395 - GSA Development of St. Elizabeths Campus

Department of Homeland Security HeadquartersConsolidation at St. Elizabeths Master Plan Amendment -East Campus North Parcel Environmental Impact StatementVolume IIB - Appendix CMarch 2012

Department of Homeland Security Headquarters atSt. Elizabeths Final Environmental Impact StatementFINALTransportation Technical ReportTransportation Impact Analysis for St. ElizabethsCampus and Surrounding VicinityFebruary 2012Prepared By:

Contents1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1-11.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 1-11.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................................... 1-61.3 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................. 1-92 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 2-12.1 EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS ............................................................................................................................ 2-12.1.1 Regional Trips or Patterns during Peak Periods ................................................................................... 2-12.1.2 Local Trips or Patterns during Peak Periods ......................................................................................... 2-12.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 2-22.2.1 Overview of Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 2-22.2.2 Causes of Congestion ........................................................................................................................... 2-32.2.3 Deficiencies .......................................................................................................................................... 2-42.3 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ..................................................................................................................... 2-52.3.1 Socioeconomic ..................................................................................................................................... 2-62.3.2 Travel Patterns ..................................................................................................................................... 2-62.3.3 Alternatives Eliminated ........................................................................................................................ 2-62.3.4 Future Needs ........................................................................................................................................ 2-72.4 PERFORMANCE OF NO-BUILD, BUILD, AND NO ACTION TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 2-72.4.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 2-72.4.2 Build Transportation Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................... 2-102.4.3 Build Transportation Alternative 2 Modified ..................................................................................... 2-112.4.4 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................................................... 2-132.4.5 Future Needs ...................................................................................................................................... 2-143 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3-13.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS .............................................................................................................. 3-13.1.1 St. Elizabeths East Campus Framework Plan (2008)............................................................................ 3-13.1.2 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the consolidation of DHS Headquarters at St.Elizabeths (Nov. 2008) and Record of Decision (Dec. 2008) .............................................................................. 3-13.1.3 Master Plan for the Development of the West Campus (2008) ........................................................... 3-13.2 ROADWAY NETWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 3-23.2.1 Limited Access Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 3-23.2.2 Local Street Network and Arterials ...................................................................................................... 3-23.2.3 Existing Geometric and Roadway Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-83.3 TRAVEL PATTERNS ....................................................................................................................................... 3-133.4 PUBLIC AND SHARED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ............................................................................................ 3-133.4.1 Rail ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-133.4.2 Bus ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-133.4.3 Sidewalk and Curb Assessment .......................................................................................................... 3-163.4.4 Pedestrian-Related Signage ............................................................................................................... 3-193.4.5 Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................. 3-193.5 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 3-193.5.1 Existing Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 3-193.5.2 Daily Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 3-193.5.3 Intersection Turning Movement Volumes .......................................................................................... 3-253.5.4 Freeway Volumes ............................................................................................................................... 3-25I

3.5.5 Heavy Vehicle Percentages ................................................................................................................ 3-253.5.6 Pedestrian Movements ...................................................................................................................... 3-273.5.7 Traffic Analysis Tools ......................................................................................................................... 3-273.5.8 Level of Service ................................................................................................................................... 3-283.5.9 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................... 3-313.5.10 Existing Conditions Traffic Analysis Results ................................................................................... 3-394 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................. 4-14.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ............................................................................................................ 4-14.2 NO-BUILD, NO-ACTION AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ............................................. 4-24.2.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 4-24.2.2 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................................................................... 4-34.2.3 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative ..................................................................... 4-34.3 DEVELOPMENT OF INITIAL SCREENING AND PRELIMINARY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES ............................................ 4-54.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE FEIS ..................................................... 4-1325 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 5-15.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5-15.2 LAND USE AND TRAVEL PATTERNS .................................................................................................................... 5-25.2.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Characteristics ...................................................................................... 5-25.3 FUTURE PUBLIC AND SHARED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ................................................................................... 5-45.3.1 Metrorail .............................................................................................................................................. 5-45.3.2 Commuter Rail ..................................................................................................................................... 5-45.3.3 Streetcar .............................................................................................................................................. 5-45.3.4 Metrobus ............................................................................................................................................. 5-55.3.5 DHS Shuttle Bus.................................................................................................................................... 5-55.3.6 Other Bus ............................................................................................................................................. 5-65.3.7 Park and Ride ....................................................................................................................................... 5-65.3.8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................................... 5-65.4 VOLUME DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................................. 5-75.4.1 Traffic Forecasting/ Demand Methodology ......................................................................................... 5-75.4.2 Post Processing .................................................................................................................................. 5-165.5 OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................. 5-285.5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5-285.5.2 Freeway Operations ........................................................................................................................... 5-295.5.3 Arterial/Local Network and Intersection Operations ......................................................................... 5-625.5.4 Transit ................................................................................................................................................ 5-775.5.5 Bicycle and Pedestrian ..................................................................................................................... 5-1005.5.6 West Access Road Configuration and Capacity Issues ..................................................................... 5-1025.5.7 Queuing Analysis Comparison ......................................................................................................... 5-1036 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GENERAL SUMMARY & OVERVIEW ............................................................ 6-17 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................................. 7-1II

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 ............................................................................................................................... 1-7FIGURE 1-5B: TRANSPORTATION STUDY AREA ..................................................................................................................... 1-8FIGURE 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, WESTACCESS 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) ........................................................... 5-10FIGURE 5-1C: 2020 PROJECTED DIRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE VEHICULAR TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......................................................... 5-11FIGURE 5-1D: 2035 PROJECTED DIRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE VEHICULAR TRIP DISTRIBUTION ......................................................... 5-12FIGURE 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 ................................................ 5-53III

