I think this is an amazing vision, but it's unclear where the $7 billion price tag comes from: is that just the transportation enhancements or all the mixed-use development?

In addition, the original Burnham Place designs appeared to leave the garage intact. That is important because it is now the primary inter-city bus transit center. The new bus transit center seems like it will be located off of K Street (in the above drawing). It's just not clear to me how that would all work and is hard to determine from the drawing.

There seem to be a lot of moving parts with this. When would Akridge be able to start on the first phase of their plan? Is the financing already in place?

by Adam L on Jul 25, 2012 2:24 pm • link • report

What will done to accommodate the fumes from diesel locomotives.

by Sand Box John on Jul 25, 2012 2:25 pm • link • report

I love this kind of grand vision. Union Station is one of the most beautiful buildings in town, and given the daily transit and pedestrian traffic through the station, the immediate area could easily become the most lively part of town if a plan like this could be realized.

Amtrak, Akridge, and the city NEED to work together in incorporating the streetcar terminus into this project. Imagine high speed rail, commuter rail, metro, streetcars, and long-range buses all converging in a modern, mixed-use facility. It will be such a bustling and unique neighborhood.

by A-lo on Jul 25, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report

John, diesel will run only on far west & far east tracks to avoid polluting shed space, according to Amtrak.

by 20002ist on Jul 25, 2012 2:32 pm • link • report

It's unfortunate that there will still be the large surface parking lots across the street from Union Station along Louisana Avenue. This area has some of the best transit service in the entire United States and is some of the most valuable property in DC and yet it is a surface parking lot. Sell this and use the revenue to help build this modernization to Union Station.

by Ward 3 resident on Jul 25, 2012 2:39 pm • link • report

This is beautiful, but wildly ambitious.

by Scoot on Jul 25, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

The number one question has to be "Justify the cost." The entire NEC HSR project costs are incredibly absurd, and $7 billion to renovate and reimagine the Union Station area goes well beyond anything we should be considering.

by Benjamin Kabak on Jul 25, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

Plan available here:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/919/171/Washington-Union-Station-Master-Plan-201207.pdf

From the pipedream perspective I like it, but it seems to be too grande a vision to be feasible within the foreseeable future. If they *really* think they can do it: great; I'm all for it. But I'm dubious.

Some thoughts & things I'd be interested in...

- Greater detail on transfer points, particularly in how this would align with the Metrorail station as well as the future streetcar line (and, presumably, a station).

- Is there any provision for potential expansions to the WMATA system, including how to fit in any cross rail alignments as well as passenger flows & transfer points?

- Confirmation that access to/from the platforms will be provided at each concourse (and potentially at additional points) and whether passengers will be permitted to wait on the widened platforms; or, if not, how resources will permit for storage & control of passenger flows at each access' waiting area.

- Whether the parking area is truly necessary in an increasingly urban area or if it would be a better fit to concentrate P&R facilities at other nearby stations along Amtrak's lines (such as New Carrollton). From the placement of the garages it appears that these would be obscenely expensive in an already prohibitively expensive plan.

- How will the below-grade concourse fare with noise & pollutant emissions? [in writing this I've since been made aware that most engines operate under electric power in Union Station; emissions shouldn't be an issue]

- Are this many platforms needed? Other cities with considerably more rail traffic appear to get by with considerably fewer platforms. Unless the examples I'm thinking of in other cities aren't considered to be operating adequately... though from the user perspective they sure seemed to, at least.

- Clarification on how high-speed lines will approach the station and access the proposed lower level.

by Bossi on Jul 25, 2012 2:44 pm • link • report

@Benjamin:

I agree that $7B certainly isn't cheap but this infrastructure investment will be around for decades, perhaps 75 years or more.

By comparison, Heathrow's Terminal 5 cost between $6B - $7B USD. The Transbay terminal in San Francisco is estimated to cost over $4B (http://transbaycenter.org/project/program-overview). I have not looked at Amtrak's plans but depending on how much the private sector covers under public/private partnerships and how much of the $7B includes track work and other rain infrastructure, this doesn't seem entirely out of line with other mega-projects.

by Ward 3 resident on Jul 25, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

This is a ludicrous plan. It looks great, but it's absurdly wasteful.

