N-S Public Meeting Series #2

PM2

The week of February 18-20, 2014, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) hosted four meetings located in the north, central, and south subareas of the corridor, with one meeting specifically for the business community. The purpose of the meetings was to receive feedback on proposed conceptual alignments and cross sections that could improve public transportation in the corridor. The meetings were the second in a series of three rounds of public meetings during the planning phase of the study process.

For the purposes of locating meetings, DDOT defined the subareas as:

  • North: Takoma/Silver Spring to Georgia Avenue/Petworth Metro Station area
  • Central: Georgia Avenue/Petworth Metro Station area to Downtown
  • South: Downtown to the SW Waterfront/Buzzard Point area

 

Results from the meeting: Here’s what we heard from you!
The comments we received were collected, categorized, and analyzed. Key themes emerged through our analysis of the public comments from both our meetings and local media sources. Click here to see a slideshow summarizing the comments we received.

 

Information and Materials from the Meeting

Overview Presentation

The presentation covered the previous plans and studies that led to the North-South Corridor Planning Study, identified current issues in the corridor, gave an overview of the North-South planning study process, provided an update of what we learned from the public at the first series of public meetings, and explained the stations and activities for the meeting. The presentation included brief question and answer sessions. Click here to see the presentation.

 

Welcome Station

The Process Schedule board displayed below explains the Phase 1: Planning Process and how all of the information gained will feed into the Phase 2: Environmental Review Process.
Study schedule PM2

Station A: History – Building on Existing Plans

This station provided background information on the North-South Corridor Planning Study as well as its connection to moveDC, the District’s multimodal long-range transportation plan.

One board displayed a timeline of the past transportation plans and studies, beginning in 1997, which led to the North-South Corridor Planning Study.

The moveDC draft plan board displayed the interaction of the current and planned network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, streets, and transit networks in the District.  The proposed 22-mile streetcar system and its relation to existing and future transit options were included in the transit network.

 

Station B: Progress – North-South Study

This station summarized the North-South Corridor Planning Study’s Purpose and Need, public comments from Public Meeting Series #1 (PM1), centers of activity identified by the public, and existing bus ridership in the corridor.

The PM1 Public Comments with the Purpose and Need board summarized the public comments from PM1 and how they have informed the Purpose and Need for the North-South Corridor Planning Study.

The Live, Work, and Play results from PM1 board displayed the key destinations and centers of activities in the corridor identified by the public at PM1.

The Transit Congestion board displayed the busiest bus stops based on the number of riders getting on and off the bus.

 

Station C: New Findings

Station C displayed the current WMATA bus ridership within the corridor and intersection operations highlighting current and future levels of congestion.

The Current Bus Operations and Observations board illustrated current bus capacity and passenger activity, and buses per hour within the study area.

The Existing Intersection Operations and Projected Intersection Operations (No-Build) boards displayed existing and future congestion issues at major intersections in the corridor.

The Initial Conceptual Alignments board shows all feasible streets that were under consideration within the study area at the beginning of the study.

Finally, the Conceptual Alignments Evaluation board displayed the evaluation criteria used to reduce the potential alignments at each stage of the analysis. This included categories such as ridership potential, populations served, land use, travel time and reliability, cost, intermodal connection, and community concerns.

PM2(4)

 

Station D: Building a Better Transit Network

This station was key in gaining public feedback on proposed conceptual alignments and options for streetcar operations within the existing roadway right-of-way (curb-to-curb width). Participants were provided worksheets that encouraged detailed feedback on specific alignment options and street cross sections.

The Alignments for Detailed Analysis board displayed streets where it is possible to operate a streetcar in the North-South study area based on preliminary analysis. For the purposes of getting targeted feedback, the corridor was divided into six zones: 1) Takoma/Silver Spring to Walter Reed, 2) Walter Reed to New Hampshire Ave NW, 3) New Hampshire Avenue NW to U Street NW, 4) U Street NW to the National Mall, 5) National Mall to Southwest, and 6) Buzzard Point. Within each zone, participants had an opportunity to comment on multiple alignments and rank the alignments in order of their preference.

There were four boards that displayed possible cross sections and how streetcars could operate within the existing street right-of-way. Options were color-coded based on the width of the roadway measured from existing curb-to-curb. The boards showed existing road conditions for each option and a reference map was displayed on each board to show where the various types of options could occur within the study area. The four boards are explained below.

 

Cross Section Options for Streets 60 to 70 feet Wide
There were four options for proposed improvements on streets that measure 60 to 70 feet across, from curb-to-curb. An example of a 60-70 feet roadway width is upper Georgia Avenue NW from U Street NW to Butternut Street NW.

(Options A&B)

  • Option A: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Bike Lanes and Parking displayed two travel lanes going northbound and two travel lanes going southbound. The streetcar shared the northbound and southbound lanes closest to the sidewalk with other vehicles. In addition, bike lanes were included. Street parking was available on both sides of the street; however, some parking would have to be removed to accommodate the streetcar stops.
  • Option B: Dedicated Streetcar/Bus Lane and No Parking displayed two northbound travel lanes and two southbound travel lanes with a dedicated streetcar/bus lane in each direction. The lanes closest to the sidewalk would be dedicated for streetcars and buses. Street parking would be removed for this option to accommodate the dedicated streetcar/bus lane.

(Options C&D)

  • Option C: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Center Stop and Parking had two northbound travel lanes and two southbound travel lanes. The streetcar shared the northbound and southbound lanes closest to the center of the street with other vehicles. The stop for the streetcar was located in a center median. Parking was retained in this option.
  • Option D: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Center Stop and Parking on One Side displayed two northbound travel lanes and two southbound travel lanes. The streetcar shared the northbound and southbound lanes closest to the center of the street with other vehicles. The streetcar stop was located in a center median. Street parking was retained on one side of the street.

 

Cross Section Options for Streets 50 to 60 feet Wide
There were two proposed improvements for streets that measure 50 to 60 feet across, from curb-to-curb. Sherman Avenue NW north of U Street NW is an example of this roadway width.

(Options E&F)

  • Option E: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Bike Lanes and Parking displayed one northbound travel lane, one southbound travel lane, and bike lanes in each direction. The streetcar shared both travel lanes with other vehicles. Street parking was available on both sides of the street; however, to accommodate the streetcar stop, some parking would have to be removed near the intersection.
  • Option F: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Bike Lanes and No Parking displayed streetcar sharing the lanes closest to the sidewalk with other vehicles. Street parking was removed in this option.

 

Cross Section Options for Streets 30 to 40 feet Wide
There were two proposed improvements for streets that measure 30 to 40 feet across, from curb-to-curb. This roadway width is typical of the neighborhood streets in the Buzzard Point/Southwest area.

(Options G&H)

  • Option G: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Parking (One-Way Street) displayed streetcar and other vehicles sharing one travel lane. Street parking was available on both sides of the street. However, some parking was removed to accommodate the streetcar stops.
  • Option H: Streetcar in Shared Lane with Parking on Both Sides displayed one northbound travel lane and one southbound travel lane. Streetcar and other vehicles shared the travel lanes. Street parking was available on both sides of the street with some parking removed to accommodate the streetcar stop.

 

Station Stops
At the Stop Locations Exercise board, participants used pushpins to suggest stop locations for the new service.  Suggested criteria for stops included proximity to work, home, transit stops or key destinations.

 

A video compilation of streetcar examples played throughout the meetings.

 

Our third round of meetings will be held in June. We hope to see you there!

 

PM2(3)