transportation impact study part 2 - app.dcoz.dc.gov

Exhibit A Transportation Impact

Study

Part 2

ZONING COMMISSIONDistrict of Columbia

Case No. 15-19

Deleted

ZONING COMMISSIONDistrict of Columbia

CASE NO.15-19EXHIBIT NO.23A2

APPENDIX

A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION REVIEW FORM

WITH ATTACHMENTS

CTR Beta Version, August 2012 1

Project Name & Applicant Team: Applicant: D. B. LEE Development & Construction, Inc., 2424 18th St, N.W., Suite C2, Washington, D.C. 20009

(Attn: Dennis B. Lee, Principal ) Land Use Counsel: Griffin, Murphy, Moldenhauer & Wiggins, LLP, 1912 Sunderland Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

(Attn: Meridith H. Moldenhauer, Esquire)

Transportation Consultants: O. R. George & Assoc. Inc., 9320 Annapolis Road, Suite 320, Lanham, MD. 20706 (Attn: Osborne R. George, P. E., PTOE)

Case Type & No. (PUD, LTR, etc.): Planned Unit Development (Case No. 15-19)

Street Address: 411 New York Avenue N.E., Washington, DC 20001 Current Zoning and/or Overlay District: C-M-1-District Date of Filing: August 7, 2015 (Approximate)

Estimated Date of Hearing: February 1, 2016

Description of Project: The subject property consists of approximately 15,000 SF of land area situated south of New York Avenue and east of 4th Street/Penn Street in the Ward 5 area of Northeast. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures on the property, and to develop an 11-story hotel consisting of 178 rooms supported by 47 garage parking spaces and loading facilities. The application will include a request to re-zone the property from the C-M-1 to the C-3-C/PUD, and to develop the property in accordance with the City’s Planned Unit Development. The Applicant is required to demonstrate that the proposed Zoning Map Amendment and development will not appreciably deteriorate the quality of service currently experienced by the users of the area’s transportation system, and to show that the development also reflects the City’s current policies on multimodal travel.

1. Strategic Planning Elements (Planning Documents) DDOT Comments/Action Items

Planning Guidelines: The CTR will address how the proposed development considers the primary city‐wide planning documents, as well as localized studies. See Section 3.1 of the CTR guidelines for more information. Proposed Documents:

The City's Comprehensive Plan;

DCMR Title 11 ‐ Zoning Regulations;

DDOT Comprehensive Transportation Review Process (September, 2012) and TIS Study Guidelines;

District of Columbia Pedestrian Master Plan;

District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan;

DDOT Design & Engineering Manual; and

Florida Avenue Market Study (FAMS).

Office of Planning Set-down Report.

A-1


2. Roadway Network, Capacity & Operations DDOT Comments/Action Items Vehicle Trip Generation Assumptions Guidelines: Provide preliminary site‐generated vehicle trips and mode split assumptions. In addition, provide the assumptions and supporting documentation behind the proposed mode split. See Section 3.2.1 of the CTR guidelines for further information. Proposed preliminary mode split and supporting documentation: The Applicant’s proposal is to develop a boutique hotel consisting of 178 rooms. Based on DDOT’s comments we propose to utilize the ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use Code 310 for Hotels) and to apply a 50% non-auto mode split factor. This will yield the following peak hour trips: In Out Total AM Peak 29 21 50 PM Peak 29 27 56 This assumes that the hotel will provide shuttle bus service, free bicycle parking and other incentives for non-personal vehicle travel by guest and employees. Details of the Applicant’s Transportation Demand Management Plan will be presented in the study report.

Vehicle Site Access Guidelines: If vehicle access is needed, at a minimum the CTR will provide locations of access point(s) and desired access controls (full, right‐in/right‐out, etc.). See Section 3.2.2 of the CTR guidelines for any further requirements.

Access Location(s): One-way inbound from New York Ave; Two-way movement via adjacent public alley to the south. Access Control: Outbound movement to New York Ave will be restricted. Existing Curb cuts utilized: No Existing curb cuts abandoned: Yes (The existing curb-cut off New York Ave to be closed.) Proposed curb cuts: Yes (New curb-cut to be provided from New York Ave.) Curb cut width and radii: Proposed curb-cut off New York Ave to be 12’-14’ wide; Radius to be as per the City’s Design and Engineering Manual or per approved waiver.

