Great Streets Washington, D.C. AN ADVISORY SERVICES PROGRAM REPORT Urban Land Institute $
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Great StreetsWashington, D.C.
A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P R O G R A M R E P O R T
Urban LandInstitute$
Great StreetsWashington, D.C.A Strategy for Implementation
January 17–20, 2006
©2006 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20007-5201
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Reproduction or use of the whole or any part of the con-tents without written permission of the copyright holder is prohibited.
Cover photos: Nicholas Gabel
ABOUT ULI–THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit research andeducation organization that promotes responsible leader-ship in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment.
The Institute maintains a membership representing a broadspectrum of interests and sponsors a wide variety of educa-tional programs and forums to encourage an open exchangeof ideas and sharing of experience. ULI initiates researchthat anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and pro-poses creative solutions based on that research; provides ad-visory services; and publishes a wide variety of materials todisseminate information on land use and development.
Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than32,000 members from 90 countries, representing the entirespectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Pro-fessionals represented include developers, builders, propertyowners, investors, architects, public officials, planners, realestate brokers, appraisers, attorneys, engineers, financiers,
academics, students, and librarians. ULI relies heavily on theexperience of its members. It is through member involve-ment and information resources that ULI has been able toset standards of excellence in development practice. TheInstitute has long been recognized as one of America’s mostrespected and widely quoted sources of objective informa-tion on urban planning, growth, and development.
This Advisory Services program report is intended to fur-ther the objectives of the Institute and to make authoritativeinformation generally available to those seeking knowledgein the field of urban land use.
Richard M. Rosan, President
An Advisory Services Program Report2
ABOUT ULI ADVISORY SERVICES
The goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Program is to bring thefinest expertise in the real estate field to bear on complexland use planning and development projects, programs, andpolicies. Since 1947, this program has assembled well over400 ULI member teams to help sponsors find creative, prac-tical solutions for such issues as downtown redevelopment,land management strategies, evaluation of development po-tential, growth management, community revitalization,brownfields redevelopment, military base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable housing, and asset managementstrategies, among other matters. A wide variety of public,private, and nonprofit organizations have contracted forULI’s Advisory Services.
Each team is composed of highly qualified professionals who volunteer their time to ULI. They are chosen for theirknowledge of the topic and screened to ensure their objec-tivity. ULI teams are interdisciplinary and are developedbased on the specific scope of the assignment. They provide
a holistic look at development problems. A respected ULImember with previous experience chairs each team.
A key strength of the program is ULI’s unique ability todraw upon the knowledge and expertise of its members, in-cluding land developers and owners, public officials, aca-demics, representatives of financial institutions, and others.In fulfillment of the Urban Land Institute’s mission, this Ad-visory Services report is intended to provide objective advicethat will promote the responsible use of land to enhance theenvironment.
ULI PROGRAM STAFF
Rachelle L. LevittExecutive Vice President, Policy and Practice
Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs
Nicholas GabelSenior Associate, Advisory Services
Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator, Advisory Services
Yvonne StantonAdministrative Assistant
Nancy H. StewartDirector, Book Program
Laura Glassman, Publications Professionals LLCManuscript Editor
Betsy VanBuskirkArt Director
Martha LoomisDesktop Publishing Specialist /Design and Graphics
Craig ChapmanDirector, Publishing Operations
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On behalf of the Urban Land Institute, the panel would liketo thank the government of the District of Columbia forinviting it to participate in the discussion of the Great Streetsprogram. Special thanks are extended to Mayor Anthony A.Williams for initiating the Great Streets program. His visionand leadership have made the District of Columbia one ofthe country’s finest cities.
The panel also would like to thank the numerous city lead-ers who shared their time and experiences with the panel.They include Stanley Jackson, deputy mayor, Office of theDeputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development;Derrick Woodey, coordinator for the Great Streets Initia-tive, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and EconomicDevelopment; Michael Stevens, director of the Washington,
D.C., Economic Partnership. In addition, the panel wouldlike to thank Robert Bobb, city administrator, for his leader-ship in public outreach and education during the panel’sstay in Washington.
Special thanks go to Dan Tangherlini and Karina Ricks andto the entire staff at the District of Columbia Department ofTransportation. Their countless hours preparing for and as-sisting the panel were much appreciated. Their hard workand dedication to the Great Streets program are a true assetfor the District of Columbia.
The panel would especially like to thank Dennis Waarden-burg, GIS Specialist, District of Coumbia Office of Planningfor supplying the street maps for this report.
The panel extends thanks to all of the community memberswho shared their thoughts and experiences during the panel’stime in Washington. This group of individuals includes gov-ernment officials, residents, business leaders, and propertyowners. They provided the panel with valuable informationand insights that were critical to the completion of thepanel’s assignment.
4 An Advisory Services Program Report4
THE BLUE RIBBON TEAM AND PROJECT STAFF
CHAIR
Michael BannerPresident/Chief Executive OfficerLos Angeles LDC, Inc.Los Angeles, California
TEAM MEMBERS
Greg BaldwinPartnerZimmer Gunsul Frasca PartnershipPortland, Oregon
Terry D. FoeglerPresidentCampus PartnersColumbus, Ohio
Sheila GroveProgram DirectorWashington Gateway Main Street, Inc.Boston, Massachusetts
Philip HartPresident/Chief Executive OfficerHart Realty AdvisorsLos Angeles, California
Allan JacobsProfessor EmeritusUniversity of California at BerkeleySan Francisco, California
Kiku ObataPresidentKiku Obata & CompanySt. Louis, Missouri
Margie RuddickWallace Roberts & Todd, LLCPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
Donald ShoupUrban Planning ProfessorUniversity of California Los AngelesGraduate School of Architecture and PlanningLos Angeles, California
Jeff TumlinPartnerNelson NygaardSan Francisco, California
Todd WenskoskiAssociateDesign WorkshopDenver, Colorado
ULI PROJECT DIRECTORS
Mary Beth CorriganVice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs
Nicholas GabelSenior Associate, Advisory Services
ULI ON-SITE COORDINATOR
Carmen McCormickPanel Coordinator
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 5
An Advisory Services Program Report6
7
Contents
Introduction and Overview 9
What Makes a Great Street? 17
Great Streets Framework Plan Assessment 19
Transportation 21
Design 27
Investment Impact 31
Conclusion 35
About the Blue Ribbon Team 37
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 7
An Advisory Services Program Report8
P o t o m
ac
Ri v
er
Anacostia
R i ve r
1
2
3
6
5
4
Great Streets Corridors
1 7th Street, N.W./Georgia Avenue, N.W.
2 H Street, N.E./Benning Road, N.E./S.E.
3 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
4 Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, N.E.
5 Minnesota Avenue, N.E./S.E.
6 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, S.E./
South Capitol Street
N
Ý
The Great Streets Initiative is a program that will strategi-cally use public investments to improve local quality of lifeand attract additional private investment to communities. TheDistrict Department of Transportation (DDOT) has allocated$100 million over the next four years to improve infrastruc-ture and streetscapes and to catalyze private investment thatimproves neighborhood quality of life and creates a physicalenvironment that is conducive to the expansion of retail,housing, employment, services, and other community needs.These public investments will improve the safety, mobility,economic strength, accessibility, and physical beauty of thesecorridors, the main streets of many of the most vibrantneighborhoods in the city.
The intent of the Great Streets program is to revitalize corri-dors along their entire length rather than a specific districtor node and to improve the communities that border them.The program is a comprehensive initiative that brings togethermany public agencies that have a stake in the revitalizationof the corridors. The other D.C. public agencies involvedinclude the Office of Planning, the Office of Economic De-velopment, the Department of Housing and CommunityDevelopment, the Commission on Arts and Humanities, theDepartment of Parks and Recreation, and the Departmentof Environmental Health.
The CorridorsThe six Great Streets corridors were recognized not only asbeing critical corridors in the District of Columbia, but alsoas being in areas with strong local organizations and leaderscapable of partnering with public agencies to encourage “cleanand safe” activities and to program public events and activi-ties that use in a positive way the enhanced public spaces.The Great Streets corridors are gateways into the city andcritical to providing essential links and mobility across andbetween neighborhoods of the city. They are recognized fortheir historical significance to the city and the nation.
The communities along the Great Streets also are workingcommunities whose diverse neighborhoods are beginning togrow after a long period of disinvestment. Their major con-cerns are that their neighborhoods are safe and that they areperceived as safe.
The Great Streets program has designated the following sixcorridors in Washington, D.C., for investment:
99Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006
Introduction and Overview
7th Street/Georgia Avenue, N.W. The Georgia Avenue and 7th Street corridor is 5.6 mileslong and runs from Mount Vernon Square in downtown toEastern Avenue at the District of Columbia border withSilver Spring, Maryland. Along this corridor are many activ-ity nodes, including the D.C. Convention Center, HowardUniversity, Georgia Avenue/Petworth Metro Station, WalterReed Campus, and the Gateway.
An Advisory Services Program Report10
HOW
ARD
PL N
W
12TH PL NW
GRES
HAM
PL
NW
FREN
CH S
T N
W
MARION ST NW
10TH ST NW
MT
VERN
ONP
6TH ST NW
9TH ST NW
10TH ST NW
O ST
NW
COLU
MBI
A RD
NW
EUCL
ID S
T NW
9TH ST NW
M S
T N
W
8TH ST NW
7TH ST NW
BRYA
NTST
11TH ST NW
W S
T NW
6TH ST NW
VERMONT AVE NW
N ST
NW
WILTBERGER ST NW
WES
TMIN
STER
ST
NW
GIR
ARD
ST
NW
COLUMBIA ST NW
LOGAN
CIR
FLO
RID
A AV
E NW
S ST
NW
11TH ST NW
NEW
YOR
K AV
E NW
GEORGIA AVE
HARV
ARD
ST N
W
T ST
NW
W S
T NW
FLORIDA AVE NW
13TH ST NW
U ST
NW
T ST
NW
M S
T N
W
V ST
NW
W S
T N
W
10TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
V ST
NW
12TH ST NW
9TH ST NW
10TH ST NW
FAIR
MO
NT S
T N
W
8TH ST NW
FAIR
MO
NT
ST
12TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
8TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
IRVI
NG S
T NW
13TH ST NW
CLIF
TON
ST N
W
HOBA
RT
PL N
W
R ST
NW
IRVI
NG S
T NW
7TH ST NW
SHERMAN AVE NW
WARDER ST NW
GRES
HAM
PL
NW
13TH ST NW
L ST
NW
L ST
NW
12TH ST NW
P ST
NW
9TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
VERMONT AVE NW
9TH ST NW
Q ST
NW
7TH ST NW
13TH ST NW
K ST
NW
Q ST
NW
9TH ST NW
M S
T N
W
12TH ST NW
GEORGIA AVE NW
O ST
NW
13TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
K ST
NW
VERMONTAVE
SHERMAN AVE
GEORGIA AVE NW
11TH ST NW
GEORGIA AVE NW
MAS
SACH
USET
TSA
13TH ST NW
COLU
MBI
A RD
NW
5TH S T
HARV
ARD
ST N
W
6TH ST NW
BAR
RY
PL N
W
13TH ST NW 13TH ST NW
8TH ST NW
13TH ST NW
U ST
NW
10TH ST NW
GIR
ARD
ST
NW
S ST
NW
SHERMAN AVE NW
12TH ST NW
HOBA
RT
PL N
W
KEN
YON
ST
NW
O ST
NW
L ST
NW
IRVI
NG S
T NW
N S
T N
W
6TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
12TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
11TH ST NW
7TH ST NWP
ST N
W
RHOD
E IS
LAND
AVE
NW
RHOD
E IS
LAND
AVE
NW
FLOR
IDA
AVE
NW
BOHRERSTNW
MAS
SACH
USET
TSAV
ENW
HOW
ARD
UNIV
ERSI
TY
M S
T N
W
NEW
YORK
AVE
NW
M
M
M
M
MT
VERN
ON S
Q CO
NVEN
TION
CEN
TER
SHAW
- HO
WAR
D U
SHAW
- HO
WAR
D U
H
7th
Str
eet
NW
- G
eorg
ia A
ve N
W
010
020
030
0
Feet
Off
ice
of
Pla
nn
ing
~ M
arch
24,
200
6
Gov
ern
men
t o
f th
e D
istr
ict
of
Co
lum
bia
A
nth
ony
A. W
illia
ms,
May
or
This
map
was
cre
ated
for p
lann
ing
purp
oses
from
a v
arie
ty o
f sou
rces
. It
is n
eith
er a
sur
vey
nor a
lega
l doc
umen
t. In
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y ot
her a
genc
ies
shou
ld b
e ve
rifie
d w
ith th
em w
here
app
ropr
iate
.
