K Street Final Environmental Assessment: December 2009

K Street24th Street NW to 7th Street NW Washington, D.C.

Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environmental Assessment

December 2009

DE

RTM PA

ENT OF TRANS POON ATI RT

RA

R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN

Printed on Recycled Paper

d

U.S .

AT ION

E FED

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

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

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

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

Adverse effects to the community and businesses would occur as a result of changes in parking and delivery availability and in travel patterns. One hundred thirty of the approximately 330 curbside, two-hour parking spaces would be removed; and parking, curbside deliveries and valet parking would be restricted to off-peak hours. Approximately 200 curbside parking spaces would continue to be available during off-peak hours. There would be no change in availability4

of the 409 parking spaces on the side streets within one block of K Street and the more than 8,000 garage parking spaces. Impacts caused by parking and delivery restrictions would include inconveniences to business patrons who normally park on K Street and adjustments in delivery times normally scheduled during peak hours. Deliveries during peak hours would be restricted to side streets or alley loading docks. Any potential for a reduction in business patronage attributable to reduced availability of parking would be offset by improved transit efficiency and reliability that would attract more business patrons who elect to use transit. Urban design improvements of the Preferred Alternative would include increased accessibility due to lowered congestion and higher efficiency of traffic movement along K Street that would attract more consumers to K Street, providing long-term benefits for the K Street business community. Community cohesion refers to the interaction of the business owners and others who populate K Street as employees, customers, or visitors. None of the improvements would change this interactivity; rather, the urban design and streetscape improvements would enhance community cohesion through the creation of a strong sense of neighborhood character on K Street. Based on the analysis summarized above, the direct effects to neighborhoods and community cohesion do not meet the criteria for either context or intensity per the CEQ definition. The improvements would not adversely affect public health or safety. Furthermore, those members of the public who commented on the K Street EA did not consider these effects to the human environment controversial (Final EA, Appendix F). While the proposed action is a site specific action, the effects do not rise to a level of "significance" that would require a higher classification ofNEPA documentation or study.Social Characteristics - Population and Employment: The Preferred Alternative would not change the availability of housing; therefore, impacts to the residential population are not expected. The Preferred Alternative would attract employment and visitors by providing more efficient transportation that would facilitate faster, more reliable work trips and by creating a more inviting street subsequently creating a beneficial effect directly attributable to the proposed action. The effects of the proposed action on social characteristics were not considered controversial by commenters ofthe EA. The direct effects on population and employment do not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by the CEQ definition. . Social Characteristics - Environmental Justice: There are minority and low-income populations located within the block groups that surround and abut K Street at either end of the project, however, the project improvements would occur away from predominantly low-income or minority populations. Only one block group with a high proportion of low income/minority population would be directly affected by the project's improvements. The impacts to environmental justice populations would primarily occur as a result of the elimination of 130 onstreet parking spaces, making low-cost parking less available. This would impact low-income persons more than others because a higher parking cost would represent a higher proportion of5

their income. However, the preferred alternative would also provide transportation improvements that would result in improved travel times and more reliable and efficient transit which would benefit all populations. Therefore, the analysis concludes that the project's impacts on minority and low-income populations are neither disproportionately high nor adverse. There would also be no adverse effect to public health or safety of minority and low-income populations. Overall, the effects do not meet the CEQ criteria for either context or intensity; therefore, the impacts of the action on social characteristics do not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by CEQ.Businesses and Economic Vitality: Completion of the Preferred Alternative would provide a high quality design and streetscape that could attract businesses, consumers and visitors to this already successful street. Design and streetscape strategies would be developed to improve traffic conditions and provide faster, more reliable transit that would enhance and support the continuing economic vitality of K Street. Elimination of some parking and a prohibition on parking and deliveries during peak hours would impact businesses and visitors; however, (1) most on-street parking and loading would remain available during off-peak periods, and side street and garage parking would remain the same as existing conditions; (2) alley loading docks would remain open and available; and (3) the more efficient transit system would attract transit riders, decreasing the number of automobile drivers entering the area. These factors would serve to mitigate the impact on the human environment. Therefore, while there are some anticipated direct impacts to businesses and economic vitality caused by the Preferred Alternative, those impacts do not rise to a level of "significance" regarding their context or intensity as defined by the CEQ definition. . Community Facilities: The Preferred Alternative would improve mobility and access to community facilities as a result of lowered congestion, faster travel times and more efficient, reliable transit. Emergency vehicles would use the transitway to avoid automobile traffic during emergencies, thus improving response times. The Preferred Alternative would directly impact community facilities through changes in the availability of on-street parking and deliveries. Therefore, similar to impacts to businesses, community facility parking and delivery restrictions would not result in severe impacts on community facilities. Based on the analysis provided in the EA, the direct effects of the proposed action to community facilities do not rise to a level "significance" as defined by CEQ. Traffic and Transportation: With the Preferred Alternative, end-to-end travel times in the general purpose lanes would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build Alternative. The K Street transitway would improve bus travel time and reliability, and encourage greater transit usage. End-to end travel times for buses on the transitway would be up to six minutes faster than the No-Build Alternative in 2030. The proposed 140-foot long bus stops would accommodate more than one bus at a time. By placing buses (which carry more persons per vehicle than automobiles) in an exclusive transitway, thus allowing more buses to travel along K Street during a single hour period, the project would provide more person-carrying capacity. The6

