2/3/2007 11:55 PM

Revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE

For the Great Streets Initiative
Concept Design – Final Report
Executive Summary
The concept design for the Revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE has been developed as
part of the District of Columbia’s Great Streets Initiative to improve quality of life in
neighborhoods along the corridor, support local demand for goods and services through
economic revitalization, expand mobility choices, improve safety and efficiency of all modes
of transportation and attract private investment through the demonstration of public
commitment to Great Street communities. The Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Architectural
Design Standards and the Great Streets Framework will be incorporated into the design. The
project will also utilize context sensitive solutions/design to incorporate safety and access
improvements while preserving the historical integrity of the project area.
The project area encompasses Pennsylvania Avenue, SE from the foot of the Sousa Bridge to
Southern Avenue, SE and is concentrated on improvements to the public right of way and
infrastructure.
The goal of this project, the first of the Great Streets corridors to be implemented, is to
revitalize Pennsylvania Avenue, SE by improving safety and mobility for vehicular, bicyclist
and pedestrian traffic; streetscaping and urban design; and encouraging economic
development. This concept design will provide a framework to remake Pennsylvania Avenue
SE, a “Signature” Boulevard, that offers spectacular views, and will provide its community
with pedestrian-oriented nodes that offer diverse and high quality retail services. Anchored
by three significant activity nodes – at L’Enfant Square, Branch Avenue, and Alabama
Avenue-which alternate with residential areas, the Corridor’s street edge will be unified by
the sidewalk material, large tree cover, landscaping and street lights. This well articulated
street edge will emphasize views toward the U.S. Capitol. Pocket parks will be easily • Pennsylvania Avenue Task Force Vision Plan
accessible, with enhanced crosswalks, higher illumination levels, and public art. While new
sidewalks, bicycle paths, lighting, enhanced crosswalks, and signage make the City’s Parks • Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Transportation Study
and Trails along the Corridor easily accessible. The Corridor will thus reinforce the Vision • Middle Anacostia River Crossing Transportation Study
Statement and become an important amenity and focal area for the neighborhoods, and the
District at large. • Bolan Smart Market Study for L’Enfant Square

In the past, numerous studies and planning have been performed on Pennsylvania Avenue, • DC Bicycle Master Plan
SE and the surrounding community. This concept design takes into account these efforts and • Pennsylvania Avenue, SE - Great Streets Framework Plan
the efforts of the local community in developing the concepts being presented. The following
In addition to these studies and plans, as part of the development of this concept design,
studies and reports have been used as a basis for this concept Design:
numerous community meetings and charrettes were held:
• Multiple Pennsylvania Avenue Task Force meetings
• Kick-Off Public Meeting – June 30, 2006

1
 2/3/2007 11:55 PM

• Design Charrette – July 26 thru 29, 2006 alternatives and the other studied alternatives, as well as the evaluations and analyses are
discussed more thoroughly in this report.
• DDOT/OP Community Meeting – September 25, 2006
• Hillcrest Civic Association Meeting – October 7, 2006
• OP Steering Committee Meeting – October 23, 2006
• DDOT/OP Community Meeting – November 9, 2006
The effort of this project was to develop a comprehensive plan based on community input
and sound engineering study that would satisfy the principles of the District’s Great Streets
Initiative, local stakeholders and the community at large. The four day design charrette held
in late July, 2006 provided a wealth of input from the community and other stakeholders on
their vision for the corridor. Out of that charrette, numerous viable and non-viable
alternatives were developed. These alternatives were initially evaluated and condensed down
to three viable options for the corridor and three for the Pennsylvania Avenue/Minnesota
Avenue (L’Enfant Square) intersection. The alternatives for the corridor are as follows:
• Four Lane with Landscaped Median
• Four Lane with On-Street Bicycle Lanes
• Five Lane – Reversible Lane
As a sub-option to Alternatives 1 and 3, the outer lane in the rush hour period would be
designated for Transit/HOV/Right Turn vehicles only.
Another sub-option top Alternatives 1 and 3 provides for an off road (behind the curb) bicycle
path.
The alternatives for the L’Enfant Square area are as follows:
• Square with Pennsylvania Avenue Bisecting (Modified Square)
• Circle within the Square with Pennsylvania Avenue Bisecting (Ellipse)
• Conventional Intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Minnesota Avenue
(Conventional)
Detailed evaluation criteria was developed which was based on the principles of the Great
Streets Framework Plan and on input derived from the design charrette. These alternatives
were fully developed to a concept level, traffic analysis performed and urban design concepts
developed prior to detailed evaluation of these criteria. The evaluation led to the selection of
the four lane median alternative with the off street bicycle path for the corridor and the
square with Pennsylvania Avenue bisecting for the L’Enfant Square intersection. The square
was modified to reduce the impact to residential properties along Minnesota Avenue and 25th
Street. In addition to these typical corridor configurations, at the retail nodes of L’Enfant,
Penn-Branch and Alabama Avenue, additional modifications are proposed to provide on-street
parking and additional amenity zones for outdoor café or market space. These preferred

2
 2/3/2007 11:55 PM

Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1

Great Streets Program – Principles and Program Goals............................................................................ 5

Program Goals ........................................................................................................ 5

Funding and Budget ................................................................................................ 5

Guiding Principles.................................................................................................... 5

Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................... 7

Existing Roadway Network........................................................................................ 7

Traffic Operations (include counts, accident data, LOS, etc in the appendix) .................... 7

Pedestrian and Bicycle Network ................................................................................. 7

Safety Deficiencies .................................................................................................. 7

Parks and Green Space ............................................................................................ 9

Public Transportation ............................................................................................. 10

Streetscaping Elements.......................................................................................... 15

Retail Environment ................................................................................................ 16

Environmental Features ......................................................................................... 16

Public Participation ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Design Alternatives Developed as a Result of Charrette........................................................................... 17

Alternatives Evaluation .......................................................................................... 17

Final Preferred Alternative.......................................................................................................................... 19

Traffic Operations.................................................................................................. 20

Pedestrian and Bicycle Network ............................................................................... 20

Safety ................................................................................................................. 22

3
 2/3/2007 11:55 PM

Public Transportation ..............................................................................................22

Overall Streetscape ................................................................................................27

Urban design and Open Spaces ................................................................................28

Streetscape at retail nodes ......................................................................................29

Low-Impact Design Principles ..................................................................................31

Urban Design Plan..................................................................................................32

Plan Sheets...........................................................................................................33

Appendix........................................................................................................................................................ 47

4

Great Streets Program – Principles and Program Goals1
Great Streets are vital to great cities. A Great Street promotes both community and
commerce. It is an inviting place where people want to visit, shop, walk, and enjoy the
surrounding street environment. A Great Street supports and strengthens existing local
businesses while attracting improved and expanded retail services. A Great Street is unique
and memorable – it tells a story about its adjacent communities. A Great Street is safe and
comfortable to walk along and provides many different ways of movement and accessibility -
by foot, bike, bus, streetcar, subway or car.
Program Goals
• Improve the quality of life in neighborhoods along the corridors, including public
safety, physical appearance, and personal opportunity;
• Support local demand for goods and services through economic development;
• Expand mobility choices and improve safety, and efficiency of all modes of travel;
and
• Attract private investment through the demonstration of a public commitment to
Great Streets communities.
Funding and Budget
DDOT, (District Department of Transportation) has secured over $100 million to invest in the
first phase of Great Streets improvements over the next 4 years. The DDOT “Great Streets
Framework Plan” establishes a strategy for public investments across all six corridors. Great
Street funds are coming from a new source – the revenue from the city’s bus shelter
contract. Funding the program from new local sources provides a guaranteed funding stream,
does not compete with or deplete any other program, and provides for more flexible uses
than federal transportation funding typically allows. In addition to DDOT resources, the
Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development has appropriated more
than $16 million in FY 2006 to support local business development, land use planning, and
development assistance on the corridors.
Guiding Principles
1. ENERGIZE
Strengthen businesses and other local institutions and services
Challenge:
1
Source: District Department of Transportation Great Streets Framework Plan
5
2/3/2007 11:55 PM
Change the public and market perceptions of the corridors through
streetscape and transportation improvements, and reposition them as
one of the best places to live and work, consequently expanding the
city’s tax base.
Actions:
• Invest in areas where mixed-use and mixed income developments
could flourish, especially around transit nodes and major crossings
• Create an attractive public environment along the existing retail areas,
open spaces and institutions
2. REFRESH
Integrate and conserve natural resources, and create valuable open
spaces
Challenge:
Transform roadways and intersections into environmentally friendly
and usable community open spaces.
Actions:
• Employ low impact development (LID) techniques to improve the
quality and reduce the quantity of storm water run-off into our rivers
and streams
• Develop defined and shaded rights of way, with street trees and other
plantings, without inhibiting visibility of businesses • Install adequate
trash receptacles, especially in neighborhood commercial areas
• Reduce the Urban “ Heat Island Effect”, with “greened” streetways
• Support the establishment of programs for schools and the general
public aimed at promoting an understanding of clean, green, safe
streets
3. MOVE
Create a sustainable transportation network, with many travel options
Challenge:
Change the existing “corridors” function from major vehicular arterials
into streets that sustain healthy pedestrian and transit based activities,
and consequently support the city’s air quality and transportation
agendas.
 2/3/2007 11:55 PM

Actions: Challenge:
• Balance the right-of-way, (ROW) allocation such that people on foot, Reposition the street as a vital
bicycle, transit and automobiles can safely coexist neighborhood asset, and thus
increase the community’s stake
• Prioritize pedestrians and their needs and aggressively promote a shift
in its design, upkeep, and
to walking, cycling, and use of public transit
stewardship.
• Minimize curb cuts and vehicle oriented intersections, and promote
Actions:
continuous access for walkers and cyclists
• Involve communities in the
design development process
• Deploy and enhance transit systems in order to attract new
• Establish a Construction
developments
Coordination Committee
• Install street lights to enhance pedestrian movements while providing represented by residents and
required roadway illumination local businesses
• Transform dangerous intersections into pedestrian-friendly crossings • Help establish local group (s) for
4. DISTINGUISH regular maintenance, promotion
of businesses, and coordination
Create streets with vibrant places that reflect local character of events
Challenge:
Transform each corridor into a place that is memorable, compelling,
and desirable to visit again and again.

Actions:
• Enhance view sheds and ease of access to landmarks, parks, and
waterfronts
• Reclaim sidewalks at vital street nodes and segments to create space
for activities other than walking
• Reconfigure important intersections to create nodes of retail clusters,
corner parks and/or transit hubs
• Design streetscape elements and public art programs unique to each
corridor’s cultural and historic context
5. CARE
Increase community ownership and stewardship