N
ò
OPID0008666
N Ý
FER
N P
L N
W
9TH ST NW
HIGH
LAND
AVE
NW
POW
HAT
AN P
L N
W
5TH ST NW
12TH ST NW
13TH ST NW
5TH ST NW
8TH ST NW
GEORGIA AVE NW
MAI
N D
R N
W
JUNIP
ERST
N
7TH ST NW
QUIN
TAN
A PL
NW
SHER
IDA
N S
T N
W
BRUM
MEL
CT
NW
AMBU
LANC
E DR
NW
VEN
ABLE
PL
NW
OGLE
THOR
PE S
T NW
FLO
RAL
PL N
W
7TH ST NW
BUTT
ERN
UT S
T N
W
13TH ST NW
7TH ST NW
WH
ITTI
ER S
T N
W
UNDE
RW
OO
D ST
NW
MIS
SOUR
I AVE
NW
KALM
IA R
D N
W
8TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
SHEP
HER
D R
D N
W
WH
ITTI
ER P
L NW
GERA
NIU
MST
9TH ST NW
GEORGIA AVE
8TH ST NW
DAH
LIA
ST
NW
5TH ST N
7TH ST NW
HEM
LOCK
ST
NW
SHEP
HERD
RDN
GEORGIA AVE NW
7TH ST NW
SOM
ERSE
T PL
NW
12TH ST NW
PINEYBRANCHRD
KALM
IA R
D N
W
GERA
NIU
M S
T N
W
VAN
BU
REN
ST
NW
GEORGIA AVE NW
9TH ST NW
HEM
LOCK
ST
NW
PEA
BOD
Y ST
NW
DAHL
IA S
T N
W
6TH ST NW
9TH ST NW
MAI
ND
RN
HO
LLY
ST N
W
8TH ST NW
FER
N PL
NW
PINE
YBR
ANCH
RD
UN
DER
WO
OD
ST N
W
6TH ST NW
PEAB
OD
Y ST
NW
CED
ARS
TN
9TH ST NW
ROCK
CREE
KFO
RD
RD
ROXB
ORO
PL
NW
HEM
LOCK
ST
NW
7TH ST NW
ONEI
DA
PL
NW
COLORADOAVEN
13TH ST NW
GEORGIA AVE NW
MAR
IETT
A PL
NW
13TH PL NW12TH ST NW
6TH ST NW
ASPE
ND R
N
MIS
SOUR
I AVE
NW
8TH ST NW
ALASKA AVE NW
5TH ST NW
TUCK
ERM
AN S
T N
W
13TH ST NW
GEORGIA AVE NW
LON
GFE
LLO
W S
T NW
TEW
KESB
UR
Y PL
NW
UNDE
RW
OO
D ST
NW
VAN
BUR
ENST
MAD
ISON
S TN
TUCK
ERM
AN S
T N
W
MIS
SOUR
I AVE
NW
QUAC
KEN
BOS
ST N
W
ELD
ER S
T N
W
12TH ST NW
QUIN
TAN
A PL
NW
NIC
HO
LSO
N S
T N
W
JUN
IPER
ST
NW
8TH ST NW
8TH ST NW
13THSTN
7TH PL NW
EASTE
RN AVE NW
PINEY BRANCH RD
5TH ST NW
13TH ST NW
7TH PL NW
ASPE
N S
T NW
BLAIR RD N
MAD
ISO
N S
T N
W7TH PL NW
TUCK
ERM
AN S
T N
W
QUAC
KEN
BOS
S T N
W
RITT
ENH
OU
SE S
T N
W
ASPE
N S
T N
W
PINEYBRANCHRDNW
ALASKAAVENUENW
MTA
KOM
A PA
RK
H
010
020
030
0
Feet
i
Will
ias,
May
or
7th
Str
eet
NW
- G
eorg
ia A
ve N
W
Gov
ern
men
t o
f th
e D
istr
ict
of
Co
lum
bia
A
nth
ony
A. W
illia
ms,
May
or
This
map
was
cre
ated
for p
lann
ing
purp
oses
from
a v
arie
ty o
f sou
rces
. It
is n
eith
er a
sur
vey
nor a
lega
l doc
umen
t. In
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y ot
her a
genc
ies
shou
ld b
e ve
rifie
d w
ith th
em w
here
app
ropr
iate
.
N
ò
BRIG
HTW
OOD
BRIG
HTW
OOD
BRIG
HTW
OOD
BRIG
HTW
OOD
BRIG
HTW
OOD
MO N T G O M
E R YC O U N T Y
MA R Y L A N D
5
405
N Ý
7th Street/Georgia Avenue, N.W.
H Street N.E./Benning Road, N.E./S.E. The H Street/Benning Road corridor stretches 4.7 milesfrom North Capitol Street across the Anacostia River toSouthern Avenue at the District of Columbia/Maryland bor-der. The fabric of this corridor is highly diverse. H Streetfrom 2nd Street to the intersection of Maryland Avenue andBladensburg and Benning roads is a medium-density urbanretail corridor. Primarily a lower-density and auto-orientedstreet, Benning Road has a number of uses.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 11
44TH PL SE
FOOTE
ST
NE
EDSON PL NE
FALL
S TE
R SE
47TH ST SE
BURBANK ST SE
EASY PL SE
ELY PL SE
C ST SE
ASTOR PL SE
AYERS PL SE
DRAKE PL SE
HANNA PL SE
37TH
ST
SE
CLAY ST NE
46TH PL SE
FITCH
ST S
E
34TH
PL
NE
CENTRAL A
40TH PL SE
ANACOSTIA RD NE
BURNS PL SE
GORMAN TER SE
ASTOR PL SE
54TH
ST
SE
HILL
TOP
T
CALL PL SE
GRANT PL NE
BENNING R
BASS PL SE
49TH PL NE
KENI
LWOR
TH
F ST SE
46TH PL NE
BLAINE ST NE
GAULT PL NE
36TH
ST
NE
FABLE ST SE
FLIN
T PL
NE
43R
D RD
NE
BURNS ST NE
41ST
S
49TH
ST
SE
53RD
ST
SE
ST LOUIS
HEATH ST SE
50TH
PL
SE
50TH S
EAST CAPITOL
ALBERT IRVIN CASS
PARK
SIDE
PL
NE
FOOTE P
FRANKLIN D ROOSE
MIN
NESO
TA
GUNTHER ST SE
39TH
S
BOON
ESHI
LL
STODDERT
BASS
CI
STICKNEY R
D ST SE
C ST SE
A ST SE
ANAC
OS
TIA
A
A ST SE
44TH ST NE
46TH ST SE
TEXA
SAV
BLAINE ST NE
DIX ST NE
B ST SE
BROOKS ST NE
AMES ST NE
BENNI NG
36TH ST NE
G S
T SE
E ST
SE
AMES ST NE
EAST CAPITOL ST
BLAINE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
ANACOSTIA AVE NE
KENI
LWO
RTH
AVE
NE
CLAY PL NE
C ST SE
G ST
EAST CAPITOL ST
34TH ST NE
A ST SE
42ND S
T NE
FOOTE ST NE
53RD
S
BAKER ST NE
CE NTRAL A
BENNING RD NE
45TH ST NE
50TH
ST
35TH
ST
NE
B ST
SE
ANAC
OST
IA A
VE N
E
MIN
NESO
TA A
VE N
E
HILL
TOP
TER
SE
D ST SE
51ST ST SE
ALABAMA AVE SE
46TH
S
QUEENS STROLL PL SE
C ST SE
EADS ST NE
BURNS ST SETE
XAS
AVE
SE
BASS P
CLAY PL NE
51ST
ST
SE
KENI
LWO
RTH
EADS ST NE
45TH PL SE
H ST SE
GRANT ST NE
BLAINE ST NE
B ST SE
34TH ST NE
BURNHAM PL NE
RIDGE RD SE
BLAINE ST NE
42ND ST NE
CHAP LINS
F ST
SE
B ST SE
A ST SE
KENI
LWO
RTH
AVE
NE
C ST SE
BENNING RD NE
BENNING RD SE
35TH
ST
NE
CH APLIN
40TH ST NE
HAYES ST NE
41ST ST NE
BENNING RD NE
STICKNEY R
53RD
ST
SE
EAST CAPITOL ST
HANN
A PL
SE
DIX ST NE
CLAY PL NE
C ST
SE
CHAP
LIN
ST S
E
46TH ST SE
AMES ST NE
SOUT
HERN
AVE
SE
47TH ST NE
GRANT PL NE
BURNS ST SE
H ST SE
DIX ST NE
AMES ST NE
HILLSIDE RD SE
47TH ST NE
CLAY ST NE
36TH
ST
NE
50TH
ST
SE
48TH PL NE
ST LOUIS ST SE
RIDGE RD SE
E ST
BASS PL SE
51ST
ST
SE
CHAPLIN ST SE
KENI
LWO
RTH
AVE
NE
ANAC
OST
IA
BENNING RD SE
40TH
ST
NE
53RD
ST S
E
DUBOIS PL SE
50TH
ST
SE
E ST SE
MIN
NES
OTA
BENNING RD NE
HILLTOP TER SE
BENNING RD SE
BARN
ES S
T NE
F ST SE
35TH
ST
NE
C ST SE
51ST
ST
SE
EAST CAPITOL ST
49TH ST NE
BLAINE ST NE
49TH
ST
SE
BANKS PL NE
D ST SE
CALL PL SE
46TH ST NE
46TH
PL
SE
BLAINE ST NE
CENTRAL AVE N
E
44TH ST NE
SYCA
MOR
E
54TH
ST
SE
FOOTE ST NE
FITCH
ST S
E
E ST SE
KENI
LWO
RTH
AVE
NE
FORT CHAPLIN PARK
FORT MAHAN PARK
KENNILWORTH AQUATIC GARDENSM
BENNING ROAD
0 200 400
Feet
¯Government of theD istrict of C olumbiaAnthony A . W illia ms, Mayor
Office of Planning ~ March 24, 2006
H St NE -B enning Rd NE /SE
This map was created for planningpurposes from a varie ty of source s.It is ne ither a surve y nor a lega l document.Information provided by othe r a genciesshould be ve rifie d with them where a ppropria te .
OPID
0008
694
295
H ST NE
G PL NE
PIERCE ST NE
ABBEY PL NE
EMERALD ST N EACKER PL NE
17TH PL NE
OKLAH
OMA
AVE
NEF ST NE
H PL NE
MORRI S PL NE
MORTON PL NE
KRAMER ST NE
WYLIE ST NE
GALES PL NE
LI NDEN PL NE
ELLIOTT ST N
E
14TH PL NE
BENNETT PL NE
ROSEDALE ST NE
LEXINGTON PL NE DUNCAN PL NE
BENNING
DUNCAN ST NE
PICKFORD PL NE
CORBIN PL NE
LOUISIANA AVE N
E
COLU
MBU
S
PARKER ST NE
12TH ST NE
H ST NE
NORTH
CAPITOL ST
NORTH
CAPITOL ST
6TH ST NE
8TH ST NE
MASSACHUSETTS AVE NE
ORRE
N ST
NE
KENT PL NE
L PL NW
LEVIS ST NE
STAP
LES
ST N
E
ISHERWOO
CONG
RESS ST NE
EAMES
NEAL ST NE
18TH ST NE
4TH ST NE
TENN
ESSE
E AV
E NE
5TH ST NE
3RD ST NE
11TH ST NE
E ST NE
F ST NE
1ST
ST N
E
3RD ST NE
21ST
ST
NE
G ST NE
18TH ST NE
L ST NE
15TH
ST
NE
14TH
PL
NE
F ST NE
LANG PL NE
G ST NW
15TH ST NE
11TH ST NE
I ST NE
K ST NE
OKLA
HOMA
18TH ST NE
7TH ST NE
16TH ST NE
17T H ST NE
GALES ST NE
D ST NE
I ST NE
F ST NE
9TH ST NE
MARYLAND AVE NE
MON
TELL
O AV
E NE
13TH ST NE
C ST NE
NORTH
CAPITOL ST
24TH
ST
NE
8TH ST NE
I ST NE
DELA
WAR
E AV
E NE
I ST NE
7TH ST NE
BENNING RD NE
D ST NE
17TH
PL
NE
4TH ST NE
16TH
ST
NE
NEAL ST NE
19TH ST NE
5TH ST NE
HOLB
ROOK
9TH ST NE
19TH ST N
G ST NE
TRIN
IDAD
AVE
NE
E ST NE E ST NE
I ST NE
16TH
ST
NE
26TH
ST
NE
10TH ST NE
OATES
8TH ST NE
LEVIS ST NE
MARYLAND AVE NE
H ST NE
12TH ST NE
L ST NE
10TH ST NE
G ST NE
K ST NE
21ST ST NE
MARYLAND AVE NE
22ND ST NE
I ST NE
18TH
ST
NE
18TH PL N
BENNING
1ST ST NE
2ND ST NE
1ST ST NE
I ST NE
F ST NE
12TH ST NE
24TH ST NE
6TH S T NE
19TH
ST
NE
23R
D PL
NE
7TH ST NE
1ST ST NE
ROSEDALE ST NE
E ST NE
21ST ST NE
K ST NE
BLAD
ENSB
URG
RD
NE
3RD ST NE
STAP
LES
ST N
E
GALES ST NE
D ST NE
E ST NE
13TH ST NE
D ST NE
20TH ST NE
G ST NE
H ST NE
L ST NE
FLORIDA AVE NE
K ST NE
HOLB
ROOK
ST
NE
6TH ST NE
10TH ST NE
17T H ST NED ST NE
MARYLAND AVE NE
MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW
E ST NE
ORRE
N ST
NE
17TH
ST
NE
MARYLAND AVE NE
L ST NE
D ST NE
G ST NE
20TH
ST
NE
7TH ST NE
19TH ST NE
MORSE ST NE
21ST ST NE
E ST NW
14TH ST NE
E ST NE
H ST NE
G ST NE
14TH ST NE
5TH ST NE
COL UM
BUS
20TH
ST
NE
25TH
PL
NE
2ND ST NE
MORSE ST NE
D ST NE
F ST NE
L ST NE
H ST NE
4TH ST NE
L ST NE
FLORIDAAVE
CIRCLE
MUNION STATION
MUNION STATION
0 200 400
Feet
¯Government of theD istrict of C olumbiaAnthony A . W illia ms, Mayor
Office of Planning ~ March 24, 2006
H St NE - Benning Rd NE/SE
This map was created for planningpurposes from a varie ty of source s.It is ne ither a surve y nor a lega l document.Information provided by othe r a genciesshould be ve rifie d with them where a ppropria te .
OPID
0008
694
N
Ý
N
Ý
H Street, N.E., from Union Station to Benning Road.
Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., runs from 2nd Street, S.E.,through Capitol Hill over the Anacostia River to SouthernAvenue at the District of Columbia border with Maryland.This three-mile corridor is a major river crossing with ac-cess into and out of downtown Washington. It has majoractivity nodes at L’Enfant Square and Branch and Alabamaavenues.
