# Washington DC Union Station redevelpment plans



## afigg (Jul 25, 2012)

In today's Washington Post, Amtrak will be presenting this afternoon (7/25) its $7 billion long range plan to overhaul and expand DC Union Station. Details are sketchy at this point, but the $7 billion may include the $1.5 billion of private development of office & residential buildings above the track north of the station.

The proposed upgrades to Union Station would include the planned concourse A $200 to $300 million expansion over the lower tracks for 2013-2017 and the NextGen HSR NEC new complex of 6 tracks and concourse under Union Station. I expect there will be a press release and viewgraphs on the Amtrak website by tonight which will begin to fill in the details.

This looks to be the first presentation of the plans for upgrading the NEC for both the nearer term NEC Master Plan and the longer term NextGen HSR. If Boardman is doing one in DC for Union Station with the local politicians and planners lined up in advance, I think we will see additional presentations for Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston, maybe Hartford and Danbury?


----------



## yarrow (Jul 25, 2012)

i would rather see them get the eb to run on time. i hope boardman has fun smiling and hobnobbing with the big wigs instead of dealing with issues regarding his trains


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2012)

afigg said:


> In today's Washington Post, Amtrak will be presenting this afternoon (7/25) its $7 billion long range plan to overhaul and expand DC Union Station. Details are sketchy at this point, but the $7 billion may include the $1.5 billion of private development of office & residential buildings above the track north of the station.
> 
> The proposed upgrades to Union Station would include the planned concourse A $200 to $300 million expansion over the lower tracks for 2013-2017 and the NextGen HSR NEC new complex of 6 tracks and concourse under Union Station. I expect there will be a press release and viewgraphs on the Amtrak website by tonight which will begin to fill in the details.
> 
> This looks to be the first presentation of the plans for upgrading the NEC for both the nearer term NEC Master Plan and the longer term NextGen HSR. If Boardman is doing one in DC for Union Station with the local politicians and planners lined up in advance, I think we will see additional presentations for Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston, maybe Hartford and Danbury?


For New York, you already have a vision. It is called Moynihan + Gateway. There may be a third overlay for additional HSR tunnels at some point. But we'll see.

Right now what is really important in New York is achieving what has been set out as the goal for 2025. If we can achieve all of that by 2030 that will be grand in and of itself, considering.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 25, 2012)

Looks like Amtrak has posted the Executive Summary of their WAS Master Plan online. Just starting to read through it at this point.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/919/171/Washington-Union-Station-Master-Plan-201207.pdf (large pdf)


----------



## Paulus (Jul 25, 2012)

Well, on the bright side, between this and that Philadelphia tunnel, we can cut a third of the cost of Amtrak's WAS-NYP NextGen HSR plans without actually cutting something useful.


----------



## afigg (Jul 25, 2012)

jis said:


> For New York, you already have a vision. It is called Moynihan + Gateway. There may be a third overlay for additional HSR tunnels at some point. But we'll see.
> 
> Right now what is really important in New York is achieving what has been set out as the goal for 2025. If we can achieve all of that by 2030 that will be grand in and of itself, considering.


Yes, but the Gateway Plan vision for NYC is lacking in details. Time for a new public presentation, revealing a little more, and placing it in the context of the Stair Step plan for NEC upgrades and the NextGen NEC. Why not a press conference with Boardman, Secretary LaHood, Mayor Bloomberg, the heads of MTA and the Port Authority, the Senators from NY and NJ in attendance? If they can't get Gov. Christie to attend, get a supporting press release statement from him. Building the political support and getting the pols on the record in support for the Gateway project and NEC projects is critical.

The press release and the Union Station Master Plan Executive summary document are now up on Amtrak's website. Lunchtime reading!


----------



## Eric S (Jul 25, 2012)

Quick takeway from reading the plan:

Eastern/run-through tracks: 8 tracks, 5 platforms (2 low-level platforms serving 3 tracks, 3 high-level platforms serving 6 tracks, with 1 of the tracks served by both a high-level island platform and low-level side platform)

Western/stub tracks: 12 tracks, 6 platforms (all high-level)

Potential future (post-2028) phase adding 6-9 additional tracks underneath the stub-tracks.