CTR Triggers for further vehicle analysis (for sections below) Guidelines: See Section 3.2.3 of the CTR guidelines to determine if a more comprehensive vehicle analysis is required. If so, completion of the remainder of the Roadway Network, Capacity & Operation section of the scoping form is required.

Development Scenarios Guidelines: See Section 3.2.4 of the CTR guidelines for discussion of the required development scenarios.

Proposed Development Scenario: The Applicant plans to initiate construction within 2 years of the approval.

A-2


Vehicle Study Area Guidelines: See Section 3.2.5 of the CTR guidelines for discussion of the study area. Given the level of vehicle trip generation shown on page 2, we propose to evaluate the following three (3) intersections immediately adjacent to the site: New York Ave at 4th St, N.E., and Penn St at 4th St, N.E., and 6

th

St/Brentwood Pkwy at Penn St, N.E. We also propose to evaluate multimodal accessibility within a broader area as shown on the attached Site Location & Context Map.

Data Collection and Hours of Analysis Guidelines: See Section 3.2.6 of the CTR guidelines for discussion of the required data collection and hours of analysis. Counts are to be performed between 6:30-9:30 AM and 3:30-6:30 PM on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. (In view of the earlier application filing envisioned by the Applicant, the intersection turning movement counts were performed during the week of 6/3/2015, while public schools were still in session.)

Roadway Improvements Guidelines: The study will account for approved and funded roadway improvement projects within the study area that are expected to begin before the proposal’s horizon year. See Section 3.2.7 of the CTR guidelines.

Proposed roadway improvements: Based on recent roadway and signal improvements made by the City along New York Avenue and Florida Avenue/1

st St within the Eckington area, no additional roadway improvements will be

considered. Improvements by the Applicant will include off-access from New York Avenue and the adjacent alleyway.

Background Developments Guidelines: The study will account for vehicle trips generated by developments in the study area that have an origin/destination within the study area. See Section 3.2.8 of the CTR guidelines.

Proposed background development: We propose to add peak hour site trips from the recently approved Baywood Hotels site, which is currently under construction (Case No. 11-25).

Background Growth Guidelines: The study will account for annual growth or decrease in through traffic on minor and principal arterials that pass through the proposed study area. See Section 3.2.9 of the CTR guidelines.

Based on AADT data obtained from the DDOT website, traffic volumes along New York Avenue in the area of the subject site were quite stable and showed a minor decrease between 2006 – 2008, preceding the New York Avenue Bridge reconstruction (2009 – 2013). There is no data beyond 2013. We propose to use a 0.5% annual growth in through traffic along New York Avenue. We also looked at growth trends along Florida Avenue between New York Avenue and 6

th St, and for 6

th St/Brentwood Pkwy. These also showed stable and declining volumes. We are attaching

plots of the data we reviewed, and we propose to use a 1% growth for Penn St and 6th

St/Brentwood Pkwy. Build-out is envisioned in 2 years, so we propose to factor traffic through to 2019 (reflecting the build-out year plus 1.)

A-3


Site Trip Distribution & Assignment Guidelines: Trips generated by the site will be distributed throughout the study area network. See Section 3.2.10 of the CTR guidelines for information in trip distribution and assignment.

Our proposed distribution is shown on the attached Site Location & Context Map. Only the inbound movements are shown; the outbound will generally mirror the inbound.

Analysis Methodology Guidelines: Capacity analyses are typically performed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies or a similar industry recognized software. See Section 3.2.11 of the CTR guidelines.

We propose to analyze the intersections using the HCM methodology. Our analysis will also examine/discuss ingress and egress movements at the site entrances and within the alley.

Vehicle Trip Mitigation Guidelines: Proposed mitigation of vehicle impacts, if needed, must not add significant delay to other travel modes. Standard non‐urban mitigation often includes geometric re‐design which may not fit DDOT’s practice of balancing safety and capacity across multiple transportation modes. See Section 3.2.12 of the CTR guidelines.

For Informational purposes only. Mitigation will be documented in the final CTR. No information is required in the scoping form.

A-4


3. Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities DDOT Comments/Action Items

CTR Triggers for bike and pedestrian mode share Guidelines: A CTR is required to include some level analysis of the bike and pedestrian network at a minimum, based on several potential factors. See Section 3.3.1 of the CTR guidelines to determine if a more comprehensive analysis is required. If so, complete the remainder of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities section of this scoping form.

CTR Bike and Pedestrian Study area Guidelines: See Section 3.3.2 of the CTR guidelines to determine bike and pedestrian study areas.

