Posts about Union Station

Dozens of comments were submitted in opposition to the proposal as part of the Historic Preservation Act's Section 106 public review process. The bulk of the comments aren't necessarily anti-change: Many express a desire to return the floorplan to one that recalls the station's appearance in the 1940's. This would require the complete removal of the Center Cafe and would move all ticketing to the Great Hall. The oft-repeated refrain in the public comments is that that's how Union Station was intended to be laid out, similar to other train stations of the era.

But, I think Union Station's redevelopment is a prime opportunity to seize hold of an innovative design, while integrating some of the space's more traditional aspects—and the USRC plan for the Great Hall's floor does just that. Train stations across the country look as they did in the early 20th century. Why does Union Station need to be just like Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, Denver's Union Station, or Los Angeles' Union Station?

This proposal retains most of Union Station's original qualities, such as its vaulted ceiling, vendor stands, and benches, while giving the center of the space a considerate and timely upgrade.

All of the proposed changes for the Great Hall are well within the "non-historic floor". The glass structure will visually and physically open the space: It's slimmer than the existing Center Cafe platform, which should open up sightlines in what's currently a low-feeling, harsh space. The current Center Cafe doesn't draw a viewer's eye toward the vaulted ceiling, but a glass column probably would. It will improve handicap access and promises better signage. And, the glass and light should certainly enhance what's currently a rather dismal dining experience in the food court.

Though the DC Preservation League has taken Union Station's redevelopment plan as an opportunity to publicize their fundraising efforts via a contest with the National Trust for Historic Preservation's This Place Matters campaign, DePillis reports that the League doesn't have any plans for how they'd spend the money (and that they might spend it on projects unrelated to Union Station). Essentially, their campaign for the $25,000 unlimited grant is based on the fact that Union Station's growth and change should be stuck in the 1940s and 1950s.

Preservation does not need to be a process that relegates spaces merely to the way things once were. Instead, it should be a chance to smoothly combine what we do now with the way things once were. This "pit"—which bears little resemblance to the 1970s-era audio-visual display "pit" that the DC Preservation League and others operate in fear of—could give Union Station truly unique qualities that would stick in its visitors' heads.

A building's physical characteristics don't deserve to remain stagnant; preservation should be reflexive, honoring our past but incorporating the change of present. Union Station is a real, living space, not a memorial, and thousands of users engage with it daily. Instead of giving those users what any other train station could give them, why not take the opportunity to create a brand-new experience and an individual identity for Union Station?

Most importantly, that such a successful public space should not be torn up on a whim. Union Station is the most visited destination in Washington. By any measure it is a place that is working tremendously well already, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unnecessary changes that don't benefit anything important threaten to make things worse rather than better.

Beyond that, there are good preservationist reasons not to change the Great Hall in this manner. The hall's elegant classicism is fundamentally incompatible with a mundane food court. They're both valuable and worthwhile spaces, of course, but making the Great Hall more like the food court inherently intrudes upon the elegance of the Great Hall.

Finally, there's the small matter of this having been tried once before, and having failed miserably. In the late 1970s Congress spent more than $100 million on a pit in the middle of the Great Hall. It was so unpopular that it was filled in by the early 1980s. While that 1970s boondoggle is only barely comparable to the current proposal, it is nonetheless instructive: Turns out magnificent classical spaces are not appropriate places for large holes in the ground.

In the City Paper comments thread, some responders suggest that opposing changes to Union Station is just like opposing overhead streetcar wires. Nothing could be further from the truth. The streetcar plan promises to greatly benefit the city by virtue of better transportation and revitalized neighborhoods. This Union Station plan offers no such benefits, and as described above, it involves real risk. I oppose it for the same reason that I support streetcars: I want the city to be vital and prosperous. Streetcars would make Washington more so; ripping a couple of holes in one of the city's best spaces wouldn't.