The Concourse A expansion will cost $200-300 million, allowing passengers to queue out of the way of shoppers and other passers-by.

But passengers shouldn't have to queue to get onto the platforms! Changing Amtrak's policy would be essentially free and solve the problem.

And is Union Station even the bottleneck? Seems as though using it as a through-station for just some VRE and MARC trains would boost capacity just by leaving out idling trains.

For comparison, Tokyo-Osaka has six platforms for high-speed rail but handles 151 MILLION passengers per year; Acela manages 3.2 million. Union Station doesn't, absolutely doesn't, need more capacity to achieve the stated goals of northeast HSR and getting more people on rails. Union Station's capacity problems are mostly organizational, and the system's physical problems aren't at Union Station.

by OctaviusIII on Jul 25, 2012 2:52 pm • link • report

Octavius,

Sure, allowing passengers to wait on the platform would help, but the concourse expansion isn't just about waiting area, it's also about improving the usage of existing space (there's a lot of wasted space behind those gates today) and improving the circulation to the existing tracks.

As far as bottlenecks go, I don't know that US is a bottleneck for trains yet, but the current passenger flows most certainly are a bottleneck, as there is only one point of platform access and that's at the end of the platform. Most of this plan is about improving passenger access to and from the rail facilities, etc.

by Alex B. on Jul 25, 2012 3:06 pm • link • report

Awesome! I had imagined something like this a while ago. My only criticism is that I think the glass concourse should have rounded ceilings (if possible--I'm no physicist or architect). The dome-like surface would better parallel the structure of the main Union Station terminal as well as DC's monumental structures in general. Boxes are boring and generic.

by Omar on Jul 25, 2012 3:09 pm • link • report

@Scoot: Not terribly ambitious. The amount of transit that goes there and the current lack of density represents a lot of unrealized potential.

by Omar on Jul 25, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report

I would liken this project to what was done with the Reichstag in Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_dome

by Omar on Jul 25, 2012 3:12 pm • link • report

@Bossi If you dig into the planning document, page 15 starts discussing Metrorail. They don't go into gratuitous detail - it's not that kind of document - but do say they incorporate WMATA's existing plan for North mezzanine improvements.

by Distantantennas on Jul 25, 2012 3:14 pm • link • report

$7 billion and six HSR tracks? Laaame!

Why not $14 billion and 12 HSR tracks? Or $28 billion and 24 HSR tracks? Hell, why not rip out all of the railroad tracks in America and replace them with maglevs?

After all, this infrastructure is gonna be around forever – no price tag is too high for transit!! The return on investment is literally infinite!

by Stephen Smith on Jul 25, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report

If developpers are paying for it great! But right now Amtrak doesn't have the resources nor the legal right to do joint-development like the japanese Railways do.

So it is a bit of a pipe dream with little chances of ever happening.

Diesel exhausts are a non-issue: Sufficient ventilation would need to be provided anyway

by DCvinc2009 on Jul 25, 2012 3:37 pm • link • report

I'd second grilling them on curb-to-platform pedestrian flow: The plans should minimize distance to walk and maximize access points to platforms. [Saving 10 minutes on access is much cheaper 10 minutes with faster trains].

Also, large, appealing platforms for waiting are a must. Waiting at the platform is less stressful (you are right there just feet from where the door to the train you are going to get on will be shortly). It is faster (in many European cities you can witness fully loaded HSR trains unloading and loading completely in under a minute). It saves space: the platform IS the "waiting areas".

by egk on Jul 25, 2012 3:40 pm • link • report

This is an ambitious and needed plan. It sets out a vision for rail transportation in the Northeast for years and decades to come. Some will rant over the cost - without pausing to truly reflect on the time frame involved or the real return on investment. The cost is a drop in the bucket compared to any number of items on the Pentagon's list of expenditures or our government's current corporate welfare (aka subsidies and tax breaks).

