March 2012

Department of Homeland Security Headquarters

Consolidation at St. Elizabeths Master Plan Amendment -

East Campus North Parcel Environmental Impact Statement

Volume IIB - Appendix C

Department of Homeland Security Headquarters at

St. Elizabeths Final Environmental Impact Statement

FINAL

Transportation Technical Report

Transportation Impact Analysis for St. Elizabeths

Campus and Surrounding Vicinity

February 2012

Prepared By:

I

Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.3 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 1-9

2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Trips or Patterns during Peak Periods ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Local Trips or Patterns during Peak Periods ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Overview of Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2 Causes of Congestion ........................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Deficiencies .......................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ..................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.1 Socioeconomic ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.2 Travel Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated ........................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.3.4 Future Needs ........................................................................................................................................ 2-7

2.4 PERFORMANCE OF NO-BUILD, BUILD, AND NO ACTION TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 2-7 2.4.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.4.2 Build Transportation Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 2-10 2.4.3 Build Transportation Alternative 2 Modified ..................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.4 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 2-13 2.4.5 Future Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 2-14

3 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 St. Elizabeths East Campus Framework Plan (2008) ............................................................................ 3-1 3.1.2 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the consolidation of DHS Headquarters at St. Elizabeths (Nov. 2008) and Record of Decision (Dec. 2008) .............................................................................. 3-1 3.1.3 Master Plan for the Development of the West Campus (2008) ........................................................... 3-1

3.2 ROADWAY NETWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Limited Access Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.2 Local Street Network and Arterials ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 Existing Geometric and Roadway Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 TRAVEL PATTERNS ....................................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4 PUBLIC AND SHARED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 3-13

3.4.1 Rail ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.2 Bus ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.3 Sidewalk and Curb Assessment .......................................................................................................... 3-16 3.4.4 Pedestrian-Related Signage ............................................................................................................... 3-19 3.4.5 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 3-19

3.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 3-19 3.5.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5.2 Daily Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5.3 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .......................................................................................... 3-25 3.5.4 Freeway Volumes ............................................................................................................................... 3-25

II

3.5.5 Heavy Vehicle Percentages ................................................................................................................ 3-25 3.5.6 Pedestrian Movements ...................................................................................................................... 3-27 3.5.7 Traffic Analysis Tools ......................................................................................................................... 3-27 3.5.8 Level of Service ................................................................................................................................... 3-28 3.5.9 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................... 3-31 3.5.10 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis Results ................................................................................... 3-39

4 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 NO-BUILD, NO-ACTION AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ............................................. 4-2

4.2.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative ..................................................................... 4-3

4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL SCREENING AND PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES ............................................ 4-5 4.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE FEIS ..................................................... 4-132

5 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 LAND USE AND TRAVEL PATTERNS .................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Characteristics ...................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 FUTURE PUBLIC AND SHARED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ................................................................................... 5-4

5.3.1 Metrorail .............................................................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3.2 Commuter Rail ..................................................................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.3 Streetcar .............................................................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3.4 Metrobus ............................................................................................................................................. 5-5 5.3.5 DHS Shuttle Bus.................................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.6 Other Bus ............................................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.3.7 Park and Ride ....................................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.3.8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................... 5-6

5.4 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................. 5-7 5.4.1 Traffic Forecasting/ Demand Methodology ......................................................................................... 5-7 5.4.2 Post Processing .................................................................................................................................. 5-16

5.5 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 5-28 5.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5-28 5.5.2 Freeway Operations ........................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.5.3 Arterial/Local Network and Intersection Operations ......................................................................... 5-62 5.5.4 Transit ................................................................................................................................................ 5-77 5.5.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian ..................................................................................................................... 5-100 5.5.6 West Access Road Configuration and Capacity Issues ..................................................................... 5-102 5.5.7 Queuing Analysis Comparison ......................................................................................................... 5-103

6 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GENERAL SUMMARY & OVERVIEW ............................................................ 6-1

7 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................. 7-1

III

List of Figures: FIGURE 1-1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP ............................................................................................................................... 1-2FIGURE 1-2: REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK ...................................................................................................................... 1-3FIGURE 1-3: EXISTING LAND USE ....................................................................................................................................... 1-4FIGURE 1-4: ANDERSON LAND USE MAP ............................................................................................................................ 1-5FIGURE 1-5A: STUDY AREA NETWORK ............................................................................................................................... 1-7 FIGURE 1-5B: TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................... 1-8 FIGURE 3-1: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MAP ................................................................... 3-3FIGURE 3-2: STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3-4FIGURE 3-3: EXISTING PARKING ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVENUE ............................................................................... 3-5FIGURE 3-4: EXISTING PARKING ALONG MALCOLM X AVENUE ................................................................................................ 3-6FIGURE 3-5: EXISTING PARKING ALONG ALABAMA AVENUE .................................................................................................... 3-7FIGURE 3-6: ROADWAY PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 3-10FIGURE 3-7: EXISTING BUS AND RAIL FACILITIES ................................................................................................................. 3-14FIGURE 3-8: METROBUS STOP LOCATIONS ON MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVENUE ................................................................... 3-15FIGURE 3-9: SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................... 3-18FIGURE 3-10: TUBE COUNT LOCATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 3-20FIGURE 3-11: 24-HOUR DIURNAL, SOUTHBOUND SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, NORTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVENUE ............. 3-21FIGURE 3-12: 24-HOUR DIURNAL, NORTHBOUND SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, NORTH OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVENUE ............. 3-21FIGURE 3-13: 24-HOUR DIURNAL, SOUTHBOUND I-295, SOUTH OF OVERLOOK AVENUE SW .................................................... 3-23FIGURE 3-14: 24-HOUR DIURNAL, NORTHBOUND I-295, SOUTH OF OVERLOOK AVENUE SW ................................................... 3-23FIGURE 3-15: 24-HOUR DIURNAL, NORTHBOUND MARTIN LUTHER KING KR. AVENUE, NORTH OF LEBAUM STREET ...................... 3-24FIGURE 3-16: 24-HOUR DIURNAL, SOUTHBOUND MARTIN LUTHER KING KR. AVENUE, NORTH OF LEBAUM STREET ....................... 3-24FIGURE 3-17: EXISTING AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION VOLUMES ........................................................... 3-26FIGURE 3-18: EXISTING AM INTERSECTION & FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 3-40FIGURE 3-19: EXISTING PM INTERSECTION & FREEWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE ............................................................................. 3-41FIGURE 3-20: TRAVEL TIME ROUTES ................................................................................................................................ 3-48FIGURE 4-1: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON WEST ACCESS ROAD ............................................. 4-4FIGURE 4-2: NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF FIRTH STERLING AVE, WEST

ACCESS RD AND STEVENS RD ................................................................................................................................... 4-4FIGURE 5-1A: DHS SHUTTLE ROUTES 1, 2, & 3 (CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS) ............................................................... 5-9FIGURE 5-1B: DHS SHUTTLE ROUTES 4, 5, 6 & 7 (DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS) ........................................................... 5-10 FIGURE 5-1C: 2020 PROJECTED DIRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE VEHICULAR TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......................................................... 5-11 FIGURE 5-1D: 2035 PROJECTED DIRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE VEHICULAR TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......................................................... 5-12 FIGURE 5-2: 2020 NO-BUILD AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................... 5-17FIGURE 5-3: 2020 NO ACTION AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................... 5-18FIGURE 5-4: 2020 ALTERNATIVE 2 AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................ 5-19FIGURE 5-5: 2020 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................. 5-20FIGURE 5-6: 2035 NO-BUILD AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................... 5-21FIGURE 5-7: 2035 NO ACTION AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ..................................... 5-22FIGURE 5-8: 2035 ALTERNATIVE 2 AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................ 5-23FIGURE 5-9: 2035 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED AM (PM) PEAK HOUR FREEWAY AND INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................. 5-24FIGURE 5-10: 2020 NO-BUILD AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................ 5-36FIGURE 5-11: 2020 NO-BUILD PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................ 5-37FIGURE 5-12: 2020 NO ACTION AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .............................................. 5-38FIGURE 5-13: 2020 NO ACTION PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .............................................. 5-39FIGURE 5-14: 2020 ALTERNATIVE 2 AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ......................................... 5-40FIGURE 5-15: 2020 ALTERNATIVE 2 PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .......................................... 5-41FIGURE 5-16: 2020 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................... 5-42FIGURE 5-17: 2020 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................... 5-43FIGURE 5-18: 2035 NO-BUILD AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................ 5-53