An Advisory Services Program Report12
38TH
ST
SE
41ST PL SE
41ST ST SE
36TH PL SE
P ST SE
N ST SE
POPE ST
28TH ST SE
YOUNG ST SE
SUITLAND RD
22ND ST SE
ALAB
AMA
AVE
SE
33RD ST SE
NASH PL SE
WES
TOVE
R DR
SE
29TH ST SE
S ST SE
R ST SEW
HITE PL SE
FORT
DAV
IS P
L SE
T ST SE
BURNS ST SE
M ST S
E
PROU
T ST
SE
FORT
DAV
IS S
T SE
R ST SE
HIGHWOOD DR SE
40TH
ST
31ST
PL
SE
BANG
OR S
T SE
BELT
RDS
SUIT
LAND
TER
SE
25TH ST SE
NICHOLSON ST SEPALMER PL SE
LEN
FAN
TS
Q
HIGH
WOO
DPL
26TH PL SE
N ST SE
FA
IR
LAWN AV
E
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
37TH ST SE
TEX
ASAV
E
P ST SE
W ST SE
38TH ST SE
27TH ST SE
LENFANT SQ SE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
Q ST SE
SOUT
HERN
AVE
SE
ANACOSTIA RD
36TH PL SE
CARPENTER ST SE
BRANCH AVE SE
BRANCH AVE SE
29TH ST SE
30TH ST SE
36TH ST SE
S ST SE
38TH ST SE
30TH ST SE
23RD ST SE
FORT
DAV
IS P
L SE
MIN
NESO
TA A
VE S
E
19TH ST SE
MINNESOTA AV
HIG
HWOO
DD
R
NAYLOR RD SE
O ST SE
ANACOST
IADR
SOUT
HERN
AVE
SE
F AIRLA
WN
AVE HIGHWOOD DR
28TH PL SE
FORT DUPONT ST SE
S ST SE
ANAC
OSTIA
DR S
E
V ST SE
ALAB
AMA
AVE
SE
34TH ST SE
Q ST SE
28TH ST SE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
MIN
NESO
TAAV
U ST SE
Q ST SE
30TH ST SE
27TH ST SE
31ST ST SE
ALAB
AMA
AVE
SE
31ST
ST
SE
NASH PL SE
O ST SE
PARK DR SE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
Q ST SE
MIN
NESO
TAAV
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
SUITLAND RD SE
35TH ST SE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
PARK PL SE
TEXA
S AV
E SE
O ST SE
31ST ST SE
N ST SE
POPE ST SE
34TH ST
Q ST SE
HIGHWOOD DR SE
NELSON PL SE
NASH PL SE
NICHOLSON ST
28TH PL SE
NASH ST SE
38TH
ST
S ST SE
CARP
ENTE
RST
SE
33RD
ST SE
33RD PL SE
FORT DUPONT PARK
FORT DUPONT PARK
ANACOSTIA RIVER PARK
0 100 200 300
Feet
¯Government of theD istrict of C olumbiaAnthony A . W illia ms, Mayor
Office of Planning ~ March 24, 2006
PennsylvaniaAve SE
This map was created for planningpurposes from a varie ty of source s.It is ne ither a surve y nor a lega l document.Information provided by othe r a genciesshould be ve rifie d with them where a ppropria te .
OPID
0008
695
295
5
405
MUNION STATION
YOUNG ST SE
IVES PL SE
22ND ST SE
18TH PL SE
PENNSYLV ANIA AVE S
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
M ST S
E
SOUTH CA
ROLINA A
VE SE
SOUTH CA
ROLINA A
VE SE
FAIRLA
WN AVE S
12TH ST SE
D ST SE
KENTUCKY AVE SE
4TH ST SE
8TH ST SE
3RD ST SE POTO
MAC
AVE
SE
D ST SE
6TH ST SE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE
SEWARD SQ SE
K ST SE
17TH ST SE
1ST ST SE
5TH ST SE
C ST SE
C ST SE
19TH ST SE
14TH ST SE
10TH ST SE
C ST SE
7TH ST SE
NORT
HCA
ROLI
NAAV
E
D ST SE
5TH ST SE
C ST SE
8TH ST SE
14TH ST SE
NAYLOR RD SE
C ST SE
G ST SE
ANACOSTIA
DRS
15TH ST SE
6TH ST SE
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SE
E ST SE
E ST SE
7TH ST SE
ANAC
OSTIA
DR S
E
INDEPENDENCE AVE SE
11TH ST SE
H ST SE
NORT
HCA
ROLI
NAAV
E
13TH ST SE
13TH ST SE
15TH ST SE
3RD ST SE
4TH ST SE
9TH ST SE
E ST SE
G ST SE
INDEPENDENCE AVE SE
IVES PL SE
NORT
H CA
ROLI
NA A
VE S
E
2ND ST SE
8TH ST SE
D ST SE
11TH ST SE
EAST CAPITOL ST
SOUTH CA
ROLINA A
VE SE
D ST SE
I ST SE
BARNEY
CIRSE
E ST SE
14TH ST SE
A ST SE
SOUTHEAST FREEWAY
SOUSA BRIDGE
10TH ST SE
POTO
MAC
AVE
SE
L ST SE
5TH ST SE
16TH
ST
SE
M ST SE
NICHOLSON ST S
SEWARD SQ SE
G ST SE
2ND ST SE
D ST SE
D ST SE
9TH ST SE
K ST SE
6TH ST SE
P ST SE
0 100 200 300
Feet
¯Government of theD istrict of C olumbiaAnthony A . W illia ms, Mayor
Office of Planning ~ March 24, 2006
PennsylvaniaAve SE
This map was created for planningpurposes from a varie ty of source s.It is ne ither a surve y nor a lega l document.Information provided by othe r a genciesshould be ve rifie d with them where a ppropria te .
295
5
295
M
POTOMAC AVE
M EASTERN MARKET
CONGRESSIONAL CEMETERY
ANACOSTIA RIVER
N
Ý
Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
N
Ý
Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, N.E. The Nannie Helen Burroughs corridor runs from KenilworthAvenue to Eastern Avenue at the District of Columbia/Maryland border. As the shortest corridor, at 1.45 miles,Nannie Helen Burroughs is residential in nature with activ-ity nodes at Division and Minnesota avenues.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 13
WATTS BRANCH PARK
GAY ST NE
GAULT PL NE
GRANT ST NE
FITCH PL NE
43RD
PL
NE
59TH
ST
NE
FIELD PL NE
HUNT
PL N
E
57TH ST N
E
HUNT ST NE
KARL PL NE
EADS ST NE
JAMES PL NE
58TH ST N
E
KANE PL NE
56TH ST N
E
59TH
AVE
NE
60TH
AVE
NE
58TH
AVE
NE
57TH
AVE
NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
55TH
DEA N
EADS ST NE
57TH
PL
NE
HUNT PL NE
50TH
PL
NE
51ST ST N
E
FOOTE ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
48TH
PL
NEJAY ST NE
46TH
ST
NE
JAY ST NE
EASTERN AVE NE
EASTERN AVE NE
56TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
42ND ST N
E
54TH
49TH ST N
E
56TH
PL N
E
JAMES PL NE
FITCH PL NE
EASTERN AVE NE
42ND ST N
E
45TH
ST
NE
JAY ST NE
57TH ST N
E
57TH ST N
E
48TH ST N
E
55TH ST N
E
46TH
ST
NE
GRANT ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
54TH
55TH
ST
NE
JAY ST NE
EADS ST NE
50TH ST N
E
DIX ST NE
JUST ST NE
46TH
ST
NE
59TH ST N
E
51ST
ST
NE
55TH
ST
NE
49TH
ST NE
EADS ST NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
KENILWORTH AVE NE
48TH ST N
E
49TH ST N
E
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
HAYES ST NE
FITCH PL NE 56TH
ST
NE
50TH
ST
NE
47TH PL N
E
HAYES ST NE
48TH PL N
E
57TH ST N
E
KENIL
WOR
TH A
VE N
E
JAY ST NE
58TH ST N
E
55TH
ST
NE
45TH
PL
NEKENIL
WOR
TH A
VE N
E
NANNIE HELE
55TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
48TH ST N
E
HUNT PL NE
JAY ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
KENIL
WOR
TH A
VE N
E
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
44TH
ST
NE
SHERIFF RD NE
HUNT PL NE
45TH
PL
NE
SHERIFF RD NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
FOOT
SHERIFF RD NE
JAY ST NE
42ND ST N
E
MIN
NESOT
A AV
E NE EASTERN AVE NE
MIN
NESOT
A AV
E NE
LANE PL NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
GRANT ST NE
58TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
49TH
PL
NE
KANE PL NE
44TH ST N
E
55TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
JAY ST NE
NANNIE HELEN
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
EASTE
47TH PL N
E
52ND
ST
NE
49TH
ST
NE
HUNT
PL N
E
42ND ST N
E
JAY ST NE
SHERIFF RD NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
KANE PL NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
HAYES ST NE
56TH ST N
E
DIX ST NE
49TH ST N
E
SHERIFF RD NE
55TH
ST
NE
HAYES ST NE
HAYES ST NE
50TH PL N
E
FOOTE ST NE
48TH ST N
E
50TH
PL N
E
47TH
ST
NE
GAULT PL NE
58TH ST N
E
49TH
PL
NE
42ND ST N
E
52ND
ST
NE
44TH ST N
E
FOOTE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
GRANT ST NE
44TH
ST
NE
57TH
PL N
E
49TH
ST
NE
HUNT PL NE
46TH
ST
NE
46TH ST N
E
FOOTE ST NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
WATTS BRANCHPARK
FORT MAHAN PARK
0 100 200 300
Feet
Nannie HelenBurroughs Ave NE
OPID
0008
695
295
295
295
4
295
1
295
295
295
295
295
4
1
295
295
WATTS BRANCH PARK
GAY ST NE
GAULT PL NE
GRANT ST NE
FITCH PL NE
43RD
PL
NE
59TH
ST
NE
FIELD PL NE
HUNT
PL N
E
57TH ST N
E
HUNT ST NE
KARL PL NE
EADS ST NE
JAMES PL NE
58TH ST N
E
KANE PL NE
56TH ST N
E
59TH
AVE
NE
60TH
AVE
NE
58TH
AVE
NE
57TH
AVE
NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
55TH
DEA N
EADS ST NE
57TH
PL
NE
HUNT PL NE
50TH
PL
NE
51ST ST N
E
FOOTE ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
48TH
PL
NEJAY ST NE
46TH
ST
NE
JAY ST NE
EASTERN AVE NE
EASTERN AVE NE
56TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
42ND ST N
E
54TH
49TH ST N
E
56TH
PL N
E
JAMES PL NE
FITCH PL NE
EASTERN AVE NE
42ND ST N
E
45TH
ST
NE
JAY ST NE
57TH ST N
E
57TH ST N
E
48TH ST N
E
55TH ST N
E
46TH
ST
NE
GRANT ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
54TH
55TH
ST
NE
JAY ST NE
EADS ST NE
50TH ST N
E
DIX ST NE
JUST ST NE
46TH
ST
NE
59TH ST N
E
51ST
ST
NE
55TH
ST
NE
49TH
ST NE
EADS ST NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
KENILWORTH AVE NE
48TH ST N
E
49TH ST N
E
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
HAYES ST NE
FITCH PL NE 56TH
ST
NE
50TH
ST
NE
47TH PL N
E
HAYES ST NE
48TH PL N
E
57TH ST N
E
KENIL
WOR
TH A
VE N
E
JAY ST NE
58TH ST N
E
55TH
ST
NE
45TH
PL
NEKENIL
WOR
TH A
VE N
E
NANNIE HELE
55TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
48TH ST N
E
HUNT PL NE
JAY ST NE
FOOTE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
KENIL
WOR
TH A
VE N
E
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
44TH
ST
NE
SHERIFF RD NE
HUNT PL NE
45TH
PL
NE
SHERIFF RD NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
FOOT
SHERIFF RD NE
JAY ST NE
42ND ST N
E
MIN
NESOT
A AV
E NE EASTERN AVE NE
MIN
NESOT
A AV
E NE
LANE PL NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
GRANT ST NE
58TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
49TH
PL
NE
KANE PL NE
44TH ST N
E
55TH ST N
E
HAYES ST NE
JAY ST NE
NANNIE HELEN
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
EASTE
47TH PL N
E
52ND
ST
NE
49TH
ST
NE
HUNT
PL N
E
42ND ST N
E
JAY ST NE
SHERIFF RD NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
KANE PL NE
DIV
ISIO
N A
VE N
E
HAYES ST NE
56TH ST N
E
DIX ST NE
49TH ST N
E
SHERIFF RD NE
55TH
ST
NE
HAYES ST NE
HAYES ST NE
50TH PL N
E
FOOTE ST NE
48TH ST N
E
50TH
PL N
E
47TH
ST
NE
GAULT PL NE
58TH ST N
E
49TH
PL
NE
42ND ST N
E
52ND
ST
NE
44TH ST N
E
FOOTE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
GRANT ST NE
44TH
ST
NE
57TH
PL N
E
49TH
ST
NE
HUNT PL NE
46TH
ST
NE
46TH ST N
E
FOOTE ST NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
WATTS BRANCHPARK
FORT MAHAN PARK
0 100 200 300
Feet
Nannie HelenBurroughs Ave NE
OPID
0008
695
295
295
295
4
295
1
295
295
295
295
295
4
1
295
295
Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue, N.E.
N
Ý
N
Ý
Minnesota Avenue, N.E./S.E.The Minnesota Avenue corridor stretches 3.5 miles fromSheriff Road, N.E., to Good Hope Road, S.E. The corridoris primarily residential and parkland in nature with activitynodes at the Minnesota Avenue Metro stop, East CapitolStreet, Randle Circle, and Pennsylvania Avenue.
An Advisory Services Program Report14
ANACOSTIA RIVER PARK
POPE BRANCH PARK
FORT DUPONT PARK
U PL SE
T PL SE
M PL SE
N ST SE
28TH ST SE
YOUNG ST SE
22ND ST SE
NASH PL SE
21ST PL SE
17TH PL SE
F ST SE
18TH PL SE
WHITE PL SE
LYNDALE PL SE
31ST ST SE
33RD ST SE
22ND ST SE
BURNS ST SE
D ST SE
Q ST SE
PROUT ST SE
19TH ST SE
19TH PL SE
32ND ST SE
25TH ST SE
NICHOLSON ST SE
PALMER PL SEFENDALL ST SE
31ST ST SE
BAYLEYPLSE
RANDLE CIR SE26TH PL SE
G ST SE
N ST SE
FAIRLAWNAVE SE
M PL SE
G ST SE
RIDGE PL SE
FAIRLAWN AVE SE
K ST SE
V ST SE
T ST SE
27TH ST SE
21ST PL SE
LENFANT SQ SE
PENN
SYLVANIAAVE
SE
ANACOSTIARDSE
ANACOSTIA RD SE
25TH ST SE
T ST SE
MINNESOTA AVESE
29TH ST SE
S ST SE
E ST SE
30TH ST SE
16TH ST SE
17TH
ST SE
U ST SE
MINNESOTA AVE SE
16TH ST SE
R ST SE
23RD ST SE
MINNESOTA AVE SE
S ST SE
MINNESOTA AVE SE
19TH ST SE
GOOD HOPE RD SE
18TH ST SE
23RD ST SE
24TH PL SE
NAYLOR RD SE
R ST SE
O ST SE
M ST SE
BRANCH AVE SE
18TH ST SE
ANACOSTIA DR SE
30TH ST SE
14TH ST SE
Q ST SE
Q ST SE
RIDGE PL SE
ELYPL SE
27TH ST SE
RIDGE PL SE
18TH
ST SE
22ND ST SE
NASH PL SE
ANACOSTIA FWY SE
18TH ST SE
MINNESOTA AVE SE
CROISSANTPLSE
NAYLOR RD SE
PARK PL SE
RANDLE CIR SE
O ST SE
32ND ST S
E
MASSACH
US
ETTSAVE
SE
N ST SE
NELSON PL SE
MASSACHUSETTS AVE SE
16TH ST SE
GOOD HOPE RD SE
M ST SE
R ST SE
T ST SE
17TH ST SE
S ST SE
P ST SE
MINNESOTAAVE SEMINNESOTA AVE SE
LENFANT SQ SE
FAIRLAWN AVE SE
NICHO
LSON
STSE
MINNESOTA AVE SE
ANACOSTIA FRWY
PENNSYLVANIAAVE
SE
0100
200
FeetM
innesota Ave
Government of the
District of Columbia
Anthony A. William
s, Mayor
This map w
as created for planning purposes from
a variety of sources. It is neither a survey nor a legal docum
ent. Inform
ation provided by other agencies should be verified w
ith them w
here appropriate.
