Posts about Union Station

The plaza was once a wasteland of traffic lanes and hadn't been properly maintained for years. The reconstruction project, which included Amtrak and multiple local and federal agencies, can make it an attractive and welcoming gateway to DC. The design treated all forms of traffic well—pedestrians, bicycles, cars, and bus.

Unfortunately, the police parking helped cause damage to the curbs and sidewalks before, and will do so again if this practice continues. It's highly unlikely that the sidewalks and curbs were reinforced strongly enough to withstand the pressure from mutli-ton vehicles.

It's easy to see a parallel with other examples of infrastructure in DC, like this story about Woodson High School, where we spend big bucks on nice new things, then fail to maintain them right after the construction is done.

Police presence and patrols are necessary in highly visible, active areas like a major train station. There has to be a better way and some better locations for police to leave their vehicles, though.

Streetcar alternative 2.

Rapid bus alternative.

Each alternative assumes that DC builds the "K Street transitway," a project to move the medians inward so there is a dedicated transit lane in each direction in the center of the road, plus 3 general lanes (2 plus parking off-peak) on each side.

Segment of K Street transitway design.

On the middle part of K Street, Alternative 1, the streetcar in the median, seems the clear winner. Rapid buses are indeed a mode DC needs more of, but here, there will already be a streetcar from H Street ending at Union Station. Extending the streetcar is obvious.

The team is likely only looking at rapid bus because of Federal Transit Administration requirements that a study consider multiple modes, even when looking at extending an existing transit line. (The Federal Highway Administration does not require every highway study to include an option for something other than roadway lanes.)

I jokingly asked one of the designers where the elevated gondola or helicopter-shuttle alternatives were; he replied in complete seriousness that at many of these, people ask why they didn't consider monorail.

As for the one-way pair, this also makes little sense here. In general, splitting transit on adjacent one-way streets is not ideal; as Jarrett Walker explains, it reduces the number of people within a set walking distance of each direction. Here, in particular, there will be a 2-way median transitway on K Street.

One big question is how the transitway will also work with buses. The plans for the transitway call for moving the Circulator and many local buses into the transitway, but they stop more often. Will that back up the streetcar? It won't be able to go around a bus that stops every block, unless DDOT switches back to the other, 3-lane transitway option.

Segment of original K Street transitway option 1.

WMATA is studying dedicated bus lanes on H and I Streets; it might be most appropriate to keep moving forward on those, with an eye toward many buses going there. On the other hand, if DC is building a whole transitway, it also makes sense to maximize its use.

There's more to discuss about the ends of the lines. One streetcar option just has the line staying on H Street until New Jersey Avenue, when it would move up to K; the other option would use North Capitol to jog southward to Massachusetts Avenue. This gets a streetcar station a little closer to the Metro and nearer Union Station's front door. Most likely, this is not worthwhile, since it will take extra time; also, one day Union Station will hopefully have an attractive entrance on H Street.

Image from the Amtrak Union Station plan.

In the west, there are options to cross under Washington Circle and then travel onto Water Street, under the Whitehurst, or to go up Pennsylvania to M Street in Georgetown. The study doesn't explicitly consider how or whether to connect the streetcar to Georgetown University, Wisconsin Avenue, Rosslyn, or other places from there.

All of the boards from the meeting are online, including a lot more information about the lane configurations at stations, other alignments DDOT considered, and more.

This is a good time also to take a look back at this video from 3 years ago envisioning the K Street streetcar. ZGF Architects made it for the Downtown BID and DDOT, and ZGF is part of the team for this study.

What option do you think is best?

All images from DDOT.

Poles for overhead wires and streetcar signals will go up from May to August, wires August to October, and then they can bring the streetcars over and start testing them. They need to run them back and forth for a while before revenue service can begin.

Before the cars go to H Street, they will be on a commissioning track DDOT is building in Anacostia, right along the edge of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling on South Capitol Street. Streetcars will arrive there in February, if things go as planned, with testing starting in March and drivers getting trained soon after that.