IV

FIGURE 5-19: 2035 NO-BUILD PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ................................................ 5-54FIGURE 5-20: 2035 NO ACTION AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .............................................. 5-55FIGURE 5-21: 2035 NO ACTION PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .............................................. 5-56FIGURE 5-22: 2035 ALTERNATIVE 2 AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ......................................... 5-57FIGURE 5-23: 2035 ALTERNATIVE 2 PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .......................................... 5-58FIGURE 5-24: 2035 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED AM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................... 5-59FIGURE 5-25: 2035 ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED PM FREEWAY, ARTERIAL, AND INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ........................... 5-60FIGURE 5-26: ANACOSTIA METRORAIL STATION BUS BAY LAYOUT ........................................................................................ 5-83FIGURE 5-27: CONGRESS HEIGHTS METRORAIL STATION BUS BAY LAYOUT ............................................................................. 5-84FIGURE 5-28: DHS SHUTTLES AT ANACOSTIA - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAY ‘A’ VISSIM CODING ...................................................... 5-87FIGURE 5-29: DHS SHUTTLES AT ANACOSTIA - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAY ‘A’ – AM PEAK MICROSIMULATION SCREENSHOTS .............. 5-88FIGURE 5-30: DHS SHUTTLES AT ANACOSTIA - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAY ‘A’ - PM PEAK MICROSIMULATION SCREENSHOTS ............... 5-89FIGURE 5-31: DHS SHUTTLES AT ANACOSTIA - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘F & G’ VISSIM CODING .............................................. 5-90FIGURE 5-32: DHS SHUTTLES AT ANACOSTIA - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘F & G’ – AM PEAK MICROSIMULATION SCREENSHOTS ....... 5-92FIGURE 5-33: DHS SHUTTLES AT ANACOSTIA - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘F & G’ – PM PEAK MICROSIMULATION SCREENSHOTS ....... 5-93FIGURE 5-34: DHS SHUTTLES AT CONGRESS HEIGHTS - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘A’ & ‘F’ VISSIM CODING ................................. 5-96FIGURE 5-35: DHS SHUTTLES AT CONGRESS HEIGHTS - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘A’ & ‘F’ –AM PEAK MICROSIMULATION

SCREENSHOTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-97FIGURE 5-36: DHS SHUTTLES AT CONGRESS HEIGHTS - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘A’ &’ F’ –PM PEAK MICROSIMULATION

SCREENSHOTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-98FIGURE 5-37: PEDESTRIAN WALKING TRAVEL TIMES AND DISTANCES ................................................................................... 5-101

V

List of Tables: TABLE 3-1: ROADWAY PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 3-9TABLE 3-2: STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS ................................................................................. 3-11TABLE 3-3: ROADWAY POSTED SPEED LIMITS .................................................................................................................... 3-12TABLE 3-4: SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................................. 3-17TABLE 3-5: EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT KEY STUDY AREA LOCATIONS ......................................................... 3-22TABLE 3-6: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ........................................................................................................ 3-29TABLE 3-7: FREEWAY LOS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................ 3-30TABLE 3-8: URBAN STREET LOS BY CLASS ........................................................................................................................ 3-31TABLE 3-9: ST. ELIZABETHS VISSIM CALIBRATION CRITERIA AND TARGETS ............................................................................. 3-33TABLE 3-10: ST. ELIZABETHS VISSIM CALIBRATION MODIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 3-35TABLE 3-11: EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME CALIBRATION ............................................................ 3-36TABLE 3-12: EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR FREEWAY VOLUME CALIBRATION .................................................................. 3-36TABLE 3-13: EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR TRAVEL-TIME CALIBRATION ...................................................................................... 3-37TABLE 3-14: EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAVEL-TIME CALIBRATION ...................................................................................... 3-38TABLE 3-15: EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS .................................................................................... 3-42TABLE 3-16: EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS ............................................................................... 3-45TABLE 3-17: EXISTING AM AND PM PEAK HOUR ARTERIAL TRAVEL TIMES AND OPERATIONS .................................................... 3-47TABLE 4-1: NO-BUILD ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 4-2TABLE 4-2: PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT ASSUMPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 4-6TABLE 4-3: ALTERNATIVE COST (PRELIMINARY) COMPARISON OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 4-133TABLE 4-4A: SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION BUILD ALTERNATIVES FURTHER ANALYZED (ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED) ................. 4-134TABLE 4-4B: SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION BUILD ALTERNATIVES FURTHER ANALYZED (ALTERNATIVE 2) ................................ 4-136 TABLE 5-1: PROJECTED GROWTH IN STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................. 5-2TABLE 5-2: EMPLOYEE ARRIVAL MODE ............................................................................................................................... 5-8TABLE 5-3: 2020 FREEWAY OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5-30TABLE 5-4: 2020 FREEWAY TRAVEL TIMES ....................................................................................................................... 5-35TABLE 5-5: 2035 FREEWAY OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5-47TABLE 5-6: 2035 FREEWAY TRAVEL TIMES ....................................................................................................................... 5-52TABLE 5-7: 2020 ARTERIAL OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5-63TABLE 5-8: 2020 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 5-65TABLE 5-9: 2035 ARTERIAL OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 5-70TABLE 5-10: 2035 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 5-72TABLE 5-11: EMPLOYEE ARRIVAL MODE BY AGENCY ........................................................................................................... 5-77TABLE 5-12: SHUTTLE RIDERS DISTRIBUTION BY METRORAIL STATION AND DESTINATION GATE .................................................. 5-78TABLE 5-13: PEAK HOUR SHUTTLE OPERATIONS SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 5-81TABLE 5-14: OFF-PEAK SHUTTLE OPERATIONS SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 5-81TABLE 5-15: EXISTING BUS BAY UTILIZATION AT ANACOSTIA AND CONGRESS HEIGHTS METRORAIL STATIONS ............................... 5-82TABLE 5-16: DHS SHUTTLE SIMULATION RESULTS – NO ACTION (VS) BUILD ALTERNATIVE 2 MODIFIED ....................................... 5-85TABLE 5-17: AVERAGE TRAVEL TIMES (BUS TRANSIT) INSIDE ANACOSTIA METRORAIL STATION .................................................. 5-94TABLE 5-18: AVERAGE TRAVEL TIMES (BUS TRANSIT) INSIDE CONGRESS HEIGHTS METRORAIL STATION ....................................... 5-99TABLE 6-1: 2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR FREEWAY OPERATIONS AT MAJOR ACCESS POINTS TO ST. ELIZABETHS CAMPUS ............ 6-2TABLE 6-2: 2035 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LOCAL AND ARTERIAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AT MAJOR ACCESS POINTS TO ST.