N
Ú
Office of Planning - March 24, 2006
295
OPID0008700
2954
295
4
1
295
295
EDSON PL NE
LANE PL NE
37TH ST SE
43RD PL NE
F ST SE
ANACOSTIA RD NE
BURNS PL SE
C ST SE
33RD ST SE
LEE ST NE
ANACOSTIA RD SE
D ST SE
KENILWORTH AVE
LEE ST NE
GAULT PL NE
36TH ST NE
FLINT PL NE
BURNS ST NE
41ST ST N
32ND ST SE
KENILWORTH AVE
EASTCAPITOL
STN
ALBERTIRVIN
CASSELLPL
PARKSIDE PL NE
FOOTE
PLNE
39TH S T N
STODDERTPLS
AMES ST NE
MINNESOTA AVE
BLAINE ST NE
45TH PL NE
CLAY PL NE
B S T S
E ST SE
EAST CAPITOL ST
HUNT PL NE
HAYES ST NE
BENNING RD NE
37TH PL SE
B ST SE
35TH ST NE
B ST SE
MINNESOTA AVE NEMINNESOTA AVE NE
CLAY PL NE
KENILWORTH TER
EADS ST NE
34TH ST SE
GRANT ST NE
BLAINE ST NE
HAYES ST NE
BURNHAM PL NE
36TH ST SE
BLAINE ST NE
42ND ST NE
KENILWORTH AVE NE
MINNESOTA AVE SE
35TH ST NE
NANNIE HELEN BURROUGHS AVE NE
40TH ST NE
HAYES ST NE
ELYPL
S
DIX ST NE
35TH ST SE
ANACOSTIA FWY SE
KENILWORTH TER
AMES ST NE
36TH ST NEKENILWORTH AVE NE
JAY ST NE
A ST SE
RIDGE RD SE
JAY ST NE
42ND ST NE
SHERIFF RDNE
34TH ST SE
KENILWORTH AVE NE
ANACOSTIA RD S
DUBOIS PL SE
44TH ST NE
40TH ST NE
MINNESOTA AVE N
37TH ST SE
42NDSTN
ELY PL SE
EAST CAPITOL ST CROFFUT PL SE
FOOTE ST NE
MINNESOTA AVE NE
0100
200
Feet
¯Governm
ent of theD
istrict of Colu
mb
iaA
nthony A
. William
s, Mayo
r
Office of Planning ~ March 24, 2006
Minnesota Ave
This map w
as created for planningpurposes from
a variety of sources.It is neither a survey nor a legal docum
ent.Inform
ation provided by other agenciesshould be verified w
ith them w
here appropriate.
OPID0008700
KENILWORTH AQUATIC GARDENS
FORTCHAPLIN
PARK
FORTM
AHANPARK
MM
INNESOTA
AVE
NÝ
NÝ
Minnesota Avenue.
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/SouthCapitol StreetThe Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/South Capitol Streetcorridor spans 3.75 miles from Good Hope Road to South-ern Avenue and the District of Columbia border with Mary-land. The corridor connects the three neighborhoods ofAnacostia, Congress Heights, and Bellevue. The activitynodes along this corridor are the St. Elizabeth’s Hospitalcomplex, historic Anacostia, and the intersection of SouthCapitol and Mississippi avenues.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 15
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
EATO
N R
D S
E
STEV
ENS
RD
SE
PECAN ST SE
DUNBAR RD SE
U ST
SE
PARK
LAND
PL
SE
V ST
SE PERSIMMON ST SE
ASH ST SE
LEBA
UM
ST
SE
DOUG
LASS
RD
SE
BARRY RD SE
SHERIDAN RD SE
HIGH ST SE
GOOD
HOP
E RD
SE
SUIT
LAN
D P
KY S
E
SPRUCE ST
SAYLES PL SE
BIRNEY PL SE
CEDAR ST SE
RALE
IGH
PL S
E
2NDST
PINE ST SE
DOU
GLA
SS
P
REDWOODDR
VALL
EY P
L SE
CHESTER ST SE
WEST ST SE
RANDLE PL SE
RED
WOO
DDR
REDW
OOD
DR S
E
8TH ST SE
RAILROAD AVE SE
OAKW
OOD
ST
SE
BRYAN PL SE
DEXT
ER T
ER S
E
WHE
ELER
HIL
L DR
SE
PLUMBST
GOLD
EN
RAIN
TREE
STAN
TON
RD
SE
OAK DR SE
WIL
LOW
ST
TALBERTTER
TALB
ERT
ST S
E
BROTH
ERS P
L SE
BOWEN RD SE
MIL
WAU
KEE
PL S
E
HEMLOCK ST SE
MAPLE SQ SE
NEW
COM
B ST
SE
14TH PL SE
CYPR
ESS
ST
POM
EROY
RD
MOR
RIS
RD
MOUNTVIEWP
CHIC
AGO
ST S
E
PAYNE TER SE
SAIN
T EL
IZAB
ETHS
ENT
DR
SE
OXON
RUNRD
MAG
NOLI
A ST
SE
ESTHER PL SE
WACLARK PL
POPL
AR S
T SE
7TH ST SE
MOR
RIS
RD S
E
SAVA
NNAH
ST
SE
T ST
SE
14TH ST SE
STAN
TON R
D SE
ORAN
GE S
T SE
LEB
AUM
ST
16TH ST SE
W S
T SE
SHANNON PL SE
FIRTH
STERLING AVE S
E
ANAC
OSTI
A D
R S
E
PE
RSIMMONST
MARTINLUTHERKINGJR
STEV
ENS
RD
BANG
OR S
T SE
SPRU
CEST
SOUTH CAPITOL ST
MAG
NOLI
AST
STAN
TON
RD S
E
W S
T SE
MAL
COLM
X A
VE S
E
SYCAMORE DR SE
WILLOWST
MAL
COLM
X A
VE S
E
SHANNONPL
HOLLY ST SE
BOW
EN R
D SE
GOOD
HOP
E R
D S
E
SYCAMORE DR SE
TALB
ERT
ST S
E
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
REDWOOD DR
5TH ST SE
RALE
IGH
ST S
E
U ST
SE
13TH ST SE
REDWOOD DR
REDWOOD DR
MARTIN LUTHE R KING JR
SOUTHCAPITOL
CHESTER ST SE
4TH ST SE
BRYAN PL SE
HIGH ST SE
CEDARDRS
OAK
WOO
DST
POM
EROY
RD
SE
14TH ST SE
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
6TH ST SE
4TH ST SE
8TH ST SE
INTE
RSTAT
E29
OXON
RUN
RD
MEL
LON
ST
SE
SUM
NER
RD
SE
DOUGLASS RD SE
SUIT
LAN
D P
KWY
SE
FIRTH
STERLING AVE S
E
PLEA
SAN
T ST
SE
EA
TON
RD
7THST
15TH ST SE
5TH ST SE
S ST
SE
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
MAR
TIN
LUTH
ERKI
NGJR
POM
EROY
RD
SE
ALAB
AMA
AVE
SE
INTERSTATE 295
HOW
ARD
RD
V ST
SE
CEDARDR
STAN
TON
RD
SE
WIL
LOW
ST
WADE RD SE
REDW
OOD
DR
2ND ST SE
13TH ST SE
13TH ST SE
NEW
COM
B ST
SE
MAP
LEVI
EWP
MAR
TI
NLU
THER
KING
JR
INTERSTATE295
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AV SE
SUITLAND
PKW
YSE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AV SE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AV SE
ANAC
OSTI
A FR
EEW
AY P
ARKW
AY
ANAC
OSTI
A FR
EEW
AY P
ARKW
AY
ANACOSTIA RIVER PARK
010
020
030
0
Feet
¯Go
vern
men
t of t
heD
istr
ict
of C
olu
mb
iaA
nth
ony
A. W
illia
ms,
May
or
Offic
e of
Pla
nnin
g ~
Mar
ch 2
4, 2
006
Mar
tin L
uthe
r Kin
g Jr
. Ave
This
map
was
cre
ated
for p
lann
ing
purp
oses
from
a v
arie
ty o
f sou
rces
.It
is n
eith
er a
sur
vey
nor a
lega
l doc
umen
t.In
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y ot
her a
genc
ies
shou
ld b
e ve
rifie
d w
ith th
em w
here
app
ropr
iate
.
OPID0008700
MAN
ACOS
TIA
295
4
1
295
295
295
H
ANAC
OSTI
AAN
ACOS
TIA
ANAC
OSTI
ACO
NGRE
SS
HEIG
HTS
CONG
RESS
HE
IGHT
SCO
NGRE
SS
HEIG
HTS
SAIN
T EL
IZAB
ETHS
HOS
PITA
L
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
EATO
N R
D S
E
STEV
ENS
RD
SE
PECAN ST SE
DUNBAR RD SE
U ST
SE
PARK
LAND
PL
SE
V ST
SE PERSIMMON ST SE
ASH ST SE
LEBA
UM
ST
SE
DOUG
LASS
RD
SE
BARRY RD SE
SHERIDAN RD SE
HIGH ST SE
GOOD
HOP
E RD
SE
SUIT
LAN
D P
KY S
E
SPRUCE ST
SAYLES PL SE
BIRNEY PL SE
CEDAR ST SE
RALE
IGH
PL S
E
2NDST
PINE ST SE
DOU
GLA
SS
P
REDWOODDR
VALL
EY P
L SE
CHESTER ST SE
WEST ST SE
RANDLE PL SE
RED
WOO
DDR
REDW
OOD
DR S
E
8TH ST SE
RAILROAD AVE SE
OAKW
OOD
ST
SE
BRYAN PL SE
DEXT
ER T
ER S
E
WHE
ELER
HIL
L DR
SE
PLUMBST
GOLD
EN
RAIN
TREE
STAN
TON
RD
SE
OAK DR SE
WIL
LOW
ST
TALBERTTER
TALB
ERT
ST S
E
BROTH
ERS P
L SE
BOWEN RD SE
MIL
WAU
KEE
PL S
E
HEMLOCK ST SE
MAPLE SQ SE
NEW
COM
B ST
SE
14TH PL SE
CYPR
ESS
ST
POM
EROY
RD
MOR
RIS
RD
MOUNTVIEWP
CHIC
AGO
ST S
E
PAYNE TER SE
SAIN
T EL
IZAB
ETHS
ENT
DR
SE
OXON
RUNRD
MAG
NOLI
A ST
SE
ESTHER PL SE
WACLARK PL
POPL
AR S
T SE
7TH ST SE
MOR
RIS
RD S
E
SAVA
NNAH
ST
SE
T ST
SE
14TH ST SE
STAN
TON R
D SE
ORAN
GE S
T SE
LEB
AUM
ST
16TH ST SE
W S
T SE
SHANNON PL SE
FIRTH
STERLING AVE S
E
ANAC
OSTI
A D
R S
E
PE
RSIMMONST
MARTINLUTHERKINGJR
STEV
ENS
RD
BANG
OR S
T SE
SPRU
CEST
SOUTH CAPITOL ST
MAG
NOLI
AST
STAN
TON
RD S
E
W S
T SE
MAL
COLM
X A
VE S
E
SYCAMORE DR SE
WILLOWST
MAL
COLM
X A
VE S
E
SHANNONPL
HOLLY ST SE
BOW
EN R
D SE
GOOD
HOP
E R
D S
E
SYCAMORE DR SE
TALB
ERT
ST S
E
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
REDWOOD DR
5TH ST SE
RALE
IGH
ST S
E
U ST
SE
13TH ST SE
REDWOOD DR
REDWOOD DR
MARTIN LUTHE R KING JR
SOUTHCAPITOL
CHESTER ST SE
4TH ST SE
BRYAN PL SE
HIGH ST SE
CEDARDRS
OAK
WOO
DST
POM
EROY
RD
SE
14TH ST SE
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
6TH ST SE
4TH ST SE
8TH ST SE
INTE
RSTAT
E29
OXON
RUN
RD
MEL
LON
ST
SE
SUM
NER
RD
SE
DOUGLASS RD SE
SUIT
LAN
D P
KWY
SE
FIRTH
STERLING AVE S
E
PLEA
SAN
T ST
SE
EA
TON
RD
7THST
15TH ST SE
5TH ST SE
S ST
SE
HOW
ARD
RD
SE
MAR
TIN
LUTH
ERKI
NGJR
POM
EROY
RD
SE
ALAB
AMA
AVE
SE
INTERSTATE 295
HOW
ARD
RD
V ST
SE
CEDARDR
STAN
TON
RD S
E
WIL
LOW
ST
WADE RD SE
REDW
OOD
DR
2ND ST SE
13TH ST SE
13TH ST SE
NEW
COM
B ST
SE
MAP
LEVI
EWP
MAR
TI
NLU
THER
KING
JR
INTERSTATE295
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AV SE
SUITLAND
PKW
YSE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AV SE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AV SE
ANAC
OSTI
A FR
EEW
AY P
ARKW
AY
ANAC
OSTI
A FR
EEW
AY P
ARKW
AY
ANACOSTIA RIVER PARK
010
020
030
0
Feet
¯Go
vern
men
t of t
heD
istr
ict
of C
olu
mb
iaA
nth
ony
A. W
illia
ms,
May
or
Offic
e of
Pla
nnin
g ~
Mar
ch 2
4, 2
006
Mar
tin L
uthe
r Kin
g Jr
. Ave
This
map
was
cre
ated
for p
lann
ing
purp
oses
from
a v
arie
ty o
f sou
rces
.It
is n
eith
er a
sur
vey
nor a
lega
l doc
umen
t.In
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y ot
her a
genc
ies
shou
ld b
e ve
rifie
d w
ith th
em w
here
app
ropr
iate
.