At best, this proposal is a solution in search of an imaginary problem. Even if you think it's harmless, it doesn't solve anything that needs to be solved. At worst, it could ruin one of Washington's most magnificent public gathering places.

Why take the risk?

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

The Metro station is not directly under the Union Station building. It's actually underneath the ramp that comes down from the parking garage. Two escalators and one elevator connect the northern edge of the Metro platform to the mezzanine. From there, an elevator and two escalators ascend to the concourse level of Union Station and a ramp descends to an exit to First Street NE.

At the concourse level, passengers can walk down a corridor past the Post Office into Union Station or they can turn and head to the MARC platforms near Gate A. Because of this easy access, this entrance sees lots of commuter rail passengers. But the escalators connecting the concourse to the mezzanine also serve Union Station customers headed to and from First Street NE and NoMa.

A separate entrance to the Metro is located further south, toward the center of the platform. The southern mezzanine gives patrons access to the front side of Union Station, the Great Hall, Massachusetts Avenue, Senate and other office buildings, and direct access to the Union Station Food Court. No changes are planned for this mezzanine.

Proposed Solutions
One of the biggest problems with the northern mezzanine is vertical capacity. The two escalators at the north end of the platform have a difficult time handling the mass of commuters each day. To solve this problem, the project will remove the current elevator and replace it with a staircase in between the two escalators.

To replace the platform-to-mezzanine elevator, the agencies will need to reconfigure the mezzanine level of the station. A passageway will be constructed inside the fare-paid area just to the east of the up escalator (above the Glenmont track). It will turn south, travel parallel to the escalators, and then turn west to move above the platform. There, two new elevators will connect the mezzanine to the platform. The elevators will pierce the part of the ceiling that is lower and flat (not the arched vault part).

The fare-paid zone will be expanded by closing the existing First Street entranceway. The current ramp will be filled in, which will allow new faregates to be added in that area. This will help to reduce congestion in the mezzanine.

To compensate for the loss of the current First Street entrance, a new, larger entrance will be constructed slightly further north, essentially on a line with the existing concourse-to-mezzanine escalators. A ramp and stairs will be constructed outside the station wall to connect to the sidewalk. The ramp will face southward and the stairs will face north.

Additionally, an incomplete passageway, built in the mid-1970s, will be completed and opened. The passage runs underground toward H Street alongside the Red Line. The passageway was never opened, and the entrance was walled over. You can see it directly across from the exit faregates. By opening this area, DDOT will be able to link the Red Line to the new streetcar line along H Street. The passage will head north until it reaches the H Street underpass (which predates the H Street bridge). There, it will connect to the temporary streetcar platform and to an exit to First Street.

Four elevators will be constructed to connect the new lobby at First Street (under H) to the bridge-level H Street. It is not clear whether DDOT will install cars and equipment in all 4 initially, but at least 2 will be put in service as a part of the first phase.

In addition, the area where the passageway intersects the mezzanine will be expanded. This will allow the construction of two new escalators which will ascend to the south, emerging on the concourse level of Union Station directly in front of the Post Office and liquor store.

Also to be constructed off of the passage are two new elevators. They will connect to the concourse level at the point where the corridor to the MARC trains meets the corridor toward the Post Office — essentially across the hall from the existing elevator. The current elevator will be removed once construction is complete.

There is not currently a timeframe for this project. DDOT estimates that it will take at least 36 months after money has been granted to complete construction.

Funding
DDOT and WMATA are currently working on funding the project. They are preparing to apply for a TIGER II grant from the US Department of Transportation. Another approach being considered is a 5 cent surcharge on trips beginning or ending at Union Station. The Metro Board has proposed this as a way to accelerate capital improvements at stations where they are needed.

All told, the improvements are expected to cost between $33 and $36 million.

In June, the Board's Finance Committee approved the option to allow 6 stations systemwide to implement this surcharge — 2 each in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. The full Board has approved the concept, but has not selected which stations will see the surcharge. It is likely that it would be implemented at all 6 locations at the same time.