6

Existing Conditions
The existing conditions of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE were analyzed thoroughly as part of the
initial study of the corridor. Field reconnaissance, aerial mapping, topographic survey, traffic
counts and information collected from stakeholders and the community. Additionally, DDOT
has provided information, which includes previously completed studies, which include the
Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Transportation Study. This data was consolidated and analyzed
and the following section represents the results of this effort.
Existing Roadway Network
The project area encompasses Pennsylvania Avenue, SE from the foot of the Sousa Bridge to
Southern Avenue, SE. At the west end of the project, modifications to the Anacostia Freeway
(I-295) interchange are being developed as a separate effort by the Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative. This design did not consider these modifications, and only attempted to match the
existing roadway network at the interface of these two projects. Several major roadways
intersect the corridor and have been studied as part of this effort. These roadways include
Minnesota Avenue, Branch Avenue, Alabama Avenue and Southern Avenue.
Pennsylvania Avenue, SE within the project area is approximately 1.8 miles long and is
classified as a principal arterial. The roadway is used as a major commuter route into
Downtown Washington, DC and as an access route for local residents to access
neighborhoods on the north and south side of the corridor. Additionally there are three
commercial nodes along the corridor at L’Enfant Square, Branch Avenue and Alabama
Avenue.
The posted speed on Pennsylvania Avenue, SE is 30 mph. Along the corridor, the roadway
ranges from a four-lane section between Southern Avenue and Carpenter Street. Between
Carpenter Street and 27th Street, the roadway section has five lanes, the center lane
operating as a reversible lane during peak periods. Between 27th Street and the Anacostia
Freeway, the roadway widens to a width of eight lanes with turning lanes at the Fairlawn and
Minnesota Avenue intersections.
Traffic Operations (include counts, accident data, LOS, etc in the appendix)
Extensive data on existing traffic operations were collected as part of this study. Data
includes traffic counts, crash summary reports, and level-of-service (LOS) for signalized
intersections. This supporting data can be found in Appendix A.
Traffic operations along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE can be characterized by congested
conditions during peak periods and free flow conditions during off-peak periods. In the
morning peak period, heavy flows are directed to the east towards Downtown Washington.
In the evening, heavy flows are directed to the west towards Prince George’s County, MD.
Congested conditions are more severe during the morning peak period than in the evening
7
2/3/2007 11:55 PM
peak period. During off-peak periods, vehicles can generally travel under free flow
conditions. Vehicle speeds frequently exceed the posted speed limit at these times.
During congested conditions along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE vehicles will commonly
experience low speeds, frequent queuing, and spillbacks at numerous intersections. Travel
speeds along the corridor were observed to be as low as 5 miles per hour (mph) in the
morning peak period for vehicles traveling west into Downtown Washington, DC. During the
evening peak period, speeds were observed to be as low as 17 mph for vehicles traveling
east towards Prince George’s County, MD. It is not uncommon for congested conditions to
extend from L’Enfant Square in the west to Texas Avenue in the east for vehicles traveling
west in the morning peak period. During the evening peak period, congested conditions were
observed to extend from the Sousa Bridge in the west to Branch Avenue in the east.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
The pedestrian and bicycle network along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE is currently uneven and
discontinuous. The sidewalk network consists primarily of 6 foot wide P.C.C. sidewalks along
both sides of the roadway. The sidewalk is discontinuous along the south side between
Branch Avenue and to a point approximately 280’ east of 31st Street. This section of the
corridor has a retaining wall supporting a cut slope that is located six feet from the face of
curb. Also, along the south side, the sidewalk is discontinuous from 33rd Street to 38th Street
abutting the Fort Circle Park. In addition to these deficiencies, many of the pedestrian cross
walks and handicap ramps are unsafe or non-existent and do not meet the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. Access to the walkways on the Sousa Bridge requires
pedestrians to cross on- and off-ramps to the Anacostia Freeway at unsafe locations.
According to the District of Columbia Bicycle Master Plan, published April, 2005, Pennsylvania
Avenue, SE is proposed to have a multi-use trail from the Sousa Bridge/Anacostia Park to
Southern Avenue. Currently there are no provisions for bicyclists along the corridor except
for the unsafe connections to the multi-use paths on the bridge and connections to the park.
The closest existing bicycle paths are along the parallel Massachusetts Avenue and along
Alabama Avenue, north of Pennsylvania Avenue, which have on-street bicycle lanes. Also, as
part of the bicycle master plan, Branch Avenue is proposed to have on-street bicycle lanes
both north and south of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Safety Deficiencies
Crash data collected between 2000 and 2005 indicate that side swipes and rear-ends are the
prevalent accident types along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE. Data further indicates that almost
a majority of the reported side swipes and rear-ends occurred at L’Enfant Square where
Pennsylvania Avenue and Minnesota Avenue intersect. Accident summary reports obtained
from DDOT’s databases can be found in the Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Transportation Study
Report prepared in 2003.
 2/3/2007 11:55 PM

Existing intersection geometries and signal phasing are factors contributing to crash
occurrences along the corridor. Congested conditions during peak periods and excessively
high vehicle speeds during off-peak periods are also contributing factors. The absence of left
turn bays and protected left turn phases at several intersections along Pennsylvania Avenue,
SE is likely to be a factor contributing to the occurrence of rear-end crashes. It is not
uncommon for vehicles to unexpectedly stop in the left lane (the lane where vehicles are
accustomed to traveling at higher speeds) and wait for a considerable time to make left
turns. The existing 5-lane cross section along a majority of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE is likely
to be a factor contributing to the occurrence of sideswipe crashes. A five lane cross sections
promotes excessively high speeds and high speeds are known to be a probable cause for
sideswipes.

8
 ark and G een Sp'ilce

Pennsy vania Avenue boasts a network of parks end open spaces tha· represents a tremen-
dous unrea~ lzed potential. Framed by two natural ,gateways-a doubl,e row of mature oaks at
sout ern Avenue and the regiona1-sca!e Anacostia Park a, its northwest extent-Pennsylvani:a
Avenue SE supports a. great diverslty o green spaces which can provide a ra'nge of a.ctivities..

'. The ISO Ie crt Cirde Parks ys~emr originally part of the city's rrng of CiVI r War defenses,
c:ross'es the corridor betwee,n Southe,rn Avenue and 33rd Street SE. However, disconfnu-
ous sidewalk access alongsidE! the parkland prevents easy access by nasidents to the park's
network of tr-a' sand hlstorlc Fa: structures.
• Anacostia Park, a regional-sca,le attraction offering Be ive recreational and riverFron use,
's cu ren y difficult to reach by residents of he corridor and drlvers . like.
• TWining Square, a small pocka park occurring at the' rrangular Intersect ron of Pennsylvani'8
Avenue, a Street, and 28th Stree SEt !Ischarming but under-m ir'ltained, and residents,
note tha Itsack 0 supervision creates an envlron ment for undesirableaetiv ties.,
Situated ~t the intersectIon of Pennsylvania and Minnesota Avenues SE J L'Enfant Square
presents the ,gre,atest potential as a "village green." Cu. rently he square is fragmented
by tu -n lanes and overburdened bus stops. Green space occurs ptecem,e'aI between busy
lanes of 'raffle, renderng pedestrian ci rc:utatian and use bah difficult and dangerous.

HARGREAVES

I'"
 2/3/2007 1:00 PM

Public Transportation
Pennslyvania Avenue, SE is served by several Metrobus routes. The maps below illustrate
the existing bus routes serving the corridor. A fold-out a map depicting bus stop catchment
areas and potential service demand is included in the Appendix.
The daily duration of transit service along the corridor is generally acceptable, with buses
operating late into the night. The frequency of services, however, drops precipitously east of
Minnesota Avenue from 30 buses an hour in the peak direction to eight buses an hour in the
peak direction. Midday service drops from 15 buses an hour to four buses an hour.
Frequencies drop even further east of Branch Avenue. East of Alabama Avenue bus service
mainly takes passengers to and from Metro stations in Maryland. The Appendix includes a
summary of bus frequency between key nodes along the corridor.
The bus stop catchment map indicates that most neighborhoods adjacent to Pennsylvania
Avenue, SE have adequate access to bus service along the corridor. The Westover
neighborhood, however has limited access to transit. The street geometry and topography in
this area make connectivity to Pennsylvania Avenue difficult and consequently access to bus
stops is difficult.
Although the existing route map shown previously would seem to indicate a high amount of
transit service along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, there are some deficiencies. Principally, there
is a lack of continuous routes through the corridor. This leads to high transfer activity that
may not be needed if more continuous routes are provided. More transfers leads to undue
delay for transit users. Lack of continuous transit service through corridor also diminishes
the attractiveness of transit as a commuting mode along the corridor. The presence of more
continuous routes along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE may attract more commuters who would
otherwise drive along Pennsylvania Avenue to reach Downtown Washington.
The amount of transfers at L’Enfant Square illustrates the need for more continuous transit
service. Currently, the U2 route provides north-south service through L’Enfant Square. This
service however operates at a low frequency. Transit users can effectively make the same
trips as the U2 by transferring to and from the B2 route and the V7, V8, V9 route. Service is
more frequent on these routes than the U2 so transit riders are more attracted to
transferring than using the U2. It was noted in field observations frequent transfers between
the B2 route and V7, V8, V9 route. Bus stops for these routes are located on opposite sides
of Pennsylvania Avenue. Frequent crossings of Pennsylvania Avenue - many times outside of
a protected pedestrian walking phase – were observed. Increased frequency on the
continuous north-south route - U2 – would lessen the amount of potentially hazardous
pedestrian crossings of Pennsylvania Avenue and would likely decrease transit user travel
times through L’Enfant Square.

10
 2/3/2007 1:00 PM

Figure 1: Existing Bus Routes

11
 2/3/2007 1:00 PM

12
 2/3/2007 1:00 PM

13
 2/3/2007 1:00 PM

High commuting vehicular volumes into and out of Downtown Washington also illustrate the
need for continuous transit service along the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. Currently, there
is no continuous bus route from Prince George’s County along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE into
Downtown Washington. The existing M6 route provides the longest continuous coverage of
Pennsylvania Avenue with service spanning from the Potomac Avenue Metro to Alabama
Avenue at Fairfax Village. The potential exists to intercept commuting traffic and preserve
Pennsylvania Avenue for local traffic if continuous service along the entire length of
Pennsylvania Avenue, SE from Southern Avenue to Downtown is implemented.
Existing plans for rapid bus transit along Pennsylvania Avenue can help address the current
deficiencies in continuous bus service. Current plans recommend service between the Naylor
Road Metro and Archives – Navy Memorial Metro via Pennsylvania Avenue. The service
would incorporate some high quality transit features such as:
• shelters in both directions at L’Enfant Square and at westbound stops along
Pennsylvania Avenue
• special vehicle branding
• and ITS equipment once ridership is established.
The proposed routing as it stands, however, may not prove to be attractive enough to
intercept automobile commuters traveling along Pennsylania Avenue from Maryland. The
proposed routing does not include stops along Pennsylvania Avenue east of Southern Avenue
into Maryland. Alternate routings for proposed rapid bus in this corridor and other revisions
to the current rapid bus plan may be warranted.

14
, x·'stlng Co ·it"o s UrbaC aractera d 5 reetsc:a.pe
Southeast of the AnacostlCl Rlve~ the rolling hills that origmally served to shelter the Cap tol
City now lend Pennsylvania Avenue SE the character of a folding I,andscape marked by ridg'es
and va leys AJthoug:h nearly on axis with the Capitol bUildIng ac 'OSS the nver, the s ',eet
achieves through Its topography a feeling of qUi,etness and secl:lJsion enjoyed by Its r,esidents.
Meanwhi!le the highest polntsalong the corridor offer moments of panoramic y'ew t,o the Capi-
j
A marture tree canopy lends oharacter to residential areas in particular, but utilIty poles and
overhead illes introduce visual olutter and compromise the hea~th of many of Pennsylvan~a
Avenue~s oldest trees. Pruning around wi res leaves tre'6S, misshapen anCl prone to C1isea:se f and
many tees aJong the avenue viSibly evldence blight. Notably, thiS segment of pennsylvan~a
Avenue is the only portion of Pennsylvania Aven ue in the District with overhead utility lines.

tol Dome and the surrounding landscape.

Pennsylvania Avenue SE is marked by a very clear dIfferentiation in land use, etween r,ask
dentlal and commerc'ial areas. :Each of its major Avenue crossings-Minnesota, ,Branch and
Fairfax-supports a block or series of blocks of commercial development. Re,sidential areas "n
between the commercial nodes are leafy and qUiet, with houses emd apartment bUild I1g5 set
back(.;lnd often roisedseveral feet above the level of the roadway. The corridor's three com-
mer al zones function as nodes 0 concentrated act vJty, each wIth a dLstmct cnaracter and
pattern of use. This combination of dl:stlnctlve land use and foldlrng topography y el:d dlstjnct
,character .zones along the length of the corridor.

:S·tree:tsca pe ...
Serv'ing pr'mal'1ily asa commuter route, Pennsylvania Avenue SE suffer from an Inhospitable
anv ronment fo pedestr ans, bicyclsts and local vehicular traffic, R€sldentsave noted the
di~ficul y In crossino the street due to poony markedr Intersections and crosswalk Slonal times
that are too short to cross the roadway. n restdential areas, narrow, uneven sidewsitl<s flank a
tree zone whose oaks and sycamores have overgrown the curb and: upset the sidewCllk surface
Retaimng waUsa fron yards are In .many cases in di:srepalli leaning towards he pedestrian
zone and further decreasing its lJseable width. Meanwhile, pedestrian space in commercia ar-
eas eels nprotected from roadway traffic. The' Avenue ma,kes no prov s cns for bicycles.
P nnsyl'llnill, Avtlnull SE. Ciluact r Zon Ii

HARGREAVES
 2/3/2007 1:44 PM

Public Participation
Retail Environment

Pennsylvania Avenue SE has three retail focus areas, L’Enfant Square, Penn Branch Shopping
Area, and the Alabama Avenue Retail Node.
The L’Enfant Square retail area starts at Fairlawn Avenue and ends at 28th Street. This area
has predominantly commercial zoning with some residential zoning, along with a public and
institutional presence. It has large building setbacks and wide sidewalks at points, and has an
automobile oriented strip development that caters to convenience retail, mostly oriented
towards commuters. Gas stations are prominent features at the entry points, and there are
underutilized vacant properties. This retail area has no continuous building line and a
diminished pedestrian experience, with significant but disconnected open space areas in the
L’Enfant Square intersection.
All effort has been made to keep the public involved in order to help the DDOT and the Stake
Holders with the determination of the final preferred concept alternative. There were a total
of nine public meetings, which were advertised by several local media. Eight of the meetings
were for the general public, and one special meeting was held with the Hillcrest Civic
Association. Out of these meetings, including the Design Charrette held July 26 – 29, 2006,
several alternatives for the corridor and the L’Enfant Square area were developed. Other
communications with the public came in the form of e-mail for those who opted in, a website
at www.ddot.dc.gov, and a bi-monthly newsletter. Of the goals outlined by the draft
statement, the attendance met expectations of fifty people per meeting and the process and
content evaluations by the public were all at least satisfactory, which exceeded the goal of at
least 50%. The public input was essential in this phase in order to finalize the configuration.