OPID0008700
MAN
ACOS
TIA
295
4
1
295
295
295
H
ANAC
OSTI
AAN
ACOS
TIA
ANAC
OSTI
ACO
NGRE
SS
HEIG
HTS
CONG
RESS
HE
IGHT
SCO
NGRE
SS
HEIG
HTS
SAIN
T EL
IZAB
ETHS
HOS
PITA
L
N Ý
N Ý
Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue.
The ULI ProcessBefore arriving in Washington, D.C., the panel received apacket of briefing materials from DDOT that included in-formation about the Great Streets program, the draft GreatStreets Framework Plan, demographic and market informa-tion on the six corridors, upcoming and proposed projectson the corridors, and a list of links to related policy infor-mation. Upon arrival in Washington, D.C., panelists werebriefed by representatives from DDOT and the deputy mayorfor Planning and Economic Development. The panel touredthe six corridors to determine the existing conditions anddevelopment potential. On the tour, it met with members ofthe community who explained the work that they are doingalong the corridors, described their successes and challenges,and shared their hopes for the Great Streets program.
A major component of the ULI panel was public outreachand education through lectures, moderated discussions, andpresentation of case studies from around the United States.Allan Jacobs, author of Great Streets, and former planning
director of San Francisco, kicked off the public outreachevents by giving a presentation on the key elements thatmake up Great Streets and sharing examples of GreatStreets from around the world.
Panelists presented case studies of corridor revitalizationprojects in various stages of completion from around thecountry. The projects included Indiana Avenue in Indi-anapolis, Indiana; High Street in Columbus, Ohio; the PearlDistrict in Portland, Oregon; and Washington Street inBoston, Massachusetts. The case studies explained the plan-ning process for creating Great Streets, detailed the complexpartnerships that were formed to create change, and sharedtheir success stories and lessons learned.
In addition, four panelists gave public presentations on spe-cific characteristics of Great Streets and participated in amoderated discussion. The presentations focused on “greenstreets” and the role of landscape architecture in corridor re-vitalization; metered parking in Pasadena, California, andthe importance of dedicating its revenue to fund streetscape
improvements and programs to keep streetscapes clean andsafe; the role of retail along great streets and the interfacebetween public and private spaces; and the importance oftransit along Great Streets.
The panel members then had a work session to examine anddiscuss the issues. The panel presented its findings and rec-ommendations to DDOT staff members and the generalpublic. This report summarizes the panel’s key recommen-dations and observations. It is divided into five sections:
n What Makes a Great Street?;
n Great Streets Framework Plan Assessment;
n Transportation;
n Design;
n Investment Impact.
An Advisory Services Program Report16
Streets are about more than transportation and infrastruc-ture. They are the place where private property meets thepublic realm. This interface must delicately balance a multi-tude of essential sectors and daily activities, including hous-ing, multimodal transportation, commerce, and socializa-tion. As the largest public spaces in cities, streets reflect theeconomic and social vibrancy of communities.
Great Streets are not just about streets; they are about peo-ple. They are where people want to be, where one feelscomfortable and safe. They present interesting things to see,do, and discover. They have their own particular characterand spirit that people embrace and make their own. GreatStreets are economic drivers, offering a place where com-merce can take place. Every element of Great Streets rein-forces a sense of place. People go there because they want to be part of that vibrant sense of place.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 17
What Makes a Great Street?
By definition, Great Streets fulfill four responsibilities:
n They convey the quality, character, and aspirations of aneighborhood.
n They attract, stimulate, and sustain desirable economicand social activity involving any and all members of thecommunity.
n They balance a diversity of transportation options withoutcompromise to any mode.
n They secure and sustain stewardship by those who operateon and around the street.
An Advisory Services Program Report18
To date, DDOT has completed a draft Great Streets Frame-work Plan to guide investments in street infrastructure andpublic realm improvements. The ULI panel was asked byDDOT and other involved agencies and community part-ners to review this document and determine the best way oftargeting the limited public resources to gain the greatestpublic and private return in neighborhood quality of life,catalyzing retail and other private investment, and raisingthe bar overall on the quality of streets and public spaces inthe District of Columbia.
Strengths of the PlanThe panel believes that the Great Streets Framework Plan is astrong guiding document that offers a bold and attainablevision for the redevelopment of the six corridors.
Inclusive Planning ProcessOne of the plan’s major strengths is that it is the result of aninclusive planning process. The community understands andsupports the program, and the panel commends DDOT andthe other involved city agencies for including the public inplanning this initiative. This process is critical to maintain-ing interest in and momentum for the plan and the program.
Acknowledges Existing ConditionsThe panel also commends the plan for recognizing the ne-cessity of repairing the run-down physical condition of the
streets as one of the first steps in revitalization. Addressingissues such as potholes, garbage, clogged or broken stormdrains, dilapidated sidewalks, and dead street trees is essen-tial in the development of Great Streets.
Good Interagency CoordinationMany different agencies are responsible for the multitude of issues addressed in the Great Streets program, and theframework plan coordinates among the key players. This in-teragency coordination is a critical element of the programbecause many different agencies have responsibility for and a stake in the redevelopment of the corridors.
Focus of Investment around StrategicNodesA major strength of the framework document is the plan tofocus public investment around strategic nodes along thecorridors. The limited public money available for the GreatStreets program requires sound and cost-effective invest-ments that will help spur future development. Focusing onspecific nodes will create concentrated development oppor-tunities that will serve as a catalyst for further change.
Areas for ImprovementAlthough the Great Streets Framework Plan has many strongcomponents, the panel feels that several areas can bestrengthened.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 19
Great Streets Framework Plan Assessment
Institutionalize Coordination across AllAgenciesThe panel sees a need to institutionalize the coordination ofthe program across all city agencies to ensure that there is acentral clearing house for information and accountability.Having one central agency that can hold the others account-able for their role in the Great Streets program is importantin making sure that it is not one agency’s pet project while itis ignored by another.
Create a Process for EvaluatingReadinessThe panel also feels that the document needs to include aprocess for evaluating a community’s readiness to receive in-frastructure investment. The success of the program de-pends upon the community’s willingness to take ownershipof the corridors, and an accurate way of measuring whethera community is ready to receive investment is necessary.Communities that are ready to receive investment are thosethat are feeling development pressures, have a market for re-development, and have established organizations that willtake care of the investments.
Perform Complete Market Analysis The panel believes that a market analysis should be under-taken to determine the feasibility of new retail, housing,office, and entertainment uses along each of the corridors.Infrastructure investments should be focused on strategicnodes that have the highest potential for development.
Avoid Excessive Retail DevelopmentThe panel feels that the amount of planned retail develop-ment along the corridors may exceed market realities. Acomprehensive market analysis will help determine theproper amount of retail space.
Detail How to Balance Cars, Bikes,Transit, and PedestriansThe consensus of the panel is that the framework plan lacksdetail of how the corridors will balance the competing inter-ests of automobiles, transit, cyclists, and pedestrians. Thisdetail is important because the sharing of transportationmodes will help determine the nature of the corridors.
Accurately Reflect What the Corridor WillLook Like in Pictorial PresentationsThe images and renderings that are in the framework docu-ment may not accurately reflect the type of developmentthat may be possible along the corridors. The panel recog-nizes the difficulty in graphically displaying a policy initia-tive, but presenting to the public the images that best reflectwhat could be developed is essential. DDOT runs the risk ofoffending the public if the images are inconsistent with thecommunity’s vision of what the corridors should look like.Also, if what is ultimately built does not resemble the draw-ings, they may cause resentment or confusion.
An Advisory Services Program Report20
As the largest public spaces in cities, streets must fulfill anumber of essential civic functions. One of those majorfunctions is transportation. The movement of people into,out of, and within the city is critical to the health of a com-munity. Great Streets balance all transportation modes with-out compromise. Creating such streets is a challenge. Thepanel believes the following policy changes are necessary tosee the realization of Great Streets.
Maintain and Repair the StreetsThe panel recommends that one of the first priorities for theDistrict of Columbia is to bring all the streets to a basic levelof maintenance and good repair. Because the physical condi-tion of the streets is what people most notice and what swaysthe public’s perception, this step is essential at the start. Whenbringing the streets to a sustainable level of maintenanceand repair, the city must design them to be Great Streets.
Make Great Streets Legal: Remove Regulatory ObstaclesThe District of Columbia is home to some of the mostprominent and well-known streets in the United States.Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Connecticutavenues are grand streets that ironically violate many of thecity’s existing codes, regulations, and guidelines. In fact, fivekey elements of the city’s regulations currently stand in theway of Great Streets. Those regulations should be adjusted
to require the conditions that make streets great and to for-bid conditions that prevent greatness.
Design CodeGreat Streets are invariably edged by buildings that engageand define the street. In the District of Columbia, zoningand design codes allow for buildings that support greatstreets, but the codes do not require them. In fact, stripmalls, a development type particularly damaging to the cre-ation of Great Streets, are not only allowed by the zoningcodes affecting the corridors, they are a logical tool formeeting the city’s requirements. Such automobile-orienteddevelopment patterns are evident on many of the GreatStreets corridors. The panel recommends the followingchanges to the design code to enhance Great Streets.
n Set building build-to lines to frame the street wall;
n Minimize or restrict curb cuts and use and preserve theexisting alley system;
n Require that parking structures be “wrapped” with activeuses or placed underground to minimize surface parking;
n Insist on building frontage transparency requirements toenliven storefront windows; and
n Require an adequate frequency and location of doorwaysto eliminate dead spaces in the streetscape.
Parking CodeIn all of the District of Columbia’s most successful commer-cial main streets and mixed-use streets, parking is rarely pro-vided for each building. Continuous retail storefronts arenot interrupted by garage entrances. Parking is provided bya combination of on-street spaces and a handful of sharedoff-street garages. For new development, however, eachbuilding must provide its own on-site parking, with varyingrequirements for commercial uses over 3,000 square feet andfor all residential units. Although the District of Columbia’sparking requirements are low by national standards, they donot respond to differing requirements of parking demand inthe city’s diverse neighborhoods, nor do they allow flexibilityfor challenging sites.
21Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006
Transportation
Because some Great Streets corridors lack alleys, access toany provided parking must be from the front, requiringgarage entrances to interrupt storefronts. For small parcels,locating parking underground may be physically impossible,and on larger parcels, economically infeasible. Requiredparking must therefore occur at the ground level, displacingsquare footage that would otherwise go to retail or othercommercial uses. Because small parcels cannot meet thecity’s parking requirements, pressure increases from poten-tial developers to assemble parcels, despite the fact that theexisting Great Streets corridors are dominated by continu-ous small parcels.
Except in historic districts, any time a change occurs in the“intensity” of a use, the city’s current parking requirementsare triggered. As a result, converting an existing space to arestaurant is difficult because restaurants face the highestparking requirements. The panel recommends the followingchanges to the parking code to enhance Great Streets.
n Manage existing on-street parking better so that mostcommercial parking demand can be met on street.
n Eliminate or temporarily suspend all parking requirementsin the Great Streets corridors. Combined with smarter on-street parking management, this change is one of the mostpowerful development incentives the city could provide.
n Set strong parking design requirements to minimize thenegative impacts of parking on the vitality and walkabilityof the street.
n If parking minimums are maintained, establish in-lieu feesand encourage property owners to pay toward a commonneighborhood parking garage.
n Require that all parking be shared and interconnected inorder to maximize efficiency of parking.
The District of Columbia should follow the latest guidelinesfrom the Federal Highway Administration’s Context SensitiveSolutions for Major Urban Thoroughfares and set design speedat the target speed for the roadway.
Similarly, the city should allow posted speed and target speedto vary considerably, as roads like Pennsylvania Avenue tran-sition from a high-speed highway in Maryland to a neighbor-hood commercial street within the city. Currently, the city’sguidelines limit changes in design speed on a given corridorto no more than 10 mph.
Geometrics. The District of Columbia’s guidelines state thatthey are consistent with the more-detailed American Associ-ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)guidelines, but they do not offer the same degree of guidanceand flexibility as AASHTO. Under AASHTO guidelines,nine-foot travel lanes are acceptable under certain condi-tions, whereas the city’s guidelines simply urge a minimumof ten feet in all conditions.
The current guidelines require overly generous, inflexibleintersection geometries, allowing motorists to turn cornersat high speeds regardless of the presence of pedestrians orother factors. In fact, superelevations are required even oncollector streets, banking the streets at curves like racetracks.Although these measures are appropriate on rural and sub-urban streets, they create unsafe conditions for pedestriansin the more-complex urban environments.
Context-Sensitive Design Guidelines. The District ofColumbia has long recognized the shortcomings of its exist-ing engineering guidelines and has created a set of ContextSensitive Design Guidelines in order to acknowledge that thesame engineering treatment is not appropriate in all situa-tions. Those guidelines are a great start, but they focus onprocess rather than on providing flexibility to the designer.
An Advisory Services Program Report22
Roadway Design and Traffic EngineeringGuidelinesDDOT’s Design and Engineering Manual provides guidelinesfor the engineering of all of the city’s streets. This manual iscomparable to those in many cities, particularly suburbancities where the only significant function of streets is movingcars. Although the manual is a set of guidelines rather thanrequirements, it does not provide designers with tools forbalancing the needs of cars, pedestrians, bikes, retailers, andother users of Great Streets. The panel recommends the fol-lowing enhancements.
Design Speed. Design speed is the speed at which mostmotorists can drive safely and comfortably along a roadway.Under its current guidelines, the District of Columbia setsthe design speed for new or reconstructed streets at 10 milesper hour (mph) above the posted speed. So on a street that isposted at 25 mph, the guidelines would design the street tobe driven at 35 mph. In suburban highway and rural environ-ments, the high design speed accommodates “driver error”and speeding motorists through extra-wide travel lanes, gen-erous curves, shoulders, and other treatments. In an urbanenvironment, however, excessive design speed has been shownto simply encourage speeding, increasing the frequency andseverity of pedestrian injury, crashes, and fatalities.
