APPENDIX C PUBLIC WORKSHOP SUMMARIES - Rock Creek Far West Livability Study
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC WORKSHOP SUMMARIES
98 I
Public Workshop #1 Summary
February 26, 2019
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study (RCFW) is to enhance the community's quality of life through improvements to transportation safety. This study aligns with Mayor Bowser’s Vision Zero Initiative, which has an objective to reach zero fatalities and serious injuries to travelers of the District’s transportation system by 2024. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) uses livability studies to evaluate the transportation network from a system-wide perspective and looks for opportunities for a safer and more accessible multimodal network. The RCFW Study Area is in the District’s northwest quadrant and is bound by Massachusetts Avenue, Whitehaven Street, Whitehaven Parkway, Archbold Parkway, Foundry Branch Valley Park, the Potomac River, and the DC/Maryland border. The Study Area is in Ward 3, and includes all of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 3B, most of ANC 3D, and a small portion of ANC 3C. DDOT will work with members of the community and key stakeholders to identify specific opportunities to improve accommodations for people walking, biking, using transit, and driving. Throughout the duration of the livability study, there will be three public workshops. These events will be held throughout the Study Area. The feedback obtained at these events will be used to develop, refine, and assist in the selection of recommendations for short, medium, and long-term improvements in transportation safety in the RCFW Study area. DDOT will use feedback from the first public workshop to develop draft recommendations. At the end of the study, DDOT will provide final recommendations addressing such issues as: • Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian networks; • Safer pedestrian crossings; • More accessible bus stops; • Intersection redesigns or realignments; • Signs for better driver information; and • Improvements consistent with Vision Zero. 1.1 Purpose of the Workshop The purpose of the first public workshop was to introduce the project, share data collected from existing resources, and provide opportunities for participants to share ideas. During the workshop, project team members solicited community input through RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 1
interactive activities that identified locations or "hot spots" within the RCFW Study
Area that need addressing, as well as ideas the community would like the project team
to consider.
1.2 Event Information
The workshop was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at
the Palisades Neighborhood Library–Meeting Room. The library is located at 4901 V
Street NW, Washington, DC, in a residential area near a neighborhood commercial
corridor. Metro bus lines D5 and D6 stop within walking distance of the library.
The next public workshop will be held on Saturday, May 18, 2019 from 11:00 am to
1:00 pm at Stoddert Elementary School, 4001 Calvert Street NW, Washington, DC. In
addition, the project team will have a table at Glover Park Day on Saturday, June 1,
2019. Glover Park Day is at Guy Mason Recreation Center, 3600 Calvert Street NW,
Washington, DC, and the project team will be present from 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm. The
purpose of these events will be to share draft recommendations with the public and
get additional feedback.
1.2.1 Public and Interagency Involvement Stages
1.3 Format
The public workshop was open-house style with informational boards and interactive
activities around the room. Ted Van Houten, DDOT Transportation Planner, gave a
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 2
short presentation that began at 7:00 pm. The presentation provided attendees a brief
overview of the RCFW Livability Study and how to use the WikiMap which is available
on the study website. Boards were also placed around the room to help attendees
gain an understanding about the study goals and process, as well as existing
conditions. Attendees provided feedback via the two interactive activities. DDOT and
members of the study’s consultant team were positioned near each board and activity
to guide participants around the room and listen to stakeholder comments. Other
members of the team were circulating around the meeting to answer questions when
necessary.
1.4 Stations and Activities
The team designed the boards and activities to give attendees an overview of the
study and its purpose and need, as well as to collect their feedback on transportation
safety related issues. All boards and activities are on the project website at
www.rockcreekfarwest.com.
Below are the boards and activities on display during the meeting:
Informational
• Welcome
• Process and Goals
• What is Livability?
Existing Conditions
• Previous Plans Studies
• Existing Land Use
• Pedestrian Facilities
• Pedestrian Destination
• Bike Facilities Level of Traffic Stress
• Traffic Volumes
• Public Perceptions of Safety and Traffic Crashes
• Solutions Toolbox
§ Vehicle Speeds
§ High Traffic Volumes
§ Pedestrian Crossings
§ Bicycle Connectivity
§ Intersection Treatments
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 3
Activity 1 – WikiMap
The interactive WikiMap station allowed attendees to share various transportation
concerns on an online map of the Study Area. The map also allowed attendees to
view comments made by others, agree or disagree with those comments, and add
their own comments to existing comments.
Activity 2 – Ideas Map
• Ideas Corridor Map – DDOT and the study team identified five corridors
based on crash data, comments on the Vision Zero Safety Map, and
previous studies.
• Ideas Map – A blank map where attendees could share their ideas for the
project team to consider.
