PRE-CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION REPORT - Compendium Analysis_FIN… · Pre-Construction Evaluation...

DDOT Post-Construction Analysis

PRE-CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION REPORT

Policy, Planning, & Sustainability AdministrationDistrict Department of Transportation55 M Street SE, Suite 500Washington, D.C. 20003

MOVINGFORWARDTHINKINGTM

March 2015

DDOT Post-Construction Analysis

Pre-Construction Evaluation Report

Washington, DC

Prepared For: Policy, Planning & Sustainability Administration District Department of Transportation 55 M Street, SE, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20003

Prepared By: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 300 M Street, SE, Suite 510 Washington, DC 20003 (866) 286-2257

Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-8625

Project No. 17966

March 2015

Pre-Construction Evaluation Report March 2015

ii Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2

M Street NW Separated Bike Facility & Lane Reduction ............................................................................................................. 2

Sherman Avenue NW Streetscaping & Lane Reduction .............................................................................................................. 4

Naylor Road SE Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Safety Enhancements .......................................................................................... 5

M Street NW Separated Bike Facility & Lane Reduction ....................................................................... 8

Project Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Sherman Avenue NW Streetscaping & Lane Reduction ...................................................................... 33

Project Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................. 35

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................................... 36

Results ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Naylor Road SE Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Safety Enhancements .................................................. 54

Project Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................. 56

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................................................... 56

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 61

M Street NW Separated Bike Facility & Lane Reduction ........................................................................................................... 61

Sherman Avenue NW Streetscaping & Lane Reduction ............................................................................................................ 62

Naylor Road SE Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Safety Enhancements ........................................................................................ 63


iii Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. M Street NW Study Area ......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Vehicle Crashes on M Street NW (2011-2013) ..................................................................... 14

Figure 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes on M Street NW, 2011-2013 .............................................. 17

Figure 4. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS): AM Peak Hour ...................................................................... 20

Figure 5. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS): PM Peak Hour ...................................................................... 21

Figure 6. Hourly Bicycle Volumes ......................................................................................................... 24

Figure 7. HCM Bicycle LOS Analysis Results (AM and PM Peak) .......................................................... 28

Figure 8. Danish Bicycle LOS Results .................................................................................................... 30

Figure 9. Sherman Avenue NW Study Area ......................................................................................... 34

Figure 10. Summary of Data Collected in Support of Lower Georgia Avenue Report ......................... 39

Figure 11. Pre-Construction Auto Traffic Conditions (North Segment, Part 1 of 2) ............................ 40

Figure 12. Pre-Construction Auto Traffic Conditions (South Segment, Part 2 of 2) ............................ 41

Figure 13. Pre-Construction Non-Auto Traffic Conditions (North Segment, Part 1 of 2) .................... 42

Figure 14. Pre-Construction Non-Auto Traffic Conditions (South Segment, Part 2 of 2) .................... 43

Figure 15. Summary of Pre-Construction Crash Types (Existing Conditions Inventory Report, 2007) 51

Figure 16. Naylor Road SE Study Area ................................................................................................. 55

Figure 17. Summary of Naylor Road SE Pre-construction Crash Data (2006-2008) ............................ 58


iv Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. M Street NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures .................................... 3

Table 2. Sherman Avenue NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures ...................... 5

Table 3. Naylor Road SE Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures ................................ 6

Table 4. M Street NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures .................................. 11

Table 5. Turning Movement Count Locations ...................................................................................... 12

Table 6. Summary of Vehicle Crashes on M Street NW (2011-2013) .................................................. 15

Table 7. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes on M Street NW, 2011-2013 ........................... 18

Table 8. M Street NW Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Results .............................................................. 22

Table 9. M Street NW Travel Time Results .......................................................................................... 23

Table 10. M Street NW Hourly Bicycle Volumes (Westbound) ........................................................... 25

Table 11. HCM Bicycle LOS Results ...................................................................................................... 29

Table 12. Danish Bicycle LOS Results ................................................................................................... 31

Table 13. Sherman Avenue NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures .................. 36

Table 14. Summary of Available Traffic Volume Data ......................................................................... 38

Table 15. Summary of Pre-Construction Heavy Vehicle and Speed Data at ATR Sites ........................ 44

Table 16. Summary of Pre-Construction Parking Inventory and Occupancy Data .............................. 45

Table 17. Summary of Available Crash Data at Traffic Volume Analysis Locations ............................. 46

Table 18. Summary of Pre-Construction Crash Data (2003-2005) ...................................................... 46

Table 19. Summary of Sherman Avenue Intersection Operations Results (2006) .............................. 48

Table 20. Summary of Sherman Avenue Queuing Results by Approach (2006).................................. 49

Table 21. Naylor Road SE Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures ............................ 56

Table 22. Summary of Naylor Road SE Pre-construction Crash Data (2006 – 2008) ........................... 59

Section 1 Executive Summary


2 Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Post-Construction Analysis study is a before-after evaluation of three recent construction projects

in Washington, D.C. The intent of this study is to better understand the benefits and drawbacks of each

of these projects, while also evaluating the effectiveness of performance measures for each study and

determining how well they inform the project-specific goals and objectives.

The post-construction study locations include:

M Street NW Separated Bike Facility and Lane Reduction: a 1.3-mile protected one-way bicycle facility with a paint and flex-post buffer between parked vehicles, intersection “mixing zones” and relevant signing and pavement markings, bike signals at some locations, and the elimination of one travel lane (completed in 2014).

Sherman Avenue NW Streetscaping and Lane Reduction: a 0.85-mile traffic calming and streetscaping project that eliminated one travel lane in each direction, thus allowing for widened sidewalks and trees, lighting, landscaped median, and left-turn lanes (completed in 2013).

Naylor Road SE Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements: a 0.4-mile project with several median pedestrian refuge areas at unsignalized crossing locations and a painted median (completed in 2012).

This report presents an evaluation of the pre-construction conditions of these corridors and represents

the “before” component of the overall project. The results of this project will be used to inform DDOT

and stakeholders how each of these projects performs in comparison to stated project goals, which are

described in later sections of this report. Three key pre-construction elements are detailed in this

report:

1. Data Availability: available data from the previous studies is explained to clearly identify where gaps exist and the data that should be collected for post-construction conditions. Likewise, some pre-construction data has been collected via aerials and other data sources to more adequately address post-construction conditions.

2. Analysis methodologies and results: the methodologies and analysis used for the previous studies must be carried forth into this study to adequately describe impacts to the street network and its users. In some cases, new pre-construction analysis has been undertaken in order to more adequately measure these pre- and post-construction impacts.

3. Performance goals and measures: the goals and measures detailed in the previous studies provide the necessary framework and direction for understanding post-construction impacts. Evaluating previous goals and measures also provides an opportunity to identify goals and measures that should have been considered or that may be considered for future construction projects.

M STREET NW SEPARATED BIKE FACILITY & LANE REDUCTION

Opening in May 2014, the M Street NW cycle track is the most recently constructed of the three study

locations and likely attracted the most public attention due to its location and its “impacts” to the

overall downtown street network. The corridor consists of 17 signalized intersections and stretches



from 29th Street NW / Pennsylvania Avenue NW on the west side to Thomas Circle NW on the east side

(approximately 1.3 miles).

For the pre-construction analysis, M Street NW was evaluated in the following three areas:

Safety: a review of crash data from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013;

Auto mobility: Synchro analysis and travel time runs conducted as part of a previous environmental review of the corridor; and

Bicycle quality of service and mobility: bicycle volumes, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bicycle level of service (LOS), and Danish bicycle level of service (LOS).

Table 1 provides an overview of the data, analysis, and performance measures that will be used to

determine post-construction impacts on M Street NW.

Table 1. M Street NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures

Feature Data Availability Analysis Performance Measures

Safety DDOT TARAS crash reports

Video

Crash evaluation

Video review

Crash rate per million entering vehicles at each intersection

Bicycle and pedestrian crashes

Erratic auto and bike maneuvers

Bicycle signal compliance and violations

Turning zone impacts

Auto Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing

Turning movement counts

Travel time runs

Physical field conditions

Video

Intersection Operations Analysis (Synchro)

Travel time evaluation

Volume evaluation

Delay

Level of service

Travel Time

Traffic diversion

Bicycle Quality of Service and Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing

Multimodal turning movement counts


Intercept survey results (after)

Video

Highway Capacity Manual Bicycle LOS (before)

PSU Bicycle LOS (after)

Danish Bicycle LOS

In-field intercept survey (after)

Person throughput evaluation

Bicycle use/volume

Quality of Service

Types of cyclists

Bicycle signal progression

Person throughput

The following conclusions were drawn based on a review of the data and results:

Safety o A total of 594 vehicle crashes were reported at study corridor intersections during the 2011-

2013 pre-construction analysis period, including 487 property damage only (PDO) crashes, 107 injury crashes, and no fatal crashes.

o A total of 22 bicycle crashes and 34 pedestrian crashes were reported along the corridor during the 2011-2013 analysis period.

o The intersections with the highest number of overall crashes were M Street NW/16th Street NW, M Street NW/Connecticut Avenue NW/Rhode Island Avenue NW, M Street NW/19th Street NW, and M Street NW/24th Street NW.

o The intersections with the highest number of bicycle or pedestrian crashes were M Street NW/18th Street NW, M Street NW/Connecticut Avenue NW/Rhode Island Avenue NW, and M Street NW/23rd Street NW.