improvements in bus service would facilitate greater accessibility to employment and entertainment destinations. Based on an analysis of the effect of the preferred alternative on vehicular traffic, there would be a benefit providing an increase in travel times through the corridor even with two intersections operating at a LOS F during the AM peak period and one intersection during the PM peak period. The impact of the preferred alternative regarding traffic within the corridor considering the "context" and "intensity" of the site specific action, inclusive of the effect on transit operations, would be beneficial overall and therefore not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by CEQ. The Preferred Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a 12-foot wide curbside general purpose shared lane with automobiles, during the peak periods. During off-peak hours, the curb lane would accommodate bicyclists and parking/loading. Cycle tracks or separated bicycle lanes could not be included with Alternative 2 because of the desire to maintain existing sidewalk widths. The District's Bicycle Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor; rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent parallel streets, L and M Streets. The wider curbside lane would provide approximately two to three feet of accommodation for bicyclists wishing to use K Street during the peak and slightly more space during the off-peak. Pedestrians would continue to be accommodated on wide sidewalks with marked crosswalks, timed crossing intervals, and wider median refuge widths. All pedestrian improvements would be in accordance with the District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan objectives and recommendations to correct pedestrian deficiencies and increase pedestrian safety. The effects of the project on pedestrians and bicycles / pedestrian mobility and safety are not significant either in context or intensity per the CEQ definitions. As discussed previously, parking and loading would be impacted by the removal of approximately 130 of the existing 330 on-street parking spaces within the project area, and the restriction of the remaining approximately 200 spaces to off-peak use only. This would increase the demand for on-street parking on K Street and in the first blocks of the side streets. It is anticipated that this change is expected to cause inconveniences to those seeking to park on the street during peak hours and to those service providers delivering goods requiring loading and unloading on K Street during peak hours; however, parking impacts and restrictions to both the service providers and the general public do not rise to a level of "significance" as defined by the CEQ critieria.Terrestrial Habitat - Street Trees: The Preferred Alternative would require the removal of all of the street trees within the existing medians between 21 st Street and 9th Street. Existing sidewalk vegetation would be removed as needed; however, existing, healthy mature trees would be preserved as much as possible. All tree removal would be in accordance with the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration guidelines. Replacement and additional trees would be planted in accordance with an urban streetscape design plan that includes green street technologies as7

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

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

Construction Impacts: Business on K Street would be temporarily inconvenienced during construction. Construction would disrupt daily flow of business in the corridor. Landscaping, paving, street and/or sidewalk closures may cause some loss of business clientele as a result of this inconvenience. All utilities (electrical power, water and sewer, telephone and cable) are expected to be maintained throughout construction. Licensed street vendors may be temporarily relocated during construction. Construction noise and dust, although minimized, would8

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

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

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

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

be mindful of sidewalk width and landscaping.

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

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

Approved: Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration11

Date

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

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

Final: December 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

i


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

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

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

ii


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

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

iii


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

iv


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


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


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

vii


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

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

Evaluation Factor

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

Number of intersections with LOS E or F in 2030

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

Enhances Bicycle Compatibility

Effects on Loading / Ease of Loading

Number of parking spaces on K Street

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

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

Yes Yes No

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

viii


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


4.

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


5. 6.

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

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

xi


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

xii


1. PURPOSE AND NEED

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


This page is intentionally blank.

2

P Streete Av

Dupont Circle17th Street 16th Street

Logan Circleode RhtA ve

Ro

ck21st Street

CreIsla nd

e k P kw y

22nd Street

O Street

ec nn Co

Av e

ire

ve tA ticu

ps h

ssa c hu set ts A ve

m

Ver m

11th Street

Ha

Ne w

M Street20th Street 19th Street 18th Street 15th Street

25th Street

West EndStudy Area

10th Street

Ma

on

N Street

N Street

Mt. Vernon Square

L Street

Washington CircleK Street

Mt. Vernon Square McPherson Square Franklin SquareI Street

Farragut SquareI StreetPe nn syl van ia A ve

I Street H Street

e Av ork wY Ne

H Street

24thStreet

23rd Street

H Street

Layafette Park

Chinatown

District of Columbia

Study Area

13th Street

ia Av e

14th Street

12th Street

Vi rg

Maryland

Foggy BottomF Street

in

Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic

The White House

F Street

E Street E StreetE S t r e etin ia Av e

Po

LegendStudy Area

t

Vi rg

K StreetThe Ellipse

Virginia

Finaln Environmental Assessment Pensy nia A e Figurev1: Study Area0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet

lva

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

C Street

9th Street

Project Vicinity

G Street

G Street

December 2009

7th Street

om

ac

Rive

r



4


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

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

5


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

6


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

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

7


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

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

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

8


1.4.3

The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan

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

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

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

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

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

9



10


2. ALTERNATIVES

2ALTERNATIVES

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

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

11

BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS

BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND CONNECTICUT AVENUE AT FARRAGUT

Final Environmental AssessmentNot to ScaleThe dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 2A Alt 1: No-Build Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E

BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH STREETS

Final Environmental AssessmentNot to ScaleThe dimensions shown are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental impacts. They are subject to change during the final design phase.

K Street

Figure 2B Alt 1: No-Build Typical Sections

d

TM

EN

T OF TRANSP

OR

TA T

D E PA R

D

STA

TES OF A

ME

RI

CA

December 2009

ION

UN

IT

E


2.2 Proposed ActionThe proposed action consists of the reconfiguration of K Street to efficiently accommodate multimodal travel including an exclusive transitway, bike lanes, sidewalks, parking, and loading/unloading within the existing street right-of-way. Because of the existing physical constraints, not all of the typical section elements desired by the stakeholders could fit within the existing right-of-way; therefore, the two proposed alternatives incorporate different features. For example, Alternative 2 would provide a shared 12-foot outside lane for bicycle use during peak periods and would maintain parking and loading in the off-peak period. Alternative 3 would provide a five-foot bicycle lane adjacent to the curb, would eliminate parking, and would provide pullouts for loading/unloading zones at selecte

K Street Final Environmental Assessment: December 2009

Documents

Transcript of K Street Final Environmental Assessment: December 2009