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 4
CHAPTER 2: OUTREACH EFFORTS Outreach for the first public workshop was and will continue to be key in promoting community participation and engagement in the process. For this workshop, the outreach team took careful effort to include stakeholders, organizations, institutions, and as many residents as possible. 2.1 Project Website The rockcreekfarwest.com interactive website played a critical role in providing outreach support for the project and provided site visitors with current information about the RCFW Livability Study, how residents and stakeholders could provide input, posted materials relevant to the project and promoted upcoming events. The "Get Involved Page" encouraged site visitors to submit comments, sign-up for alerts, and RSVP for upcoming events. Leading up to the meeting, the website had 425 unique users: 79% were guided directly to the site, 10% accessed the website from social media, 8% were referred from other websites, and 3% from organic search methods using one or several search terms. For more information, please see Appendix A. To enhance website interactivity and collect public input, the RCFW website includes an interactive WikiMap tool for collecting, organizing, and visualizing the thoughts of the community. The public can input existing conditions on the Study Area map on various issues. The map also allows people to view comments made by others, and add their own comments. RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 5
2.1.1 Interactive Wikimap Tool 2.2 Notifications The outreach team contacted organizations, elected officials, residents, community news outlets, civic, faith-based, and community organizations. Methods of engagement included: phone calls, e-mail blasts, social media, neighborhood door-to- door canvassing, and participation in community meetings. The outreach team contacted ANCs from ANC 3B, 3C, and 3D to provide more information about the study. 2.1.2 Electronic Communications and Social Media The outreach team created a contact list that includes interested residents and other stakeholders who sign up on the website, with their ANCs, or with other community leaders and organizations. As of this summary, the list currently has more than 130 contacts in MailChimp and in the stakeholder database and is expected to continue to grow throughout the outreach process. The project team posted on neighborhood listservs, transportation-oriented listservs, NextDoor, and Facebook. 2.3 Fliers The outreach team distributed 600 fliers throughout the Study Area and to stakeholders via door-to-door canvassing and at community events, and placed in, RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 6
and/or electronically sent to libraries, recreation centers, restaurants, cafes, grocery
stores, businesses, churches, and other community spaces.
2.4 Title VI Outreach
In addition to going door-to-door in specific parts of the Study Area and distributing
information, the team reached out to community institutions such as schools, churches,
community centers, and small businesses to inform them about the livability study. Key
locations in the Study Area were identified for contact to ensure that the outreach
team reached a broad cross section of Title VI populations.
Community Centers Churches / Social Services Schools
Guy Mason Recreation Palisades Community Church American University
Center
Glover Park Recreation National United Methodist Wesley Theological
Center Church Seminary
Palisades Community Church of the Annunciation Stoddert Elementary
Center School
Palisades Neighborhood St. David's Episcopal Church The LAB School
Library
Palisades Farmers St. Patrick's Episcopal Church
Market
Friendship House Our Lady of Victory Catholic
Church
Friends of Guy Mason Temple Baptist Church
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 7
CHAPTER 3: ATTENDANCE Forty-nine attendees used the sign-in sheets at the main entrance to the workshop. There were a small number of attendees who did not sign-in. Attendees included residents, elected officials (Councilmember Mary Cheh’s staff and ANC Commissioners), and members of community and civic organizations. 27 attendees submitted Title VI forms. RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 8
CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS
The project team summarized the comments from organizations, elected officials,
residents, and institutions sent through emails before and after the workshop,
completed comment cards, and the Wikimap.
4.1 Public Comments
The team received a total of 156 comments at each activity station during public
workshop #1 and an additional 76 comments from the wiki map. The team also
received comments before and after the meeting via email. The key takeaways from
these comments are:
o Install sidewalks on both sides of the street and improve crossings for people
walking and biking
o Reduce speeding through traffic calming, especially during non-rush hour
o Prioritize people walking and biking
o Advance the recommendations in plans such as moveDC and Kent Corner
Study
The team will use the comments and ideas we received to inform the preliminary
recommendations that DDOT will present at the next public workshop.
4.2 ANC 3D Resolution
On March 6, 2019, ANC 3D sent a letter and copy of their resolution to DDOT
(Appendix B). The ANC support the following:
o Bicycle trail along Nebraska Avenue from Wisconsin to Rockwood Parkway
o Bicycle Lane along Rockwood Parkway from Nebraska Avenue to Glenbrook
Road and continuing along Glenbrook Road to Loughboro Road
o Bicycle Lane along Loughboro Road and Norton Street from Glenbrook Road to
Potomac Avenue
o Consideration of planned Cycle Track along Nebraska/Loughboro Road from
Rockwood Parkway to Arizona Avenue and continuing along Arizona Avenue to
Canal Road
The RCFW study team will consider these ideas as we develop preliminary
recommendations.
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 9APPENDIX A - WEBSITE USAGE REPORT FOR
WWW.ROCKCREEKFARWEST.COM
Date range: 2/1-2/26 Notes
Rockcreekfarwest.com
Users 425
How did they reach the site?
Direct 79%
Referral 8% See Referral, below
Social 10% 40 via Twitter, 1 via Facebook
Organic Search 3%
Visits 556
Page views 824
Home page 60%
Interactive map 25%
Get involved 8%
About the study 8%
Downloads
Fact Sheet 25
Flyer 9
Wikimapping comments 76
Email to
info@rockcreekfarwest.com 4
Referral for new users
links.govdelivery.com 53%
ddot.dc.gov 24%
ggwash.org 9%
mail.yahoo.com 3%
thewashcycle.com 3%
feedly.com 3%
mail.rcn.com 3%
webmail.dccouncil.us 3%
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I SummaryAPPENDIX B -
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D
Government of the District of Columbia
March 6, 2019
Councilmember Mary Cheh
The John A Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 108
Washington, DC 20004
Mr. Jeff Marootian, Director
District Department of Transportation
55 M Street SE, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Councilmember Cheh and Director Marootian:
At a regularly scheduled and publicly advertised meeting on March 6, 2019, and with a quorum present
at all times, ANC3D voted to submit this letter in support of improved bicycle infrastructure in Ward 3.
We strongly support the District’s continued efforts to create a multi-modal transportation network that
prioritizes safety, health and fitness, and throughput. Recent installation of bicycle lanes throughout the
city have created safer transportation routes for bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. We applaud these
initiatives.
Most of the infrastructure improvements are located closer to downtown while the largely residential
areas of Ward 3 are still in need of safe commuting options to reach downtown as well as for moving
within Ward 3. The District long ago realized this in proposing the Multimodal Long-Range
Transportation Plan embodied in Move DC. 1 The requests we make here are for elements taken directly
from this plan. 2
We ask the District to continue the process for implementing bicycle infrastructure improvements for an
area largely along Nebraska Avenue, NW from Wisconsin Avenue, NW to Potomac Avenue, NW.