We woefully underspend on our nation's aging infrastructure and plans like this give us to opportunity to change that. Given our love affair with both the automobile and air transportation, we seriously lag behind other developed nations in realizing the central place of railroads for both transportation of people and goods. One hundred years ago we led the world in this respect - but now we need to play catch up.

I can't wait to see this built!

by bhobbs63 on Jul 25, 2012 3:47 pm • link • report

David, I'd be curious to ask about the integration with Metro and the Streetcar line. Is an additional north entrance to the Metro station part of this, since so much of this plan is focused on the north side? And what happens with the ugly long wall the runs up 1st Street NE? Any plans there?

by Patrick on Jul 25, 2012 3:50 pm • link • report

Just had the pleasure of using Berlin's new main train station. Instead of spreading everything out wide, the tracks are different levels and cross each other in the station. Surrounding all that are shops and restaurants. It was quite impressive. Here's a tour.

by jyindc on Jul 25, 2012 3:54 pm • link • report

Forgot to add re: Berlin main station. It serves the equivalent of Metro, MARC and VRE, and long distance trains all within a short walk of each other.

by jyindc on Jul 25, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report

Wow, 7 billion clams to undo decades of bad decisions. The station was designed from the get-go to handle enormous crowds--and performed well under the crush of traffic from two world wars and presidential inaugurations in the heyday of passenger service. The "overcrowding" woes are self-inflicted wounds by Amtrak and many ill-considered alterations of the station in the past forty years. The first was the execrable "National Visitors Center" and the second effort, to max out retail space, essentially converted the building to a shopping mall. The latter consumed the entire original, quite spacious concourse. The cramped "Claytor Concourse" is the result. Octavius is exactly right. The too-small physical plant is not helped by Amtrak's idiotic "security theater" that forces crowds of pax to wait in the station until shortly before departure time, upon which said crowds are herded through the gates, airline-style.

by Paul on Jul 25, 2012 3:57 pm • link • report

I hope Amtrak and Ackridge are able to pull this off (including the silly height measurement issue of the Ackridge air rights project).

If the project goes according to plan, Union Station will be on the level of Penn Station and Grand Central.

Now if they can only deliver on the high-speed trains. But there's one glitch - the 100+ year-old Baltimore tunnel where trains can only go 10 mph. When are they ever going to fix that?

by ceefer66 on Jul 25, 2012 4:01 pm • link • report

Just please keep the parking garage. Clean it up and make it nicer, just don't scrap parking.

by ceefer66 on Jul 25, 2012 4:03 pm • link • report

Move the cab stand to the H Street overpass and put the Metrobus stops right in front of the arcade. As it is, Metrobus riders have a pretty shabby accommodation at Union Station.

by Steve S. on Jul 25, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report

I would like to know if the plan integrates any potential future Metrorail service to Union Station (i.e. separated Blue Line, separated Yellow Line, or, insh'allah, both)???

by Dave Murphy on Jul 25, 2012 4:06 pm • link • report

Oh dear: "Two large waiting areas within Concourse A
will provide seating for departing passengers and queuing space at the gates leading to the train platforms.... Checking the validity of tickets for passengers entering the waiting area.... Concourse A will become the heart of intercity rail passenger service at Union Station."

Alas, all those nice new entries to Union Station (from, say H st.) won't mean you can actually get TO the platforms without first walking the to Concorse A and queuing up and funneling through a single door.

by egk on Jul 25, 2012 4:09 pm • link • report

It's a grand vision, and looks very thoughtfully conceived.

I also would like to understand the cost structure. Comments online in other outlets show that many people think that Amtrak expects the full $7 Billion to come straight from taxes--not an attractive political proposition right now. I assume this is not the case, that funds would come from a variety of sources, INCLUDING the Federal gov. Are there any basic ideas about how much could be funded from user fees, rents, developers, etc? Beleive the planners need to be clear about this, even recignizing they can't throw out percentages yet.

