K Street24th Street NW to 7th Street NW Washington, D.C.
Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environmental
Assessment
December 2009
DE
RTM PA
ENT OF TRANS POON ATI RT
RA
R LH IS T IGHW AY ADMIN
Printed on Recycled Paper
d
U.S .
AT ION
E FED
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT for KSTREET th 24 Street NW to
7th Street NW WASIDNGTON, D.C. DDOT Project Number:
l102(027)/SR028A1DC-29The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in
conjunction with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT),
proposes modifications to K Street to create a transportation
facility that enhances the mobility, throughput capacity, and
economic vitality within the downtown Washington Central Business
District. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the FHWA and DDOT prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA)
which was released for agency and public review on September 29,
2009. A public hearing was held on October 14, 2009. Subsequently,
a Final EA has been prepared to fully address all agency and public
comments received. The proposed modifications to K Street are
intended to accommodate multimodal traffic (bus, automobile,
bicycle, and pedestrian) that currently uses the corridor. The
proposed action would achieve the following obj ectives: Provide
efficient travel along K Street for all transportation modes,
including transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles;
Eliminate roadway infrastructure deficiencies along K Street and
improving mobility and safety for all K Street users; and Construct
a "Green Street" using exceptional urban design principles and
innovative and environmentally sustainable design methods.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Following the public comment period, DDOT identified Alternative
2, the Two-Lane Transitway, as the Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 2 would provide an exclusive two-way, two-lane median
transitway between 20 th Street and 9th Street. Alternative 2 would
also include two lO-foot general purpose travel lanes and one
l2-foot travel/off-peak parking lane in each direction on K Street
between 20 th Street and lih Street. Raised medians would separate
the general purpose travel lanes from the transitway and provide
width for passenger platforms and landscaping. The transitway would
include one l2-foot lane in each direction. Passenger platforms
would be located on the raised medians and would be typically 11
feet wide. The medians opposite the platforms would vary between
five and 11 feet wide, except where they are constrained by reduced
roadway widths at Farragnt Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin
Square parks. Between 12th Street and 9th Street, the existing
roadway width reduces to
1
approximately 50 feet; therefore, the medians would be
eliminated and the section would include one general purpose travel
lane plus one exclusive bus lane in each direction. Eight bus stops
would be located in both the eastbound and westbound direction of
the transitway. Bus stops would be curb-lane stops without
provisions for passing of stopped buses. The bus stops would be
approximately 140 feet long to accommodate multiple buses at one
time. Left turns would be prohibited from the transitway, with the
exception of left turns at 19th Street from the westbound
direction. Left turns would be prohibited from the general purpose
lanes at all but 14th Street in the eastbound direction and 11 th
and 10th Streets in the westbound direction during the peak
periods. A complete description of the Preferred Alternative is
provided in Section 2.2 ofthe Final EA. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT
NOT SELECTED In addition to evaluating Alternative 2, the EA and
Final EA considered the No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and
the Two-lane Transitway with Passing Alternative (Alternative 3),
as well as other alternatives that were considered but not retained
for detailed analysis. Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing
roadway, median, service lanes, and sidewalks would remain as they
are today, with no major modification to K Street within the study
area. Currently programmed, committed, and/or funded roadway
projects in the study area (with the exception ofthe K Street
project) would be completed. Alternative 3 would provide an
exclusive two-way, two-lane median transitway between 20th Street
and 9th Street plus provide opportunities for bus passing in blocks
that could accommodate a third bus lane. Alternative 3 would
include two lO-foot general purpose travel lanes and a five-foot
bike lane in each direction. A raised median would separate the
general purpose travel lanes from the transitway. The transitway
would include one l2-foot lane in each direction, plus an 11-foot
center passing lane adj acent to the bus stop area. Passing would
be provided at eight locations where the roadway width permits.
East of 12th Street, this alternative would be identical to
Alternative 2 with one general purpose lane and one bus lane per
direction. The typically l40-foot long bus platforms would be
located approximately every block on the near side of the
intersections. Seven platforms would be located in the eastbound
direction and eight platforms would be located in the westbound
direction. Eight additional alternatives that were evaluated in the
2005 K Street Transitway Report were also considered during the
scoping process conducted for the K Street EA. These alternatives
were not carried forward for further study. More detailed
descriptions of the alternatives are provided in Sections 2.2 and
2.3 of the Final EA.
2
ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT As stated in 40 CFR 1508.27(a),
analysis of significance as used in NEPA requires considerations of
both context and intensity: (a) Context. This means that the
significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such
as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the
affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the
setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a
site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the
effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both
short- and long-term effects are relevant. (b) Intensity. This
refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear
in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial
aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in
evaluating intensity: Impacts that may be both beneficial and
adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency
believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. The degree
to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to
historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands,
wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
The degree to which the effects on the quality ofthe human
environment are likely to be highly controversial. The degree to
which the possible effects on the human environment are highly
uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The degree to which
the action may establish a precedent for future actions with
significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a
future consideration. Whether the action is related to other
actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to
anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.
Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by
breaking it down into small component parts. The degree to which
the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways,
structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or
destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical
resources.
3
The degree to which the action may adversely affect an
endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been
determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or
local law or requirements imposed for the protection ofthe
environment.
Based on the impact analysis presented in Section 3 of the Final
EA, the project would not result in significant impacts. Given the
project's urban environment, there would be no impacts to streams,
wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, wild and scenic rivers,
farmland, forests, wildlife habitat, or habitat for threatened and
endangered species. The project would improve water quality by
incorporating Low Impact Development techniques such as rain garden
cells, vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. Stormwater
would be managed through the use of DCWASA water quality inlets to
treat the pavement runoff. In addition, the project would: Not use
any Section 4(f) properties; Not result in any increases in noise
levels above existing levels; Not result in adverse effects to air
quality. The National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board
has approved the 2010 to 2015 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP), which includes the "K Street, NW Priority Busway" as a major
project; Not result in any changes to land use or zoning; Not
result in right-of-way acquisition or in any residential or
business displacements; and Result in no adverse effect to historic
properties, as concurred by the District of Columbia State Historic
Preservation Officer on August 27, 2009.
The project would result in some adverse effects to the human
and natural environment. A summary of these effects, and an
evaluation of their significance per the CEQ guidance, is provided
in the following paragraphs. A detailed analysis of these effects
is provided in the Final EA.Social Characteristics - Neighborhoods
and Communitv Cohesion: The K Street project area's neighborhood is
defined as the business and residential community that exists on K
Street and on the side streets immediately adjacent to K Street.
Persons who spend non-work time in the corridor for other pursuits
(recreation, school, shopping, dining, and professional
appointments) are also part of the community. Social groups include
employers and employees, residents, commuters,
visitors/shoppers/diners, and through travelers.
Adverse effects to the community and businesses would occur as a
result of changes in parking and delivery availability and in
travel patterns. One hundred thirty of the approximately 330
curbside, two-hour parking spaces would be removed; and parking,
curbside deliveries and valet parking would be restricted to
off-peak hours. Approximately 200 curbside parking spaces would
continue to be available during off-peak hours. There would be no
change in availability4
of the 409 parking spaces on the side streets within one block
of K Street and the more than 8,000 garage parking spaces. Impacts
caused by parking and delivery restrictions would include
inconveniences to business patrons who normally park on K Street
and adjustments in delivery times normally scheduled during peak
hours. Deliveries during peak hours would be restricted to side
streets or alley loading docks. Any potential for a reduction in
business patronage attributable to reduced availability of parking
would be offset by improved transit efficiency and reliability that
would attract more business patrons who elect to use transit. Urban
design improvements of the Preferred Alternative would include
increased accessibility due to lowered congestion and higher
efficiency of traffic movement along K Street that would attract
more consumers to K Street, providing long-term benefits for the K
Street business community. Community cohesion refers to the
interaction of the business owners and others who populate K Street
as employees, customers, or visitors. None of the improvements
would change this interactivity; rather, the urban design and
streetscape improvements would enhance community cohesion through
the creation of a strong sense of neighborhood character on K
Street. Based on the analysis summarized above, the direct effects
to neighborhoods and community cohesion do not meet the criteria
for either context or intensity per the CEQ definition. The
improvements would not adversely affect public health or safety.