Auto Mobility o All intersections along the corridor operated at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak

hours except for M Street NW/Connecticut Avenue NW/Rhode Island Avenue NW and M Street NW/28th Street NW, which both operated at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours.

Bicycle Quality of Service and Mobility o The entire corridor ranged from LOS D to LOS F in both the HCM bicycle LOS analysis and the

Danish bicycle LOS analysis, indicating fair to very poor travel conditions. These mobility evaluations were not measured during the previous study but have been completed to more accurately understand post-construction impacts.

SHERMAN AVENUE NW STREETSCAPING & LANE REDUCTION

Identified as one of DC’s 11 “Great Streets Corridors,” Sherman Avenue NW was officially opened in July

2013 and included the elimination of one travel lane in each direction (a reduction from four to two

lanes), widening sidewalks, and constructing a landscaped median. The corridor stretches from Barry

Place NW on the south end to New Hampshire Avenue NW/Park Road NW/Monroe Street NW on the

north end (approximately 0.85 miles). Additionally, several adjacent intersections on Georgia Avenue

NW were evaluated in order to provide an analysis of traffic diversion due to the lane elimination on

Sherman Avenue NW. For the pre-construction analysis, Sherman Avenue NW and adjacent streets

were evaluated in the following three areas:


Auto mobility: Synchro analysis, travel time runs, auto volumes and speeds, and parking demand and availability

Bicycle quality of service and mobility: bicycle volumes, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bicycle level of service (LOS)


determine post-construction impacts on Sherman Avenue NW.



Table 2. Sherman Avenue NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures


Safety DDOT TARAS crash reports Crash evaluation

Video review



Auto Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing



Automated Traffic Recorder tube counts

Parking inventory


Volume evaluation

Speed evaluation

Hourly parking occupancy by block

Delay

Level of service

Queuing

Traffic diversion

Average and 85th percentile travel speed for a day

Parking utilization

Vehicle Classification

Bicycle/Pedestrian Quality of Service and Mobility

Lane configuration



Highway Capacity Manual Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS

Bicycle/Pedestrian use/volume

Bicycle/Pedestrian Quality of Service

The following conclusions were drawn based on a review of the Lower Georgia Avenue Study:

Safety o A total of 48 crashes (30 injury crashes and 18 property damage only crashes) were reported

along the corridor during the three-year analysis period (2003-2005). This represents only study intersections and does not consider all intersections on the corridor.

Auto mobility o Each of the three signalized study intersections within the corridor generally operated under

satisfactory conditions (LOS C or better) in study year 2006. Adjacent intersections along Georgia Avenue NW also operated at LOS C or better in 2006, with the exception of Georgia Avenue NW/Florida Avenue NW, which operated at LOS D during the PM and midday peak hours.

Bicycle Quality of Service and Mobility o The corridor included a bicycle LOS D indicating fair to poor travel conditions.

NAYLOR ROAD SE TRAFFIC CALMING & PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS

The Naylor Road SE project (from the Far Southeast II Livability Study) included the construction of

pedestrian refuge islands, new signage and curb ramps, a striped median, and parking edge lines in the

summer of 2012. The corridor stretches from S Street SE on the north end to the New Horizon

Apartments on the south end and consists of six unsignalized intersections (approximately 0.4 miles).

For the pre-construction analysis, Naylor Road SE was evaluated in the following two areas:

Safety: a review of crash data from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, as well as a review of crash data from 2000 to 2006 completed during the Far Southeast II Livibility Study;

Auto mobility: Synchro analysis, auto volumes and speeds


determine post-construction impacts on Naylor Road SE.



Table 3. Naylor Road SE Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures





Auto Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing




Intersection Operations Analysis (HCS)

Volume evaluation

Speed evaluation

Delay

Level of service

Queuing



The lack of available pre-construction data for Naylor Road SE does present some limitations on the

level of analysis that can be completed, and thus results in few opportunities to adequately address

whether project goals are being met. Comprehensive pre-construction crash data is not available,

although a three-year portion of pre-construction crash data is available. Likewise, speed data along the

corridor is from an unidentified location on Naylor Road from a study that predates the Far Southeast II

Livability Study. Post-construction volume, speed, and crash data will allow for assessment of current

conditions, but connecting the results to previous study results or the stated project goals will be

challenging. The following conclusions were however drawn from the Far Southeast II Livability Study:

No intersections along Naylor Road SE within the pre-construction analysis study area were identified as high-crash locations.

The 85th percentile speed was measured as 40 mph along the corridor, despite the posted speed limit being 25 mph.



Section 2 M Street NW Separated Bike Facility & Lane Reduction




In May 2014, DDOT constructed a 1.3-mile westbound separated bike lane (i.e., “cycle track”) on the

north side of M Street NW running, starting at Thomas Circle NW and continuing to 29th Street

NW/Pennsylvania Avenue NW. The M Street NW separated bike lane is the most recently constructed

of the three study locations in this report and likely attracted the most public attention due to its

location and its “impacts” to the overall downtown street network. The project study area is displayed

in Figure 1.

As the westbound couplet to the previously implemented L Street NW cycle track in the eastbound

direction, DDOT was able to improve on some design elements of the L Street NW cycle track with the

M Street NW cycle track, including narrower bike lanes to reduce parking conflicts, parking and loading

zones adjacent to the cycle track, less abrupt “turning zones” at signalized intersections, and bike

signals at two intersections. The separated bike lane is 5 to 6 feet wide with a 3-foot buffer and

eliminated one travel lane, with existing on-street parking shifted outside of the bike lane.

Pre-construction, M Street NW predominantly consisted of the following cross sections:

West of Connecticut Avenue NW: four westbound ten-foot travel lanes with one eight-foot parking lane on either side, for a total of 56 feet.

East of Connecticut Avenue NW: four westbound ten-foot travel lanes with parking permitted in the curb lanes on either side, for a total of 40 feet.



Figure 1. M Street NW Study Area



PROJECT GOALS

The project goals of the M Street NW cycle track (as outlined in the project’s categorical exclusion

documentation) defined the data collected, the supporting analysis, and the performance measures in

order to adequately determine project impacts to M Street NW and adjacent facilities. Various

performance measures (described below) have been added to evaluate these goals as part of the pre-

and post-construction analysis. The project goals include:

Improve access for cyclists. A number of destinations are present along and near M Street NW,

including museums, offices, hotels, residences, offices, and retail establishments. Three measures of

effectiveness were used to evaluate the pre-construction conditions along M Street NW: bicycle counts,

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bicycle level of service (LOS) analysis, and the Danish bicycle level of

service (LOS) analysis.

Improve safety for cyclists and other road users. The safety of a facility is often measured using crash

data; however, the M Street NW separated bike lane has not been open long enough to provide a

meaningful “after” period for comparing before and after crashes (e.g., three to five years of after data

is typically preferred, especially for bicyclist crashes). Nevertheless, this report contains a crash analysis

for the three years prior to construction of the cycle track, including motor vehicle, bicycle, and

pedestrian crashes. Also, the HCM and Danish LOS analysis can provide a measure of how safe bicyclists

perceive the cycle track to be. Lastly, past separated bike lane research can also be used to provide a

better understanding of the safety effects of cycle tracks.

Increase the number of cyclists, the variety of types of cyclists on the corridor, and achieve the

District’s goals for more trips by bicycle and more multimodal transportation. Separated bike facilities

have been shown to increase the number of bicyclists on a route. For instance, the number of bicyclists

on L Street NW increased by about 65% after the separated bike lane was constructed, and bicyclist

volumes increased significantly on Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street NW after new facilities were

installed there as well. Research has shown that separated bike lanes are attractive to individuals who

do not bicycle regularly, or at all, for transportation. The intercept survey will be used to better

understand who is using the facility and their level of comfort on such a facility compared to the pre-

construction condition.

The District has also set a goal for 75% of all commute trips to take place by non-auto modes in

moveDC. Separated bike facilities play an important role in achieving this goal by helping to make

bicycling a viable commute mode for more people. The pre-construction bicycle counts collected along

M Street NW will allow for a future before-and-after comparison to evaluate the effect of the cycle

track on increasing bicycle ridership and general mode split, which will help address each of these three

goals. An intercept survey will be conducted in spring 2015 to gauge the effectiveness of increasing the

variety of types of cyclists on the corridor post-construction.








determine post-construction impacts on M Street NW.