The Penn Branch Shopping Area has significant commercial land uses from Branch Avenue to
O Street. The remaining areas are comprised of residential, institutional, open space and
government properties. The Penn Branch shopping center is a commercial node that has a
defining entry feature and large surface parking lots in front of and behind the commercial
building. There is an abandoned commercial building on a large lot at the intersection of
Pennsylvania Avenue and O St. The commercial land use on the southwest portion is a gas
station at a prominent corner location, with parking in front and large building setbacks.
There is significant open space in this area but the sidewalk network, on the south side in
particular is not complete.
The Alabama Avenue Retail Node is from Alabama Avenue to Fort Davis Street. It has
commercial zoning at the intersection of Pennsylvania Avenue and Alabama Avenue where
the Fairfax Village shopping center is located, and the rest of the area remains residential. It
has an automobile oriented strip development at the southwest side with surface parking lots
in front of the commercial building, where there is a post office located among numerous
retail stores. There is also a gas station in the northwest portion with parking spaces and a
retail building.

Environmental Issues - NEPA / Section 4(f) / Section 106 Review

To be completed following final consultation with NPS & DCSHPO

16
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

Design Alternatives Developed as a Result of Charrette in further detail the improvements and recommendations associated with the preferred
alternative for Pennsylvania Avenue, SE.
Discussion of the 3 primary alternatives for corridor
Discussion of the 3 L’Enfant/Twining Square alternatives

Alternatives Evaluation
A preferred alternative was selected by evaluating the performance of each alternative in
advancing the goals and objectives of the Great Streets Program. Evaluation criteria were
established for each of the five guiding principles of the Great Streets Program:
• Energize
• Refresh
• Move
• Distinguish
• Care
In addition, a sixth principle – “build” – was conceived. Criteria under this principle would
evaluate the feasibility and constructability of an alternative. The alternatives were scored on
how well they advanced each criterion. Ultimately, an overall “Great Streets Score” was
produced. The higher the score for an alternative meant the greater the ability of the
alternative to advance the goals and objectives of the Great Streets Program.
A summary of the results of the evaluation process is illustrated on the following page.
Listed next to each guiding principle are the evaluation criteria used for scoring that principle.
The overall score for each guiding principle is illustrated using colored circles. The “Overall
Great Streets Ranking” illustrates graphically how the alternative performs with respect to all
of the guiding principles. A more detailed numerical comparison on a weighted scale of one to
five is shown in the Appendix.
Among the corridor alternatives, the evaluation indicates that the four-lanes with median
alternative does the best in supporting the goals and objectives of the Great Streets Program.
The four-lanes with median alternative scored high in terms of distinguishing the corridor
from other places in the District and in terms of fostering community ownership and
stewardship.
Among the L’Enfant Square alternatives, the modified square alternative scored the highest.
This alternative most notably scored high in its potential to energize the local community and
strengthen local business. This alternative also scored high in terms of fostering community
ownership.
The scoring process indicated that the four-lanes with median and modified square
alternatives should be advanced as the preferred alternative. The following section describes

17
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

Figure 2: Alternatives Evaluation

Great Streets Corridor Alternatives Performance Measures

L’Enfant Square Alternatives

Pennsylvania Avenue, SE 4-Lanes with

median &
4-lanes with
bike lanes
5-lanes with
reversible lane
Ellipse Modified
square
Conventional

multi-use trail

OVERALL GREAT STREETS RANKING

• Number of on-street spaces
ENERGIZE • Proximity to commercial

Strengthen business and other local

institutions and services
• Green space quantity
REFRESH • Green space quality
• Green space opportunity for
Integrate and conserve natural resources, variety
and create valuable open spaces • Tree canopy & tree location
• Environmental

• Pedestrian circulation /
MOVE connectivity
• Pedestrian safety
Create a sustainable transportation • Pedestrian inviting and efficient
network, with many travel options • Bicycle operations
• Vehicular safety
• Pennsylvania Ave mainline
traffic operations LEGEND
• Transit operations inviting and
efficient
• Regional mobility

• Corridor experience
DISTINGUISH • Place making – pedestrian
experience
Create streets with vibrant places that • Place making – continuity and
reflect local character scale

• Residential viability
CARE • Neighborhood circulation &
connectivity
Increase community ownership and • Local side street operations
stewardship
• Right-of-way (how far beyond
BUILD the existing footprint?)
• Cost
Can be feasibly constructed at a • Constructability
reasonable cost • Construction impacts and
duration

18
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

Among the corridor alternatives, the evaluation indicates that the four-lanes with median
alternative does the best in supporting the goals and objectives of the Great Streets Program.
The four-lanes with median alternative scored high in terms of distinguishing the corridor
from other places in the District and in terms of fostering community ownership and
stewardship.
Among the L’Enfant Square alternatives, the modified square alternative scored the highest.
This alternative most notably scored high in its potential to energize the local community and
strengthen local business. This alternative also scored high in terms of fostering community
ownership.
The scoring process indicated that the four-lanes with median and modified square
alternatives should be advanced as the preferred alternative. The following section describes
in further detail the improvements and recommendations associated with the preferred
alternative for Pennsylvania Avenue, SE.

Final Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternates for the Revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, are the Four Lane
with a Landscaped Median option (27th Street to Southern Avenue) and the Modified Square
with Pennsylvania bisecting (intersection of Minnesota Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue).
Both of these alternates identify with the goals of the Great Street Initiative.
The first alternate mentioned above stretches the length of the project along Pennsylvania
Avenue from 27th Street to Southern Avenue. This alternate allows for a safer access to
commercial and residential outlets. This is facilitated by better lighting, continuous
sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and on street parking. The design promotes shopping by providing
an environment people can come and benefit from what the surroundings have to offer.
The Modified Square option at the intersection of Minnesota Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue
stresses the importance of safety and awareness and allows vehicles to navigate through the
intersection. This design would allow Pennsylvania Avenue to bisect through the center of
the square as well as a way that encompasses the perimeter of the design. This perimeter
route acts to calm the traffic, similar to how a traffic circle works by allowing vehicles to enter
and exit the square at locations identified by the intersecting streets. It would also reduce
vehicular speeds by providing short straight distances between tight radius turns, at the
presumed four corners of the square. Pennsylvania Avenue also bisects through the center of
square design. The bisecting route is designed with the tourist in mind and creates a place of
distinction and reduces pedestrian and vehicular interaction. Another benefit of this design is
that traffic signal configuration is simpler and the left-turning conflict is removed.

19
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

Traffic Operations
Traffic operations under the preferred alternative would be impacted by several factors. The
preferred corridor alternative would reduce the number of lanes between 27th Street and
Branch from two lanes in each direction plus with one reversible lane to four lanes with a
landscaped median. L’Enfant Square would operate as a signalized traffic circle with
Pennsylvania Avenue bisecting. Left turn bays would be added at most intersections along
the corridor. Signals timings and phasing would also be reconfigured throughout the
corridor.
Traffic operations under several different scenarios were analyzed in order to evaluate
performance of the preferred alternative relative to existing traffic operations. Several
scenarios were developed:
• Existing (2006) traffic volumes on the existing network
• Existing (2006) traffic volumes on the preferred alternative
• Future (2025) traffic volumes on the existing network
• Future (2025) traffic volumes on the preferred alternative.
may in fact keep traffic volumes along Pennsylvania Avenue relatively constant. If projects
such as the 11th Street Bridges, South Capitol Street Bridge, and the Pennsylvania Avenue –
I-295 Interchange are completed, then commuting traffic currently using Pennsylvania
Avenue may be shifted to other routes. Nevertheless, the modest deterioration in traffic
operations under the preferred alternative is acceptable when considering the overall benefits
of a more walkable and pedestrian friendly environment that the preferred alternative
provides. The traffic operations analysis as it stands, shows that the preferred alternative
can work to accomplish several principles of the Great Street Program without dramatic
deteriorations in traffic conditions.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
Under the preferred alternative, numerous improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle
network are proposed. These improvements would provide a continuous and inviting
pedestrian-bicycle network along the entire length of Pennsylvania Avenue, SE. The principal
improvement advanced in the preferred alternative is a ten-foot wide multi-use trail parallel
to Pennsylvania Avenue from Southern Avenue to Fairlawn Avenue. Other improvements
include:

Existing traffic volumes reflect traffic volumes from numerous traffic counts conducted • A reconfigured L’Enfant Square with several pedestrian accommodations
between 2003 and 2006. Forecasts of future traffic volumes were based on forecasts • An exclusive pedestrian crossing signal phase at Twining Square (28th Street)
developed in the previous Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Transportation Study. The existing
• A landscaped median along the entire corridor and other landscaping
network represents a “no build” condition where no changes in geometry or signal operation
improvements
are made. The scenarios allow for comparisons of traffic conditions between build and no
build conditions and between existing and future traffic. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) • New sidewalks along the entire corridor
level of service (LOS) reports for all signalized intersections along the corridor can be found
• Special pavement and sidewalk treatments throughout the corridor
in the Appendix.
Many of these other improvements are discussed in greater detail later in the
Overall, traffic operations deteriorate modestly when comparing the preferred alternative
streetscaping/urban design section of this report.
with the no build condition. Reductions in LOS occur at the intersections between L’Enfant
Square and Branch Avenue. Generally, Pennsylvania Avenue, SE under the preferred The proposed ten-foot wide multi-use trail is consistent with the District’s Bicycle Master Plan.
alternative would operate at the same LOS as the existing (no-build) network from the The trail would extend eastward an existing multi-use trail that currently terminates at the
Branch Avenue intersection to the Southern Avenue intersection. eastern end of the Sousa Bridge.
For the more severe peak traffic period (mornings), LOS under the preferred alternative with Between 28th Street and Southern Avenue, the multi-use trail would parallel the eastbound
2006 traffic volumes would drop at three of the 14 intersections along Pennsylvania Avenue, travel lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue. The trail in this location would be buffered by a six-
SE. For the AM peak period with 2025 traffic volumes, LOS under the preferred alternative
would drop at five of the 14 intersections and improve at two. During both the morning and
evening peak periods with 2025 traffic volumes, L’Enfant Square under the preferred
alternative would operate at the same LOS as L’Enfant Square under its current
configuration.
While the traffic forecasts used in this analysis show increases in traffic volumes between
2006 and 2025, improvements to the regional highway network over the same time frame

20
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

foot to ten-foot amenity zone except between Carpenter Street and Fort Davis Drive. At this Figure 4: Diagonal Crosswalk by Twining Square
location, no buffer can be provided between the travel way and trail because of topography
and limited right-of-way. At 28th Street the trail would cross Pennsylvania Avenue and
parallel the westbound travel lanes. To facilitate crossings, a diagonal crosswalk is proposed
at the Pennsylvania Avenue / 28th Street intersection. The crosswalk would connect the
southeastern corner of the intersection with the northwestern corner. An exclusive
pedestrian crossing phase would be included in the traffic signal at that intersection.
Between 28th Street and Fairlawn Avenue, the trail would continue to parallel the westbound
travel lanes buffered by an amenity zone most of the way. At Fairlawn Avenue, the trail
would cross Pennsylvania Avenue again and then connect with an existing multi-use trail that
crosses the Sousa Bridge.
Figure 3: Proposed Multi-use Trail

As part of a reconfigured L’Enfant Square, numerous enhancements to the pedestrian

experience would be made. Crosswalks would be added at all intersections. Signal timings
and phasing at the two L’Enfant Square intersections would be configured such that the
section of Pennsylvania Avenue inside the square would be free of vehicles when cross street
traffic travels around the square. During this time, pedestrians could freely cross
Pennsylvania Avenue anywhere inside L’Enfant Square. This accommodation would greatly
increase the pedestrian connectivity of the L’Enfant Square neighborhood.

21
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

Figure 5: Pedestrian Accomodations at L'Enfant Square operations. Throughout the corridor left turn bays and protected left turn phasings would be
provided.
Pedestrian zone when Figure 6: Reconfigured Intersections at 29th St (a) and 31st St (b)
north-
north-south traffic cross
Mid-
Mid-block crosswalk
Pennsylvania Avenue

(a) (b)
A matrix showing the potential benefits realized with improvements at each intersection or
corridor segment is included in the appendix. The matrix uses a weighting scheme to identify
those improvements that have the potential to correct for the highest-occurring collision
types (i.e. angle collision versus rear-end collision).