Proposed bike and pedestrian study areas: We propose to document pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the area bounded by Florida Avenue to the South, New York Ave to the North and 6

th Street to the East. See

also the Site Location & Context Map attached.

Data Collection and Analysis of Bike Network and Facilities Guidelines: See Section 3.3.3 of the CTR guidelines for data collection requirements and analysis for bike and pedestrian modes.

Proposed Bike network and facilities analysis: We propose to delineate existing and planned bicycle facilities per the City's Bicycle Master Plan and including Capital Bikeshare locations; to perform a field reconnaissance and identify any deficiencies in terms of signage and markings; and to identify bicycle parking/rack provisions within the site.

Mitigation for Bike network Guidelines: If deficiencies have been documented in the study area’s pedestrian or bike facilities that would preclude the proposed mode split, then mitigation of these deficiencies is required. See Section 3.3.4 of the CTR guidelines for mitigation requirements of the bike network.

For Informational purposes only. Mitigation will be documented in the final CTR. No information required in scoping form.

A-5


4. Transit Service DDOT Comments/Action Items

CTR Triggers for transit mode share: Guidelines: A CTR is typically required to include some level analysis of the transit network, based on several potential factors. See Section 3.4.1 of the CTR guidelines to determine the minimum analysis requirements and if a more comprehensive transit analysis is required. If so, completion of the remainder of the Transit Service section of this scoping form is required. See Section 3.4.1 of the CTR guidelines

CTR Transit study area Guidelines: If further analysis of the transit network is triggered, see Section 3.4.2 of the CTR guidelines for determining the requisite study area.

Proposed transit study area: Based on the scope of the project described on page one, we propose to consider connections to the NOMA-Gallaudet University Metrostation, and to Metrobus stops primarily along Florida Avenue Market study area.

Analysis of Transit Network Guidelines: Analysis of the transit network will incorporate both a quantitative and qualitative review. See Section 3.4.3 of the CTR guidelines for further information.

Proposed transit analysis: Our study will document Metrobus services within the area of site in terms of the schedules, stop locations, and available seating capacities, in the context of potential for increased ridership.

Transit Trip Mitigation Guidelines: Proposed mitigation of transit impacts may be needed, given certain impacts to the network. See Section 3.4.4 of the CTR guidelines for more information.

For Informational purposes only. Mitigation will be documented in the final CTR. No information is required in scoping form.

A-6


5. Site Access and Loading DDOT Comments/Action Items

Guidelines: At a minimum, the Applicant is required to show site access for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. In addition, DDOT has additional policies for site access and loading as they relate to public space. See Section 3.5 of the CTR guidelines for additional information regarding these policies.

Freight\Delivery The study will identify existing and proposed commercial vehicle access to the site. See Section 3.5.1 of the CTR guidelines.

Motorcoach For developments that will generate significant tourist activity (hotels, museums, etc.) the study will discuss the site plan’s accommodation of motorcoach access. See Section 3.5.2 of the CTR guidelines. Proposed Loading Analysis: The proposal for loading will be shown on the site plan, and discussed in the context of the requirements per the Zoning Regulations. Truck-tracking diagrams were submitted with the application, and will also be included in the study.

6. Parking DDOT Comments/Action Items

Guidelines: Minimum requirements exist for documenting parking needs and constraints, regardless of development size. Further requirements may be needed for larger developments. See Section 3.6

Proposed Parking Analysis: The application proposes a reduction of 14 parking spaces (i.e., 61 required, 47 proposed). While this generally consistent with DDOT’s policies, parking supply will also be discussed in the context of the Applicant’s proposed TDM plan, and related travel mode split assumptions.

7. Transportation Demand Management DDOT Comments/Action Items

Triggers for a TDM Plan Guidelines: All developments are encouraged to produce TDM plans, regardless of size. See Section 3.7

Proposed TDM Plan: The study will document the applicant’s proposed TDM measures.

8. Performance Monitoring & Measurement DDOT Comments/Action Items

Guidelines: Developments of a certain size may need to incorporate a performance monitoring element as a condition of zoning approval. See Section 3.8 of the CTR guidelines for more information.

For informational purposes only. Requirements for performance monitoring will be coordinated with the DDOT case manager.

A-7


9. Safety DDOT Comments/Action Items

Guidelines: The CTR will demonstrate that the site will not create or exacerbate existing safety issues for all modes of travel. See Section 3.9 of the CTR guidelines for further information.