Although the cost of these items is relatively small, we ask the District to identify viable funding sources
where needed, implement the simpler items expeditiously, and begin advancing the more complicated
items as quickly as possible. 3 We are participating in the ongoing Rock Creek Far West Livability Study
and we believe the items requested here, all of which have been previously identified in the Move DC
plan, can be pursued immediately. 4
1
See http://www.wemovedc.org/.
2
See pages B-22 and B-23 of the Bicycle Element of Move DC, available at
http://www.wemovedc.org/resources/Final/Part%202_Plan_Elements/Bicycle.pdf.
3
See pages B-43 through B-53 of the Move DC Bicycle Element.
4
See https://rockcreekfarwest.com/.
PO Box 40846, Palisades Station Washington, DC 20016 3D@anc.dc.gov www.anc3D.orgAdvisory Neighborhood Commission 3D
Government of the District of Columbia
In particular, we seek: 5
• Bicycle Trail along Nebraska Avenue from Wisconsin Avenue to Rockwood Parkway, NW. This
stretch has been identified as a Tier 1 Priority. 6 Ideally, the Bicycle Trail would be contained on a
widened sidewalk; accordingly, we ask the District to consult and coordinate with American
University – the adjacent property owner for the overwhelming majority of the land along this
route – as necessary. 7
• Bicycle Lane along Rockwood Parkway from Nebraska Avenue to Glenbrook Road, NW and
continuing along Glenbrook Road to Loughboro Road, NW.
• Bicycle Lane along Loughboro Road and Norton Street, NW from Glenbrook Road to Potomac
Avenue. Ensuring the bicycle infrastructure extends to Potomac Avenue will enable cyclists to
access the Capital Crescent Trail and its associated connections. We also seek development of a
paved connection from the intersection of Potomac Avenue and Norton Street to the Capital
Crescent Trail.
• Consideration of the planned Cycle Track along Nebraska Avenue / Loughboro Road from
Rockwood Parkway to Arizona Avenue, NW and continuing along Arizona Avenue to Canal
Road, NW. This route would provide safe, convenient access to the Palisades Recreation Center
as well as a potentially rehabilitated Trolley Trail. We also seek development of a paved
connection from the intersection of Potomac Avenue and Arizona Avenue to the Capital
Crescent Trail.
We look forward to working closely with the District Department of Transportation as it advances these
plans, or considers more robust alternatives, and we ask that you keep us informed about on-going
progress, including returning before the ANC as the plans are developed. Please do not hesitate to
inform ANC3D about how the Commission can be most helpful to you throughout the process.
____________________________________
Chuck Elkins
Chair, ANC3D
5
The attached image, taken from the Move DC plan, displays these items (and others) visually. We use the terms
in the Bicycle Element of Move DC as follows: “Bicycle Trail” (pathway for bicycles and other uses separated from
motor traffic); “Bicycle Lane” (pavement markings for bicycle use only); and “Cycle Track” (protected lane
physically separated from motor and pedestrian traffic for exclusive use of bicycles). See pages B-28 and B-29 of
the Move DC Bicycle Element.
6
See pages B-54 and B-55 of the Move DC Bicycle Element.
7
Relatedly, we wish to remind the District Department of Transportation of its views on a sidewalk
bicycle trail along Nebraska Avenue between Wisconsin Avenue and Massachusetts Avenue, NW. In its
report for Zoning Case 11-07B, DDOT wrote, “To address bicycle and pedestrian travel demand between
the Tenley Campus and the Main Campus, DDOT requires that AU widen the sidewalk on the northwest
side of Nebraska Ave connecting the two campuses. The facility should be widened from approximately
6' to 9'. DDOT has already engaged in initial community outreach in the area concerning the expansion.
AU should work with DDOT to plan, design, and fund construction of this facility.” (Exhibit 43, p. 5).
American University suggested this a means to improve bicycle amenities in their Transportation Impact
Study. (See Exhibit 11A, p. 13.)
PO Box 40846, Palisades Station Washington, DC 20016 3D@anc.dc.gov www.anc3D.orgAdvisory Neighborhood Commission 3D
Government of the District of Columbia
Figure 1
PO Box 40846, Palisades Station Washington, DC 20016 3D@anc.dc.gov www.anc3D.orgPublic Workshop #2 Summary
May 18, 2019Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Public Workshops ...........................................................................................................2 1.2 Event Information .............................................................................................................................2 1.3 Format ...............................................................................................................................................3 1.4 Stations and Activities ......................................................................................................................3 1.5 Pop-up Events ...................................................................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2: OUTREACH EFFORTS .......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Website .................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Notifications .......................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Fliers ..................................................................................................................................................7 2.4 Title VI Outreach ...............................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER 3: ATTENDANCE ...................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS.......................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Public Comments ............................................................................................................................10 Appendix A - ............................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study (RCFW) is to enhance the
community's quality of life through improvements to transportation safety. This study
aligns with Mayor Bowser’s Vision Zero Initiative, which has an objective to reach zero
fatalities and serious injuries to travelers of the District’s transportation system by
2024.
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) uses livability studies to evaluate
the transportation network from a system-wide perspective and looks for
opportunities for a safer and more accessible multimodal network. The RCFW Study
Area is in the District’s northwest quadrant and is bound by Massachusetts Avenue,
Whitehaven Street, Whitehaven Parkway, Archbold Parkway, Foundry Branch Valley
Park, the Potomac River, and the DC/Maryland border. The Study Area is in Ward 3,
and includes all of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 3B, most of ANC 3D,
and a small portion of ANC 3C.
