandinfrastructure improvementsalongWisconsinAvenueNW. FriendshipHeightsTransportationStudy2003(+2005Addendum)(FHTS)examinestheexistingand futuretrafficconditions,identifiesissues,andprovidesshorttermandlongtermtrafficmanagementand infrastructureimprovements. TheConnecticutAvenueTransportationStudy2003(CATS)evaluatesthetransportationconditionsin theVanNessareaofConnecticutAvenueNWbyassessingexistingtrafficconditionsanddeveloping recommendationstoimprovemobilityandsafety.Themajorroadwaysinthestudyareaevaluatedinthis reportincludeConnecticutAvenueNW,RenoRoadNW,AlbemarleStreetNW,VanNessStreetNW,and TildenStreetNW. TheDCSafeRoutestoSchoolProgram(SFRS)workstoimprovetheabilityofelementaryandmiddle schoolstudentssafetytowalkandbiketoandfromschool.
Final Report 8

MurchElementarySchooldevelopedandimplementedanawardwinningSFRSprogramin2009.The programaimedtoincreasethenumberofchildrenwalkingandbikingtoschool,increasestudents understandingofthelinkbetweentheireverydayactionstothebroadercommunityandtheworld,give studentsexerciseeverydaybyincreasingopportunitiesforkidstohavefunwhilebeinghealthy,and decreasetheamountofcartrafficbeforeandafterschool. TheConnecticutAvenuePedestrianAction2009(CAPA)isacommunitygroupformedtopromoteand createasaferpedestrianenvironmentalongConnecticutAvenueNW.ACAPAStudy,thedraftPedestrian SafetyAudit,wasreleasedinNovember2010thatassessedexistingpedestrianconditionsalongthecorridor andincludedrecommendationstoimprovemobilityandsafetyforpedestriansandcyclists.Severalofthe reportsrecommendationswithintheRCW2studyareahavebeenincorporatedintothisstudy. RoadwaySafetyAuditsandDDOTShopOrdershavebeenperformedcitywidesince2009.Manylocations inourstudyareahavebeenstudied,including: 36thStreetandFessendenStreet 39thStreetandRenoRoad 45thStreetandFessendenStreet 45thStreetandMassachusettsAvenue 46thStreetandFessendenStreet 48thStreetandYumaStreet TenleytownArea(shoporderprepared) ConnecticutAvenueandAlbemarleStreet(shoporderprepared) ConnecticutAvenueandUptonStreet ConnecticutAvenueandVanNessStreet(shoporderprepared) ConnecticutAvenueandVeazeyTerrace(shoporderprepared) ConnecticutAvenueandYumaStreet RiverRoadandWesternAvenue(shoporderprepared) WardCircle(shoporderpreparedandimplemented) WisconsinAvenueandJeniferStreet WisconsinAvenueandVanNessStreet WisconsinAvenueandWindomPlace VanNessStreetandInternationalDrive(shoporderprepared)
Whereapplicabletolivabilitygoals,recommendationsfromtheseauditshavebeenincludedinthisstudy.
Final Report
Project Scope
TheDistrictDepartmentofTransportation(DDOT)initiatedthisprojecttoimproveavarietyofsafety problemsandqualityoflifeissuesinthestudyareacausedbyspeeding,aggressivedriving,challenging intersectiongeometry,deficientinfrastructure,andmultimodalconflicts.Toaddresstheseissues,theproject team: Developedanactiveprojectwebsite,www.rockcreekwest2livability.com Incorporatedcitywideandlargescaletransportationplanningrecommendationsincludingmanyof theDistrictofColumbiapolicies,plansandmasterplans Integratedsmallscaleplanningworkincludingvariousneighborhoodstudiesthathavebeen conductedinthestudyarea HeldthreepublicmeetingsandnumerousTaskForcemeetingswithacommunitystakeholdergroup, gainingvaluableinputintotheprojectissuesandpotentialimpactofrecommendations Conductedandanalyzedanonlinesurveywithexcellentparticipation,whichletDDOTknowhow residentsperceivethelivabilityoftheirstreets,andthelocationofspecificissues Identifiedstudyareahotspotsbasedonpubliccomments,fieldvisits,anddataresearch DevelopedanewstreetclassificationsystemforRCW2,definingthecontextandcharacterof individualstreetsanddeterminingwhatfunctioneachstreetservesinthegreaternetwork Consideredtrafficcalmingtoolsandtechniquestoimprovelivability,takingintoconsiderationpast applicationsandresults Developedrecommendedsolutionsbasedonthestreetclassification,thenatureoftheissue,and planningandengineeringmethodsandstandards RefinedtherecommendationsbasedoninternalDDOTcoordinationandpubliccomments
Figure 2: Screen shot from project website
Final Report
10
Existing Conditions
Neighborhoods
Thestudyareaconsistsoffourneighborhoodsdividedbytwomainnorthsoutharterials,Connecticut AvenueandWisconsinAvenue.Threeoftheseneighborhoodsarecenteredaroundintensecommercial developmentatMetrorailstations,andallfourconsistprimarilyofsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopment. ChevyChase,thenorthernmostneighborhoodinthestudyarea,isborderedbyConnecticutAvenuetothe west,RockCreekParktotheeast,theMarylandbordertothenorth,andNebraskaAvenuetothesouth.The commercialcorridorofChevyChaseextendsalongConnecticutAvenuefromtheMarylandborderto LivingstonStreet.Outsideofthatcommercialcenter,theneighborhoodconsistsmostlyofsinglefamily detachedhousesandsmallparks.SeveralchurchesarelocatedinChevyChase,andtheLafayetteElementary SchoolislocatedjustoutsideofthestudyareaatNorthamptonStreetandBroadBranchRoad. SeveralblockstothesouthofChevyChaseliestheneighborhoodofForestHills.Thisneighborhoodislocated betweenConnecticutAvenueandRockCreekParkandconsistsofsinglefamilyresidentialdevelopmentand aconcentrationofcommercialdevelopmentalongConnecticutAvenue.Twomajorinstitutionalusesare locatedinForestHills:theUniversityoftheDistrictofColumbia(UDC),apublicuniversityserving5,000 students,locatedneartheintersectionofVanNessStreetandConnecticutAvenue,andHowardUniversity SchoolofLaw,serving500lawstudents,locatedacrossConnecticutAvenuefromUDC.Thesetwoinstitutions andtheVanNessUDCMetrorailstationarethecenterofthecommercialcorridoroftheForestHills neighborhood.
Figure 3: 41st Street in the Friendship Heights neighborhood 11 Final Report

TheFriendshipHeightsneighborhoodiscenteredalongWisconsinAvenue,extendingfromtheMaryland bordersouthtoFessendenStreet.FriendshipHeightsischaracterizedbyintensecommercialdevelopment neartheborderwithMarylandandmediumdensityresidentialdevelopmentthroughouttheneighborhood. SeveralcorporateheadquartersarelocatedinFriendshipHeights,andhighendboutiquesanddepartment storesarelocatedinthisareaalongWisconsinAvenue.TheFriendshipHeightsMetrorailstationislocatedat JeniferStreetandWisconsinAvenue. Severalblockstothesouth,Tenleytownisalargeneighborhoodconsistingofsinglefamilyresidential development,acommercialcorridor,severalschools,alargepark,andamajoruniversity.Thecommercial heartofTenleytownislocatedattheTenleytownMetrorailstation,atWisconsinAvenueandAlbemarle Street.Severalpublicschoolsarelocatednearthisintersection:WoodrowWilsonHighSchooloneblockto theeast,DealMiddleSchooltwoblockstothenortheast,andJanneyElementarySchooloneblocktothewest. AmericanUniversity,amajoruniversityservingnearly10,000students,islocatedon84acresapproximately 5blockstothesouthwestoftheMetrostation.FortReno,alargeurbanparkownedbytheNationalPark Serviceandhostsapopularsummerconcertseries,islocatedapproximatelyoneblocknortheastoftheMetro station.
Transportation Network
Street Network
Thestudyareaincludesarobustnetworkofalltypesofstreets.DDOTclassifiesstreetsintoasetofsub systemsbasedonthewayeachisused,orintendedtobeused.Becausethisapproachdefinesroadwaysin termsofhowtheyrelatetothesurroundingnetwork,itaimstopromoteefficiencyandappropriateuseofall streets.Figure4showstheRCW2streetnetwork. Existing Functional Classifications Functionalclassificationreferstoaprocessbywhichroadwaysareclassifiedintoasetofsubsystemsbased onthewayeachroadwayisused.Centraltothisprocessisanunderstandingthattravelrarelyinvolves movementalongasingleroadway.Rather,eachtriporsubtripinitiatesatalanduse,proceedsthrougha sequenceofstreets,roadsandhighways,andterminatesatasecondlanduse. Thehighwayclassificationprocessisrequiredbyfederallaw.Eachstatemustassignroadwaysintodifferent classesinaccordancewithstandardsandproceduresestablishedbytheFederalHighwayAdministration. DDOTpreviouslyadoptedaFunctionalStreetClassificationPlanbasedontrafficvolumes,landuse,and expectedgrowth.Thefivefunctionalhighwaysystemsidentifiedare: Freeways Principalarterials Minorarterials Collectorstreets Localstreets
Final Report
12
Figure 4: Study Area Functional Classifications
13
Final Report

Tomaximizemobilityandaccess,trafficissupposedtomoveinaprogressionthroughthehierarchyof streets:localtocollectortoarterialtofreeway,andbackdownthehierarchybetweentheoriginand destinationofatrip. Arterialsprovidethehighestlevelofserviceatthegreatestspeedforthelongestuninterrupteddistance, withsomedegreeofaccesscontrol.Arterialsconductvehiculartrafficbetweencollectorsandfreeways. Collectorsprovidealesshighlydevelopedlevelofserviceatalowerspeedforshorterdistancesbycollecting trafficfromlocalroadsandconnectingthemwitharterials.Collectorsconductvehiculartrafficbetweenlocal andarterialstreets. Localroadsconsistofallroadsnotdefinedasarterialsorcollectors;primarilyprovidesaccesstolandwith littleornothroughmovement. MostofthestreetsinRCW2functionasintended.TheprincipalarterialsofConnecticut,Wisconsin, Massachusetts,andNebraskaAvenuescarrythemostvehiclesandmuchofthetrafficmovesthroughthe studyareaandbeyond.Thesearetypicallythewideststreets,withtwotravellanesandtwovariable parking/travellanes(duringrushhours),whereaslocalstreetsandcollectorsarethemostnarrowwithtwo travellanesandtwoparkinglanes. Traffic Volumes Manyofthestreetsinthestudyareacarryhighvolumesofcars.Whiletherearenofreewaysorexpressways inthestudyarea,thereareseveralprincipalarterials:MassachusettsAvenue,WisconsinAvenue,and ConnecticutAvenueasnorthwestsoutheastconnectorsandNebraskaAvenueasasouthwestnortheast connector.ThesestreetsaredirectroutestotheemploymentcentersindowntownWashington,andmany carryheavycommutertrafficduringpeakperiods.MinorarterialsincludeRenoRoadandRiverRoad,bothof whichprovidenorthwestsoutheastconnections.Collectorstreetsinthestudyareaarewellspacedand connectbotheastwestandnorthsouth. AccordingtoDDOTs2008trafficcounts,ConnecticutAvenuecarriestheheaviestvolumesinthestudyarea (38,500annualaveragedailytraffic).WisconsinAvenue(31,100AADT),MassachusettsAvenue(24,600 AADT)andNebraskaAvenue(17,000AADT)arealsohighvolumestreets.MinorarterialsRenoRoad (28,500AADT)andRiverRoad(13,500AADT)alsoexperiencehightrafficvolumes.VanNessStreet(11,100 AADT)andAlbemarleStreet(6,500AADT)arethebusiestcollectorstreetsinthestudyarea.SeetheAADT countsinFigure5fortheentirestudyarea.
Final Report
14
Figure 5: Traffic Volumes in the Study Area
15
Final Report
Rock Creek West II Livability Study Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

TheRockCreekWeststudyareahasastrongpedestriannetwork,consistingofsidewalksandcrosswalks, manywithpedestriancountdownsignals.ThesidewalknetworkcanbeseeninFigure6.Thecommercial corridorsinthestudyareaalongConnecticutAvenueandWisconsinAvenuehavewidesidewalksandample pedestrianamenities.Manylocalresidentialstreetsalsohaveaconnectedsidewalknetwork,thoughsome gapsremain.Streetswithmissingsidewalksinclude: 42ndStreetNW,betweenVanNessStreetandYumaStreet NorthsideofVanNessStreetNW,from47thStreetto42ndStreet ButterworthPlaceNW,fromWestmorelandCircleto45thStreet NorthsideofFessendenStreetNW,from41 stStreetto39thStreet NorthsideofEllicottStreetNW,from47thStreetto45thStreet NorthsideofAlbemarleStreetNW,from49thStreetto45thStreet AltonStreetNW,from49thStreetto45thStreet 47thStreetNWand48thStreetNW,fromWarrenStreettoBrandywineStreet
SidewalkrequestshavealsobeensubmittedtoDDOTbyresidents.Alistoftheserequestscanbefoundin AppendixA,alongwithalistofthesidewalksundercontracttobebuiltby2011. Thereisalsoaconnectednetworkofbicycleroutesinthearea,alsoshowninFigure6.Whilenoseparatedor onstreetbicyclefacilitiesortrailsexistinthestudyarea,therearemanysignedbicycleroutes.Nebraska Avenue,MassachusettsAvenue,RiverRoad,AlbemarleStreet,andFessendenStreetarethemostextensive signedbicycleroutesinthestudyarea,andtogethertheyprovideafarreachingnetworkofbicycleroutes. BicyclingispopularinthestudyareabecauseoftheproximitytoRockCreekPark,whichoffersanexcellent networkoftrailsandweekendcarfreeroadsforcyclists.
Final Report
16
Figure 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
17
Final Report
Rock Creek West II Livability Study Transit Service