Proposed Safety Analysis: Safety will be discussed principally in the context of the Applicant’s proposed access plan, and will include discussions of management of on-site circulation to mitigate any adverse impact on the public space.

10. Streetscape/Public Realm DDOT Comments/Action Items

Guidelines: DDOT expects new developments to rehabilitate streetscape infrastructure between the curb and property lines. The applicant must work closely with DDOT and OP to ensure that design of the public realm meets current standards. See Section 3.10 of the CTR guidelines for direction on streetscape rehabilitation.

These guidelines are provided to inform that public realm design standards may alter an Applicant’s intended use of public space. [This will be addressed on the Applicant’s architectural drawings.]

Information/Data Requests (List requested data from DDOT after each field below):

District planning documents: Plans will be accessed from DDOT’s website as needed.

Local planning documents, including small area plans: (……………DITTO……………..)

Information on programmed and/or funded roadway improvements in study area: NOT APPLICABLE.

Studies for background developments in study area: This item is requested.

Signal Timings: Will be obtained in the field.

Crash Data: Not applicable based on the level of safety analysis proposed.

Proposed Schedule:

DDOT comments on Scoping Document: Initial comments received through email from J. Rogers on 12/10/2015.

Transportation Consultant/Applicant responses to comments: Comments addressed in this CTR submission from 12/11/2015.

Phase I Completion: DDOT’s comments of 12/10/2015 provides a good basis to move forward and submit the Phase I/Draft Report on or about 12/17/2015.

Phase II Completion: Consultant proposes to address any additional comments in Final Report.

Submission of Report to DDOT: Approximately 20 days prior to the hearing.

Zoning Commission or BZA Hearing Date: February 1, 2015.

Attach any Figures, Tables, and Appendices here: 1) Site Location & Context Map

A-8

Gallaudet University

Dist. Ctr.

ATF HQ

GSA Office

Gov’t Offices

DC Farmers Market

With pedestrian countdown

Primary pedestrian connections

Bicycle routes/trails

Metro station & Bus routes

Capital Bikeshare station

Care-share station

411 New York Avenue, NE, Washington D.C. Hotel Site Planned Unit Development Application, August, 2015

Baywood Hotels Site (Under Const.)

411 New York Ave, NE PUD Site

NoMa- Gallaudet

Station

Station Entry

LEGEND TRANSIT & PEDESTRIAN ACCESSIBILITY MAP

NOTE: 1. Only key amenities within the immediate site are shown. 2. Sidewalks and crosswalks are continuous as part of the City’s downtown pedestrian network

Proposed Study Intersections

Multimodal Accessibility Assessment

Area

A-9

APPENDIX

B TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARIES -

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

APPENDIX

C CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS -

EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary

General Information Intersection Information

Agency ORGA Duration, h 0.25

Analyst HH Analysis Date Jan 13, 2016 Area Type CBD

Jurisdiction Washington DC Time Period 7:45-8:45 AM PHF 0.88

Intersection New York Ave NE.@4th St Analysis Year 2015 Analysis Period 1> 7:30

File Name NY@4th AM.xus

Project Description 411 New York Ave

Demand Information EB WB NB SB

Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R

Demand (v), veh/h 1055 103 205 1883 99 60

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

17.0 113.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3

6 7 8

Cycle, s 150.0 Reference Phase 2

Offset, s 0 Reference Point End

Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On

Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On

Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT

Assigned Phase 6 5 2 4

Case Number 8.3 0.0 14.0 9.0

Phase Duration, s 118.0 22.0 140.0 10.0

Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3

Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 7.0

Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Phase Call Probability 1.00

Max Out Probability 1.00

Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB


Assigned Movement 6 16 5 2 7 14

Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 892 412 548 1824 113 68

Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1660 1534 718 1475 1581 1423

Queue Service Time (gs), s 13.5 3.8 3.4 0.0 5.0 5.0

Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 13.5 3.8 3.4 0.0 5.0 5.0

Green Ratio (g/C) 0.75 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.03 0.15

Capacity (c), veh/h 2501 1156 249 2654 105 209

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.357 0.357 2.201 0.687 1.067 0.327

Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 2501 1156 681 2654 105 209

Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (95th percentile) 0.2 2.0 85.9 0.8 6.9 4.9

Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (95th percentile) 0.00 0.03 1.05 0.01 1.72 1.24

Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 0.0 1.3 61.5 0.0 72.5 57.7

Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.7 551.3 1.3 102.3 0.3

Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.1 0.1 9.6 0.0 34.1 1.0

Control Delay (d), s/veh 0.4 2.1 622.4 1.3 209.0 59.0

Level of Service (LOS) A A F A F E

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 0.9 A 144.8 F 152.4 F 0.0

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 96.5 F

Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB

Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.2 B 0.8 A 3.5 C 3.8 D

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 3.7 D 4.2 D F

Copyright © 2016 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010™ Streets Version 6.50 Generated: 1/13/2016 3:51:16 PM





Jurisdiction Washington DC Time Period 3:45-4:45 PM PHF 0.68


File Name NY@4th PM.xus




Demand (v), veh/h 1864 137 112 1275 113 108

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

17.0 113.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3

6 7 8







Case Number 8.3 0.0 14.0 9.0

Phase Duration, s 118.0 22.0 140.0 10.0














Green Ratio (g/C) 0.75 0.75 0.90 0.90 0.03 0.15

Capacity (c), veh/h 2501 1175 249 2654 105 209









Level of Service (LOS) A A E A F F

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 4.3 A 7.2 A 280.3 F 0.0

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.4 C


Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 0.8 A 3.6 D 4.0 D

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 4.6 E 4.0 D F


TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARYGeneral Information Site Information Analyst HH Agency/Co. ORGA Date Performed 1/13/2016 Analysis Time Period 7:45-8:45 AM

Intersection 4th St NE at Penn St NE JurisdictionAnalysis Year 2015

Project Description East/West Street: 4th St NE North/South Street: 4th St, NE/ Penn St, NE Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25

Vehicle Volumes and AdjustmentsMajor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6

L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 109 149 8 6 74 222 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 113 155 8 6 78 236

Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 2 -- --Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT TR LT TR Upstream Signal 1 1 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12

L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 1 1 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 1 1 4

Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LT LT LTR v (veh/h) 113 6 6 C (m) (veh/h) 973 967 684 v/c 0.12 0.01 0.01 95% queue length 0.39 0.02 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 8.7 10.3 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.3 Approach LOS -- -- B

Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1/13/2016 3:54 PM

Page 1 of 1Two-Way Stop Control

1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k8B04.tmp

TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARYGeneral Information Site Information Analyst HH Agency/Co. ORGA Date Performed 1/13/2016 Analysis Time Period 3:45-4:45 PM






L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 4 1 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 4 1 1

Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LT LT LTR v (veh/h) 83 4 6 C (m) (veh/h) 991 899 523 v/c 0.08 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.27 0.01 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.0 12.0 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 12.0 Approach LOS -- -- B



1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k86D.tmp

ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSISGeneral Information Site Information Analyst HH Agency/Co. ORGA Date Performed 1/13/2016 Analysis Time Period 8:00-9:00 AM

Intersection Penn ST at 5th St JurisdictionAnalysis Year 2015

Project ID East/West Street: Penn St, NE North/South Street: 5th St, NE

Volume Adjustments and Site CharacteristicsApproach Eastbound WestboundMovement L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 0 75 0 0 143 0 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound SouthboundMovement L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 123 0 50 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane

Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Configuration T T T T L R PHF 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.85 Flow Rate (veh/h) 39 40 78 80 143 58 % Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 2 0 Geometry Group 5 5 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment WorksheetProp. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.6 Departure Headway and Service Timehd, initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.05 hd, final value (s) 5.12 5.14 5.04 5.06 4.66 3.87 x, final value 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.06 Move-up time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.0 Service Time, ts (s) 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 1.9 Capacity and Level of Service


L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Capacity (veh/h) 289 290 328 330 393 308 Delay (s/veh) 8.12 8.15 8.36 8.40 8.72 7.12 LOS A A A A A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 8.13 8.38 8.26 LOS A A A

Intersection Delay (s/veh) 8.28 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1/13/2016 4:01 PM

Page 1 of 1All-Way Stop Control

1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kA71C.tmp

ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSISGeneral Information Site Information Analyst HH Agency/Co. ORGA Date Performed 1/13/2016 Analysis Time Period 5:00-6:00 PM