Furthermore, those members of the public who commented on the K
Street EA did not consider these effects to the human environment
controversial (Final EA, Appendix F). While the proposed action is
a site specific action, the effects do not rise to a level of
"significance" that would require a higher classification ofNEPA
documentation or study.Social Characteristics - Population and
Employment: The Preferred Alternative would not change the
availability of housing; therefore, impacts to the residential
population are not expected. The Preferred Alternative would
attract employment and visitors by providing more efficient
transportation that would facilitate faster, more reliable work
trips and by creating a more inviting street subsequently creating
a beneficial effect directly attributable to the proposed action.
The effects of the proposed action on social characteristics were
not considered controversial by commenters ofthe EA. The direct
effects on population and employment do not rise to a level of
"significance" as defined by the CEQ definition. . Social
Characteristics - Environmental Justice: There are minority and
low-income populations located within the block groups that
surround and abut K Street at either end of the project, however,
the project improvements would occur away from predominantly
low-income or minority populations. Only one block group with a
high proportion of low income/minority population would be directly
affected by the project's improvements. The impacts to
environmental justice populations would primarily occur as a result
of the elimination of 130 onstreet parking spaces, making low-cost
parking less available. This would impact low-income persons more
than others because a higher parking cost would represent a higher
proportion of5
their income. However, the preferred alternative would also
provide transportation improvements that would result in improved
travel times and more reliable and efficient transit which would
benefit all populations. Therefore, the analysis concludes that the
project's impacts on minority and low-income populations are
neither disproportionately high nor adverse. There would also be no
adverse effect to public health or safety of minority and
low-income populations. Overall, the effects do not meet the CEQ
criteria for either context or intensity; therefore, the impacts of
the action on social characteristics do not rise to a level of
"significance" as defined by CEQ.Businesses and Economic Vitality:
Completion of the Preferred Alternative would provide a high
quality design and streetscape that could attract businesses,
consumers and visitors to this already successful street. Design
and streetscape strategies would be developed to improve traffic
conditions and provide faster, more reliable transit that would
enhance and support the continuing economic vitality of K Street.
Elimination of some parking and a prohibition on parking and
deliveries during peak hours would impact businesses and visitors;
however, (1) most on-street parking and loading would remain
available during off-peak periods, and side street and garage
parking would remain the same as existing conditions; (2) alley
loading docks would remain open and available; and (3) the more
efficient transit system would attract transit riders, decreasing
the number of automobile drivers entering the area. These factors
would serve to mitigate the impact on the human environment.
Therefore, while there are some anticipated direct impacts to
businesses and economic vitality caused by the Preferred
Alternative, those impacts do not rise to a level of "significance"
regarding their context or intensity as defined by the CEQ
definition. . Community Facilities: The Preferred Alternative would
improve mobility and access to community facilities as a result of
lowered congestion, faster travel times and more efficient,
reliable transit. Emergency vehicles would use the transitway to
avoid automobile traffic during emergencies, thus improving
response times. The Preferred Alternative would directly impact
community facilities through changes in the availability of
on-street parking and deliveries. Therefore, similar to impacts to
businesses, community facility parking and delivery restrictions
would not result in severe impacts on community facilities. Based
on the analysis provided in the EA, the direct effects of the
proposed action to community facilities do not rise to a level
"significance" as defined by CEQ. Traffic and Transportation: With
the Preferred Alternative, end-to-end travel times in the general
purpose lanes would be up to four minutes faster than the No-Build
Alternative. The K Street transitway would improve bus travel time
and reliability, and encourage greater transit usage. End-to end
travel times for buses on the transitway would be up to six minutes
faster than the No-Build Alternative in 2030. The proposed 140-foot
long bus stops would accommodate more than one bus at a time. By
placing buses (which carry more persons per vehicle than
automobiles) in an exclusive transitway, thus allowing more buses
to travel along K Street during a single hour period, the project
would provide more person-carrying capacity. The6
improvements in bus service would facilitate greater
accessibility to employment and entertainment destinations. Based
on an analysis of the effect of the preferred alternative on
vehicular traffic, there would be a benefit providing an increase
in travel times through the corridor even with two intersections
operating at a LOS F during the AM peak period and one intersection
during the PM peak period. The impact of the preferred alternative
regarding traffic within the corridor considering the "context" and
"intensity" of the site specific action, inclusive of the effect on
transit operations, would be beneficial overall and therefore not
rise to a level of "significance" as defined by CEQ. The Preferred
Alternative would accommodate bicyclists in a 12-foot wide curbside
general purpose shared lane with automobiles, during the peak
periods. During off-peak hours, the curb lane would accommodate
bicyclists and parking/loading. Cycle tracks or separated bicycle
lanes could not be included with Alternative 2 because of the
desire to maintain existing sidewalk widths. The District's Bicycle
Master Plan does not designate K Street as a bicycle corridor;
rather, bicycle use is promoted on the adjacent parallel streets, L
and M Streets. The wider curbside lane would provide approximately
two to three feet of accommodation for bicyclists wishing to use K
Street during the peak and slightly more space during the off-peak.
Pedestrians would continue to be accommodated on wide sidewalks
with marked crosswalks, timed crossing intervals, and wider median
refuge widths. All pedestrian improvements would be in accordance
with the District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan objectives and
recommendations to correct pedestrian deficiencies and increase
pedestrian safety. The effects of the project on pedestrians and
bicycles / pedestrian mobility and safety are not significant
either in context or intensity per the CEQ definitions. As
discussed previously, parking and loading would be impacted by the
removal of approximately 130 of the existing 330 on-street parking
spaces within the project area, and the restriction of the
remaining approximately 200 spaces to off-peak use only. This would
increase the demand for on-street parking on K Street and in the
first blocks of the side streets. It is anticipated that this
change is expected to cause inconveniences to those seeking to park
on the street during peak hours and to those service providers
delivering goods requiring loading and unloading on K Street during
peak hours; however, parking impacts and restrictions to both the
service providers and the general public do not rise to a level of
"significance" as defined by the CEQ critieria.Terrestrial Habitat
- Street Trees: The Preferred Alternative would require the removal
of all of the street trees within the existing medians between 21
st Street and 9th Street. Existing sidewalk vegetation would be
removed as needed; however, existing, healthy mature trees would be
preserved as much as possible. All tree removal would be in
accordance with the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration guidelines.
Replacement and additional trees would be planted in accordance
with an urban streetscape design plan that includes green street
technologies as7
determined during final design. Given the provided mitigations,
the effects on street trees and vegetation would not rise to a
level of "significance" as defined by CEQ.
Visual and Aesthetic Resources: Under the Preferred Alternative,
the aesthetic character of K Street would be slightly modified
during and following construction. The proj ect would continue to
provide the four-row street tree configuration and would utilize
DDOT's standards for roadway and sidewalk paving, lighting and
streetscape furnishings to provide a consistent and complementary
aesthetic view within the corridor. The project goals for urban
character would be manifested in landscaping and design that would
include plantings, stormwater management LID, and street
furnishings. The enhanced landscaping would maintain the historic
views and vistas of the L'Enfant Plan of the City of Washington
within the contemporary dense urban fabric. The effects on visual
quality would therefore not be adverse and are not deemed
"significant" either in context or intensity per the CEQ guidance.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts: An indirect and cumulative impacts
analysis was completed in accordance with CEQ, FHWA and EPA
guidance. The project is not anticipated to cause any indirect
impacts to land use in relation to what has been proposed in the
comprehensive plans and approved development projects. Indirect
impacts would be both adverse and beneficial, and include changes
in travel patterns that would affect mobility on other streets;
potential loss of customer base due to the inconvenience to
customers attributable to on-street parking losses and
restrictions; potential increases in delivery costs because of
loss/restriction of loading times which would likely be passed on
by businesses to consumers; increases in transit reliability and
efficiency which could result in increases in transit ridership;
and improved attractiveness of the area for new business.Cumulative
impacts would include the incremental changes that occur over time
in conjunction with other surrounding development. Beneficial
cumulative impacts to employment would include the increase in jobs
created by the project and other projects as they are constructed
(temporary) and completed (permanent employment opportunities);
incremental increases to visual impacts that modify the views and
vistas associated with the L'Enfant Plan; potential increases in
traffic growth due to this and other development projects; and an
incremental beneficial impact to water quality improvement within
the Rock Creek watershed with the incorporation of green
technologies for stormwater management. Regarding CEQ's criteria
for "context" and "intensity", indirect and cumulative impacts
associated with the proposed action do not rise to a level of
"significance" requiring further NEPA study or documentation.