DDOT will work with members of the community and key stakeholders to identify
specific opportunities to improve accommodations for people walking, biking, using
transit, and driving. Throughout the duration of the livability study, there will be three
public workshops. These events will be held throughout the Study Area. The feedback
obtained at these events will be used to develop, refine, and assist in the selection of
recommendations for short, medium, and long-term improvements in transportation
safety in the RCFW Study area. DDOT used feedback from the first public workshop to
develop draft preliminary recommendations. At the end of the study, DDOT will
provide final recommendations addressing such issues as:
§ Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian networks;
§ Safer pedestrian crossings;
§ More accessible bus stops;
§ Intersection redesigns or realignments;
§ Signs for better driver information; and
§ Improvements consistent with Vision Zero.
RCFW Public Workshop #2 Summary 1|Page1.1 Purpose of Public Workshops
Public outreach for the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study is centered around three
public workshops designed to educate the public about the Livability Study and
collect public input on recommendations on transportation safety concerns. At the
first public meeting in February 2019, DDOT introduced the project to the community
and shared data collected from existing resources through informative and interactive
stations. Participants identified locations or "hot spots" within the Study Area that
need addressing, as well as shared ideas for the project team to consider. We heard
from the public on a variety of issues which became the foundation for the draft
preliminary recommendations.
Public Workshop #2 brought the community together to review draft
recommendations developed by the DDOT planning team and provide feedback on
the recommendations as well as propose any additional recommendations. The final
public workshop will be held on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 from 6:30pm to 8:30 pm at
Horace Mann Elementary School, 4430 Newark St NW, Washington, DC 20016. The
purpose of this event will be to share final recommendations with the public and get
additional feedback.
1.2 Event Information
Public Workshop #2 was held on Saturday, May 18, 2019 from 11:00 am to 1:00 pm at
the Stoddert Elementary School–Multipurpose Room. The school is located at 4001
Calvert Street NW, Washington, DC, in a residential area near a neighborhood
commercial corridor. Metro bus lines 30N, 30S, 31, 33, D1, D2 stop within walking
distance of the school.
1.2.1 Public and Interagency Involvement Stages
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 2|Page1.3 Format
The public workshop was open-house style with informational boards and interactive
activities around the room. Ted Van Houten, DDOT Transportation Planner, gave a
short presentation that began at 11:30 am. The presentation provided attendees a
brief overview of the RCFW Livability Study, how draft recommendations were
developed, and how to provide comments through the online WikiMap and at the
workshop. Boards were also placed around the room to help attendees understand
the study goals and process, existing conditions, and draft recommendations.
Attendees provided feedback via maps of the draft recommendations as well as the
Wikimap. DDOT and members of the study’s consultant team were positioned near
each board and map to guide participants around the room and listen to stakeholder
comments. Other members of the team were circulating around the meeting to
answer questions when necessary.
1.4 Stations and Activities
The team designed the boards and activities to give attendees an overview of the
study and its purpose and need, as well as to collect their feedback on the draft
recommendations. All boards and activities are on the project website at
www.rockcreekfarwest.com.
Below are the boards and activities on display during the meeting:
Informational
• Welcome
• Process and Goals
• What is Livability?
• What We Heard
Existing Conditions
• Land Use
• Previous Studies/Other Projects
• Pedestrian Destinations
• Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Comfort Network
• Safety – Public Perception and Crash Data
Draft Recommendations
• All Recommendations
• Multi-Intersection Recommendations
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 3|Page• Pedestrian Recommendations
• Bicycle Recommendations
Activity 1 – WikiMap
The interactive WikiMap station allowed attendees to review the draft
recommendations using an online map of the Study Area. Attendees could view
comments made by others, agree or disagree with those comments, and add their
own comments on recommendations.
Activity 2 – Recommendation Maps
DDOT and the study team presented recommendations based on public comments,
crash data, comments on the Vision Zero Safety Map, and previous studies. Maps for
Pedestrian Recommendations, Bicycle Recommendations, and Multi-Intersection
Recommendations were available for attendees to share their response to
recommendations and submit comments for the project team to consider.
Comments from the public were collected through various methods including Post-it’s
placed on specific locations on maps, comment cards, comment section of the Title VI
Form, speaking directly with a member of the Project Team, or email comments after
the workshop.
1.5 Pop-up Events
Over the course of the RCFW Livability Study, the DDOT project team will host two
series of Pop-up style public engagement events. The purpose of Pop-ups are to share
draft recommendations with the public and get additional feedback at community
events to reach a demographic that may not be able to attend a traditional public
workshop.
The DDOT project team hosted a table at Glover Park Day as its first Pop-up. The
event took place on Saturday, June 1, 2019 at the Guy Mason Recreation Center, 3600
Calvert Street NW, Washington, DC. The project team was on hand to discuss the
purpose of the Livability Study, review preliminary recommendations, and how
residents could submit comments. Over 100 people visited the DDOT table and
submitted 35 comments during the event.