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 MICROSIMULATIONSCREENSHOTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-97FIGURE 5-36: DHS SHUTTLES AT CONGRESS HEIGHTS - ASSIGNED TO BUS BAYS ‘A’ &’ F’ –PM PEAK MICROSIMULATIONSCREENSHOTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 5-98FIGURE 5-37: PEDESTRIAN WALKING TRAVEL TIMES AND DISTANCES ................................................................................... 5-101IV

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) ................................ 4-136TABLE 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 .............................................................................................................................................. 6-3V

Appendices:Appendix A: Queuing SummariesAppendix B: Traffic Forecasting/Demand• Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Graphic• Network Facilities ImprovementsVI

1 Introduction1.1 Project Description and LocationThe 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 LocationMap is shown in Figure 1-1. There are two campuses, East and West, located on either side ofMartin 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 residentialcommunities to the north and south (Barry Farm and Congress Heights, respectively); MartinLuther King Jr. Avenue to the east; I-295 to the west; and Shepherd Parkway (National ParkService lands) to the southwest. Figure 1-2 shows the Regional Roadway Network. The EastCampus is a 173-acre site located directly across Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue from the WestCampus. The East Campus currently houses the new St. Elizabeths Hospital, which is ownedand operated by the District of Columbia. The East Campus is bounded by Martin Luther KingJr. Avenue to the west; Alabama Avenue to the south; the D.C. Unified Communications Centerto the north, Suitland Parkway to the northeast; and Washington Hebrew Cemetery to thesoutheast. The St. Elizabeths East and West Campuses are designated as a National HistoricLandmark, including the brick wall running along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue on the WestCampus grounds. Figure 1-3 illustrates the Existing Land Use within the Study Area and Figure1-4 includes the Anderson Land Use classification (land use cover) for the immediatesurrounding area associated with the proposed transportation impacts.Under the current proposal by the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS) Headquarters will be relocated and consolidated into a distinct,secure location between the West and East Campuses of St. Elizabeths. The new DHSHeadquarters will be designed to accommodate a total of 14,000 DHS employees, dividedbetween the two campuses as follows: 10,900 employees will relocate to the West Campus, and3,100 will relocate to the North parcel of the East Campus. The influx of employment in this partof the District of Columbia (the District) is expected to produce significant strains on theexisting transportation network. Thus, it is important to provide a comprehensivetransportation impact analysis in order to determine the effects of the additional trips associatedwith this action, assess the impacts of various network and operational changes, and suggestmitigation strategies that may lessen the impacts. The Transportation Analysis Study Area hasbeen defined to be commensurate with the additional travel demand generated by anemployment 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 beenexpanded). The Study Area of the transportation impact analysis is bounded by a number ofroadways, as follows:• 11 th Street Bridges in the northeast• Frederick Douglass Bridge, South Capitol Street (SCS) in the northwest• 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 southeast1-1

2323rd16th15th9thN CapitolMVUIrvingHarvardColuan13thSouth DakotaVUFoxhallMilitaryVU¤£13thFlorida9th¤£GlebeCarlin SpringsNelly CustisrFairfLorcomfaxWilsonFlorida§¨¦ 66 HE§¨¦ 49510th2ndClareVUVUArlington RidgHa18th12thMEOld Jeffers onde Island16thnnsylvaniaPennsylvania17thVermontaineVermontNew YorkPennsylvaniaIndiana4thDMaryland§¨¦ 395§¨¦ 395 §¨¦ 695West Campus§¨¦ 395North CarolinaMaryland11thE CapitolEast CampusBladensburgBenningGood HopeBeeBenningMinnesotaBranchSouthernBowenWASHINGTON GTON D.C.MARYLANDCentralLarchmontVUSheriff63rdMarlboroWalker MillRollinsWalker MillRitchie1RitchieRRitchie SpurArenaitchie MarlboroGe orge MasonKing23S CapitolMartinLuther King JrAlabSuitlandBe auregardKingBraddockQuaker¤£SouthernForestvilleboroMount VernonEisenhowerJordanHow a rdLegendProject LocationTBG012710052635WDC_V6Rivers and StreamsArterialsFreewaysLocal Roads¨¦¨§FranconiaTelegraphHuntingtonMilesRussellCommonwealthDiagonalBraddockWest0 1 2KingDuke§¨¦ 495Oxon HWheeler§¨¦ 295 VUU.S. General Services AdministrationFigure: 1-1OwensDeer PondAllentownAuthPROJECT LOCATION MAPDower HouseMarlboroDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERSAT ST ELIZABETHS EISTRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHSCAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

FREDERICKCOUNTYBALTIMORELOUDOUNCOUNTYMONTGOMERY COUNTYHOWARD COUNTY9595BaltimoreWashingtonInternationalAirportMarylandVirginia270295ANNE ARUNDELCOUNTY9750WashingtonDullesInternationalAirport267495WASHINGTOND.C.5029549550PRINCE WILLIAMCOUNTYMANASSAS6650FAIRFAX509566ARLINGTON395ReaganNationalAirportVirginia395 695295 495MarylandSt. ElizabethsPRINCEGEORGE’SCOUNTYDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERSAT ST ELIZABETHS EISTRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHSCAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORTU.S. General Services AdministrationFigure: 1-2REGIONAL ROADWAY NETWORKTBG012710052635WDC_V4