ThestudyareaiswellservedbyMetrorailandMetrobus.OfthethreeMetrorailstationsinthestudyarea, FriendshipHeightsisthebusieststation,with9,696averageweekdayboardings(accordingtoWMATAs 6/18/09MetrorailAverageWeekdayPassengerBoardings).TheTenleytown(7,290averageweekday boardings)andVanNessUDC(7,276averageweekdayboardings)stationsarealsobusystations. Metrobusservesthearea,withseveralroutesalongtheprincipalarterials:WisconsinAvenue,Connecticut Avenue,NebraskaAvenue,andMassachusettsAvenue.CollectorstreetslikeMcKinleyStreetandVanNess Streetarealsobusroutes.BusesalsorunalongthelocalYumaStreetfromeasttowest.SeeFigure7for WMATAsbusroutemapinthestudyarea. TheMetrorailstationsserveasmajorMetrobustransferpoints.Otherimportanttransferpointsinclude ChevyChaseCircleandtheintersectionsofConnecticutAvenuewithNebraskaAvenueandMcKinleyStreet.
Figure 7: Study Area Transit Options

Final Report 18
Traffic Safety
DatafromDDOTrecordingthenumberofvehicularcollisionsbetween2007and2009wasaggregatedto showthestudyareaintersectionswithsafetyissues.TheresultingdataisshowninTable2.Thesefigures werenotnormalizedbytrafficvolume,somanyoftheintersectionswithlargenumbersofcollisionsare locatedonhightrafficroadslikeConnecticutAvenueandWisconsinAvenue. Theintersectionswiththemostcollisionsoverthethreeyeartimeperiodwerelocatedinareasofhigh traffic.Fourteenofthetop15intersectionswerelocatedalongthetwobusiestroadsinthestudyarea, ConnecticutAvenueandWisconsinAvenue.WardCircle,theintersectionwiththemostcollisionsduringthe threeyearperiod,islocatedattheintersectionoftwoprincipalarterials,MassachusettsAvenueand NebraskaAvenue.
Table 2: Traffic Collisions by Intersection, 2007-2009 Total Collisions, 2007-2009 80 56 45 35 35 32 32 32 32 31 29 28 26 24 23 23
Rank 1 2 3 4 4 6 6 6 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 15
Intersection Ward Circle Chevy Chase Circle Connecticut Ave & Nebraska Ave Connecticut Ave & Van Ness Street Western Ave & Wisconsin Ave Connecticut Ave & Yuma Street Wisconsin Ave & Van Ness Street Connecticut Ave & Veazey Terrace Wisconsin Ave & Jenifer Street Wisconsin Ave & Albemarle Street Connecticut Ave & Military Road Wisconsin Ave & Fessenden Street Connecticut Ave & Fessenden Street Connecticut Ave & Albemarle Street Wisconsin Ave & Brandywine Street Tenley Circle
19
Final Report

Pedestriancollisiondatawasalsorecordedforthethreeyearperiod.Theintersectionswithrecorded incidentsofpedestriancollisionswithvehiclesareshowninFigure8asstars.Duringthe20072009 timeframe,therewerefourfatalpedestriancollisionsinthestudyarea:atConnecticut&FessendenStreet,at Connecticut&EllicottStreet,atConnecticut&LegationStreet,andatConnecticut&NebraskaAvenue.The intersectionswithmorethanonepedestriancollisionoverthethreeyearperiodarelistedinTable3. Manyoftheintersectionswithhighratesofpedestriancollisionsarelocatedinareaswithmanypedestrians, suchasFriendshipHeightsandTenleytown;therefore,theseintersectionsmaynotnecessarilybedangerous orpoorlydesigned,butthelargenumbersofpedestriansmayinflatethecrashratefortheseintersections.
Table 3: Collisions Involving Pedestrians by Intersection, 2007-2009 Intersection Pedestrian Collisions, 2007-2009 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Wisconsin Ave & Jenifer Street Wisconsin Ave & Fessenden Street Wisconsin Ave & Western Avenue Connecticut Ave & Legation Street Connecticut Ave & Nebraska Avenue Connecticut Ave & Van Ness Street Connecticut Ave & Veazey Terrace Wisconsin Ave & River Road Connecticut Ave Northampton Street Military Road & 43rd Street Nebraska Ave & Van Ness Street Ward Circle Wisconsin Ave & Veazey Street Wisconsin Ave & Warren Street
Final Report
20
Figure 8: Traffic Collisions in RCW2
21
Final Report
Community Perceptions
DDOTsurveyedresidentsoftheRCW2areaabouttheirconcernswithstudyareaintersections.Anonline surveywasavailablefromJune14toJuly9.Thesurveyaskedresidentswheretheylived,whattheylikedand didnotlikeabouttheirstreets,andwhatintersectionsinthestudyareaconcernedthem.Figure9showsthe locationofintersectionsthatreceivedatleastonecommentthroughthissurvey.Respondentsmadeatotalof 1,082commentsabout176intersectionsinthestudyareathroughtheonlinesurvey.Thefulltextofthe surveyispresentedinAppendixA. Surveyrespondentscouldchoosefromanumberofconcernsinthestudyarea,rangingfromaggressive drivingtoinadequateinfrastructure.AsseeninFigure10,motoristspeedingwasthemostfrequentcomment madeaboutanintersection.Infact,thetopthreemostfrequentconcernshadtodowithaggressivedriving: motoristsspeeding,motoristsrunningredlightsorstopsigns,andmotoristsfailingtoyieldatintersections.
Final Report
22
Figure 9: Intersections Receiving One or More Comments from Online Survey
23
Final Report
Rock C Creek West II Livability S Study
destriansillegally Ped cros ssingatmidblo ock locations 5% Pede estrianscrossin ng withoutsignals w 4%
Awkward terand Busshelt intersection/circle relatedfacilities configuration quate inadeq 8% 0% %
Buss shelter inconvenie entlylocated 1% 1
eeding Motoristsspe 27%
Illeg gal/unsafeturn Inadequate ns ecrossing 8% timeatinte ersections 3% % In nadequatecycl ling fa acilities(e.g.bike lanes,bicyclepar rking, etc.) 5% hting Insufficientligh 2% nsufficientsignageor In pavementmar p rkings 5% Missingorpoorly maintainedcrosswalks 3% rpoorly Missingor maintaineds sidewalks ckingthe 4% Motoristsbloc box 2%
Motoristsrunningre ed hts/stopsigns ligh 13% Motoristsfoll lowing tooclosely/tai ilgating 2% ailingto Motoristsfa yieldatinter rsections 10%
Figure 10: Summary o Concerns fro Public Surv of om vey
Theonline esurveyalsoa askedrespond dentsinwhatmodetheirco oncernwasgr reatest.Forex xample,a responden ntcouldsayth hatheorsheh hadaconcernasapedestria aninanareaw withmotoristsfailingtoyie eld,or asacyclistinanareaw withinadequatecyclingfacili ities.Themaj jorityofrespo ondents(64pe ercent)had concernsa aspedestrians s.Anadditional30percenthadconcernsasmotorists,followedby5 5percentof responden ntsconcerned dascyclists,an ndonepercen ntastransitus sers. Thesurveyalsoofferedrespondentsachancetosp pecifyatimeo ofdaywhenth heconcernwa asgreatest.Mo ost responden nts(81percen nt)saidthatth heirconcernw wasapplicable eatalltimes.E Elevenpercen ntsaidtheir concernw wasapplicableduringthemorningrushh hour,andthree epercentsaid dtheirconcern nwasapplicab ble duringthe eafternoonru ushhour.Twopercenthadc concernslater rintheevenin ng.Allothertim mesreceivedless thanonep percentofthetotalresponses. Figure11showstheint tersectionsinthestudyarea athatreceived dthegreatest tnumberofco omments,and Table4identifiesthein Thetwotraff ntersectionsw withfifteenorm morecommen ntsfromtheonlinesurvey. fic circlesint thestudyarea a,WardCircleandChevyCh haseCircle,rec ceivedthelarg gestnumbero ofcomments.The intersectio onoftwoprin ncipalarterials s,Connecticut tAvenueandN NebraskaAvenue,receivedthethirdhigh hest
Final Repo ort 24

numberofcomments,andtheintersectionof42ndStreetandAlbemarleStreet,inaresidentialneighborhood adjacenttoJanneyElementarySchool,receivedthefourthhighestnumberofcomments.
Table 4: Intersections with Most Comments from Online Survey Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 Intersection Ward Circle Chevy Chase Circle Connecticut Ave & Nebraska Avenue 42nd Street & Albemarle Street Connecticut Ave & Morrison Street Wisconsin Ave & Jenifer Street Wisconsin Ave & Albemarle Street Nebraska Ave & Broad Branch Road & Military Road Connecticut Ave & Van Ness Street Connecticut Ave & Davenport Street Reno Road & Van Ness Street Connecticut Ave & Fessenden Street Connecticut Ave & McKinley Street Connecticut Ave & Albemarle Street Wisconsin Ave & Western Avenue 42nd Street & Brandywine Street Total Comments 73 62 52 33 28 24 24 23 Most Frequent Comment Awkward intersection Awkward intersection Motorists speeding Motorists speeding Motorists speeding Pedestrians crossing mid-block Motorists running red lights Illegal/unsafe turns
9 10 10 12 13 14 15 15
22 20 20 18 17 16 15 15
Motorists failing to yield, speeding Motorists speeding Motorists speeding Motorists running red lights Motorists speeding Inadequate crossing time Pedestrians crossing mid-block Awkward intersection
WhiletheintersectionswithmorethanthreeconcernsarestillprimarilyfocusedonConnecticutAvenueand WisconsinAvenue,asinthetrafficcollisionsanalysis,manyofthecommentsfocusedonneighborhood streetsaswell.ClustersofcommentsareevidentinTenleytownalong42ndStreetand43rdStreet,inForest HillsalongVanNessStreet,inFriendshipHeightsalongMilitaryRoadandLivingstonStreet,andinChevy ChasealongNevadaAvenue.Theseclusters,overlaidwiththetrafficcollisiondata,helpedtodefinethefocus areasforfurtherstudy.
25
Final Report
Figure 11: Intersections with Four or More Comments from Online Survey
Final Report
26
Network Analysis
Newproposedstreetclassifications,toguidefutureimprovements Anidentificationoflivabilitygaps,orhotspots,andarefinedlistofareasoffocus,forwhichspecific recommendationsaremade
ThisstudyincludedanetworklevelanalysisofthestreetsinRockCreekWestII(RCW2),whichproduced twoelements:
New Street Classifications

TheRCW2Studyexpandsontraditionalfunctionalclassifications,asdescribedinSection2,anddevelops streettypes,showninFigure13.Thesestreettypeswerecreatedtoincorporatelanduseintotransportation functions(asappliedtoarterials),tosimplifyclassifications(minorandprincipalarterialsweremadeone category),andtoincludeatypologythatprioritizesbicycles.Thenewstreettypesalsobettercharacterize streets,asdescribedbelow,allowingforthecreationofsystemwiderecommendationsdiscussedinSection 4.Thesetypesarecompatiblewithfunctionalclassifications.
Local Street
Alocalstreetprovidesaccesswithinneighborhoods.Localstreetsalsoconnectresidentialareaswithschools andothercommunityuses.Thesestreetsaretypicallynarrow(30feetwide),haveonstreetparking,street trees,sidewalks,andnolanemarkings.Localstreetsareoftenstopsigncontrolledatfourlegged intersections,andsignalcontrolledatveryfewmajorintersections. Localstreetsshouldbelowspeedandlowvolume,providingacomfortableenvironmentforthemost vulnerableusers.Livabilitytreatments,includingtrafficcalmingmeasures,areveryappropriateforlocal streets.
Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycleboulevardsaresharedroadwayswithbicycle priority.Typicallyoverlappingwithlocalstreetsand sometimescollectorstreets,theseroutescarryalow volumeofvehiclestravelingatlowspeeds.Bicycle boulevardsshouldhavesmoothpavement,gradual slopes,narrowcrosssections,andstreettrees.These streetsshouldprovidedirectconnectionsto destinationsandotherbicyclefacilities.
Figure 12: Portland Bike Boulevard
(Flickr Creative Commons)
27
Final Report
Figure 13: Proposed Street Classifications
Final Report
28
Collector Street
Collectorstreetsprovideaccessbetweenneighborhoodsandfromneighborhoodstosomecommunity destinations.Theyspanlongerdistancesthanlocalstreets,typicallyprovidingacontinuousconnection throughacollectionofneighborhoods.Collectorsaretypicallynarrow(between30and36feetwide),two lanes,haveonstreetparking,streettrees,sidewalks,andcenterlines.Vehiculartravelisemphasizedmoreon collectorsthanlocalstreets,sowherethetwointersect,thelocalstreetwouldtypicallybestopsigned controlled.Theintersectionbetweencollectorsandmajorstreetsistypicallysignalized. Thoughcollectorsprovideaconnectionacrossneighborhoodsandbetweenlocalstreetsandarterials,they shouldbelowspeedandsafeforallusers.Mostcollectorstravelthroughresidentialareas,butthereare somecommercialsegments.Becauseofthis,collectorsshouldemphasizespeedlimitcomplianceandsafe travel.
Arterial Street
Thesestreetsprovidethehighestlevelofvehicularserviceatthegreatestspeedforthelongestuninterrupted distance.Arterialsmovevehiculartrafficbetweencollectorsandfreeways.Thiscategoryincludesboth principalandminorarterials,sincethetwoaresimilarwithregardstotheircontextinalivablecommunity. Arterialstreetsaretypicallybetweenfourandsixlaneswide,eitherdividedorundivided,withlarge setbacks,andmostcarrybustraffic.Manyareevacuationroutesandtruckroutes.Arterialstreetsemphasize vehiculartravel,butshouldincludepedestrianfacilitiesandanattractivestreetscapesothatallmodescan travelsafelyandeasily.Thetwotypesofarterialsandtheirpotentiallivabilitytreatmentsaredescribed below. Residential Arterial Thesepassthroughresidentialareas,andaretypicallymediumorhighindensity.AnexampleisNebraska AvenueNWasthelargeamountofpedestriantrafficmeansthatlivabilitytreatmentsshouldbalancethe operationalpriorityofvehicleswiththesafetypriorityforallusers. Commercial Arterial Themostcommontypeofarterial,commercialarterialspassthroughcommercialormixeduseareas. WisconsinAvenueNWisanexampleasthesestreetsseeamixofhighpedestrianvolumesandvehicles travelingthroughorintoparkinglotsorgarages.
29
Final Report
Screening of Hot Spots