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 4|PageCHAPTER 2: OUTREACH EFFORTS Outreach for the second public workshop was and will continue to be key in promoting community participation and engagement in the process. For this workshop, the outreach team took careful effort to include stakeholders, organizations, institutions, and as many residents as possible. 2.1 Project Website The rockcreekfarwest.com interactive website played a critical role in providing outreach support for the project and provided site visitors with current information about the RCFW Livability Study, how residents and stakeholders could provide input, posted materials relevant to the project and promoted upcoming events. The website also provided copies of the Workshop # 1 Summary Report and the Preliminary Findings Report. The "Get Involved Page" encourages site visitors to submit comments, sign-up for alerts, and RSVP for upcoming events. Leading up to the meeting, the website had 791 unique users of which 753 were new users: 79% were guided directly to the site, 5% accessed the website from social media, 7% were referred from other websites, and 3% from organic search methods using one or several search terms. For more information, please see Appendix A. To enhance website interactivity and collect public input, the RCFW website includes an interactive WikiMap tool for collecting, organizing, and visualizing the thoughts of the community. The public provided input on existing conditions on the Study Area map on various issues. The map also allowed people to view comments made by others, and add their own comments. Data collected from the Wikimap and other data sources was used to develop the draft recommendations. RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 5|Page
2.1.1 Interactive Wikimap Tool
Prior to Public Workshop #2, the interactive WikiMap was updated with a visualization
of the draft recommendations for the RCFW service area. The public can continue to
provide input on the recommendations and various issues on the Study Area map.
The map also allows people to view comments made by others - agree, disagree or
and add their own comment.
2.1.2 Interactive Wikimap Tool – Draft Recommendations
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 6|Page2.2 Notifications The outreach team contacted local businesses, elected officials, residents, community news outlets, civic, faith-based, and community organizations. Methods of engagement included: phone calls, e-mail blasts, social media, neighborhood door-to- door canvassing, and participation in community meetings. The outreach team contacted ANCs from ANC 3B, 3C, and 3D to provide more information about the study. 2.1.2 Electronic Communications and Social Media The outreach team created a contact list that includes interested residents and other stakeholders who signed up on the website, with their ANCs, or with other community leaders and organizations. As of this summary, the list currently has over 200 contacts in MailChimp and in the stakeholder database. This number is expected to continue to grow throughout the outreach process. The project team posted general information about the RCFW Study and an invitation to attend Workshop # 2 on neighborhood listservs, transportation-oriented listservs, community websites, NextDoor, and Facebook. 2.3 Fliers The outreach team distributed 1600 door-hangers and 45 posters throughout the Study Area and to stakeholders via door-to-door canvassing, at community events, and placed in, and/or electronically sent fliers to, libraries, recreation centers, restaurants, cafes, grocery stores, businesses, churches, and other community spaces. The outreach team distributed door hangers to homes and businesses in the corridors where the project team is proposing significant changes. 2.4 Title VI Outreach In addition to going door-to-door in specific parts of the Study Area and distributing information, the team reached out to, and posted workshop information in, community institutions such as schools, churches, community centers, and small businesses to inform them about the livability study. Key locations in the Study Area were identified for contact to ensure that the outreach team reached a broad cross section of Title VI populations. RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 7|Page
Community Centers Churches / Social Services Schools
Guy Mason Recreation Palisades Community Church American
Center University
Glover Park Recreation National United Methodist Church Wesley Theological
Center Seminary
Palisades Community Church of the Annunciation Stoddert
Center Elementary School
Palisades Neighborhood St. David's Episcopal Church The LAB School
Library
Palisades Farmers Market St. Patrick's Episcopal Church
Friendship House Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church
Friends of Guy Mason Temple Baptist Church
Georgetown Univ. Campus Ministries:
Dahlgren/Copley Crypt/St. William
Chapels
Holy Trinity Church
Chapel of the Sacred Hearts
St. John's Episcopal Church
Georgetown Lutheran Church
Georgetown Baptist Church
Dumbarton United Methodist Church
Georgetown Presbyterian Church
Mt Zion United Methodist Church
First Baptist Church-Georgetown
Divine Science Church Healing
Cleveland Park Congregational United
Church of Christ
Eglise Protestante Francophone de
Washington DC
Westmoreland Congregational United
Church of Christ
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 8|PageCHAPTER 3: ATTENDANCE
Fifty-two attendees signed in at the workshop. Attendees included residents, local
business owners, civic and community leaders and ANC Commissioners. Of the
attendees, 23 submitted Title VI forms. In addition, Liz Anderson with WTOP news
attended the workshop and conducted interviews with some of the attendees. Her
article Public weighs in on Rock Creek Far West pedestrian safety plans appeared
online on May 18 at WTOP.com.
Age
Gender
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
Male Female 65-74 Over 74 Senior N/A
Race/Ethnicity
Ward
African American Caucasian
Hispanic N/A Ward 1 Ward 3 Ward 6 N/A
CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS
The project team summarized the comments from organizations, elected officials,
residents, and institutions sent through emails before and after the workshop,
completed comment cards, and the Wikimap.
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 9|Page4.1 Public Comments
The team received a total of 95 (19 from comment cards, 76 how many from post-it’s
and staff) comments during public workshop #2 and 47 comments before and after
the meeting via email. During Pop-up 1 at Glover Park Day, 38 additional comments
were submitted by the public. In addition, the Spring Valley-Wesley Heights Citizens
Association (SVWHCA) emailed a letter to DDOT Director Jeffery Marootian regarding
traffic and safety issues in the Spring Valley and Wesley Heights neighborhoods.
The key takeaways from these comments are:
o Ensure there is a safe route for biking between Mann Elementary School and
Hardy Elementary School via New Mexico Avenue and Tunlaw Road
o Consider green infrastructure along areas where sidewalks are proposed.
o Concerns about the type of bicycle facility on Rockwood Parkway and Glenbook
Road. Many are open to the idea of a bike boulevard if it includes traffic
calming and minimizes impact to parking
o Debate on the need for sidewalks. Some residents, particularly parents, want to
sidewalks that connect to elementary schools and recreation facilities. Other
residents do not think that sidewalks are needed and they are concerns about
impacts to trees and landscaping.
o Consider additional areas for sidewalks and improved pedestrian crossings.
The team will use the comments and ideas received from the public to inform the
recommendations that DDOT will present at the final public workshop in August.