1-3EXISTING LAND USE

MLK JR. AVELegendVarious ForestedMixed UrbanOtherResidentialTransportationTransportation Study AreaSt. Elizabeths Campus BoundaryANACOSTIAANAVALAANNEXFIRTH STERLING AVEFORT STANTONPARKBOLLINGAIR FORCEBASESOUTH CAPITOLWESTCAMPUSSUITLAND PKWYEAST CAMPUSCONGRESSSHEIGHTSHTALABAMA AVEMALCOLM X AVEDOGWOOD DRSHEPHERDPARKWAYDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERSAT ST ELIZABETHS EISTRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHSCAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORTU.S. General Services AdministrationFigure: 1-4ANDERSON LAND USE MAPSource: FEIS, November 2008TBG012710052635WDC_v5

The Study Area Network is shown in Figures 1-5A and 1-5B. See Section 3 for more informationon 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 BridgesInterchange• South Capitol Street from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue to the Frederick DouglassBridge• Suitland Parkway from the Alabama Avenue interchange to South Capitol StreetArterials:• 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 BridgesBus/Shuttle/Pedestrian Transit Circulation Areas:• Anacostia Metro Station• Congress Heights Metro Station1.2 Purpose and NeedThe purpose of the transportation and traffic study described in this Transportation TechnicalReport (TTR) is to evaluate the transportation impacts of the GSA’s proposed action to relocatethe Department of Homeland Security to St. Elizabeths Campus, as proposed in the Master PlanAmendment and the corresponding EIS. In some cases, this analysis was built upon previousanalyses, data, and documentation, while in other cases it required new analysis. The primarypurpose 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 ofDHS 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 4.5million GSF of secure office space, plus parking, to meet the Department’s missionrequirements and to develop a more cost-effective, efficient, and functional real estate portfolioin the National Capital Region (NCR). Further, DHS’ scattered current housing prevents it fromaccomplishing its mission to the best of its ability. This extreme dispersion results in significantinefficiencies in daily operations, and these inefficiencies are magnified considerably at the mostimportant moments - when the Department must act as a nimble and integrated teamresponding to significant natural disasters or terrorist threats.GSA determined that consolidating DHS at the St. Elizabeths campus was the most reasonablealternative. GSA signed a Record of Decision for the DHS Headquarters Consolidation onDecember 16, 2008. In addition, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) approvedthe Final Master Plan for the DHS Headquarters Consolidation on January 8, 2009.1-6

0 1,250 2,500 5,000 FeetW STFREDERICK DOUGLASBRIDGEANACOSTIA FWYMINNESOTA AVEPotomac RiverAnacostia RiverSOUTH CAPITOLWEST CAMPUSEAST CAMPUSMALCOLM X AVESUMMER RDFIRTH STERLING AVEHOWARD RDMORRIS RDCONGRESS STSUITLAND PKWYSTANTON RDALABAMA AVE18TH STGOOD HOPE RDIRVING ST23RD STJASPER STMARYLANDWASHINGTON D.C.11TH PLWHEELER RDMLK JR. AVE4TH STOVERLOOK AVEATLANTIC STDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HEADQUARTERSAT ST ELIZABETHS EISTRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ST ELIZABETHSCAMPUS AND SURROUNDING VICINITYTRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORTU.S. General Services AdministrationFigure: 1-5ATBG012710052635WDC_v10VIRGINIASTUDY AREA NETWORK

St. ElizabethsWestCampusSt. ElizabethsEastCampusMalcolm X AveLegend:Transportation Study Area BoundaryInterstateOther Freeway and ExpresswayPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialCollector and Local RoadAtlantic St1-5(B)Transportation Study Area

The purpose of this TTR document is to provide detailed technical information and analysis forreference by two separate regulatory approval documents: the new St. Elizabeths Master PlanAmendment EIS and the anticipated Interchange Justification Report. This TTR evaluatestransportation impacts associated with DHS Headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths, asproposed in the Master Plan Amendment EIS, and specifically assesses impacts associated withmodifications to I-295. As such, the TTR is an appendix of the EIS document. The TTR will alsobe 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. ElizabethsCampus. The sub-set Study Area analyzed in the EIS includes 32 of the 46 intersections studiedin the TTR and is referred to as the EIS Transportation Analysis Study Area. The EISTransportation Analysis Study Area only includes intersections and freeway segments directlyassociated with the proposed action and impacted by the DHS Headquarters consolidation atSt. Elizabeths. This smaller Study Area is generally bounded by the Frederick DouglassMemorial Bridge to the north, the MLK Jr. Avenue intersection with South Capitol Street to thesouth, I-295 to the west, and Alabama Avenue/Stanton Road intersection to the east.1.3 Data SourcesTube 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 for35 of the initial 46 intersections considered during the AM and PM periods - four hours in themorning (5:30 – 9:30 AM) and four hours in the afternoon-evening (3:00 – 7:00 PM). Recenttraffic counts collected for AM/PM peak periods under a separate contract were used at 11 ofthe 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 MetropolitanArea Transit Authority (WMATA) and Fairfax Connector1-9

