Owner of H Street tunnel not so eager for streetcars

Transit

Owner of H Street tunnel not so eager for streetcars

by David Alpert • June 2, 2010 10:35 am

In April, DDOT presented an exciting plan to run the planned H Street streetcar through an existing tunnel under the H Street "Hopscotch" bridge. However, one obstacle still stands in the way of that vision: the current owner of the tunnel, Potomac Development Corporation.

H Street tunnel. Image from DDOT.

The current tunnel runs under the H Street bridge and the Amtrak tracks, and is about the width of a 4-lane road. Currently, the center two lanes are kept clear for ingress and egress, and Amtrak uses the side lanes for parking.

PDC, which also owns the REA Building at 900 2nd Street, NE, adjacent to the tunnel on its eastern end, also has a parking garage that opens onto the tunnel and a loading dock just outside it.

DDOT hopes to run streetcars on the center lanes, to a single-track station connected to an existing tunnel to Union Station Metro, with a track connection then across First Street to a maintenance facility under the bridge's western end.

Schematic of the maintenance yard (left), 1st Street NE (center), the Union Station stop, and tracks toward H Street (right). Image from DDOT. Click to enlarge.

On May 7, PDC President Richard Bell sent a letter to DDOT Associate Director Scott Kubly saying they opposed using the tunnel for the streetcar:

After reviewing sketches and meeting with DDOT on three occasions, we are convinced that running streetcars through the H Street tunnel will unreasonably interfere with our use of said tunnel and the adjacent public space, which is critical for access to our garage and loading dock, and essential to the operation of our building.

Even if you could find ways to minimize interference with our uses once operations begin, the construction phase is likely to be especially disruptive. And, according to a DDOT employee at one of the meetings, you anticipate replacing the H Street Overpass in approximately five years, during which time we expect to suffer interference with out use of the tunnel. We see no reason to subject ourselves to such interference twice.
Furthermore, according to you, DDOT ultimately intends to run the streetcars over the Overpass. As taxpayers, we object to the District building this two-block run of the streetcar line twice. Please instruct your personnel and contractors that we will no longer provide access to our portion of the tunnel.

DDOT replied, making a number of points. First, on operations, other vehicles can continue to use the tunnel as well, just as the streetcar will operate in mixed traffic. DDOT plans sliding gates at each end to prevent other vehicles or pedestrians from going into the tunnel, and the platform will have gates as well so people waiting don't venture into the tunnel.

DDOT argues the tracks are not duplicative because, even once the streetcars go over the overpass, the track segment would still be used to access the maintenance facility.

As for construction, DDOT says they "are committed to minimizing" disruption to PDC and Amtrak. Moreover, Kubly said DDOT believes the project will increase the value of PDC's property (the tunnel) by providing ventilation and fire suppression which are not currently present, improving drainage, and creating a streetcar stop next to their building.

Later in the PDF, DDOT responds to engineering concerns that Amtrak has raised about attaching the overhead wires to the underside of the underpass, operational concerns about the long-term use of the tunnel for loading access to Burnham Place, the development project planned atop the railyards, and more.

When Phil Mendelson raised objections to the streetcar project, saying it has "no beginning and no end," he was partly talking about this issue. Mendelson told Eric Fidler that he's not satisfied DDOT has determined the full costs of building this end and what is required to secure the necessary easements.

He makes a good point, and DDOT needs to work out these issues. However, it's not a reason to delay getting started on the entire streetcar project for years. When Metro was being built, plenty of operational issues arose during construction. They had to retrofit for elevators, and the Park Service refused to allow a Farragut transfer station under Farragut Square. They worked around them.

Likewise, DDOT can work around these issues if they can't work something out with PDC. They have other options for the siting of the maintenance facility and how to turn the streetcar around on the western end. Those aren't as ideal as using the tunnel, which would hide the facility in otherwise unused space under a bridge and which would get the terminal station right to Union Station Metro, but they can happen. And in the long run, the streetcar will go over the bridge anyway and stop in front of the new Burnham Place with a connection to the Metro station.

It's also odd that PDC has so firmly closed out consideration of. Perhaps PDC's letter is simply a negotiating position. But especially with the last paragraph "as District taxpayers," it sure sounds as though they are opposed to the streetcars in general.