Public Transportation
The preferred alternative includes several improvements to public transportation.
Improvements include:
• relocation of bus stops at L’Enfant Square
• relocation of bus stops along Pennsylvania Avenue from 27th Street to Southern
Avenue
• rerouting of the M6 at Fairfax Village.
The figure below illustrates the location of bus stops and bus routings through the
Crosswalks provided at reconfigured L’Enfant Square. Several alternatives for bus stop locations and bus routings
all intersections were considered. Among others, options included allowing buses to make lefts onto
Pennsylvania Avenue from L’Enfant Square and consolidating bus operations to two stops
located on opposite sides of Pennsylania Avenue inside L’Enfant Square. Ultimately, the
Safety locations chosen balance the need for safe and efficient bus operations through the square
Numerous changes in intersection geometries and signal timings under the preferred with pedestrian safety and convenience, especially for those pedestrians transferring between
alternative would make Pennsylvania Avenue, SE safer for both vehicular traffic and bus routes. Bus stops are generally located along the eastern edge of the square where road
pedestrians. The reconfigured L’Enfant Square eliminates left turns. Signals at L’Enfant geometries provide enough space for buses to stop and for buses to exit and reenter the flow
Square would be timed so that Pennsylvania Avenue inside L’Enfant Square is cleared of of traffic. Clustering most stops along the eastern edge also helps to minimize walking times
vehicles and open for pedestrians to freely cross while cross street traffic circles the square. and street crossings for those pedestrians transferring between routes.
The intersections at 29th Street and 31st Street would be reconfigured to simplify traffic

22
 2/3/2007 2:52 PM

For the remainder of Pennsylvania Avenue from 27th Street to Southern Avenue, bus stops
were relocated so that, in most cases, bus stops were positioned at the far side of an
intersection. Far side locations are generally safer for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
Stops were also relocated to coincide with proposed retail nodes along the corridor. For a
proposed retail node between Branch Avenue and 33rd Street, mid-block bus stops are
proposed with mid-block crosswalks. Mid-block bus stops are also proposed at the Fairfax
Village retail node between Alabama Avenue and Fort Davis Street.

23
 Do
Po wn to
Fri toma wn D O ST PO
en PE
ds c Ave C - 3 ST
hi p 5
H e M e tr , 3 6
i gh o - HI
ts 3 GH
M e 5, 3
tro 6, M W

29TH ST
35 OO
,3 6 D
6 DR

! 19
35M6
35 36 J11 J13 K11 36 V11
A11 D51 J13 K11 M6 V11
NASH ST

!
3
! 19

Na !
3
ylo Fairf P ST
r R ax
d M Vill
e tr a g e
o- -M
35
,3 6

BRANCH AV
6

Do
Po wn to
Fri t om a wn D

E
en
ds c Ave C - 3
hip 5
H e M et r , 36
igh o -
ts 3
M e 5, 3
tro 6 , M
35 36 J11 J13 K11 M6 V11 35
,3 6
28TH ST

Na
ylo Fairf
! 4
! 18
6
QS
T
r R ax 35 36 A11 D51 J13 K11 M6 V11 Do
d M Vill Po wn to
etr ag e
o- -M !
4
Fri toma wn D
en
Q ST 35
,3 6 ds c Ave C - 3
6 hi p 5
H e M e tr , 3 6

T
igh o -

S
ts 3
M e 5, 3

ST
tro 6, M
28TH PL

31
35
,3 6
6
35 36 J11 J13 K11 M6 V11
! 17 Do
Po wnto
Na
ylo Fairf
! 5 35 36 A11 D51 J13 K11 M6 V11 Fri t oma wn D
en
ds c Ave C - 3
r R ax hip 5
d M Vill He M et r , 3 6
e tr a g e PE i gh o -
NN ts 3
o- -M
S Me 5, 3
35 tr o 6 , M
,3 6 YL
VA 35
6 NIA ,3 6
29TH ST

AV 6
E
30TH ST

35 36 A11 D51 J13 K11 M6 V11

ST
R ST ! Phase 1
16

R
35 36

TE
! !

EN
6 16 Phase 2
33

RP
R DP

CA
Phase 1 L
J11 J13 K11 V11 M6

Phase 1
!7 Po
t om
!

Naylor R
1516 a cA
Fa ve
! 6 i r fa
xV Me
t ro
!16
illa
g
! 78 Phase 2 -M

d Metro
e- 6
M6
Phase 2 J11 J13 K11 V11 M6
S ST J13 A11 D51 K11 M6 V11
!

- 35, 36
8
! 15
Phase 1 Fa 8!
31ST ST

irfa
x Vil
lag

R
e

V ER D
-M
6
S ST

WES TO

33R
TEX 0 75 150 300 450 600
A S AV

DS
E Feet
TEXAS AVE

T
 M6

E
A11 D51 J13 K11 M6 V11 S AV
XA SS
J11 J13 K11 V11 M6 ! 14 TE T Q
ST

Fa ! 9

38TH ST
irfa
x Vil
l ag
e-
M6 IS DR
T D AV
FOR

PL
S
VI
DA
RT
FO

40TH ST
R
ST

6
-M
e
Po

g
t om

ll a
a

Vi
cA
ve

fa x
Me

ir
t ro

Fa

ST
-M
6 M6

IS
AV
!32

FORT DUPONT ST
RT
A11 D51 J13 K11 M6 V11 PE
NN

FO
!
29
SY
LVA
NIA
bus stop does not exist AV
E
!30
M2 S35 V5 W4 SS
T
V5
M2? S35 V5 W4
!
31
!
!
- 13 W4 V11 K11
t ro
Me M6 !33
10

!
n
la za
t P etro
fan tia M
- bus stop no longer exists
!10
N
13

E
L' acos De aylo r
An an
wo Rd M
od e
Me tro -
tr o M
-W 2 An
4 a
36

co
s
T

tia
H

Me
PL

E tro
AV -
MA W4
A BA
AL nw
K11 V11 W4 ea
V ST D
! 12

K11 M2 S35 V5 W4

!
W4
11

!
34

36
TH
PL
38TH ST

5
-V 2
r -M
o
37TH ST

et
M etro
za M
P la d
t rR
an lo
nf ay
36 TH

E N
L'
W ST
S

R
T

TE
D
L AN E
IT AV
RD SU R
N
ND E
TLA TH
SUI U0 75 150 300 450 600
S O
Feet

To address issues of bus service continuity along Pennsylvania Avenue, a rerouting of the M6
line through Fairfax Village is proposed. The M6 currently does not provide service along
Pennsylvania Avenue between Southern Avenue and Alabama Avenue. The M6 instead
makes a loop formed by Southern Avenue in the east, Alabama Avenue and 38th Street in
the west, Massachusetts Avenue to the north, and Suitland Avenue to the south. The
proposed rerouting would extend service along Pennsylvania Avenue between Southern
Avenue and Alabama Avenue. The M6 would essentially make a figure eight through the
area. The rerouting is illustrated in the figure below.
26
2/3/2007 2:50 PM
The proposed rerouting would extend continuous bus service along Pennsylvania Avenue
from the Potomac Avenue Metro to Southern Avenue. In addition the rerouting would
provide better service to the Fairfax Village shopping center – a retail node that is to be
targeted for high quality redevelopment under this plan. These benefits would be
accomplished with minimal changes in travel time for transit users on the M6.
Along with these proposed improvements, plans for rapid bus along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
should be implemented. Rapid bus would greatly advance the transition of this corridor from
a major vehicular arterial to a street able to sustain high levels of pedestrian and transit
based activities. This transition is one of the principal challenges of the Great Streets
Program.
The plan recommended in the Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Corridor Rapid Bus Service Plan
should be revised, however, to reconcile different recommendations proposed under the DC
Transit Alternatives Assessment (the AA). In the AA, the proposed alignment for rapid bus
follows Pennsylvania Avenue from Downtown Washington past the District boundary and into
Maryland where Pennsylvania Avenue becomes Maryland Route 4. The Rapid Bus Service
Plan, however, recommends routing rapid bus along Pennsylvania Avenue from Downtown
Washington to only the District boundary at Southern Avenue. At that point, rapid bus would
continue down Southern Avenue and eventually to the Naylor Road Metro. As stated
previously in the existing conditions section, the Naylor Road Metro alignment advanced in
the Rapid Bus Service Plan would be less effective in intercepting vehicular commuting trips
from Maryland Route 4. These vehicular commuting trips are one of the principal causes for
congested conditions along Pennsylvania Avenue, SE. The alignment advanced in the AA
would be more effective in intercepting commuters who are currently driving along
Pennsylvania Avenue from Maryland. A service plan with similar depth and detail as the
current Rapid Bus Service Plan should be developed using an alignment that resembles the
one advanced in the AA.
Several other recommendations made in the current Rapid Bus Service Plan should also be
considered for revisions. Bus shelters should be considered at all bus stops rather than only
those located on westbound Pennsylvania Avenue as recommended in the Rapid Bus Service
Plan. The stop locations for rapid bus would be at retail nodes and so eastbound boardings
should be expected. Also, the inclusion of ITS equipment should not be contingent upon
establishing a ridership base. Ridership in this corridor is already high so ITS features should
be a part of rapid bus service from the beginning.
The preferred four lane cross section with median does not necessarily preclude the use of
the outer curb lanes for exclusive HOV/transit use during peak periods. Restricting the outer
lanes for HOV/transit use during peak periods should be considered contingent upon further
study. This study would need to examine whether or not the outer lane restriction in
conjunction with rapid bus implementation could carry a comparable number of person-trips
to what is currently being carried
proposed rbn Desi, ,n, ,Streetscape, a:nd Ope- Space
Draw ng from the prJ,nciplesof the Great Streets Program and from the desires expressed
by residents. and stakeholders, he Streetscape and Urban Destgn pl,m recasts ennsylvania
Avenue SIE as a sustainable and vibrant neighborhood stre'6t. By priveleging the pedestriaWI
experfence/aciUtating the movement of local traffic, and proViding easy and conveni!ent ac-
oess to sustainable transportation options. the oorridor can integrrate ne'ghborhood life w th
commercial centers and a ne work of parks, aU wh'i!le mee ing the needs of a safe and efficient
roadway.
Overall' Str,eetscape E emets,
Street5cape amenities and ffnrshes on pennsylvania, Avenue SE should match the qlla,lity of
those along Pennsylvania Avenue north of the, Anacostia River, while at the same time ,express-
ing and enhane:l ng the unique character of he Southeast neighborhood. The fo ow' ng ele
ments w II be Inherent to the streetscape Improvements along the corridor:
.' A consisten l"nguBge of htgh-quaH y materials and street furniture is to unify tine corridor
and lend it a distinct identity.
.. New, widened sidewalks a'iong both sides of pennsylvania Avenue SE wi,li 'un cont"nuousl'y
along the entire I,ength of thecolTidor.
• A ded,icated bicycle lane wi,ll run the full length of the corridor and connect to he r,eg,ional
~rOIl'O~Il,d SllctlO-J; at L'Eln h n S qu re
bIke network.
• The existing tree canoDy-an invaluable resou rce and defining charecte istic 0.[ the corrj-
do,r-Wi be pteserved and enhanced With additional t ee plantings.
• Uflity lines should be placed unde 9 ound to promote t ee health, mitigate ne9at',ve v'sual
bligh and match h quality of . he res of he Pennsylvania Avenue corridor..
• A planted median will reduce the width of the roadway and add to the bealJtyof the cor-
r dar whil,e allOWing for left turn lanes.
Custom colored concrete paving patterns are proposed to emphasize comfortiJlole and safe
movement aCrO'SS Pennsylvania Avenue, reconnect neigl'iborhoods ,across he corridor, and
promote walking and biking along the corrid'or's length. Paving materia~s wm 'st'tch' across
,-he roadway at intersectIons and commerciaJ nodes, s gnalling pedes F'an crossing points
to drivers and creating a safe and inviting environment for pedestrians.
• Employment of special streetscape materials will be su bdued In residential 2llreas, reinforc-
ng their sense of park-like ql.,Ji!,et; and will become more intense around commercial nodes
to signlfy ac
·Vlty.
• New lighting fo the co, ri'do will be consIstent with the 'Dc'rk Ski,es' initi:ative and wiU be
cho5:en to muminate -he pede 'rfan and vehic:le space while mrn~mrzing g.lare. Ughfng wUl
be subdued in residential areas and brighter ali'ound commercial nodes.
• Tne corn dar will fulfill AiDA accesslbUity gUidelines, rendering I· safe and comfortable for
a I users.
• r ig!atJon Will be provided to maintain the l"leat h of plantings, along the c.orrid:or.
HARGREAVES
I;"
Urban Des gn a d Open Space St uct -lire

With its mature tree ca'nopy, leafy front ya,rds, and variit:!ty of public green spaces, the Pennsy -
vania Avenue SE corridor is cona!lved of as a 'Iinear park.fJ Th@ d@sllgn propos@s to strengthen
th s sense by weaving resldentlal ne,ighborhoods, commercial, nodes, and parks into an nte-
grated, pedestr an- nlendly network. Streetscape Imp ovements a ,e groupe,d by t e foHowing
character zones:
• Residential Neighborhoods and :Fort Circle Park
• Streetscape at Commercial Nodes
Anacostia Gateway, l: nfant and Twinmg Square
- Penn Branc;h
Falliax VlItage and Southern Avenue Gateway