To put the money in perspective though, just one friggin' highway bridge--the Wilson bridge--cost $6 Billion a few years ago. This project means a lot more to the city and country than a single bridge.

I am just bummed that even in the best of cases I'll be deep into my 50s when this is complete.

by Boris on Jul 25, 2012 4:10 pm • link • report

@patrick, the plan includes major revisions to the west of the station. A new West concourse with retail on lower? level, a bike and pedestrian greenway on the outside at or above street level. Look at the diagram on Page 16 and rendering on page 18 of the plan.

Lots of stuff going on in these plans: the bus terminal gets moved further north to a new expanded facility, the parking garage would be torn down, new underground parking garage (expensive), and a H street streetcar stop with direct entrances into the Concourse B space with retail stores, new tracks and more high level platforms.

One question to ask if all that retail space is added, would it turn Union station into the largest indoor retail facility or mall (if you will) in DC?

Amtrak had a total of 4.85 million boarding + alightings at Union Station in FY11. Anyone know what the total numbers were for VRE and MARC passengers in 2011? And what about the Metro station? WMATA provides the weekday average, but what are the Saturday & Sunday numbers and the total number of people who used Metro Union Station in 2011 or FY11?

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 4:14 pm • link • report

I'm curious about their parking plans. I read quickly and saw that there are currently around 2200 spaces and they propose 5000 in the final development, but then say that some of that would have to be under Columbus Circle and on land owned by the architect of the capitol. How many spaces can they accommodate in their plans? Since they argue that the new multi-modal connectivity would decrease the need for parking, why would they propose such a large increase?

I also noticed that their plans show green space where there are currently Architect of the Capitol surface parking lots (along N Capitol south of the Postal Square Building). Is that wishful thinking or something incorporated into the plan?

by SE on Jul 25, 2012 4:16 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 : I corrected your comment - I believe you meant to say: "If the project goes according to plan, Union Station will surpass Penn Station and Grand Central."

This plan is absolutely brilliant and is the sort of transportation planning our city and region needs. Let's also get Moynihan Station built out and Amtrak's HSR plan implemented. These investments will benefit generations to come and finally give us the ground transportation system the Northeast needs. Like another commenter mentioned before, this is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount we spend on shiny new toys for the DoD.

by John Marzabadi on Jul 25, 2012 4:25 pm • link • report

@Dave Murphy: The Master Plan has this to say about a new Metro line (apologies for reposting verbatim from my Breakfast Links comment):

Currently WMATA's busiest station, 68,000 metrorail passengers utilize Union Station each weekday. Today, the greatest points of congestion within the station surround the Metrorail’s access points. The Master Plan incorporates Metrorail’s near-term station improvements at the north mezzanine and provides a new pedestrian network at the Metrorail mezzanine level that offers convenient connections to all of the passenger concourses and to 1st Street and NoMa via the West Concourse. The Master Plan also recognizes that at some point in the future the Metrorail Red Line will reach its capacity at Union Station, and anticipates new Metrorail capacity serving Union Station. WMATA, operator of the Metrorail, has initiated long-range planning for a possible new line serving Union Station, but a preferred alignment has not yet been identified, and thus the Master Plan allows for future pedestrian connections to a new Metrorail station in any of several possible configurations.

by Gray on Jul 25, 2012 4:27 pm • link • report

@Boris, my take is that a large portion of the funding would come from sale of air rights, developer payments and revenue to pay bonds from leases of retail space. By expanding on the retail space, adding bars/restaurants, it would make Union Station even more of a major center retail and public place in DC. Just think of all the tourists shopping and eating there.

How much is Apple paying MTA for the store space in Grand Central Terminal? How much would some retail or high tech companies be willing for pay for high profile location in THE cross road center in DC - in walking distance from Capitol Hill?

The potential revenue from retail, sale taxes, air rights won't pay for all of it, but it could make a significant contribution towards the $7 billion.