Construction Impacts: Business on K Street would be temporarily
inconvenienced during construction. Construction would disrupt
daily flow of business in the corridor. Landscaping, paving, street
and/or sidewalk closures may cause some loss of business clientele
as a result of this inconvenience. All utilities (electrical power,
water and sewer, telephone and cable) are expected to be maintained
throughout construction. Licensed street vendors may be temporarily
relocated during construction. Construction noise and dust,
although minimized, would8
temporarily disrupt outdoor dining areas. DDOT would require
their contractor to employ noise and dust suppression techniques to
limit the impact on outdoor activities such as cafes. A public
information program would be used to inform businesses and
residents of the duration of construction, phasing, construction
methods, and possible effects. Access would be maintained to all
businesses during construction, and pedestrian walkways would be
protected from construction so that they could remain open to the
extent practicable. DDOT would work with businesses, including
street vendors, to develop ways to minimize construction impacts as
much as possible. The construction-related effects on business
activities would be temporary, and would be minimized through a
concerted effort to communicate with, and be responsive to,
business owners throughout the construction period. Given the
temporary nature of impacts associated with construction activities
coupled with the proposed DDOT commitments to mitigation during the
period of construction activity, in addition to the support
expressed by the business community, agency and public stakeholders
for the proposed action; construction impacts, based on the
analysis provided and with consideration of "context" and
"intensity" do not rise to a level of "significance", as defmed by
CEQ requiring a higher classification ofNEPA
documentation.MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to
mitigate or minimize adverse impacts of the Preferred Alternative:
The DC SHPO will be consulted at 60% and 90% design on a
landscaping plan, including way-fmding signage, lighting, bus
stops, pavement, sidewalks, and any proposed street furniture. The
consultation with SHPO will also include NCPC and the Commission on
Fine Arts. The proposed landscaping will respect and complement
project area viewsheds, including historic vistas. Any trees
removed from the corridor will be appropriately replaced through
coordination with the DDOT Urban Forestry Administration. During
final design, the provision of bus shelters will be coordinated
with WMATA. Stormwater will be managed as much as practicable with
Low Impact Development techniques such as rain garden cells,
vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. A detailed
maintenance of traffic plan will be developed during final design
to ensure that through traffic is maintained to the extent
practicable, pedestrians are provided safe passage through the work
zone, businesses are accessible, and deliveries can be made. The
contractor will be required to comply with the DC Code of Municipal
Regulations with regard to construction noise. Noise levels would
be minimized to the extent practicable. During final design,
consideration will be given to signage, pavement markings, and
other accommodations/amenities for bicyclists.9
During construction, DDOE regulations will be adhered to
regarding protection of workers from exposure to
petroleum-contaminated soils and treatment of contaminated soils
prior to disposal when petroleum concentrations exceed regulatory
thresholds. During construction, activities will comply with the
District noise regulations. During construction, dust-suppression
measures would be used to mitigate fugitive dust emISSIOns. During
construction, pro-active street-side signing would be provided
regarding access to businesses and alternative parking locations.
During construction, DDOT will work with street vendors to assist
them in finding new locations along the corridor. During
construction, a public information program will be used to inform
the public concerning construction phases, work hours,
access/parking changes, avenues for communication, and possible
effects.
AGENCY CONSULTATION In accordance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, the FHWA has detemIined that
the proposed project would have no adverse effect on historic
properties. In a letter dated August 27, 2009, the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the condition that
detailed project plans are provided for the SHPO's review at 60%
and 90% design. A scoping meeting was conducted on July 1, 2009,
followed by meetings with the interagency team on July 31,2009 and
October 14, 2009. The interagency team consisted of representatives
from the National Capital Planning Commission, National Park
Service, Commission on Fine Arts, Arlington County, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments, DC Water and Sewer Authority,
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Administration, DC Office
ofPlamIing, and DC Department of the Environment. Individual
meetings with each of the agencies were also conducted throughout
July, 2009. Agency letters and comments received in response to
circulation of the EA are included in Appendix F of the Final EA,
along with responses from DDOT. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A public meeting
was held on July 29,2009, and attended by 47 citizens. Attendees
were provided the opportunity to comment in writing or orally to a
court reporter. The major themes of these comments were as follows:
accommodate bicycle lanes, maintain on-street parking, provide
loading zones with ample length and maneuvering room, provide
separate transit lanes to more efficiently move transit along K
Street, and 10
be mindful of sidewalk width and landscaping.
Following circulation of the EA, a Public Hearing was conducted
on October 14,2009. The hearing was attended by 36 citizens. Eleven
people provided public testimony and six people provided private
testimony. Following the hearing, approximately 300 emails and
letters were received. Copies of all comments received and
responses to those comments are contained in Appendix F of the
Final EA. The major themes and concerns were as follows: preference
for a particular alternative desire for a dedicated bike facility,
bicyclist safety, details on bike lanes, preference for bike lanes
on L and I Streets impacts to businesses from loss of curbside
parking, impact on valet parking, loss of sidewalk space, loss of
loading zones, and effects during construction support for
dedicated bus lanes to improve transit travel times, and other
accommodations for transit users concerns with landscaping plans
maintaining and complementing the historic viewsheds pedestrian
safety, preservation of sidewalk widths concerns with left turn
prohibitions accommodating emergency vehicles design suggestions
automobile congestion and mobility, conflicts with
buses/bicyclists, loss of parking construction impacts effects of
changing traffic patterns on parallel streets effects to NPS
properties
CONCLUSIONThe FHWA has determined that the Preferred
Alternative/Alternative 2, will not have a significant impact on
the natural, human or built environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on the findings of the proposed
project's Final Environmental Assessment (EA), and comments
submitted during preparation of the EA. The Final EA has been
evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately discuss the
need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project and
appropriate mitigation measures. It provides sufficient evidence
and analysis for determining that an environmental impact statement
(ElS) is not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the
accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA.
Approved: Division Administrator Federal Highway
Administration11
Date
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTfor K STREET 24th Street NW to 7th
Street NW WASHINGTON, D.C.
Prepared pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) by U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration and District
Department of Transportation
Final: December 2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SEXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.1 Proposed ActionThe District Department of
Transportation (DDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
are evaluating improvements to the K Street corridor in northwest
Washington, DC, to efficiently accommodate multi-modal travel,
including an exclusive transitway within a portion of the existing
street right-of-way. The study area limits, shown on Figure S-1,
are between Mount Vernon Square (7th Street) on the east and
Washington Circle (24th Street) on the west, and between L Street
to the north and I (Eye) Street to the south. The construction
limits would extend from 9th Street to 21st Street along K Street.
Figure S-1: Study Area
A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental
Assessment (EA) was prepared in September, 2009 for this project.
The EA was released for 30 day public comment on September 29,
2009. The public and agencies had an opportunity to review and
comment on the September 2009 EA until October 30, 2009. A Public
Hearing for the EA was held on October 14, 2009. This Final EA
addresses comments submitted on the EA at the public hearing and
during the associated public comment period. This Final EA also
identifies a Preferred Alternative.
i
Final: December 2009
S.2 Purpose and NeedThe purpose of the K Street project is to
create a transportation facility that supports the mobility,
throughput capacity, and economic vitality within the downtown
Central Business District (CBD) by: providing efficient travel
along K Street for all transportation modes, including transit,
pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles; eliminating roadway
infrastructure deficiencies along K Street and improving mobility
and safety for all K Street users; and, constructing a Green Street
using exceptional urban design principles and innovative and
environmentally sustainable design methods.