L.....J
Resi '8,n r,al Ne ghbo 11'00 S and For Ci,rde Park CI

Per nsylvania Avenue SE',$ residentiel blocks give he Avenue its unique identity as a I,near park
in the city. The desi rl preserves this characte willie creating a safer and iinviting space for pe-
des rlans and bicyclists. Tne following ar,e he desi,gn recommendaions for residenia! CI rea S :
.' Overhead !,ltility lines shovld be undergrounded to promote tree heal h and improve· he
quality of s r:eetsca,pe otlaracter. IKI MIl

.' The ex,isti ng mature tree' canopy will be maintained and new trees add,ed ~here the 'e are
gaps•
•' A planted median willi reduce the width of the roadway and add to the beau y of r-esidentiial
ar,eas.
•' New, wid r sidewa:l'ks will tvn continuously along the corridor, including in those blocks Pin renlM - I!l1wnl
where they are currently missing.
• A b cycle Ilane wfll run on the south side of the street" adjacent to a separate pedestrian
s;ldewalk.
•' Streetscape finishes will matcll those proposed for the rest of the corridor, but lere ar,e
employ,ed simply and quiet:I'y to delineate p,edestrian and bicyde zones.
•' New 'lighting will be subdued in residential areas, illuminating sidewalks and roadways
while ml:nimizi ng glare.
.. Colored concrete crosswalks will alert drivers to the presence of pedes lans.
.. liTigation will be provided to maintain tile Ilealtll or plantings.
St>clion :.t 29th S

HARGREAVES

I'"
St'lI'eetscape E' ements at Retai No·es

he proposed desi,gn at ,ea,c'h of the th'ree commercial z,ones-at Alaba,ma, Branch, and Mrm'le-
sota Avenues-will enhance am@nitles and spaces to provld@ a unique, eomfortab e and exe t·
Ing pedestrian experience I;ach node has been designed to be distinct 'from the others so tha/
redeve:lopmentopportunlt e-s are Inaxlrnlzed The, proposed design IS flexible and adaptab e to
encourage' r'e'sldents and visitors to eat, shop and ,gather. The following are "base ine" design
'e!lements to be employed in aU retail nodes:
• The desi,· n proposes on-street parallel parkin,g lanes that will be ,conven,ient for retail users
and prov.lde a buffer for pedestrians from roadway traffic.
II, Trees w·1I be chosen to, provide shade ,and to disti,nguish commerc"t;ll, nodes as spec,lal
places along the corndor.
•' Custom paving patterns wil:l be inviting and memorable. Patterns will be desl~gned to
Istl chI' across the roadway, alerting drivers to the presence of pedestr.ians.
., Street ameniti'es and furniture w II provide pfaces sit, rest and gather, while contr'butiing to
the characer and contmulty of the pedestnan zone..
... Street lighting will be c;hosen to I.lluminate the sidewalk and ro,adway without produ:cing
glare., creating safe and actl,ve spaces for pede~tnan5 after dark.

Anaco tla Gateway~ L'Enfant and Twinlng Square

As a 'gaeway an- own center, L' nfan· Squa,re extends nearly from Fair awn Avenl.Je to 2Bh
Street SiE, encompassing the square proper, the small pocke parK and: the Intervening: bocks.
This Intersection between Pennsylvania and Minnesota Avenues offers a unIque potential along
he corrido fo: a$ign~i'fican green urban space. The proposed configura ion of the ro,edway
con sol Ii dates green space, removes roads and promotes easy wa,lkability. T 'lis w·1I aUow what is
now fragmented and unuseable green space 0 become a 'rue park, gateway to the neighbor-
hoad,and neighborhood destination" In addition to the baseline design e'l:ements, the foHowi:ng
,are the design recommendations for L':Enfant Square and surrounding locks:
Iii ~Iarge greens WiU provlde a range of fleXible spaces or passive recreo!tion as we as
"TWo
opportunities for art.
•' Custom colored concrete paVing patterns will 'stitch' across Pennsylvania Avenue between
t:he two greens, signalllng the square as a pedestrian space to approachl,ng vehicles.
•' A tree-lined perimeter walkway with new widened sidewalks will ring the squa e"

HARGREAVES

I'"
'ow-Impact' De,sign p, inc pies

IPennsylvania ,Avenue SE has the opportunity to create a susta,inable and integ ated ,environ-
ment. herefore, the proposed design has included severallow-impad desIgn pr"nCiples:
• To reduce he u:rban heat Island effect and associated ener9Y use by maxllmlzing plantings,
and uSing light-colored pavir'1g surfaces. Wherever possibl'e, colored concrete will be em-
ployed ifl pedestrian are s, including roadway irltersections, and light-c'Olored asp aJt vyUl
:marl< tihe bikeway.
.. To preserve and enhance the existing tree canopy, maximizing pavement shadling. Existing
str'eet trees will be preserved and gap ,filled, completing the already extensive tee canopy
along he corridor:
II' To reduce impervious paving area, thereby minimizing's ormwater runoff, combined sewer
overflows and w<lter pollution. Pervious paving and uni pavers re recommended for use
wherever possible; Including in pedestrIan 20nes, pa,rklng arGas, and bikeway. The cor-
ridor-Ilong p,lanted median will absorb rainwater and a continuous tree zone willi both: allow
for ra:inwater absorp ion and promote" ree health.
.. To create a sustainable ransportatlon network that wHl provide many travel 0 tions. I n-
tersections are d,esigned to improve ped'estrian walkability, a dedicated bicycle ane w I run
the ent"re length oft e corridQr and CQnnect to' rt:lgiQn I networks, and a new rapid us re
:Is prOiPosed tha should be gl,ven lane priority.

Imp' r~'(lU 11 ntl rmwv 1l n rlpl., cl

ith plant~ are s {1.4~ iCrU}
III lOti! j:I;li~enl rltl

HARGREAVES

I'"
 Urban Design Plan

L’Enfant Residential Neighborhood Branch Ave to 33rd alabama ave Southern Avenue Gateway
Regional Mixed Use St Retail Node Residential Neighborhood retail node

Fort Davis
Park

Southern Ave SE
40th St SE
Fort Davis St SE
38th Place SE

Fort Davis Dr SE

Alabama Ave SE
Texas Ave SE
33rd St SE
Twining

Carpenter St SE
L’Enfant

Branch Ave SE
30th St SE

31st St SE
Square Square
29th St SE
28th St SE
27th St SE & O St SE
Minnesota Ave
Fairlawn Ave

Minnesota Ave

PLAN KEY walk zone: exposed aggregate concrete retail areas: colored concrete

bike path: colored asphalt planted area / amenity zone

0 100’ 200’ 500’ 1000’

roadway: asphalt

~i
~, d. District Department of Transportation
TB - HARGREAVES
ASSOCIATES
 SHEET TOTAL
REG STATE PROJECT
NO. SHEETS

D.C.

20

0
0

3
1
10+00.00

20
POT STA

+19.63
NC
30 CO

NC

PC STA 13
CO

SPH

PT STA 18+53.57
A
10
11 N
SIG

MATCH LINE STA 19+00.00 - SEE SHEET 2

12
13
PH
AS

N
14

O/H SIG

3
0
15
16
17
18 19
NC
CO
ASPH

PI
PH PH
AS AS
10

NC
CO 0
3

E NC 20
GA
T CO
$PENTBLS$

20

PH
30
N
SIG AS
30

30
0
4
CO
10
$PLTDRVS$

N
SIG
O/H
NC
CO
l:\PA_AVE_SE\CutSht\ALT_1\pHD-PA01_PENN_AVE.dgn

PH
AS
Friday, December 15, 2006 AT 09:38 AM

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION
PROJECT ENG.

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, SE DESIGNED BY

CHECKED BY
CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWN BY

LD CA FROM SOUSA BRIDGE TO SOUTHERN AVENUE, SE PROJECT MGR.

DIVISION CHIEF
GRAPHIC SCALE: Legion Design / Campbell & Associates
30 20 10 0 15 30 45 60 Consulting Engineers Washington, D.C. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
SHEET 1 OF 14 DATE
NO. DESCRIPTION NAME DATE

1" = 60’-0" STA 10+00.00 TO STA 19+00.00 FILE

REVISIONS SHEET OF
R.OW
R.OW
 SHEET TOTAL
REG STATE PROJECT
NO. SHEETS

N D.C.

6
.5
-0

6.32
6.0’ x 6.5’ STORM

S
S
A
R
G

7 S
T
O
R
M

5’
x
’
4.5
A S P H A
NC L T P A V E M
E N T
CO S
EE
TR K
S
SE C R
E
A T
N T
0

R
PH DE
T U
3

G
AS
D
A &
O B
R R
IL U
A C
R E
T
E
R
C S
N S
O
C A
RB

E N T
R 1 S T O R Y
G CU B R I C K
E B U I L D I

E N T
R ET N G
T
E CR
T N
CO

P A V E M
U
G
&

P A V E M
B
R

ER
U S
C S
E

TT
S T A

0
S E R

GU
R

3
A C
R N G #2300
G O

&
C

L T
RB
6 PH

CU

E T E
LK CONCRETE
NC AS

A S P H A
CO
A

E
EW

T
B
R
NC

RE
SID U
B C
CO

C O N C R
E

NC
R E
C
U ET ET
R

CO
E C R
C
ET
PH
N N
R O O
AS C C C
N
O
C

C O N C R E T E
S
M

C A N O P Y
AS
OR

P U M P S
CONC A S P H A

GR

CONCRETE
RETE L T P A V E M

W I T H
E N T

12" ST
CURB 1 S T O R Y

12
B R I C K
B U I L D I

’S
20 NCRCETE PH
R N G S
E

TO
W
CCO AST TE

CONCRETE
SE

RM
N RE
ON N
5" RO TE
E
Y NC
1 AP M P C CO
2 RA CONCRETE
NO ON
E
8.0

A R E A
G V
CA C

M E T A L
IN A

F U E L
NC 15"
STO D
RA P
CO RM E T
PH

O V E R
ET L
CR LK
AS
A
N A H
PH
P
CO EW

S
AS
S
AS
5
NC SID A CONCRETE PATCH
.0 TE

GR
S 11 RE
ES
CO A
C
K
SIG
N CO
NC

18
NC
R

"
T

ST
N CO
D CONCRETE CURB
SIG
A

O
O

R
R

M
IL
PT STA 18+53.57

A N
R E
T SIG
E 12" #2314
5 C
R
TO
RM
20
STO TE
NC
RERM
CONCRETE SIDEWA
LK #2316

NC
N N
O "S CO PRO TE CONCRETE SIDEWA
C 15 A
CO NC
RE LK

NC
CONCRETE SIDEWALK N
CO RO

PC STA 23+70.78
AP E
CO N CR
ET
CO CONCRETE SIDEWA
LK
& CONCRETE CURB
RB
E CU ER
STON GUTT STONE CURB & CONCRETE GUTTER

00
RETE
CONC R
M
O CONCRETE CURB
T

0.
1

PI
S STONE CURB
5’ PLASTIC LANE DIVIDERS STONE CURB
x

0
MATCH LINE STA 19+00.00 - SEE SHEET

M ’
R 4.5

18
4+
O
ST

"

MATCH LINE STA

ST
NC
"
15

O
CO

R
A

0
ST

2
A S P H A L
T P A V E M E
N T

T
STONE CURB &
CONCRETE GUTTER PH

PO
AS

B
R
U
C
18 STONE CURB & CONCRETE GUTTER

R
19

E
CONCRETE

T
20 B

T
R
21

U
C
U CONCRETE CURB

G
22

N
C

&
E
ER 23 STONE CURB

C
T
C
R
E
TT
STONE CURB
&
4 24 CONCRETE CURB

C
O
N
&
G
U CONCRETE GUTTER
8.32
18" STORM
25 CONCRETE CURB
26 STONE CURB

1
10.15 10.19 G R A S CONCR
S

27+00.00 - SEE SHE

15" STORM

S
G R A S
S
14.40 27
K

D
T
R
A
C G R A S
S G R A S
S
2
A G R A S
O PLASTIC LANE DIVIDERS S
R
IL STONE CURB & CONCRETE GUTTER
A
R STONE CURB
CONCRETE CURB

PT STA 26+36.
CONCRETE CURB

20

18" STORM

ET 3
& TE
CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER RE
RB R NC S
CU TTE CO EP A S P H A L
E
GU
STONE CURB & ST T
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
ON
ST RET
NC
E
3 CONCRETE GUTTER
STONE CURB & CONCRETE GUTTER
P A V E M E
N T

CO STONE CURB & CONCRETE GUTTER CONCRETE CONCRETE WALLS

STONE CURB
TE STOOP BRICK WALLS
RE P
AS
CONCRETE SIDEWALK TE GRASS
CONCRETE SIDEWALK NC
CO PRO NCN
NC
RE
NC
E TE
RE
TE GRASS
20 CO CRC
N
A CO RO NC
ONN ON TE
CO N