As for the car barn at Spingarn, DDOT Chief Engineer Ronaldo ("Nick") Nicholson said that they are redoing the car barn design, which started out more contemporary, in a more classical way based on comments from the Historic Preservation Review Board and Historic Preservation Office.

HPRB landmarked the Spingarn site last month, and DDOT officials don't know or didn't want to say how much this will delay things, but they claimed that the H Street line could even start running before the car barn is done; DDOT will just have to maintain the cars in a more ad hoc way in the interim.

Besides the 3 streetcars DC already owns, there are 3 more coming from Oregon Iron Works, 2 due in August and the third in December.

Shell of a streetcar being built for DC in Oregon.

On the west end, you'll have to walk through the Union Station parking garage, down 3 escalators, into the Amtrak concourse, then over to the Metro to transfer to the Red Line. DDOT would like to build an elevator directly from the Metro to the garage to speed that part up a bit, and is studying that, but would have to come up with money or find federal funds to build such a thing.

Before and when the line opens, DDOT will reach out aggressively to area residents and businesses to educate people about not parking in the streetcar lane. Director Terry Bellamy said that they expect to have to tow a few cars at the start, and will work with DPW to have more tow trucks at the ready in the area, until people get used to the new setup.

For deliveries, trucks will have to park somewhere other than the tracks, or switch around delivery times. Consultant Steve Carroll, who worked on systems in Norfolk, Tampa, Tucson, and many more, said that in most cities, the businesses just rescheduled deliveries to come outside streetcar hours.

After H Street, Minnesota-Benning, Anacostia, and more

The next steps are to extend the streetcar over the Anacostia River to either Benning Road or Minnesota Avenue Metro station; DDOT is finishing up a study to decide that. They'll also build a line through Historic Anacostia, and are close to finishing a study on where to run that line. After that is another study to look at the best route to Georgetown.

These would be the first pieces in a 22-mile "priority system" DDOT has picked out from the original plan. The general idea consists of 3 lines: Benning Road to Georgetown (the "One City Line"), Anacostia to Buzzard's Point, and Buzzard's Point to Takoma.

To achieve that, DDOT is looking for a partner who can design, build, finance, operate, and maintain (DBFOM) the system. This concessionaire would handle the whole project under DDOT's management and with promised funding from DC to pay off the financing and cover operations.

They haven't decided on the exact alignments for each line; this map shows the alignments from the 2009 streetcar study. A subsequent Office of Planning study suggested some alternatives, and the two agencies will work together with others to actually study each line in detail.

Chief among the potential changes is running the Georgia Avenue line to Silver Spring, a far more obvious endpoint than Takoma as people could ride it both directions to jobs and connect to the Purple Line. Nicholson said DC officials have been talking with Maryland counterparts, and both sides are interested, but they haven't reached any firm agreements.

What about car barns? Those lines will need some number of new car barns, and DDOT plans to undertake yet another study, also with the Office of Planning, to figure that out. Car barns can be pretty small, even on the underground parking level of a mixed-use building using a streetcar elevator (or "lift"). If there could be more of them, each can be a lot smaller, or a larger area could hold a major facility that can handle more cars.

And beyond...

The rest of the 37-mile system isn't forgotten, either, and will follow the 22-mile "priority" set of lines. Nicholson said the car barn study will look at locations for all of those lines as well, not just ones for the priority lines.

Bellamy emphasized that they are going to work hard to put every car barn in Ward 5. No, he didn't say that. In fact, he reiterated that they will go all across the city.

We didn't discuss the later lines much in the meeting, but it's clear they will depend a lot on the early ones. As we've seen with other types of streets, like the recent streetscapes that add two-way traffic and bike lanes, once an agency has a bunch of engineers who are used to building one type of thing, they can just march along building it more places without a lot of trouble.

If the first few lines become a big success, DDOT will be able to expand the program and turn its by then finely-honed streetcar-planning, community-involving (hopefully), and concessionaire-driven streetcar-building machine to more corridors as long as the District is willing to make it a priority to pay for them.

You can see the complete slideshow DDOT presented at today's briefing.

Update: Here's Martin Austermuhle's report on DCist.