Much, much more about pedestrian/passenger circulation through the station with new and expanded concourses, etc., etc.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2012)

Eric S said:


> Much, much more about pedestrian/passenger circulation through the station with new and expanded concourses, etc., etc.


That is what it really needs very urgently before any tracks get added. It is a veritable zoo during rush hours, worse than even NYP. Currently too much mall, too little passenger circulation space.


----------



## Eric S (Jul 25, 2012)

jis said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Much, much more about pedestrian/passenger circulation through the station with new and expanded concourses, etc., etc.
> ...


No argument here, agree completely. I was just lazy and it was easier and quicker to summarize the trackage changes than the circulation changes.


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2012)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > For New York, you already have a vision. It is called Moynihan + Gateway. There may be a third overlay for additional HSR tunnels at some point. But we'll see.
> ...


Looks like this is primarily a air rights real estate development plan with a few rail related stuff also in it. So a lot of the funding beyond the $300 million or so for development of the rail side, will most likely materialize from the real estate interests.

Amtrak has an already proceeding air rights development plan for the little bit of unused air right over NY Penn Station yard and approach from the West. in addition there is an air right development plan over the West Side Yard of LIRR that is also proceeding apace. They have been in the works for a while and at one point included moving Madison Square Garden to the West Side Yard. But that is not happening anymore. Air rights over the West Side yard will be developed as a mixed commercial and residential area with considerable green space, connecting with the aerial greenway built along the old elevated RoW.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jul 25, 2012)

jis said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > Much, much more about pedestrian/passenger circulation through the station with new and expanded concourses, etc., etc.
> ...


And like NYP, the sad part is that the original station configuration could handle the crowds better than the current set up.


----------



## afigg (Jul 25, 2012)

jis said:


> That is what it really needs very urgently before any tracks get added. It is a veritable zoo during rush hours, worse than even NYP. Currently too much mall, too little passenger circulation space.


That is what Phase 1, described as Immediate Action, 2013 - 2017 is for. Improvements and I assume expansion of Concourse A along with 2 new tracks & a platform on the west side to allow the other tracks and platforms to be taken out of service one at a time for rebuilding. Just how crowded could WAS get by 2017 while waiting for Phase 1 to be completed?

Overall, a very ambitious plan to entirely rebuild the north end of DC Union Station. Clear that Amtrak and PB has been extensively working on this in close coordination with DC DOT, DC city planners, and WMATA. Vast improvements in pedestrian access from the north and west, close integration with the plans for the H street streetcar.

The plan refer to a to be defined new DC Metro station and line at Union Station. One constant in the many potential new alternate Metro routes through DC studied by the WMATA Technical Advisory Group has been the need to have a second line connecting at Union Station. Now where would a rerouted Blue Line coming from the NW go under or past Union Station fit, no idea. That would be an interesting drawing to see.

Tearing down the existing parking garage and removing the support pillars on the platforms while minimizing disruption to service? Not a small or easy engineering job.


----------



## afigg (Jul 25, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > That is what it really needs very urgently before any tracks get added. It is a veritable zoo during rush hours, worse than even NYP. Currently too much mall, too little passenger circulation space.
> ...


We probably should be grateful that the original Union station was not torn down and some crappy large shack building thrown up in its place facing the tracks. In the 1980s, when they reconfigured the station with the shrunk concourse space for train passengers on the north side, they were obviously not anticipating the growth in passenger train traffic that has taken place. Not just Amtrak of course, but VRE and MARC commuter trains. The new plan calls for more than tripling the passenger capacity of the station; don't want to make that mistake again. I can see Amtrak passenger traffic on the NEC easily doubling in 10-12 years if Amtrak can implement the improvements by 2025 spelled out in the 2012 NEC Vision plan.