Inordertomovefromsystemwideanalysisandrecommendationstodiscrete,spotissuesand recommendations,theprojectteamscreenedvariousdatasources. DDOTfirstidentifiedlocationsinRCW2withlivabilitygaps.Theselocations,calledhotspots,wereidentified basedon: Publiccomments.Thisprojecthasheavilyreliedoncommunityfeedback,infourforms: o CommentsreceivedattheJune16,2010publicmeeting.WorkingsessionsforANC3E,3F, and3Gprovidedawealthofinformationaboutstudyareaissues. o CommentssenttoDDOTviaemailortheprojectwebsite. o CommentsreceivedfromtheprojectTaskForce,whichincludesANC,MPD,andpublic schoolrepresentation. o Responsestotheonlinesurvey,conductedinJuneandJuly2010.DDOTreceivednearly400 responsestothesurvey,whichprovidedresponderswithanopportunitytodocumenta varietyoftransportationissueswithspecificstreetsandintersections. Existingconditionsmappingincludingstreetclassifications,majordestinations,transitfacilities, bicycleandpedestrianfacilities,andcollisiondata.
Thetwomainsourcesoflivabilitygapswerecombinedtoidentifyhotspots.DDOTfocusedoncollisiondata, sincesafetyisoneoftheDepartmentstoppriorities,andpubliccomments,sinceperceptionsabout transportationissuesarecriticaltolivability.Figure14showsthesetwocombineddatasources.
Final Report
30
Figure 14: Study Area Hot Spots
31
Final Report
Focus Areas
WiththeRCW2hotspotsidentified,DDOTidentifiedcorridorsandintersectionsforfurtherstudyand specificimprovementrecommendations.Theselocationsaresimilartothehotspots,butwithanemphasis onlocalandcollectorstreets.Additionally,awindshieldsurveyofeverystreetinRCW2wasusedtoprioritize somelocationsaboveothers.Thissurveyidentifiedmajortransportationfacilityissues. Whilecollisiondataandpubliccommentsrevealissuesonthemajorarterials,suchasConnecticutand WisconsinAvenues,thesestreetshaveoftenbeenthesubjectsofpreviousstudy.Additionally,localstreets canbenefitmostfromlivabilityandtrafficcalmingimprovements,astheirlowertrafficvolumesandminor roleinthetransportationsystemmakethemsuitableformoresubstantialtreatments.Thesestreets,along withcollectors,connectandhouseresidences,schools,andothercommunityfacilities,makingthemkey playersinlivability. LocalstreetswiththemostcommentsandcollisionswereincludedintheAreasofFocus,aswerecollector streetswithsimilarqualities.Thevastmajorityofthelocalandcollectorstreetsidentifiedhaveneverbeen studiedbefore,atleastnotinthelastfiveto10years.Highaccidentandhighcommentarterialswerealso included,butthosethatwererecentlystudiedwereexcluded. TheAreasofFocusareshowninFigure15,andsummarizedinTable5.
Final Report
32
Figure 15: Study Focus Areas
33
Final Report

Table 5: Areas of Focus and Their Characteristics Total Crashes, 2007-2009 7
Corridor 43rd St NW
From Van Ness St
To River Road
Total Comments 39
Most Frequent Comments Motorists Speeding
Pedestrian Crashes 1
Functional Classification Local
Brandywine St NW
45th St
40th St
36
Motorists Speeding, Motorists Running Stop Signs/Lights, Motorists Failing to Yield Motorists Speeding
29
Local
Davenport St NW
Nebraska Ave
Connecticut Ave
24
22
Local
Garrison St NW
44th St
39th St
22
Illegal/Unsafe Turns, Motorists Failing to Yield, Motorists Speeding Awkward Intersections, Motorists Failing to Yield
Local
36th St NW
Chesapeake St
Fessenden St
20
Local
Northampton St NW
Connecticut Ave
Broad Branch Rd
19
Motorists Speeding, Pedestrians Crossing Without Signals, Motorists Failing to Yield Pedestrians Crossing Without Signals, Motorists Failing to Yield
15
Local
41st St NW
Livingston St
Harrison St
19
14
Local
Final Report
34

Total Crashes, 2007-2009 16
Corridor Fort Drive & 40th St NW
From Albemarle St
To Chesapeake St
Total Comments 8
Most Frequent Comments Awkward Intersections
Functional Classification Local
Albemarle St NW
43rd St
Reno Road
82
Motorists Failing to Yield, Motorists Running Stop Signs/Lights, Motorists Speeding
61
Collector
Van Ness St NW
Wisconsin Ave
Reno Road
73
Motorists Speeding, Motorists Failing to Yield
50
Collector
42nd St NW
Van Ness St
River Road
68
Motorists Speeding, Motorists Running Stop Signs/Lights, Motorists Failing to Yield Motorists Speeding, Motorists Failing to Yield
20
Collector
Nevada Ave NW
Nebraska Ave
Morrison St
29
21
Collector
River Road NW
Western Ave
Wisconsin Ave
66
Awkward Intersections, Motorists Speeding
44
Minor Arterial
Western Ave NW
47th St
Livingston St
41
Pedestrians Illegally Crossing Mid-Block, Awkward Intersections
67
10
Minor Arterial
35
Final Report

Total Crashes, 2007-2009 80
Corridor Ward Circle
From N/A
To N/A
Total Comments 70 (survey)
Most Frequent Comments Aggressive driving, unsafe pedestrian behavior, infrastructure deficiencies Aggressive driving, infrastructure deficiencies
Functional Classification N/A
Chevy Chase Circle
N/A
N/A
60 (survey)
56
N/A
Final Report
36
Rock Cre West II Livability Stu eek L udy
Recom R mmend dations s
Aprimary yfocusofthisstudywastoa applysystema atic,bigpictu ureplanningt totheRockCr reekWestII (RCW2)ar rea.Therefore e,thisstudygo oesbeyondre ecommendatio onsfordiscret te,spotlivabil lityimprovem ments atspecific careasoffocus s,anddevelop pssystemreco ommendation nswithbroada applicabilitya acrossthestud dy area.Both hlevelsofreco ommendations sarediscusse edinthissection.
System Recommen ndations

Becauseofthesizeofth heRCW2area, ,itwasneithe erpossiblenor rdesirabletoaddressalliss suelocationsin thisstudy.Bydevelopin ngsystemreco ommendation ns,commonpr rincipalsandm methodswere eidentifiedwh hich canbeuse edasaguidef foruniformity yacrossthestu udyareainev valuatingandd developingrecommendatio onson futurepro ojects.Theses systemrecommendationsa areintendedto obeguideline es,andweredevelopedwith hthe understan ndingthateach hindividualin ntersectionor rlocationwillhaveuniquec conditionsand dconstraints. Systemrecommendatio onsarepresen ntedbelow,groupedbystre eettype.Them majorityofthe estreetsinthe e RCW2are eaarelocal,residentialstree ets,andthear rterialnetworkhasbeenthe esubjectofm manyprevious studies.Ac ccordingly,thesesystemrecommendatio onshavebeendevelopedwi ithaprimaryfocusonlocal l streets,alt thoughotherc classifications sarealsocons sideredaspre esentedbelow w.
Local Str reets

Localstree etscompriset themajorityo ofthestreetsinRCW2,anda areperfectcandidatesforli ivability improvem mentsduetoth heirresidentia alnature,theirhighlevelof faccess,andth heirpurposeo ofservingsho ort, local,mult timodaltrips.Recommende edlivabilitytreatmentsforl localstreetsa arepresentedintheparagra aphs thatfollow w.
Curb Exte ensions
Eitherloca atedataninte ersectionorin nthemiddleofablock,curb b extensions s(alsoknown nasbumpouts sorneckdow wns)narrowth he roadwayw widthbyappr roximately12feetandreducepedestrian n crossingd distance,ifacr rosswalkisals sopresent.Cu urbextensions scan varyinwidth,butarege enerallysixfe eetwide.Ther rearegeometr ric considerat tionswhenap pplyingcurbe extensionstolocalstreets, includingprovidingade equateturning gradiusatinte ersections,an nd providingproperdraina ageeitherthroughthestorm mdrainsystem mor lowimpac ctdevelopmen nt(LID)treatm ment. Curbexten nsionscaneitherbepaved,vegetatedfor rlandscapingonly, orvegetat tedtoprovidebioretentionofstormwate er(alsocalledgreen curbexten nsions).Paved dcurbextensionsareprefer rredinareasw with highpedestriantraffic,a andcanbeconstructedofv variousmateri ials. Wherepos ssible,greenc curbextension ns,anLIDtrea atment,should dbe consideredtoreducede emandonthestormdrains systemandtotreat andabsorbstormwater rinanatural,e environmenta allyfriendly,a and costeffect tivemanner.
Figur 16: Curb ext re tension examp ple
37
Final R Report

ProposedGreenCurbExtensions Greencurbextensionsarearelativelyrecentadaptationofsustainablepracticestoroadwayengineering. TheyhavenotyetbeeninstalledintheDistrict,andarenotcoveredbyDDOTdesignguidelines.TheCityof Portlandhaspioneeredtheirinstallation,inanotablywetclimate,andhasshownthattheyareeffectivein reducingpeakstormwaterflows.Theyworkbestonstreetswithamoderateslope(oneortwopercent), similartomostoftheRCW2streets.Whenrecommended,greencurbextensionsareinstalledatornearalow pointintheroadwaysothatthewaterwilldraintothem.Thephysicalspecificsofeachlocationwilldictate designdetailssuchasthecurbextensionlengthandthetypesofplantings.Maintenanceisrequiredongreen curbextensionsweedingandsedimentremovalandthefrequencyneededwilldependontheplantings used.Recognizingboththepotentialexpenseofthismaintenanceandthebenefitstothesurrounding community,manyjurisdictionsenlistresidentswholiveneartheLIDfeaturetohelpwithmaintenance. Throughthisproject,DDOTidentifiedseverallocationstoinstallcurbextensionswiththegoalofimproving livabilitybycalmingtraffic.TheselocationsarenotedintheFocusAreaRecommendationspartofSection4. Fromthisgroupoflocations,manyappeartobesuitableforstormwatermanagementtreatmentsbasedon thebestpracticesnotedinthepreviousparagraph.BasedonDCGISelevationdataandaerialimagery showingcurbinlets,DDOTshouldadvancethedesignofgreencurbextensionsatthefollowinglocations,also showninFigure17: 43rdandChesapeakeStreets(southernlegof43rdStreet) 43rdandAlbemarleStreets(allcorners) 43rdandVanNessStreets(northernlegof43rdStreet) Brandywineand42ndStreets(westernlegofBrandywineStreet) Brandywineand46thStreets(bothlegsofBrandywineStreet) DavenportStreetandConnecticutAvenue(bothlegsofDavenportStreet) DavenportStreetandRenoRoad(bothlegsofDavenportStreet) RiverRoadand44thStreet(allcorners)
Final Report
38
Figure 17: Proposed Green Curb Extensions
39
Final Report

Gateway Treatments Gatewaytreatmentsarephysicaladditionstoanintersectionorsegmentofroadwaythatgiveidentitytothe placethatliesbeyond.Gatewaytreatmentshavethepotentialtoreinforcetheintendedfunctional classificationofstreets,byencouraginglongertripsonarterials,andreservinglocalstreetsforlowspeed, neighborhoodtrips.Theydothisbyprovidingavisualcuetoroadwayusersthattheyhaveenteredadistinct place.Gatewayscantakemanyformsanarch,landscapingatintersectioncornersoronamedian,special pavingmaterialsontheroadwaysurface,artworkonthepavementitself(sometimescalledroadtattoos), intersectioncurbextensions,etc.buttheyareallaestheticallyorientedandprovideavisualcuethat vehiclesareleavingthearterialandenteringtheneighborhoodstreets.Thisstudyhasfocusedoncurb extensiongatewaysappliedtolocalstreets. CurbExtensionGateways Toaddressthevulnerabilityoflocalstreetstocutthroughtrafficandspeeding,curbextensionsare recommendedforlocalstreetswheretheyintersectwithcollectorsandarterials.Thecurbextensionshave thepotentialtodothreethings: Reducetheturningradiusfromthemoremajorroads,forcingmotoriststoreducetravelspeed. Provideavisualcuetodriversthattheyhaveenteredadistinctplace.Thiswillworkbestifthecurb extensionsarelandscapedwithattractiveplantings,orpavedwithadistinctmaterial. Reducethedistancetocrossthelocalstreetbyapproximately12feet.
Designofcurbextensiongatewayswillneedtoaccommodatetheneedsforaccesstothelocalneighborhood byallpotentialvehicletypes.
Final Report
40