As the main street of Washingtons CBD, K Street provides
important opportunities for a variety of user, mode, service, and
urban space objectives. With numerous overlapping needs that must
be addressed by the proposed improvements, it is essential that a
balanced solution that addresses all needs form the basis for a
collaborative K Street vision among a broad range of agency,
stakeholder, and public participants. Thus, each need is considered
equally in the project evaluation in this Final EA. For clarity,
the need elements are grouped into two categories: Transportation
Needs and Urban Design Needs. The Transportation Needs stem from an
evaluation of the existing deficiencies for moving people and
services throughout the K Street study area and include the
following: correcting operational deficiencies; connecting modal
interrelationships including pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles,
buses and the Metro users; improving deteriorating roadway
infrastructure and variations in travel patterns; improving
mobility for all travel modes; and improving safety for
automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Urban Design Needs stem
from the strong social desire to create a Green Street founded on
exceptional urban design principles, the desire to create a strong
urban design that unifies the corridor, and the desire to construct
a street with environmental sustainability.
S.3 AlternativesTransportation alternatives have been analyzed
to address the purpose of the K Street project. Three alternatives,
including the No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives, are
analyzed in detail in this Final EA. A Preferred Alternative is
also identified. K Street is currently a two-way urban arterial
roadway with multiple lane configurations within the study area.
The roadway generally includes four center travel lanes (two lanes
in each direction) and median-separated service roads (with two
lanes in each direction) including an outside lane for
parking/loading/unloading and a second lane for travel and right
turns. Wide, landscaped sidewalks flank the curbs on both sides.
Eastbound service lanes are absent where K Street passes Franklin,
McPherson, and Farragut Squares. The roadway is narrower and only
consists of four lanes (two travel and two parking) between Mt.
Vernon Square and 12th Street; however, only westbound traffic is
accommodated between Mt. Vernon Square and 10th Street. On the west
end of the study area, the primary K Street travel
ii
Final: December 2009
lanes begin descending under Washington Circle at 21st Street;
the service lanes continue west at-grade to meet the circle.
Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative) The No-Build Alternative
(Alternative 1) would retain the existing conditions on K Street.
It assumes that the currently programmed, committed, and/or funded
roadway projects in the study area would be completed. Alternative
1 provides a basis for comparison for the build alternatives.
Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway) and Alternative 3 (Two-Lane
Transitway with Passing) Two build alternatives were developed and
evaluated as part of this NEPA EA. The build alternatives would
provide an exclusive two-way center transitway on K Street, flanked
by medians on either side that include bus platforms. Alternative 2
would include the two-lane transitway flanked by medians for
platforms/landscaping, three general purpose lanes with parking in
the curb lanes during the off-peak, and sidewalks. Bicycles would
be accommodated in the curb lanes. Alternative 3 would include a
two-lane transitway with passing, two general purpose lanes, a
dedicated bike lane, and designated loading/unloading areas.
Sidewalks would flank the outside lanes in both alternatives. The
typical section would narrow for both alternatives adjacent to
Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Park resulting in
two bus lanes and two general purpose lanes per direction. On the
east end, between 12th Street and 9th Street, the roadway would
narrow to match the existing width, but it would include one travel
lane and one transit lane in each direction. Neither build
alternative would require additional right-of-way. Preferred
Alternative/Alternative 2 Following the EA comment period,
Alternative 2 was identified as the Preferred Alternative for the K
Street project. Alternative 2 would provide a balance between all
of the modes of travel (transit, automobiles, bicycles, and
pedestrians) and the other roadway uses (parking and
loading/unloading), while meeting the projects purpose and need. As
described in Chapters 2 and 3 of this Final EA, the end-to-end bus
travel times along the study corridor within the transitway would
be up to six minutes faster than the 2030 No-Build Alternative. The
end-to-end automobile travel times would be up to four minutes
faster than the No-Build and four to nine minutes faster than
Alternative 3. Bicycles would be accommodated in a shared lane with
automobiles during the peak period and with parked vehicles during
the offpeak. Sidewalks would typically remain at the existing
width. Alternative 2 would also provide on-street parking and
loading/unloading during the off-peak period in the curbside lane.
In summary, Alternative 2 would provide improved operations for
buses and automobiles, while still accommodating bicycles,
pedestrians, parking, and deliveries.
S.4 Summary of ImpactsThe comparison of impacts associated with
Alternatives 2 and 3 is summarized in the following section and in
Table S.1 at the end of the section. There are no identified
physical impacts on properties surrounding the street, as all
construction would take place within the
iii
Final: December 2009
existing right-of-way. The No-Build Alternative would not impact
resources within the study area. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
would not have an impact on land use and zoning; land acquisition
and displacements; National Park Service (NPS) and DC Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) park properties; Section 4(f)
properties; air quality; noise; and some elements of the natural
environment (physiography, topography and geology; soils; Waters of
the US, including wetlands; aquatic habitat and wildlife;
threatened or endangered species). Most of the impacts from
Alternative 3 would be similar to those of Alternative 2. There
would also be temporary impacts during construction. Project
impacts are evaluated in this Final EA using the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) definition of significance (40 CFR
1508.27). Social Characteristics Social characteristics affected by
the project would include neighborhoods and community cohesion,
environmental justice, businesses, and economic vitality. The
neighborhood affected by the K Street project surrounds this
portion of K Street, and includes business owners and employees,
commuters, travelers, visitors, and residents. The projects effects
on neighborhoods and community cohesion would be positive, and
would include improved safety for pedestrians with reconstructed
sidewalks, ADA compliant intersection ramps, and wider refuge areas
in the new medians; improved access to transit (buses) with more
reliable schedules (greater benefit with Alternative 3 with bus
passing lane); general alleviation of congestion and increased
mobility of traffic; increased safety and mobility for bicyclists,
especially with bike lane in Alternative 3. The project would not
have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on minority or
lowincome populations. Positive benefits to the business community
would include increased accessibility due to lowered congestion and
higher efficiency of traffic movement along K Street, especially
buses. Some impacts to the business community may include a
decrease/loss of on-street parking, especially with Alternative 3;
and potential changes in delivery schedules due to the peak hour
restrictions for on-street loading (Alternative 2) or relocation
(Alternative 3) of onstreet parking. Changes in vehicular travel
patterns could have a minor indirect effect on communities and
businesses, with more automobile travelers shifting from K Street
to I (Eye) and L Streets, and more bus transit use shifting to K
Street. Community Facilities Community facilities would share the
positive effects of lowered congestion and increased access due to
the construction of Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. The
alternatives would potentially improve response times for emergency
responders who could use the transitway. Traffic and Transportation
Traffic and transportation effects are considered in five areas:
travel time improvements, transit operations, pedestrians,
bicycles, and parking and deliveries.
iv
Final: December 2009
Travel time improvements: With Alternative 1 (No-Build), 2030
end-to-end automobile travel times would range from 8 to 12 minutes
during the AM, midday, and PM peak hours. Bus travel times for the
entire corridor would range from 13 minutes to 17 minutes during
all peak hours. With the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, the
end-to-end automobile travel times would be up to four minutes
faster than the No-Build. Under Alternative 3, the end-to-end
automobile travel times would be one to 11 minutes slower than the
No-Build. Buses traveling in the transitway would experience
improved travel times with both build alternatives. End-to-end bus
travel times within the transitway would be up to six minutes
faster with the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 than with the
No-Build. End-to-end bus travel times with Alternative 3 would be
six to seven minutes faster than No-Build. With Alternatives 2 and
3, there will be fewer intersections along K Street where left
turns would be allowed from the general purpose lanes as compared
to the No-Build Alternative. Transit operations: The effects for
the bus system operations and for users are anticipated to be
positive and include more efficient and reliable service for all
bus routes using the exclusive transitway; simplified locations and
routes for transit users through the consistent placement of bus
stops near- or far-side and improved signage; more access at bus
stops and more buses at each stop due to the extended station
lengths and the ability of buses to receive/discharge more
passengers at one time. With the Preferred Alternative/Alternative
2, however, buses continuing to operate in the general purpose
lanes would experience the same slower travel times as automobiles.