Project ID East/West Street: Penn St NE North/South Street: 5th St NE



L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Configuration T T T T L R PHF 0.91 0.91 0.87 0.87 0.82 0.82 Flow Rate (veh/h) 54 56 47 48 279 287 % Heavy Vehicles 2 1 3 4 4 3 No. Lanes 2 2 2 0 Geometry Group 5 5 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment WorksheetProp. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 -0.5 Departure Headway and Service Timehd, initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.26 hd, final value (s) 5.86 5.84 5.89 5.91 4.73 3.92 x, final value 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.37 0.31 Move-up time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.0 Service Time, ts (s) 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.6 2.7 1.9 Capacity and Level of Service


L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Capacity (veh/h) 304 306 297 298 529 537 Delay (s/veh) 9.12 9.12 9.08 9.11 10.45 8.69 LOS A A A A B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.12 9.10 9.55 LOS A A A



1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k34AB.tmp





Jurisdiction Time Period 8:00-9:00 AM PHF 0.88

Intersection Penn St NE @ 6th St NE Analysis Year 2015 Analysis Period 1> 7:00

File Name PENN@6th AM.xus

Project Description



Demand (v), veh/h 83 42 37 404 744 106

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

65.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






Assigned Phase 4 2 6

Case Number 9.0 8.0 7.0

Phase Duration, s 30.0 70.0 70.0

Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0

Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 3.3 0.0 0.0


Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.2 0.0 0.0






Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 94 48 501 845 120

Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln 1597 1449 1186 1676 1406

Queue Service Time (gs), s 4.7 2.6 7.9 35.6 3.3

Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 4.7 2.6 43.6 35.6 3.3

Green Ratio (g/C) 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.65

Capacity (c), veh/h 399 362 735 1090 914

Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.236 0.132 0.681 0.776 0.132

Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 399 362 810 1090 914

Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln (95th percentile) 3.6 1.8 13.2 18.8 1.9

Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (95th percentile) 0.36 0.17 0.61 0.48 0.05

Uniform Delay (d1), s/veh 30.1 29.2 15.9 12.4 6.8

Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 4.6 4.9 0.3

Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0

Control Delay (d), s/veh 30.4 29.3 21.5 17.3 7.0

Level of Service (LOS) C C C B A

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 30.1 C 0.0 21.5 C 16.0 B

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.9 B


Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.1 B 2.3 B 0.7 A 2.2 B

Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 1.3 A 2.1 B






Jurisdiction Time Period 5:00-6:00 PM PHF 0.80


File Name PENN@6th PM.xus

Project Description



Demand (v), veh/h 291 46 25 786 392 58

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

65.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






















Green Ratio (g/C) 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.65

Capacity (c), veh/h 399 362 1106 1090 914









Level of Service (LOS) E C C A A

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 60.6 E 0.0 32.2 C 9.4 A




Bicycle LOS Score / LOS F 2.2 B 1.4 A


APPENDIX

D PROJECTED 2019 TRAFFIC SITUATION –

BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENTS & SUPPORTING WORKSHEETS

O. R. GEORGE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffic Engineers - Transportation Planners 411 New York Avenue, Northeast, Washington, DC

Planned Unit Application (Case No. 15-19)

SCHEMATIC

NOT TO SCALE 00 - AM Peak Hour (00) - PM Peak Hour

Attachment D-1: Base 2019 Traffic Situation

O. R. GEORGE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffic Engineers - Transportation Planners 411 New York Avenue, Northeast, Washington, DC


SCHEMATIC

NOT TO SCALE 00 - AM Peak Hour (00) - PM Peak Hour

Attachment D-2: Base 2019 Traffic Situation (Re-distributed)

Note: Volumes from 5th Street and Penn Street are redistributed to reflect the future 2-way traffic flow conditions on 4th Street, NE and 5th Street, NE.

O. R. GEORGE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Traffic Engineers - Transportation Planners

Attachment D-3: Site Generated Trips (Baywood Hotels, Case # 11-25)

411 New York Avenue, Northeast, Washington, DC


00 - AM Peak Hour (00) - PM Peak Hour

SCHEMATIC

NOT TO SCALE


Attachment D-4: Site Generated Trips (EDENS Shapiro, Case # 14-07)




SCHEMATIC

NOT TO SCALE

EDENS Shapiro

Note: Trip distribution used here were derived from supporting traffic studies. (See Attachment I-1)


Attachment D-5: Site Generated Trips (EDENS Angelika, Case # 14-12)




SCHEMATIC

NOT TO SCALE

EDENS Angelika

Note: Trip distribution used here were derived from supporting traffic studies. (See Attachment I-2)