Other Local Street Recommendations Manyothertrafficcalmingmeasuresareappropriateforlocalstreets.Theseinclude: Neighborhoodtrafficcircles,whichworkbestwheninsuccession Chicanes,whichwillforcespeedreductionbyhorizontaldeflection. Speedhumps,raisedcrosswalks,andraisedintersections.PerDDOTpolicy,aspeedstudyand transportationanalysisisrequiredbeforeinstallationoftheseverticaldeflectionmeasures. Exceptionscanbemadewhenthemeasureisadjacenttoaschool. Trafficdiverters,blockingalltrafficorcertainturningmovementsfromthestreet.Atransportation analysisisrecommendedbeforeinstallingthistypeoftreatment,toverifytheissueandassess impacts. Distinctivepavingandstreetscapematerials Onstreetparking.MostlocalstreetsintheDistrictalreadyhaveonstreetparking. Lanenarrowingorroaddiet,whichcanincludeincorporatingabicyclefacilitysuchassharrows,bike lanes,orcycletracks
Foranyindividualstreetorintersection,thechoiceanddesignoflivabilitytreatmentsshouldonlybemade followinganassessmentofthenatureoftheissuestobeaddressed,aswellassitespecificconstraintsand opportunities.
Bicycle Boulevards
ThisstudyrecommendsdesignatingseverallocalroadwaysinRCW2asbicycleboulevards,whichareshared roadwayswithbicyclepriority.Therecommendedrouteswerechosenbecausetheycarryalowvolumeof vehiclestravelingatlowspeeds,theyconnecttodestinationsand/orproposedbicyclefacilities,andtheydid notreceivealargenumberofcomplaintsfromresidents.Inshort,thesestreetsarealreadygoodroutesfor bicyclists.TheproposednetworkisshowninFigure21. TheDistrictdoesnotcurrentlyhaveanybicycleboulevards,andthereforeanentirebrandingand implementationstrategyshouldbedeveloped.Allroutesshouldhaveconsistentanddistinctpavement markingsandwayfindingsigns,moresubstantialthanbicycleroutesigns.Somecorridorsorintersections shouldreceivemoresubstantialtreatmentssuchasbicycleboxesatintersectionsorbicycletrafficsignals. Sitespecificplanninganddesignwillberequiredalongeachboulevardtodeterminewhichmeasuresare mostappropriatetoresultinabicyclefriendly,bicycleprioritystreet.
Figure 18: Berkeley wayfinding (Flickr Creative Commons)
Figure 19: Pavement marking (Flickr Creative Commons)
Figure 20: Bike box (Flickr Creative Commons)
41
Final Report
Figure 21: Proposed Bicycle Boulevards
Final Report
42

Bicycleboulevardsarealsowellsuitedformanylocalstreetlivabilitymeasuressuchascurbextensions, neighborhoodtrafficcircles,speedhumps,raisedcrosswalksorintersections,trafficdiverters,distinctpaving materials,andgatewaytreatments.
Collector Streets
Collectorstreetssharesomecharacteristicswithlocalstreets,asmanyintheDistrictandRCW2aresimilarly narrow,twolaneswide,andhaveonstreetparking.However,theyserveadifferentpurposeinthe transportationnetwork,servingmoretripsforlongerdistances,andsometimesaccommodatingbusroutes andlargevehicles.Thesetransportationneedsmaylimittheapplicabilityofsomelivabilityimprovementsto collectors.Recognizingtheselimitations,thefollowinglivabilityimprovementsarerecommendedfor considerationoncollectorstreets: Curbextensions,eithergreenorpaved Neighborhoodtrafficcircles.Ifemergencyvehiclesneedtotraveltheseroutes,mountablecurbsmay berequired. Bicyclesharrows,orifspaceallows,abikelaneorcycletrack Gatewaytreatmentssuchasdistinctpavingorlandscapingmaterials,particularlyinschoolareasor areaswithothersignificance Narrowmedians,typicallysixfeetwide Digitalspeedindicatorsigns,placedbelowaspeedlimitsign.Careshouldbetakenwhenplacing thesesigns,asmanycollectorsarealsoresidentialstreets. Speedtables,raisedcrosswalks,andraisedintersections,undercertainconditions.PerDDOTpolicy, aspeedstudyandanalysisisrequiredbeforetheinstallation,andmanycollectorstreetshave operationalrequirementsthatwouldprohibitthesemeasures.Speedhumpsaregenerallynot allowedoncollectors.
Arterial Streets
Opportunitiesforlivabilitytreatmentsonarterialroadwaysaremorelimitedduetotheimportantrolethey serveinthetransportationnetwork.Manyarterialsarebusand/ortruckroutes,andtheyservehighvolumes ofcommutersandneighborhoodresidents.Horizontalandverticaldeflectionmeasures,suchas neighborhoodtrafficcirclesorspeedhumps,cannotbeappliedtoarterialsastheywouldhaveadetrimental impactontrafficandpotentiallysafety.Thereare,however,lowimpacttrafficcalmingmeasuresthatcan establishtheappropriatebalancebetweenpedestriansafety,neighborhoodlivability,andaccommodating trafficflow.Thesearepresentedbelowforthedifferentclassificationsofarterials.
43
Final Report

Residential Arterials Thefollowingtypesoflivabilitytreatmentsarerecommendedforconsiderationalongarterialslinedwith housesorapartmentbuildings: Curbextensions,wherededicatedparkinglanesexist Reducedcurbradiiatintersections,wherepossible Sharrows Bikelanesorcycletrackswherespaceallows Distinctivepavingmaterials Medians
Commercial Arterials Thefollowingtypesoflivabilitytreatmentsarerecommendedforconsiderationonarterialsincommercialor mixeduseuseareas: Curbextensions,wherededicatedparkinglanesexist Bikelanes Distinctivepavingmaterials Medians Highintensityactivatedcrosswalk(HAWK)signals,wherewarranted,activatedwithpedestrian pushbuttons. Midblockpedestriancrossings,ifwarrantedandifsiteconditionsarefavorable Specialtreatmentsatlargecurbcuts,suchascrosswalksorspecialpavingtomaintainthesidewalk pathandenhancethepedestrianenvironment
Aspreviouslystated,thesesystemrecommendationsareguidelines.Livabilityimprovementsonanytypeof streetshouldbeevaluatedandappliedonacasebycasebasis.
Final Report
44
Focus Area Recommendations

Theareasoffocusledtoadditionaldatacollectionandanalysisatsomelocations,whichresultedin recommendationsforstreetsandintersectionswithinthestudyarea.Thefinalrecommendationsare presentedinthesectionsthatfollow.AppendixDincludesatablewithboththeinitialrecommendations madeinOctober2010aswellasthefinalrecommendations,whichtakesintoaccounttheinitialresponse fromthepublicandanyadditionalinput.Expectedimpacts,whichincludetraffic,pedestrian,andsafety considerations,arelistedforeachlocation.
Chevy Chase
ManyofthecommentsfortheChevyChaseneighborhoodfocusedonthecircleitselfandcutthroughtraffic onneighborhoodstreets.Motoristsspeedingandfailingtoyieldwerethemaintwoconcernsinthe neighborhood,andtheconflictbetweenspeedingvehiclesandpedestrianswasacentralissueforresidents. Therefore,manyoftherecommendationsfortheChevyChaseCirclearefocusedonenhancingpedestrian visibilityandsafety,whileclarifyingandcalmingtrafficthroughouttheneighborhood.Figure22showsall recommendations.
45
Final Report
Figure 22: Chevy Chase Recommendations
Final Report
46

Chevy Chase Circle Comments:62 Issues TheawkwardconfigurationofChevyChaseCircle presentsmanyconflicts,includingmotorists failingtoyieldandmotoristsspeeding.Thisisat leastinpartcausedbytheconfusingnatureofthe circle,includingthefactthatitisnotsignalized, yetitisnotdesignedlikeamodernroundabout whichforcesyieldingbyitsgeometry.Foracircle ofitssize,boththediagrammaticsigns approachingthecircleandthestreetsignsateach legaretoosmall.Finally,thetwocrosswalksthat leadintothecenterofthecircleareunsignalized andthusunprotected.
Figure 23: Pedestrians Crossing Chevy Chase Circle ChevyChaseCirclehasbeenthesubjectof previousDDOTrecommendations.In2002,DDOT developedsignaldesignplansfortheWesternAvenueNWapproaches.Theplanwasneverimplementeddue tolackofcommunitysupport.
FinalRecommendations Shortterm(seeFigure24): o TotheConnecticutAvenueapproaches,addclear,diagrammaticadvancedsignage explainingcircleexits.Suchsignswillbelarge,approximately8x8,althoughfinal designmaychangethis. o Addnewpedestrianandcrosswalkwarningsigns o Provideoverheadstreetnamesignsateachcirclelegwith12letteringcomplyingwith theMUTCD. Longterm(seeAppendixCfordetails).ThepreviousDDOTplanwasanalyzedtodetermineits effectivenessinsolvingtheidentifiedissues.ResultsshowthatsignalizingWesternAvenueas wellastheexistingcrosswalksintothecirclecouldimprovetrafficconditionsforthefollowing approaches:ConnecticutAvenue(northleg),WesternAvenue(eastandwestlegs),andChevy ChaseParkway(westleg).Fullsignalizationofthecircle,witheveryapproachsignalized,was alsoanalyzed,butinitialresultsshowedunfavorabletrafficimpactswithlargedelays.Thefinal recommendationsare: o AddtrafficsignalsattheWesternAvenueapproachestothecircle,andcoordinatethese withtheexistingOliverStNWsignal o Signalizetheexistingcrosswalksleadingintothecircle ExpectedImpacts Shortterm:Thediagrammaticsignageandnewstreetsignsareexpectedtoreduceweavingand vehiclecollisionsinthecircle.Thepedestrianwarningsignsareexpectedtoincreasedriver awarenessofpedestrians,andincreasepedestriansafety. Longterm:Trafficsignalizationoftwolegsisexpectedtoprovidemoreefficienttrafficflowby reducingpeakhourdelaysfortheConnecticutAvenueandWesternAvenueapproachestothe
Final Report
47

circle.Thereconfigurationisalsoexpectedtoimprovepedestriansafetybyprovidingprotected pedestriancrossings,andimproveandvehiclesafetybyreducingweavingandmerging movementsatWesternAvenue.AppendixCincludesamemorandumthatdetailstheexpected impactsofthischange.
Figure 24: Chevy Chase Circle Short-Term Recommendations
Final Report
48

Connecticut Avenue & Northampton Street Comments:13 Issues SurveyrespondentsreportedthattheintersectionofConnecticutAvenueandNorthamptonStreetwasthe siteofaggressivedrivingandmotoristsspeeding.AveryhighvolumeofpedestrianscrossConnecticut Avenue,amajorarterial,atthisintersection,andthereisnotrafficsignalforprotection.Currently,DDOT providesorangeflagsateachendofthecrosswalkforpedestrianstocarryacross,toincreasevisibility.A peakhourpedestriancountshowed127pedestriansperhourcrossingConnecticutAvenue,with approximatelyhalfofthemusingflags.DetailsaboutthepedestriancrossingsareinAppendixC. FinalRecommendations AddpavedcurbextensiontothesoutheasternNorthamptonStreetapproach. AddaHighintensityActivatedcrosswalk(HAWK)signaltothesouthernlegoftheintersection. Thesignalwillonlybeactivatedwhenpedestrianspushthebuttonsprovidedateachendofthe crosswalk. ExpectedImpacts AddingcurbextensionswillreducethespeedofvehicleturningontoNorthamptonbynarrowing theroadwayandreducingturningradii.Thiswillcreateagatewayeffectfromanarterialtoa localstreet.TheywillalsoreducethepedestriancrossingdistanceacrossNorthampton. TheadditionofaHAWKsignalwillprovideaprotectedpedestriancrossingandimprove pedestriansafety.
41st Street and Livingston Street Comments:11 Issues Accordingtothesurvey,amajorconcernat41stStreetandLivingstonStreetwaspedestrianscrossing withoutsignals.Thesignalcyclelengthislong,resultinginpedestrianswaitingasmuchas1.5minutesor moretocross,whichmaycontributetojaywalking.Longercyclelengthsaretypicallynotpedestrianfriendly orsuitableforurbanareasunlessrequiredbycomplexphasingorheavytrafficvolumes. FinalRecommendation Reducetrafficsignalcyclelengthfrom100to50seconds. ExpectedImpacts Pedestrianswillhavemuchshorterwaitsforcrossingsignals,whichshouldincreasecompliance withthesignalandthereforeimprovesafety.
49
Final Report

41st Street and Legation Street Comments:1 Issues Thereispoorvisibilityattheintersectionof41 stStreetandLegationStreetduetoshrubsinpublicspace. Accordingtothesurvey,motoristsspeedalong41stStreet,andthoseturningfromLegationStreetfindit difficulttomaketheturn.Theintersectioncurrentlydoesnotmeetthewarrantforanallwaystop.
Figure 25: Sight distance at 41st Street and Legation Street
FinalRecommendation Trimshrubsatthenorthwestandsoutheastcornersoftheintersectiontoimprovevisibility. ExpectedImpacts Trimmingtheshrubswillimprovevisibilityformotoristsapproachingtheintersection,particularlythose approachingfromLegationStreet.
Final Report
50