The surcharge idea would be an excellent way to get vital capital improvements on the fast track. While Union Station has been the only station named so far as a potential site, some other projects come to mind as potential candidates, including the proposed tunnels between Gallery Place and Metro Center and between Farragut West and Farragut North.

Join the Flickr group and submit your own photos! Photos will ideally depict either great or not-so-great features of a part of the Washington, DC region, showing people, roads, parks, stores or buildings as beautiful and lively places filled with people, or unsightly or desolate places that could be greater.

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.

Finally, Scott Kubly took the stage to discuss some of the details of the H Street/Benning Road streetcar line. DDOT has submitted a $63 $25 million grant application to the FTA to make the H Street line fully functional and extend it across the Anacostia River to the Benning Road Metro station. (The $25 million figure is part of an additional $75 million that is needed, along with $63 million that has been proposed for the FY2011 budget, to complete the H Street NE/Benning Road project. These figures are based on corrections from the comments.)

Mr. Kubly also mentioned his hopes for an overhead wire compromise with NCPC. An interesting fact he brought up (which was difficult to hear due to the fact that he was battling serious laryngitis) was that a wider pantograph on the streetcars would mean even less obtrusive wires are required to produce the necessary power for the cars.

The three streetcars that are currently being stored in Greenbelt will soon be brought to the District for citizens to have an opportunity to walk through the cars and see them firsthand.

The western end of the H Street line, which currently ends at 3rd Street NE, will continue two blocks west via a hole punched through the Hopscotch Bridge, crossing 2nd street at grade, and by entering the old H Street tunnel under the railroad tracks, similar to the tunnels at K, L, and M Streets. The entrance to the H Street tunnel is visible at the right hand side of this historical photograph, taken in 1969.

After crossing under the tracks, the streetcars will emerge at 1st Street NE, cross the street at grade, and enter a maintenance yard under the Hopscotch Bridge between 1st Street and North Capitol, concealed from public view.

Three new power substations will provide power for this line, located at 26th Street and Benning Road NE (just north of the kiosk library), a vacant lot at 1215 Wylie Street NE, and under the Hopscotch Bridge in the 200 block of H Street NE. Each will measure approximately 15 by 40 feet, and will be constructed to blend in with the surrounding area.

The platform at 1st Street NE will connect directly to the north mezzanine of the Union Station Metro station via a tunnel that was started but never completed in 1975 when the Metro was built. 510 of the tunnel's 600 feet is complete; the remaining 90 feet will have to be dug as part of the current construction. DDOT plans a single platform and track here, as there is currently not enough room for a parallel track and platform due to limited space and ADA requirements for space to enter and exit the streetcars.

The temporary eastern end of the line (at Benning Road and Oklahoma Avenue) will consist of a short stub track that allows for eastbound streetcars to turn back towards Union Station. That stub will be integrated into the route towards the Benning Road station when that part of the line is completed.

Construction at the ends of the line should commence in Fall 2010, and be complete by Winter 2012, allowing the streetcars to begin running in Spring 2012.

DDOT put the presentations online immediately after the meeting. This one shows details of the H Street and Benning Road lane configurations, the facilities at each end, the car layouts, electrical substation placements, overhead wire designs, and more. This one talks about the overall citywide streetcar plans and the extension to Benning Road.

The question and answer session was very cordial, with most people asking short questions about operational issues including how traffic would be affected, automobile parking, signage for the deaf community, and safety concerns for the elderly. A couple queries about the status of streetcar propulsion (the overhead wire question) were raised, but there was none of the contentious back-and-forth that might have been expected.

At the end of the evening, the principal of Wheatley asked those of us in the audience to help stack the chairs and clean up the gym since the staff had gone home for the evening. We gladly lent a helping hand, thanked the presenters, and stepped back out into the comfortable night air.

Cross-posted at The District Curmudgeon.