Comments on Remaking Union Station: Do we have what it takes? - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Jerry

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:01:22 EDT

I left one comment and now having read the full op in the WP I have this to say:

Have you been to China, Brazil or India?

We didn't let METRO go down, the people we trusted let it run down. We kept getting shiny things and had no idea it was rotting from the core. This nothing new.

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Jerry

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:54:38 EDT

"Or might he conclude, looking at our public works, that this nation's best days ended around the time of President Kennedy?"

Why would you pick this point in time? Because this is actually when the adults in the country finally had a decent and relatively full education, access to multimedia and were finally had the ability to understand minutia even if they did not?

I suppose if you do not have the tools to analyze "things," then most "things" look great.

The pictures may not be as pretty, but they certainly have detail now.

Comment by LuvDusty

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:22:09 EDT

The way I see it, it comes down to 2 issues:

1) Red tape--cause well, DC is really not an independent state and therefore, everything done here has to be approved not just by one jurisdiction, but by 3 (MD, and VA as well) as well as the Federal Government. Fun!

2) Priorities--Americans don't care about public transportation or say, education or the environment, as much as they care about defense, nation-building, fighting wars and "fighting terrorism". Just look at the last 50 years and where we've spent, as a Nation, our money and it's very clear what the priorities of the American people are. And you can blame politicians all you want, but they get elected by folks who have those same priorities.

Comment by David C

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:18:11 EDT

Anon321, as it turns out satellites don't work only at "core work hours" and so neither do I. I'm often at work when you're likely to be asleep or sitting down for Thanksgiving dinner. I'm often home when everyone else is at work. On the upside I get to play all the good local golf courses as tee times are easier to get on Wednesdays.

And I won't get into the Ag Dept employee, since as someone else pointed out, we're probably way off topic here.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:21:01 EDT

@alexB; I'd agree with you on the pendulum, but lets call a spade a spade. This is the same tool being used to kill HOT inside the beltway, and to drag down the 66 windening. As well as save some fishes somewhere.

I'd say the budget issues are more important still than this review -- 60/40 split. However, that is very much as an outsider looking in. But almost always wehn a private sector says "hell, we do it for half" what they mean is the costs aren't being spread out over 10 years.

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:10:26 EDT

Look, there are reasons why we subject these things to endless review. It is the old conundrum that the tools people used to fight highways -- and Concordes -- now have bitten us back.

My point is that the pendulum has swung too far, and now probably needs to swing back in the other direction a bit.

There are reasons to subject those things to review, yes - but the review shouldn't be endless. And some of the fault lies with the planning - a good deal of those lawsuits ought to have been avoided with good planning and work ahead of time - but again, that can only happen with at least some support from the legal frameworks.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:48:24 EDT

"That doesn't change the need to invest, but it would be a lot easier to make the case to the public if the costs were contained and kept on budget."

Look, there are reasons why we subject these things to endless review. It is the old conundrum that the tools people used to fight highways -- and Concordes -- now have bitten us back.

The ADA is another example of that.

However, another driving factor of costs is the simple lack of funding. We aren't building the projects at once, but over 20 years. I think if you see what has been built in NOLA by the Corps of Engineers you see the benefits of finding a project at once.

Comment by Alex B.

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:32:34 EDT

@Reality Check:

Further, we have subjected every government infrastructure project to near-endless rounds of litigation, often but not always in the supposed "public interest," making it nigh-impossible for even the most valuable civil servants and publicly-minded politicians to build projects designed to serve, and supported by, the public.

I think this is spot-on. There's a fault in our process of public decision making. This isn't an easy problem to solve, since some of this conflict is inherent to our legal system.

The system is also a driver of scope-creep that causes some of these projects to balloon in scope, cost, and complexity.

Our costs on many of these projects is indeed out of control, and not compared to the cheaper, labor-intensive (and dangerous!) days of building the Hoover Dam. Even compared to similar environments in other countries (such as the highly unionized and high cost environments of Northern Europe), our costs are much higher on a per-unit basis.

That doesn't change the need to invest, but it would be a lot easier to make the case to the public if the costs were contained and kept on budget.

Comment by dcrepublican

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:24:05 EDT

Would you be willing to suspend Davis-Bacon to get it built? Would you be willing to forgo any PLAs to get it built?