43
AP
S CCOAPR CO
AP
RO
CO
NC
RE
N CONCRETE
K S DRAIN GRATE RO SIDEWALK
STONE CURB
C S GRASS AP
A
TE CO

CONCRETE

CONCRETE
R A

BRICK WALL
GA
T R DRAIN GRATE GATE
D CONCRETE CONCRETE WALLS
A G
O D PORCH
R E PA CONCRETE SIDEWA
IL N TE

GRASS
O NO # NO # GRASS LK
R
A ST RB TE RE T GRASS
CU RE NC L
NC C N CO A T CONCRETE
SEIGPAD
M N #2317 TE
ING
CO N
ON
R RO H N
O AP SIG P E #2319
CR
E
T C S NT
RK
S M N
RE
T A E #2321 CO EME
5’
PA NC
NC V V
x TE PA
’ CO
A
G #2327

E N T
CO
P
$PENTBLS$

A TE
IN
R
T
E 4.5 R G
R RE #2329
NC
RK
E
U
T
T
T
A
IN CO N CON
PR TE
NO #
#2335
G U
COA RE 2 STORY
A

2
R 2 STORY #2337
HP
& G D NC P #2339
& CO BRICK &

P A V E M
B OO BRICK &
R B ST P
AS
U R M E T A L BLOCK
PH
C U C A N O P Y BLOCK 1 S T O R Y
E C O V E R C
TE
AS
T 2 STORY
E E RE
O N C R E
T E A R E Y BUILDING BRICK
OP
R T C A BUILDING 2 S T O R Y
E W I T H F #2313
C R ON U E L BRICK M A S O N
N C N
P U M P S B U I L D I N R Y

BRICK WALL
C
LK G
CA
O N B U I L D I N
30

C O A BUILDING G S 1 STORY
C S 1 STORY
S EW BRICK
A SID BRICK
TE
PH

L T
R E BUILDING
RE T
2 G
C
R
ET
S
NC
CO EME
N
NC
BUILDING
AS
CO
N S

A S P H A
O V
NC C A PA

CO
R
G
NC
CO

E N T
T
0 N
2 E
M
E
V

P A V E M
A
P
T
L
A T
H N
P E
S T
A M
S E N
S E V E
ET
NC NNC
A R A M

L T
R P E
G CO
CAO
PR
O
T V

GUTTER

GRASS
L
N G P
A

CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
KI
A

A S P H A
LK
H T
P
R L G
IN

CONCRETE SIDEWA
CONCRETE WALK S
PA
A

RK
A H
P
PH

& CONCRETE
PA
S
TE
#2305
AS
A
NC
PH CO
$PLTDRVS$

S RE T
AS
NC
ING
AC

GUTTER
N AC
S CO EME
NC

CONCRETE WALK
A
RK
V
R PA
CO
G
LK
RE
TE
N
T
C
1 S T O R Y
AL
T PA

AC
NC
ON
E BRICK PH
A CO NT S

LK
AS

& CONCRETE
STONE CURB
EW
M
C ME E
1 E B U I L D I N
G VE
RE

CONCRETE SIDEWA
SID V PA
ET
E P
A
AS
S T
S
GR E
NS
R S T
C S A L
N S
DE
O R A

AC
C A G H
R P
G

GRASS
S
A

STONE CURB
BRICK WALL BRICK WALL
T
N A S P H A
G L T
l:\PA_AVE_SE\CutSht\ALT_1\pHD-PA02_PENN_AVE.dgn

E P A V E M
E N T
N
E
RE
TE IN M

RK
O E
ST RB NC V
CU CO
A A

HP
P
S
OD T
TE WO P L
AS
1 S T O R Y
RE T A
NC N N H
M CO PRO BRICK E P
NC
R A S
O B U I L D I N M A
NC CO
T G E
S V
5’
’
x P
A
CO
T
4.5 L
A

CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
H
P
Friday, December 15, 2006 AT 09:39 AM

S
A

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION A S P H A
L T P A V E

PROJECT ENG.

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, SE DESIGNED BY

CHECKED BY
CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWN BY

LD CA FROM SOUSA BRIDGE TO SOUTHERN AVENUE, SE PROJECT MGR.

DIVISION CHIEF
GRAPHIC SCALE: Legion Design / Campbell & Associates
30 20 10 0 15 30 45 60 Consulting Engineers Washington, D.C. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
SHEET 2 OF 14 DATE
NO. DESCRIPTION NAME DATE

1" = 60’-0" STA 19+00.00 TO STA 27+00.00 FILE

REVISIONS SHEET OF

M
R
O
T
S
5’
x
’
4.5
SD
SD
R.OW
R.OW
 CO

A
ECK
K NC
CC

GR
RE
ON DDE
CONCRETE TE
CCO S
AS
GR

AL L
Y
Y

EW AL
K
P
OP

0
RY

S
NO

50

SID E W
AS
AN

TO
#2
CCA

GR
IC

N
2S

BR

RE STO
TE
#2420
2 S T O R Y #2422
B R I C K 2 STORY #2424 #2426 #2428 SHEET TOTAL

NC
B U I L D I
N G S 2 STORY #2430 REG STATE PROJECT

S
BRICK 2 STORY 2 STORY #2432

AS
CO
2 STORY #2434 #2436 NO. SHEETS
BRICK BRICK 2 STORY

GR
BRICK BRICK 2 STORY 2 STORY
BRICK 2 STORY
BRICK BRICK

S
BRICK CO

AS
NC

GR
#2400 RE
#2402
#2404
#2406
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 5 TE
D.C.
PY

GRAVEL DRIVE
F R A M E

S
C O V E R
NO

AS
E D P O R C H
CA NC

CONCRETE
E S

GR
CO
CO

CONCRETE DRIVE
NC
RE BROKEN ASPHALT
TE

CONCRETE
CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

CONCRETE

S
N

AS
CHIMNEY

GR
STONE

CONCRETE
6.32
NC

CONCRETE
CO

CONCRETE
6.0’ x 6.5’ STORM GRASS
GRASS

2 STORY
S
CONCRETE

AS
CONCRETE

#2519
CONCRETE

GR

BRICK
STONE WALL GRASS

CONCRETE
CONCRETE SIDEWA GRASS

CONCRETE
LK

ER
GRASS

K
GRASS

AL
TT
GRASS B STONE DIRT
GRASS

EW
11.51 CONCRETE CURB GRASS R CONCRETE

U
& GUTTER GRASS U

S
CONCRETE

G
C

SID
AS
E GRASS

&

GR
11 N

STONE CURB
CONCRETE CURB

TE
O

RB
.61 CONCRETE T
S

RE
CONCRETE

CU
CONCRETE

2 STORY
NC
A S P H A L

#2517
E
T

BRICK
P A V E M E

CO
N T CONCRET CURB

L
O

AL
GRASS

ST

EW
GRASS

ON
#1301
CONCRETE CURB
& GUTTER

CONCRETE

ST
PORCH

LK

2 STORY
CONCRETE

CONCRETE SIDEWA
BRICK SIDEWA

#2515

BRICK
GRASS LK CONCRETE CURB
& GUTTER

G S
A S P H A

Y
L T P A V E M
E N T GRASS
TE

CONCRETE
BRICK
2 S T O R

B U I L D I N
BRICK SIDEWA
GA
6.0 LK

PORCH
’ STONE WALL
x

N T
CONCRETE 6.5 S
’ EE
TR
S ER
T
O TT CONCRETE

P A V E M E
U
S E
&G NS
R
EE
M
RB
AS
S S
S
TE
CU
TR DE
AC GR
A
UR
B RE E
NC

AC
R
EC CO LK S
EN
S G T A
S RE EW
GRASS A NC SID D

CONCRETE
R CO TE
RE CONCRETE

PORCH
G NC
K CO
AL

ER
EW ASS
E N T

SID GR

TT
T
TE
RE
E N T

NC

GU
A S P H A L
CONCRETE CO TE
RE S MP

LK
NC

TE
EE
P A V E M

E
CO PRO
N S RA

AT
EE

CONCRETE SIDEWA

RE
A
TR
P A V E M

& GUTTER

GR
TR

NC
S
E
NS
D

& GUTTER

AIN
O
SE

CO
O
N DE

DR
W
DE

&
SS

AL
#2300 RB

RB
A CU S
R

EW
G TE S

CONCRETE CURB

CU
RE A
L T

NC R L

SID
PH
CO
DE

CONCRETE CURB
G

E
E T E

NC AS

ON
CONCRETE

TE
ES
A S P H A

1 S T O R Y
CO AT

RE

ST
C GR S
ON EE

NC
AIN

RB
DR
TR
C O N C R

C B R I C K B U I L D I N G

CO

CU
E
NS

E
T
ON
DE
S
PH

EN
S
AS

21" STORM
A
SPH

ST
M
R

T
VE
G
A RB

CO
A S P H A CU #2510

PA
L T TE
NC

LK
P A V E M RE

R
E

N
NC
CO
E N T 1

TE
S T O R Y

CR
CO

A
M
B R I C K

CONCRETE SIDEWA
B U I L D I

RE

ET
N G S

S
E

E
NC

ES
S
E
CONCRETE

K
ET

V
AL
R 2-1/2

CO

S
S T O R Y

ID
NC

A
CO
NC

EW
A

G
EW
CONCRETE BRICK S

P
CO
D

R
SID

AL
B U I L D I N O T
G O L

A
RB

E
T

K
CU W A

TE
TE H
PH

S
T

T
L
RE P

RE
N

Y
AS
NC S

S
E
E
A
E

BRICK RETAINING WALL

TE CO A

NC

G R A S S
M

P
E

T
R
CR

H
E

CONCRETE CURB
NT

CO
N S

O
C Y V
PH

IT E
CO EME

C
S
ON OP

S
P
A

CONCRETE
M H
AS
A

N
V P

R
E
PA

N
R
C

P
S
G N T
CA

A
C
E

40
CONCRETE
A

O
R

N
C

W
S T

C
N

U
S N

O
NC M
A O E
ER

L
C

P
R

A
T
CO A V E S

C
2 STORY
UT G

A
G
EE

E
N 2 STORY
SIG TE 2 STORY BRICK
G

L
TR

T
R
RE P

R
KIN
#2314 6.0
NC BRICK BRICK

E
E
BUILDING

E
SE
#2316
CO

A
’

19.08
AR
x

U
TE BUILDING BUILDING

V
6.5
RE P N
NC DE
CONCRETE SIDEWA

STONE CURB
S NC

F
’

CONCRETE
LK D N

K
#2324 S CO PRO
CO

AT
CONCRETE CURB
T O E

AL
NC 15" STORM O O A T T
PH AL

GR
PH
TE R W E
CO

EW
M R H
RE
AS
SP
NC C
AA S

AIN
T E

SID
CO CONCRETE SIDEWA 19.4 N N T
LK O E E

DR
ER
C M R #2524

TE
E C T

TT
N #2528

RE
V NO#
BUS 15 O E
N #2518
S
EE
S A N

GU
SIG C

NC
D .5 P M
STOP O 9
TR
CONCRETE CURB E #2526
O

CO
V

TE

K
W A
SE
N

AL
RB
STONE CURB SIG P

RE
STONE CURB
N

EW
CU
DE

04
IGN

NC

SID
S

E
CO

CONCRETE CURB
ON
CONCRETE PAVEME S
NC
S T

TE
NT

ST
&
A L

PC STA 28+97.
CO
R

RE
A

G R A S S
RB
G H T

ST
S

NC
S P N

PT STA 32+42.85
CONCRETE S

CU

ON
CONCRETE GUTTER SIDEWALK A A E

CO
PLANTER R M

E
E

CONCRETE
G

CONCRETE
S S S

CONCRETE
S V

ON
RA S S S S

CONCRETE
A S P H A L S
ET 2

G S A A S

CONCRETE
T P A V E M E A P R S A
TE A

ST
N T R A R
P RE G R G

.00
TE R G
M NC C CONCRETE RE
G G
PH RA ON
N SIDEWALK
CONCRETE CURB CO RO NC
AS AP N

MATCH LINE STA 35+00.00 - SEE SHEET 6

CONC
C CO PRO DRAIN GRATE

18" STORM
RETE N
CURB A SIG
27+00.00 - SEE SHE

G R A S S

00
TE CONCRETE DRAIN GRATE
RE SIDEWALK GRASS
NC TE N
SIG
STONE CURB N
CO RO RE CONCRETE
AP NC

1+
STONE CURB GRASS N SIDEWALK
STONE CURB CO RO T
AP AL
CONCRETE CURB STONE CURB GRASS PH N
AS RO CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
AP

TA
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE CURB
6 STONE CURB
CONCRETE CURB
17.02
CONCRETE CURB
RET
EG
UTT
ER

S
NC
CO
27 6’ STO
RM
STONE CURB
& C

T
34
CONCRETE CURB
G R A S
28

PO
S S
6’ STORM
32.28
20.22

G R A S CONCRETE
S 21.05 6’ STORM
RE
TE
29 NC
CO
3

NC
CO CONCRETE
ONCRETE CURB
G R A S
S
30 CONCRETE CURB
31
20.58

D
32 34 35 36
MATCH LINE STA

ET
E
PA
33 1
PT STA 26+36.