The District of Columbia’s streets are not so special thatthey need their own set of guidelines. The city could con-sider dropping most of its existing guidelines and instead re-ferring designers to other manuals, such as the AASHTOguidelines, for major arterials and thoroughfares, supple-mented by the Federal Highway Administration’s ContextSensitive Solutions for Major Urban Thoroughfares or the Insti-tute of Transportation Engineers’ Residential Streets for localresidential streets.
The District of Columbia’s guidelines can focus insteadon how to address tensions between modes in the most-complex situations, as well as how designers can supportthe goals of the Great Streets program.
Street Construction and InfrastructureGuidelinesThe panel recommends that the DDOT ensure streets arebuilt solidly so they do not become future maintenanceheadaches. The panel also recommends coordinating streetand infrastructure improvements and repairs to avoid multi-ple service disruptions. The panel commends DDOT forhaving the foresight in planning to construct the H Streetstreetcar tracks when they do the streetscape improvementin the corridor even though the transit line is not scheduledto begin service for some time.
Utility ReconstructionThe District of Columbia should require utility companiesto patch streets to the same standards by which they wereoriginally built. This requirement is important to protectthe city’s investment in the streets. In addition, the city andutility companies should coordinate infrastructure and roadrepairs.
Address Pedestrian-Safety Hot Spots
On Great Streets, pedestrians never feel threatened by auto
traffic. DDOT should complete a safety analysis of all the
corridors, focusing on bicyclist and pedestrian injuries and
fatalities. The panel recommends that for all “hot spots”—
those with multiple accidents—detailed pedestrian audits
should be completed, making specific recommendations for
improving pedestrian safety while at the same time improv-
ing pedestrian mobility.
The Minnesota Avenue Metrorail station is a good case in
point, where a key crosswalk is missing to connect a local
school with the station. Putting a fence in the Minnesota
median will only force the schoolchildren into the intersec-
tion itself. Because they often outnumber cars, their move-
ments should be accommodated through a crosswalk and
median refuge, perhaps with all-red phases scheduled to cor-
respond with school start and end times. The children’s
safety should be paramount over a few seconds of delay for
motorists, and the street design should tell the kids that they
have at least the same level of respect as automobile com-
muters from Maryland.
Decide Where Congestion GoesThe entire transportation profession realizes that it cannotbuild its way out of congestion. Aside from implementingcongestion pricing programs, like those in London, wheredrivers must pay a toll to enter the city depending on thetime of day and volume of traffic, the best that can be doneis deciding where the congestion goes, placing bottleneckswhere they have the least detrimental effects on local com-munities and the overall transportation network. This prin-ciple is what supports the use of metering lights at freewayon-ramps, which increases the number of motorists who canuse the freeway by queuing motorists back onto local streetsand metering their flow onto the freeway.
In the District of Columbia, however, the street system isdesigned to create most congestion bottlenecks in the heartof neighborhood commercial streets, perhaps the worst loca-tions for metering traffic. Benning Road is a good example:cars back up in the commercial districts at Minnesota Av-enue and on the approach to H Street, but speed camerashad to be set up on the bridge and near the power plant be-cause of excessive speeding. The panel recommends that thestreets should be managed in the reverse, with traffic signalstimed to meter the flow of traffic into the commercial dis-tricts, using the empty stretch as queuing space.
At the regional level, the city should look carefully at howMaryland’s streets feed into its streets. At Pennsylvania Ave-nue and East Capitol Street, for example, Maryland hasdesigned its portions of these streets as high-speed, high-capacity highways, and the District of Columbia tries tomaintain them as multiple-function urban arterials. Withless capacity on the District side, the result is that all thecongestion ends up in the city, particularly in the commer-cial districts in Ward 7. The District of Columbia goes to
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 23
great lengths to accommodate the burden coming fromMaryland by eliminating on-street parking during the peakperiods at many locations and providing a reversible lane onPennsylvania Avenue, but these strategies only serve to exac-erbate congestion in the commercial districts.
The panel recommends that the city set the capacity of itsstreets on the Maryland border at levels no greater than thecapacity of those streets in their most constrained location.That is, the city should not allow congestion in Ward 7’scommercial districts in order to alleviate traffic congestionin Maryland. The city can continue to accommodate thesame number of cars coming from Maryland, but it can in-crease the mobility of its residents by shifting congestion outof its commercial streets.
Make Transit WorkWith Metrorail facing capacity constraints and few opportu-nities for increasing automobile capacity within the District,most of the city’s future growth must be accommodatedthrough improvements to surface transit and an increase inwalking trips. The latter will occur in part through theGreat Streets program and through an increase in housingdevelopment within the city. The former will require a num-ber of transit investments already being planned. These in-vestments focus on identifying the city’s primary transit cor-ridors—those streets that carry the bulk of riders—andmaking the primary lines fast, frequent, and reliable.
This transit investment is critical. All travelers make theirtravel decisions based primarily upon travel time. In order tocompete with the car, mass transit must not be stuck in thesame congestion as cars. Moreover, faster transit meansmore-frequent transit, because buses can be turned aroundmore frequently at the end of the line. The panel recom-
mends that DDOT implement the following changes to en-sure that transit works well.
n Give buses signal priority, except to make way for anotherprimary transit line on a cross street.
n Optimize transit stop locations and spacing.
n Put stops on pedestrian bulb-outs, so that buses are notdelayed merging back into traffic.
n Support more prepaid fares, so that drivers are not delayedissuing passes at the bus door.
n Explore proof of payment, so that passengers can pay theirfare before they get on the bus, allowing them to get onand off the bus from all doors.
n Switch to low-floor vehicles, so that passengers with lim-ited mobility, strollers, or wheelchairs can board quicklyand easily.
Anacostia StreetcarThe Anacostia Streetcar is being promoted primarily as aneconomic development tool, but designing the streetcar as amobility tool is critical as well. Streetcars have one key dis-advantage over buses—they cannot maneuver around obsta-cles. Thus, they can be stopped behind double-parked deliv-
ery trucks, cars backing into parallel parking spaces, or carsqueued to turn left or right. In order to ensure that thestreetcar will be fast and reliable, the parking along theroute must be managed and enforced to eliminate the needfor double-parking. Also, transit priority treatments at inter-sections should ensure that the streetcar need not stop at redlights, nor be delayed by cars waiting to turn.
Adopt New MultimodalTransportation StandardsGreat Streets serve many different functions, so DDOT’sengineers must measure the success of these streets withmore criteria than auto level of service (LOS). Auto LOS’sA–F scale examines the seconds of delay that cars experienceat intersections or along roadway segments. This scale tellsvery little, however, about how many people the street canserve, or how successful retail will be along that street, orwhether the people living and working on that street think itis a Great Street.
To be effective, performance measures for great streets mustbe quantitative, using simple data collection requirements.They must also cover three key areas:
n Functional;
n Economic; and
n Social.
Functional Performance IndicatorsThe city’s current street typology system—arterial, collector,local—measures streets in terms of how important they arefor cars. This system is appropriate for suburban locations,but it does not tell engineers how important multimodalstreets are for transit, pedestrians, bikes, and other modes.
An Advisory Services Program Report24
The panel recommends that the District of Columbia iden-tify how important each of its streets is for all modes, notjust for cars. The panel also recommends that the city adoptperformance indicators for these modes, using as a modelongoing work in cities such as Seattle, Washington; Denver,Colorado; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Arlington, Virginia.
The panel recommends that the District of Columbia aban-don LOS criteria that measure seconds of delay for cars, oroverall capacity for cars, and switch to measures that con-sider delay and capacity for the movement of people.
Economic Performance IndicatorsStudying the economic performance of a corridor is an ade-quate way to measure the effect of the infrastructure invest-ments. The number of new businesses and housing units,and retail sales per square foot are important indicators ofthe strength of Great Streets.
Social Capital and CommunityPerformance IndicatorsAlthough these performance indicators are much harder tojudge, measuring them is important to fully understand thehealth and strength of the community.
Implement Innovative ParkingStrategyParking can be a major problem along Great Streets; it canmake or break a retail area. To help create Great Streets, thepanel recommends that the city charge performance-basedprices for curb parking and return the revenue to the localarea to pay for added public services. With these two poli-cies, curb parking will help create Great Streets, improvetransportation, and increase the economic vitality of cities.
Performance-Based Parking PricesPerformance-based prices will balance the varying demandfor parking with the fixed supply of spaces. The balance be-tween demand and supply can be called the “Goldilocks”principle of performance-based parking prices: the price istoo high if many spaces are vacant and too low if no spacesare vacant. When a few vacant spaces are available every-where, the prices are just right. If prices are adjusted to yieldone or two vacant spaces in every block (about 85 percentoccupancy), the public will see that curb parking is readilyavailable.
Prices that produce an occupancy rate of about 85 percentcan be called performance-based for three reasons. First,curb parking will perform efficiently. Most spaces will be oc-cupied, but drivers will always be able to find a vacant space.Second, the transportation system will perform efficiently.Circling for curb parking congests traffic, wastes fuel, andpollutes the air. Third, the economy will perform efficiently.The price of parking will be higher when demand is higher,and this higher price will encourage rapid parking turnover.Drivers will park, buy something, and leave quickly so thatother drivers can use the spaces. For parking, transportation,and economic efficiency, cities should set prices to yieldabout an 85 percent occupancy rate.
Local Revenue ReturnPerformance-based prices for curb parking can yield amplepublic revenue. If the city returns this revenue to the areasthat generate it to pay for added public spending on the me-tered streets, residents and local merchants will support theperformance-based prices. The added funds can pay forcleaning and maintaining the sidewalks, planting trees, im-proving lighting, burying overhead utility wires, removinggraffiti, and providing other public improvements.
Often, local merchants and business owners are reluctant togive up free parking, but significant value is gained from theinstallation of meters that charge prices that produce a fewvacancies. Business owners will see that everyone who wantsto shop in the district can park quickly and the meter moneyis spent to clean the sidewalks and provide security. Theseadded public services make the business district a placewhere people want to be, rather than merely a place whereanyone who can find a space can park free. Returning themeter revenue generated by the business district to the dis-trict for the district can help convince merchants and prop-erty owners to support the idea of performance-based pricesfor curb parking.
Suppose also that curb parking remains underpriced in otherbusiness districts. Everyone complains about the shortage ofparking in those districts, and cars searching for curb park-ing congest traffic. No meter revenue is available to cleanthe sidewalks and provide other amenities. Performance-based prices will improve curb parking by creating a few va-cancies, the added meter revenue will pay to improve publicservices, and these added public services will create politicalsupport for performance-based prices.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 25
26 An Advisory Services Program Report
The Great Streets program is an ambitious initiative thathas the potential to transform some of the most importantcorridors in the District of Columbia. The Great StreetsFramework Plan has identified existing and future projects ineach of the six corridors that are in various stages of plan-ning and development. The panel provides the followingrecommendations to enhance the Great Streets planningand design process.
Undertake a Complete andThorough Design ProcessThe panel recommends that projects along the Great Streetshave a complete and thorough design process. This processshould include the input of the community, property own-ers, local developers, and city staff members. It is essentialthat this process is thorough to ensure that public invest-ments will have an effect on the community. The designprocess should include public outreach and education andimplementation and management strategies.
Continue Workshops with CommunityGroupsThe current momentum behind the Great Streets programis owed in part to the rigorous public outreach during theplanning process. DDOT provided the community a forumwhere residents can share their insights and provide inputinto the corridors on which they live. The panel commends
this work and recommends that it is continued throughoutthe process. As the Great Streets program moves from planto reality, DDOT should continue the public outreach andeducation process. Workshops on specific issues, such as park-ing, retail, and transportation, should be held to educate thepublic on the positive benefits that the upcoming changeswill bring to their community. This process is essential tomaintain the momentum that the program has built, and itwill also help increase support for the redevelopment.
Create an Implementation StrategyThe panel recommends that a detailed design and imple-mentation strategy be created for each corridor. The strat-egy should include phasing and should delegate responsibili-ties to city agencies and community organizations.
Identify Basic Needs. The first phase in the implementa-tion strategy should be to identify basic needs—such asstreet repairs, lighting, signage, and cleanliness. Bringingthe corridor up to a basic level of repair and maintenance isthe essential first step in stabilizing the corridors.
Identify Small Projects. The next phase of the strategy isto identify small projects that have a lasting effect. They caninclude minor facade improvements, street furniture, orbasic landscaping.
Identify and Link with Existing Projects. The next phaseshould be to identify existing projects along the corridors.
The Great Streets program should seek to collaborate with
others to ensure that all entities have mutual goals and can
capitalize on each other’s strengths. DDOT can offer addi-
tional technical support if it is needed.
Identify a Project Management Structure
A major challenge of the Great Streets program is that it is
very ambitious and it requires that a number of both public
and private agencies are involved in the redevelopment of
the corridors. The panel recommends that DDOT identify a
clear project management structure for the Great Streets
program. This hierarchy is essential because responsibilities
will need to be delegated among the community, city agen-
cies, and private partnerships. A clear project management
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 27
Design
structure will ensure that all parties are included in andaware of the planning, design, and development processes.
Amplify Unique and RecognizableNodesThe physical and economic conditions on and surroundingthe Great Streets vary within each corridor and among thedifferent corridors. All of the corridors are experiencing var-ious levels of development pressure that have the potentialto bring change. The Great Streets program can bring theseed capital to initiate redevelopment. The panel believesthat to get the most out of the public investments, redevel-opment should initially focus on existing high-traffic-activitynodes. These nodes may be around key intersections, Metrostations, or retail corridors. These areas have the greatestpotential for redevelopment because they already generate a significant amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Anumber of improvements can be made to enhance thesenodes, such as the following:
n Bringing the existing conditions up to a basic level ofrepair and maintenance;
n Initiating a “clean and safe” program;
n Enhancing the streetscape; and
n Marketing and branding the area.
By targeting public investment on established activity nodes,DDOT will be able to better leverage its money becausethese areas will be seen as a safe investment by the privatesector. As these nodes mature and strengthen, the momen-tum will expand throughout the corridors.
Develop Standard Operation andMaintenance ProgramsThe panel recommends that DDOT institute a standard op-eration and maintenance program for the upkeep of the cor-ridors. The infrastructure investments alone are not enoughto stabilize the corridors. Entities are needed within the cor-ridors that are in charge of their upkeep and programming.The panel recommends that those entities have ties to thelocal community to foster stewardship of the corridors.
The operation and maintenance programs should ensurethat all municipal responsibilities, such as garbage removal,street cleaning, and code and parking enforcement, aretaken care of. The programs should provide maintenanceabove and beyond what is required of the city. In addition,the programs should coordinate with local communitygroups to provide assistance in their neighborhood efforts.Creating such programs is essential because they will help tostabilize the corridors.