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 4:29 pm • link • report

@SE: They seem to be arguing that the improved transit and pedestrian connections will reduce the proportion of people who park at the station, but the increase in activity will more than offset it, leading to more than double the demands.

5,000 spaces seems a bit excessive.

by Gray on Jul 25, 2012 4:31 pm • link • report

@ceefer66 "Just please keep the parking garage. Clean it up and make it nicer, just don't scrap parking."

The parking will still be there. The master plan envisions having 5,000 spaces underground off of 2nd Street NE, up from the 2,000 current spaces. People would probably ask if that many spaces are even needed, but it's in there anyway.

by Adam L on Jul 25, 2012 4:31 pm • link • report

@AlanF,

The air rights have already been conveyed, and they were never Amtrak's to sell in the first place. The developable property in the Union Station complex was transferred to the federal government decades ago.

by Paul on Jul 25, 2012 4:32 pm • link • report

I actually interpreted the master plan as indicating that Amtrak wants Metro to identify a ROW for a new line, so that they can leave room for a station, and possibly even do the initial construction on the station before the line's built.

If that's true, it'd represent an amazing amount of foresight on Amtrak's part (while also surreptitiously guaranteeing that WMATA's future line passes through their station).

If I have my history correct, this was actually done in a few places on the Green Line, where stations were sited and built long before the tunnels were dug.

by andrew on Jul 25, 2012 4:48 pm • link • report

That rendering reminds of the time at a dive bar when some drunk dude threw up on my back.

by crin on Jul 25, 2012 4:59 pm • link • report

My question: Does the new station anticipate an expansion of future southbound train service, particularly along the proposed Southeast HSR corridor, or for VRE/MARC through-running?

by andrew on Jul 25, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report

@Paul, Union Station is owned by the US DOT and run by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation. So, Amtrak is not going to get any funds from the re-building of the station. The lead agencies for lining up the funding would be US DOT and USRC with Amtrak in a supporting role. What Amtrak, MTA (MD TA), VRE are doing (all 3 are listed as funding the plan) is to define what would meet their needs and move the planning process along.

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report

Stub-end tracks for the HSR? NO!!!!!!

Come on Amtrak, at least give us a hint that you are thinking ambitiously about a real HSR network. Especially since one of the brighter spots in expanding rail options in the US is the state just to the south of DC.

by DavidDuck on Jul 25, 2012 5:42 pm • link • report

DavidDuck:

Pretty sure phase 4 of the plan includes the provision for future additional run-through tracks to the South.

Not that they couldn't use the existing run-through tracks if provided electrification...

by Alex B. on Jul 25, 2012 5:48 pm • link • report

@DavidDuck, please read the plan. Interesting paragraph on page 13 on how the new underground tracks would be connected.

"The lower track level would be connected to the Northeast Corridor main line by means of a bored tunnel from Union Station northeast to the vicinity of the Anacostia River. An
additional tunnel would connect the station with new train storage and maintenance facilities in the Ivy City area. Additionally, the plan provides that future tracks from the lower level of Union Station could be extended to the south, enabling extension of high-performance high-speed rail service to Virginia, North Carolina, and the
southeastern United States."

Now, how they would do that if there was a re-routed Blue Line running under the station would be interesting. A really deep Blue Line station?

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 5:53 pm • link • report

Completion of this master plan will be a vast improvement for residents, commuters, and visitors. Expanded capacity, new pedestrian connections, improved bicycle access, public plazas and parks, additional retail... this is a spectacular plan for the future of our region and surrounding neighborhoods.

Akridge & Amtrak met with ANC 6C Commissioners and committee members earlier in the week to share these plans, and they are planning a public open house in the near future as well. This is just the start of a (long) public engagement process, and there will be many opportunities to help shape and improve this project, and also to identify the many funding sources required.

by Tony Goodman, ANC 6C04 on Jul 25, 2012 5:59 pm • link • report

The potential new Metro line(s) would connect at a lower level than the rest of Union Station (along with potential high speed rail). There will be many options for which line(s) go here, and WMATA does not need to identify the exact locations yet for this plan to move forward.