This is a genuine issue and one DDOT should keep the public up to date on whatever solution gets worked out. It also would have been nice for us to have found out about it sooner. However, any project hits plenty of small hurdles, and this won't be the last.

Under the final Council budget decision, DDOT can go ahead with car purchases, but has to present detailed plans to the Council. That's a sensible approach that will ensure the issues are thought through while also letting this important project move forward as quickly as possible.

43 comments

Tags: Amtrak, DC, DC Council, DDOT, H Street tunnel, Phil Mendelson, streetcars, Union Station

Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center meeting tonight (May 29, 2008)
DDOT reveals more streetcar details in Trinidad (Apr 21, 2010)
DDOT releases streetcar plan; trains will run in March 2012 (Oct 20, 2010)
H Street-Benning Road could get streetcars by 2012 (Apr 14, 2010)
Breaking: Gray DOES NOT cut streetcars (Dec 7, 2010)

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

Whose idea was it to sell the tunnel to a private company in the first place?

by Tim on Jun 2, 2010 10:48 am • link • report

Two words: Eminent domain.

by Adam L on Jun 2, 2010 10:58 am • link • report

@Adam
+1

by Cullen on Jun 2, 2010 11:08 am • link • report

I still want to know how they intend to get the streetcars through the low clearance area under the metrorail Red line.

by Sand Box John on Jun 2, 2010 11:19 am • link • report

Not a huge fan of eminent domain, but the PDC are practically asking for it here. (Perhaps that's their plan -- to get a particularly large settlement?)

That said, DDOT needs to find a way to get two tracks running through this station.

by andrew on Jun 2, 2010 11:20 am • link • report

HOLD ON....The hopscotch bridge is being replaced in 5 years?? That's news, right?

by andrew on Jun 2, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

@andrew:
Why does DDOT need to get two tracks? If I'm understanding correctly, this is a terminal point for the line, so a streetcar would enter from one end, load/unload, then leave toward the same direction it came. Why does this require two tracks?

by kidincredible on Jun 2, 2010 11:36 am • link • report

This seems incredibly short sighted on the part of PDC unless it is a negotiation tactic. Having all modes of transportation at your front door seems like an no-brainer!

by Andrew on Jun 2, 2010 11:42 am • link • report

Adam L. is exactly coorrect. This is the equivalent of the Virginia Square Mall owners saying they don't want a Metro station near their strip mall. Yes, it would make their property more valuable and in the long run provide a benefit to a large number of people, but they are too obtuse and short-sighted to see it. This is exactly the type of problem eminent domain was designed to address. (For the record, I don't remember if the owners of Virginia Square opposed Metro or not,I'm just using that as an example.)

by Stanmton Park on Jun 2, 2010 11:43 am • link • report

Just for the record, it also seems like PDC was not included in the discussions with DDOT's October 2009 Union Station Intermodal Transit Center Feasibility Study, which included the plans for and cost of directing the streetcars through the H Street tunnel. I have no idea whether that means that PDC simply wasn't consulted or chose not to participate. However, given the hostility of PDC's letter and how inclusive the feasibility study was (it included nearly every organization that I could think of), it certainly seems like it may be the latter scenario.

by Adam L on Jun 2, 2010 11:51 am • link • report

Out of curiosity, what compensation was DDOT planning on making to the tunnel owner for using their property going forward? Or are they required to? Are there any easements in place?

by Lou on Jun 2, 2010 11:55 am • link • report

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a lawyer's kid. This sounds very much like a bargaining position. If you're going to lose the use of something, you do your best to make sure a value is attached to that use so you are compensated for it. Establishing that value before the loss could reduce the amount of time and money spent on litigation later. If, as stated, "Amtrak uses the side lanes for parking," there is presumably some sort of financial settlement for that use. PDC is going to want both some assurance that they're not going to lose the method of ingress/egress they have now, and financial compensation for the loss of revenue from that parking arrangement.

And presumably they have other requests as well, but from here it looks like they're just trying to get the strongest possible hand going into negotiations and/or litigation.

by fedward on Jun 2, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report

@kidincredible Union Station is the terminus for now. If the network is built as planned, the line will eventually extend down K St, and all the way across town.