ELIZABETHS CAMPUS .............................................................................................................................................. 6-3

VI

Appendices: Appendix A: Queuing Summaries Appendix B: Traffic Forecasting/Demand

• Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Graphic • Network Facilities Improvements

1-1

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Description and Location The St. Elizabeths Campus is located in the Southeast quadrant of the District of Columbia, within Ward 8, directly south of the Historic Anacostia neighborhood. The Project Location Map is shown in Figure 1-1. There are two campuses, East and West, located on either side of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue (herein referred to as MLK Jr. Avenue). The West Campus, currently vacant, is a 176-acre former mental health facility that is bounded by residential communities to the north and south (Barry Farm and Congress Heights, respectively); Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to the east; I-295 to the west; and Shepherd Parkway (National Park Service lands) to the southwest. Figure 1-2 shows the Regional Roadway Network. The East Campus is a 173-acre site located directly across Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue from the West Campus. The East Campus currently houses the new St. Elizabeths Hospital, which is owned and operated by the District of Columbia. The East Campus is bounded by Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to the west; Alabama Avenue to the south; the D.C. Unified Communications Center to the north, Suitland Parkway to the northeast; and Washington Hebrew Cemetery to the southeast. The St. Elizabeths East and West Campuses are designated as a National Historic Landmark, including the brick wall running along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue on the West Campus grounds. Figure 1-3 illustrates the Existing Land Use within the Study Area and Figure 1-4 includes the Anderson Land Use classification (land use cover) for the immediate surrounding area associated with the proposed transportation impacts.

Under the current proposal by the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters will be relocated and consolidated into a distinct, secure location between the West and East Campuses of St. Elizabeths. The new DHS Headquarters will be designed to accommodate a total of 14,000 DHS employees, divided between the two campuses as follows: 10,900 employees will relocate to the West Campus, and 3,100 will relocate to the North parcel of the East Campus. The influx of employment in this part of the District of Columbia (the District) is expected to produce significant strains on the existing transportation network. Thus, it is important to provide a comprehensive transportation impact analysis in order to determine the effects of the additional trips associated with this action, assess the impacts of various network and operational changes, and suggest mitigation strategies that may lessen the impacts. The Transportation Analysis Study Area has been defined to be commensurate with the additional travel demand generated by an employment activity center of this size (i.e. the Traffic Study Area assumed in the original St. Elizabeths West Campus Final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) performed by GSA has been expanded). The Study Area of the transportation impact analysis is bounded by a number of roadways, as follows:

• 11th

• Frederick Douglass Bridge, South Capitol Street (SCS) in the northwest Street Bridges in the northeast

• I-295 interchange at the Naval Research Laboratory to the southwest • The divergence of South Capitol Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to the south • The intersection of Alabama Avenue and Suitland Parkway in the southeast

H

11

Wilson

Alab

Sheriffff

Soouuutthe

rn

11113th

Florida

Auth

Suitland

MMiinn

esot

a

Russell

WWhheeller

Eisseennhhoower

Benningg

NNNNCC

apito

l

Foxhall

Oweennss

Braddock

2nd

M

ilitary

EEEE 177th

Ritchie

MMaarrlboro

Rollins

Allento

wn

GGeorgeMMMMMMMM

ason

23333333333rrrrrrrrrrdddddddd

Lorcom

Walker MMiillll

11110th

KKKiiinnng

11111115th

Mount V

ernon

FFFFFFore

stvi

lle

16th

Fairfrr af x

M

an

IIIIrrrrvvvvrrrrr iiiiinnnnnngggg

Branch

CCCCllllaaaarre

Jord

aaaannn

Franconiaaaa

Dow

er House

Mar

tin

Lu thhhheeeer

King

Jr

999ttttth

Good Hooooppppe

Qua

ker

Commm

mmmonw

ealth

BBeeeeaaureg

ard

CCCCoooolllluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

AAreeennnaaaaaa

SSSSSSSSoouth Dakotaaaa

Blad

eensb

urg

Maryrr land

Central

Larc

hmon

t

OOxo

nH

Ha

Wes

t

Huntington

EE Capitol

Arli

ngto

nR

iddgg

Pennsyyylllllvvvvvaaaaannnnnniiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaa

CarlinSppprrrrrriiiiinnngs

Harrrvvvrr ardd

HHooward

Tele

grapp

hhh

R itchie Marrllbboro

New Yorkkkkkk

44tthh

18thhh

NNNNNoooooooooorrrrrrrttttthhhhhhhhCCCCCCCaaaaaarolina

aaaine

11111111111222222thhhh

SCC

apppittooo

lll

DDDDukeeeeDDDDiiiiiiiaaaaaagggggoonnaaaall

Nelly Custissss

63rdd

boro

Bowen

Bee

DDeer PPPPPPPonnddddddd

223

OOOOldJe

ffers

on

IIIIndiannaaa

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVerm

onnt

111thhh

de IIIIssssssssssslllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnndd

RRRiiitttccchhhiiee SSSpur

GGGGGllleeeeeeeebbbbbe

Southeerrrrn

nnnnnsylvaniaPennnnsylvaniiaa tthh

VVVVVVVVeeeeeerm

oonnnnnnnnnntttt

M

999ttthhhhhhhh

WWalker Miillll

MMMMMMMMMaaaaaarrrrrrlllllllbbbbbbooorrroo

Florida

Benning

13th

D

16thhhh

BBraddockk

222222233333

KKiingggg

EEEEE

Ritchie

Maaarrrrryyyyyyyyrrrrrrr lllllllaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddddddddd

KKKinggggg

¨̈̈̈̈̈¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦̈̈̈̈̈̈̈̈̈§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££££

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

VVVVVVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

VVVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

VVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

VVVVVVVVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

VVVVVVVVVVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

§̈¦395

§̈¦395

§̈¦395

§̈¦695

§̈¦66

§̈¦495

§̈¦495

Legend

Project Location Rivers and Streams Arterials Freeways Local Roads Miles

0 1 2

TBG012710052635WDC_V6

§̈¦295

Figure: 1-1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT ST ELIZABETHS EIS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

U.S. General Services Administration

ral

63rd

Bow

Southerrrrn

West Campus

East Campus WASHINGTON D.C.

GTON D.C

WAHINN

GTNGTGTON D.C

GTON D.C

GGGGG

WWHINHIN

GGNGTGNGT

MARYLAND

ARYLANLAN

ARYARYLALALALALALALALALA

PRINCE WILLIAMCOUNT Y

FAIRFAX

MANASSAS

LOUDOUNCOUNT Y

Virginia

Virgin

ia

Mary

land

Maryland

FREDERICKCOUNT Y

MONTGOMERY COUNT Y

HOWARD COUNT Y

ANNE ARUNDELCOUNT Y

BALTIMORE

PRINCEGEORGE’S

COUNT Y

WashingtonDulles

InternationalAirpor t

Balt imoreWashington

InternationalAirpor t

ReaganNationalAirpor t

ARLINGTON

WASHINGTOND.C.

St. El izabeths

295 495

495

495

395

395 69566

66

270

95

95

95

97

50 50

50

50

50267

295

295

TBG012710052635WDC_V4

Figure: 1-2

REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORK

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT ST ELIZABETHS EIS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

U.S. General Services Administration

1-3

EXISTING LAND USE

Legend

Various Forested Mixed Urban Other Residential Transportation Transportation Study Area St. Elizabeths Campus Boundary

TBG012710052635WDC_v5

Figure: 1-4

ANDERSON LAND USE MAP

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT ST ELIZABETHS EIS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

U.S. General Services Administration

Source: FEIS, November 2008

WEST C AMPUSMPUUTTWEST

FORT STANTONPARK

CONGRESSGRESCO SHEIGHTSHTHEIG S

SHEPHERDPHERDDDDPARPARKWAYKWAY

BOLLINGLAIR FORCECER

BASEB

ANACOSTIAO ASNAVALAAANNEXEE

EAST C AMPUSE S US

SO

UT

H C

AP

ITO

L

F IRTH STERLING AVE

ALABAMA AVE

SUITL AND PKWY

MALCOLM X AVEDOGWOOD DR

MLK

JR

. A

VE

1-6

The Study Area Network is shown in Figures 1-5A and 1-5B. See Section 3 for more information on the Study Area street network. Major roadways within the Study Area include the following:

Limited Access Facilities:

I-295 from the Naval Research Laboratory Road Interchange to the 11th Street Bridges Interchange

South Capitol Street from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to the Frederick Douglass Bridge

Suitland Parkway from the Alabama Avenue interchange to South Capitol Street

Arterials:

Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue from South Capitol Street to the 11th Street Bridges Malcolm X Avenue from Duncan Avenue to east of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue Good Hope Road from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to Minnesota Avenue Alabama Avenue from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to Irving Street Firth Sterling Avenue from South Capitol Street to Howard Road Howard Road from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to South Capitol Street 13th Street / Pleasant Street from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to 11th Street Bridges

Bus/Shuttle/Pedestrian Transit Circulation Areas:

Anacostia Metro Station Congress Heights Metro Station

1.2 Purpose and Need The purpose of the transportation and traffic study described in this Transportation Technical Report (TTR) is to evaluate the transportation impacts of the GSA’s proposed action to relocate the Department of Homeland Security to St. Elizabeths Campus, as proposed in the Master Plan Amendment and the corresponding EIS. In some cases, this analysis was built upon previous analyses, data, and documentation, while in other cases it required new analysis. The primary purpose of GSA’s action is to develop 4.5 million Gross Square Feet (GSF) of secure office space, plus parking, in the District of Columbia to accommodate the Consolidated Headquarters of DHS and its components, in accordance with the DHS mission requirements and housing plan.

The need for this action is based on DHS’ need to consolidate a minimum critical mass of 4.5 million GSF of secure office space, plus parking, to meet the Department’s mission requirements and to develop a more cost-effective, efficient, and functional real estate portfolio in the National Capital Region (NCR). Further, DHS’ scattered current housing prevents it from accomplishing its mission to the best of its ability. This extreme dispersion results in significant inefficiencies in daily operations, and these inefficiencies are magnified considerably at the most important moments - when the Department must act as a nimble and integrated team responding to significant natural disasters or terrorist threats.

GSA determined that consolidating DHS at the St. Elizabeths campus was the most reasonable alternative. GSA signed a Record of Decision for the DHS Headquarters Consolidation on December 16, 2008. In addition, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) approved the Final Master Plan for the DHS Headquarters Consolidation on January 8, 2009.

TBG012710052635WDC_v10

Anac

ostia River

Pot

omac

Riv

er

0 2,500 5,0001,250 Feet

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD............................CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

...................

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

VVIV RGINIA

Figure: 1-5A

STUDY AREA NETWORK

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERS AT ST ELIZABETHS EIS

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHS CAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

U.S. General Services Administration

WEST CAMPUS

EAST CAMPUS

OV

ERLOO

K A

VE

SO

UT

H C

AP

ITO

L

FREDERICK DOUGLAS

BRIDGE

GOOD HOPE RD

MINNESOTA AVEANACOSTIA FWY

W ST

MO

RRIS RD

IRVING ST

JASPER ST

23RD ST

18TH ST

STAN

TON

RD

ALABAMA AVE

SUITL AND PKWY

CO

NG

RE

SS

ST

11

TH

PL

WH

EE

LER

RD

4T

H S

T

ATL ANTIC ST

MLK J

R. AV

E

MALCOLM X AVE

HOWARD RD

SUMMER RD

FIRTH STERLING AVE

Malcolm X Ave

St. Elizabeths

West

Campus

St. Elizabeths

East

Campus

Legend:Malcolm X Ave

Atlantic St

Legend:

Transportation Study Area Boundary

Interstate

Other Freeway and Expressway

Principal Arterial

Minor Arterial

Collector and Local Road

Atlantic St

Transportation Study Area

1-5(B)

1-9

The purpose of this TTR document is to provide detailed technical information and analysis for reference by two separate regulatory approval documents: the new St. Elizabeths Master Plan Amendment EIS and the anticipated Interchange Justification Report. This TTR evaluates transportation impacts associated with DHS Headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths, as proposed in the Master Plan Amendment EIS, and specifically assesses impacts associated with modifications to I-295. As such, the TTR is an appendix of the EIS document. The TTR will also be used as supporting documentation included in the upcoming Interstate Justification Report (IJR) that must be produced to secure approval for a modification in access to the interstate at I-295 / Malcolm X Avenue interchange, as required by DDOT and FHWA.

The TTR Study Area, referred to as the Interstate Access Approval Impact Area in the EIS, encompasses a total of 46 intersections and freeway segments in the vicinity of the St. Elizabeths Campus. The sub-set Study Area analyzed in the EIS includes 32 of the 46 intersections studied in the TTR and is referred to as the EIS Transportation Analysis Study Area. The EIS Transportation Analysis Study Area only includes intersections and freeway segments directly associated with the proposed action and impacted by the DHS Headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths. This smaller Study Area is generally bounded by the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge to the north, the MLK Jr. Avenue intersection with South Capitol Street to the south, I-295 to the west, and Alabama Avenue/Stanton Road intersection to the east.

1.3 Data Sources Tube count data was collected at 42 segment and ramp locations along Anacostia Freeway, Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, South Capitol Street, Firth Sterling Avenue, Suitland Parkway, Alabama Avenue, and Malcolm X Avenue. Vehicle turning movement counts were collected for 35 of the initial 46 intersections considered during the AM and PM periods - four hours in the morning (5:30 – 9:30 AM) and four hours in the afternoon-evening (3:00 – 7:00 PM). Recent traffic counts collected for AM/PM peak periods under a separate contract were used at 11 of the intersections. Intersection count locations are shown in Figure 3-2.

Additional data obtained and collected for use in the study includes:

• Travel time runs along limited access facilities and arterials listed above • Base conditions VISSIM model results (existing conditions) • Existing data including mapping, aerials, GIS, land use (existing and future), etc. • Existing signal timings (DDOT) • South Capitol Street Synchro network • Field signal timings • Existing transit data (routes, ridership, projections) provided by Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and Fairfax Connector

2-1

2 Summary of Findings

The purpose of this section is to summarize the general findings of the study that are presented in more detail in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this report.

2.1 Existing Travel Patterns Existing travel patterns within the Study Area are affected by the following interwoven and often competing traffic conditions: (1) regional trips that include work commutes, long-distance through trips, and visitors travelling to downtown Washington; (2) local trips that include shorter travel distances (i.e., trips produced by neighborhoods within Ward 8), as well as medium and longer travel distances with trip ends located at one of several institutional land uses within the Study Area (i.e., the new St. Elizabeths Hospital on the East Campus, Anacostia Naval Air Station, Bolling Air Force Base, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the National Park Service – National Capital Parks East).

2.1.1 Regional Trips or Patterns during Peak Periods Regional trips constitute the majority of total trips occurring within the Study Area. Travel patterns are dominated by peak-directional trips that are highly concentrated during the typical 3-hour morning and afternoon peak periods. During the morning peak, inbound commuter trips originate in the suburban counties of Prince Georges, Charles, and St. Mary’s in Maryland and Fairfax and Prince William in Virginia. These trips are generally focused along northbound and westbound routes, with destinations concentrated in the urban core between the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. Conversely, most of the trips occurring in the afternoon peak period are outbound and directed eastbound and southbound. Major highway corridors carrying the highest traffic volumes include I-295 and South Capitol Street/Frederick Douglass Bridge (northbound in the morning peak & southbound in the afternoon peak); the 11th

Other major categories of regional travel patterns include pass-by trips that use I-295 as a through route to bypass downtown Washington DC and connect with the Capital Beltway and visitors to the nation’s capital whose travel patterns usually mirror those of commuters but occur outside the peak AM and PM time periods.

Street Bridges and Suitland Parkway (westbound in the morning peak & eastbound in the afternoon peak). Mass transit trips primarily occur via regional rail lines and the Metrorail, which is operated by the Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA). The Green Line Metrorail offers nearby access to St. Elizabeths through the Anacostia and Congress Heights Stations. The remaining mass transit trips occur via Metrobus routes that follow traffic patterns along the South Capitol Street corridor.