Additional boarding locations for MARC/VRE, along with the improved platforms and track geometry will drastically reduce dwell time for commuter rail. This will free up capacity for MARC trains to continue South of Union Station.

This vision for Union Station is just as much about the expanded commuter rail capacity as the improved intercity bus & train infrastructure. While Amtrak will likely still require passengers to enter through the South concourse, MARC/VRE passengers will be more evenly distributed along the platforms and through the station.

by Tony Goodman, ANC 6C04 on Jul 25, 2012 6:01 pm • link • report

Love it love it love it. Glad everyone seems to be collaborating. Can't wait to read your article with additional info tomorrow DA.

User fees should be a large part of the financing.

My main question - how quickly can we start?

by H Street Landlord on Jul 25, 2012 6:14 pm • link • report

@AlanF
@Alex B

Thanks. I over-reacted to the pictures.

Interesting that they feel that real HSR will need a new approach to the city (I do realize that they have been saying this earlier, if one could find it in their earlier HSR vision documents). I don't intend to go into full Alon Levy mode, but I get frustrated that Amtrak cannot seem to find ways to speed their corridor trains through terminal areas without building an entirely new route. I know they also say they need the expanded capacity.

But I still wonder if they have really thought creatively about how the existing corridor could be re-worked for more capacity and speed...

by DavidDuck on Jul 25, 2012 6:22 pm • link • report

I'm fairly certain they aren't really at physical capacity. They have 20 tracks, 18 platforms, and only 14 trains per hour, max. This configuration should be more than enough.

by OctaviusIII on Jul 25, 2012 6:41 pm • link • report

@DavidDuck, read the Amtrak 2012 NEC Vision plan and the 2010 NEC Infrastructure Master Plan on the Amtrak website on the Reports & Documents page.

Amtrak has many projects and track upgrades to speed up the current NEC. The Gateway Project will reduce the trip time between NY Penn Station and Newark, not just fix a critical capacity bottleneck. The 2012 NextGen NEC Vision should be split into 2 parts: a large slate of improvements hopefully completed by 2025 to achieve a 2:12 DC to NYC trip time on the Acela (or Acela II) and the "NextGen HSR NEC" (the $117 billion dollar part).

The NECfuture.com website is part of planning process for the NEC with the FRA and Amtrak taking the lead to write a formal Tier I EIS document for the entire NEC so all the stakeholders which include Amtrak, Metro-North, CDOT, MBTA as the owners of portions of the NEC and NJ Transit, SEPTA, MARC as the additional commuter operators can use it.

by AlanF on Jul 25, 2012 6:43 pm • link • report

Octavius,

As mentioned above, this plan isn't all about train capacity, but passenger capacity. Widening platforms, adding more platform points of ingress/egress, meeting ADA standards, etc.

by Alex B. on Jul 25, 2012 6:47 pm • link • report

Please ask Amtrak/Akridge whether they see any future possibility of bringing the H Street streetcar line into Union Station itself, instead of the currently planned termination on H Street.

Thank you.

by Sage on Jul 25, 2012 6:59 pm • link • report

"Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work. Remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die." Burnham, Daniel H.

by MDE on Jul 25, 2012 7:30 pm • link • report

There is no excuse for not letting passengers wait on the platform. That's the whole reason for there being a platform. I've also never understood the luggage check thing. It seems Amtrak is trying to imitate airline travel, with checked luggage that gets lost and security theater, while they should run as far from that model as they can. Do they want to be hated?

I have been in trains in Europe and Japan and never seen locked off platforms like at Union Station. Train stations should be like metro stations, with a little less of the spartan atmosphere. Add some food and toilets and you're done.

by Jasper on Jul 25, 2012 8:46 pm • link • report

It would cost a fortune to keep the station cool in the summer with all that glass....