The comment period for the redesign proposal ends tomorrow, so now is the time for anyone interested to take a look and send in comments. Update: the comment period has been extended to November 15.

The gold-trimmed Main Hall is a fantastic and beautiful civic space, recent scaffolding aside. It's one of the best Beaux Arts rooms in America, and is lively with visitors through long hours of the day and night. It's a space that is working very well already, so any changes need to be carefully considered.

The hall was temporarily ruined by a poorly-conceived redesign in the 1970s. If project architects get too carried away with changes, the same could happen again.

The good news is that the redesign being proposed now is relatively restrained. That wasn't always the case. The first proposal back in 2010 would have overwhelmed the historic character of the Main Hall with a clashing metal and glass structure in the center of the room. Two years later, the new proposal is a lot better. It makes less significant changes, and leaves the aesthetic focus of the hall where it belongs, on the world-class Beaux Arts features.

The proposed escalators down to the food court are a little troubling, because punching holes in the floor of such a grand space sounds very similar to the 1970s mistake. On the other hand, without the Center Cafe in that space the Main Hall may seem too large, maybe even a little barren. There needs to be something in about that location that breaks up the floor mass. Both the raised cafe and holes for escalators would be too much, but one or the other is just about right.

The escalators will also improve circulation in the station, and add a new reason for visitors to go through the Main Hall.

The 2010 escalator proposal was garish and inappropriate, but this new redesign is subdued enough that the benefits it brings are worth the trade-offs.

Except for the signs. The signs are awful.

The escalator proposal also includes a pair of vertical signs, sticking out from the holes in the Main Hall floor and up in to the middle of the room. This is actually a great idea, because a vertical element fills the huge room volume a bit, and something near the center of the hall adds a focal point. Unfortunately, the design of the signs themselves is all wrong.

Take a look:

Rendering of the proposed redesign, showing large LED signs. Image by USRCDC.

Talk about clashing!

LED signs that look like they came straight from a suburban strip mall aren't right for one of the most famous Beaux Arts rooms in America. A vertical element that incorporates signs would be good there, but the design needs to be improved.

A better option would be to go with something dignified and ornate, that stands out but also works with the room's historic character. Something like an iron street lamp with a banner attached would look great, and be far more appropriate for the context.

For more details on the proposed redesign, visit the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation. If you want to comment you can use the form on that site, but be sure to get your thoughts in by Thursday, October 25 November 15.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Even though a crowd of people might be on the other side of that wall, interacting with the memorial, talking about their experiences in the Ukraine, talking about hunger problems, whatever it might be, if you're on the other side of that wall, nothing is going on.

I think we suggested at the time of the commission meeting that it might be ameliorated with a lower hight so that you can see that there are people on the other side of that wall, or maybe some porosity or transparency, so that it wasn't just a blank wall. I think the pattern that was picked is very lovely; I like the interplay of the shadows of the trees on the wall, but it doesn't really take away from the fact that it's a public space deadening element.

One thing that might make a difference is in the new design, the deeper landscaping is also clearly a front and a back. So you have a low wall, but people are not going to be inclined to be facing out toward F Street because it seems like in that landscaped area, no feet should be in that area, no people should be sitting and facing that direction.

I am a strong believer and agree that we use public space when we can as teaching spaces, especially in the nations capital, and this fits into a vision for what our city should be. But I am also concerned this is an area where we have a lot of tourists, where folks are walking at night. There are not a lot of eyes on the street as you have in some other areas. This clearly creates potentially a nice hiding space.

I understand the concern, but don't necessarily agree that it is as negative an effect as Ms. Tregoning suggests. Given the full range of things we have looked at for this memorial, this is by far the best concept. Some of the suggestions for making it more porous or lowering the height would significantly diminish the concept.

Given the expanse of F Street, and the liveliness of what happens along F Street along its entire length, particularly across the street, I don't think this is particularly deadining.

It's certainly not without precedent to have a 1-sided memorial ... it does exist in other circumstances with memorials in certain settings. This is a lot more successful than those in setting the memorial confortably on the site.