2 Summary of FindingsThe purpose of this section is to summarize the general findings of the study that are presentedin more detail in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this report.2.1 Existing Travel PatternsExisting travel patterns within the Study Area are affected by the following interwoven andoften competing traffic conditions: (1) regional trips that include work commutes, long-distancethrough trips, and visitors travelling to downtown Washington; (2) local trips that includeshorter travel distances (i.e., trips produced by neighborhoods within Ward 8), as well asmedium and longer travel distances with trip ends located at one of several institutional landuses within the Study Area (i.e., the new St. Elizabeths Hospital on the East Campus, AnacostiaNaval Air Station, Bolling Air Force Base, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the National ParkService – National Capital Parks East).2.1.1 Regional Trips or Patterns during Peak PeriodsRegional trips constitute the majority of total trips occurring within the Study Area. Travelpatterns are dominated by peak-directional trips that are highly concentrated during the typical3-hour morning and afternoon peak periods. During the morning peak, inbound commutertrips originate in the suburban counties of Prince Georges, Charles, and St. Mary’s in Marylandand Fairfax and Prince William in Virginia. These trips are generally focused along northboundand westbound routes, with destinations concentrated in the urban core between the Potomacand Anacostia rivers. Conversely, most of the trips occurring in the afternoon peak period areoutbound and directed eastbound and southbound. Major highway corridors carrying thehighest traffic volumes include I-295 and South Capitol Street/Frederick Douglass Bridge(northbound in the morning peak & southbound in the afternoon peak); the 11 th Street Bridgesand 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 bythe Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA). The Green Line Metrorailoffers nearby access to St. Elizabeths through the Anacostia and Congress Heights Stations. Theremaining mass transit trips occur via Metrobus routes that follow traffic patterns along theSouth Capitol Street corridor.Other major categories of regional travel patterns include pass-by trips that use I-295 as athrough route to bypass downtown Washington DC and connect with the Capital Beltway andvisitors to the nation’s capital whose travel patterns usually mirror those of commuters butoccur outside the peak AM and PM time periods.2.1.2 Local Trips or Patterns during Peak PeriodsLocal travel patterns are influenced less by regional commuter trips and more by local land-usefunctions. Medium- and low-density residential neighborhoods that surround St. ElizabethsCampus account for a portion of the local traffic; these include Bellview and Congress Heightsto the south, Shipley Terrace and Douglass to the east, and Barry Farm and Anacostia to thenorth. In addition, the Anacostia Metro Station on the Green Line serves as a local2-1

transportation hub because of its large park-and-ride garage (1,150 spaces) and convenientaccess to bus transfer stations (with 14 bus bays) at both station entrances. This station generatesa 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 bycomparison and provides only short-term metered parking (67 spaces) and a modest Metrobuscirculation/transfer area (with 7 bus bays) in comparison to Anacostia Metro Station. Severalschools and churches along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue also attract pedestrian and vehiculartraffic.Similar to the higher-capacity routes associated with regional trips, the main local arterials ofMartin Luther King Jr. Avenue and Alabama Avenue predominantly carry northbound andwestbound 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 southand Pennsylvania Avenue on the north and carries significant westbound traffic in the morningby providing a transportation link to the 11 th Street Bridges via the intersection with 13 th Street.Malcolm X Avenue serves as a major interface between the local roadway network and theprincipal arterials, as well as the primary entrance for Bolling Air Forces Base; as such, trafficpatterns along this arterial are highly correlated with commuter traffic patterns seen at theregional level. Firth Sterling Avenue, which runs parallel to I-295, connects South Capitol Streetwith Howard Road and serves as a transportation link between Anacostia area, Barry Farm andthe Anacostia Naval Station. Travel patterns along this facility are similar to Malcolm X Avenue,but less pronounced.2.2 Existing ConditionsIn order to provide a basis of comparison for future conditions, it is important to understandthe existing conditions within the Study Area. The existing conditions play a significant role indeveloping and evaluating alternatives under the proposed build conditions associated with theDHS Headquarters relocation to St. Elizabeths Campus.2.2.1 Overview of ConditionsExisting travel conditions with the Study Area are characterized as follows:• Heavy vehicles (commercial trucks) account for between 2 percent and 18 percent of thetraffic within the study, with 10 percent representing the average across facilities• Based on the traffic count data collected, peak period traffic was observed to occurbetween the hours of 5:30 – 9:00 AM and 3:30 – 7:00 PM within the Study Area. Peakperiods demonstrate substantial peak spreading, indicating that peak-hour trafficcongestion remains constant for several hours in both the morning and afternoon. Thepeak hours within the peak periods for the Study Area were determined to be 7:00 – 8:00AM and 5:00 – 6:00 PM.• Interchanges along I-295 and South Capitol Street exhibit failing operationalcharacteristics during all hours of the AM and PM peak periods. These characteristicsinclude average travel speeds that are a fraction of the free-flow speed, queues thatoriginate at the ramp terminals and overflow onto the freeway mainline, and vehiculardensities that are equivalent to Level of Service (LOS) F.2-2