Foster StewardshipOne of the key elements leading to the success of GreatStreets is the stewardship of the corridors by their residents.
The streets cannot maintain themselves, and the city doesnot have the resources to fully program and maintain all 22miles of the Great Streets corridors. The local communitieswill have to take ownership of the streets if the program isto have a lasting effect.
The panel recommends that DDOT do everything it can tofoster the stewardship of the corridors. DDOT has alreadymade significant progress in this effort by its inclusive plan-ning process, partnering with local community organiza-tions, and recognizing that the success of the program de-pends on the local residents. One of the main ways to fosterstewardship is to maintain the momentum of activity. Some-thing should always be going on. This activity will keep peo-ple engaged and excited about their community.
Enforce Codes and ProvideGuidelines for Private Property The physical condition of the private property within all ofthe corridors varies greatly, primarily because of general dis-investment, poor property management, and a lack of codeenforcement. The panel witnessed a number of instanceswhere local businesses were in clear violation of existingzoning. In many cases, the existing streetscapes are in goodcondition, but the condition of the private property lowersthe perception of the corridor. To address this problem, thepanel recommends that the city improve its code enforce-ment by targeting problem properties along the corridors.The Great Streets could be designated as special and thepenalties for code violations could be doubled, similar totraffic fines in construction zones.
The panel recommends that the city create a clear set of de-sign guidelines for private property owners. Those guide-
An Advisory Services Program Report28
lines should include regulation on the following areas forboth occupied and vacant buildings:
n Trash storage;
n Landscaping;
n Roll-up riot gates;
n Lighting;
n Facade treatment;
n Signage;
n Storefront transparency.
Such regulations will set a standard for property maintenance,operation, and upkeep and will help stabilize the corridors.
Develop a Retail MerchandisingPlan
One of the main focuses of the Great Streets Initiative is tobring retail back to the city. The diverse physical conditions,demographics, and nearby retail establishments of thecorridors do not provide a single solution to this difficultproblem. Some corridors are on the cusp of a retail revivaland need minimal assistance, whereas others need morestrategic planning and preparation to position them toattract local and national retailers.
All of the corridors, no matter what their current status,need a plan to attract retail. The panel recommends that aretail merchandising plan be created for each of the corri-dors. This plan should look at the current demographics,and retailers and should identify deficiencies in the market.The plan should build on the corridors’ unique assets to cre-ate a niche in the regional market. The plan needs to be
strategic to encourage both local entrepreneurs and nationalretailers to invest in the area. The plan should identify in-centives that can be offered to potential businesses that areinterested in locating in one the corridors.
Encourage Small-Scale, Expressive,Individual ImprovementsThe Great Streets program should allow for small-scale, ex-pressive, and individual improvements. These enhancementscan include providing residents and business owners withlarge flower barrels, letting them landscape planting stripsalong the corridor; installing local public art or murals; orturning vacant lots into community gardens or open space.Residents and businesses will enjoy participating in theseeasy and inexpensive projects. These projects will also fosterstewardship by encouraging residents’ feelings of ownershipin the changes that are happening in their community.
Use Design to Create Areas ofContinuityEach of the unique nodes in the corridors should have somecommon elements that help define the area. This identifica-tion builds a sense of place and gives the area an identity.
Many design elements can be used to create the areas ofcontinuity, including the following:
n Decorative lighting;
n Themed landscaping;
n Ornamental street furniture;
n Textured or patterned sidewalks or streets.
These elements can be understated. Their intent is to createcontinuity within the node and to foster the sense of placeand identity.
Create Integrated StreetscapesAlthough the six Great Streets corridors have experiencedheavy disinvestment, they provide an excellent frameworkfrom which to begin a physical and economic transforma-tion. The challenge of the Great Streets program is to re-create historic character and to build streets that meettoday’s needs, accommodating a variety of functions. Theframework plan has multiple detailed street sections for allof the corridors that are sufficient for creating Great Streets.The panel recommends that the streetscapes include the fol-lowing design features:
n Use of innovative solutions, such as bioretention forstormwater management;
n Integration of permeable paving materials to allow perco-lation of water to street plantings;
n Use of natural materials to reduce environmental damageand provide connection to the local landscape;
n Use of landscaping to create opportunities for bufferingand noise mitigation.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 29
An Advisory Services Program Report30
The panel applauds the Great Streets program for its goal ofinvesting in some of the city’s most important corridors withthe intention of expanding the areas of resurgence to alarger community and in thinking of the community firstand not only of transportation. DDOT is faced with the dif-ficult task of strategically investing $100 million in the sixGreat Streets corridors to create a lasting and sustainable ef-fect with its investment. To obtain that lasting effect, the in-vestments need to go beyond the traditional streetscape im-provements and also provide for local capacity building.
Target and Support Investment inRetail NodesBeyond bringing the streets up to a basic level of maintenanceand repair, the panel believes that the best investment of theGreat Streets money is in the various retail nodes along thecorridors. However, the framework plan’s vision of continu-ous community retail streets over all corridors is ambitiousand unnecessary. Retail nodes should be located strategically,on the basis of market studies, assessment of the physicalconditions, and input from the community. Great Streetsthat are primarily residential or transit in nature will connectthe retail nodes and maximize their success.
The streets have not been analyzed in enough detail to seewhich retail nodes may have the highest possibility of suc-cess, expansion, and sustainability. Market analysis, such as
that done for Georgia Avenue, will help verify that the nodesselected are strategically located to be financially successful.These analyses need to be completed for all streets.
Assess the Community’s ReadinessBefore DDOT invests its money in the Great Streets corri-dors, it needs to assess a community’s overall readiness to re-ceive such funds. This step is essential to ensure that the in-vestment’s effect will be maximized. Improvements beyondmaintenance and repair should be concentrated in the retailnodes for maximum advantage and should be tiered in ac-cordance with the node’s ability to accept, direct, and main-tain the improvements. The panel recommends that an as-sessment strategy be created that includes a rating systemand a process that outlines the characteristics necessary forretail node readiness—such as the presence of leadership,existing business and entrepreneurs, development pressures,and design standards. A rating will help determine whetherthe node is ready to receive investment. The retail areaswould be classed in the following categories:
n Distressed: dirty, major disinvestment, no organizationalcapacity;
n Basic: clean, safe, little organizational capacity;
n Transitional: clean, safe, some investment, more organiza-tional capacity;
n Emerging: clean and safe, significant investment and orga-nizational capacity, ready for investment.
Help Stakeholders Effectively Leveragethe Great Streets InvestmentOne of the essential functions of DDOT in the GreatStreets program is to help the local communities leveragetheir investment by attracting private capital to the corridorsto spur future economic development. This process will varyfor each corridor. The panel recommends that DDOT iden-tify the critical needs and potentials for each community andascertain how this program can most effectively contributeto their satisfaction.
Establish and Promote Local Entities One of the determining factors that will influence the deci-sion to make investments in the corridors is the existingcommunity support. The panel recommends that DDOThelp establish and promote local entities that will accomplishthe realization of the Great Streets program. Business Im-provement Districts, Community Development Corpora-tions, and Main Street programs should focus on communityimplementation and management. They should lead the fol-lowing initiatives in their corridor:
n Design management;
n Maintenance management;
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 31
Investment Impact
n Parking management;
n Retail management.
The creation of such entities alone is not enough to lead themanagement of these corridors; they will need support fromthe city. DDOT is in a position to provide support and ac-cess to the local entities. It should use its position to helpthe local entities access resources at the city and make con-nections with the business community. It can bring the busi-ness community together with the entities.
Develop a Fast, Predictable, and FlexibleImplementation ProcessA fast, predictable, and flexible implementation process isessential to entice investment in the Great Streets corridors.Clear design and development guidelines provide developerswith a sense of certainty because they fully understand whatis expected of them. The guidelines should be rigid on de-sign standards to ensure that the urban fabric is maintained,yet flexible enough to allow for temporary uses or unprovenmarket pressures. The panel recommends that any develop-ment application that is on a Great Streets corridor receivefast-track status. This designation will help ensure that thecity’s infrastructure investments will be quickly met with pri-vate investment.
Create a Revenue Stream toSupport Local EntitiesThe $100 million in Great Streets money is a small fractionof what is needed to fully revitalize the corridors. A stablerevenue stream is needed to support the local entities thatwill carry out much of the work on the corridors. A numberof financing programs and tools can be used to create theserevenue streams and make the entities self-sustaining. These
resources would be used to enable distressed, basic, transi-tional, and emerging streets to attain retail readiness asquickly as possible. They can include
n Tax increment financing (TIF);
n Localized parking and citation revenues;
n New Market tax credits.
Tax Increment Financing Tax increment financing is a popular way of paying for pub-lic investment in older districts. Local redevelopment agen-cies or other entities use the projected increment in prop-erty tax revenue that will result as “collateral” on a loan orbond. The collected increment is used to pay off the loan.
The money can then be used to pay for public improve-ments, such as clean and safe programs, streetscape im-provements, and programming of the corridors.
Parking Increment Finance Parking increment finance (PIF) closely resembles tax incre-ment financing. Parking increment finance is where the cityuses only the subsequent increment in meter revenue—theamount above the existing meter revenue—that arises afterthe city begins to charge performance-based prices. Businessdistricts can receive the increment in parking meter revenuethat results from performance-based parking prices. Moremeters, higher rates, and longer hours of operation will pro-vide money to pay for added public services. These addedpublic services will promote businesses activity in the dis-trict, and the increased demand for parking will further in-crease meter revenue. Many communities have had successwith parking increment finance. Examples of such programscan be found in Pasadena, California; Austin, Texas; andRedwood City, California.
Citation Revenue SharingIn addition to parking meter revenue sharing, the revenuefrom parking citations can be used to create dedicated fund-ing. Similarly to TIF and PIF, citation revenue can, for ex-ample, pay to repair and maintain the sidewalks on meteredstreets. By extension, the city can share the revenue fromred-light cameras with neighborhoods. Because the citywants to reduce vehicle accidents and increase pedestriansafety, it can offer to install red-light cameras at appropriateintersections and spend the citation revenue to repair andmaintain the nearby sidewalks. The cameras will encouragemotorists to drive more carefully, and the few who do runred lights will pay to improve pedestrian safety. Except forthose who run red lights, everyone will win.
An Advisory Services Program Report32
New Market Tax CreditsNew market tax credits permit taxpayers to receive a creditagainst federal income taxes for making qualified equity in-vestments in designated Community Development Entities(CDEs). All of the qualified equity investment must in turnbe used by the CDE to provide investments in low-incomecommunities. The credit provided to the investor totals39 percent of the cost of the investment and is claimed overa seven-year credit allowance period. In each of the firstthree years, the investor receives a credit equal to 5 percentof the total amount paid for the stock or capital interest atthe time of purchase. For the final four years, the value ofthe credit is 6 percent annually. Investors may not redeemtheir investments in CDEs before the conclusion of theseven-year period.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 33
New Market Tax Credits
Investment Partnership
In
ve
stment Partnership
Inf
rast
ruct
ure F
unding Partnership
99% InvestmentPartnership Iand CDE
99% Investment Member
.01% Managing Member (CDE)
Prospective New MarketTax CreditsInvestor
Loan Proceeds
District of ColumbiaDepartment of Transportation
Tax Credits
New MarketTax Credits
Equity
Loans and/or Equity
Great Streets
Projects
Bank Loan
An Advisory Services Program Report34
The panel was impressed with the planning that has alreadybeen done by DDOT and the Office of the Deputy Mayorfor Planning and Economic Development. The GreatStreets Initiative’s inclusive nature has garnered public sup-port, and DDOT is to be commended for that. DDOTmust maintain this support by moving beyond the frame-work plan and on to implementation.
The public investments need to be made strategically tomaximize the overall public return on investment. Initial in-vestments should bring the corridors up to a basic level ofmaintenance and repair. Subsequent investments should beconcentrated in high-activity and retail nodes. Wise invest-ments will help leverage the public’s money.
Public and private design and development standards shouldbe aligned with neighborhood revitalization objectives. TheGreat Streets corridors are rich with culture and are fortu-nate to have vibrant cultural histories. Those assets shouldbe used and built upon.
Public stewardship of the corridors is critical to the successof the program so the initiative becomes the community’s—not just a program that is happening in the community.The public outreach component should continue into theimplementation process to solicit further input from thecommunity.
The goal of the Great Streets program is to create sustain-able corridors, but they will not maintain or program them-selves. DDOT must develop governmental and community-based organizational capacity to take ownership of thecorridors in order to make positive change.
The Great Streets planning process has created an excellentframework to begin the transformation of some of the mostimportant corridors in the city. It is now time for implemen-tation. With a revised framework plan, community support,and strong leadership, the goal of creating Great Streets willbe well on its way to realization.
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 35
Conclusion
An Advisory Services Program Report36
Michael BannerChairLos Angeles, California
Banner is the president and chief executive officer (CEO) ofthe Los Angeles LDC, Inc. (LDC), a nonprofit communitydevelopment financial institution that provides innovativefinancial advisory services to achieve the target investmentgoals of its private and public sector clients. The LDC has anextensive track record of improving the flow of capital intocommunity and economic activities in emerging markets andin underserved communities. Under Banner’s leadership, theLos Angeles LDC is committed to becoming Los Angeles’spremier community development financial institution by of-fering a wide range of financial products and advisory serv-ices that are designed to stimulate revitalization in targetedinvestment area(s) or to targeted population(s) or both.
For the past decade, he has been a leader in providing bothdebt and equity capital to build businesses and neighborhoodsin underserved communities located throughout Los Angeles.As the president and CEO of the LDC, he manages multi-million-dollar relationships with a growing cadre of investorsthat includes municipalities, banks, pension funds, insurancecompanies, and community development capital providers.
Banner, a ULI Inner City Adviser, has an extensive back-ground in commercial banking and real estate finance with
a special emphasis in using federal funds for real estate andbusiness development. He is active in many community re-investment initiatives and is a charter member of the LosAngeles Community Reinvestment Committee, ULI-LA,District Council Inner City Sub-Committee, CommunityTechnologies/Merrill Lynch Minority Business ResearchAdvisory Committee, and Fannie Mae/LA Trade Tech Col-lege Mortgage Finance Advisory Committee. He serves onthe board of commissioners Housing Authority of the city ofLos Angeles and Business Tax Advisory Committee.