With the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2, buses that do not
stop at each station would be forced to travel behind buses that
do, causing delays for buses that do not stop because there would
not be an opportunity for passing in the transitway. The
implementation of Alternative 3, however, would allow buses to
pass, thus eliminating potential delays and resulting in shorter
travel times than would be achieved with Alternative 2.
Pedestrians: Generally, the project would have a positive effect on
pedestrian movements and safety through the corridor through the
preservation of wide sidewalks that vary between 25 feet and 12
feet wide; timed crossing intervals and designated crosswalks at
intersections; and increased refuge areas due to 11 to 12 foot wide
medians provided. Bicycles: The Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2
may provide a modest increase in safety for bicyclists traveling
along K Street by providing a wider 12-foot curb lane for shared
use, but bikes would still share the road with vehicular traffic.
Alternative 3 would increase safety and mobility for bicyclists by
providing a designated bike lane. This dedicated lane could
facilitate the connection between the Metropolitan Branch Trail and
the Capital Crescent Trail. Parking and Deliveries: The loss or
restriction of parking on K Street could negatively impact business
and visitor accessibility. Available on-street parking is defined
as including the spaces on K Street within the project area and on
cross streets within the first blocks to the north and south. The
parking on K Street represents approximately 45 percent of the
total parking available in the project area. The project
alternatives would result in no change inv
Final: December 2009
parking or delivery areas on the streets that cross K Street.
However, with the Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2,
approximately 39 percent of available parking and on-street loading
on K Street would be removed, and the remainder would be restricted
to off-peak hours. Alternative 3 would eliminate all parking on K
Street within the study area. There are approximately 8,000
off-street parking spaces available in various parking garages in
the study area which would not be affected by either alternative.
The restriction of on-street loading spaces to off-peak hours under
Alternative 2 would create a greater impact on delivery times than
Alternative 3, which would allow deliveries in peak hours using
designated areas. However, with Alternative 3, loading would only
be available along K Street at designated areas. The locations of
the loading areas are not expected to meet the demands of the K
Streets tenants. Cultural Resources The evaluation of cultural
resources was conducted in accordance with the regulations defined
in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR
800) and in consultation with the District of Columbia State
Historic Preservation Office. There would be no adverse effects to
any historic properties. Natural Environment Stormwater management
(SWM) would be incorporated in both build alternatives in
accordance with the current DDOT /Department of the Environment
(DOE) regulations. Best management practices and low impact
development (LID) techniques would be used, such as tree pits,
median plantings and planter boxes that would augment green
strategies such as bioretention/rain garden cells, enhanced
vegetative filter strips, and permeable pavers. Alternative 2 and
Alternative 3 would remove all of the trees within the existing
medians and replace them with appropriate species in the new
medians. Sidewalk trees would be preserved where possible. Removed
vegetation would also be replanted with appropriate trees, shrubs,
and ground cover in a manner that creates a unifying theme for the
K Street project area. Therefore, the project would not have a
significant impact on street vegetation. Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the removal
of on-street parking and loading areas could become evident, as
they in turn impact other resources, including communities,
businesses, employment, and natural resources. These indirect and
cumulative impacts may manifest as increased congestion and
competition for available open parking spaces during critical AM
peak periods and on side streets where local deliveries could
affect traffic flow and access. Additional indirect effects would
include increased costs to businesses for deliveries which would
likely be passed on to consumers as price increases, and the
potential loss of business customers due to unavailability of
on-street parking. Conversely, many indirect and cumulative impacts
of the K Street project are anticipated to be beneficial to
businesses, residents and visitors to the downtown DC area and to
the area surrounding K Street, as transportation along the street
more efficient and more reliable.vi
Final: December 2009
Temporary Construction Impacts Noise and vibration control
measures would be used to minimize the effects on the public during
construction. A Maintenance of Traffic (MOT) plan would be
developed to determine how the construction would be completed in
phases; how all modes (automobiles, transit, pedestrians, and
bicycles) would be accommodated in each phase; and how access,
parking, and loading/unloading operations would be provided or
maintained. The construction impacts to the public would be
temporary and could include extended travel times, reduced speed
limits and the elimination of on-street parking. Construction
impacts to businesses would also be temporary and could include
parking losses, slowed business, closure of outdoor caf areas,
relocated street vendors and modified loading/unloading. Summary
Comparison of Alternatives Table S.1 provides a summary comparison
of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Based on the evaluation included in
the EA and this Final EA, as well as comments received from
regulatory agencies and the public, it is anticipated that the
project would not have a significant impact on the environment
either in context or intensity as defined by the Council on
Environmental Quality. Therefore, DDOT recommends that a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be appropriate for the project.
This final Environmental Assessment document complies, to the
extent possible, with all applicable environmental laws and
Executive Orders, or provides reasonable assurance that their
requirements can be met.
vii
Final: December 2009
Table S.1.Alternative 1 No-Build 8 to 12 minutes AM Peak: 3
Midday Peak: 1 PM Peak: 0 13 to 17 minutes No No No No Yes AM Peak:
2 Midday Peak: 1 PM Peak: 0 7 to 11 minutes Yes 7 to 13 minutes
Preferred Alternative/Alternative 2 Two-Lane Transitway
Comparison of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3Alternative 3 Two-Lane
Transitway with Passing 9 to 23 minutes AM Peak: 6 Midday Peak: 2
PM Peak: 5 7 to 10 minutes Yes Yes Yes Yes Provides 5-foot paved
and signed bicycle lane Fair Pullout loading zones in selected
locations No on-street parking
Evaluation Factor
General Purpose Lanes: Peak end-to-end travel times in 2030
Number of intersections with LOS E or F in 2030
Transit Lanes: Peak end-to-end travel times in 2030 Potential to
Increase Person Throughput Potential to Increase Transit Ridership
Benefits and Reliability Enhances Pedestrian Compatibility
Enhances Bicycle Compatibility
Effects on Loading / Ease of Loading
Number of parking spaces on K Street
Good 124 loading parking spaces 332 spaces available in
off-peak. 208 for parking and 124 for loading
Yes Yes Provides shared lane with autos during peak and shared
lane with parking in off-peak Good On-street loading in off-peak
200 spaces available in off-peak for parking and loading. No
on-street parking during peak Yes Yes No
Yes Yes No
Provides Opportunities for Great Street / Improved No Aesthetic
Character Provides Opportunities for Green Street / No
Environmental Sustainability Impacts Historic Properties or
Parkland No Peak Hours for this study are defined as 7:00 AM to
9:30 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:30 PM.
viii
Final: December 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.....................................................................................................
i S.1 Proposed
Action.................................................................................................
i S.2 Purpose and Need
.............................................................................................
ii S.3 Alternatives
.......................................................................................................
ii S.4 Summary of Impacts
........................................................................................
iii 1. PURPOSE AND NEED
...............................................................................................1
1.1 Project Overview
...............................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of Project
..............................................................................................5
1.3 Needs of the Project
...........................................................................................6
1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and
Studies............................................................8
1.4.1 The District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives
Analysis
..............................................................................................8
1.4.2 Great Streets Initiative
...........................................................................8
1.4.3 The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan
.................................9 1.4.4 District of Columbia
Bicycle Master Plan .............................................9
1.4.5 Rehabilitation of New Hampshire Avenue (including Washington
Circle
Improvements).....................................................9
1.4.6 White House Area Transportation
Study...............................................9 1.4.7 Mt.
Vernon Square District Planning Study
..........................................9 2. ALTERNATIVES
......................................................................................................11
2.1 Alternative 1 (No-Build
Alternative)...............................................................11
2.2 Proposed
Action...............................................................................................14
2.2.1 Alternative 2 (Two-Lane Transitway)
.................................................15 2.2.2
Alternative 3 (Two-Lane Transitway with
Passing)............................19 2.2.3 Preferred
Alternative............................................................................23
2.3 Other Alternatives
Considered.........................................................................24
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
.................................................................................................27
3.1 Social
Characteristics.......................................................................................28
3.1.1 Neighborhoods and Community
Cohesion..........................................29 3.1.2
Population and
Employment................................................................31
3.1.3 Environmental
Justice..........................................................................37
3.1.4 Businesses and Economic
Vitality.......................................................39
3.2 Community
Facilities.......................................................................................44
3.3 Traffic and Transportation
...............................................................................49
3.3.1 Traffic
Conditions................................................................................49
3.3.2 Transit
Operations................................................................................66
3.3.3 Pedestrians and
Bicycles......................................................................71ix
Final: December 2009
4.