• Travel times along principal arterials are severely degraded, resulting in spill-over trafficon secondary arterials and local roadways. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. Avenueand South Capitol Street assume additional traffic volumes from vehicles exiting I-295 inorder to avoid recurring congestion.• Most signalized intersections within the Study Area are congested during the AM andPM peak periods. In some cases, especially along Firth Sterling Avenue, SuitlandParkway, and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, queuing spills back from one intersectionto the next, resulting in a stream of continuous delays along major local corridors. It iscommon for queued traffic to wait two or more cycles at major traffic signals beforeclearing an intersection. The resulting traffic congestion reduces the accessibility of localside streets because it increases the difficulty of turning movements to and from arterialroadways.• Pedestrian traffic is heavily concentrated along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, HowardRoad, and Sumner Road. In the northern end of the Study Area, the high occurrence offoot traffic is largely due to the Anacostia Metro Station, the 11 th Street Bridges, andsurrounding land use.2.2.2 Causes of CongestionCongestion within the Study Area is due to several factors, including the limited capacity ofarterials, the lack of continuous parallel routes on the north and east portions of the Study Areaas well as connections between these routes, a highly unbalanced modal split in favor ofautomobiles, and the competing vehicular and modal demands at intersections. Several designdeficiencies within the Study Area also contribute to congested conditions, such as intersectionswith tight turning radii, locations with bottlenecks or cut-through traffic. Highlights of the mostprominent 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 orexceed the capacity of the facility, as well as extensive queues and delays at two at-gradeintersections within Ward 8: Firth Sterling Avenue and Stanton Road.‣ The intersection at Suitland Parkway and Firth Sterling Avenue is one of themost congested locations within the Study Area. This intersection’s proximity tothe Anacostia Metro Station East Entrance and Metrobus transfer hub results in ahigh occurrence of buses and other transit vehicles through the intersection, aswell as a comparatively high incidence of pedestrian traffic than otherintersections in the Study Area. In addition, Firth Sterling Avenue is frequentlycongested because of its function as a primary linkage between local and regionaltransportation networks; it provides the principal connection between the BarryFarm neighborhood and the Anacostia Metro Station, and transitions into thenorthbound 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 thefirst major interruptions to free-flow speed inside the District, resulting insaturated traffic flow conditions at the traffic signal. This intersection contributesto long queues and delays because of the sheer volume of through traffic2-3

travelling westbound (in morning peak period) and eastbound (in afternoonpeak period). East of this intersection, Suitland Parkway abruptly transitionsfrom an urban-style arterial to a high-speed controlled access facility thatstretches into suburban Maryland and links with the major arterial MarylandRoute 4, which makes this intersection a “choke point” for traffic flow duringpeak periods.• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue is generally congested for several reasons. Thissecondary arterial is the only continuous north-south local route that spans the entireStudy Area. The facility also connects Anacostia with the Southeast-Southwest Freeway(I-695) via the 11 th Street Bridges, and carries a disproportionate amount of cut-throughtraffic due to missing connections at the 11 th Street Bridges/Anacostia Freeway andelsewhere along I-295/DC 295. The five-legged intersection at Howard Road is acongestion focal point for many of the same reasons as the operations at SuitlandParkway/Firth Sterling intersection.• The interchange of Alabama Avenue at Suitland Parkway is frequently congested alongthe west half of the ramp terminal interfaces because of the frequency and close spacingof traffic signals along Alabama Avenue. The high incidence of pedestrian trafficrequires this area to be controlled by DDOT traffic control officers during peak periods,especially at the beginning and ending of the school day.• The interchange of Malcolm X Avenue at South Capitol Street is congested due to theconfiguration of the two closely-spaced intersections at the ramp terminals, which arenot optimally phased or channelized to accommodate existing traffic demand. Theconcentration of inbound and outbound trips at the main gated entrance to Bolling AirForce Base also contributes to congestion. The adjacent interchange of Malcolm XAvenue and I-295 operates as complementary access point for northbound I-295 trafficin combination with the South Capitol Street interchange. On I-295 northbound,weaving traffic between the two loop ramps exceeds the volume capacity of thisinterchange, resulting in queues along I-295 northbound and Malcolm X Avenueeastbound.• General north-south traffic along principal routes is impacted by downstreambottlenecks and congestion on both ends of the Study Area. The configuration of the 11 thStreet Bridges interchange and the Suitland Parkway / South Capitol Street interchangecontribute to system-wide queuing. Downstream congestion on other roadways alsocauses spillback that reflects back through the arterials within the network.2.2.3 DeficienciesAs referenced above, several locations within the Study Area have significant operationaldeficiencies that contribute to congested conditions. Other locations reflect substandardroadway or intersection designs that pose safety risks and/or adversely affect the accessibilityof local roadways. Transportation network design deficiencies in the Study Area include:• Missing ramp connections between local Anacostia roadways and the AnacostiaFreeway at the interchange with 11 th Street Bridges2-4

• Missing and incomplete freeway movements at several interchanges along AnacostiaFreeway:‣ North-facing ramps connecting the 11 th Street Bridges with DC 295‣ North-facing ramps connecting Pennsylvania Avenue 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 betweeninterchange ramps at several locations:‣ Northbound I-295 between the on-ramp from South Capitol Street and the rampsat 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 thesouthbound off-ramp to Malcolm X Avenue‣ Southbound South Capitol Street between the on-ramp from Malcolm X Avenueand the diverge to southbound I-295 / Overlook Avenue‣ I-295 in both directions between the interchange ramps at Howard Road and the11 th Street Bridges ramps• Substandard ramp designs (tight radii and low design speeds), such as at the Malcolm XAvenue interchange• 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 MartinLuther 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 pavementmarkings2.3 Future Conditions and NeedsGrowth forecasts, existing travel patterns, and future travel patterns based on networkimprovements (including those independent of as well as those resulting from DHS projectactivity) that are scheduled to occur within the study time frame (2020 and 2035) must beconsidered in order to determine which network and operational adjustments will bestaccommodate the anticipated traffic volumes.2-5