It is admittedly a 1-sided experience, but frankly, the concept doesn't work when you try to make some of the changes that were suggested. I think it is an excellent design and am very very pleased with it as it is.

Tregoning took exception to May's point:

I am underwhelmed by the argument that we've done worse in other parts of the city. I'm sure that's true, but I think that by creating a back to this memorial that's hidden from everything that happens on the other side, it does create not just safety issues.

These are areas where people can undertake activities unobserved by people on the other side of the wall, whatever those activities might be. If you create a blank wall that's clearly the back of something, given the other activities that take place in the area, you will find that it attracts some amount of disamenity in terms of how it ends up getting used.

Tregoning also suggested the applicant use a lighter colored stone for the paving and benches. That would keep the surfaces cooler in the summer, she noted, and make it a more enjoyable place to sit for lunch.

Former DC Councilmember and mayoral NCPC appointee Arrington Dixon suggested a translucent wall to create less of a barrier, and noted that "wheat grows in sunlight." Architect Mary Kay Lanzillotta, from Hartman Cox Architects in DC, replied that the design came out of a design competition, and the entry called for a bronze sculpture, so her firm did not explore that type of option.

Lanzillotta gave some insight into her thinking around the issue:

I think the prominent elevation here, and the way that people will experience this—many people—will be driving down Mass Ave and North Capitol. Those are the 2 prominent streets here, and that is why the memorial was turned towards that direction as well.

Urban designers have learned through painful experience that blank walls can be some of the most destructive elements that get created with good intentions. This isn't a very large blank wall, but it's a blank wall just the same, and it's disappointing to see this level of unconcern from NCPC staff, NPS, the architect and others.

The empty public reservations in DC will turn into memorials over time. That's appropriate. These can be memorials that either contribute to the urban experience or detract from it. Each piece matters, even small ones, because they add up to a whole. NCPC and the federal commissioners will rightly put interpretive experiences foremost in their priorities, but they should also take great care to respect and enhance the pedestrian experience as they review and approve new memorials.

Here is the video from the meeting. The presentation about the memorial starts at 14:48 in the video and the question and answer period starts at 26:55.

The triangle today.

The National Capital Planning Commission sees most empty triangles like this one as spots for future memorials, and Congress likes to authorize memorials, like this one. These spaces are also part of a city, whose people need spaces to sit outside, eat a snack, run around, and more.

Fortunately, the two don't have to conflict. A number of memorials work well as public spaces at the same time. An oft-cited example is the Navy Memorial, at 8th and Pennsylvania, NW. It's an attractive fountain which sports a mast with naval flags, quotations from famous commanders, a map of the world's oceans, and more. Plus, it's a great spot to sit outside on a nice day and eat lunch.

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial isn't bad. Others do little; the memorials to Samuel Hahnemann (founder of homeopathy) and Daniel Webster (statesman and orator) in the triangles next to Scott Circle are just large statues in the midst of some grass and paths; their presence doesn't create any usable public space. Some of the fears around the proposed Eisenhower Memorial involve design elements that could detract from people actually using the square.

The Ukranian famine memorial will sport a 6-foot bronze wall, with a bas-relief facing Massachusetts Avenue. In front of the wall will be a plaza, open to Mass. Ave. and with benches on 2 sides.

View of the memorial from F Street.

View along F Street with the memorial.

NCPC, DC historic preservation officials, and the Commission on Fine Arts all pushed the memorial designers to improve the way it backs onto F Street. The original submission lacked any design for the back of the wall along F, and tall cylindrical trees might have "create[d] a large vegetation wall that might overwhelm pedestrians."

In response, the designers moved the wall farther from F Street, reducing its visual size from the sidewalk, added some texture to the back, and changed the trees to ones that will leave open space at eye level. It's still not ideal; it's still a blank wall with some ground cover in front, but it's an improvement and the whole wall is not very large.

"Tear Drops on a Wheat Field" concept.

More memorials will keep coming. Congress has authorized an Adams Memorial to the two presidents and the rest of the Adams Family. NCPC, preservation boards, and residents can work to ensure that that memorial not only avoids being creepy, kooky, mysterious or spooky, but also serves to enhance the urban experience instead of detract as it also helps people remember.