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 10 | P a g eAppendix A - Website Usage Report for www.rockcreekfarwest.com
DATE RANGE 2/27 - 5/16
Users 791
New Users 753
How did new users reach the site?
Direct 79%
Referral 7%
Social 5%
Organic Search 3%
Visits 1062
Page views 1787
Home page 50%
Interactive map 18%
Get involved 7%
About the study 8%
Public Workshop #1 6%
Project Resources 6%
Popyp 3%
DOWNLOADS
Fact Sheet 13
Flyer
Summary Report Workshop #1 41
Briefing Book 40
Solutions Toolbox 9
WEBSITE NTERACTIONS
Wikimap comments 166
Email to info@rockcreekfarwest.com 24
Contact Forms submitted 10
RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 11 | P a g eSOURCES OF TRAFFIC DETAIL Social Media New Users Twitter 22 Facebook 21 Referral for new users New Users links.govdelivery.com 35% ddot.dc.gov 38% ggwash.org 35% mail.yahoo.com 6% thewashcycle.com 9% feedly.com 0% mail.rcn.com 0% webmail.dccouncil.us 0% dc.curbed.com 21% ddot-liv-rock-creek-far-west-dcgis.hub.arcgis.com 6% foxhall.org 6% all others 18% Total 59 RCFW Public Workshop #1 I Summary 12 | P a g e
Public Workshop #3 Summary
August 27, 2019Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Purpose of Public Workshops ...........................................................................................................2 1.2 Event Information .............................................................................................................................3 1.3 Format ...............................................................................................................................................4 1.4 Stations and Activities ......................................................................................................................4 1.5 Pop-up Events ...................................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 2: OUTREACH EFFORTS .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 Project Website .................................................................................................................................7 2.2 Notifications .......................................................................................................................................8 2.3 Fliers ..................................................................................................................................................8 2.4 Title VI Outreach ...............................................................................................................................8 CHAPTER 3: ATTENDANCE .................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 4: COMMENTS........................................................................................................ 11 4.1 Public Comments ............................................................................................................................11 Appendix A: Website Usage Report Appendix B: Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D Resolution Appendix C: Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3B Resolution
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study (RCFW) is to enhance the
community's quality of life through improvements to transportation safety. This study
aligns with Mayor Bowser’s Vision Zero Initiative, which has an objective to reach zero
fatalities and serious injuries to travelers of the District’s transportation system by
2024.
The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) uses livability studies to evaluate
the transportation network from a system-wide perspective and looks for
opportunities for a safer and more accessible multimodal network. The RCFW Study
Area is in the District’s northwest quadrant and is bound by Massachusetts Avenue,
Whitehaven Street, Whitehaven Parkway, Archbold Parkway, Foundry Branch Valley
Park, the Potomac River, and the DC/Maryland border. The Study Area is in Ward 3,
and includes all of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 3B, most of ANC 3D,
and a small portion of ANC 3C.
DDOT is working with members of the community and key stakeholders to identify
specific opportunities to improve accommodations for people walking, biking, using
transit, and driving. Throughout the duration of the livability study, DDOT held three
public workshops, and two pop-up community events in the Study Area. The feedback
obtained at these events will be used to develop, refine, and assist in the selection of
recommendations for short, medium, and long-term improvements in transportation
safety in the RCFW Study area. At the end of the study, DDOT will provide final
recommendations addressing such issues as:
§ Improvements to bicycle and pedestrian networks;
§ Safer pedestrian crossings;
§ More accessible bus stops;
§ Intersection redesigns or realignments;
§ Signs for better driver information; and
§ Improvements consistent with Vision Zero.
1.1 Purpose of Public Workshops
Public outreach for the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study is centered around three
public workshops designed to engage the public on the Livability Study and collect
RCFW Public Workshop #3 Summary 2|Pagepublic input on transportation recommendations. At the first public meeting in
February 2019, DDOT introduced the project to the community and shared data
collected from existing resources through informative and interactive stations.
Participants identified locations or "hot spots" within the Study Area that need
addressing, as well as shared ideas for the project team to consider. We heard from
the public on a variety of issues which became the foundation for the preliminary
recommendations.
Public Workshop #2 brought the community together to review preliminary
recommendations developed by the DDOT planning team and provide feedback on
the recommendations as well as propose any additional recommendations. The
purpose of the final public workshop is to share final recommendations with the public
and get additional feedback.
1.2 Event Information
Public Workshop #3 was held on Tuesday, August 27, 2019 from 6:30 to 8:30 pm at
Horace Mann Elementary School–Multipurpose Room. The school is located at 4430
Newark St NW, Washington, DC 20016, in a residential area near a neighborhood
commercial corridor and American University. Metro bus lines M4, N2, and N6 stop
within walking distance of the school.