Banner is a graduate of the inaugural class of the MinorityProgram in Real Estate, Lusk Center for Real Estate at theUniversity of Southern California, and holds a degree inbusiness administration from Loyola Marymount University.
Gregory BaldwinPortland, Oregon
Baldwin is a partner with Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partner-ship with more than 30 years of experience as an architect,urban designer, and planner. As partner-in-charge of plan-ning and urban design, he has worked with the city of Port-land to rebuild its community over the past 20 years. Therenewal efforts include new green spaces for recreation, astreetcar and light rail system for transportation, and impor-tant public buildings.
In the past decade, Baldwin has taken the experience in Port-land and is applying the principles to different circumstancesin communities such as Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles,Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Houston. Many of theseprojects have received special local, state, and federal urbandesign recognition—including a Presidential Award for Designexcellence for the Westside Light Rail Corridor in Portland—and have been recognized in national and internationalpublications.
Baldwin received his BA, Master of Architecture, and a Masterof Architecture in Urban Design from Harvard University. Hewas awarded a Marshall Prize, a Fulbright Fellowship, and aRome Prize for postgraduate study. He is a fellow of the Amer-ican Academy in Rome and the American Institute of Architects.
Terry D. FoeglerColumbus, Ohio
Foegler, who has background in city planning and economicdevelopment, has been president of Campus Partners forCommunity Urban Redevelopment, Inc., since September1996. He came to Campus Partners from the city of Dublin,Ohio, where he was assistant city manager/director of devel-opment for six years.
As president of Campus Partners, Foegler directs the opera-tions of the nonprofit agency as it moves from developing a
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 37
About the Blue Ribbon Team
comprehensive revitalization plan to implementing themajor recommendations of the plan. The Ohio State Uni-versity created Campus Partners to promote improvementsto the quality of life in the neighborhoods around itsColumbus campus.
Before his position in Dublin, Foegler was a consultant inreal estate development from 1988 to 1990; director of de-velopment for Communicare, a regional health care man-agement and development company, from 1986 to 1988; en-gineering project manager for Thousand Trails, Inc., adeveloper of recreational camping resorts, from 1984 to1986; director of planning and development for the city ofLebanon, Ohio, from 1979 to 1984; and a planner with theNorthern Kentucky Area Planning Commission from 1977to 1979.
He earned his BA in urban geography from the Universityof Cincinnati in 1974 and his Master of Urban Planningfrom the University of Illinois in 1976. He is a member ofthe American Institute of Certified Planners.
Shelia GroveBoston, Massachusetts
Grove has served as executive director of Washington Gate-way Main Street, Inc., since its inception in 1997 and is apartner in Catalyst Company, a consulting firm that pro-vides practical planning assistance for neighborhood im-provement. Before joining Gateway, Grove was a partner inthe law firm of Grove & Grove, where she specialized inreal estate, zoning, and small business law.
At Gateway, Grove coordinates the community-driven revi-talization of 1.4 miles of Washington Street in the SouthEnd and Lower Roxbury neighborhoods of Boston. A win-
ner of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 2005“Great American Main Street” award, the program has at-tracted $520 million of development to the street between1997 and 2004, transforming Washington Street from a des-olate and deteriorated neighborhood into a desirable placeto live, work, and shop. Through the transition, the amountof low and moderate income housing was not just preservedbut actually increased. The Gateway district is now a desti-nation for visitors from around the world who are interestedin new urbanism style “dense” development, transit-orienteddevelopment, and commercial district revitalization. The or-ganization was recognized for its “best practices” in Revital-izing Commerce for American Cities, by Karl F. Seidman (Fan-nie Mae, 2004).
Grove steered the district’s turnaround by developing inclu-sive partnerships with neighborhood organizations, govern-ment officials and agencies, individuals, businesses, develop-ers, and not-for-profit organizations. She has coordinatedthe work of a hundred volunteers who annually donatebetween 2,500 and 4,600 hours working with Gatewaycommittees.
At Catalyst Company, Grove applies her practical experienceto activate strong government leadership, grassroots planning,community involvement, and public/private partnerships toneighborhood development tasks. The firm also emphasizesthe role of public relations in successful revitalization.
Grove lectured at the 2004 National Conference of Mayors,2004 Build Boston, 2003 National Main Streets conference,2003 Density conference sponsored by the Boston Society ofArchitects, and the 2005 Institute for Regional Develop-ment. In 2005, Boston Event Guide named Grove one of“Thirty Extraordinary Bostonians.”
Philip HartLos Angeles, California
Hart, president/CEO of Hart Realty Advisors (a division ofTanya Hart Communications, Inc.), has more than 20 yearsof experience in developing and managing complex realestate development projects. He served as project managerfor the 5,000-seat West Angeles Cathedral in South LosAngeles and as master developer for the 75-acre CrossTownIndustrial Park in Boston’s Roxbury neighborhood. Hart hasalso directed major transportation studies in addition to pro-viding master planning for urban industrial parks. Hart, inassociation with the Urban Land Institute, has done plan-ning studies for communities such as Hollywood, Califor-nia; Roxbury, Massachusetts; and San Antonio, Texas. Healso served on the ULI Advisory Services team that devel-oped a vision and master plan for the Bring New OrleansBack Commission.
Other facilities Hart has developed include a biotechnologycenter in Roxbury’s CrossTown Industrial Park with BostonUniversity Medical Center as anchor tenant along with sev-eral commercial biotech firms. Hart also developed themixed-use Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries headquar-ters in Roxbury’s CrossTown Industrial Park. Hart served asproject director for the Boston Transportation Planning Re-view Southwest Corridor Mobility Study, which served toreconfigure the transit and highway options within Boston’sRoute 128.
Hart was a faculty member at the University of Massachu-setts in Boston for more than 20 years, retiring in June 2002as a professor of sociology and director of the WilliamMonroe Trotter Institute for the Study of Black Culture.February 5, 2002, was declared Philip S. Hart Day in the
An Advisory Services Program Report38
Commonwealth of Massachusetts for his contributions toMassachusetts as “a public intellectual.” Hart earned hisundergraduate degree from the University of Colorado inBoulder where he was a student-athlete. In 1995, he was in-ducted into the university’s Distinguished Alumni Gallery.His graduate degrees are from Michigan State University in sociology.
Hart is an award-winning author and filmmaker. One of hisbooks has been optioned for a television movie. He is devel-oping a feature film, The Hallelujah Flight, and has two doc-umentary films in the PBS video catalogue.
Hart is on the board of managers of the HollywoodWilshire YMCA and serves as vice-chair of AbilityFirst’s(formerly the Crippled Children’s Society of Southern Cali-fornia) Housing Governance Board, which has developedmore than 300 residential units for persons with disabilities.
Allan JacobsBerkeley, California
Jacobs came to San Francisco in 1967 to head the city’splanning department. Charged with the task of revising thecity’s master plan, Jacobs successfully expanded the plan be-yond land use, traffic circulation, and community facilities toinclude elements such as housing and open space. The planbecame a policy-oriented document and moved the depart-ment into the forefront of land use decision making.
While director of planning in San Francisco, one of his mostnoteworthy projects was the passage and implementation ofthe urban design element of the master plan. This 155-pagedocument addressed and regulated such concerns as heightguidelines, street facades, views, light, air, streets as sourcesof open space, neighborhood livability, and conservation.
This urban design plan modulated growth and develop-ment—it reinforced a sculpted skyline of the hills and val-leys, protected bay views, and guided the design of the fi-nancial district towers in a hill-like fashion. His pioneeringintegration of urban design into local government planninghas fostered the development of some of San Francisco’sbest places.
His time as the director of planning in San Francisco pro-vided him with plenty of insight and material for his firstbook, Making City Planning Work, which was a tell-all of thepolitical pressures of being a city planning director. The bookbrings planning theory, principle, and practice together withactual case studies. Although out of print for many years, itis still seen by many readers as strikingly current.
Jacobs resigned from the San Francisco planning office in1975 and became a professor of city and regional planning atthe University of California, Berkeley. As a professor, he hasstressed the importance of observation and understandingthe city at an intimate level. He encourages his students toget out into the community to see how things work or don’twork, and to understand their context within the neighbor-hood and within the city as a whole.
Since retiring from active teaching, Jacobs has been engagedin a consulting practice that he runs out of his San Franciscohome with his wife, Elizabeth Macdonald, an assistant pro-fessor at Berkeley. Their firm, Jacobs Macdonald: Cityworksis a small practice dedicated to street design. Current clientsinclude the city of San Francisco, where the firm is consult-ing on the redevelopment of Octavia Boulevard adjacent tothe vacated Central Freeway; Oakland, where the firm is ad-vising on improvements to International Boulevard near theFruitvale BART station; streetscape designs for the MarketOctavia, Balboa Park, and Central Waterfront neighborhood
plans, prepared as part of the San Francisco Planning De-partment’s Better Neighborhoods Projects; and Vancouver,British Columbia, where they are the lead designers in therenovation of Pacific Boulevard.
Kiku ObataSt. Louis, Missouri
Obata launched her retail design firm in 1977, applying in-novative design to large, multidisciplinary projects to creatememorable identities and places. Obata provides design so-lutions that distinguish retail clients in their marketplace andhelp redefine their industries. Obata has worked on projectsnationally and internationally in both downtown and neigh-borhood settings. She advises clients and communities onthe interface of the public street environment and interiorretail environment to maximize the customer experience andretail success.
Margie RuddickPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania
From 1988 to 1995, Ruddick was a partner in Heintz/RuddickAssociates in New York City, designing urban landscapeprojects such as the recreation park at Battery Park City, theRiverside Park waterfront, and Stuyvesant Cove. Previously,she worked on the horticultural restoration of Central Parkwith the Central Park Conservancy; her work with the Nat-ural Resources Group complemented her experience withbuilt parklands, in preparing management strategies forNew York’s unbuilt parklands.
In 1995, she began working on her own, developing a team-based approach that integrates site systems, particularlywater, with a strong formal agenda. Since then, she has
Washington, D.C., January 17–20, 2006 39
worked internationally on projects that combine the highestlevel of design with alternative technologies for rainwaterharvesting, water filtration, phytoremediation, and ground-water recharge. Her urban projects in the United States in-clude the Queens Plaza landscape improvement plan in NewYork City, Schuylkill River Park in Philadelphia, and theGenerational Walk at the University of Pennsylvania. Herinternational work includes the Living Water Park inChengdu, Sichuan, China, which demonstrates how watercan be cleansed biologically, and a 2,500-acre ecologicallyoriented resort in India that combines practices such as sus-tainable agriculture with spiritual retreat. She works with ar-chitects, landscape architects, planners, engineers, and otherprofessionals in a multidisciplinary process, integrating land-scape, environmental systems, and building systems, to en-sure that the landscape is sustainable in the long term. InNovember 2004, Ruddick merged her practice with WallaceRoberts & Todd, where she currently serves as a principal.
Ruddick received a BA in English literature from BowdoinCollege and a Master of Landscape Architecture from Har-vard’s Graduate School of Design. Her work has receivedthe Places Design Award 1999 and the Waterfront Centre’sfirst prize in 1998, and she received the Lewis MumfordAward for the Environment from Architects Designers andPlanners for Social Responsibility in 2002. Her work waspresented in the Architecture League’s Emerging Voices Se-ries in 2003.
She is an adjunct associate professor of landscape architec-ture at the University of Pennsylvania and has taught atHarvard’s Graduate School of Design, Yale University, andParsons School of Design.
Donald ShoupLos Angeles, California
With a background in economics, engineering, and plan-ning, Shoup has focused his research on public finance,transportation, and the land market. He has extensively
studied the issue of parking as a key link between trans-portation and land use with important consequences forcities, the economy, and the environment. His research onemployer-paid parking led to the passage of California’sparking cash-out law and to changes in the Internal RevenueCode to encourage parking cash out.
Shoup has also worked on ways to finance neighborhoodpublic investments. In research conducted at the WorldBank, he proposed a new way to finance these investments:allow property owners to defer paying special assessments,with interest, until they sell their properties. This proposalled to passage of California’s law that enables cities to usedeferred special assessments to finance neighborhood publicspending.
Jeff TumlinSan Francisco, California
Tumlin is a principal with Nelson\Nygaard, a nationaltransportation planning firm based in San Francisco. His ex-pertise covers the key areas of regional smart growth, urbaninfill, and transit-oriented development. In transportationmaster plans and neighborhood plans for cities such as Seat-tle, San Francisco, Trenton, and Minneapolis, Tumlin hasaccommodated hundreds of thousands of new jobs andhomes without an increase in traffic congestion, primarilythrough smart investments in transit, parking management,and demand management tools. Transportation performancemeasures in these plans focus on the movement of peopleand goods rather than vehicles, allowing for a careful bal-ance among all modes in constrained urban streets.
As a lead planning consultant to the Bay Area Rapid TransitDistrict, Tumlin coauthored the Transit Oriented DevelopmentGuidelines and Station Access Guidelines. He has also led thetransportation component of Transit Oriented Developmentplans for more than 50 station areas around the country.
His recent awards include a 2005 Congress for the New Ur-banism Award for the Coyote Valley plan in San Jose, Cali-fornia; a 2003 GSA Achievement Award for the NASA Re-search Park Plan; and the Palo Alto “Consultant of the Year”Award for the Palo Alto Transportation Master Plan.
Todd WenskoskiDenver, Colorado
Wenskoski, an associate at Design Workshop, is an urbandesigner, landscape architect, and site designer with eightyears of experience in urban redevelopment and the designof public spaces. Wenskoski is a graduate of the HarvardGraduate School of Design, where he received his Master ofLandscape Architecture in Urban Design. He was a memberof the Urban Land Institute Blue Ribbon Panel in Washing-ton, D.C., and has lectured at universities throughout thecountry. His projects emphasize the role of public openspace as a way to stimulate redevelopment and create so-cially active spaces that provide long-term benefits for citiesand their residents. Through strategic initiatives, his projectsconcentrate on creating memorable districts and public so-cial spaces by integrating infrastructure, architectural eco-nomics, and aesthetics.
As a project designer for Riverfront Park in Denver, he de-veloped urban design solutions for the 16th Street Mall ex-tension, which is recognized as the premier public space inthe city. His recent work includes a 78-acre urban designplan for a former rail yard in Spokane, Washington. As proj-ect manager, Wenskoski has been responsible for leading amultidisciplinary team in establishing a vision for this high-density mixed-use development while setting a new prece-dent for the city.
An Advisory Services Program Report40
Related Documents