2.1.2 Local Trips or Patterns during Peak Periods Local travel patterns are influenced less by regional commuter trips and more by local land-use functions. Medium- and low-density residential neighborhoods that surround St. Elizabeths Campus account for a portion of the local traffic; these include Bellview and Congress Heights to the south, Shipley Terrace and Douglass to the east, and Barry Farm and Anacostia to the north. In addition, the Anacostia Metro Station on the Green Line serves as a local

2-2

transportation hub because of its large park-and-ride garage (1,150 spaces) and convenient access to bus transfer stations (with 14 bus bays) at both station entrances. This station generates a significant portion of the transit and pedestrian traffic in the northern half of the Study Area. The other Green Line station within the Study Area, Congress Heights, is smaller by comparison and provides only short-term metered parking (67 spaces) and a modest Metrobus circulation/transfer area (with 7 bus bays) in comparison to Anacostia Metro Station. Several schools and churches along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue also attract pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Similar to the higher-capacity routes associated with regional trips, the main local arterials of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and Alabama Avenue predominantly carry northbound and westbound trips in the morning, with the reverse being true at the end of the typical workday. Good Hope Road is another local arterial that runs parallel to Suitland Parkway on the south and Pennsylvania Avenue on the north and carries significant westbound traffic in the morning by providing a transportation link to the 11th Street Bridges via the intersection with 13th

2.2 Existing Conditions

Street. Malcolm X Avenue serves as a major interface between the local roadway network and the principal arterials, as well as the primary entrance for Bolling Air Forces Base; as such, traffic patterns along this arterial are highly correlated with commuter traffic patterns seen at the regional level. Firth Sterling Avenue, which runs parallel to I-295, connects South Capitol Street with Howard Road and serves as a transportation link between Anacostia area, Barry Farm and the Anacostia Naval Station. Travel patterns along this facility are similar to Malcolm X Avenue, but less pronounced.

In order to provide a basis of comparison for future conditions, it is important to understand the existing conditions within the Study Area. The existing conditions play a significant role in developing and evaluating alternatives under the proposed build conditions associated with the DHS Headquarters relocation to St. Elizabeths Campus.

2.2.1 Overview of Conditions Existing travel conditions with the Study Area are characterized as follows:

• Heavy vehicles (commercial trucks) account for between 2 percent and 18 percent of the traffic within the study, with 10 percent representing the average across facilities

• Based on the traffic count data collected, peak period traffic was observed to occur between the hours of 5:30 – 9:00 AM and 3:30 – 7:00 PM within the Study Area. Peak periods demonstrate substantial peak spreading, indicating that peak-hour traffic congestion remains constant for several hours in both the morning and afternoon. The peak hours within the peak periods for the Study Area were determined to be 7:00 – 8:00 AM and 5:00 – 6:00 PM.

• Interchanges along I-295 and South Capitol Street exhibit failing operational characteristics during all hours of the AM and PM peak periods. These characteristics include average travel speeds that are a fraction of the free-flow speed, queues that originate at the ramp terminals and overflow onto the freeway mainline, and vehicular densities that are equivalent to Level of Service (LOS) F.

2-3

• Travel times along principal arterials are severely degraded, resulting in spill-over traffic on secondary arterials and local roadways. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and South Capitol Street assume additional traffic volumes from vehicles exiting I-295 in order to avoid recurring congestion.

• Most signalized intersections within the Study Area are congested during the AM and PM peak periods. In some cases, especially along Firth Sterling Avenue, Suitland Parkway, and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, queuing spills back from one intersection to the next, resulting in a stream of continuous delays along major local corridors. It is common for queued traffic to wait two or more cycles at major traffic signals before clearing an intersection. The resulting traffic congestion reduces the accessibility of local side streets because it increases the difficulty of turning movements to and from arterial roadways.

• Pedestrian traffic is heavily concentrated along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Howard Road, and Sumner Road. In the northern end of the Study Area, the high occurrence of foot traffic is largely due to the Anacostia Metro Station, the 11th

2.2.2 Causes of Congestion

Street Bridges, and surrounding land use.

Congestion within the Study Area is due to several factors, including the limited capacity of arterials, the lack of continuous parallel routes on the north and east portions of the Study Area as well as connections between these routes, a highly unbalanced modal split in favor of automobiles, and the competing vehicular and modal demands at intersections. Several design deficiencies within the Study Area also contribute to congested conditions, such as intersections with tight turning radii, locations with bottlenecks or cut-through traffic. Highlights of the most prominent congestion areas are summarized below:

• Because Suitland Parkway is the only major east-west principal arterial in Southeast DC, its operational characteristics are characterized by through volumes that achieve or exceed the capacity of the facility, as well as extensive queues and delays at two at-grade intersections within Ward 8: Firth Sterling Avenue and Stanton Road.

The intersection at Suitland Parkway and Firth Sterling Avenue is one of the most congested locations within the Study Area. This intersection’s proximity to the Anacostia Metro Station East Entrance and Metrobus transfer hub results in a high occurrence of buses and other transit vehicles through the intersection, as well as a comparatively high incidence of pedestrian traffic than other intersections in the Study Area. In addition, Firth Sterling Avenue is frequently congested because of its function as a primary linkage between local and regional transportation networks; it provides the principal connection between the Barry Farm neighborhood and the Anacostia Metro Station, and transitions into the northbound on-ramp to I-295 just north of the Suitland Parkway Interchange. Thus the competing demands exceed the available capacity.

The intersection of Suitland Parkway with Stanton Road represents one of the first major interruptions to free-flow speed inside the District, resulting in saturated traffic flow conditions at the traffic signal. This intersection contributes to long queues and delays because of the sheer volume of through traffic

2-4

travelling westbound (in morning peak period) and eastbound (in afternoon peak period). East of this intersection, Suitland Parkway abruptly transitions from an urban-style arterial to a high-speed controlled access facility that stretches into suburban Maryland and links with the major arterial Maryland Route 4, which makes this intersection a “choke point” for traffic flow during peak periods.

• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is generally congested for several reasons. This secondary arterial is the only continuous north-south local route that spans the entire Study Area. The facility also connects Anacostia with the Southeast-Southwest Freeway (I-695) via the 11th Street Bridges, and carries a disproportionate amount of cut-through traffic due to missing connections at the 11th

• The interchange of Alabama Avenue at Suitland Parkway is frequently congested along the west half of the ramp terminal interfaces because of the frequency and close spacing of traffic signals along Alabama Avenue. The high incidence of pedestrian traffic requires this area to be controlled by DDOT traffic control officers during peak periods, especially at the beginning and ending of the school day.

Street Bridges/Anacostia Freeway and elsewhere along I-295/DC 295. The five-legged intersection at Howard Road is a congestion focal point for many of the same reasons as the operations at Suitland Parkway/Firth Sterling intersection.

• The interchange of Malcolm X Avenue at South Capitol Street is congested due to the configuration of the two closely-spaced intersections at the ramp terminals, which are not optimally phased or channelized to accommodate existing traffic demand. The concentration of inbound and outbound trips at the main gated entrance to Bolling Air Force Base also contributes to congestion. The adjacent interchange of Malcolm X Avenue and I-295 operates as complementary access point for northbound I-295 traffic in combination with the South Capitol Street interchange. On I-295 northbound, weaving traffic between the two loop ramps exceeds the volume capacity of this interchange, resulting in queues along I-295 northbound and Malcolm X Avenue eastbound.

• General north-south traffic along principal routes is impacted by downstream bottlenecks and congestion on both ends of the Study Area. The configuration of the 11th

2.2.3 Deficiencies

Street Bridges interchange and the Suitland Parkway / South Capitol Street interchange contribute to system-wide queuing. Downstream congestion on other roadways also causes spillback that reflects back through the arterials within the network.