Comment by Paul

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:14:49 EDT

There seems to be a lot of love now for Union Station, but it destroyed an entire neighborhood (Swampoodle). And it was constructed by two powerful corporations in their day, the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Baltimore and Ohio. Such a proposal wouldn't survive the first HPRB or Zoning Commission meeting these days. And Daniel "Make No Little Plans" Burnham never had to subject himself to an ANC meeting.

Comment by Discontented

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:41:55 EDT

There are people who work for govt who post on blogs, and people who work in privaTE industry. That people arent productive at all times seems to be the nature of white collar employment (short of putting Adderall in the water).

I dont think either has anything much to do with the construction of monumental buildings, so why not get back to topic?

Comment by Anon321

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:27:17 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Anon321

Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:09:57 EDT

"I know a lot of people who work for the government here, and not a one of them does something I consider of little value. Do you have some examples?"

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.]

To answer the question specifically, I know a GS-14 over at Dept of Ag who despite having a severe learning disability and having taken 11 years to finish an online Degree (not in law) is in charge of a team of 3 environmental lawyers and by all accounts between his AWS days, and "sick" days is out of the office 8 days a month.

His lack of value also reduces the value of those who work underneath him whom he "manages", so we have 3 D of Ag lawers and their non-lawyer boss right there.

If one were to get into the value created by a District government employee, I could provide lists.

Comment by David C

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:17:03 EDT

Reality Check a bloated, overpaid infrastructure of federal workers here in Washington who perform little of value

Actually, our government does an awful lot and much of it is of value. I know a lot of people who work for the government here, and not a one of them does something I consider of little value. Do you have some examples?

Comment by Moritz

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:59:27 EDT

well David.

Thanks for this excellent analysis. Having traveled in many countries in Asia and Europe, I was negatively impressed by the transportation facilities in Washington DC. As you pointed out in your contribution to the Washington Post - how do we want to prepare the city for the future. To me it looks like we are failing miserably in most dimensions of public policy and in the end we will in no way able to meet the challenges of the future. From an economic perspective previous reports suggest that the return to investment into infrastructure and public transportation is around 7 percent - how can we miss this opportunity to invest into our future?

Comment by ceefer66

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:53:31 EDT

"China, Brazil, and India are building dazzling train stations and subways, high-speed rail systems, impressive airports and even new cities. What about us?"
-----

They are also building state-of-the art highways and bridges. And the world's tallest buildings.

The same hypothetical vistor David describes could also ride a taxi or drive a rental car from Dulles to DC and be surprised/dismayed/amused (pick one) at the sight of the roadway actually getting NARROWER - and more crowded - as it approaches the city before abrupty ending at the District Line.

The visitor coming in from National would be equally flummoxed at the sight of the long-outdated approaches to the 14th Street Bridge and the joke that is I-395 with its ridiculously low speed limit and all the speed cameras. Not to mention the congested traffic and boring architecture.

The DC region has long had a second-rate road network for one reason - overindulgence of road opponents of every stripe (it took FIFTY YEARS to finally START the Intercounty Connector) and a false belief that our investment in rail transit has made investment in highways unnecessary. We see the results.

Considering that in this country, trains only serve a small portion of total travelers, the need to step up our game with infrasture improvements is hardly just about trains.

Comment by Tyro

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:39:18 EDT

took a close look at the unions that are holding us hostage.

snicker. We pretty much successfully decimated unions in the USA. Congratulations! Mission accomplished!

And you are very up front about what we have to show for that successful decimation of our human capital: "high unemployment rates, poor infrastructure and second rate buildings." Nice job.

Comment by Tyro

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:34:18 EDT

Do we have what it takes?

No, we do not have what it takes

Really, this isn't even a question. It's not in our culture, and it's not our priority. And when it is, technically, a priority, we end up hiring someone like Frank Gehry to build some ugly, totally ineffective public atrocity.

Look, if you want to make lots of money at the lowest tax rate possible, by all means stay in the USA. But Amsterdam and Berlin are perfectly nice cities, and possibly you'd be happier there than DC.

Comment by David C

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:10:02 EDT

@goldfish, What they see when the drive into town is huge traffic, plus unnaturally low speed limits with zillions of speed cameras.