Georgetown may or may not want/get a piece of the action too, although that's hypothetical at best.

by andrew on Jun 2, 2010 12:12 pm • link • report

DDOT's plan for this project is a cluster fu*k....

DDOT has not completed the basic planning that is needed for a project of this scale. DDOT has done a great job of marketing this project and the business community that hopes to benefit from it as signed on as DDOT lobbyist.

Now, I am not against having a street car system in DC, but DDOT's plan is a ugly duck. As DDOT's plan fails to address the fundamental issues of traversing this DC from East to West without going the the core of the city on north to south routes. Finally, DDOT is possibly wasting taxpayers dollars ordering street cars and laying track for a system in which they have not determined how to powered. Because the planning has not been completed.

by jeff on 8th on Jun 2, 2010 12:13 pm • link • report

Potomac Development Corporation needs to get over it.

by Reality on Jun 2, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report

Potomac Development Corporation needs to get over it.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you can't trust a DC city bureaucracy to make the right decisions, who can you trust?

by MPC on Jun 2, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report

If you read the answers that DDOT provided Chairman Gray, condemning the property is laid out as part of their 'plan'. (Yeah, I'm sure they're making a lot of friends operating in that fashion ... i.e., stating they're going to condemn and take it ... before even talking to the owners of it.) Incidentally, there are a lot of other property owners they're going to need permission from in order to get the tracks over to there ... including Union Station, CSX (?) and Amtrak ... I wonder if they approached it in the same manner.

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 12:23 pm • link • report

@andrew: But my understanding is that when it is extended, it will go over the bridge instead of through the tunnel. So again, it doesn't seem to need to be two tracks wide in the tunnel.

by kidincredible on Jun 2, 2010 12:53 pm • link • report

@ Sand Box John

The tunnel actually goes over the red line but below the amtrak lines. I have toured part of the tunnel, and in most places in there, the clearance is incredibly high.

by Paul on Jun 2, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

Why not just put the streetcar over the bridge right now, if that's the long-term plan anyway?

by Mike on Jun 2, 2010 1:25 pm • link • report

@Mike,

That's exactly my question, too. Why screw with the (narrow, 1-lane, privately-owned) tunnel at all if you are ultimately just going to run the streetcars over the bridge anyway? Seems like they are going outta their way to 1) make it more complicated than it needs to be or 2) screw with PDC.

This is no issue worth holding up the project, though. This is resolvable, and I would hope without needing to resort to imminent domain.

by Glenn on Jun 2, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report

@Mike and Glenn

They are going under the Union Station yard because a) this route will provide current and future access to a storage and maintenance facility, and b) because, as David indicated in the opening post, the Hopscotch bridge will need substantial work in the near future, hence laying tracks on it now would mean tearing them up again very soon.

by Alex B. on Jun 2, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

Also don't forget that the tunnel will allow for an almost-direct connection to Metrorail. I suppose that stairs or an elevator could be built up onto the bridge too, although that will be less convenient. It's also worth factoring into the plans that the bridge may "stop being a bridge" in the near future, as the air rights above the rail yard are developed on either side.

In order for the streetcar network to be successful, it needs to integrate into Metro and DC's other public transportation systems. The Union Station connection is crucial.

These plans to route the line over the bridge are news to me. I'll add my name to the list of the bewildered.

(Speaking of bewilderment, why did DC allow that tunnel to pass into private ownership after the hopscotch bridge was built?)

by andrew on Jun 2, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

@ Lance The linked letter clearly states they do not plan to condemn the tunnel. It says:

DDOT envisions the tunnel to remain the property of PDC and Amtrak. DDOT would like to request that it be granted an easement to allow tje construction and operation of the streetcar facilities...

Where are you getting the idea that it is planned to be condemned?

by jcm on Jun 2, 2010 3:02 pm • link • report

@jcm

I don't think Lance meant that the city is going to condemn the property in the natural language meaning of the word (i.e. close it down). I'm not a lawyer, but I believe condemnation is one of the legal processes used by the government to take property under the rules of eminent domain.

by Adam L on Jun 2, 2010 4:15 pm • link • report

@jcm ... I used the wrong terminology. guilty. I should have said they were planning for 'a taking'.