3.3.4 Parking
.................................................................................................74
3.4 Land Use and
Zoning.......................................................................................76
3.4.1 Land Use and
Zoning...........................................................................77
3.4.2 Comprehensive
Plans...........................................................................78
3.4.3 Planned Development
..........................................................................82
3.5 Land Acquisition, Displacements, and Relocation Impacts
............................83 3.6 Cultural Resources
...........................................................................................83
3.7 Section
4(f).......................................................................................................89
3.8 Air Quality
.......................................................................................................90
3.8.1 Regional Conformity
...........................................................................90
3.8.2 Project-Level CO
Conformity..............................................................90
3.8.3 Project-level Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Conformity...................95 3.8.4 Mobile Source Air
Toxics....................................................................96
3.8.5 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts
.........................................................98 3.8.6
Conclusion
...........................................................................................99
3.8.7 Temporary Construction Related Impacts
...........................................99 3.9 Noise
................................................................................................................99
3.10 Natural
Environment......................................................................................100
3.10.1 Physiography, Topography, and Geology
.........................................101 3.10.2
Soils....................................................................................................101
3.10.3 Water Resources
................................................................................102
3.10.4 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife and
Habitat.....................................103 3.11 Visual and
Aesthetic
Resources.....................................................................105
3.12 Hazardous Materials
......................................................................................108
3.13 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
...................................................................108
3.13.1 Boundaries and Methodology
............................................................109
3.13.2 Land Use Past/Present/Future
.........................................................110 3.13.3
Indirect
impacts..................................................................................110
3.13.4 Cumulative Impacts
...........................................................................112
3.13.5
Conclusions........................................................................................114
3.14 Construction Impacts
.....................................................................................114
3.14.1 Socioeconomic Impacts
.....................................................................114
3.14.2 Noise
..................................................................................................115
3.14.3 Vibration
............................................................................................116
3.14.4 Air Quality
.........................................................................................116
3.14.5 Hazardous Materials
..........................................................................117
3.14.6 Maintenance of Traffic
......................................................................118
3.14.7 Summary of Construction Impacts
....................................................118 AGENCY
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................121 4.1
Stakeholder Coordination
..............................................................................121x
Final: December 2009
5. 6.
4.2 Public Meeting
...............................................................................................121
4.3 Public Hearing
...............................................................................................122
4.4 Agency Coordination
.....................................................................................123
LIST OF
PREPARERS...........................................................................................127
REFERENCES.........................................................................................................129
LIST OF TABLES Table S.1. Table 2.1. Table 2.2. Table 3.1. Table
3.2. Table 3.3. Table 3.4. Table 3.5. Table 3.6. Table 3.7. Table
3.8. Table 3.9. Table 3.10. Table 3.11. Table 3.12. Table 3.13.
Table 3.14. Table 3.15. Table 3.16. Table 3.17. Comparison of
Alternatives 1, 2, and
3........................................................ viii
Components of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3
.........................................................14
Previous Alternatives Eliminated from
Consideration...................................25 K Street
Population
Characteristics................................................................32
K Street Occupation of Employed Population
...............................................35 Assessment of the
Project Alternatives
..........................................................40 on
Business Operations and Economic Vitality
.............................................40 Community
Facilities within the K Street Project
Area.................................47 Individual Intersection
Levels of Service (LOS) along K Street ...................57
Arterial Traffic Operations along K
Street.....................................................58
Permitted Turning
Movements.......................................................................63
Traffic Summary of Alternatives 1, 2, and
3..................................................66 K Street
Existing Transit Service
...................................................................68
Land Use Within K Street Study Area
..........................................................77 Zoning
Within K Street Study Area
...............................................................78
NRHP Listed and Eligible Properties within Area of Potential Effect
..........87 K Street CO Concentrations (ppm)
................................................................92
K Street Estimated Study Area Pollutant Emission Rates
(Pounds/Day)..................................................................................................92
K Street Existing Noise
Levels.......................................................................99
K Street Predicted Design-Year Noise Levels
.............................................100 Summary of
Construction
Impacts...............................................................120
xi
Final: December 2009
LIST OF FIGURES Figure S-1: Figure 1: Figure 2A: Figure 2B:
Figure 3A: Figure 3B: Figure 4A: Figure 4B: Figure 5: Figure 6:
Figure 7A: Figure 7B: Figure 7C: Figure 9: Figure 8: Figure 10:
Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Study Area
............................................................................................................
i Study Area
............................................................................................................3
Alternative 1 Typical
Sections............................................................................12
Alternative 1 Typical
Sections............................................................................13
Alternative 2 Typical
Sections............................................................................16
Alternative 2 Typical
Sections............................................................................17
Alternative 3 Typical
Sections............................................................................21
Alternative 3 Typical
Sections............................................................................22
US Census Block
Groups....................................................................................33
Community Resources
........................................................................................45
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Locations
1-6.........................................................51 Peak
Hour Traffic Volumes Locations
7-10.......................................................53 Peak
Hour Traffic Volumes Locations
11-14.....................................................55 Total
Hourly Person Throughput
........................................................................60
Cumulative Bus
Delays.......................................................................................61
Zoning and Land
Use..........................................................................................79
Architectural Cultural
Resources........................................................................85
Air Quality Analysis Locations and Noise Sensitive
Receptors.........................93 MSAT Emissions
................................................................................................98
APPENDICES Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix
E. Appendix F. Alternative 1: No-Build Preferred
Alternative/Alternative 2: Two-Lane Transitway Alternative 3:
Two-Lane Transitway with Passing Cost Estimate Correspondence
Response to Public and Agency Comments
xii
Final: December 2009
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
1PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Project OverviewThe District Department of
Transportation (DDOT), in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), is proposing improvements to the K Street
corridor in Northwest Washington, DC. The study area of K Street,
NW is located in Ward 2 of the District of Columbia and extends
from North Capitol Street to Whitehurst Freeway. The proposed
project involves the reconfiguration of K Street to efficiently
accommodate multimodal travel including an exclusive bus transitway
within a portion of the existing street right-of-way. The National
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has agreed to be a cooperating
agency for the project. The project study area extends from Mt.
Vernon Square (7th Street) on the east to Washington Circle (24th
Street) on the west, L Street to the north and I (Eye) Street to
the south (Figure 1). The study area is based on the limits of
operational and urban design deficiencies along K Street. Beyond
Mt. Vernon Square and Washington Circle, these deficiencies are not
as evident and traffic is dispersed to other destinations in the
city. K Street within the study area is the primary east-west link
across the city north of the National Mall and the White House. The
roadway is the main street of Washingtons Central Business District
(CBD), which provides more than 350,000 jobs north of the National
Mall, making the CBD one of the largest employment areas in the
nation. The central location of K Street makes it the core of the
citys metropolitan transportation network, providing an important
east-west automobile, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle link between
Union Station and Georgetown. K Street also connects multiple local
activity nodes, such as the Washington Convention Center, World
Bank headquarters, George Washington University and Hospital, and
the Carnegie Library. Offices, restaurants, retail services,
residences, tourist destinations, schools, and parks surround this
key street. The K Street corridor plays an important role within
Pierre LEnfants historic plan for the nations capital that
integrates the citys monumental corridors and waterfront crescent.
There are three parks (squares) located along the study area that
are owned and maintained by the National Park Service (NPS),
including Farragut Square, McPherson Square, and Franklin Square
parks. Washington Circle, located on the western end of the study
area, is also owned and maintained by NPS. The existing medians and
sidewalk areas include nominal landscaping and street trees that
provide loose connectivity to the park properties spaced throughout
the corridor.1
Final: December 2009
This page is intentionally blank.