As referenced above, several locations within the Study Area have significant operational deficiencies that contribute to congested conditions. Other locations reflect substandard roadway or intersection designs that pose safety risks and/or adversely affect the accessibility of local roadways. Transportation network design deficiencies in the Study Area include:

• Missing ramp connections between local Anacostia roadways and the Anacostia Freeway at the interchange with 11th Street Bridges

2-5

• Missing and incomplete freeway movements at several interchanges along Anacostia Freeway:

North-facing ramps connecting the 11th

North-facing ramps connecting Pennsylvania Avenue with DC 295

Street Bridges with DC 295

Ramp connection serving westbound Suitland Parkway to southbound I-295

• Close interchange spacing along I-295

• Signalized intersections located immediately adjacent to freeway ramp terminals

• Insufficient weaving distances to accommodate the volume of weaving traffic between interchange ramps at several locations:

Northbound I-295 between the on-ramp from South Capitol Street and the ramps at Malcolm X Avenue

Northbound I-295 auxiliary lane between the loop ramps at Malcolm X Avenue

Southbound South Capitol Street between the flyover ramp from I-295 and the southbound off-ramp to Malcolm X Avenue

Southbound South Capitol Street between the on-ramp from Malcolm X Avenue and the diverge to southbound I-295 / Overlook Avenue

I-295 in both directions between the interchange ramps at Howard Road and the 11th

• Substandard ramp designs (tight radii and low design speeds), such as at the Malcolm X Avenue interchange

Street Bridges ramps

• Inadequate acceleration and deceleration lanes

• Missing connectivity between Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and Suitland Parkway

• Inadequate or damaged sidewalk and bicycle facilities along arterials such as Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Firth Sterling Avenue, and Howard Road

• Inadequate or missing turn lane storage at major signalized intersections

• Degradation of pavement surface quality, regulatory and guide signing, and pavement markings

2.3 Future Conditions and Needs Growth forecasts, existing travel patterns, and future travel patterns based on network improvements (including those independent of as well as those resulting from DHS project activity) that are scheduled to occur within the study time frame (2020 and 2035) must be considered in order to determine which network and operational adjustments will best accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes.

2-6

2.3.1 Socioeconomic Forecasts for the 2020 and 2035 timeframes indicate growth related to employment, households, and population throughout Southeast DC. Regardless of the DHS relocation, “baseline” growth is projected for Southeast DC; this growth is expected to result from several redevelopments and developments in and beyond the Study Area that will contribute to increased travel demands and home-based-work trips. However, the relocation of DHS Headquarters to St. Elizabeths will result in a higher employment growth rate than this region would otherwise experience. Further, the influx of employment from the DHS Headquarters relocation to St. Elizabeths - and the redevelopment of the Anacostia area in support of this relocation - will result in a higher traffic and transit demand growth rate than is currently expected to occur in the absence of the development.

2.3.2 Travel Patterns Within the Metropolitan Washington region, travel patterns are expected to remain similar to existing conditions. Travel demand will grow in parallel with population and employment, experiencing an increase in daily traffic volumes based on the overall growth anticipated in the region. Although there may be some reallocation of trips associated with the relocation of DHS Headquarters to St. Elizabeths, over the course of the 2020-to-2035 time frame it is anticipated that the influx directly after the relocation will balance out with new development in the region, replacing existing trips to DHS properties that will shift to St. Elizabeths. Therefore, the total trips anticipated in 2035 will remain consistent; the location of those trips will be redistributed to account for the relocation to St. Elizabeths.

2.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated Section 4 of this report describes the roadway concept alternatives that were developed, revised, and either dismissed or recommended for further analysis. A few examples of some of the alternatives eliminated from further consideration included:

• Reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as a pair of one-way frontage roads on either side of I-295, with a connection to Gate 4 provided via a two-connector road/overpass set of at-grade intersections. The West Access Road would be incorporated as a part of South Capitol Street under this alternative, which raised security concerns and conflicts with DHS’ programmatic needs.

• Direct access ramps between I-295 and Gate 4 / the West Access Road. Provision of this type of access was eliminated from consideration due to conflicts with DDOT and FHWA Policy.

• An extension of 13th Street SE northward from Pecan Street to cross over Suitland Parkway and intersect with / feed into Sheridan Road, as originally assessed in Alternative 2 of the Draft EIS. Alignment issues associated with existing steep grades, lack of significant operational benefits, right-of-way conflicts and logistical difficulties associated with the roadway network on the north side of Suitland Parkway precluded this concept from further consideration.

2-7

• Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements. Under a stand-alone alternative, TSM improvements – including widening and reconfiguring local roadways, upgrading traffic signals, and expansion of the regional transit network – are capable of providing only a partial solution. The evaluation showed that although TSM elements are essential to overall project success, implementing the TSM alternative alone does not fully meet the needs of the project.

2.3.4 Future Needs Future needs of the project related to GSA’s plan to relocate and consolidate the DHS Headquarters to St. Elizabeths were identified as follows:

• DHS Headquarters programmatic needs, including:

New access to the St. Elizabeths West Campus from the west

Capability to limit public access to the West Access Road (in the vicinity of St. Elizabeths West Campus) in cases requiring heightened security

Transit shuttle routes that connect employee entrance points with nearby Metrorail stations

Circulating roadways and lay-by areas to facilitate provision of transit shuttle service

Modifications to the Malcolm X Avenue/I-295 interchange to improve connections between the St. Elizabeths Campus and the local freeway network

• Minimization of NPS parkland necessary for the construction of the West Access Road

• Providing acceptable capacity on the West Access Road while minimizing environmental and cultural/historic resource impacts

• Adequate and context-sensitive connectivity with the surrounding community and transportation network

• Physical and operational/logistical improvements that work to minimize traffic and transportation impacts to the Anacostia and Congress Heights neighborhoods

2.4 Performance of No-Build, Build, and No Action Transportation Alternatives

2.4.1 No-Build Alternative1

The No-Build Alternative serves as a future baseline condition against which the Build Alternatives may be compared. Under this alternative, the relocation and consolidation of DHS

1 GSA’s No Action Alternative in the FEIS is different from the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative assumes no consolidation of DHS Headquarters on the St. Elizabeths campus, nor any related infrastructure improvements, while the No Action Alternative assumes that DHS is consolidated on the West Campus only with minimal transportation improvements and no changes in interstate access at Malcolm X Avenue. The No Action Alternative is discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.4.

2-8

Headquarters to St. Elizabeths and any associated transportation improvements do not occur. However, DDOT transportation improvement projects will still be constructed under the No-Build Alternative, along with other planned land developments, and the shifts in background traffic patterns that are projected to occur within the study time frame are accounted for. Proposed or ongoing projects that are currently expected to produce significant effects on the existing transportation network include the following: the 11th

2.4.1.1 Freeway

Street Bridges replacement, South Capitol Street corridor improvements, redevelopment of the south parcel of the East Campus by the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED), Poplar Point development, and Barry Farms development. In addition, the projected employment growth at Anacostia Naval Station/Bolling Air Force Base will require transportation improvements.