Nevada Avenue (between Western Avenue and Nebraska Avenue) Comments:29 Issues TheprimarycommentalongNevadaAvenuehadtodowithmotoristsspeeding,particularlynearthe intersectionswithMilitaryRoadandNebraskaAvenue.Fieldinspectionshowedwidetravellanes,which typicallycontributestohighspeeds.Thoughthisisasignedbicycleroute,nopavementmarkingsorspecific bikefacilitiesexist. FinalRecommendations Painta4footwidemedianonNevadaAvenuebetweenMorrisonStreetandNebraskaAvenue.This leaves11footwidetravellanes,consistentwiththe9footparkinglane/11foottravellanesouthof NebraskaAvenue. Painttheexisting7footwideparkinglanesbetweenWesternAvenueandNebraskaAvenue AddbikesharrowstoNevadaAvenueinbothdirections ExpectedImpacts TheadditionofamedianbetweenMorrisonStreetandNebraskaAvenue,andthepaintingofthe parkinglanesthatarealreadythereshouldreducevehiclespeedsbyvisuallynarrowingtheroadway andchannelizingtraffic. TheadditionofbicyclesharrowsinbothdirectionswillalertdriverstobicycletrafficalongNevada Avenue,andpotentiallyleadtoincreasedcyclistvolumesonthisstreet.
Northampton Street and Broad Branch Road Comments:5 Issues Accordingtothesurvey,themajorissuesatNorthamptonStreetandBroadBranchRoadweremotorists speedingandfailingtoyield.BecausethisintersectionisadjacenttoLafayetteElementarySchool,these issuesareofparticularconcern.Highvisibilitycrosswalksarepresentacrossalllegsoftheintersection. FinalRecommendation Addaraisedcrosswalkalongtheeasternlegoftheintersection. ExpectedImpacts Araisedcrosswalkwouldreducevehiclespeedsduetovehicledeflectionandimprovepedestrian visibilityandsafetydirectlyinfrontoftheschool.
51
Final Report
Rock Creek West II Livability Study Friendship Heights

ConcernsinFriendshipHeightsfocusedonthethreearterialsintheneighborhood:WesternAvenue,River Road,andWisconsinAvenue.Manyoftheissuesreportedintheneighborhoodfocusedonpedestriansafety andmotoristsspeedingalongarterials.Therefore,manyoftherecommendationsfortheFriendshipHeights neighborhoodfocusonenhancingpedestriansafetyandvisibility,andslowingtrafficonthearterialsaswell aslocalneighborhoodcutthroughstreets.Figure26showstherecommendations.
Final Report
52
Figure 26: Friendship Heights Recommendations
53
Final Report

Western Avenue and 47th Street Issues Theexistingcrosswalkleadstonosidewalk,forcingpedestriansinto47thStreet. FinalRecommendation Removecrosswalkacross47thStreet.Addahighvisibilitycrosswalkacrosstheeasternlegof WesternAvenue,whichleadstoasidewalk. ExpectedImpacts Theremovaloftheexistingcrosswalkandtheadditionofthenewhighvisibilityonewilldirect pedestrianstotheproperpathsandfacilities,andshouldimprovepedestriansafety.
Western Avenue and River Road Comments:6 Issues UnsafeturnsandanawkwardintersectionwerereportedatWesternAvenueandRiverRoad.Thereisnoted congestionforwestboundtrafficalongRiverRoad. FinalRecommendations Restrictparkingduringthemorningrushhoursforthe4600blockofRiverRoad.Eveningrushhour parkingisalreadyrestricted. AddahighvisibilitycrosswalkattheintersectionofWesternAvenueandRiverRoad,acrossboth legsofWesternAvenue. ExpectedImpacts Therestrictionofrushhourparkingwillprovidemorespaceforvehiclesturningright,reducing congestionatthisintersection. Thehighvisibilitycrosswalkwillalertdriverstopedestriancrossings,encouragepedestriansto crossatcrosswalks,andshouldimprovepedestriansafety. Fessenden Street and 46th Street Comments:1 Issues Residentsreportedhighpedestriantrafficatthislocation,adjacenttoapark.Therearealsosightdistance issues.Additionally,atthisintersection46thStreetisacollectorandFessendenStreetisalocalstreet,but FessendenStreetlacksastopsign.WhenDDOTinstallsatwowaystopattheintersectionofacollectorand localstreet,thelocalstreettypicallyisstopsigncontrolled.
Final Report
54

FinalRecommendations Convertthisintersectionfromatwowaystoptoanallwaystop. ExpectedImpacts InstallingstopsignsattheFessendenStreetapproacheswouldcontroltrafficonthelocalstreet, whichistypicalDDOTpolicy.Theallwaystopwouldimprovetrafficcontrolandsafety. Additionally,anallwaystopcouldmakeiteasierforpedestrianstocross. River Road and 45th Street and Fessenden Street Comments:12 Issues Thissixleggedintersectioniswideandhaspoorvisibility,forbothmotoristsandpedestrians.Accordingto thesurvey,motoristsspeedalongRiverRoad,makingitdifficultforpedestrianstocrossandforcarstoturn from45thStreetandFessendenStreet. FinalRecommendations Addcurbextensionstoallsixcornersoftheintersection. ExpectedImpacts Theadditionofcurbextensionswillreducethepedestriancrossingdistanceandpotentially improvepedestrianvisibility.Curbextensionscouldalsoreducevehiclespeedsduetothe narrowedroadway.Additionally,forvehiclestravelingfromRiverRdonto45thStreet,alocal road,thecurbextensionswillprovideavisualcuethatthestreetisresidentialandlowspeed.
River Road and 44th Street Comments:6 Issues Residentsreportedbothmotoristandpedestrianconcerns:motoristsspeeding,unsafeturns,poorly maintainedcrosswalks,andpedestrianscrossingillegally.Thereispoorvisibilityatthisintersection, particularlyforturnscomingfrom44thStreet. FinalRecommendations Addgreencurbextensionstoallcornersoftheintersection. ExpectedImpacts Theadditionofgreencurbextensionscouldreducevehiclespeedsbynarrowingtheroadway. Curbextensionswillalsoreducethepedestriancrossingdistanceandimprovepedestriansight lines.Additionally,forvehiclestravelingfromRiverRoadonto44thStreet,alocalroad,thecurb extensionswillprovideavisualcuethatthestreetisresidentialandlowspeed.
55 Final Report

River Road (between Garrison Street and Wisconsin Avenue) Comments:50 Issues ThetopconcernofrespondentswasmotoristsspeedingalongRiverRoad.Withmanyawkwardintersections alongitslength,duetotheangledintersections,visibilityispoor.PedestrianaccessacrossRiverRoadisalso poor,asmostcrossingsareunsignalized.AndthoughRiverRoadisasignedbicycleroute,thereareno pavementmarkingsorspecialtreatmentstoindicatethisuse.
Figure 27: River Road
FinalRecommendations Addbikesharrowsinbothdirections. ANCtorequestapermanentspeedcamerafromtheMetropolitanPoliceDepartment. ExpectedImpacts Thebikesharrowswillalertdriverstobicycletrafficandcouldincreasecyclistvolumesalong RiverRoad. Thespeedcameracouldreducespeedingbyenforcement.
Final Report
56

Western Avenue and 45th Street, Western Avenue and Geico Road Comments:6 Issues ConflictsbetweenpedestriansandmotoristswerereportedattheintersectionofWesternAvenueand45th Street,includingmotoristsfailingtoyieldandpedestrianscrossingmidblock.Thenearbyintersectionof WesternAvenueandGeicoRoadlackspedestrianfacilitiesandhasanunderutilizedsignal. FinalRecommendations AddhighvisibilitycrosswalkattheintersectionofWesternAvenueand45thStreet. ActuatesignalatGeicoRoadforbothvehiclesandpedestrians.AddcrosswalksacrossWestern Avenueandaddwheelchairramps. ExpectedImpacts Theadditionofahighvisibilitycrosswalkwillalertdriverstopedestriancrossings,encourage pedestrianstocrossatcrosswalks,andimprovepedestriansafety. TheactuationofthesignalatGeicoRoadwillincreasepedestriansafetybyprovidingaprotected crossingandvisiblecrosswalks.
57
Final Report
Rock Creek West II Livability Study Forest Hills

ResidentsoftheForestHillscommunityreportedconcernsaboutcutthroughtrafficonlocaleastwest neighborhoodstreets,aswellasissueswithmotoristsspeedingthroughtheneighborhood.The recommendationsaimtoaddresstheseconcernsaboutmotorists,whilealsoencouragingadditionalaccess forpedestriansandbicyclistsinthecommunity.Figure28showstherecommendations.
Final Report
58
Figure 28: Forest Hills Recommendations
59
Final Report

36th Street & Fessenden Street Comments:15 Issues TheintersectionwithConnecticutAvenue,36th Street,andFessendenStreethasanawkward configurationduetothediagonalalignmentof ConnecticutAvenueintersectingwiththeother streets.Thiscreatessightdistanceissues.Survey respondentsreportedafailuretoyieldonthepart ofmotorists. FinalRecommendations(seeFigure29) Removethesegmentof36thStreetbetween ConnecticutAvenue&FessendenStreet, andreplaceitwithgreenspace.AnLID treatmentisrecommendedhere. RemoveoneparkingspacefromNWcorner ofintersectionon36thStreet,as recommendedintheConnecticutAvenue TransportationStudy. ExpectedImpacts Removingthesmallsectionof36thStreet Figure 29: 36th Street and Fessenden Street betweenConnecticutAvenueandFessenden Recommendation Streetwillresolvethesightdistanceissue fornorthbound36thStreettraffic.Itwillimprovesightdistanceforsouthbound36thStreettrafficand allowadditionalleftturnsfromnorthbound36thStreettoConnecticutAvenue.Italsoprovidesan opportunitytoexpandtheexistinggreenspaceandmakeitmoreaccessibletoneighborhood residents. Removingtheparkingspacewillimprovevisibilityforsouthbound36thStreettraffic.
Fessenden Street NW
Final Report
60

Davenport Street (intersections at Nebraska Avenue, Reno Road, 36th Street, and Connecticut Avenue) Comments:38 Issues ReportedissuesincludemotoristsspeedingalongDavenportStreetandmotoristsfailingtoyieldatthe intersectionwithConnecticutAvenue.DavenportStreetconnectseastfromNebraskaAvenuetoConnecticut AvenueandthroughtoRockCreekPark,soitcouldbeaconvenientcutthroughrouteforeastwesttraffic. Theintersectionwith36thStreetisadjacenttoMurchElementarySchool. FinalRecommendation AddcurbextensionstoDavenportStreetapproachesatNebraskaAvenueand36thStreet.Addgreen curbextensionstoDavenportStreetapproachesatRenoRoadandConnecticutAvenue.These locationsareconsistentwiththesystemlevelrecommendationofinstallingcurbextensionswhere localstreetsapproachcollectorsandarterials. ExpectedImpacts Theadditionofcurbextensionsattheseintersectionshasthepotentialtoreducevehiclespeedsby narrowingtheroadway.Curbextensionsalsoenhancepedestrianaccessbyreducingthecrossing distanceforpedestrians.Addingcurbextensionsattheintersectionwithcollectorsandarterials providesagatewayandslowingeffectformotoriststurningfromthesestreets.
36th Street (between Veazey Terrace and Broad Branch Road) Comments:2 Issues Respondentsreportedmotoristsspeedingalong36thStreet.AsanorthsouthconnectionbetweenRenoRoad andNevadaAvenue,36thStreetlikelyservescutthroughtraffic.Therearenobicyclefacilitiesalong36th Street,thoughitisasignedbicycleroute. FinalRecommendations AddhighvisibilitycrosswalksacrossalllegsofintersectionswithDavenportStreetandEllicott Street. Designate36thStreetasabicycleboulevardbetweenYumaStreetandBroadBranchRoad.Add pavementmarkingsandwayfindingsignsforcyclists.Sharrowsshouldbepaintedontheroad betweenYumaStreetandBroadBranchRoad. ExpectedImpacts HighvisibilitycrosswalksatDavenportStreetandEllicottStreethavethepotentialtocaution motoriststoslowdownandconditionmotoriststoexpectpedestrians.Thiscouldreduceaggressive drivingintheschoolzone. Thedesignationof36thStreetasabicycleboulevardwillimprovetheconnectivityofthebicycle networkandmayleadtoadditionalcyclistsutilizingthisroute.Itcanalsoreducevehicularspeeds along36thStreetduetovisualcuesformultimodaltraffic.
61
Final Report