2.3.1 SocioeconomicForecasts for the 2020 and 2035 timeframes indicate growth related to employment, households,and population throughout Southeast DC. Regardless of the DHS relocation, “baseline” growthis projected for Southeast DC; this growth is expected to result from several redevelopmentsand developments in and beyond the Study Area that will contribute to increased traveldemands 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 otherwiseexperience. 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 - willresult in a higher traffic and transit demand growth rate than is currently expected to occur inthe absence of the development.2.3.2 Travel PatternsWithin the Metropolitan Washington region, travel patterns are expected to remain similar toexisting 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 theregion. Although there may be some reallocation of trips associated with the relocation of DHSHeadquarters to St. Elizabeths, over the course of the 2020-to-2035 time frame it is anticipatedthat 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 totaltrips anticipated in 2035 will remain consistent; the location of those trips will be redistributedto account for the relocation to St. Elizabeths.2.3.3 Alternatives EliminatedSection 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 thealternatives eliminated from further consideration included:• Reconfiguration of South Capitol Street as a pair of one-way frontage roads on eitherside of I-295, with a connection to Gate 4 provided via a two-connector road/overpassset of at-grade intersections. The West Access Road would be incorporated as a part ofSouth Capitol Street under this alternative, which raised security concerns and conflictswith DHS’ programmatic needs.• Direct access ramps between I-295 and Gate 4 / the West Access Road. Provision of thistype of access was eliminated from consideration due to conflicts with DDOT andFHWA Policy.• An extension of 13 th Street SE northward from Pecan Street to cross over SuitlandParkway and intersect with / feed into Sheridan Road, as originally assessed inAlternative 2 of the Draft EIS. Alignment issues associated with existing steep grades,lack of significant operational benefits, right-of-way conflicts and logistical difficultiesassociated with the roadway network on the north side of Suitland Parkway precludedthis concept from further consideration.2-6

• Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements. Under a stand-alonealternative, TSM improvements – including widening and reconfiguring local roadways,upgrading traffic signals, and expansion of the regional transit network – are capable ofproviding only a partial solution. The evaluation showed that although TSM elementsare essential to overall project success, implementing the TSM alternative alone does notfully meet the needs of the project.2.3.4 Future NeedsFuture needs of the project related to GSA’s plan to relocate and consolidate the DHSHeadquarters 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 nearbyMetrorail stations‣ Circulating roadways and lay-by areas to facilitate provision of transit shuttleservice‣ Modifications to the Malcolm X Avenue/I-295 interchange to improveconnections 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 minimizingenvironmental and cultural/historic resource impacts• Adequate and context-sensitive connectivity with the surrounding community andtransportation network• Physical and operational/logistical improvements that work to minimize traffic andtransportation impacts to the Anacostia and Congress Heights neighborhoods2.4 Performance of No-Build, Build, and No ActionTransportation Alternatives2.4.1 No-Build Alternative 1The No-Build Alternative serves as a future baseline condition against which the BuildAlternatives may be compared. Under this alternative, the relocation and consolidation of DHS1 GSA’s No Action Alternative in the FEIS is different from the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative assumes noconsolidation of DHS Headquarters on the St. Elizabeths campus, nor any related infrastructure improvements, while the No ActionAlternative assumes that DHS is consolidated on the West Campus only with minimal transportation improvements and no changesin interstate access at Malcolm X Avenue. The No Action Alternative is discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.4.2-7

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 backgroundtraffic 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 theexisting transportation network include the following: the 11 th Street Bridges replacement,South Capitol Street corridor improvements, redevelopment of the south parcel of the EastCampus by the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED),Poplar Point development, and Barry Farms development. In addition, the projectedemployment growth at Anacostia Naval Station/Bolling Air Force Base will requiretransportation improvements.2.4.1.1 FreewayWith a few exceptions, freeway conditions along I-295 and South Capitol Street for the No-Buildcondition are similar to those of the existing conditions described above, with several locationsalong both corridors experiencing increased delays and travel times. Locations for which theNo-Build conditions (2020 and 2035 time horizons) are different from the existing conditions aresummarized as follows:• I-295 – Missing movements at the 11 th Street Bridges are completed, resulting in lessqueuing at some interchange ramp terminals that currently serve cut-through traffic onthe local roadway network• Suitland Parkway – The new diamond interchange configuration of I-295, withconsolidated on- and off-ramps at Suitland Parkway, shows increased queuing on theramps that reflects back on I-295 as well as queuing on the crossroad that spills back onSuitland Parkway from the signalized ramp terminals• South Capitol Street – The existing system of freeway ramps that connect South CapitolStreet and Suitland Parkway at the foot of the Frederick Douglass Bridge is replacedwith an at-grade traffic circle. As a result, traffic queues within the circle and on theapproaches. Operations of the traffic circle are largely influenced by upstream anddownstream intersections, especially at South Capitol Street/Firth Sterling Avenue andat Suitland Parkway / Southbound I-295 interchange ramps2.4.1.2 Local Street NetworkThe local street network reflects a complex operational condition that results in some networkimprovements but also degrades in several areas due to changes in roadway configurations andadjacent land development projects. Highlights of local street operations are characterized bythe 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 onall approaches in accordance with peak period travel patterns and increases due totransit and pedestrian modal conflicts. A new Streetcar operation included in the No-Build scenario contributes to queuing because it requires additional time in the trafficsignal cycle (i.e., reduces the total amount of green light time available to vehicles at thisintersection) to ensure its path does not conflict with permitted vehicle turningmovements. Pedestrian crossing phases contribute to queuing because they must2-8