2
P Streete Av
Dupont Circle17th Street 16th Street
Logan Circleode RhtA ve
Ro
ck21st Street
CreIsla nd
e k P kw y
22nd Street
O Street
ec nn Co
Av e
ire
ve tA ticu
ps h
ssa c hu set ts A ve
m
Ver m
11th Street
Ha
Ne w
M Street20th Street 19th Street 18th Street 15th Street
25th Street
West EndStudy Area
10th Street
Ma
on
N Street
N Street
Mt. Vernon Square
L Street
Washington CircleK Street
Mt. Vernon Square McPherson Square Franklin SquareI Street
Farragut SquareI StreetPe nn syl van ia A ve
I Street H Street
e Av ork wY Ne
H Street
24thStreet
23rd Street
H Street
Layafette Park
Chinatown
District of Columbia
Study Area
13th Street
ia Av e
14th Street
12th Street
Vi rg
Maryland
Foggy BottomF Street
in
Pennsylvania Avenue closed to vehicular traffic
The White House
F Street
E Street E StreetE S t r e etin ia Av e
Po
LegendStudy Area
t
Vi rg
K StreetThe Ellipse
Virginia
Finaln Environmental Assessment Pensy nia A e Figurev1: Study
Area0 150 300 600 900 1,200 Feet
lva
Aerial Source: Office of the US ARMY, 2008 (JPSD LIDAR)
C Street
9th Street
Project Vicinity
G Street
G Street
December 2009
7th Street
om
ac
Rive
r
Final: December 2009
This page is intentionally blank.
4
Final: December 2009
K Street is currently a two-way urban arterial roadway with
multiple lane configurations within the study area. The roadway
generally includes four center travel lanes (two lanes in each
direction) for automobiles and buses and median-separated service
roads (two lanes in each direction) including an outside lane for
parking and loading/unloading and a second lane for travel and
right turns. Wide landscaped sidewalks flank the curbs on both
sides. The roadway is narrower and consists of only four lanes (two
travel and two parking) between Mt. Vernon Square and 12th Street;
and only westbound traffic is accommodated between Mt. Vernon
Square and 10th Street. The eastbound service lanes are also absent
where K Street passes Franklin, McPherson, and Farragut Squares. On
the west end of the study area, the primary K Street travel lanes
begin descending under Washington Circle at 21st Street; the
service lanes continue west at-grade to meet the circle. A detailed
description of the existing typical section of K Street is provided
in Chapter 2 (Figures 2A and 2B) of this Final Environmental
Assessment (EA). The current K Street project uses and builds upon
a number of prior studies: the May 2005 K Street Transitway Study
Final Report, prepared by DDOT and the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority (WMATA); the 2008 DC Transit Improvements
Alternatives Analysis prepared by DDOT and WMATA; and the July 2004
K Street Urban Design Charrette, sponsored by the NCPC and the
Downtown DC Business Improvement District (BID). The objective of
the K Street Transitway Study and the two subsequent efforts was to
identify a system of transit, roadway, and infrastructure
enhancements that would improve the movement of people and goods
through the District of Columbias central core. Overall, the goal
of the system would be to enhance traffic flow and vehicular
safety, provide higher quality transit service, establish needed
cross-town transit connections, improve pedestrian safety and
access, and facilitate the management of parking and loading zones.
Conceptual alternatives were developed and evaluated for their
ability to meet the transportation objectives and transform K
Street into a highly functioning urban boulevard. Results and
recommendations from these studies are highlighted throughout this
EA. The K Street project is included in the 2009 National Capital
Region Transportation Planning Boards (TPBs) Constrained Long Range
Plan (CLRP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for
2010-2015.
1.2 Purpose of ProjectThe purpose of the K Street project is to
create a transportation facility that supports mobility, throughput
capacity, and economic vitality within the downtown CBD by:
providing efficient travel along K Street for all transportation
modes, including transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles;
eliminating roadway infrastructure deficiencies along K Street and
improving safety for all K Street users; and, constructing a Green
Street using exceptional urban design principles and innovative and
environmentally sustainable design methods.
5
Final: December 2009
1.3 Needs of the ProjectAs the main street of Washingtons CBD, K
Street provides important opportunities for a variety of user,
mode, service, and urban space objectives. There are numerous
overlapping needs that must be addressed by the proposed
improvements. Therefore, it is essential that a balanced solution
to addressing all needs forms the basis for a collaborative K
Street vision among a broad range of agency, stakeholder, and
public participants. Thus, each need is considered equally in the
project evaluation in this EA. For clarity, the need elements are
grouped into two categories: Transportation Needs and Urban Design
Needs: Transportation Needs These needs stem from existing
deficiencies for moving people and services throughout the K Street
study area. Operational Deficiencies: The existing service lanes on
K Street create an inefficient use of transportation right-of-way
that is confusing to navigate, especially at the intersections
where all right turn movements must be made. Through and turning
vehicles on the service roads are frequently blocked by delivery
and service vehicles, which adds to the severe traffic congestion.
In addition, bus service located in these lanes is inefficient and
slow because of the congestion and blockages. The traffic and
congestion on K Street have been exacerbated by the closure of two
major east/west streets near the White House, Pennsylvania Avenue
and E Street, for security reasons. High traffic volumes and
congestion on K Street place additional traffic and transit
operational pressure on the study area corridor. Modal
Interrelationships: Located at the center of Washington, K Street
is at the heart of the metropolitan areas transit network. The
street serves large numbers of pedestrians, bicyclists,
automobiles, and buses. Multiple bus routes use K Street, including
routes operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation
Authority (WMATA) and commuter routes operated from both Maryland
and Virginia. The Metro Red, Blue, and Orange Lines each have
stations along the corridor (McPherson Square, Farragut Square,
Farragut North, and Foggy Bottom). DDOT, along with WMATA, started
the Downtown Circulator service that provides a continuous,
east-west transit service through this portion of the city.
However, this bus service also has to travel on the two general
purpose lanes and due to the volumes and congestion on K Street,
this bus service also faces many problems including delays. The
performance and route structure of the local bus system that serves
the CBD does not provide for intra-CBD transit needs. The street
network surrounding K Street is inadequate for the existing and
future number of bus routes. Congestion on K Street, coupled with
illegal parking/loading, results in slow transit travel times and
unreliable schedules. Furthermore, transit ridership is hindered by
a lack of adequate amenities such as waiting areas and street
furniture that provide an attractive environment for transit
patrons.
6
Final: December 2009
There are also no marked bicycle lanes on existing K Street.
Today, bicyclists must use either the service lanes or through
lanes and mix with other vehicular traffic. Roadway Deficiencies:
The roadway infrastructure along K Street is approximately 35 years
old. Pavement and crosswalks have deteriorated and are in poor
condition. The roadway sections of K Street between Mt. Vernon
Square and Washington Circle vary substantially from block to
block, resulting in unexpected lane patterns for drivers and
bicyclists. Mobility: The roadway and operational deficiencies
described above hinder mobility along a potentially convenient
east-west connection through the CBD. Traveling from one end of the
corridor to the other involves substantial time delays in traffic,
navigating bus transfers, or using the crowded Metro Red Line.
Transit users experience reduced mobility reaching jobs, shopping,
entertainment, and services. In addition, most of the existing
medians (where bus stops are currently located) are not accessible
for wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Safety: Access to and
from the service lanes introduces unnecessary conflict points among
pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, and transit. Vehicles
entering and exiting the service lanes sometimes make dangerous
movements across the main travel lanes, often in front of buses at
service stops. The combination of an inefficient crosssection and
severe traffic congestion results in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
and pedestrian safety issues.
Urban Design Needs These needs stem from the strong social
desire to create a Great Street founded on exceptional urban design
principles. Street Character Despite its central location and its
important role in Pierre LEnfants historic plan for the nations
capital, K Street is not regarded as one of Washingtons signature
streets or grand boulevards. K Street today has an intermittent and
incoherent streetscape that lacks an overall theme and does not
provide strong viewsheds. The street lacks a strong urban design
and unified presence and suffers from inefficient traffic
operations. Variable curb lines and poor pedestrian amenities are
inconsistent with the attributes of a Great Street. The various
roadway cross-sections emphasize automobiles and do not provide an
appropriate balance of transportation modes. Today, existing K
Street does not invoke a defining image of Washingtons monumental
character. Environmental Sustainability Existing stormwater
management along K Street is performed separately from the
landscaping and is not treated or reused by street vegetation.