Van Ness Street (between Wisconsin Avenue and Connecticut Avenue) Comments:62 Issues VanNessStreetisacollectorthatprovidesuninterruptedeastwestconnectivitythroughtheentirestudy area,makingitapreferredrouteformotoriststravelingbetweenMassachusettsAvenue,NebraskaAvenue, WisconsinAvenue,andConnecticutAvenue.Assuch,thestreetcarriessignificantvolumesofmotoristsand residentsreportspeedingalongVanNessStreet. TherearenolanemarkingsbetweenRenoRoadandInternationalCourt,makingitunclearwhetherthereisa turnlaneatRenoRoad. ThoughVanNessStreetisnotcurrentlyabicycleroute,itwouldprovideaconvenientconnectionfromthe VanNessMetrorailstationtopointseastandwestthroughthestudyarea. FinalRecommendations AddbikesharrowsinbothdirectionsbetweenWisconsinAvenueandConnecticutAvenue. AddacenterlinebetweenRenoRoadandInternationalCourttomeetthenewraisedmedian. ImplementpreviousDDOTrecommendationsfortheintersectionofVanNessStreetandConnecticut Avenue,fromtheConnecticutAvenueTransportationStudy.Theseinclude:increasedpedestrian signaltiming,andtheadditionofarightturnlanefromeastboundVanNessStreettosouthbound ConnecticutAvenue. ExpectedImpacts BicyclesharrowsalongVanNessStreetmayalertdriverstobicycletrafficandleadtoincreased cyclistvolumes. ThecenterlinebetweenRenoRoadandInternationalCourtcouldclarifytravellanesandreduce vehiclespeedsbyvisuallynarrowingtheroadway. TheimplementationofpreviousDDOTrecommendationsatVanNessStreet&ConnecticutAvenueis likelytoimprovepedestriansafetyandreducevehiclecongestion.
Final Report
62
Rock Creek West II Livability Study Tenleytown and American University Park
ResidentsoftheTenleytownandAmericanUniversityParkneighborhoodsreportedmanyconcernsabout cutthroughtrafficonlocalnorthsouthneighborhoodstreets.Theseconcernsaboutmotoristsspeedingand failingtoyieldwereespeciallypronouncedatlocationsnearJanneyElementarySchool.Manyofthe recommendationsforthisareaaimtoenhancepedestriansafety,slowmotoristsonneighborhoodstreets, anddiscouragecutthroughtraffic.Figure30showstherecommendations.
63
Final Report
Figure 30: Tenleytown Area Recommendations
Final Report
64

43rd Street (between River Road and Van Ness Street) Comments:45 Issues 43rdStreetprovidesadirectconnectionbetweenRiverRoadandNebraskaAvenue,makingitapreferredcut throughrouteforcommuters.Manyresidentsreportedmotoristsspeedingalong43rdStreet.Residentswere concernedwiththevolumeofcutthroughtraffic,coupledwithmotoristsfailingtoyieldtopedestrians, duringmorningpeakperiodsalongthislocalneighborhoodstreet. FinalRecommendations AddNORIGHTTURN6:00AMto9:30AMsignsatsouthwestcornerof43rdStreetandRiverRoad intersection,topreventcutthroughtrafficfromRiverRoadtoNebraskaAvenue. Addbikesharrowsinbothdirections. AddgreencurbextensionsatRiverRoad,AlbemarleStreet,andVanNessStreet.Byfocusing narrowingtreatmentsattheintersectionswithcollectorsandarterials,motoristscomingfromthese streetswillhaveasmallerturningradius. ExpectedImpacts Ifobeyedandenforced,thenewsignagewilleliminatemorningcutthroughtrafficandrestore43rd Streettoitsintendedfunctionasalocalstreet.Itmayleadtoincreasedtrafficontheeasternsegment ofRiverRoad,WisconsinAvenue,andNebraskaAvenue.DDOTshouldconsidertheseimpactsbefore makingthischange,andpotentiallymodifythetimingofthenearbytrafficsignals. Bicyclesharrowscouldimprovecyclistsafetyandincreasecyclistvolumes. Theadditionofcurbextensionsshouldreducevehiclespeedsbynarrowingtheroadway.In particular,motoristcomingfromcollectorsandarterialswillneedtoreducetheirspeedwhile turningonto43rdStreet.Pedestriancrossingdistancewillalsobereducedattheseintersections. 42nd Street (between River Road and Van Ness Street) Comments:65 Issues Residentsreportedsignificantcutthroughtrafficandmotoristsspeedingalong42ndStreet.Thisisamajor concernbecauseofthehighpedestrianvolumes,mostlychildren,crossing42ndStreet,particularlyat AlbemarleStreet.Though42ndStreetisacollectorandshouldcarrytrafficbetweenlocalstreetsandarterials, itshouldnotbeacutthroughfromarterialtoarterial,norshouldmotoristsspeedalongtheroadway. FinalRecommendations Addacenterlinealong42ndStreet. Addcurbextensionstothefollowingintersections:ButterworthPlace(northwestandsouthwest corners),YumaStreet(northwest,northeast,andsoutheastcorners),andVanNessStreet(all corners).AddgreencurbextensionstotheintersectionwithBrandywineStreet(southwestand southeastcorners). Addbikesharrowsinbothdirections.
65
Final Report

ExpectedImpacts Theadditionofacenterlineshouldreducevehiclespeedsduetothevisualnarrowingofthe roadway. Thecurbextensionscoulddiscouragecutthroughtrafficbynarrowingtheroadwayatintersections andreducingtheturningradii.Eventuallythecurbextensionscouldchangethebehaviorofboth localandcutthroughvehiculartraffic. Bicyclesharrowscouldimprovecyclistsafetyandincreasecyclistvolumes.
42nd Street and Brandywine Street Comments:15 Issues Thisisanintersectionwithanawkward configurationbecauseofitsproximitytoRiverRoad. Manyresidentsreportedthatmorningcommuters typicallymakeafastrightturnfromRiverRoadonto 42ndStreetandfailtoyieldattheintersectionwith BrandywineStreet.Stillothersreportedspeeding alongBrandywineStreet,asitprovidesadirect connectioneasttoWisconsinAvenueandWilson HighSchool.Manyoftheintersectionsarestopsign controlled. FinalRecommendation(seeFigure31) Becauseithaslimitedutilityandis awkwardlyconfigured,removethesegment ofBrandywineStreetbetween42ndStreet andRiverRoad,andreplaceitwithgreen spaceandpotentiallyaLIDtreatment. ExpectedImpacts Thisrecommendationremovestheawkward Figure 31: 42nd Street and Brandywine Street Recommendation intersection.Theadditionofgreenspace offersanopportunityforplacemakingand increasesthepervioussurfaceandpotentialforlowimpactdevelopment.Itisexpectedthatthere wouldbeadditionalleftturnsfromeastboundBrandywineStreettonorthbound42ndStreet,but thesewouldlikelyremainatlowvolumes.
Brandywine St NW
Final Report
66

42nd Street and Albemarle Street Comments:33 Issues Manyofthecommentsatthisintersectionconcernedmotoristsfailingtoyieldattheintersection,or motoristsspeeding.Theseissuesbecomeevenmoreprominentduringthemorningandafternoonrush periods,whenchildrenarewalkingtoandfromJanneyElementarySchool.Amorningrushhourpedestrian countshowedapproximately240pedestriansperhourcross42ndStreetatthisintersection.
Figure 32: Morning rush hour at 42nd Street and Albemarle Street
FinalRecommendations Providealeadingpedestrianinterval(advancedpedestriansignalphase)atthetrafficsignal. Addcurbextensionstoallcorners. ExpectedImpacts Aleadingpedestrianintervalcouldimprovepedestriansafetybyprovidingadvancedcrossingtime. Curbextensionswouldreducepedestriancrossingdistanceandcouldimprovepedestrianvisibility.
67
Final Report

42nd Street and Warren Street Issues:Residentsreportthat motoristsspeedalong42ndStreet, particularlyinthissegment,andmake fastturnsontoWarrenStreet.This stretchofroadwayiswithouttraffic controlson42ndStreetandtheland usesaresetbackfromtheroad.This configurationencouragesspeeding. FinalRecommendation Constructneighborhood trafficcirclesatboth connectionstoWarrenStreet. SeeFigure33andAppendixD fordetails. ExpectedImpacts Neighborhoodtrafficcircles wouldreducevehiclespeeds, couldimprovepedestrian safety,andprovidean opportunityfor landscaping/placemaking includinganLIDtreatment,if siteconditionsare appropriate.Neighborhood trafficcircles,particularly whenplacedinaprogression, areoneofthemosteffective trafficcalmingtoolstoreducespeeds.
Warren Street NW
Figure 33: 42nd Street and Warren Street Recommendation
Final Report
68

Van Ness Street (between Nebraska Avenue and Wisconsin Avenue) Comments:62 Issues RespondentsreportedmotoristsspeedingalongVanNessStreet.BetweenNebraskaandWisconsinAvenues, theroadwayiswide,withnoparkingonthesouthsideofthestreetbutnolanemarkingstoindicatethat condition.Thewidthcouldbecontributingtospeeding. FinalRecommendations ReconfigureVanNessStreetbetweenNebraskaAvenueandWisconsinAvenuetoincludeone11foot widetravellaneineachdirection,aparkinglaneonthenorthside,andaneastboundbicyclelane. ExpectedImpacts ThereconfigurationofVanNessStreethasthepotentialtoreducevehiclespeedsbynarrowinglanes andaddingothermodesoftraveltothestreet. Theadditionofabicyclelanecouldimprovecyclistsafetyandincreasecyclistvolumes.Thoughthere isonlyspaceforthelaneforashortsegment,itwouldconnecttosharrowsateachend. BicyclesharrowsalongVanNessStreetmayalertdriverstobicycletrafficandleadtoincreased cyclistvolumes. Albemarle Street (between 43rd Street and Reno Road) Comments:83 Issues RespondentsreportedmotoristsspeedingalongAlbemarleStreet.Manyresidentswereconcernedabout aggressivedrivingintheschoolzone.TherearenobicyclefacilitiesalongAlbemarleStreet. ThereisamidblockcrossinginfrontofJanneyElementarySchool,eastofthe42ndStreetintersection.This crosswalkisunsignalizedandthoughitispaintedashighvisibility,itslocationisnearthecrestofahillandit isnotalwaysvisible.Thisconfigurationisnotidealandatworst,potentiallyunsafeforcrossingchildren. FinalRecommendations BetweenWisconsinAvenueandNebraskaAvenue,refurbishthecenterlinealongAlbemarleStreet. Near38thStreetintersection,installapermanentlookingspeedindicatororfeedbacksignif warranted.DDOTshouldperformaspeedstudytomakethisdetermination. RemovethemidblockcrossinginfrontofJanneyElementarySchool,anddirectschoolchildrento crossattheimproved42ndStreetintersection. AddbikesharrowsinbothdirectionsofAlbemarleStreetbetween43rdStreetandRenoRoad.
69
Final Report

ExpectedImpacts Therefurbishedcenterlinecouldreducevehiclespeedsduetovisualnarrowingoftheroadway. Thespeedindicatorcouldreducevehiclespeedsduetodriverawarenessofspeed.Aspeedindicator signcouldalsobemovedtootherlocationsinRCW2orinthecity,asneeded. Removingthemidblockcrossingshouldreducethenumberofpedestrianscrossingatthatlocation, therebyreducingpedestrianvehicleconflictsandimprovesafetybydirectingpedestrianstocrossat protectedlocations. Theadditionofbikesharrowscouldalertdriverstobicycletrafficandleadtoincreasedcyclist volumes. Brandywine Street (between 46th Street and Wisconsin Avenue) Comments:33 Issues RespondentsreportedmotoristsspeedingalongBrandywineStreet,asitprovidesaneastwestconnection fromWesternAvenuetoTenleytownandWisconsinAvenue.TherearenobicyclefacilitiesonBrandywine Street. FinalRecommendations Becausegatewayandnarrowingtreatmentsshouldbefocusedattheintersectionoflocalstreetsand collectors/arterials,addgreencurbextensionsat42ndStreetand46thStreet. Providealeadingpedestrianinterval(advancedpedestriansignalphase)attheintersectionof BrandywineStreetandWisconsinAvenue,perapreviousrecommendationintheFriendshipHeights Study. DesignateBrandywineStreetbetween30thStreetandBroadBranchRoadabicycleboulevard.Add pavementmarkingsandwayfindingsigns,withthepotentialforadditionaltreatments. ExpectedImpacts Curbextensionscouldreducevehiclespeedsbynarrowingtheroadway.Theywillalsoreduce pedestriancrossingdistance.Finally,theywillreducetheamountofstormwaterflowingintothe cityssystembyallowingforonsitesoilandvegetationdrainage. Theleadingpedestrianintervalhasthepotentialtoimprovepedestriansafetybyprovidingadvanced crossingtimewithnovehicleconflicts,andtimeforpedestrianstoenterintothecrosswalkand becomevisibletomotorists. Thedesignationofabikeboulevardcouldreducevehiclespeedsduetovisualcuesandleadto increasedcyclistsonBrandywineStreet.
Final Report
70