I.e., they will grant themselves an easement, while PDC would "retain full ownership and use of their facilities"

But I'm not sure how forcing someone to provide an easement that interferes with their use of the facilities allows them to 'retain full ownership AND use of their facitilites' ... Clearly this is a threat being made to PDC, and it doesn't provide businesses with confidence that they will be treated fairly. Alos t is DDOT's assessment that it will not impact PDC's operations ... not PDC's. Is it any surprise PDC reacted with such determination?

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 4:29 pm • link • report

Condemnation is the legal term for the process of eminent domain.

Remember also that eminent domain does not require the outright taking of the land itself, it can just be the taking of an easement or some other legal right of access.

by Alex B. on Jun 2, 2010 4:30 pm • link • report

@Adam L./Alex B., Thanks ... I was doubting my use of it for a moment there ... But I guess somewhere in the back of my head something I'd learned in a law course many years ago surfaced ...

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 4:39 pm • link • report

@Andrew (Speaking of bewilderment, why did DC allow that tunnel to pass into private ownership after the hopscotch bridge was built?)

Did DC ever actually own that tunnel? Wouldn't it be part of the railroad's easement rights?

by Lance on Jun 2, 2010 4:43 pm • link • report

No infrastructure could ever be built without the use of eminent domain. The Kelo case in Connecticut was controversial because the government used eminent domain to transfer property between private landowners to facilitate development.

In this case, for a public transportation project, if DDOT has to resort to taking the land or an easement, then it is certainly a reasonable use of their powers. It's certainly a far smaller amount of land than would be needed for a freeway like the ICC or a public building like Nationals Park.

In fact, in California in the 1960s, my family had two different apartment buildings taken through eminent domain. One by University of California for a dorm that was never built, and one by BART. The landowner receives compensation - the amount is the part typically in dispute, and I agree that this letter sounds like a negotiating tactic. Things get trickier when you're talking about people's homes being torn down, but this is an office building.

by Tony Goodman on Jun 2, 2010 4:44 pm • link • report

@Lance From what I understand, H St used to pass through the tunnel before the Hopscotch Bridge was built.

by andrew on Jun 2, 2010 4:54 pm • link • report

DDOT has a well-documented habit of publicizing things about these streetcar lines when the precious details and logistics are not even close to being worked out. It appears as if DDOT is creating more complications to this streetcar project than it is solving. I don't think this is the best way to do business.

I'm also disappointed that the direct connection (underground) to Metro is just temporary. I was excited about it, but my excitement has been stunted. And, no. I don't think running the tracks over the bridge is or ever will be a (convenient) direct connection to the Metro.

I hope this segment is completed soon, but my frustration stems from the fact that the initial groundbreaking for DC streetcars was held back in November 2004. Does anyone care or do we just give the city a pass because we love/like streetcars?

Does anyone know long it took for other cities to build their streetcar/light-rail projects from concept to line opening? Did they also announce things without most of the plans and logistics issues being worked out first?

by otavio on Jun 2, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report

@otavio:
Don't worry. The connection to the Metro will be there regardless of whether the streetcar is under the tracks or on the H Street bridge.

The Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center study explains about building a new northern lobby, which would have an entrance on First Street NE (streetcar level) and also on H Street NE (bridge/parking deck level).

The ped tunnel was built in 1975 but never finished. It's nice that that will be getting done.

by Matt Johnson on Jun 2, 2010 5:07 pm • link • report

If DC really wants to have different transportation systems and modes connected they need to

1 Do something about the Ciculators at Union Station which stop at the garage making it hard and time consuming to transfer to Metrobuses that stop infront of Union Station and Metrorail at the bottom of Union Station.

2 Plan the streetcar stops near current transfer points along the H Street/Benning Road route.

3 Be consistent with plans; the Ciculators stop every block along K street but no where else does it stop so frequent it stops about every 4 blocks: either stop every 4 blocks everywhere or stop every block.