Traffic congestion contributes to increased emissions and air
pollution. In addition, congestion and poor traffic operations
substantially increase energy consumption by K Street
transportation users and energy is wasted in passenger vehicles and
on buses while idling in traffic.
7
Final: December 2009
1.4 Relationship to Other Plans and StudiesDDOT has completed
several planning projects, listed below, that are related to the K
Street Project. There are some transportation projects approved for
implementation adjacent to the K Street Project identified in the
2006 District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan, the 2009 draft update
to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)
Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan (CLRP), as approved by
the TPB, or in the FY 2010 to 2015 TIP. 1.4.1 The District of
Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives Analysis
The District of Columbia Transit Improvements Alternatives
Analysis (June 2008), commonly known as DCs Transit Future, was a
planning project undertaken jointly by DDOT and WMATA during 2004
and 2005 and updated in 2008 with a Short Term Implementation Plan.
The project defines a network of efficient, high-quality surface
transit access throughout the District that offers additional
connections between the existing Metrobus and Metrorail systems and
to key activity centers throughout the region. The report
introduces bus rapid transit (BRT), streetcar and local bus
components that meet the needs for enhanced transit, in order to
support the Districts planning and growth initiatives, and sustain
continuing economic growth. The K Street Transitway is identified
as a critical segment of the Benning Road/H Street/K Street NW
streetcar corridor. Consistent with the DCs Transit Future,
improvements to K Street based on the transitway study would not
preclude potential future use by streetcars. 1.4.2 Great Streets
Initiative
The Great Streets Initiative is a program developed in
partnership between DDOT and the Deputy Mayors Office for Planning
and Economic Development, assisted by DDOT. The initiative targets
public investment along strategic corridors throughout the city.
The K Street corridor is not currently one of the proposed Great
Streets, but the following guiding principles of the Great Streets
Initiative would address social need elements of the purpose and
need: Changing the public and market perceptions of the corridors
through streetscape and transportation improvements, and
repositioning them as one of the best places to live and work,
consequently expanding the city's tax base; Transforming roadways
and intersections into environmentally friendly and usable
community open spaces; Changing the existing corridors function
from simply major vehicular arterials into streets that sustain
healthy pedestrian and transit based activities, and consequently
support the city's air quality and transportation agendas;
Transforming corridors into places that are memorable, compelling,
and desirable to visit again and again; and Repositioning the
street as a major contributing element to a vital neighborhood.
8
Final: December 2009
1.4.3
The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan
The District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan (draft, May
2008) was completed by the DDOT Pedestrian Program. One of the plan
visions is that Washington, DC will be a city where roadways
equally serve pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motorists.
Two primary goals are to reduce the number of pedestrians killed
and injured in crashes with motor vehicles and to increase
pedestrian activity by making walking a comfortable and accessible
mode of travel throughout all parts of the District. The K Street
Project would support these goals within the project area. 1.4.4
District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan
The District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan (April 2005)
proposes more and better bicycle facilities, more bicycle-friendly
policies, and more bicycle-related education, promotion and
enforcement. The proposed bikeways do not include K Street
specifically; however, bicycle mobility is being considered as part
of the analysis for all modes of travel in the K Street Project.
1.4.5 Rehabilitation of New Hampshire Avenue (including Washington
Circle Improvements)
DDOT is currently working on plans to rehabilitate New Hampshire
Avenue, NW, from DuPont Circle to Virginia Avenue, NW, including
Washington Circle. The project includes rehabilitation of the
roadway as well as drainage, safety, and signal improvements. The K
Street project borders this project at Washington Circle. The
improvements planned for this project will be coordinated with the
K Street project. 1.4.6 White House Area Transportation Study
FHWA, in cooperation with various DC and federal agencies, is
currently working on the White House Area Transportation (WHAT)
Study. This study is exploring options for improving traffic flow
in the center of the nation's capital and examining alternatives
such as reconfiguring traffic patterns on the surrounding streets,
reopening E Street, or constructing tunnels under the closed
streets. 1.4.7 Mt. Vernon Square District Planning Study
Mt. Vernon Square District Planning Study involves the
development of a branding and programming concept for Mt. Vernon
Square; efforts to integrate and improve retail along 7th and 9th
Streets; improvements to the public space within the square and
nearby bow-tie parks; improvements to pedestrian access around and
to the square; developing the square into a multimodal hub and bus
transfer point; improvements to bike access to and around the
square; improvements to vehicle circulation around the square; and
improvements to the design of bus/bike lanes on 7th and 9th
Streets.
9
Final: December 2009
This page is intentionally blank.
10
Final: December 2009
2. ALTERNATIVES
2ALTERNATIVES
This section presents the alternatives for K Street, including
the alternatives carried forward and the alternatives eliminated
from further consideration. The No-Build Alternative is Alternative
1 and it is retained throughout this Final Environmental Assessment
(EA) as a baseline for comparison. In 2005, the K Street Transitway
Report (2005) was completed as a joint effort by the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and the District
Department of Transportation (DDOT). The study identified a system
of transit, roadway and infrastructure enhancements that would
improve the movement of people and goods through the District of
Columbias central core. The system was designed to enhance traffic
flow and vehicular safety, provide higher quality transit service,
establish needed cross-town transit connections, improve pedestrian
safety and access, and facilitate the management of parking and
loading zones. The results of the study formed the basis for the
alternatives developed in this Final EA. Multiple alternatives have
been analyzed to address the purpose and need of the K Street
project. A total of three alternatives, including the No-Build,
have been carried forward for additional detailed analysis.
Additional alternatives, including those developed from the
previous studies, were reviewed but eliminated from further
consideration.
2.1 Alternative 1 (No-Build Alternative)The No-Build Alternative
includes the existing roadway, median, service lanes, and
sidewalks. It assumes that the currently programmed, committed,
and/or funded roadway projects in the study area would be
completed. The Alternative 1 typical sections are shown on Figures
2A and 2B. Plan sheets are presented in Appendix A. Alternative 1
does not meet the project Purpose and Need because it would not
address the operational or roadway deficiencies; would not improve
modal interrelationships among transit, automobiles, bicyclists,
and pedestrians; would not improve mobility or safety; and would
not improve street aesthetic or environmental character. The
No-Build Alternative has been developed to provide a basis for
comparison with the build alternatives.
11
BETWEEN 18TH AND 19TH STREETS
BETWEEN 17TH STREET AND CONNECTICUT AVENUE AT FARRAGUT
Final Environmental AssessmentNot to ScaleThe dimensions shown
are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental
impacts. They are subject to change during the final design
phase.
K Street
Figure 2A Alt 1: No-Build Typical Sections
d
TM
EN
T OF TRANSP
OR
TA T
D E PA R
D
STA
TES OF A
ME
RI
CA
December 2009
ION
UN
IT
E
BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH STREETS
Final Environmental AssessmentNot to ScaleThe dimensions shown
are for the purpose of determining cost estimates and environmental
impacts. They are subject to change during the final design
phase.
K Street
Figure 2B Alt 1: No-Build Typical Sections
d
TM
EN
T OF TRANSP
OR
TA T
D E PA R
D
STA
TES OF A
ME
RI
CA
December 2009
ION
UN
IT
E
Final: December 2009
2.2 Proposed ActionThe proposed action consists of the
reconfiguration of K Street to efficiently accommodate multimodal
travel including an exclusive transitway, bike lanes, sidewalks,
parking, and loading/unloading within the existing street
right-of-way. Because of the existing physical constraints, not all
of the typical section elements desired by the stakeholders could
fit within the existing right-of-way; therefore, the two proposed
alternatives incorporate different features. For example,
Alternative 2 would provide a shared 12-foot outside lane for
bicycle use during peak periods and would maintain parking and
loading in the off-peak period. Alternative 3 would provide a
five-foot bicycle lane adjacent to the curb, would eliminate
parking, and would provide pullouts for loading/unloading zones at
selecte