40th Street/Fort Drive Comments:8 Issues Both40thStreetandFortDrive,whichparalleleachotherinthevicinityoftheTenleytownAUMetrorail Station,arediscontinuousstreetswithlimitedutilityforthroughtraffic,althoughtheyprovideimportant localaccesstoadjacentbusinessesandinstitutionsandforbusconnectionstotheMetrorailstation.They intersectwithAlbemarleStreetatatwowaystop,andintersectwithBrandywineStreettothenorth.Within thisblock,40thStreet,ownedbyDDOT,carriesonelaneofsouthboundtrafficandFortDrive,ownedbythe WashingtonMetropolitanAreaTransitAuthority(WMATA),carriesonelaneofnorthboundtraffic.Thetwo areseparatedbyawidemedian. Theintersectionof40thStreetandFortDrivewithAlbemarleStreetisproblematic.Itisstaggered,sothat FortDrivelinesuptothenorthandsouth,buttothesouthitistwoway.Thereisno40thStreettothesouth. Therefore,southboundmotoristsapproachingAlbemarleStreetdonothaveadirectlineofsightto approachingtraffic.Thisstaggeredintersection,stopsigncontrolledfor40th/Fortonly,isawkward, confusing,andobstructssomeviews. Because40thStreetisonewaysouthbound,yetcarriesloadingandservicevehiclesassociatedwiththe commercialandretaildirectlywestofthestreet,thereisabreakinthemedianimmediatelynorthofthe AlbemarleStreetintersection,toallowuturns.Whilethisisfunctionalforvehicles,allowingthemtobypass theintersection,itcreatesunnecessarycirculationandispotentiallyunsafeforpedestrians;themedianbreak isdirectlyontopofacrosswalk. PedestrianvolumesaresignificantduetotheadjacentMetrorailstation,WilsonHighSchooldirectlytothe east,Metrobusserviceonbothstreets,andsubstantialAmericanUniversity(AU)shuttleserviceonboth streets.Thestreethasahighlevelofactivityfrommanymodesoftravel,andthereforeahighchancefor conflicts. FinalRecommendations(SeeFigure34,andmoredetailsinAppendixD) BetweenBrandywineStreetandAlbemarleStreet,reversedirectionsof40thStreet(tobe northbound)andFortDrive(tobesouthbound),toalignapproachingtrafficmovementsatthe AlbemarleStreetintersection. RemovetheuturnbreakinthemedianneartheintersectionofAlbemarleStreet.Replacewitha medianbreakandnewcrosswalkattheWholeFoodsgarageentranceandexit. Duetoreverseddirectionsoftraffic,moveMetrobusandshuttlestopstothemediansideofboth40th StreetandFortDrive. Convertmeteredparallelparkingtoangledparkingalongwestsideof40thStreetandeastsideof FortDrive. ExpectedImpacts Thereversalofthedirectionof40thStreetandFortDrivewillimprovevisibilityandcouldimprove safetybyaligningapproachingtraffictotheintersectionwithAlbemarleStreet.Therewillbeaneed torelocateMetrobusstops,shuttlestops,andparking. Thecirculationchangewouldimpactserviceanddeliveryvehiclesassociatedwithretailtothewest, manyofwhichuse40thStreettoday.DDOTandotherentitieswouldneedtocoordinatewiththe propertyownersandotherstakeholderstomitigateimpactsanddevelopabalancedsolution.
71
Final Report

TheadditionofamedianbreakandcrosswalkatWholeFoodswillrelocateuturnsfromthe intersectiontowheremostvehiclesarecomingfrom,andthereforecouldimprovecirculation. TheconversiontoangledparkingwillprovideadditionalonstreetparkingforWilsonHighSchool andothercommunitydestinations,asshowninTable6.Itwillalsonarrowthetravelwayand potentiallycalmtraffic.
40 Street NW
th
Fort Drive NW
Figure 34: 40th Street/Fort Drive Recommendation
Table 6: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Curbside Uses for 40th Street and Fort Drive 40th Street Existing Proposed 33 53 1 1 0 1 Fort Drive Existing Proposed 28 44 2 2 1 1
Curbside uses Number of metered parking spaces* Number of Metrobus stops** Number of shuttle spaces***
*Numbers are approximate for both existing and proposed. For the proposed configuration, the numbers would change based on needs of nearby land uses. These numbers do not include Zipcar spaces. Additionally, there is no existing or proposed designated Kiss & Ride zone. **In both existing and proposed, one Metrobus stop is provided at the north end of Fort Drive, one at the south, and one is provided at the south end of 40th Street. ***Though shuttles currently use space at the northwest corner of the 40th Street and Albemarle Street intersection, this is not signed as a shuttle zone and because the buses block the intersection, it is not an idea location.
Final Report
72

Ward Circle Comments:73 Issues WardCircleistheintersectionofMassachusettsandNebraskaAvenues.Despiteitsname,itisnotquitea circle,asNebraskaAvenuepassesthroughthecenterviabypasslanes.Becauseofthisgeometry,turning movementsaremadeatmultipleplaceswithinthecircle,causingconfusionandweavingmovements.The accidentratehereisthehighestwithintheRCWIIstudyarea.Thepedestrianfacilitiesareminimal,whichis anissueduetoitsproximitytoAmericanUniversity(AU)andthecorrespondinghighpedestrianvolumes. Additionally,AUhasplanstoexpandandbuildonapropertyadjacenttothecircle,whichcouldmean increasedvehiclepedestrianconflictsduetoincreasedpedestrianvolumes. WardCirclewasthesubjectofaDDOTRoadwaySafetyAuditin2009,andinDecember2010hadpavement markingsrefurbishedandnewsignsinstalledtoaddresstheauditfindings. TheNationalParkServiceownsWardCircleandDDOTowns,maintains,andoperatesitstransportation infrastructure. FinalRecommendations Bothshorttermandlongtermrecommendationsweredeveloped,recognizingboththeimmediateneedfor improvementsandthecomplicationsexpectedincoordinatingandimplementingalongtermsolution. ShortTerm: o FortheNebraskaAvenueapproaches,modifysignaltimingtoincludeleadingpedestrian intervals(advancedpedestriansignalphasing). o Adddiagrammaticsignageatallcircleapproachestoimprovewayfinding. LongTerm: o SignalizeMassachusettsAvenueapproachestocircle.
Inthefuture,DDOTmaywishtoconductfurtherdetailedstudyonreconfigurationofthecircle,including removalofthebypasslanesandfullsignalization.PBconductedaninitial,conceptualtrafficanalysisofthis reconfiguration,presentedinAppendixC.Initialresultsshowedsignificanttrafficdelaysassociatedwiththis configuration;therefore,itisnotrecommendedatthistime.IfconversiontoatraditionalDCtrafficcircleis desiredforplacemakingreasons,amoredetailedstudyshouldbeperformed. ExpectedImpacts ShortTerm: o Leadingpedestrianintervals(LPIs)attheNebraskaAvenuesignalswouldprovidetime forpedestrianstocrossNebraskaAvenuewithoutvehicleconflicts,withthegoalof improvingpedestriansafety.Additionally,LPIsallowpedestrianstoenterthecrosswalk andbecomemorevisiblebeforevehiclesarepermittedtoturn. o Additionalsignagewouldclarifylaneassignmentsandreduceweavingandconfusion. LongTerm:SignalizationoftheMassachusettsAvenueapproacheswouldprovidetimefor pedestrianstocrosswithoutvehicleconflicts,withthegoalofimprovingpedestriansafety. Signalizationcouldalsoimprovetrafficsafetybycontrollingalltrafficmovementsandeliminating confusionoveryieldingtocircletraffic.
73 Final Report
Implementation
Project Costs
Aplanninglevel,orderofmagnitudecostestimatewasdevelopedfortheproposedrecommendations, showninTable8.Thecostsreflecttheconceptualnatureoftheworktodate.ThesenumberswillhelpDDOT prioritizeandphaseimplementationoftherecommendations.DDOTshouldconductadesignlevelcost estimatewhenmoredetaileddesignisdone,beforeimplementingpartsoftheproject.Thestudysestimated costfortheentiresuiteofRockCreekWestII(RCW2)improvementsisapproximately$9.4million. Costswerecompiledusingunitcostsfromvarioussourcesandincludethefollowingallowances: 5percentforlandscaping 5percentforerosionandsedimentcontrolduringconstruction 15percentfordrainageandutilityrelocation 10percentformaintenanceoftrafficduringconstruction 25percentdesigncontingency,toreflecttheconceptualnatureofthedesign 10percentforconstructionmobilization
Thecostsdonotincludeotherprojectscostssuchasadditionalplanningandengineering,overhead,profit andfees,contractorscontingency,orescalationbeyond2010dollars. Becausecostdatawastakenfromvariousstatedepartmentsoftransportation,cities,andreferencesandwas reportedfordifferentyears,allestimateswereescalatedto2010USDvaluesutilizingthePBHighway ConstructionCostIndex:

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Index 131.9 136.6 158.5 144.6 156.0 Growth n/a 3.6% 16.0% -8.8% 7.9%
Theitemslistedwithinthecostestimates,detailedinAppendixD,donotusethestandarditemdescription utilizedbyDDOTsestimatorcatalogueduetotheplanningleveloftheestimates.
Final Report
74

Table 7: Construction Cost Estimates LOCATION 36th and Davenport 36th and Ellicott 36th and Fessenden 36th Street Corridor 40th and Fort 41st and Legation 41st and Livingston 42nd and Albemarle 42nd and Brandywine 42nd and Butterworth 42nd and Van Ness 42nd and Warren 42nd and Yuma 42nd Street Corridor 43rd and Albemarle 43rd and River 43rd and Van Ness 43rd Street Corridor 44th and River 44th Street Corridor 45th, River, and Fessenden 46th and Fessenden Albemarle Street Corridor Brandywine and 46th Brandywine and Wisconsin Brandywine Street Corridor Chesapeake Street Corridor Chevy Chase Circle (Long Term) Chevy Chase Circle (Short Term) Chevy Chase Parkway Corridor Davenport and Connecticut Davenport and Nebraska Davenport and Reno Garrison and Wisconsin Gates Road Corridor Jenifer Street Corridor Livingston Street Corridor Nevada Avenue Corridor Northampton and Broad Branch 75 TOTAL (2010 USD) 252,000 4,000 158,000 98,000 355,000 2,000 4,000 263,000 395,000 130,000 65,000 127,000 194,000 28,000 470,000 118,000 65,000 17,000 470,000 147,000 389,000 2,000 58,000 235,000 4,000 51,000 82,000 1,079,000 616,000 109,000 231,000 65,000 231,000 23,000 21,000 85,000 55,000 109,000 14,000 Final Report
Northampton and Connecticut River and Western River Road Corridor Van Ness Street Corridor Ward Circle (Long Term) Ward Circle (Short Term) Western and 45th Western and 47th Western and Geico Western and River Yuma Street Corridor TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
415,000 1,000 8,000 30,000 1,052,000 361,000 3,000 7,000 550,000 3,000 109,000 9,360,000
Final Report
76
Performance Measures
Foraprojecttobefocusedandeffectiveinmeetingstatedprojectgoalsandobjectives,itisessentialto measureperformanceoftheprocessandtheproductsthatwillspanacontinuumfromdayonetotime horizonsthatwillextendouttoyearsinthefuture.Andsincetheessenceoflivabilityinvolvesfulfillingthe expectationsofindividuals,familiesandcommunities,themeasurementprocessmustincludegaugingthe perceptionsofpeopleaswellastheperformanceofphysicalelements.Thismeansthatqualitativemeasures baseduponsurveyresearchshouldplayasimportantaroleasquantitativemeasuresbaseduponfield measurements.Bothareneededtounderstandtheimpactofinvestmentsmadeandchangesimplemented. Themeasuresthemselvesmustbemanageableinanumberofdifferentways.Experiencewithperformance measuresindicatestendenciestoadoptmeasuresthataretoonumerous,toocomplex,tooexpensiveinterms ofdatarequirements,andnotalwaysonthemarkwithrespecttostatedobjectivesoractionstobetaken. SpecificmeasuresfortheRCW2recommendationsshould: Relatetostatedgoalsandobjectives Beeasytounderstandanddescribe Requiredatathatarerelativelyeasyandaffordabletocollect Provideabasisforactionslikelytoimproveoutcomesovertime(whatgetsmeasuredgetsdone)
Withthoseguidelinesinmind,Table9showstheproposedperformancemeasuresforthisproject.Eachof therecommendationswascategorizedintooneofsixissues,andmeasuresforeachissuearepresented. Table10categorizeseachrecommendationbyIssueCategory. Boththequantitativeandqualitativemeasuresshouldberecordedbeforeimprovementsaremade,to establishaBaseline.ThePost,ormonitoringthatoccursafterimplementationoccurs,shouldhappen accordingtothefollowingschedule:
Measuresusingcrashdata:2yearsafterimplementation Allothermeasures:6monthsafterimplementationand2yearsafterimplementation
Mostchangescanbeseenandmeasuredsixmonthsafterimplementation,oncenewdrivingpatternsand behaviorsform.Formeasuresusingcrashdata,adifferentscheduleisproposed.Becausecrashesaremore infrequentandcausedbysomanydifferentfactors,meaningfultrendsaretypicallynotseenaftersixmonths. Therefore,measuresusingcrashdatashouldbetakentwoyearsafterimplementation.
77
Final Report

Table 8: Proposed Performance Measures for RCW2 Improvements (data that DDOT already has is shaded) Performance Measures (shaded cells=DDOT already has data) Quantitative Qualitative Post Baseline % of survey respondents who said speeding was an issue
Issue category
Goal
Baseline
Post
Reduction in speed
85th percentile speed Average annual crash rate between A and B or within area C, recent 2-year period
85th percentile speed Average annual crash rate between A and B or within area C, 2 successive years
% of survey respondents who said speeding was an issue
Motorists speeding
Reduction in crashes
Failure to obey intersection control
Reduction in crashes related to driver behavior at intersections Increase in bicycle facilities such as lane, sharrows, cycletracks, and boulevards
Average annual crash rate related to intersection behavior between A and B or within area C, recent 2year period Lane-miles of bicycle facilities between A and B or within area C
Average annual crash rate related to intersection behavior between A and B or within area C, 2 successive years Lane-miles of bicycle facilities between A and B or within area C Average # of cyclists per hour passing point A over a defined period of time (under similar weather and seasonal conditions as baseline) Average annual rate of cyclist fatalities and injuries between A and B or within area C, 2 successive years
% of survey respondents who said motorists failing to yield, running red lights, and making illegal turns was an issue
% of survey respondents who said motorists failing to yield, running red lights, and making illegal turns was an issue
Increase in cyclist volumes
Average # of cyclists per hour passing point A over a defined period of time Average annual rate of cyclist fatalities and injuries between A and B or within area C, recent 2-year period
% of survey respondents who said lack of bicycle facilities was an issue
% of survey respondents who said lack of bicycle facilities was an issue
Lack of bicycle facilities
Reduction in cyclistrelated crashes
Final Report
78