1.2.1 Public and Interagency Involvement Stages
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 3|Page1.3 Format The public workshop was open-house style with four informational stations and planning team members available to discuss recommendations. Boards were also placed around the room to help attendees understand the study goals and process, existing conditions, and final recommendations. Attendees offered comments and asked questions about the final recommendations. DDOT and members of the study’s consultant team were positioned near each board and map to guide participants around the room and listen to stakeholder comments. Other members of the team were circulating around the meeting to answer questions when necessary. Ted Van Houten, DDOT Transportation Planner, gave a short presentation that began at 7:00 pm. The presentation provided attendees a brief overview of the RCFW Livability Study, review of the recommendations process and next steps, frequently asked questions, specific recommendations, and what happens next. The program also included an extensive question and answer period where participants were able to ask questions, express preferences, and seek clarification on recommendations. 1.4 Stations and Activities The team designed the boards to give attendees an overview of the study, visually communicate final recommendations, and collect feedback on recommendations. All boards, handout materials, and the PowerPoint presentation are on the project website at www.rockcreekfarwest.com. Below are the boards and activities that were on display during the meeting: Station A – Background 1. Welcome Board 2. Study Process and Goals Board 3. What is Livability Board 4. Previous Plans and Studies Board 5. Safety Board Station B – Outreach 1. Outreach Stats Board 2. Development of Recommendations Board RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 4|Page
Station C – Recommendations 1. Final Recommendations Map Board 2. Dalecarlia Parkway Board 3. 49th Street Bicycle Boulevard Board 4. Arizona Avenue Board 5. Additional Recommendations for People who Bike Board 6. Infrastructure Recommendations for People Who Walk Board 7. Multi-Intersection and Corridor Study Recommendations Board Station D – Next Step 1. Project Development Process Board Comments from the public were collected through various methods including Post-it notes placed on specific locations on boards, comment cards, the comment section of the Title VI Form, conversations with a member of the Project Team, and email. 1.5 Pop-up Events Over the course of the RCFW Livability Study, the DDOT project team hosted two Pop-up style public engagement events. The purpose of Pop-ups is to share draft recommendations with the public and get additional feedback at community events that reach people who may not be able to attend a traditional public workshop. The DDOT project team hosted a table at Glover Park Day as its first Pop-up. The event took place on Saturday, June 1, 2019 at the Guy Mason Recreation Center, 3600 Calvert Street NW, Washington, DC. The project team was on hand to discuss the purpose of the Livability Study, review preliminary recommendations, and how residents could submit comments. Over 100 people visited the DDOT table and submitted 35 comments during the event. The second Pop-up was held on July 27, 2019 from 10:00AM-1:00PM at Spring Valley Village - a shopping center located at 4820 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC. RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 5|Page
Flyers promoting the second Pop-up were distributed in the Spring Valley neighborhood prior to the event, and emails were sent to the community to encourage participation. During the Pop-up, DDOT's planning team engaged with over 70 residents to provide an overview of the study, review recommendations, and answer questions. Materials for the Pop-up included a list of preliminary recommendations and flyers for Public Workshop #3. CHAPTER 2: OUTREACH EFFORTS Outreach for the third public workshop was key in promoting community participation and engagement in the process. For this workshop, the outreach team took careful effort to include stakeholders, organizations, institutions, and as many residents as possible. RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 6|Page
2.1 Project Website
The interactive website (rockcreekfarwest.com) played a critical role in providing
outreach support for the project and provided site visitors with current information
about the RCFW Livability Study and how residents and stakeholders could provide
input. The DDOT study team posted materials relevant to the project and promoted
upcoming events. The website also provided copies of Summary Reports for
Workshops 1 and 2, and the study's preliminary recommendations. The "Get Involved
Page” was where site visitors could submit comments, sign up for alerts, and RSVP for
the final Workshop.
Leading up to the meeting, the website had 1754 unique users of which 1699 were
new users: 79% were guided directly to the site, 3% accessed the website from social
media, 10% were referred from other websites, and 8% from organic search methods
using one or several search terms. Documents posted to the website for public access
were downloaded 552 times. For more information, please see Appendix A.
To enhance website interactivity and collect public input, the RCFW website hosted an
interactive WikiMap tool to collect, organize, and visualize the thoughts of the
community. The public provided input on existing conditions on the Study Area map
on various issues. The map also allowed people to view comments made by others,
and add their own comments. Data collected from the WikiMap and other data
sources were used to develop the draft and final recommendations. Prior to Public
Workshop #3, the ability to add comments to the WikiMap was removed, but site
visitors can still review the comments that were provided previously.
2.1.1 Final Recommendations Map
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 7|Page2.2 Notifications The outreach team contacted local businesses, elected officials, residents, schools, community news outlets, and civic, faith-based, and community organizations. Methods of engagement included: phone calls, e-mail blasts, social media, neighborhood door-to-door canvassing, and participation in community meetings. The outreach team contacted ANC Commissioners from ANC 3B, 3C, and 3D to provide more information about the study. 2.1.2 Electronic Communications and Social Media The outreach team created a contact list that includes interested residents and other stakeholders who signed up on the website, at ANC meetings, or through other community leaders and organizations. As of this summary, the list currently has 471 contacts in MailChimp and in the stakeholder database. This number is expected to continue to grow throughout the outreach process. The project team posted general information about the RCFW Study and an invitation to attend Workshop # 3 on neighborhood listservs, transportation-oriented listservs, community websites, local online news sites, Facebook, and Twitter. 2.3 Fliers The outreach team distributed 2000 door-hangers and 50 posters throughout the Study Area to stakeholders via door-to-door canvassing, at community events, and placed in, and/or electronically sent fliers to libraries, recreation centers, restaurants, cafes, grocery stores, businesses, churches, and other community spaces. The outreach team placed door hangers on homes in the corridors where the project team is proposing significant changes, such as a cycle track or a multi-intersection study. 2.4 Title VI Outreach In addition to going door-to-door in specific parts of the Study Area and distributing information, the team reached out to and posted workshop information in community institutions such as schools, churches, community centers, and small businesses to inform them about the livability study. Key locations in the Study Area were identified for contact to ensure that the outreach team reached a broad cross section of Title VI populations. RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 8|Page
Community Centers Churches / Social Services Schools
Guy Mason Recreation Palisades Community Church American
Center University
Glover Park Recreation National United Methodist Church Wesley Theological
Center Seminary
Palisades Community Church of the Annunciation Stoddert
Center Elementary School
Palisades Neighborhood St. David's Episcopal Church The LAB School
Library
Palisades Farmers Market St. Patrick's Episcopal Church Horace Mann
Elementary School
Friendship House Our Lady of Victory Catholic Church Key Elementary
School
Friends of Guy Mason Temple Baptist Church Hardy Middle
School
Hardy Recreation Center Georgetown Univ. Campus Ministries: The River School
Dahlgren/Copley Crypt/St. William
Chapels
Holy Trinity Church Key Elementary
School
Chapel of the Sacred Hearts
St. John's Episcopal Church
Georgetown Lutheran Church
Georgetown Baptist Church
Dumbarton United Methodist Church
Georgetown Presbyterian Church
Mt Zion United Methodist Church
First Baptist Church-Georgetown
Divine Science Church Healing
Cleveland Park Congregational United
Church of Christ
Eglise Protestante Francophone de
Washington DC
Westmoreland Congregational United
Church of Christ
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 9|PageCHAPTER 3: ATTENDANCE
One hundred and twenty-two attendees signed in at the workshop although
approximately 150 individuals were counted in attendance at Public Workshop #3.