With a few exceptions, freeway conditions along I-295 and South Capitol Street for the No-Build condition are similar to those of the existing conditions described above, with several locations along both corridors experiencing increased delays and travel times. Locations for which the No-Build conditions (2020 and 2035 time horizons) are different from the existing conditions are summarized as follows:

• I-295 – Missing movements at the 11th

• Suitland Parkway – The new diamond interchange configuration of I-295, with consolidated on- and off-ramps at Suitland Parkway, shows increased queuing on the ramps that reflects back on I-295 as well as queuing on the crossroad that spills back on Suitland Parkway from the signalized ramp terminals

Street Bridges are completed, resulting in less queuing at some interchange ramp terminals that currently serve cut-through traffic on the local roadway network

• South Capitol Street – The existing system of freeway ramps that connect South Capitol Street and Suitland Parkway at the foot of the Frederick Douglass Bridge is replaced with an at-grade traffic circle. As a result, traffic queues within the circle and on the approaches. Operations of the traffic circle are largely influenced by upstream and downstream intersections, especially at South Capitol Street/Firth Sterling Avenue and at Suitland Parkway / Southbound I-295 interchange ramps

2.4.1.2 Local Street Network The local street network reflects a complex operational condition that results in some network improvements but also degrades in several areas due to changes in roadway configurations and adjacent land development projects. Highlights of local street operations are characterized by the following:

• Suitland Parkway at Firth Sterling Avenue – This intersection represents one of the key “hotspots” within the network in terms of magnitude of congestion. Queuing occurs on all approaches in accordance with peak period travel patterns and increases due to transit and pedestrian modal conflicts. A new Streetcar operation included in the No-Build scenario contributes to queuing because it requires additional time in the traffic signal cycle (i.e., reduces the total amount of green light time available to vehicles at this intersection) to ensure its path does not conflict with permitted vehicle turning movements. Pedestrian crossing phases contribute to queuing because they must

2-9

provide sufficient time for individuals to safely traverse all lanes; these phases constitute more time in the No-Build scenario than in existing conditions to account for the cross-section expansions of various approaches at this intersection. The intersection performance also adversely impacts the operations of the traffic signals located at the ramp terminals from the I-295 interchange due to queue spillback. Conversely, this intersection is also impacted by spillback and congestion associated with the I-295 interchange ramps.

• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue at Suitland Parkway ramps – A new at-grade intersection is constructed on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, with ramps merging and diverging with Suitland Parkway. New weaving movements are introduced within a short distance on Suitland Parkway between the intersection with Firth Sterling Avenue and the ramps to/from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, causing congestion and spillback on Suitland Parkway at the intersections with Firth Sterling Avenue and the I-295 interchange ramp terminals.

• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue at Howard Road – Although operations at this intersection reflect a reduction in cut-through traffic due to missing movements along I-295, they also reflect an increase in traffic volumes generated by new developments along both roadways and at the Anacostia Metro Station. Similar to the Firth Sterling Avenue /Suitland Parkway intersection, the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/Howard Road intersection must balance the competing demands of various transport modes including transit, pedestrians, and passenger vehicles. The proximity of the new signal at the Suitland Parkway ramps limits the amount of options available for signal timing improvements that address excessive queuing and delay.

• South Capitol Street at Firth Sterling Avenue / Defense Boulevard – This intersection experiences a significant increase in traffic, owing in large part to the following conditions: 1) the proposed growth in employment at Anacostia Naval Station / Bolling Air Force Base, as well as reallocation of gate traffic, results in more trips to and from the gate at Defense Boulevard; and 2) traffic congestion on I-295 results in spillover onto South Capitol Street. During the AM peak, queuing resulting from through traffic on South Capitol Street extends south of the intersection and beyond the interchange with Malcolm X Avenue. During the PM peak, traffic heading southbound queues up and spills back to the north, through the proposed traffic signal. In addition, traffic on Firth Sterling Avenue experiences near-gridlock conditions with sizeable queues and increased travel times.

• Suitland Parkway at Stanton Road – Significant queuing is projected to occur at this intersection, with spill back sometimes extending to the new ramps from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. Traffic volumes are mainly driven by the increasing demand from commuters in the Maryland suburbs to the south and east. Topography and adjacent land use constrain opportunities to address capacity/demand issues.

Detailed traffic operation analysis for No Build Alternative is provided in Section 5.5 of this document.

2-10

2.4.2 Build Transportation Alternative 2 Alternative 2 describes the first of two recommended transportation improvement plans that are chosen for further analysis for the Build scenario, which assumes that DHS consolidation and relocation to St. Elizabeths does occur. Transportation improvements suggested under this alternative include providing new access to St. Elizabeths, modifying existing connections between network links in the vicinity, and changing roadway geometry and operations to improve efficiency. For the key improvement of Malcolm X Avenue at I-295 in this alternative, the cost estimate is $92.2 million. It would also require taking some 10.2 acres of NPS Parkland. Specific transportation improvements suggested under this alternative for the West and East Campuses and surrounding network are listed below:

• A new north-south three-lane arterial called the West Access Road, which provides vehicle and pedestrian connections between Firth Sterling Avenue and Malcolm X Avenue, will be built. The north portion of the West Access Road between Gate 4 and Firth Sterling Avenue is included in the amended Record of Decision (September 28, 2011) issued as part of the TIER I EIS for the West Campus therefore it is included in No Action alternative. In the Alternative 2, the West Access Road will be extended from Gate 4 to the south to connect with Malcolm X Avenue at a reconfigured 4-leg signalized intersection and to connect with I-295 and South Capitol Street via a fly-over ramp connection, a new elevated signalized intersection and new slip ramps. The extension of West Access Road will include two inbound lanes and one outbound lane.

• The I-295/Malcolm X Avenue interchange is modified as follows:

- Replace the existing I-295 NB loop off-ramp with a new one-lane slip ramp further south to connect to a collector-distributor road which then connects to a new elevated signalized intersection

- Remove the existing I-295 SB fly-over ramp to SCS and replace with a new one-lane off-ramp that connects directly to the elevated signalized intersection

- A two-lane roadway will allow traffic access the reconfigured Malcolm X Avenue intersection from the elevated intersection

- A two-lane-two way fly-over ramp will connect between West Access Road and the elevated intersection

- A one-lane fly-over ramp will allow traffic to access I-295 SB from the elevated intersection

- Bicycle accommodation is included as outlined in the SCS improvements including a bike lane on SCS in both directions from Suitland Parkway to SCS (south end)

• A new one-lane slip ramp will connect the SCS NB to the collector-distributor road in order to access Malcolm X Avenue or West Access Road.

• The South Capitol Street/Malcolm X Avenue interchange will remain the same.

• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue will be modified. Between Golden Raintree Drive and Lebaum Street it will have sidewalks, buffer and five travel lanes including a center two-way-left-turn (TWLT) lane; from Lebaum Street to Alabama Avenue it will have

2-11

sidewalks, buffer area, parking on both sides, five travel lanes and a raised median with left turn bays. In addition, a new signal is installed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/DHS Gate 2 intersection.

• The estimated construction cost for Alternative 2 is approximately $105 million, including $92.2 million for the I-295/SCS/Malcolm corridors and $12.8 million for the MLK Jr. Avenue corridor.

Traffic operation analysis for Alternative 2 is provided in Section 5.5 of this document.

2.4.3 Build Transportation Alternative 2 Modified Alternative 2 Modified describes the second of two recommended transportation improvement plans that are chosen for further analysis for the Build scenario, which assumes that DHS consolidation and relocation to St. Elizabeths does occur. Transportation improvements suggested under this alternative for the West and East Campuses and surrounding network are listed below:

• Similar to Alternative 2, the West Access Road will be extended to the south to Malcolm Avenue and to a new elevated signalized intersection to tie to I-295 and SCS. However the fly-over ramp is modified to minimize construction footprint.

• At the I-295/Malcolm X Avenue interchange, similar improvements to Alternative 2 are proposed except:

- Change configuration of the two new fly-over ramps from/to I-295 so that only one new bridge is needed to be constructed over I-295

- The new I-295 NB on-ramps from both EB and WB Malcolm X Avenue merge first into one single collector-distributor road before further merging onto I-295 NB. Realign the new connection from the new elevated signalized intersection to the Malcolm X Avenue to minimize impact to the adjacent NPS land

• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue will be modified. Between Golden Raintree Drive and Lebaum Street it will have sidewalks, buffer and five travel lanes including a center TWLT lane; from Lebaum Street to Alabama Avenue it will have sidewalks, buffer area, parking on both sides, five travel lanes and a raised median with left turn bays. In addition, a new signal is installed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/DHS Gate 2 intersection.