R STONE CURB
NC
CO
CONCRETE CURB

AL E
T
RE

K
G R A S S

NC
EW
CO
SID
G R A S S
STONE CURB

M
OR
ST
3’
2’x

40
A S P H A L
18" STORM

T P A V E M E
N T
M E N T
L T P A V E
A S P H A 50
RETE WALLS
BRICK WALLS
PH .00
AS C O N C
R E T E
P A V E M
E N T
CONCRETE CURB
43

STONE CURB GUTTER

RETE & CONCRETE
STONE CURB
NC
SIDEWALK
STONE CURB CONCRETE PAVEME

PI
CO
NT G R A S S
CONCRETE

CONCRETE

STONE CURB
21.00

CONCRETE WALLS
CONCRETE
G R A S S
NC
INLET
CONCRETE SIDEWA APRON
N C
GRASS

GRASS
GRASS
CONCRETE
LK
STONE CURB LK
CO INLET GRATE
CO
TE BUS CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CURB CONCRETE CONCRETE SIDEWA GRATE
NC
RE T
N STOP
TR G R A S
CONCRETE
NC
CONCRETE NC
APRON
NC
#2321 CO EME S G R A S S APRON
CO SIDEWALK CO CO
NC E N T
V
#2327 PA CONCRETE SIDEWAL ST P A V E M
R E T E
CO
E N T

K CONCRETE
O LK C O N C
#2329 N CONCRETE SIDEWA
NO # E C
ON P A V E
C APRON

M
#2335 U
C C C C O N C
R E T E

OR
#2337 R

SPH
B
ON
#2339
G R A S S
P A V E M

ST
#2341
22.17 DRAIN GRATE A C
ST

3’
2’x

K
O

AL

CONCRETE WALK
N

CONCRETE CURB OVERHANG

TE
E
STONE CURB

EW
B
PH GA
C

UR
AS
U

1 STORY

SID
PH
R

1 STORY

EC
B

BRICK 1 STORY 1 STORY

AS
1 STORY CONCRETE CURB

TE
#2537
&

BRICK
PH

ON
1 STORY
L T

BUILDING BRICK STONE ST #2529 #2533 #2617

SIGN
$PENTBLS$

RE
AS
METAL O
2

BUILDING
O

ST
BUILDING FACED BRICK & N

NC
N

C O N C R E T E
FACED

C A N O P Y
C
C
A S P H A

STUCCO U

CO
BUILDING
R

BUILDING R
40

P U M P S
ET

B
BUILDING N

W I T H
4
SIG

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

E

.3
E N T

ST

P A V E M E N T
B
G

30
E

C O N C R E T E
UR
U

T
O
E N T

TT

E
N

R T

C
E

ER

C N

TE
C

N E

CO
PY
U

T O
P A V E M

RE
R

N C
NO
E

A R E A
NC
B

E
CONCRETE WALK
P A V E M

NC

M E T A L
&

M
CA
CO

F U E L
R
E P
G

ET
C

CO
KIN
N

V
O

T
CR

O V E R
E
T
N

L
P N R

GU
ET

A
T E
PA
R

C O N C R E T E
E

L M
ET

T
S
SID

A E S

TE
S V
E

A H A
A

R
EW

P
G

A S P H A L T
T

R S P
U

G A C
A
L T

TT
A S P H A L

N
LK

CO
ER

CO
A S P H A

NC
AP
NC

RE
RO
CO

TE
S #2515

N
#2517 #2521
NC
S
A 2 S T O R Y
CO W G
R

ING CS
N

CONCRETE
B R I C K B U I L D I N G
K #2513
B R O K E

P AR
K
AL

ER

PH
W

AS
TT

LL
TE
IN
E

GU

WA
ET

IN
1 STORY

E
NC

CR
W

TA
R

TE

CS CO
STUCCO
NC

1 S T O R Y B R I C K B U I L D I N G
& GUTTER

RE
CO
P

CO
RE

UM BUILDING
CO

CSW
S
$PLTDRVS$

ST

NC
S
NC

A
N

RE
R
& GUTTER

CO
LK

L
T AL G

T
A S P H A
E

G
W
NG
CONCRETE SIDEWA

L T

CO

ES
P A V E M
&

E E N T S T E
AIL
ER

RE

R
S
I M
CONCRETE CURB

RB

NC

ID
R
ER

A NC
RK
E
GUTT

ND

A
R
CO
E

EW
NG
GUTT

CU

RE
G HA
PA
A

S
V

KI
P AL
E N T

AL
TE
ET

S
E
GRAS

PH
CONCRETE CURB

T
A

AR
ON

K
L

CU
AS
A
NC
P

T
P
RETE

ST

CO
H

RB
N
PH
P
TE

E
NC
T

S
P A V E M

AS C
M A
CONCRE
CONC

NC CO
E
L

CO

V
N CO
CO
A

A
CO
NC

P NC
H
1

T
RE

RE
l:\PA_AVE_SE\CutSht\ALT_1\pHD-PA03_PENN_AVE.dgn

L
G

K
P
Y

CONCRETE

A
AL
CONCRETE
PAVEMENT

TE
ER

ES

S
S

H
B U I L D I N

STONE CURB &

BRICK

7
1 S T O R

EE
P
CONCRETE WALK

EW

S
CU
42
A

S
TT

ID

TR EE
STONE CURB &

A
A
#2
SID

EW

RB
T

GU

TR

CO
#2334

S
E
G
M
A S P H A L

NS
AL
R
TE

NC
SE
TE

P
K

NC

AP
OR

IN
RE

DE
O

RE
N

RO
RE

CO
IL IC
ST

DE
NC

TE
T

N
D

A
NC
3’

R
CO

S
2’x

L
CO

AS

T
1

U
&

PH
PA
B
RB

P
VIN
AL

A
CU

T
G
Friday, December 15, 2006 AT 09:40 AM

V
5

CONCRETE CURB
E

42

& GUTTER
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 4
ON

E
D.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
#2

A S P H A
ST

L T M
P A V E M LL

CO
E N T WA
E
K

NC
A S P H A IC
L T BR
N
P A V E M
E N T

RE
L
T

SP
H C AL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

TE
A C ON TE
W
RE

RE
C
3

ON

TA
42

C
CONCRETE CURB
#2

IN
& GUTTER

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION

IN
G
T

W
DIR

AL
S

G
AS

L
R
GR
E

PROJECT ENG.

A
T

W
S
CS
E

PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, SE
5

CO
S
R

GR DESIGNED BY

NC
AS
C

R
1
42

ET
N

CHECKED BY
#2

ES
O

BR CONCEPT DESIGN
ID
2

S
41

IC
AS

EW
K DRAWN BY
#2

ST
GR

EP

LD CA AL
S
AS

CONCRETE COPING S
FROM SOUSA BRIDGE TO SOUTHERN AVENUE, SE
L

K
GR
AL

PROJECT MGR.
G
W

9
G

N
41
IN

#2

I
AS
IN

NC NC DIVISION CHIEF
D

GRAPHIC SCALE: CO
TA

Legion Design / Campbell & Associates

GR

NC CO CO
L
ASS

RE

RE
K
#2410

TE
I

AL
K
GR

ST
U

ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
IC

EP
EW

CONCRETE COPING GR
S
BR

AS
B

Consulting Engineers Washington, D.C.

E N T

S
0 15 30 45 60
ID

30 20 10
ES
7

CONCRETE WALK
41

PH
ET

AS
C
#2

SHEET 3 OF 14
R
P A V E M

DATE
I

NC
R

BR
NO. DESCRIPTION NAME DATE
CO

IC
L
B
S

K GR
AL

S TE
AS

ST
AS RE AS
#2408

LL

EP
GR
STA 27+00.00 TO STA 35+00.00
GR

NC S FILE
W

1" S= 60’-0"
Y

CO
CO
A

NC
GW
R

RE
G

TE
REVISIONS
IN
5

O
41

GR
ININ
IN

SHEET OF
S

AS
E T E

#2

T
AS

S
TA

T
GR

TA

BR
RE

0 IC
G

TE
RE

K
4
2
EW OPIN

ST RE
E
C O N C R

EP NC
TE

GR
CO
K

S
ER

AS
AL
SID E C

RE

CO S
TT

NC
T

NC

RE
GU
RE

TE
3
41

CO

GR
NC

TE

P A

AS
#2
E

S
CO

ET

RE
SD
SD
R.OW
R.OW
 PH

E
W
AS

TT
B R

GU
ET
W

CR

E
CS

& GUTTER

T
N

CO
P

RE
UM

CO
CSW ST S

NC
S

NC

T
A

RE
R

& GUTTER

CO
LK
L
T AL G

TE
A S P H A

E
N

G
W
NG

CONCRETE SIDEWA
L T

CO
P A V E M

&
E S E
E N T ET IL

ER

SID
S
I M RA

CONCRETE CURB
CR

RB

NC
ER
A
RK
E

GUTT
N D

A
R
CO

E
V AN

EW
NG

GUTT

CU
SHEET TOTAL

RE
G
PA
A H

S
V
KI
P AL REG STATE PROJECT

E N T

AL
TE
ET

S
E
GRAS
PH

CONCRETE CURB
T NO. SHEETS

A
AR

ON
M

K
L

CU
AS
A
NC

P
T
P

RETE

ST
CO
H

RB
N
PH
P

TE
E
C

T
S

P A V E M
N AS C
M A

CONCRE
CONC
NC CO
E

CO

CO
V
CO N D.C.

A
A
CO

NC

NC
P

H
1
T

RE

R
L

K
P

ET
CONCRETE

TE
A

AL
ER
S

S
H

E
STONE CURB &

7
EE
P

CONCRETE WALK

EW
ES

SID

CU
42
A
S

TT
TR

STONE CURB &

A
A
E

#2
SID

EW

RB
T

GU
TR

#2334

S
E

G
RM
A S P H A L
NS

AL
E
E

P
NC

ET
NS S

IN
T

K
DE

TO
EE

H
RE
CO

CR
DE TR

A
NC

N
3’

CO
E

IL
MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 3

2’x

L
CO
NS

AS

T
DE

U
&

PH
PA
B
RB

P
VIN
AL

A
CU

T
G

V
5
CONCRETE CURB

42
& GUTTER

ON

E
#2
A S P H A

ST

M
L T P A V E M CONCRETE LL

CO
E N T WA

E
PAVING K

N
A S P H A IC
L T BR TE

N
P A V E M

CR
E N T RE
NC L

ET
T
H AL
SP NC CO
EW
CO

E
A ET

RE
R
NC

3
CO

T
42

AIN
CONCRETE CURB

#2
& GUTTER

IN
G
T

W
DIR

AL
S

G
AS

L
G
S T O R Y

R
GR
E
B U I L D I N
TE

BRICK

A
T
RE T

0
W NC

S
CS N

5
CO EME

CO
S
R
V
GR PA

NC
AS

C
S

RE
1
42
N

TE
#2
3

SID
BR

S
41
IC

AS
TE

EW
K
TE RE T

#2
ST

GR
EP RE T NC

AL
N

S
NC CO EME

AS
S N
CONCRETE COPING CO EME

K
V

GR
PA

AL
V
PA

G
W

9
G

N
41
IN

#2

I
AS
AIN
NC NC

D
CO

CONCRETE

GR
NC CO CO

T
PORCH

L
ASS

RE
RE

K
#2410
TE

AL
K
GR
ST

U
IC
EP

EW
CONCRETE COPING GR
S CO

BR
AS

B
E N T
NC S

SID
G
Y
RE
ST TE

K
CONCRETE WALK

B U I L D I N
EP

BRICK
2 S T O R

41

TE
S PH
AS

C
#2

RE
P A V E M

NC
R
BR

CO
IC

L
B
S
K GR

AL
S E

AS
ST
AS ET AS

#2408

L
EP
GR CR

GR
S

W
S

AL
Y
N CO
CO NC

GW
R
RE

G
TE

IN
5

O
41
GR

ININ
IN
S
AS

E T E

#2

T
AS
S

TA

T
GR

TA
BR

RE

N
0 IC

G
TE

RE
K
4

2
EW OPIN
ST E

E
CR

C O N C R
EP N

TE
GR
CO

K
S

ER

M
AS

AL
SID E C

RE
CO S

TT

E
NC

NC
RE

GU
RE

V
TE

3
41

CO
GR

NC

P A
AS

#2
TE

ET
S

CO
RE

CR
BR

ER
IC

NC

T
K
ST

TT
CO
CO
EP

L
G
S

GU
CO

&
CONCRETE

A
ER
NC

RB
RE

E
2 STORY

TT

H
TE

ET
CU

1
ST L
TA

D
2

41
GU
FRAME S T O R Y

S P
CR
EP ME PY

#2
S

E
L
BUILDING 2 STORY FRAME NO

E
GR

ON
CA

ET
CO
AS

A
FRAME 2 STORY B U I L D I N
G S

ST

CR
FRAME EL L

&
BUILDING TA
AV

B
ME PS

N
GR

RB
BUILDING CO N
RO

CO
NC E

ETE
N
AP ST

50
RE

CU
K
TE

&
E

NCR
S

L
C

E
SS

AS

RB

AL
M
A

ON

ER
GR

GR
I

CO
W
CU
E
R

ST

TT
E

G
V

IN
T

GU
B

ON
E

AIN
A
E
AM

E
FR GE

ST
#2322 #2328

ET
#2330 RA

T
CONCRETE

#2324 TE
GA

RE
BR

C
RE

CR
#2326

S
CONCRETE

IC

AS
K NC

K
N
O
N
NC
CONCRETE

CO

N
RE RO

GR
CO

IC
AP
CO

CO
TA NC

O
T

BR
A
IN RE

CONCRETE
GRASS IN TE

C
S

&

S
G

H
GRASS CO

AS
GRASS W

RB
GRASS NC AL

GR
S
RE L

AS
GRASS

CU
S
TE

40
W

GR
CS W

A
#2
AL S

E
CONCRETE SIDEWA AS

ON
K
LK GR

L
7
GRASS

40

AL
L

ST
TA
ME PS

#2
GRASS

W
GRASS E

K
ST

AS

OC
GRASS

GR

G
CONCRETE CURB

BL
R
GRASS
NC

RM

K
IN
BR
E
CO

O
T
RE IC

IL IC
C O N C R E

O
T E P A V E M E NC K

T
ST

ST

D
N T CO EP

R
SIG

S
N S

3’