Performance Measures (shaded cells=DDOT already has data) Quantitative Qualitative Post Baseline
Issue category
Goal Reduction in crashes caused by infrastructure deficiencies such as poor visibility, inadequate signage or pavement markings, and confusing geometry
Baseline
Post
Inadequate roadway infrastructure
Average annual rate of infrastructure-related crashes between A and B or within area C, recent 2-year period
Average annual rate of infrastructure-related crashes between A and B or within area C, 2 successive years
% of survey respondents who said awkward intersections, poor visibility, inadequate signage, or xxx was an issue % of survey respondents who said poorly marked/located crosswalks, lack of pedestrian facilities, or pedestrians crossing mid-block was an issue % of survey respondents who said cut-through traffic was an issue, local roads only
% of survey respondents who said awkward intersections, poor visibility, inadequate signage, or xxx was an issue % of survey respondents who said poorly marked/located crosswalks, lack of pedestrian facilities, or pedestrians crossing mid-block was an issue % of survey respondents who said cut-through traffic was an issue, local roads only
Pedestrian safety
Reduction in pedestrian-related crashes Reduce cut-through traffic on local streets, shift traffic from local streets to collectors and arterials
Average annual rate of pedestrian fatalities and injuries between A and B or within area C, recent 2-year period
Average annual rate of pedestrian fatalities and injuries between A and B or within area C, 2 successive years
Cut-through traffic
Average daily traffic (seasonally adjusted), recent 2-year period
Average daily traffic (seasonally adjusted), 2 successive years
79
Final Report

Table 9: Performance Measure Category by Recommendation Location 36th St & Fessenden St Final Recommendation Remove 36th Street between CT and Fessenden; replace with green space Add high-visibility crosswalks across all legs Add curb extensions to all corners of intersection Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Paint crosswalks across 40th St curb cuts. Between Brandywine St and Albemarle St: reverse directions of 40th St (to be NB) and Fort Dr (to be SB). Convert metered parallel parking to angled parking along west side of 40th and east side of Fort Dr Remove u-turn break in median near intersection. Add median break and new crosswalk at Whole Foods garage entrance/exit 41st St & Livingston St 41st St & Legation St 42nd St & Warren St Reduce traffic signal cycle length from 100 to 50 seconds Trim shrubs at NW and SE corners of intersection Construct neighborhood traffic circles at both connections to Warren St Provide leading pedestrian interval (advanced pedestrian signal phase) at traffic signal Add curb extensions to all corners 42nd St, entire corridor (between River Rd and Van Ness St) 42nd St, entire corridor (between River Rd and Van Ness St) Add a centerline Add curb extensions to the following intersections: Butterworth Pl (NW and SW corners), Yuma (NW, NE, SE corners), and Van Ness (all corners) Motorists speeding Motorists speeding; Cut-through traffic Pedestrian safety Inadequate roadway infrastructure Motorists speeding; Pedestrian safety Pedestrian safety Performance Measure Issue Categories Inadequate roadway infrastructure
36th St & Davenport St; 36th St & Ellicott St 36th St & Davenport St 36th St, entire corridor (between Veazey St and Linnean Ave)
Pedestrian safety; Motorists speeding Pedestrian safety; Motorists speeding Lack of bicycle facilities
40th St & Albemarle St
Pedestrian safety; Inadequate roadway infrastructure
42nd & Albemarle St
Final Report
80

Location 42nd St, entire corridor (between River Rd and Van Ness St) 43rd St, entire corridor (between River Rd and Van Ness St) Final Recommendation Add bike sharrows in both directions Maintain two-way operations, but add NO RIGHT TURN 6:00 to 9:30 AM signs at SW corner of 43rd St & River Rd intersection Add bike sharrows in both directions. 43rd St & Albemarle St, Yuma St, and Warren St 44th St between Western Ave and Van Ness St Add curb extensions at River Rd, Albemarle St, and Van Ness St Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Convert from two-way to all-way stop Remove mid-block crossing Refurbish centerline Install permanent-looking speed indicator/feedback sign if warranted Add bike sharrows in both directions Add curb extensions at 42nd & 46th Motorists speeding; Pedestrian safety Lack of bicycle facilities Performance Measure Issue Categories Lack of bicycle facilities Cut-through traffic; Lack of bicycle facilities
46th St & Fessenden St Albemarle St between 42nd St and Wisconsin Ave Albemarle St from Wisconsin Ave to Nebraska Ave Albemarle St around 38th St
Pedestrian safety; Failure to obey intersection control Pedestrian safety; Inadequate roadway infrastructure Motorists speeding Motorists speeding
Albemarle St between 43rd St and Reno Rd Brandywine St & 45th St, 44th St, 43rd St, and 42nd St
Lack of bicycle facilities Motorists speeding; Pedestrian safety
Brandywine St & 42nd St
Brandywine St & Wisconsin Ave
Remove Brandywine St between 42nd and River; replace with green space Provide leading pedestrian interval (advanced pedestrian signal phase) Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments
Motorists speeding; Inadequate roadway infrastructure; Pedestrian safety Pedestrian safety
Brandywine St between 30th St and Broad Branch Rd
Chesapeake St Between Belt Rd and Gates Rd
81
Final Report

Location Chevy Chase Circle (all major approaches) Final Recommendation Add clear, diagrammatic advanced signage explaining circle exits (short-term) Install traffic signals at Western Avenue approaches and at crosswalks, per completion of traffic analysis (long-term) Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Add curb extensions to Davenport St approaches Performance Measure Issue Categories Inadequate roadway infrastructure
Chevy Chase Circle
Inadequate roadway infrastructure; Pedestrian safety; Failure to obey intersection control Lack of bicycle facilities
Chevy Chase Parkway between Chevy Chase Circle and Fessenden St Davenport St & Nebraska Ave, Reno Rd, Connecticut Ave
Motorists speeding; Pedestrian safety
Garrison St & Wisconsin Ave Gates Rd between Chesapeake St and 30th St
Remove concrete and bricks over planting strip Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Paint median
Motorists speeding Lack of bicycle facilities
Jenifer St between Western Ave and Nebraska Ave
Livingston Rd between Western Ave and Broad Branch Rd
Nevada Ave between Morrison St and Nebraska Ave
Motorists speeding
Nevada Ave between Western Ave and Nebraska Ave Nevada Ave between Western Ave and Nebraska Ave Northampton St & Connecticut Ave
Paint parking lanes Add bike sharrows in both directions Add curb extension to southeastern Northampton approach Add HAWK signal at intersection Add raised crosswalk across eastern leg of intersection
Motorists speeding Lack of bicycle facilities Motorists speeding; pedestrian safety Pedestrian safety
Northampton St & Broad Branch Rd
Motorists speeding; Failure to obey intersection control; Pedestrian safety
Final Report
82

Location River Rd & Western Ave Final Recommendation Restrict parking during the AM rush hours (PM rush is already restricted) in 4600 block Add curb extensions to all four corners of the intersection Add curb extensions to all corners of intersection Add bike sharrows in both directions Request permanent speed camera from MPD Van Ness St between Nebraska Ave and Wisconsin Ave Reconfigure road to include one travel lane in each direction, a parking lane on the north side, and an EB bike lane Add bike sharrows in both directions Add centerline to meet new raised median Implement previous DDOT recommendations: increased pedestrian signal timing, right turn lane from EB Van Ness St to SB Connecticut Ave Add leading pedestrian interval to signals (short-term) Add signage at approaches (shortterm) Signalize Massachusetts Ave approaches (long-term) Add high-visibility crosswalks at intersections, across Western Ave Remove crosswalk across 47th St, add high visibility one across eastern leg of Western Ave Actuate signal for both vehicles and pedestrians, add crosswalks across Western Ave, add wheelchair ramps Designate as bicycle boulevard: add pavement markings and wayfinding signs; potential for other treatments Performance Measure Issue Categories Inadequate roadway infrastructure
River Rd & 45th St & Fessenden St
Inadequate roadway infrastructure; Motorists speeding; Pedestrian safety Inadequate roadway infrastructure; Motorists speeding; Pedestrian safety Lack of bicycle facilities
River Rd & 44th St
River Rd between Garrison St and Wisconsin Ave
Motorists speeding Motorists speeding; Lack of bicycle facilities
Van Ness St between Wisconsin Ave and Connecticut Ave Van Ness between Reno Rd and International Ct Van Ness St & Connecticut Ave
Lack of bicycle facilities Motorists speeding Pedestrian safety; Inadequate roadway infrastructure
Ward Circle (Nebraska Ave approaches) Ward Circle Ward Circle Western Ave & 45th St, River Rd Western Ave & 47th St
Pedestrian safety
Inadequate roadway infrastructure Pedestrian safety; Inadequate roadway infrastructure Pedestrian safety Pedestrian safety
Western Ave & Geico Rd
Pedestrian safety; Inadequate roadway infrastructure
Yuma St between Massachusetts Ave and Connecticut Ave
83
Final Report
Next Steps
Nowthatthelivabilitystudyphasehasended,someoftheprojectsidentifiedwillmovetoimplementation. Many,however,willrequiremorecoordination,actionsbythecommunity,andfundingandprogrammingby DDOT.Thefollowingitemsareanticipatedtoprogressinthenearfuture: PavementRemoval:DDOTispursuingacitywidecontractforpavementremovalinvarious locations,andthe36thSt/FessendenSt/ConnecticutAverecommendationandthe42nd St/Brandywinerecommendationwillbepartofthatcontract. GreenInfrastructure:DDOTisalsoplanningtopursueacontractfornumerousgreen infrastructure,orLIDtreatments.Thegreencurbextensionsproposedaspartofthisproject (discussedinSection4)willbeincludedasapartofthatcontract. Theretimingofthe41stStNWandLivingstonStreetintersection,andtheshrubtrimmingat41stand LegationStreet. Theallwaystopat46thStreetNWandFessendenStreet.
Otherprojectswillmoveforwardasfundsbecomeavailable,asthecommunitybuildsmomentum,oras overlappingprojectscomeonline. Somecommunityactionsthatcanbetakeninthenearfutureinclude: Requestingspeedcameras,wherenecessary,fromtheDCMPD. CoordinatingwiththeappropriateAdvisoryNeighborhoodCommission(ANC)forprojectsthatneed morestudy,suchasWardCircle,and40thStreetandFortDrive. WorkingwithDDOT,throughtheANCs,onprioritizationandfinalizationofmanyofthe recommendationspresentedinthisreport.
Final Report
84
References
ArlingtonCounty.NeighborhoodTrafficCalmingProgram,Process,Criteria&Measures(2008). CityofPortland,Oregon.StormwaterManagementFacilityMonitoringReport(2008). DistrictDepartmentofTransportation(DDOT).BicycleFacilityDesignGuide(2005). DDOT.DesignandEngineeringManual(2009). InstituteforBicycleandPedestrianInnovations.FundamentalsofBicycleBoulevardPlanning&Design (2009). InstituteofTransportationEngineers.HighwayCapacityManual(2000). InstituteofTransportationEngineersandFederalHighwayAdministration.TrafficCalming:Stateofthe Practice(1999). FederalHighwayAdministration.ManualonUniformTrafficControlDevices(2009). FederalHighwayAdministration.MiniRoundaboutsTechnicalSummary(2010). NewYorkCityDepartmentofTransportation.DowntownBrooklynTrafficCalmingProject(2004). NewYorkCityDepartmentofTransportation.NewYorkCityStreetDesignManual(2010). PedestrianandBicycleInformationCenter.www.walkinginfo.org(accessed2010). Sawers,Clive.MiniRoundaboutsfortheUnitedStates,ITEJournal(February2009).
85
Final Report

Rock Creek West 2 Livability Study - Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rock Creek West 2 Livability Study - Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R c Ce k s I o k re WetI L a i y tdy i bl Su v i t

Roc Cre We II L ck eek est Livability Stu udy

Pars sonsBrinckerhoff Jessi icaJuriga,PE,AICP,ProjectManager 1401 1KStNW,Ste e701,Washing gton,DC2000 05

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study Traffic Calming Tools

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 1: RCW2 Study Area

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Neighborhood Traffic Circle

Reduced conflict points Reduced traffic volumes

Street with turning movement related safety issues

Half Closures/ Semi-diverters

Reduced conflict points Reduced traffic volumes

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Reduced vehicle speeds

Limited use; spot location with major speeding issue

Reduced vehicle speeds

Reduced vehicle speeds

Local or collector street with speeding issue

Reduced vehicle speeds Improved pedestrian and motorist visibility

Local and possibly collector street with speeding or safety issue

Reduced vehicle speed Provide better pedestrians and motorists visibility

Local and possibly collector street with speeding or safety issue

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Reduced turning movement conflicts Pedestrian refuge Reduced vehicle speeds

Gateways / Entry Treatments -

Rock Creek West II Livability Study History

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Previous Efforts and Plans

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 2: Screen shot from project website

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 3: 41st Street in the Friendship Heights neighborhood 11 Final Report

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 4: Study Area Functional Classifications

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 5: Traffic Volumes in the Study Area

Rock Creek West II Livability Study Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

Rock Creek West II Livability Study Transit Service

Figure 7: Study Area Transit Options

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 8: Traffic Collisions in RCW2

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Figure 9: Intersections Receiving One or More Comments from Online Survey

Rock C Creek West II Livability S Study

destriansillegally Ped cros ssingatmidblo ock locations 5% Pede estrianscrossin ng withoutsignals w 4%

Awkward terand Busshelt intersection/circle relatedfacilities configuration quate inadeq 8% 0% %

Buss shelter inconvenie entlylocated 1% 1

eeding Motoristsspe 27%

Figure 10: Summary o Concerns fro Public Surv of om vey

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study

Rock Creek West II Livability Study