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 26, 2012 12:28 am • link • report

Given the cost and complexity of building out a platform over a working station, Akridge will be lucky to clear a profit on the deal. (Too bad we can't follow the lead of NYC, SF, Hong Kong, Nagoya, etc. and finance the new station largely out of air rights proceeds.)

A few questions that I have, having only skimmed the document:
1. What does the $7B cover?

2. Where does the rail bottleneck move to after this is done? The First Street Tunnel? Switches to the yards in Ivy City? The NEC bridge over the Anacostia?

3. Does the plan assume, or accommodate, future VRE-MARC through-routing? (Is that part of Phase 4's additional through-routed tracks?)

4. I bike past WUS twice daily, on 2nd NE headed north and 1st NE headed south, but I still don't quite understand what's proposed for those two frontages, or how the stacking diagram is going to work. What's going on around those two sides, including the H St concourse entries?

by Payton on Jul 26, 2012 1:33 am • link • report

Hey David, I'm curious to hear about/..the bathrooms. At the end of the day, there are two bathrooms without paper towels or effective driers in it that are underserving the need. Ultimately, Union Station is a major public gathering place -- what's the vision for giving it the public health supporting and capacity for bathrooms to go with it?

by Laura on Jul 26, 2012 7:39 am • link • report

I hope they dump the parking garage. All that parking is a waste of space. The train station has a Metro connection, and numerous buses serve it as well. All that parking is unnecessary.

by AlexG on Jul 26, 2012 8:22 am • link • report

You need parking, at minimum, for folks that come in after midnight. I used to come in at 1am from Metro Park NJ. I can't afford a cab from Union to Bethesda.

The bathrooms should be MUCH larger. With some wider stalls that can accommodate luggage.

by Capt. Hilts on Jul 26, 2012 9:05 am • link • report

Payton - there are at least two tracks in all three locations that you describe. Not sure why those would suddenly become bottlenecks. Do you know something about the bridge over the Anacostia that I don't? The much more serious bottleneck nearby is the tunnels through Baltimore, which are only one track in several stretches, very old and deteriorated and with poor alignment.

And did you miss the proposal for air rights development in the article? Including the map that showed the proposed development?

AlexG - the parking garage also includes the current bus terminal.

by Frank IBC on Jul 26, 2012 9:12 am • link • report

Frank: as quoted above, the proposal says that the Phase 4 proposal requires boring new tunnels from the Anacostia. Either that's to deal with the grade change, or there's an operational bottleneck in between.

My point wasn't that air rights development didn't exist (what else could require "building out a platform over a working station"?) but that Akridge paid only $10M to GSA, and that amount disappeared into general government. That low price is largely the result of the height limit; similar value-capture strategies elsewhere that include taller towers have yielded much higher prices. San Francisco expects to pay for 2/3 of its new Transbay Terminal through development.

by Payton on Jul 26, 2012 9:32 am • link • report

@AlexG, I couldn't use Metro to get to Union Station when I was taking a 5 AM train to NYC. Using the Metro is problematic for a 6 AM departure as well, unless you are starting from a Red Line station.

There is also the problem of finding multi-day parking at or near Metro stations. I have bitten the bullet on the parking fees and several times have parked at Union Station for 2-3 day trips on Amtrak. Could use National Airport, but the main parking there is no cheaper than Union Station.

Union Station needs a parking garage, but the 2200 space capacity of the current garage appears to be adequate (I personally have never seen it close to full). The plan calls for capacity expansion through Phase 4 to 5,000 spaces which is probably serious overkill, even allowing for doubling or tripling of the number of Amtrak passengers using the station. The plan is to get to 5,000 total spaces with a parking garage under Columbia Circle?? Yikes, seriously expensive and disruptive. That could be $400 or $500 million of the $7 billion right there. No, how about killing that idea early in the planning process.