Table 4. M Street NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures


Safety DDOT TARAS crash reports

Video

Crash evaluation

Video review



Erratic auto and bike maneuvers

Bicycle signal compliance and violations

Turning zone impacts

Auto Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing


Travel time runs


Video


Travel time evaluation

Volume evaluation

Delay

Level of service

Travel Time

Traffic diversion

Bicycle Quality of Service and Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing



Intercept survey results (after)

Video

Highway Capacity Manual Bicycle LOS (before)

PSU Bicycle LOS (after)

Danish Bicycle LOS

In-field intercept survey (after)

Person throughput evaluation

Bicycle use/volume

Quality of Service

Types of cyclists

Bicycle signal progression

Person throughput

DATA COLLECTION

The following data were collected during the pre-construction analysis of M Street NW:

Traffic counts (bicyclists, motor vehicles, and pedestrians), including turning movement counts at intersections;

Motor vehicle travel times;

Parking and loading data;

Signal timing plans; and

Crash Data (vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles).

The available pre-construction data is relatively complete, which will allow for a thorough pre- and

post-construction evaluation that in the end, can accurately determine street and user impacts. The

data availability exception relates to the data needed to conduct a series of bicycle quality of service

evaluations (e.g., HCM and Danish LOS). Fortunately, the bicycle data needed (i.e., basic infrastructure

elements) was gathered through historical Google aerials.



Turning Movement Counts

Turning movement counts were conducted at the 17 signalized intersections along the corridor and are

listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Turning Movement Count Locations

Intersection Date Counted

Thomas Cir NW February 28, 2013 (Thursday)

15th St NW January 26, 2012 (Thursday)



18th St NW / Connecticut Ave NW February 16, 2012 (Thursday)

19th St NW January 21, 2012 (Wednesday)

20th St NW January 21, 2012 (Wednesday)

21st St NW February 25, 2013 (Tuesday)

New Hampshire Ave NW February 25, 2013 (Tuesday)

22nd St NW February 25, 2013 (Tuesday)

23rd St NW February 25, 2013 (Tuesday)

24th St NW February 25, 2013 (Tuesday)



28th St NW July 20, 2012 (Tuesday)

29th St NW / Pennsylvania Ave NW January 8, 2013 (Tuesday)

Auto Travel Time and Speeds

A series of travel time runs were conducted to determine the peak hour vehicle travel time on M Street

NW within the study area under pre-construction conditions. A total of four travel time runs were

conducted along the corridor on November 1, 2011, during the AM peak hour (approximately 7:30 AM

to 8:30 AM), and four additional runs were conducted during the PM peak hour (approximately 4:45

PM to 5:45 PM). GPS units were used to measure the travel time on each segment of the roadway

between intersections.

Crash Data

Crash data was obtained for the M Street NW corridor for the time period of January 1, 2011 to

December 31, 2013, a total of three years. The M Street NW facility broke ground the week of

November 25, 2013, so some reported crashes during this period may have occurred while the corridor

was under construction.



RESULTS

This section presents the results of the pre-construction analysis of the M Street NW corridor, including

the crash analysis, automobile LOS, bicycle counts, HCM bicycle LOS, and Danish bicycle LOS.

Crash Analysis

This section summarizes the crash data collected for the M Street NW corridor, broken down by vehicle

crashes and bicycle/pedestrian crashes.

Vehicle Crashes

Figure 2 displays the total number of vehicle crashes reported at each intersection within the study

area within the three-year analysis period, separated by injury and property damage only (PDO)

crashes. Table 6 summarizes the vehicle crash data by year.



Figure 2. Vehicle Crashes on M Street NW (2011-2013)



Table 6. Summary of Vehicle Crashes on M Street NW (2011-2013)

Intersection Year Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes PDO Crashes Total Crashes

29th Street NW / Pennsylvania Avenue NW

2011 0 3 15 18

2012 0 0 10 10

2013 0 4 12 16

ALL 0 7 37 44

28th Street NW

2011 0 2 15 17

2012 0 2 6 8

2013 0 3 6 9

ALL 0 7 27 34

26th Street NW

2011 0 0 4 4

2012 0 2 3 5

2013 0 0 1 1

ALL 0 2 8 10

25th Street NW

2011 0 1 5 6

2012 0 2 6 8

2013 0 0 7 7

ALL 0 3 18 21

24th Street NW

2011 0 1 22 23

2012 0 2 26 28

2013 0 2 19 21

ALL 0 5 67 72

23rd Street NW

2011 0 2 10 12

2012 0 3 8 11

2013 0 4 9 13

ALL 0 9 27 36

22nd Street NW

2011 0 2 8 10

2012 0 1 7 8

2013 0 0 9 9

ALL 0 3 24 27

New Hampshire Avenue NW

2011 0 1 3 4

2012 0 1 5 6

2013 0 1 3 4

ALL 0 3 11 14

21st Street NW

2011 0 1 9 10

2012 0 0 3 3

2013 0 3 8 11

ALL 0 4 20 24

20th Street NW

2011 0 0 7 7

2012 0 3 6 9

2013 0 2 5 7

ALL 0 5 18 23

19th Street NW

2011 0 3 22 25

2012 0 9 13 22

2013 0 4 26 30

ALL 0 16 61 77

18th Street NW

2011 0 1 11 12

2012 0 1 10 11

2013 0 5 7 12

ALL 0 7 28 35



Table 6. Summary of Vehicle Crashes on M Street NW (2011-2013) (continued)

Intersection Year Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes PDO Crashes Total Crashes

Connecticut Avenue NW / Rhode Island Avenue NW

2011 0 5 13 18

2012 0 4 24 28

2013 0 2 14 16

ALL 0 11 51 62

17th Street NW

2011 0 1 7 8

2012 0 3 7 10

2013 0 2 4 6

ALL 0 6 18 24

16th Street NW

2011 0 5 10 15

2012 0 4 11 15

2013 0 5 18 23

ALL 0 14 39 53

15th Street NW

2011 0 1 8 9

2012 0 1 8 9

2013 0 2 7 9

ALL 0 4 23 27

Thomas Circle NW

2011 0 1 4 5

2012 0 0 2 2

2013 0 0 4 4

ALL 0 1 10 11

TOTAL CRASHES

2011 0 30 173 203

2012 0 38 155 193

2013 0 39 159 198

ALL 0 107 487 594

The following intersections had the highest number of reported crashes during the three-year analysis

period (all more than 50 crashes over three years):

M Street NW at 19th Street NW: 77 crashes (16 injury, 61 PDO)

M Street NW at 24th Street NW: 72 crashes (five injury, 67 PDO)

M Street NW at Connecticut Avenue NW / Rhode Island Avenue NW: 62 crashes (11 injury, 51 PDO)

M Street NW at 16th Street NW: 53 crashes (14 injury, 39 PDO)

Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes

Figure 3 displays the total number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes reported at each intersection

within the study area within the three-year analysis period. Table 7 summarizes the bicycle/pedestrian

crash data by year.



Figure 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes on M Street NW, 2011-2013



Table 7. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes on M Street NW, 2011-2013

Intersection Year Bicycle Crashes Pedestrian Crashes Total Bicycle & Pedestrian Crashes

29th Street NW / Pennsylvania Avenue NW

2011 1 1 2

2012 0 0 0

2013 1 1 2

ALL 2 2 4

28th Street NW

2011 1 0 1

2012 1 1 2

2013 1 0 1

ALL 3 1 4

26th Street NW

2011 0 1 1

2012 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0

ALL 0 1 1

25th Street NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0

ALL 0 0 0

24th Street NW

2011 0 1 1

2012 0 0 0

2013 0 1 1

ALL 0 2 2

23rd Street NW

2011 0 1 1

2012 1 2 3

2013 0 1 1

ALL 1 4 5

22nd Street NW

2011 0 2 2

2012 0 1 1

2013 0 0 0

ALL 0 3 3

New Hampshire Avenue NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0

ALL 0 0 0

21st Street NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0

2013 1 1 2

ALL 1 1 2

20th Street NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 1 1

2013 0 2 2

ALL 0 3 3

19th Street NW

2011 0 2 2

2012 0 5 5

2013 1 3 4

ALL 1 10 11

18th Street NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 1 0 1

2013 1 3 4

ALL 2 3 5



Table 7. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes on M Street NW (2011-2013) (continued)

Intersection Year Bicycle Crashes Pedestrian Crashes Total Bicycle & Pedestrian Crashes

Connecticut Avenue NW / Rhode Island Avenue NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 3 1 4

2013 1 1 2

ALL 4 2 6

17th Street NW

2011 0 1 1

2012 2 1 3

2013 0 0 0

ALL 2 2 4

16th Street NW

2011 1 0 1

2012 0 0 0

2013 1 0 1

ALL 2 0 2

15th Street NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0

2013 4 0 4

ALL 4 0 4

Thomas Circle NW

2011 0 0 0

2012 0 0 0

2013 0 0 0

ALL 0 0 0

TOTAL CRASHES

2011 3 9 12

2012 8 12 20

2013 11 13 24

ALL 22 34 56

The following intersections had the highest reported number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes (five or

more) during the three-year period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013:

M Street NW at 19th Street NW: one bicycle crash and ten pedestrian crashes (11 total)

M Street NW at Connecticut Avenue NW / Rhode Island Avenue NW: four bicycle crashes and two pedestrian crashes (six total)

Connecticut Avenue NW at 18th Street NW: three bicycle crashes and three pedestrian crashes (six total)

M Street NW at 18th Street NW: two bicycle crashes and three pedestrian crashes (five total)

M Street NW at 23rd Street NW: one bicycle crash and four pedestrian crashes (five total)

Traffic Operations

This section presents the traffic operations results, broken down by automobile operations and bicycle

operations, including bicycle volumes and level of service.