4 Hard to transfer between Circulators (McPherson SQ)

I hate Eminent Domain almost always the land owner gets screwed in the situation for BS reasons such as giving land other private individual/company, land use not for public good (taking the land from someone to build an office building). If a person does not want to give up there land they should not have to and if your force them to than you should be required to do what you planned with it within 5 years or if should be given back.

by kk on Jun 2, 2010 5:42 pm • link • report

This may be a dumb question* but why is it called the "Hopscotch" bridge? I've never heard it called that before...

~EZ

* As we all know, there are no dumb questions, just dumb questioners. :-)

by EZ on Jun 2, 2010 6:01 pm • link • report

@EZ: The railings of the bridge are lined with mosaics depicting vague hopping figures. IIRC they're actually commissioned artwork with a title (maybe "Hopscotch"). It isn't exactly High Art, but it does have a certain charm, at least for me, and I hope some of it, say a strip of a dozen or so of the figures, is kept after redevelopment. (I can't imagine wanting to keep all of it, it isn't that good.)

by davidj on Jun 2, 2010 7:56 pm • link • report

DDOT reminds me of the writers from Lost:

They have a general idea of how the story begins and ends, but have no clue what to do in the middle part, so they just make up a whole lot of stuff and hope no one notices.

And if anyone asks about the stuff that doesn't make sense, they're reassured the finale will be super duper awesome and will answer all the questions.

by Fritz on Jun 2, 2010 8:14 pm • link • report

Paul on Jun 2, 2010 1:10 pm
The tunnel actually goes over the red line but below the amtrak lines. I have toured part of the tunnel, and in most places in there, the clearance is incredibly high.

This picture proves otherwise.

The portals north of the Union Station metrorail station are under the ramps between the "hopscotch bridge" and the garage.

The track descend downgrade above the old H street underpass. They are at least 8' below the elevation of the track in Union Station at their highest point.

by Sand Box John on Jun 2, 2010 11:44 pm • link • report

Fortunately, this case is completely different.

by wmata on Jun 3, 2010 2:11 am • link • report

Whether through eminent domain or direct negotiation, it looks like PDC is going to get a wad of cash. Oh, well, it's just money.

by mtp on Jun 3, 2010 11:16 am • link • report

@mtp Whether through eminent domain or direct negotiation, it looks like PDC is going to get a wad of cash. Oh, well, it's just money.

Legal fights can be long and costly ... I'd say you need to expand the options to 'or DDOT will just have to wait until the H St Bridge gets redone and tracks included on it'. (I.e., If PDC decides to oppose this matter, as their letter indicates, we could be talking about years of negotiating/litigating ... So many years that if DDOT is looking at this as a 'temporary' solution, the 'temporary' part will be long past before this matter gets resolved.)

Now wouldn't it have made sense for DDOT to settle this major hurdle before announcing their plans to run the streetcars through this tunnel. Might not have PDC been more willing to work with DDOT if at least the major points of an agreement had been worked out beforehand? If I were a betting man, I'd bet that that tunnel will never serve as a link to Union Station.

by Lance on Jun 3, 2010 12:39 pm • link • report

I'd say the real problem here is planning. It's great that DC is doing major infrastruction construction during a recession; that's when construction costs are the cheapest, and that's when the citizens most need the government's help in keeping construction workers employed. But Eminent Domain is an expensive, albeit one-off, proposition, and it should be done before a recession hits, when the annual budget is most flush. DC should have grabbed this land back from PDC years ago, back when Burnham Place and the streetcar planning process were first announced.

by tom veil on Jun 3, 2010 3:04 pm • link • report

To me, PDC's letter - not to mention its public release - is bargaining. "Unreasonably interfere" has to be a catch phrase for the legal analysis of a "taking," as are "critical for access" and "essential for operation." It's all about building a paper trail for a defensible claim. The "taxpayer" comment may be an effort to backtrack on PDC's apparent earlier cooperation with the District, which would otherwise undermine these positions. (Despite all the commentary about DDOT's lack of planning, they clearly have been in talks of some long duration with PDC. Furthermore, no one would be taking "tours" as @Paul did, without cooperation from PDC.)

by John M on Jun 14, 2010 10:39 am • link • report