provide sufficient time for individuals to safely traverse all lanes; these phases constitutemore time in the No-Build scenario than in existing conditions to account for the crosssectionexpansions of various approaches at this intersection. The intersectionperformance also adversely impacts the operations of the traffic signals located at theramp terminals from the I-295 interchange due to queue spillback. Conversely, thisintersection is also impacted by spillback and congestion associated with the I-295interchange ramps.• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue at Suitland Parkway ramps – A new at-grade intersectionis constructed on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, with ramps merging and divergingwith Suitland Parkway. New weaving movements are introduced within a shortdistance on Suitland Parkway between the intersection with Firth Sterling Avenue andthe ramps to/from Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, causing congestion and spillback onSuitland Parkway at the intersections with Firth Sterling Avenue and the I-295interchange ramp terminals.• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue at Howard Road – Although operations at thisintersection 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 developmentsalong both roadways and at the Anacostia Metro Station. Similar to the Firth SterlingAvenue /Suitland Parkway intersection, the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/HowardRoad intersection must balance the competing demands of various transport modesincluding transit, pedestrians, and passenger vehicles. The proximity of the new signalat the Suitland Parkway ramps limits the amount of options available for signal timingimprovements that address excessive queuing and delay.• South Capitol Street at Firth Sterling Avenue / Defense Boulevard – This intersectionexperiences a significant increase in traffic, owing in large part to the followingconditions: 1) the proposed growth in employment at Anacostia Naval Station / BollingAir Force Base, as well as reallocation of gate traffic, results in more trips to and from thegate at Defense Boulevard; and 2) traffic congestion on I-295 results in spillover ontoSouth Capitol Street. During the AM peak, queuing resulting from through traffic onSouth Capitol Street extends south of the intersection and beyond the interchange withMalcolm X Avenue. During the PM peak, traffic heading southbound queues up andspills back to the north, through the proposed traffic signal. In addition, traffic on FirthSterling Avenue experiences near-gridlock conditions with sizeable queues andincreased travel times.• Suitland Parkway at Stanton Road – Significant queuing is projected to occur at thisintersection, with spill back sometimes extending to the new ramps from Martin LutherKing Jr. Avenue. Traffic volumes are mainly driven by the increasing demand fromcommuters in the Maryland suburbs to the south and east. Topography and adjacentland use constrain opportunities to address capacity/demand issues.Detailed traffic operation analysis for No Build Alternative is provided in Section 5.5 of thisdocument.2-9

2.4.2 Build Transportation Alternative 2Alternative 2 describes the first of two recommended transportation improvement plans thatare chosen for further analysis for the Build scenario, which assumes that DHS consolidationand relocation to St. Elizabeths does occur. Transportation improvements suggested under thisalternative include providing new access to St. Elizabeths, modifying existing connectionsbetween network links in the vicinity, and changing roadway geometry and operations toimprove 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 EastCampuses and surrounding network are listed below:• A new north-south three-lane arterial called the West Access Road, which providesvehicle and pedestrian connections between Firth Sterling Avenue and Malcolm XAvenue, will be built. The north portion of the West Access Road between Gate 4 andFirth 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 NoAction alternative. In the Alternative 2, the West Access Road will be extended fromGate 4 to the south to connect with Malcolm X Avenue at a reconfigured 4-leg signalizedintersection and to connect with I-295 and South Capitol Street via a fly-over rampconnection, a new elevated signalized intersection and new slip ramps. The extension ofWest 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 furthersouth to connect to a collector-distributor road which then connects to a newelevated signalized intersection- Remove the existing I-295 SB fly-over ramp to SCS and replace with a new one-laneoff-ramp that connects directly to the elevated signalized intersection- A two-lane roadway will allow traffic access the reconfigured Malcolm X Avenueintersection from the elevated intersection- A two-lane-two way fly-over ramp will connect between West Access Road and theelevated intersection- A one-lane fly-over ramp will allow traffic to access I-295 SB from the elevatedintersection- Bicycle accommodation is included as outlined in the SCS improvements including abike 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 inorder 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 andLebaum Street it will have sidewalks, buffer and five travel lanes including a center twoway-left-turn(TWLT) lane; from Lebaum Street to Alabama Avenue it will have2-10

sidewalks, buffer area, parking on both sides, five travel lanes and a raised median withleft 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 theMLK 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 ModifiedAlternative 2 Modified describes the second of two recommended transportation improvementplans that are chosen for further analysis for the Build scenario, which assumes that DHSconsolidation and relocation to St. Elizabeths does occur. Transportation improvementssuggested under this alternative for the West and East Campuses and surrounding network arelisted below:• Similar to Alternative 2, the West Access Road will be extended to the south to MalcolmAvenue and to a new elevated signalized intersection to tie to I-295 and SCS. Howeverthe fly-over ramp is modified to minimize construction footprint.• At the I-295/Malcolm X Avenue interchange, similar improvements to Alternative 2 areproposed except:- Change configuration of the two new fly-over ramps from/to I-295 so that only onenew 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 firstinto one single collector-distributor road before further merging onto I-295 NB.Realign the new connection from the new elevated signalized intersection to theMalcolm X Avenue to minimize impact to the adjacent NPS land• Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue will be modified. Between Golden Raintree Drive andLebaum Street it will have sidewalks, buffer and five travel lanes including a centerTWLT 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. Inaddition, a new signal is installed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue/DHS Gate 2intersection.• Shuttle buses will provide service from the two nearby Metrorail stations of Anacostiaand Congress Heights to the West and East Campus gates, with details still beingworked out with WMATA.• The estimated construction cost for Alternative 2 Modified is approximately $123.7million, including $114.4 million for the I-295/SCS/Malcolm corridors and $9.3 millionfor 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.2-11