B
CO

U
NC

K
4

2’

AL
RE

B
TE

EW
ST
NC

BL
EP
CO

SID
S
H

OC
A SP CO

TE
NC

K
CONCRETE CURB
RE

W
RE
TE

AL
NC
RE

L
CONCRETE CURB BR TA
CONCRETE SIDEWA

CO
LK IC IN
K IN
G

L
ST W

AL
TE

EP AL CO
S NC TE
L RE
RE

W
CONCRETE SIDEWA

L
RE NC
SS LK

AL
TE
CO WALK
NC

G
A

AS
GR

IN
W
CO

GR
S

TE

GR
AS

IN
AS

G
RE

S CONCRETE

IN

TA
GR

NC

IN
DIR

RE
TA
CO

S
#2 S AS

TE

T
T

32 AS GR

RE

TE
1 GR GR
T

RE

N
BR
N
DIR

AS
N

RE
IC

K
K S

NC

E
E

L
IC
W

NC
S

AL
AL

.5
#2

BR
EEGR

M
M

CO
32 LS

28
CO

CO

W
TR
3 NC

E
E

AS RE

G
E S
NS
2 TE

V
V

IN
5
ST

.4
DE
S

IN
EP

A
A

29
S
2

B O

TA
B
32

P
R
P

U R
IL IC Y GR RB

RE
#2

K AS CU

T
E

D S E GR
ON

K
IN AV

L
ST
T

PA

IC
G EL
CU RK

A
K

BR
E

CO RB CO IN
AL

NC G
& NCR
R

&
RE
EW

TE GU ET
C

E
TT E
ER

ON
SID

AL

S
ER
N

K
TT

ST
A
0
O

GR
TE
32
N

AS
GU

M
C

S
#2

RE

ET GR
PH
I

AL AS CU CO
&

AS
D

NC

BR ST S RB N CR
EP
RB

IC E
L

S
CO

CO &
K
PA NC GU TE
CU
I

VE RE TT
GR
NC
U

M TE E R
TE

EN W AS
GR AL RE
CO S
B

T AS
RM

K TA
RE
8

M S IN
31

ET IN P
NC

TO

OO
K

CO AL G
#2

GR
W ST
K

NC ST AS
50
AL
"S

C TE
C

CO

IC

RE EP S

BR ING
TE S CO L O CO RE
24

BR
I

W NC N NC NC

RY
ICK
ILD
AL RE CO
R

GR C RE
AS K TE R TE

TO
CO

BU
B

NC S E CU
T

K
PA

3S
RE E RB

AL
VE T

6
ME E
Y

0
6

L
W

15
31

NT A

AL
ICK

R
GE

RB

#
#2

TE
V

W
RA

E
BR

CU

CO
9

GR

RE
M PH
31

NC

G
AS CO
AS
GA

TE

NC
RE E
E

IN
#2

NC
ET

C CO TE RE N
RE

IN
S

CO
O NC SID T
S

ET TE
S
CR

CO
EP

TA
RY

RE
NC

N
AS

AL EW CU
2

TE N
K

C
N

ST
ST

AL RB CR
GR

CO

RE

LL
G
ICK
TO
AL

R W
CO

OO AL K A
IN

E P PR ET
ONC E
4

R WA
K
EW

K
2S

BR

T
ILD
31

A
CO N

IC
E
S

S
S AS
AS
#2

SID

BU

BR
P P GR
A
GR

H BR

TIMBE
V GR
A
E

CO IC
K

AS
W RET

L E NC K
AL

M S RE
T
L

RE TA
AL
EW

E CO TE
NC

P N IN
NC W

E&
A IN
T AL
SID

RE
CO

V G
E TE K W
G

ON
2

W AL

TE
7

M
IN
31

TE

AL
31

E L

ST
RE
K
IN
#2

RE

#2

S
TA

T NC

AS
40
RB
NC

TE

CO

GR
RE

RY
CO

CU

RE
E

G
ICK
TO
E
GE
AM

EP
NC

IN
S

AM G
ON
TE

S
CO
AS

IN
AS
RA

2S

BR
ILD
ST
FR

NC
CO

TO E
GR

RY
RE

ST

ILD
GR

GR
RE
GA

AV
BU

TE PA EL
NC

BU
FR
GR W RK
$PENTBLS$

AS AL IN

2S
CO

K GR G
S

0
CO
AS

51
NC S
3

#1
B
M RE
31

GR

UR
ET TE
AL W AS
#2

AL S

C
ST K
GR AIR

TE
AS S CO
S NC

RE
CO
L

NC RE
AL

TE

NC
CO
T
RE

EN
Y
W

TE

CO
1

NC
W
31

G
G

EM
AL
R
10

#2
IN

R
GR
NC
IN
3

ET
O

V
IN

AS
#2

IL IC

CO
PA
FR CO S

E
TA

NC
D

AM

CU
S

K
R

RE
RE

E
AS

IC

ST TE FR
B

RB
ST
OO

CO E R
GR

AM
BR

W
E

P AL
PH GA
2

E W
ON

ON
U

AS
RA
CS

NC ETA
K CO
NC NC GE
B
ST
G

CO

RE
GR RE
AS CO TE
N

TE
CO S NC
NC RE
S
I

SID G W
AS

RE TE

#1
8

IN
D

30

TE W
GR

51

EW
AL

IN
W
#2

ICK
L

5
AL K
GE

K 1S

AL
I

RA
BR
S

TO E
FR
BU

K
U

AS

AL
GA

GR
AM G

GR
ILD

RY
GR
B

AS

L
AS
S
7

S
IN

GR
30

AS
K

#2

CO GR S
NC AS CO
N
C

S NC
6

RE
30

RE
E

TE
I

TE
#2

W
R

AL GR
K AS
B

GR S
AS

AS
V
GR

TE
ICK
E

S
GE
Y

RE T
ET

#1
5
A

NC
30

RA
BR
K

N
51
R

CR

CO EME
EP
AL

#2
P

T
GA

7
S
N

V
O

AS

2S
ST

CO PA
CO
EW

N
G

NC
T

GR
4
T

DIN

TO
BU
$PLTDRVS$

BR ING
30

RE
E
SID

TE
S

ILD
RB

ICK
RY
#2

M
IL

W
A
E

AL
CU
2

BU
ET

K
E
H
AS

GR
R

AS
TE

V
K
GR
NC

AS

S
IC
RE

A
3
S
CO

GR

BR
30
NC

K
A

#1
#2
AL

RY
CO

CO
5
RB

CO
16
EW

NC
2

NC
TO
30

RE
2S
CU

RE
SID

TE
#2

TE
2S

TO
BU

W
E

BR ING
E

AL
E
ET

ILD
S
S

ICK
RY
R

K
ET

AS
AS

GR
L

ICK
CR

AS S
EP
S

C
AL
R

GR
GR

S
AS

ST
NC

RA
BR
N

AL
W

GR
CO

GA
CO

ET
G

O
l:\PA_AVE_SE\CutSht\ALT_1\pHD-PA04_PENN_AVE.dgn

M
IN

CO
C
IN

NC
0

E
30

RE
TA

TE AM
FR
#2

RE

W ED
AL SH
S

K
E

ICK
AS

GE
ON
GR

RA
BR
ST

GA

TE
RE T
NC N
CO EME
Friday, December 15, 2006 AT 09:41 AM

V
PA
D.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ICK
GE
1

RA
30

BR
DIN
#2

GA

ICK
BR
IL

GE
RA
BU

GA
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION
K
IC
BR
RY

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION

TO
1S

L
AL
W

PROJECT ENG.
G
IN

E
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, SE
AIN

R ET
NC NT DESIGNED BY
CO EME
T
RE

V
PA
K

CHECKED BY
IC

CONCEPT DESIGN
BR

ICK
DRAWN BY
BR
GA
RA
GE
LD CA FROM SOUSA BRIDGE TO SOUTHERN AVENUE, SE PROJECT MGR.

DIVISION CHIEF
GRAPHIC SCALE: Legion Design / Campbell & Associates
30 20 10 0 15 30 45 60 Consulting Engineers Washington, D.C. ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NO. DESCRIPTION NAME DATE SHEET 4 OF 14 DATE

FILE
1" = 60’-0"
REVISIONS SHEET OF
SD
SD
R.OW
R.OW
 SHEET TOTAL
REG STATE PROJECT
NO. SHEETS

D.C.

GARAGE
FRAME
N

GRASS

WOODEN
CK

SHED
DE

CONCRETE

L
AL

.95
W

18
Y

K
BR OR
2 S 08

IC
K
GARAGE
BLOCK

IC
T

BR
#2
TE
RE
NC

S
AS
Y
CO

BR OR
2 S 06

GR
K
7

IC
T
TE

#2
RE C
ON C
TE

L
RE

AL
#2901 NC
CO

W
2 STO
RY

K
S
BRI CK

AS

IC
BR
GR
WOODEN FENCE

K
#2905

AL
2 STO

LL
RY

EW
BRICK

SID
Y
WOOD

W
BR OR

S
2 S 04

AS
K
DECK

E
TE

GARAGE

E
7

IC
T

ET

GR
FRAME

#2

N
CONCRE

CR
ST

SCON
TE
RE
NC

EE
CO

L
BR OR
2 S 02

AL
K

TR

ER
LL
7

IC
T

W
#2

TT
A

E
BY
W

ON
U
S

ST
E

AS
N

&
ED

GR
O

RB
Y

ST
TE

BR OR
RE

UR
2 S 09

CU
K
NC

IC
T
METAL FENCE CO

#2

SC

E
N
E
ET

O
OB
CR

ST
N

ER
JERSEY WALLS CO S
EE

TT
TR

U
E
NS

G
DE

&
CONCRETE

RB
CU
BRICK WALL
FENCE POST CO

E
RE NC

N
TE

O
FRAME NC AS
S

ST
CO GR

L
GARAGE GRASS CO

AL
RE NC

2 STORY

W
METAL STEPS TE

BRICK
NC

#2624

E
CO

ON
PH AS
S
AS

ST
GR
CONCRETE SIDEWAL

S
S
K AS

AS
METAL STEPS GR

GR
GRASS

TE
L

RE
2 STORY

AL
NC

ER
BRICK

NC
GRAVEL

W
#2622
CO

EW

CO
K
IC
BRICK WALL L

"S
BR
& WOODEN FENCE TA

L
GRASS S ME

TE
AL
EE

21
ED

RE
TR SH

NC
E

E
NS
BR

ON

CO
IC

ICK
CO
DE
K

ST
NC W

BR
RE AL
BR TE L

T
IC

AL
K
W

PH
AL
L

AS
TE
ASPHALT PARKIN

RE
G

NC
K

CO
AL

AS
L
AL

GR
EW
W
NC

TE
SID
E
#2516
CO

RE
ON

S
TE

AS

NC
3 STORY WOOD RAM S

ST
P AS

TE
RE

GR
S
GR

CO
BRICK AS

70

RE
GR

NC

#2
L

NC
MP
GRASS

AL

CO

CO
RA
M S

W
AS

TE
ET
SH A GR

RE
ED L

CONCRETE

IC

TE

NC
BR
STEP

RE
S

CO
AS

NC
GR

3
NC