Automobile Level of Service

Figure 4 and Figure 5 display the pre-construction delay and level of service throughout the M Street NW study area for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Note that in the pre-construction analysis, only the corridor from 28th Street NW to 15th Street NW was analyzed. The results are also displayed in Table 8.



Figure 4. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS): AM Peak Hour



Figure 5. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS): PM Peak Hour



Table 8. M Street NW Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Results

Time Period AM PM

Cross Street Delay LOS Delay LOS

15th St NW 18.9 B 23.9 C

16th St NW 20.9 C 18.4 B

17th St NW 18.9 B 16.6 B

Connecticut Ave NW / Rhode Island Ave NW 41.6 D 42.5 D

18th St NW 9.1 A 12.0 B

19th St NW 26.2 C 17.3 B

20th St NW 7.9 A 10.8 B

21st St NW 10.7 B 11.0 B

New Hampshire Ave NW 10.4 B 13.1 B

22nd St NW 11.4 B 10.5 B

23rd St NW 6.9 A 9.0 A

24th St NW 8.7 B 10.3 B

25th St NW 8.9 A 9.1 A

26th St NW 5.5 A 5.1 A

28th St NW 42.2 D 28.6 D

Under pre-construction conditions, all intersections operated at level of service C or better during the

AM and PM peak hours except for the following intersections:

M Street NW / Connecticut Avenue NW / Rhode Island Avenue NW (LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours), and

M Street NW / 28th Street NW (LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours).

Based on turning movement counts and aerial imagery, these are two of the largest, most heavily-

traveled intersections along the M Street NW corridor.

Table 9 displays the pre-construction travel time observed through the M Street NW study area for the

AM and PM peak hours. For the purposes of the travel time analysis, the M Street NW corridor is

partitioned into a series of segments surrounding each intersection. The fire station just east of 23rd

Street NW is also shown as a separate travel time segment.



Table 9. M Street NW Travel Time Results

AM Peak PM Peak

Cross Street on East Side Average Travel Time through Segment (s)*

14th St NW 36 26

15th St NW 27 29

16th St NW 30 28

17th St NW 71 38

Connecticut Ave NW / Rhode Island Ave NW 12 11

18th St NW 31 27

29th St NW 12 15

20th St NW 20 28

21st St NW 6 10

New Hampshire Ave NW 17 37

22nd St NW 11 22

Fire Station 4 5

23rd St NW 10 12

24th St NW 14 17

25th St NW 11 13

26th St NW 62 43

Entire Corridor (Travel Time in Minutes) 6:14 6:01

*Average of four runs.

While the average peak hour travel time was similar for the AM and PM peak hours (a difference of 13

seconds), the four travel time runs during each peak hour were highly variable: the standard deviation

for the four AM runs was 1:01 (one minute and one second), and the standard deviation for the four

PM runs was 1:40 (one minute and forty seconds). The following segments were where the highest

travel times were recorded (indicating more delay):

Between 17th Street NW and Connecticut Avenue NW / Rhode Island Avenue NW (average AM travel time of 71 seconds); and

Between 26th Street NW and 28th Street NW (average AM travel time of 62 seconds and average PM travel time of 43 seconds).

Bicycle Volumes

Bicycle counts were collected at each intersection along M Street NW on the same days as the turning

movement counts (Table 5). Figure 6 shows the pre-construction bicycle volumes within the study area

during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 10 summarizes the bicycle volumes at each intersection.



Figure 6. Hourly Bicycle Volumes



Table 10. M Street NW Hourly Bicycle Volumes (Westbound)

Intersection on East Side of Segment AM Peak Hour Bicycle Volume PM Peak Hour Bicycle Volume

28th St NW 22 27

26th St NW 23 69

25th St NW 22 40

24th St NW 15 40

23rd St NW 21 43

22nd St NW 30 30

New Hampshire Ave NW 28 38

21st St NW 24 38

20th St NW 40 35

19th St NW 45 58

18th St NW 53 42

Connecticut Ave NW / Rhode Island Ave NW 76 76

17th St NW 25 14

16th St NW 31 31

15th St NW 63 63

Thomas Cir NW 42 15

HCM Multimodal LOS Analysis

The HCM 2010 includes a multimodal LOS analysis within Chapter 17—Urban Street Segments. This

procedure provides a method to evaluate the capacity and quality of service of an urban street segment

for all road users, which allows the identification of issues and provides insight into the development of

effective improvement strategies, according to the HCM. This differs from simply examining bicycle

volumes because it evaluates the general bicyclist perception of comfort during travel, independent of

the bicycle volume on the facility. The following features affect the bicycle LOS of an urban street

segment:

Automobile flow rate,

Percent heavy vehicles,

On-street parking occupancy,

Segment length,

Number of through-movement lanes,

Width of the outside through-movement lane,

Width/presence of bicycle lane,

Width of paved outside shoulder,

Median type and curb presence,

Number of driveway/unsignalized access points, and

Pavement condition.

Currently, separated or off-street bicycle facilities are not included in the HCM LOS analysis, but recent

research from Foster et al does provide this capability. The HCM defines the non-automobile LOS as a

“score,” with LOS A representing the best quality of service to the road user and LOS F representing the

worst. The results of the HCM multimodal LOS analysis are displayed in Figure 7 and summarized in

Table 11. In general, the pre-construction HCM bicycle LOS varies from D to F along the M Street NW

corridor, indicating a fair to very poor quality of service for bicyclists.



Figure 7. HCM Bicycle LOS Analysis Results (AM and PM Peak)



Table 11. HCM Bicycle LOS Results

Danish Bicycle LOS Analysis

The Danish Bicycle level of service (LOS) procedure is a method to analyze the relative comfort of a

bicycle facility that is analogous to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) multimodal LOS procedure, but

it places a heavier weight on the type of facility (e.g. shared lane, bicycle lane, or protected cycle track)

and also allows for the evaluation of separated bicycle facilities, which the HCM does not. This analysis

was not completed for the original M Street NW study, but it allows for a comparison of the facility with

and without a separated bicycle lane, which will be done for the post-construction analysis. The LOS is

also based on a “score,” much like the HCM multimodal LOS procedure, with LOS A representing the

best quality of service for bicyclists and LOS F representing the worst.

The results of the Danish bicycle LOS analysis for the AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figure 8.

The results are also displayed in Table 12. The pre-construction Danish bicycle LOS varies from D to F

along the M Street NW corridor, indicating a fair to very poor quality of service for bicyclists.

Intersection on East Side of Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Thomas Cir NW D D

15th St NW E E

16th St NW E E

17th St NW E E

Connecticut Ave NW / Rhode Island Ave NW D D

18th St NW E E

19th St NW E E

20th St NW F F

21st St NW F E

New Hampshire Ave NW E E

22nd St NW E E

23rd St NW D D

24th St NW D D

25th St NW D D

26th St NW D D

28th St NW D D



Figure 8. Danish Bicycle LOS Results



Table 12. Danish Bicycle LOS Results

Intersection on East Side of Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Thomas Cir NW F E

15th St NW E E

16th St NW E E

17th St NW E E

Connecticut Ave NW / Rhode Island Ave NW D D

18th St NW E E

19th St NW E E

20th St NW E E

21st St NW E E

New Hampshire Ave NW E E

22nd St NW E E

23rd St NW E D

24th St NW F E

25th St NW E E

26th St NW F E

28th St NW E D



Section 3 Sherman Avenue NW Streetscaping & Lane Reduction



SHERMAN AVENUE NW STREETSCAPING AND LANE REDUCTION

Between 2010 and 2013, DDOT conducted a comprehensive reconstruction of Sherman Avenue NW

between Monroe Street/Park Road and Barry Place (approximately 0.85 miles).The approximate

extents of that corridor are shown in Figure 9. This section discusses the pre-construction data

collection and analyses that were conducted in support of that project. Sherman Avenue’s pre-

construction evaluation was conducted as a part of the broader Lower Georgia Avenue Transportation

and Streetscape Improvements Project Final Report (the “Lower Georgia Avenue Report”), dated

December 2007. The report focused primarily on the parallel Georgia Avenue corridor, one block east

of Sherman Avenue, and as a result the amount of pre-construction data available along Sherman

Avenue is limited.