2.4.3.1 Interchange of Malcolm X Avenue with I-295The Alternative 2 Modified of the interchange of Malcolm X Avenue with I-295 is a variant orhybrid of the alternatives evaluated in the earlier processes. While similar in nature, it hascomponents that address issues raised concerning the alternatives in the DEIS. ThisAlternative 2 Modified has a single bridge structure crossing I-295 with a pair of traffic signalsto control traffic operations to and from SB I-295. Alternative 2 Modified has a circular loopramp and a direct access ramp over Malcolm X Avenue and the loop ramp. There is a revisedramp configuration at the NB I-295/ South Capitol Street Interchange over the currentconfiguration.DDOT prefers Alternative 2 Modified because it does not use broken-back curves in the loopramp, and thus does not have the issue with design-exceptions that other alternatives had. Thedesign also resulted in less impact on adjacent Shepherd Parkway over other designs. It hassimilar, or better in some cases, transportation system characteristics in relation to other designsconsidered. Details of these considerations are described below.Since the development of the initial interchange concepts in the DEIS, the direction receivedfrom both National Park Service and GSA is to minimize direct impacts on parkland andhistoric resources. The project team went through multiple iterations to minimize the parkimpacts. DDOT has allowed the access ramps south of Malcolm X Avenue to encroach intoDDOT ROW, which has further reduced the impacts. NPS Parkland impacts have been reducedto 9.2 acres for the Alternative 2 Modified. The fly over ramp configuration which spans theloop ramps has the least impact area among alternatives devised because it reduces the overallwidth 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 theconstruction costs of the interchange improvements, engineering and contingencies. The costestimate does not include right-of-way or mitigation costs, stormwater management facilities orescalation to year of construction.This construction cost estimate is higher than earlier alternatives because of the additionalbridge 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 somedifficulties associated with maintaining traffic flow during construction operations. A phasedapproach leads to additional difficulties since the previously constructed roadways will havetraffic 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. Constructionof the bridge superstructures will require periodic lane closures of the freeway to installstructural steel, set forms and place concrete for the bridge decks. The Alternative 2 Modifiedwill be less complicated to construct than other possible designs because it uses a singlestructure which is shorter and normal to the freeway leading to easier installation ofsuperstructure elements. Similarly, the bridges over both Malcolm X Avenue and the new NBramp over South Capitol Street will require periodic closures for the superstructureconstruction.2-12

The other constructability issues relate to construction of retaining walls and roadways for thedirect connection access road to St Elizabeths. If this work is to be constructed in a final buildout phase, access and construction will be difficult since it is located between and above activeroadways 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 designexceptions 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 45mph I-295 to reduce speed in a short distance in order to safely make the turn on thetight-radius loop ramp, therefore potentially creates high risk of off-road and overturncrashes;2. Drivers from the On Ramp have to speed up from 15 mph to 45 mph while looking foracceptable gaps to merge into the freeway traffic, and this could cause high risk for sideswipeor read-end crashes;3. The short weaving area (approximately 280 feet) between the On Ramp and Off Rampfurther complicates the vehicle interactions and creates a difficult driving environmentfor 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 exitprovides a higher design speed and longer decelerating distance, therefore mitigatingthe currently demanding speed reduction and eliminating interaction with othervehicular movements.- Eliminates the On Ramp loop by building a C-D road, which features a much longerdistance 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 weavingbetween the two movements. As a result, all the alternatives will potentially resolve thesafety concerns and provide a more comfortable driving situation for the motorists.Traffic operation analysis for Alternative 2 Modified was performed and the results areprovided in Section 5.5 of this document.2.4.4 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative assumes that DHS consolidation and relocation to St. Elizabeths doesoccur; however, only minimal roadway improvements providing access to St. Elizabeths isassumed. Specific modifications to the surrounding network are described below:• Construction of a north-south three-lane arterial called the West Access Road to providevehicle and pedestrian connections from Firth Sterling Avenue to Gate 4 of the West2-13

Campus. The West Access Road would have 2 lanes inbound and 1 lane outboundbetween the Gate 4 and the Firth Sterling Avenue intersection.• The northern terminus of the West Campus Access Road with Firth Sterling Avenuewould be re-configured into a three-leg signalized intersection as described in therevised Record of Decision (September 28, 2011) issued for the Tier I EIS associated withthe 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 CampusAccess Road.• A bike path running along the eastern side of the West Campus Access Road, thenheading west along the southern side of Firth Sterling Avenue and continuing ontoSouth Capitol Street.• Approximately 10 parallel or saw-tooth bus bays providing service to the West Campusalong 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 toaccommodate turning lanes into gates on the West Campus. The widening would occuron the eastern side of MLK Jr. Avenue and require land from the St. Elizabeths EastCampus (GSA 2008a).• All other freeway and arterial projects assumed in the No Build Alternative are assumedto be constructed under the No Action Alternative.• The traffic operation analysis for No Action Alternative is provided in Section 5.5 of thisdocument.2.4.5 Future Needs2.4.5.1 FreewayThe future needs for a freeway network that will sufficiently accommodate baseline traffic plusadditional DHS-generated trips are summarized as follows:• Capacity enhancements at freeway ramps terminals and local network interfaces thatminimize environmental impacts• Lane balance and lane continuity between interchanges• Resolution of design deficiencies to meet current standards so that these location do notcompromise safety• Accessibility and connectivity at junctions with the local transportation network;completion of missing turn movements2-14

2.4.5.2 Local Street NetworkFuture needs along the local street network are highlighted as follows:• Provision of adequate capacity at major intersections, especially for heavy turningmovements and side streets• Optimization of signal timing and phasing parameters along corridors such as AlabamaAvenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, Firth Sterling Avenue, Suitland Parkway, andSouth Capitol Street in order to better accommodate the competing traffic andmultimodal demands at intersections• Construction of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are continuous, sized toaccommodate future demand, and connected within a system-wide network• Adequate design configuration and operational functionality to accommodate newtransit services and potential increases in existing transit services2-15