APPENDIX

E CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS -

2019 BACKROUND TRAFFIC SITUATION







File Name NY@4th AM background.xus




Demand (v), veh/h 1080 166 266 1920 140 95

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

12.0 113.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3

6 7 8







Case Number 8.3 0.0 14.0 9.0

Phase Duration, s 118.0 17.0 135.0 15.0














Green Ratio (g/C) 0.75 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.07 0.15

Capacity (c), veh/h 2501 1121 181 2547 211 209










Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.3 A 181.4 F 73.4 E 0.0



Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.3 B 0.8 A 3.5 C 3.9 D









File Name NY@4th PM background.xus




Demand (v), veh/h 1907 206 179 1300 215 203

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

12.0 113.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3

6 7 8







Case Number 8.3 0.0 14.0 9.0

Phase Duration, s 118.0 17.0 135.0 15.0














Green Ratio (g/C) 0.75 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.07 0.15

Capacity (c), veh/h 2501 1151 174 2547 211 209









Level of Service (LOS) A A F A F F

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 2.5 A 21.8 C 218.1 F 0.0












L T R L T RVolume (veh/h) 121 45 4 3 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 1.00 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.80 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 137 0 48 4 3 18

Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration L R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LT LT LTR L R v (veh/h) 66 9 25 137 48 C (m) (veh/h) 872 940 693 405 934 v/c 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.05 95% queue length 0.25 0.03 0.11 1.47 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 8.9 10.4 18.4 9.1 LOS A A B C A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.4 16.0 Approach LOS -- -- B C



1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k1FE3.tmp








Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration L R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LT LT LTR L R v (veh/h) 76 4 25 224 195 C (m) (veh/h) 888 783 448 344 899 v/c 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.65 0.22 95% queue length 0.28 0.02 0.18 4.34 0.82 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 9.6 13.5 33.0 10.1 LOS A A B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.5 22.4 Approach LOS -- -- B C



1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k718B.tmp






L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Configuration T TR LT T L R PHF 0.94 0.94 0.90 0.90 0.86 0.85 Flow Rate (veh/h) 90 236 123 62 70 24 % Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 2 0 Geometry Group 5 5 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment WorksheetProp. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 -0.6 Departure Headway and Service Timehd, initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.08 0.21 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.02 hd, final value (s) 4.91 4.50 5.27 5.03 5.19 4.40 x, final value 0.12 0.30 0.18 0.09 0.10 0.03 Move-up time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.0 Service Time, ts (s) 2.6 2.2 3.0 2.7 3.2 2.4 Capacity and Level of Service


L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2




1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k24F2.tmp






L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2



L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Capacity (veh/h) 417 507 356 312 443 369 Delay (s/veh) 10.22 11.24 10.12 9.27 10.88 8.61 LOS B B B A B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 10.84 9.81 10.01 LOS B A B

Intersection Delay (s/veh) 10.36 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1/13/2016 4:05 PM


1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k9F01.tmp








Project Description



Demand (v), veh/h 102 90 46 425 804 121

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

65.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






















Green Ratio (g/C) 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.65

Capacity (c), veh/h 399 362 496 1090 914









Level of Service (LOS) C C F B A

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 30.7 C 0.0 113.8 F 17.0 B

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 47.3 D












Project Description



Demand (v), veh/h 331 71 55 851 423 92

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

65.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






















Green Ratio (g/C) 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.65

Capacity (c), veh/h 399 362 999 1090 914









Level of Service (LOS) E C F A A

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 70.2 E 0.0 83.8 F 9.3 A

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 59.8 E





APPENDIX

F CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS -

2019 TOTAL TRAFFIC SITUATION







File Name NY@4th AM total.xus




Demand (v), veh/h 1089 172 268 1920 148 98

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

12.0 113.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3

6 7 8







Case Number 8.3 0.0 14.0 9.0

Phase Duration, s 118.0 17.0 135.0 15.0














Green Ratio (g/C) 0.75 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.07 0.15

Capacity (c), veh/h 2501 1119 181 2547 211 209










Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 1.3 A 196.0 F 78.3 E 0.0












File Name NY@4th PM total.xus




Demand (v), veh/h 1916 212 181 1300 225 207

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

12.0 113.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 2 3

6 7 8







Case Number 8.3 0.0 14.0 9.0

Phase Duration, s 118.0 17.0 135.0 15.0














Green Ratio (g/C) 0.75 0.75 0.87 0.87 0.07 0.15

Capacity (c), veh/h 2501 1150 174 2547 211 209









Level of Service (LOS) A A F A F F

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 3.1 A 26.8 C 264.6 F 0.0













Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration L R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LT LT LTR L R v (veh/h) 66 18 52 137 48 C (m) (veh/h) 872 927 613 377 934 v/c 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.36 0.05 95% queue length 0.25 0.06 0.28 1.62 0.16 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.5 9.0 11.4 19.9 9.1 LOS A A B C A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.4 17.1 Approach LOS -- -- B C