Figure 9. Sherman Avenue NW Study Area



PROJECT GOALS

The Lower Georgia Avenue Report lists a number of goals for the overarching project, several of which

were accomplished in full or in part by the Sherman Avenue streetscape work completed in 2013. The

primary goal of the Sherman Avenue work was to reestablish the residential character of the corridor,

through such goals as:

Reduce travel speeds through the implementation of traffic calming measures;

Expand narrow sidewalks and add landscaping by reducing the roadway from four lanes to two (also a traffic calming measure);

Maintain efficient travel along the corridor following the road diet by optimizing traffic signal timing and progression;

Improve roadway surface conditions through full-depth pavement reconstruction, including subsurface utility improvements;

Improve pedestrian conditions, especially street crossings at intersections;

Improve safety and reduce crashes for all roadway users; and,

Provide bicycle accommodations along the corridor.

For the pre-construction analysis, Sherman Avenue NW and adjacent streets were evaluated in the

following three areas:



Bicycle quality of service and mobility: bicycle volumes, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bicycle level of service (LOS)


determine post-construction impacts on Sherman Avenue NW.



Table 13. Sherman Avenue NW Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures



Video review



Auto Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing




Parking inventory


Volume evaluation

Speed evaluation

Hourly parking occupancy by block

Delay

Level of service

Queuing

Traffic diversion


Parking utilization


Bicycle/Pedestrian Quality of Service and Mobility

Lane configuration



Highway Capacity Manual Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS

Bicycle/Pedestrian use/volume

Bicycle/Pedestrian Quality of Service

DATA COLLECTION

The Lower Georgia Avenue Report collected a wide assortment of data for use in its analyses. Some of

this data covered the Sherman Avenue corridor, while a large portion also covered Georgia Avenue. A

review of the available pre-construction data is provided in the following sections. A summary map

showing the specific locations is provided as Figure 10. A more detailed description of the available data

can be found in the Lower Georgia Avenue Transportation & Streetscape Existing Conditions Inventory

report (the “Existing Conditions Inventory Report”), dated January.

While the previous study does include a strong level of summarized data, raw data is not available,

which provides limited flexibility in working with the older data. For instance, with only a summary of

traffic operations (i.e., no Synchro files or reports), it may be challenging to fully explain potential

changes in pre- and post-construction conditions. Similarly, crash data is summarized, but detailed data

of crash types and causes are not available, and thus some of the identified project goals may be

difficult to accurately measure. Lastly, traffic operations were not analyzed for typical weekday AM

peak periods, which in this corridor, is certainly more congested than the midday time period that was

analyzed instead.

Turning Movement Counts

Counts of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle activity were conducted at 13 locations, three of which are

within the extents of the Sherman Avenue streetscape project. The study intersections are listed in

Table 14 and shown in green on Figure 10.



The Lower Georgia Avenue Report evaluated pre-construction vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle count

data covering midday, p.m. peak, and Saturday peak hours. The report indicates that data was collected

from 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM and 3:30 – 6:30 PM on weekdays and from 10:00 AM – 2:00 PM on

Saturdays. However, raw count data for those periods is not included as an attachment to the report,

so the only record of pre-construction traffic levels are from the report’s technical graphics. Those

figures only show turning movement counts for the 60-minute-long mid-day and evening peak hours.

No turning movement count information is available for the morning and Saturday peaks or for any

mode other than vehicle traffic, and it does not state when the counts were conducted.

Figure 11 and Figure 12 show the vehicular turning movement volumes from the Lower Georgia Avenue

Report. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the pedestrian and bicycle volumes reported in the Lower

Georgia Avenue Report. Supplementary count data, collected after the pre-construction report was

conducted, is also available at several intersections. Details about the availability of those counts and

the time periods covered therein are summarized in Table 14.

.



Table 14. Summary of Available Traffic Volume Data

Intersection Pre-Construction Count Post Construction Count

1. New Hampshire Ave & Monroe St / Park Rd / Sherman Ave NW

Lower Georgia Ave report: MID, PM (peak hours only)

AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM) MID (11:00 AM – 1:00 PM) PM (4:30 PM – 6:30 PM)

SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

2. Sherman Ave & Kenyon St NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

3. Sherman Ave & Columbia Rd NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

4. Florida Avenue & Vermont Ave NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

5. Georgia Ave & New Hampshire Ave NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

6. Georgia Ave & Park Rd NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

7. Georgia Ave & Irving St NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

8. Georgia Ave & Harvard St NW

Lower Georgia Ave report: MID, PM (peak hours only) PLUS March 2008 Raw Data

(7:00 AM – 6:00 PM)


SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

9. Georgia Ave & Barry Pl NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

10. Georgia Ave & Bryant St NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

11. Georgia Ave & W St NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

12. Georgia Ave & Florida Ave NW


PLUS August 2008 Raw Data (7:00 AM – 6:00 PM)


SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

13. New Hampshire Ave & Spring Rd NW



SAT (3:00 – 5:00 PM)

Note: Yellow cells are within Sherman Avenue corridor.



Figure 10. Summary of Data Collected in Support of Lower Georgia Avenue Report



Figure 11. Pre-Construction Auto Traffic Conditions (North Segment, Part 1 of 2)



Figure 12. Pre-Construction Auto Traffic Conditions (South Segment, Part 2 of 2)



Figure 13. Pre-Construction Non-Auto Traffic Conditions (North Segment, Part 1 of 2)



Figure 14. Pre-Construction Non-Auto Traffic Conditions (South Segment, Part 2 of 2)



Automated Traffic Recorder Data

The Lower Georgia Avenue Report includes data collected using automated traffic recorders (ATRs) at

four locations, one of which is within the Sherman Avenue corridor. These four locations, listed below,

are shown in red on Figure 10.

A. 5th St NW, between Harvard St and Gresham St B. Sherman Ave NW, between Euclid St and Florida Ave C. Georgia Ave NW (south), between W St and V St D. Georgia Ave NW (north), between Park Rd and Lamont St

The ATRs collected through traffic volumes as well as vehicle classification and travel speed data, each

over a continuous, weeklong time period. The ATR data was collected in October and November 2006.

However, as noted previously, the report does not include raw data as an attachment and so the

summaries included in the body of the report represent the only available pre-construction data.

Table 15 summarizes the heavy vehicle percentage and speed data collected by the ATRs. For Sherman

Avenue, the ATR data shows a lower heavy vehicle percentage relative to other study area streets, as

well as 85th percentile speeds consistently above the posted speed limit.

Table 15. Summary of Pre-Construction Heavy Vehicle and Speed Data at ATR Sites

ATR Site Heavy Vehicle

Percentage Posted

Speed Limit Direction

Observed Speeds (mph)

Weekday Weekend

Average 85th Percentile Average 85th Percentile

1. 5th Street 8% 30 mph NB 21.1 27.3 21.9 28.7

SB 26.4 32.3 27.1 33.1

2. Sherman Avenue 5% 25 mph NB 26.8 32.5 25.7 32.3

SB 28.3 36.2 31.5 33.3

3. Georgia Avenue (south)

8% 30 mph NB 21.4 27.3 22.7 28.4

SB 20.5 27.4 20.3 28.3

4. Georgia Avenue (north)

8% 30 mph NB 21.9 29.6 20.3 27.8

SB 26.2 33.1 24.6 32.6


Parking Inventory and Occupancy

The report also reviewed pre-construction on-street parking conditions. Parking occupancy data was

collected at hourly intervals from 6:30 AM to 6:30 PM on both sides of every street within an area

bounded by Sherman Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, Georgia Avenue, and Florida Avenue on

Wednesday, November 15, 2006. This area is shown in blue in previous figures and the data is

summarized in Table 16. The table summarizes the raw data by segments along the Sherman Avenue

and Georgia Avenue corridors, and by time period. The segments were chosen to reflect expected

changes in demand patterns, such as areas adjacent to Howard University, the hospital, or near the

retail areas on New Hampshire Avenue. Of note in the table, several blocks are over capacity, likely due



to assumptions made during the evaluation. The total inventory is likely higher than shown and will be

updated for the post-construction evaluation.