Attendees included residents, local business owners, civic and community leaders, and
ANC Commissioners. Of the attendees, 16 submitted Title VI forms.
Gender Age
Race Ward
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 10 | P a g eCHAPTER 4: COMMENTS
The project team summarized the comments from organizations, elected officials,
residents, and institutions sent through emails before and after the workshop,
completed comment cards, and the WikiMap.
4.1 Public Comments
The team received a total of 44 comments during Public Workshop #3 from 32
comment cards, 9 Title VI forms, and 1 Post-it as well as numerous comments made
directly to the project team during the Workshop. Approximately 86 emails were
received prior to and after the workshop commenting on the final recommendations.
During Pop-up 2 at Spring Valley Village, 38 additional comments were submitted by
the public. Most of the attendees at the second pop-up and Public Workshop #3
indicated overall support for the recommendations. Below are some key takeaways
from these comments:
o Two opposite attitudes exist towards the Dalecarlia Parkway recommendation;
o Concerns regarding the type of bicycle facility on Loughboro Road, Rockwood
Parkway, 49th Street and Glenbook Road. On streets where DDOT is
recommending a bicycle boulevard, many residents are open to the idea if it
includes traffic calming and minimizes impacts to parking.
o People who do not bike think this study is too heavily focused on biking.
However, many residents support providing a better bicycle network in the
neighborhood.
o DDOT should prioritize all the recommendations.
The team will use the comments and ideas received from the public to inform next
steps, which will occur after the livability study is complete.
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 11 | P a g eAppendix A Website Usage Report for www.rockcreekfarwest.com
DATE RANGE 5/16 – 9/15
Users 1754
New Users 1699
How did new users reach the site?
Direct 79%
Referral 10%
Social 3%
Organic Search 8%
Visits 2586
Page views 5393
Home page 41%
Interactive map 21%
Get involved 5%
About the study 5%
Public Workshop #1 1%
Project Resources 6%
Public Workshop #2 5%
Public Workshop #3 3%
DOWNLOADS
List of Draft Recommendations 245
Briefing Book 115
8/26 Boards 43
Recommendations Handout (8.5 x 11) 35
Fact Sheet 32
Recommendations Handout (11 x 17) 27
8/2019 Booklet 22
Solutions Toolbox 21
PW 3 Presentation 12
WEBSITE INTERACTIONS
Wikimap comments 249
Email to info@rockcreekfarwest.com 167
Contact Forms submitted “Get 32
Involved”
Email subscriptions via popup 69
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 12 | P a g eSOURCES OF TRAFFIC DETAIL
Social Media New Users
Twitter 39
Facebook 4
Referral for new users New Users
anc3d.org 27%
ddot.dc.gov 12%
wtop.com 15%
links.govdelivery.com 12%
aws.predictiveresponse.net 6%
dc.curbed.com 6%
hardyms.org 5%
thewashcycle.com 3%
all others 15%
Total 177
RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 13 | P a g eAppendix B Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D Resolution RCFW Public Workshop #3 I Summary 14 | P a g e
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D
Government of the District of Columbia
4 September 2019
Mr. Ted Van Houten
Transportation Planner
District Department of Transportation
55 M Street, SE
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20003
Dear Mr. Van Houten:
We wish to thank you for spearheading the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study. We believe
there are many good recommendations within the Study’s conclusions and we commend the
District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) work throughout this process. 1
This Commission supports evidence-based policymaking and we have approached our review
of the Livability recommendations in that light. We aspire to positions that are built from the
ground-up, informed by both direct experience in the community and elsewhere and objective
data. As you realize, policy development is largely an exercise in tradeoffs. In order to evaluate
a proposal, the relevant benefits and costs of alternative options should be explicated as much
as possible. The Livability Study process has helped advance our understanding of these
benefits and costs but, in some cases, the examination of these tradeoffs needs to continue as
more exploratory design work is done.
We view the Rock Creek Far West Livability Study as a policy document, not an implementation
blueprint. Accordingly, we understand that the details for some items are less concrete than
when presented for construction. (In some cases, we wish to constrain the flexibility implied by
the recommendations.) Below are our evaluations of several of the recommendations in the
Livability Study. We proceed by first considering pedestrian and shared-use recommendations
before moving on to the more bicycle-centric items and more general corridor studies. We do
not specifically review all of the Study’s proposed recommendations within this letter and a
failure to mention a particular recommendation should not be interpreted as a lack of interest on
our part.
We are aware of several requests from the community that were not included in the final
recommendations. We suggest DDOT be prepared to explain why certain items were omitted
from the final recommendations and we ask the Department to provide the Commission with
guidance on how community members can best pursue these items outside of the Livability
Study framework.
1
Study documents are available at www.rockcreekfarwest.com.
1You can also read