Yes. That is what everyone says about DC. Just look at all the travel books. Or...that is what a handful of whiny drivers who can't manage speed limits say.

Comment by David C

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:05:52 EDT

@movement, It isn't clear to me how building cathedrals actually improves commerce (which I assume is the point).

It isn't clear to me why improving commerce should be the only goal.

But David also mention HSR and how an improved Union Station will help move travelers, which is about commerce.

Comment by Karl

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:34:44 EDT

When Union Station was built there was a vision for this country and manufacturing jobs were kept in this country. As costs began to increase many of our jobs went to India and Japan and CHINA. We have helped create a new middle class for them and the US is left with high unemployment rates, poor infrastructure and second rate buildings. We have to work much harder for every investment dollar we keep in the US. If you haven't read Tom Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded," you should -- it explains the phenomenon being discussed relative to Union Station.

This is not a political comment, nor do I want to take the conversation there, but simply to state that our country would be in a much better place if we brought jobs back home and took a close look at the unions that are holding us hostage.

Comment by Reality Check

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:42:49 EDT

The reality is that rather than continue to build useful infrastructure, we have chosen to spend our money on: 1) a bloated, overpaid infrastructure of federal workers here in Washington who perform little of value and nevertheless have their every move reviewed by layer after layer of unnecessary high-GS supervisors and *then* layer after layer of useless political appointees, and 2) a decades-long guarantee of retirement income and health care for all, beginning at an unsustainably young age and not indexed to life expectancy or quality of life expectancy.

That's what needs to be fixed.

Comment by Mike S.

Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:18:10 EDT

@ Mrs. D and Adam L.

Excellent comments both.

I had the pleasure of taking the hardhat tour of Hoover Dam not long ago, and the guide spent a while explaining the 96 deaths officially recorded as having occurred during the actual building of the dam. The jaw-dropping anecdote had to do with the dam being built on the Arizona-Nevada border. His story was that all but one of the deaths were listed as having occurred in Arizona. He told us that Arizona provided better survivor's benefits, and so workers often dragged corpses across the state line from Nevada to Arizona to claim they died in Arizona. Don't know if that story can be documented or is simply apocryphal, but it certainly speaks to conditions of the time.

The other story - which is documented - is that the death toll was higher and was covered up. Forty workers were listed as dying of pneumonia, while none were said to have died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Gasoline powered vehicles ran all the time in those tunnels (often where temperatures reached 140 degrees), and workers were often dizzy and sick, and yet - when workers died of some sort of respiratory failure - they were listed as dying from natural causes - pneumonia.

The oddest story is that the first death associated with the building of the dam was a man named Tierney, who died in 1922, drowned while surveying sites for the dam. The last death occurred 13 years later to the day, It was his son.

Today, we have more concern for endangered wildlife than we did back then for the people who built these projects.

Comment by David C

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:58:49 EDT

Ms. D, thank you for a very informative comment. These are not rare on this site, but yours was particularly good. I'll also add that we have more stringent codes - like fire escape rules - that make buildings more expensive, but also more safe/clean etc...

Comment by Turnip

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:09:51 EDT

There is an irony about the Union Station master plan. It calls for tearing down the multi-level concrete parking garage that's behind the station. But... somewhere I just saw an announcement of the start of a ten-year-long refurbishment of that very parking structure! Obviously, the smart money thinks the master plan is going nowhere.

Comment by Thayer-D

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:57:38 EDT

What a great op-ed David, sounds like a pro-stimulus speach. When I think about where we'd be if Gore had become president. He was on tap to promote new urbanist TOD policies as much to wean our selves from fossile fuels as to promote economic development development. Instead, the Military-Industrial Complex got a trillion dollar stimulus (beyond the need get Bin Laden, of course). What if those trillions had gone to building the infrastructure for a 21st cantury economy? How well would our economy be doing if those huge savings David pointed out where spread to millions more, to say nothing of the accruing savings as development was geared towards this more sustainable model.

I would take David's call and extend it to the whole region. This much needed expansion of Union Station ought to be done in coordination with all regional plans now on the table for public transit expansion. From DC's streetcar network to the Streetcars of NOVA and the aformentioned lines in Maryland. What's sad is we continue to loose time with our "Tea Party" wing of the Republican party stymying development when most builders of all stripes can see the market shift. The suburbs will always have primacy in America's heart, but apparently they'd like it with a side of urbanity.