Table 16. Summary of Pre-Construction Parking Inventory and Occupancy Data

Corridor & Segment Parking

Inventory

Parking Occupancy (average of analysis period)

Early (6:30-7:30)

AM Peak (7:30-9:30)

Morning (9:30-11:30)

Lunch (11:30-1:30)

Afternoon (1:30-3:30)

PM Peak (3:30-6:30)

Sherman Avenue NW

Petworth: Georgia to Park (along NH Ave)

NB Side 26 21 (81%) 18 (69%) 3 (12%) 9 (35%) 14 (54%) 13 (50%)

SB Side 18 34 (189%) 30 (167%) 30 (167%) 26 (144%) 21 (117%) 28 (156%)

North: Park to Irving

NB Side 31 30 (97%) 29 (94%) 31 (100%) 27 (87%) 28 (90%) 26 (84%)

SB Side 29 14 (48%) 15 (52%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) 6 (21%)

Central: Irving to Girard

NB Side 17 20 (118%) 23 (135%) 20 (118%) 20 (118%) 18 (106%) 22 (129%)

SB Side 18 5 (28%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 4 (22%) 8 (44%) 7 (39%)

South: Girard to Florida

NB Side 37 23 (62%) 23 (62%) 32 (86%) 35 (95%) 34 (92%) 34 (92%)

SB Side 55 24 (44%) 11 (20%) 0 (0%) 4 (7%) 4 (7%) 4 (7%)

Georgia Avenue NW

Petworth: New Hampshire to Park

NB Side 20 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 11 (55%) 13 (65%) 14 (70%) 17 (85%)

SB Side 11 3 (27%) 3 (27%) 10 (91%) 12 (109%) 14 (127%) 15 (136%)

North: Park to Irving

NB Side 25 9 (36%) 10 (40%) 15 (60%) 31 (124%) 30 (120%) 27 (108%)

SB Side 21 4 (19%) 9 (43%) 10 (48%) 26 (124%) 21 (100%) 13 (62%)

Central: Irving to Girard

NB Side 18 8 (44%) 13 (72%) 13 (72%) 18 (100%) 20 (111%) 16 (89%)

SB Side 14 3 (21%) 4 (29%) 10 (71%) 16 (114%) 20 (143%) 25 (179%)

South: Girard to Barry

NB Side 35 5 (14%) 8 (23%) 37 (106%) 42 (120%) 39 (111%) 37 (106%)

SB Side 22 1 (5%) 5 (23%) 19 (86%) 28 (127%) 29 (132% 23 (105%)

Hospital: Barry to Florida

NB Side 35 0 (0%) 1 (3%) 28 (80%) 38 (109%) 47 (134%) 34 (97%)

SB Side 37 1 (3%) 2 (5%) 31 (84%) 54 (146%) 43 (116%) 27 (73%)


Crash Data

The Lower Georgia Avenue Report assessed crashes occurring within the study area between 2003 and

2005. Raw data for these years was not included in the report, but aggregated charts and tables were

included in the Existing Conditions Inventory Report. DDOT also provided crash data from 2011 to 2013,

while construction was ongoing. A summary of the crash data is provided in Table 17, and a detailed

breakdown is provided in Table 18 to the extent possible based on aggregated data from the Lower

Georgia Avenue Report.



Table 17. Summary of Available Crash Data at Traffic Volume Analysis Locations

Intersection Pre-Construction

Crash Data (2003-2005) During Construction

Crash Data (2011-2013) During/Post-Construction

Crash Data (2012-2014)

1. New Hampshire Ave & Monroe St / Park Rd / Sherman Ave

Aggregated data in Lower Georgia Ave Report

Yes, DDOT TARAS Report (4 report files)

Yes, DDOT TARAS Report (2 report files)

2. Sherman Ave & Kenyon St, NW


Yes, DDOT TARAS Report


3. Sherman Ave & Columbia Rd, NW




4. Florida Ave & Vermont Ave, NW

No Yes,

DDOT TARAS Report Yes,

DDOT TARAS Report

5. Georgia Ave & New Hampshire Ave, NW




6. Georgia Ave & Park Rd, NW




7. Georgia Ave & Irving St, NW




8. Georgia Ave & Harvard St, NW

No Yes,


DDOT TARAS Report

9. Georgia Ave & Barry Pl, NW




10. Georgia Ave & Bryant St, NW




11. Georgia Ave & W St, NW




12. Georgia Ave & Florida Ave, NW

No Yes,


DDOT TARAS Report

13. New Hampshire Ave & Spring Rd, NW

No Yes,


DDOT TARAS Report


Table 18. Summary of Pre-Construction Crash Data (2003-2005)

Intersection

Total Crashes

Injury Crashes

Crashes by Peak Hour

AM Peak

Hours Midday Hours

PM Peak

Hours Off-Peak

Sherman Avenue

1a. Monroe St 1 0 0 0 0 1

1b. Park Rd 11 2 0 2 2 7

2. Kenyon St 20 18 1 0 2 17

3. Columbia Rd 25 10 3 2 5 15

13. Princeton Pl 1 0 0 0 0 1

Georgia Avenue

5. New Hampshire Ave 23 11 1 3 8 11

6. Park Rd 40 15 0 3 7 30

7. Irving St 40 17 8 3 5 24

8. Hobart St 1 1 0 1 0 0

9. Barry Pl 50 19 2 12 11 25

10. Bryant St 32 10 0 6 7 19

11. W St 19 11 1 4 1 13




RESULTS

Using the aforementioned existing conditions data, a variety of pre-construction analyses were

completed for the Lower Georgia Avenue and supporting Existing Conditions Inventory Reports. This

section provides an overview of the results of these analyses.

Intersection Operations

The Existing Conditions Inventory Report used Synchro, an intersection capacity analysis tool, to

compute service quality at each of the 13 study intersections shown in Table 14. Quality of service

measures presented in the report include average vehicle delay, in seconds, for each approach and

generally for each intersection; the level of service (LOS), a letter grade from A-F corresponding to the

delay; and the average queue length at each intersection approach, in feet.

Table 19 provides a summary of delay and LOS results within the study area, which indicates generally

satisfactory conditions (LOS D or better) throughout the study area with a few high-delay approaches in

study year 2006.

Table 20 presents 2006 queuing results for intersections within the study area. Of note, storage lengths

are exceeded at several locations, including two intersections on Sherman Avenue. Long northbound

queues are shown at Sherman Avenue’s intersections with New Hampshire Avenue/Monroe

Street/Park Road, Kenyon Street, and Columbia Road in the PM peak hour. Additionally, queues

exceeded the storage length at Columbia Road’s westbound approach to Sherman Avenue in the PM

peak hour. It should be noted that original Synchro files showing the calculations used to arrive at these

results are unavailable. However, the Existing Conditions Inventory Report provides a more detailed

rundown of the analysis methodology and the assumptions used therein.

Traffic Composition

The ATR data collected in support of the Lower Georgia Avenue study was used to determine several

characteristics about the volume of traffic heading through the study area. The Existing Conditions

Inventory Report also provides several plots of traffic volume trends by time of day and day of week on.

ATR data was also used to derive conclusions about the composition of the traffic stream along

Sherman Avenue and other roadways within the lower Georgia Avenue study area by determining the

split of passenger cars, motorcycles, light trucks, single unit trucks, buses, and multi-unit trucks. This

information was already summarized in Table 15. The percentage of heavy vehicles along Sherman

Avenue, at 5%, was lower than the other ATR measurement points within the study area, all of which

measured a heavy vehicle percentage of 8%. It should be noted that DDOT’s Truck and Bus Through

Routes and Restrictions map (2013) lists no heavy vehicle restrictions along Sherman Avenue or

anywhere else within the study area.



Table 19. Summary of Sherman Avenue Intersection Operations Results (2006)

Intersection Approach

Midday Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Delay LOS Delay LOS


Overall 12.8 B 14.5 B

Eastbound 24.3 C 44.9 D

Westbound 19.1 B 36.4 D

Northbound 10.5 B 11.4 B

Southbound 10.4 B 6.9 A

2. Sherman Ave & Kenyon St


Westbound 22.3 C 28.4 C


Southbound 10.9 B 9.5 A

3. Sherman Ave & Columbia Rd

Overall 17.1 B 30.9 C

Westbound 30.5 C 67.9 E


Southbound 11.1 B 13.2 B

4. Florida Ave & Vermont Ave

Overall 12.8 B 21.5 C

Eastbound 22.5 C 35.5 D



5. Georgia Ave & New Hampshire Ave




NE-bound 18.2 B 25.9 C

SW-bound 18.3 B 19.8 B

6. Georgia Ave & Park Rd


Eastbound 25.5 C 15.0 B

Westbound 21.8 C 22.8 C



7. Georgia Ave & Irving St


Eastbound 30.0 C 30.1 C


Southbound 8.8 A 9.0 A

8. Georgia Ave & Harvard St


Eastbound 32.5 C 23.1 C

Northbound 6.9 A 14.6 B

Southbound 7.0 A 13.1 B

9. Georgia Ave & Barry Pl


Eastbound 39.1 D 41.1 D

Northbound 9.4 A 2.1 A


10. Georgia Ave & Bryant St

Overall 9.3 A 7.1 A



11. Georgia Ave & W St


Westbound 54.8 D 38.5 D



12. Georgia Ave & Florida Ave

Overall 37.6 D 36.3 D

Eastbound 15.6 B 23.7 C

Westbound 18.8 B 27.6 C

Northbound 29.0 C 23.9 C

Southbound 93.6 F 72.0 E

13. New Hampshire Ave & Spring Rd

Overall 3.1 A 17.1 C

Eastbound 28.0 D 293.4 F



Note: Saturday results are not shown in the Lower Georgia Avenue Report despite traffic count data being collected



Table 20. Summary of Sherman Avenue Queuing Results by Approach (2006)

Intersection Approach Available Storage

Average Queue Length

Mid-Day Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour


Eastbound 130’ 68’ 137’

Westbound 750’ 33’ 72’