• Shuttle buses will provide service from the two nearby Metrorail stations of Anacostia and Congress Heights to the West and East Campus gates, with details still being worked out with WMATA.

• The estimated construction cost for Alternative 2 Modified is approximately $123.7 million, including $114.4 million for the I-295/SCS/Malcolm corridors and $9.3 million for the MLK Jr. Avenue corridor.

• It would require taking some 9.2 acres of NPS Parkland.

• Details of the Alternative 2 Modified are provided in the following sections.

2-12

2.4.3.1 Interchange of Malcolm X Avenue with I-295 The Alternative 2 Modified of the interchange of Malcolm X Avenue with I-295 is a variant or hybrid of the alternatives evaluated in the earlier processes. While similar in nature, it has components that address issues raised concerning the alternatives in the DEIS. This Alternative 2 Modified has a single bridge structure crossing I-295 with a pair of traffic signals to control traffic operations to and from SB I-295. Alternative 2 Modified has a circular loop ramp and a direct access ramp over Malcolm X Avenue and the loop ramp. There is a revised ramp configuration at the NB I-295/ South Capitol Street Interchange over the current configuration.

DDOT prefers Alternative 2 Modified because it does not use broken-back curves in the loop ramp, and thus does not have the issue with design-exceptions that other alternatives had. The design also resulted in less impact on adjacent Shepherd Parkway over other designs. It has similar, or better in some cases, transportation system characteristics in relation to other designs considered. Details of these considerations are described below.

Since the development of the initial interchange concepts in the DEIS, the direction received from both National Park Service and GSA is to minimize direct impacts on parkland and historic resources. The project team went through multiple iterations to minimize the park impacts. DDOT has allowed the access ramps south of Malcolm X Avenue to encroach into DDOT ROW, which has further reduced the impacts. NPS Parkland impacts have been reduced to 9.2 acres for the Alternative 2 Modified. The fly over ramp configuration which spans the loop ramps has the least impact area among alternatives devised because it reduces the overall width of the interchange near the Malcolm X Avenue intersection.

Cost Analysis: A rough order of magnitude cost estimate has been prepared. The costs estimate includes the construction costs of the interchange improvements, engineering and contingencies. The cost estimate does not include right-of-way or mitigation costs, stormwater management facilities or escalation to year of construction.

This construction cost estimate is higher than earlier alternatives because of the additional bridge and retaining walls required for the direct connection ramp through the loop ramp. From a long-term maintenance standpoint, all the alternatives reviewed have similar costs.

Constructability: From a constructability standpoint, the Alternative 2 Modified is feasible but does create some difficulties associated with maintaining traffic flow during construction operations. A phased approach leads to additional difficulties since the previously constructed roadways will have traffic in service while the next phase is under construction.

The greatest challenges lie in the construction of the bridges over SB and NB I-295. Construction of the bridge superstructures will require periodic lane closures of the freeway to install structural steel, set forms and place concrete for the bridge decks. The Alternative 2 Modified will be less complicated to construct than other possible designs because it uses a single structure which is shorter and normal to the freeway leading to easier installation of superstructure elements. Similarly, the bridges over both Malcolm X Avenue and the new NB ramp over South Capitol Street will require periodic closures for the superstructure construction.

2-13

The other constructability issues relate to construction of retaining walls and roadways for the direct connection access road to St Elizabeths. If this work is to be constructed in a final build out phase, access and construction will be difficult since it is located between and above active roadways creating a tight work area and a linear construction operation.

Design Exceptions for West Bound to North Bound Loop Ramp: The Alternative 2 Modified meets AASHTO standards for this ramp, therefore no design exceptions are required.

Safety Impacts of Design: The existing loop ramp configuration at the interchange has three safety concerns.

1. The low speed (15 mph) on the Off Ramp requires the motorists exiting from the 45 mph I-295 to reduce speed in a short distance in order to safely make the turn on the tight-radius loop ramp, therefore potentially creates high risk of off-road and overturn crashes; 2. Drivers from the On Ramp have to speed up from 15 mph to 45 mph while looking for acceptable gaps to merge into the freeway traffic, and this could cause high risk for side-swipe or read-end crashes; 3. The short weaving area (approximately 280 feet) between the On Ramp and Off Ramp further complicates the vehicle interactions and creates a difficult driving environment for the motorists, also increasing the risk of side swipe and rear end crashes.

The Interchange Alternative 2 Modified mitigates the three above concerns:

- Eliminates the Off Ramp loop by building a separate downstream exit. This exit provides a higher design speed and longer decelerating distance, therefore mitigating the currently demanding speed reduction and eliminating interaction with other vehicular movements. - Eliminates the On Ramp loop by building a C-D road, which features a much longer distance for motorists to accelerate and merge into the mainline I-295. - Completely separates the On Ramp and Off Ramp so that there will be no weaving between the two movements. As a result, all the alternatives will potentially resolve the safety concerns and provide a more comfortable driving situation for the motorists.

Traffic operation analysis for Alternative 2 Modified was performed and the results are provided in Section 5.5 of this document.

2.4.4 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes that DHS consolidation and relocation to St. Elizabeths does occur; however, only minimal roadway improvements providing access to St. Elizabeths is assumed. Specific modifications to the surrounding network are described below:

• Construction of a north-south three-lane arterial called the West Access Road to provide vehicle and pedestrian connections from Firth Sterling Avenue to Gate 4 of the West

2-14

Campus. The West Access Road would have 2 lanes inbound and 1 lane outbound between the Gate 4 and the Firth Sterling Avenue intersection.

• The northern terminus of the West Campus Access Road with Firth Sterling Avenue would be re-configured into a three-leg signalized intersection as described in the revised Record of Decision (September 28, 2011) issued for the Tier I EIS associated with the West Campus.

• Existing streetcar tracks on Firth Sterling Avenue remain unchanged.

• Existing width of Firth Sterling Avenue remains unchanged.

• Back alley along the property line of Barry Farms would connect to the West Campus Access Road.

• A bike path running along the eastern side of the West Campus Access Road, then heading west along the southern side of Firth Sterling Avenue and continuing onto South Capitol Street.

• Approximately 10 parallel or saw-tooth bus bays providing service to the West Campus along the West Campus Access Road between Gates 4 and 6.

• MLK Jr. Avenue Improvements. The current configuration of MLK Jr. Avenue is four 10-foot-wide lanes and two 5-foot-wide sidewalks. MLK Jr. Avenue would be widened to accommodate turning lanes into gates on the West Campus. The widening would occur on the eastern side of MLK Jr. Avenue and require land from the St. Elizabeths East Campus (GSA 2008a).

• All other freeway and arterial projects assumed in the No Build Alternative are assumed to be constructed under the No Action Alternative.

• The traffic operation analysis for No Action Alternative is provided in Section 5.5 of this document.

2.4.5 Future Needs 2.4.5.1 Freeway The future needs for a freeway network that will sufficiently accommodate baseline traffic plus additional DHS-generated trips are summarized as follows:

• Capacity enhancements at freeway ramps terminals and local network interfaces that minimize environmental impacts

• Lane balance and lane continuity between interchanges

• Resolution of design deficiencies to meet current standards so that these location do not compromise safety

• Accessibility and connectivity at junctions with the local transportation network; completion of missing turn movements

2-15

2.4.5.2 Local Street Network Future needs along the local street network are highlighted as follows:

• Provision of adequate capacity at major intersections, especially for heavy turning movements and side streets

• Optimization of signal timing and phasing parameters along corridors such as Alabama Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Firth Sterling Avenue, Suitland Parkway, and South Capitol Street in order to better accommodate the competing traffic and multimodal demands at intersections

• Construction of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are continuous, sized to accommodate future demand, and connected within a system-wide network

• Adequate design configuration and operational functionality to accommodate new transit services and potential increases in existing transit services