Union Station's tracks don't line up VRE and the Brunswick MARC

At Union Station, VRE trains coming from the south enter the station from the First Street Tunnel, at the far eastern end of the station. But the Brunswick Line's tracks come into the station at its far western end.

A Brunswick train crossing from the CSX Metropolitan Subdivision tracks on the west side of the station to the through tracks on the east side would have to cross all the tracks at Union Station, blocking trains on the other MARC, Amtrak and VRE lines.

That doesn't mean crossing over is impossible. It just makes scheduling more difficult. If in the future, for example, Acelas leave (and arrive) every 30 minutes and Regionals leave/arrive every 30 minutes, and MARC Penn trains leave and arrive every 20, there aren't many gaps for trains to cross over, and doing so can cause delays.

The Penn Line trains wouldn't face this problem, and as the highest-ridership line, that is the most logical one for through-running. But this is also the line with the most high platforms and thus the greatest incompatibility between MARC and VRE.

There isn't enough reverse-direction capacity

The Penn Line tracks do line up with the First Street tunnel; that's what Amtrak trains use to get to Virginia. Those trains could continue south to Alexandria, or even farther south. This could be a great asset for Penn Line riders, who could stay on the train to L'Enfant Plaza if they want the Metro Orange, Blue, Yellow or Green Lines, or ride to Crystal City or Alexandria if they work at jobs in Virginia.

Unfortunately, this would run into a second problem. There isn't enough track capacity south of Union Station. Right now, there are 2 tracks across the Potomac on the Long Bridge, and 3 through the L'Enfant Plaza area. CSX controls these tracks, and doesn't let VRE use all of the tracks.

Right now, VRE trains run almost entirely one-way. The trains head into DC on one track in the morning, and back out to Virginia on one track in the afternoon; in between, the trains sit at a yard near Ivy City in DC. The VRE schedule lists just one reverse-direction train, on the Manassas Line each morning and evening. Amtrak's trains go both ways all day, but there are only a few of those and mainly not at rush hours.

The bottom line is, if Virginia and Maryland wanted to have all or even some Penn Line trains continue past Union Station at least to Alexandria, there wouldn't be enough track space.

A similar problem applies to letting VRE trains continue north of Union Station. CSX has resisted letting Maryland's MTA add more MARC trains on the Brunswick and Camden Lines without also demanding Maryland invest some money into improvements along the route.

Stations are limited

Another issue with through-running is the design of the VRE stations at L'Enfant and Crystal City. These stations each have just one platform on one side of the tracks. That means trains can only serve the stations in one direction at a time.

This means the reverse peak direction trains on the Manassas Line each morning and afternoon can't stop at Crystal City or L'Enfant, because the trains running in the peak direction are using the platform track.

If Brunswick (or other MARC) trains could run south of Union Station today, they couldn't stop at L'Enfant or Crystal City, which is where most of the MARC riders would likely want to go.

Most of the other stops on the Manassas Line have the same configuration, with platforms only on one side as well. This will prove to be an obstacle for additional reverse peak direction trains, whether they're MARC or VRE.

Maryland Ave plan and Long Bridge study could fix this

There is hope on the horizon. The recent Maryland Avenue study recommended building a fourth track at L'Enfant Plaza. CSX could then let passenger trains travel in both directions at high frequency in that area. It would also transform the station from just one platform to 3, with a combination of high and low platforms for both types of trains.

Proposed L'Enfant commuter rail station layout. Image from the DC Office of Planning.

The next bottleneck would be the 2-track Long Bridge across the Potomac, and there's another study going on for that. VRE's 2004 strategic plan recommended adding a 3rd track from the Long Bridge to Crystal City, where the line widens to 3 tracks, and giving the Crystal City station an island platform to serve trains in both directions.

Combined with needed improvements at Union Station, we might one day see a truly regional rail system, at least from Baltimore and maybe Frederick to Alexandria, alongside more frequent service from Fredericksburg and Manassas to DC. To make this happen, however, Maryland and Virginia will have to make it a priority. With an 8-year-old VRE plan and a 5-year-old MARC plan mostly collecting dust, riders will need to push their leaders to put resources into commuter rail.