Northbound 90’ 75’ 244’

Southbound 240’ 5’ 88’

2. Sherman Ave & Kenyon St

Westbound 750’ 71’ 151’



3. Sherman Ave & Columbia Rd

Westbound 750’ 225’ 469’



4.Florida Ave & Vermont Ave

Eastbound 350’ 67’ 341’



5. Georgia Ave & New Hampshire Ave



NE-bound 320’ 79’ 261’

SW-bound 420’ 80’ 118’

6. Georgia Ave & Park Rd

Eastbound 750’ 37’ 23’

Westbound 970’ 25’ 60’



7. Georgia Ave & Irving St

Eastbound 750’ 113’ 149’



8. Georgia Ave & Harvard St

Eastbound 750’ 110’ 153’



9. Georgia Ave & Barry Pl

Eastbound 750’ 59’ 159’



10. Georgia Ave & Bryant St Northbound 270’ 106’ 151’


11. Georgia Ave & W St

Westbound 330’ 143’ 154’



12. Georgia Ave & Florida Ave

Eastbound 230’ 147’ 345’

Westbound 160’ 392’ 300’


S-bound Left 110’ 206’ 217’

S-bound Thru 450’ 77’ 82’

13.New Hampshire Ave & Spring Rd NO DATA

Travel Speeds

ATR data collected in support of the Lower Georgia Avenue Report was also used to draw conclusions

about travel speeds along Sherman Avenue and the other study corridors. This data, summarized in

Table 15, found that traffic using Sherman Avenue had the highest average and 85th percentile travel

speeds at all times of day in either direction. Despite the roadway having a speed limit of 25 mph,

Sherman Avenue traffic averaged 27-29 mph and saw 85th percentile travel speeds approaching 40



mph. These findings indicate that speeding was prevalent along Sherman Avenue during pre-

construction conditions.

On-Street Parking

The Existing Conditions Inventory Report uses the collected on-street parking inventory and occupancy

data to determine general trends about weekday parking demand throughout the lower Georgia

Avenue study area (see Table 16). Along Sherman Avenue, parking utilization is generally highest at the

ends of the corridor, closest to the activity centers around Howard University to the south and the

Petworth Metrorail station to the north.

Utilization varies throughout the day, with significant differences between the east and west sides of

the road along the corridor. For Sherman Avenue, the occupancy varies greatly between different sides

of the street. For example, the northbound side between Irving and Girard Streets typically has 20 cars

parked, while the other side of the street peaked at 8 cars (during the afternoon). The highest

concentration of parked cars was on the southbound side of New Hampshire Avenue at the northern

end of the study area, which is closer to retail space. The Georgia Avenue corridor shows significant

parking activity starting from lunch and lasting until evening. This is consistent with the commercial

activity on this corridor driving demand.

Intersection Safety

The Existing Conditions Inventory Report examined trends in the 2003-2005 crash data throughout the

lower Georgia Avenue study area and is summarized in Table 17 and Table 18. The crash data was

analyzed to determine where crashes were most prevalent and to determine the manner of crash, as

well as how many involved occupant or pedestrian injuries. In addition, Figure 15 contains a breakdown

of crash type over each corridor, as presented in the Lower Georgia Avenue Report (raw data is not

available).

Along Sherman Avenue, the report found that right angle, rear end, and sideswipe collisions were most

prevalent and the highest incidence of crashes occurred at Sherman Avenue’s intersections with Barry

Place, Euclid Street, and Columbia Road. Crashes involving pedestrians were reported where Sherman

Avenue intersects Barry Place, Euclid Street, Irving Street, and New Hampshire Avenue/Monroe

Street/Park Road.

The report itself did not to provide any discussion of the crash data tables, nor did it provide theories as

to possible causes of these crashes or propose specific mitigation measures beyond the generalized

streetscape improvements proposed elsewhere in the Lower Georgia Avenue Report. But the high

speeds along Sherman Avenue identified in the ATR data, a prevalence of unsignalized intersections,

and wide travel lanes may all have contributed to right-angle, read-end and sideswipe crashes. It is also

important to consider the extents of the previous study and this study do not necessarily overlap

completely and therefore a direct comparison cannot be made.



Figure 15. Summary of Pre-Construction Crash Types (Existing Conditions Inventory Report, 2007)



Physical Infrastructure

The Lower Georgia Avenue Report also provides pre-construction evaluations of two aspects of the

physical infrastructure present within the study area. The Exiting Conditions Inventory Report shows a

an overview of bicycling conditions as measured by the bicycle level of service (bLOS) of each roadway

segment. The analyses contained in this report are excerpts from the District of Columbia Bicycle

Master Plan and show that Sherman Avenue is rated bLOS D on a scale of A (best) to F (worst).

The report also provides an overview of pre-construction pedestrian facilities. Minimal detail is given as

to how or when these measurements were collected, especially with regard to how tree boxes, sign

posts, and other obstructions were treated. The report figure indicates that virtually all sidewalks along

Sherman Avenue are between 5 and 10 feet in width, which is presented as a single category with no

specific measurements given. The DDOT Public Realm Design Manual states that in a residential area, a

minor arterial such as Sherman Avenue should feature 8-foot sidewalks plus 6-foot tree boxes. Without

the raw measurements, it is not possible to determine how much of the Sherman Avenue corridor

complied with DDOT guidelines in pre-construction conditions based solely on the figures in the Existing

Conditions Inventory Report.



Section 4 Naylor Road SE Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Safety

Enhancements




Naylor Road SE is a minor arterial that serves the Hillcrest neighborhood. Pre-construction, Naylor Road

SE consisted of two 16-foot travel lanes (one lane per direction) with parking allowed in both directions

along the corridor. Six-foot sidewalks with a five-foot buffer were also provided in both directions, with

the exception of the area between T Street SE and 28th Street SE, where the buffer is approximately

three feet. Naylor Road SE is served by WMATA bus routes 30S, 32, and 34—there is a northbound bus

stop at S Street SE and southbound bus stops at 28th Street SE and the New Horizon Apartments near

the south end of the study area. The Naylor Road SE study area, which extends from S Street SE to the

north and the New Horizon Apartments to the south (approximately 0.4 miles), is displayed in in Figure

16.

Recommendations from the Far Southeast II Livability Study resulted in constructed Naylor Road SE

enhancements in 2012 and consisted of high visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and ADA-

compliant ramps at the following locations:

S Street SE: high visibility crosswalks on the north and south approaches, new ramps and sidewalk;

T Street SE: high visibility crosswalks on the north and south approaches, pedestrian refuge island at the south approach, and new ramps;

27th Street SE: high visibility crosswalk and pedestrian refuge island on the south approach, and new ramps;

28th Street SE: high visibility crosswalk and pedestrian refuge island on the north approach, and new ramps;

Altamont Place SE: high visibility crosswalks and pedestrian refuge islands on the north and south approaches, and new ramps; and

New Horizon Apartment driveway: high visibility crosswalk and pedestrian refuge island on the north approach, and new ramps.

A painted median was also incorporated into the corridor redesign to reduce the travel lane widths

between T Street SE and the New Horizon Apartments driveway.



Figure 16. Naylor Road SE Study Area



PROJECT GOALS

Naylor Road SE was targeted for corridor improvements as part of the Far Southeast II Livability Study,

completed in 2011. Goals from that study include the following:

Devise a neighborhood-wide comprehensive approach for the implementation of a balanced system of multimodal improvements.

Identify specific issues that impact safety of pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, and transit riders.

Design cost-effective, measureable system-wide improvements that benefit all users.

Reduce vehicle speed where problems have been measured or observed by identifying traffic calming and safety improvements.

Emphasize safety/access improvements around public facilities.

The goals identified through the Far Southeast Livability II Study are broad enough they can apply to

numerous “livability” measures the team sees as appropriate for evaluation. The availability of pre-

construction data also shapes the data and analysis that should be collected and completed for the

post-construction evaluation.


Safety: a review of crash data from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2006 completed during the Far Southeast II Livability Study;



determine post-construction impacts on Naylor Road SE.

Table 21. Naylor Road SE Data Availability, Analysis, and Performance Measures





Auto Mobility

Lane configuration

Signal timing




Intersection Operations Analysis (HCS)

Volume evaluation

Speed evaluation

Delay

Level of service

Queuing



DATA COLLECTION

Data collected for the pre-construction analysis at Naylor Road SE included crash data, traffic volumes,

a 2006 speed study conducted by DDOT, and public survey results. The lack of available pre-

construction data for Naylor Road SE does present some limitations on the level of analysis that can be

completed, and thus results in few opportunities to adequately address whether project goals are being

met. No pre-construction crash data is available, although there are ongoing efforts to find relevant



data. Likewise, speed data along the corridor is from an unidentified location on Naylor Road from a

study that predates the Far Southeast II Livability Study. Post-construction volume, speed, and crash

data will allow for assessment of current conditions, but connecting the results to previous study results

or the stated project goals will be challenging. The following conclusions were however drawn from the

Far Southeast II Livability Study:

No intersections along Naylor Road SE within the pre-construction analysis study area were identified as high-crash locations.