My take is that the planners are calling for 5,000 space capacity to placate the developers and future retail tenants who tend to think they have to have that much parking. Build the new underground parking garage on the east side and see how often it exceeds 80% to 90% full before building more parking capacity.

by AlanF on Jul 26, 2012 10:19 am • link • report

@FrankIBC:
You are incorrect. All of the tunnels in Baltimore have 2 tracks. In fact, the entire Northeast Corridor is at least double-tracked all the way from Washington to Boston.

@Payton:
The NextGen HSR proposed to be added to the station as part of Phase 4 will have a tunnel extending to the Anacostia River, but it's not because of bottlenecks.

The NextGen HSR will operate on exclusive tracks. It will essentially be a new HSR line built on a parallel alignment to the NEC. So even if there were a bottleneck between Union Station and the Anacostia on the NEC (there isn't), it wouldn't matter, because those trains won't be using the NEC, they'll be using their own tracks.

The real reason for the tunnel is likely geometry: To allow the track to be as straight as possible and to avoid mixing with local and regional trains in Washington Terminal.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 26, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

@FrankIBC:
To clarify:

Baltimore is still a bottleneck. That's because the corridor narrows from 3 tracks down to 2.

Also, the B&P Tunnels have a speed restriction of 30 mph.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 26, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

@Frank IBC, the Master Plan for the NEC is to add a 3rd track into Union Station from Landover interlocking in the medium term, then a 4th track in the long term. Along with four tracking the NEC from south of New Carrolton to Baltimore which will support 7 day MARC Penn Line service.

There are no single track segments through Baltimore. The B&P Tunnel in west Baltimore is 2 tracks, the Union Tunnels on the east side have 3 tracks total. The plan is to build a new 2 track higher speed tunnel on the western side of Baltimore, then shut down & refurbish the B&P tunnel so it can used for MARC and probably as a backup for Amtrak.

by AlanF on Jul 26, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

@ Payton - thanks for clarifying and alerting me to the relevant text in the articles. As I understand it, the desire is to create two high-speed tracks through the Ivy City yard to bypass the many switches, etc. in the yard. (Hopefully they can do the same through North Philadelphia - that stretch is awful.) I haven't seen the specifics of the tunnel proposal so I don't know why they feel a tunnel is necessary.

by Frank IBC on Jul 26, 2012 10:43 am • link • report

@FrankIBC:
With respect to the tunnel, see my comments above.

The NextGen HSR will be running at a top speed of 220 mph, and needs the track to be fairly straight. In most cities, that means either (a) massive takings or (b) going underground.

North Philadelphia won't be a problem. The NextGen HSR will be going on an underground alignment through Philadelphia, including a stop at PHL Airport and a new underground HSR terminal at Market East Station (not Philadelphia-30th Street).

To put it simply. A tunnel is largely necessary because the line needs to be straight and there are a few neighborhoods in the way.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 26, 2012 10:51 am • link • report

@ Matt Johnson - Is there a map of the proposed alignment pf that tunnel? I've seen the proposal for a tunnel extending south of Union Station down to the Anacostia, then crossing the Potomac near Alexandria - and I think that's a good idea.

As I understand it, you're describing at tunnel that it will go more or less in a straight line from the north end of the station platforms to where the line crosses the Anacostia next to New York Avenue? That seems like overkill, given that all trains will stop at Union Station and take several miles to accelerate to full speed. The trains would still be going very slowly as they pass through the sharp curve under the New York Avenue Bridge. It seems like it would be easier to lessen the curve in the vicinity of Montana Avenue.

On the other hand, as Mr. Burnham said...

And thanks for the corrections regarding my other (mis)information.

by Frank IBC on Jul 26, 2012 11:09 am • link • report

@FrankIBC:
The plans aren't that detailed. It's a master plan, not an EIS.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 26, 2012 11:11 am • link • report

For those complaining about the price tag, a little perspective please: JPMorgan Chase lost that much and more during a single botched trade. It's pocket change to them. Surely our country can afford it. This is our Nation's Capital we're talking about, and an investment that comes along once in at least a half-century (maybe two).

by Omar on Jul 27, 2012 11:59 am • link • report