1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k484A.tmp








Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration L R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of ServiceApproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12Lane Configuration LT LT LTR L R v (veh/h) 76 12 59 224 195 C (m) (veh/h) 888 772 422 317 899 v/c 0.09 0.02 0.14 0.71 0.22 95% queue length 0.28 0.05 0.48 5.04 0.82 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 9.7 14.9 39.6 10.1 LOS A A B E B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.9 25.9 Approach LOS -- -- B D



1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k9090.tmp






L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2



L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2




1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k7478.tmp






L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2



L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2

Capacity (veh/h) 421 511 362 318 443 369 Delay (s/veh) 10.33 11.39 10.23 9.37 10.97 8.67 LOS B B B A B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 10.97 9.90 10.09 LOS B A B

Intersection Delay (s/veh) 10.47 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1/13/2016 4:11 PM


1/13/2016file:///C:/Users/ORGA/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kD28F.tmp








Project Description



Demand (v), veh/h 104 94 52 425 804 127

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

65.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






















Green Ratio (g/C) 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.65

Capacity (c), veh/h 399 362 474 1090 914









Level of Service (LOS) C C F B A

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 30.7 C 0.0 137.1 F 16.9 B













Project Description



Demand (v), veh/h 333 77 61 851 423 98

Signal Information

GreenYellowRed

65.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1 3 4

5 6 7 8






















Green Ratio (g/C) 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.65 0.65

Capacity (c), veh/h 399 362 979 1090 914









Level of Service (LOS) E C F A A

Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 68.0 E 0.0 90.2 F 9.2 A

Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 62.4 E





APPENDIX

G VEHICLE TRACKING DIAGRAMS

1825 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON D.C. 20006PRELIMINARY PUD SET

411 NEW YORK AVENUE, NE HOTEL 01.12.16

PG T04TRACKING - 20 - FT. UTILITY VAN (INBOUND)T - 04

N



PG T05TRACKING - 20 - FT. UTILITY VAN (OUTBOUND)T - 05

N



PG T06TRACKING - 30 - FT. SINGLE-UNIT TRUCK (INBOUND)T - 06

N



PG T07TRACKING - 30 - FT. SINGLE-UNIT TRUCK (OUTBOUND)T - 07

N

APPENDIX

H PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLEYWAY

BY APPLICANT

NO SCALE


Attachment H: Proposed Improvements to Public Alley



PUD

SITE

4th Street, N

E

20-Foot Alley

To be curbed or striped per DDOT Approval

APPENDIX

I EXTRACTS FROM TRAFFIC STUDIES

FOR CASE Nos. 14-07 & 14-12 BY GOROVE/SLADE

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY

WASHINGTON, DC

1309-1329 5TH STREET NE PUD

December 3, 2014

I-1

28

Figure 11: 2019 Peak Hour Volume Summary (2 of 2)

I-2

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STUDY

WASHINGTON, DC

1270 4TH STREET NE PUD

January 9, 2015

ZONING COMMISSIONZONING COMMISSIONZONING COMMISSIONDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia

Case No. 14-07Case No. 14-07Case No. 14-07

DeletedDeletedDeletedDeletedDeletedDeleted

ZONING COMMISSIONZONING COMMISSIONZONING COMMISSIONDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia

CASE NO.14-07CASE NO.14-07CASE NO.14-07

EXHIBIT NO.24HEXHIBIT NO.24HEXHIBIT NO.24HEXHIBIT NO.24HEXHIBIT NO.24HEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedDeletedDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedDeletedDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedDeletedDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedDeletedDeletedEXHIBIT NO.24HDeletedI-3

27

Figure 9: 2017 Future Peak Hour Traffic Volume Summary

I-4

39

Figure 15: Pedestrian Pathways

I-5

40

Figure 16: Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure

I-6

APPENDIX

J WALKSCORE OF PUD SITE

Source: www.walkscore.com

(Walk)

(Bike)