Comment by spookiness

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:42:47 EDT

"It is no wonder people in the hinterlands don't like DC and its poisonous politics."

Its the people in the hinterlands that elect the idiots that give DC its poisonous politics.

Comment by goldfish

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:15:14 EDT

Mr Alpert, arguing that a "visitor might well assume we are a nation that dreamed big and took pride in its cities, including its capital, and then retreated into a shell a generation ago" is not nearly a strong enough to convince me to spend $7B. That is a lot of money, and to spend that much, you must (1) demonstrate need and (2) show that it will be well spent. I agree that Union Station needs a facelift, but you have not shown why spending so much is necessary. You need to show that this is a good investment compared to other ways of embracing new visitors to DC.

I have just come back from a long vacation, and I suggest that most people come to DC by car. What they see when the drive into town is huge traffic, plus unnaturally low speed limits with zillions of speed cameras. Not much different from one of those small towns that fleece unsuspecting drivers passing through. It is no wonder people in the hinterlands don't like DC and its poisonous politics.

Comment by Adam L

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:04:55 EDT

@Ms. D.

Clearly, all of those things contribute to the cost. I was just pointing out that from a budget standpoint these "mega projects" were simply more feasible. The fact that rapidly developing countries still have cheap labor and materials is part of the reason they're building at break-neck speed while the U.S. looks like it's stuck several decades behind.

Comment by selxic

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:04:19 EDT

We need a new 100-year old building to replace Union Station.

Comment by movement

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:55:58 EDT

Europe specializes in building cathedrals. It isn't clear to me how building cathedrals actually improves commerce (which I assume is the point).

Comment by Sage

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:18:00 EDT

It's "AeroTrain" not AirTrain. Sheesh!

Other than that, a very worthwhile read.

Comment by Dan

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:14:10 EDT

To be fair to the Airport authority and the tunnel to concourse C, they built the station where the permanent building will be and are waiting for United to shell out the money to build the thing. United has just balked on the new concourse which has plans drawn up and everything.

Comment by Ms. D

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:33:07 EDT

Adam, among other things that have changed, the cost of basic labor has grown much faster than the rate of inflation. Information from the Works Progress Administration's founding documents puts their cost estimate per worker at $1200/year. That's just under $19K today. While a McDonald's employee might make that, a laborer on a construction site no longer does, and then there's additional expenses (like payroll taxes, workman's comp premiums, etc.) that drive that number even higher. As labor is a major component of construction costs, there's part of your increased cost right there.

Another no-brainer is the infrastructure installed in buildings today versus 70 years ago. More plumbing, more electrical wiring and fixtures, wiring for data transmission and advanced telecommunications, electronic do-dads, more advanced air-handling and space conditioning systems. And of course the more-highly-skilled labor needed to install these things.

Finally, we can no longer use cheap, dangerous materials, and the removal of existing environmental hazards is yet another cost when renovating old buildings.

There are ways we could trim costs on many of these projects, but those cost-savings could only be achieved through some serious political changes. I'm not going to get into that here. I agree that we could achieve a greater level of efficiency, but there's no way we could get back to 1930's and 40's costs.

Comment by Anon X

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:04:37 EDT

We decided that we wanted the lowest possible tax rate instead.

Comment by danmac

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:44:31 EDT

Union Station "mainly to create a shopping mall' not as I remember it. It was to be a multimodal transportation center. The enormous bus garage was to serve the purpose. Our obsession with parking for private vehicles somewaht defeats that.

Comment by Clark

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:41:11 EDT

Well said, David.

Your theoretical visitor makes me think of the times I've visited other European and Australian cities and been impressed by the intentional design and integration of transportation modes. While I probably don't notice the more intricate problems that their locals may complain about, the first impression is what sticks.

Vision and follow-through is what's wanted here.

Comment by Adam L

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:11:23 EDT

The Hoover Dam cost $700 million to build in 2010 dollars. How many billions would it cost today? At $4.3 billion, the recent Pentagon renovation project cost FOUR TIMES the inflation-adjusted amount to construct the building in the first place. I don't think it's that we don't want to build great things, but that construction costs have exploded far beyond the rate of inflation.

Comment by watcher

Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:47:27 EDT

Nice op-ed, David.