Why does VRE use low platforms?

VRE trains operate on two lines south of Washington that are owned by freight railroads. Because the freight railroads (CSX for the Fredericksburg Line and Norfolk Southern (NS) for the Manassas Line) own the tracks, they get to have a say about what types of platforms can be built. And that means low platforms.

Low platforms are typically placed at about the height of the top of the rail. The reason freight railroads want these types of platforms is because freight cars are wider than passenger cars, and high platforms could intrude into the dynamic envelope of a freight train.

As long as VRE operates on rail lines that are predominately freight railroad corridors, it will be stuck with using low platforms. There's not really anything wrong with that, except that in this case, it's an obstacle to through-running.

Railcar design matters

For passenger railroads using low platforms, there are 3 basic types of double-decker cars in use. Two of these offer access to the lower level with just one or two steps up from the platform, and can therefore be fairly efficient in boarding.

They're also much easier for mobility-impaired riders to board. Platforms can be designed to have a small area at the height of the floor, set back from the tracks. When necessary, a bridge plate is used for wheelchairs.

Left: A bi-level commuter coach with low-level boarding in Minneapolis. Photo by the author.
Right: An Amtrak California double-decker car. Photo by Wayan Vota.

Many cities outside of the Northeast use these cars, with the Amtrak California cars operating in Southern California and the Bay Area. The bi-levels are used in places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Miami.

VRE uses gallery cars, the third type. These cars have 2 levels, but passengers must climb 4 steps to board even just to the lower level. But the stairs are fairly wide and are not as steep as the stepwells on high-platform equipment. Gallery cars cannot use high platforms at all.

VRE gallery car. Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

In order to speed boarding, VRE could easily move toward either the bi-level or Amtrak model. In fact, for a while, VRE was using a set of bi-levels leased from Seattle's Sound Transit.

What's wrong with using high-platform equipment on VRE?

If MARC can use high-platform equipment, why can't VRE? Well, VRE could use high-platform equipment, and in fact, they have done so in the past. But using high-platform equipment at low platform stops is inherently less efficient.

Using high-platform equipment means that conductors have to manually open each door (instead of automatic doors in the whole train) at low-platform stops. That generally means that only one or two doors aboard the train can open, as is the case with the MARC stops at places like College Park and West Baltimore.

Additionally, boarding a high-platform train from a low platform means ascending a narrow, steep staircase. That means it takes longer for passengers to board and alight.

Similar stairs on an Amtrak train. Photo by the author.

What about MARC?

Like VRE, MARC runs 2 of its lines on tracks that are primarily used for freight. For that reason, most of the stations on the Camden Line and all of the stations on the Brunswick Line have low platforms.

But for MTA, the agency that operates the MARC commuter trains, it makes a lot of sense to have a fairly standard fleet because it can then move its cars between lines as necessary.

MARC's busiest line, the Penn Line, operates on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, and most of those stops have high platforms. This is due to the fact that Amtrak (and the previous operators) have long used single-level railcars for their services. For single-level cars, high platforms are the only way to have step-free access to trains.

On the Penn Line, south of Baltimore, only West Baltimore, Halethorpe, and some of the platforms at Union Station are still low. Halethorpe is currently undergoing conversion to high platforms, and Amtrak recently announced plans to convert most of the platforms at Union Station to high platforms.

On the Camden Line, Greenbelt and Camden stations have high platforms. The other stations all have low platforms. On the Brunswick Line, all stations have low platforms.

What does this mean for through-running?

The practical effect of this arrangement is that through-running trains from either MARC or VRE will be difficult.

The current fleet of VRE trains are not able to use high-platform stations, which means they can't operate on the Penn Line to Baltimore. VRE trains also can't operate on the Camden Line, because they would be unable to serve the terminal station in Baltimore, since it only has high platforms. And that leaves the Brunswick Line as the only viable line they could operate on.

But running VRE trains on the Brunswick Line presents some other challenges: the way tracks are laid out in DC. Tomorrow, we'll look at those issues.