The 85th percentile speed was measured as 40 mph along the corridor, despite the posted speed limit being 25 mph.

Crash Data

As part of the Far Southeast II Livability Study, approximately seven years of crash data from 2000 to

2006 were obtained and aggregated to identify high-crash locations in the study area from that project.

None of the intersections along Naylor Road SE within the pre-construction analysis study area was

identified as a high-crash location. A portion of the raw crash data including the three-year period from

2006 to 2008 is available from the study and is displayed in Figure 17.



Figure 17. Summary of Naylor Road SE Pre-construction Crash Data (2006-2008)



Table 22 lists the detailed crash data, including a total of 41 crashes reported at the five intersections

during the three-year period. Of the 41 total crashes, 16 resulted in injury (39 percent). The majority of

these crashes (25) were reported at Naylor Road SE at Altamont Place SE, and no more than eight

crashes were reported at any of the other intersections. Nine of the crashes at Altamont Place SE were

classified as “hit and run,” with four of those involving parked vehicles. The most common crash types

were rear end (12 crashes), sideswipe (seven crashes), parked (six crashes), and turn (four crashes). One

crash—reported at Altamont Place SE—involved a pedestrian.

Table 22. Summary of Naylor Road SE Pre-construction Crash Data (2006 – 2008)

Cross Street

Year Fatal Injury PDO Rear End

Side-swipe

Turn Parked Head

On Fixed

Object Ran Off

Road Ped. Other Total

S St SE

2006 0 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3

TOTAL 0 5 3 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 8

T St SE

2006 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

27th St SE

2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

TOTAL 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

28th St SE

2006 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

2007 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

2008 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

TOTAL 0 0 5 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5

Altamont Pl SE

2006 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

2007 0 3 13 4 2 2 4 0 1 1 0 2 16

2008 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5

TOTAL 0 9 16 6 3 3 5 0 2 2 1 3 25

Speed Data

A basic speed evaluation was collected on Naylor Road SE in 2006 as part of the Far Southeast II

Livability Study. The study found that while the posted speed limit on Naylor Road SE within the study is

25 mph, the 85th-percentile speed along the corridor is 40 mph between Altamont Place SE and 27th

Street SE. In the years since the pre-construction speeds were collected, a speed camera has been

installed on Naylor Road SE near 28th Street SE (near Park Naylor Apartments). The presence of this

speed camera may skew the results of the post-construction speed analysis and provide inconclusive

results of potential speed reductions due to the traffic calming measures.

Section 5 Conclusion



CONCLUSION

This section presents the conclusions drawn from the pre-construction analysis of each corridor

presented in this report.






The following conclusions were drawn based on a review of the data and results:

Safety o A total of 594 vehicle crashes were reported at study corridor intersections during the 2011-

2013 pre-construction analysis period, including 487 property damage only (PDO) crashes, 107 injury crashes, and no fatal crashes.

o A total of 22 bicycle crashes and 34 pedestrian crashes were reported along the corridor during the 2011-2013 analysis period.

o The intersections with the highest number of overall crashes were M Street NW/16th Street NW, M Street NW/Connecticut Avenue NW/Rhode Island Avenue NW, M Street NW/19th Street NW, and M Street NW/24th Street NW.

o The intersections with the highest number of bicycle or pedestrian crashes were M Street NW/18th Street NW, M Street NW/Connecticut Avenue NW/Rhode Island Avenue NW, and M Street NW/23rd Street NW.

Auto Mobility o All intersections along the corridor operated at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak

hours except for M Street NW/Connecticut Avenue NW/Rhode Island Avenue NW and M Street NW/28th Street NW, which both operated at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours.

Bicycle Quality of Service and Mobility o The entire corridor ranged from LOS D to LOS F in both the HCM bicycle LOS analysis and the

Danish bicycle LOS analysis, indicating fair to very poor travel conditions. These mobility evaluations were not measured during the previous study but have been completed to more accurately understand post-construction impacts.

Given the data and results presented in this report, the following measures will be evaluated for the

post-construction analysis:

Safety o A comparison of the crash data pre- and post-construction for the M Street NW corridor,

specifically the use of crash rate per million entering vehicles at each intersection to normalize data where achievable (post-construction crash data is very limited);

o An analysis of automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian crash trends, if any; o Erratic auto and bike maneuver observations through video review;



o Bicycle signal compliance and violations through video review; and o Turning zone impacts through video review, including possible queue spillbacks into

mainline traffic, improper auto/bike placement, and typical yielding habits.

Auto Mobility o A comparison of the automobile delay and level of service along the corridor before and

after a travel lane was converted to the protected bicycle lane; o A comparison of pre- and post-construction corridor travel times; and o Traffic diversion on M Street NE.

Bicycle Quality of Service and Mobility o A comparison of the pre- and post-construction bicycle volumes, HCM bicycle LOS, and

Danish bicycle LOS; o Inventory of types of cyclists using the facility through use of intercept surveys; o Signal progression of bicyclists on M Street NW; and o Person throughput.

SHERMAN AVENUE NW STREETSCAPING & LANE REDUCTION

For the pre-construction analysis, Sherman Avenue NW was evaluated in the following three areas:



Bicycle and pedestrian quality of service and mobility: bicycle and pedestrian volumes, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bicycle and pedestrian level of service (LOS)

Additionally, several adjacent intersections on Georgia Avenue NW were evaluated in order to provide

an analysis of traffic diversion due to the lane elimination on Sherman Avenue NW. The following

conclusions were drawn based on a review of the Lower Georgia Avenue Study:

Safety o A total of 48 crashes (30 injury crashes and 18 property damage only crashes) were reported

along the corridor during the three-year analysis period (2003-2005).

Auto Mobility o Each of the three signalized intersections within the corridor generally operated under

satisfactory conditions (LOS C or better) in study year 2006. Adjacent intersections along Georgia Avenue NW also operated at LOS C or better in 2006, with the exception of Georgia Avenue NW at Florida Avenue NW, which operated at LOS D during the PM and mid-day peak hours.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Quality of Service and Mobility o The corridor included a bicycle LOS D indicating fair to poor travel conditions.



Safety o A comparison of the crash data pre-and post-construction for Sherman Avenue NW,

specifically the use of crash rate per million entering vehicles at each intersection to normalize data where achievable (post-construction crash data is very limited);



o An analysis of automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian crash trends, if any;


after lane elimination; o A comparison of queuing issues at study intersections before and after lane elimination; o Average and 85th percentile travel speeds along Sherman Avenue, Georgia Avenue, and 5th

Street NW o Comparison of parking utilization before and after street reconstruction o Comparison of auto volumes before and after lane reduction to assess traffic diversion

impacts to Sherman Avenue, Georgia Avenue, and 5th Street NW

Bicycle/Pedestrian Quality of Service and Mobility o Comparison of bicycle and pedestrian volumes before and after street reconstruction o Bicycle and pedestrian Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bicycle and pedestrian level of

service (LOS)



Safety: a review of crash data from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, as well as a review of crash data from 2000 to 2006 completed during the Far Southeast II Livability Study;


The following conclusions were drawn based on a review of the Far Southeast II Livability Study:

Safety o No intersections along Naylor Road SE within the pre-construction analysis study area were

identified as high-crash locations from the Far Southeast II Livibility Study based on crash data from 2000 to 2006.

o A total of 41 crashes were reported at five intersections along Naylor Road SE during the three-year period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008.

o A total of 25 crashes were reported at Naylor Road SE at Altamont Place SE during the three-year period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, including 16 injury crashes and one pedestrian crash.

Auto Mobility o The 85th percentile speed was measured as 40 mph along the corridor, despite the posted

speed limit being 25 mph.



Safety o A comparison of the crash data pre-and post-construction for Naylor Road SE, specifically

the use of crash rate per million entering vehicles at each intersection to normalize data where achievable (pre-construction crash data is very limited);

o An analysis of automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian crash trends, if any;


after street changes;



o Average and 85th percentile travel speeds along Naylor Road SE at three locations o Comparison of auto volumes before and after lane reduction to assess traffic diversion

impacts to Sherman Avenue, Georgia Avenue, and 5th Street NW

The lack of available pre-construction data for Naylor Road SE does present some limitations on the

level of analysis that can be completed, and thus results in few opportunities to adequately address

whether project goals are being met. No pre-construction crash data is available, although there are

ongoing efforts to find relevant data. Likewise, speed data along the corridor is from an unidentified

location on Naylor Road from a study that predates the Far Southeast II Livability Study. Post-

construction volume, speed, and crash data will allow for assessment of current conditions, but

connecting the results to previous study results or the stated project goals will be challenging.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION REPORT - Compendium Analysis_FIN… · Pre-Construction Evaluation...

Documents

Transcript of PRE-CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION REPORT - Compendium Analysis_FIN… · Pre-Construction Evaluation...