----------



## afigg (Jul 25, 2012)

A paragraph that some may find interesting from page 13 of the Union Station Master Plan:



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


Any guess estimates on what the price tag on those tunnels and underground tracks would be? Rounded to the nearest $billion. :lol:


----------



## jis (Jul 25, 2012)

afigg said:


> A paragraph that some may find interesting from page 13 of the Union Station Master Plan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It will be less than what they plan to do in Manhattan


----------



## dlagrua (Jul 26, 2012)

I have reviewed the 6 pages of pictures of the planned Washingon Union Station. As a preservationist what scares me is that nowhere in the architects drawings do I see anything of the original station. It must be saved as it is a historic gem that could never be built again. Does anyone know of the plans for the old station?


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jul 26, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> I have reviewed the 6 pages of pictures of the planned Washingon Union Station. As a preservationist what scares me is that nowhere in the architects drawings do I see anything of the original station. It must be saved as it is a historic gem that could never be built again. Does anyone know of the plans for the old station?


It will be preserved. I know I saw it somewhere in the renderings. Most of the construction would be behind the existing structure - above, below and around where the tracks currently are.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 26, 2012)

dlagrua said:


> I have reviewed the 6 pages of pictures of the planned Washingon Union Station. As a preservationist what scares me is that nowhere in the architects drawings do I see anything of the original station. It must be saved as it is a historic gem that could never be built again. Does anyone know of the plans for the old station?


My reading is that the building is being retained. The new glass buillding is going up behind it.

I agree though that architecturally its not very innovative. It's more or less copying what all the other wanabee cool architects are doing and it will look extremely dated in 20 or 30 years or so. A bit like many 1970s and 1980s structures do today.

Besides, with all that glass it's going to be an air-conditioing nightmare in the warm months. I thought the future was about not wasting so much energy.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 26, 2012)

cirdan said:


> My reading is that the building is being retained. The new glass buillding is going up behind it.


That's how i "saw" it when I did a quick look at the drawings.


----------



## afigg (Jul 26, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > I have reviewed the 6 pages of pictures of the planned Washingon Union Station. As a preservationist what scares me is that nowhere in the architects drawings do I see anything of the original station. It must be saved as it is a historic gem that could never be built again. Does anyone know of the plans for the old station?
> ...


Most of the renderings are from the north end and side views of the expanded concourse complex. A view from the south showing the existing building is presented on page 23. People need to READ the plan or at least look at all the renderings and floor plans before jumping to conclusions.

Takes a while to absorb all the changes proposed in the plan. The Greater Greater Washington Blog now has 2 entries with a lot of discussion on what the plans mean for using the station and how it interfaces with the surrounding streets. The tracks and platforms will be significantly rebuilt with more high level and straighter platforms. There is no breakdown of the $7 billion price tag. One of the key issues in the GGW discussions is the call for 5,000 parking space capacity, almost all of it underground which may be a significant piece of the $7 billion figure.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jul 26, 2012)

afigg said:


> The Greater Greater Washington Blog now has 2 entries with a lot of discussion on what the plans mean for using the station and how it interfaces with the surrounding streets.


Thanks for the shout-out. I'm the author of the second post: Amtrak makes no little plans with Union Station vision.



dlagrua said:


> I have reviewed the 6 pages of pictures of the planned Washingon Union Station. As a preservationist what scares me is that nowhere in the architects drawings do I see anything of the original station. It must be saved as it is a historic gem that could never be built again. Does anyone know of the plans for the old station?


If you look at the plan drawings, you can see that the Beaux-Arts structure will continue to be a vital element of the Union Station complex.

The Burnham-designed headhouse is located on the southern end of the complex, fronting on Massachusetts Avenue. The glass headhouse shown in many of the renderings is near the center of the complex, at H Street NE. There will be additional smaller entrances along the western and eastern sides of the station along First Street NE and Second Street NE as well.

But if you just want some reassurance, here's a rendering from the plan that you missed, showing the existing headhouse with the new station expansion to the north:


----------



## Anderson (Jul 26, 2012)

Well, I'm not really a fan of a lot of those buildings...but then again, I tend to be decidedly _not_ a fan of the glass-heavy designs of the last few decades, or the wavy roofs that have been in vogue over the last few years.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 26, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Well, I'm not really a fan of a lot of those buildings...but then again, I tend to be decidedly _not_ a fan of the glass-heavy designs of the last few decades, or the wavy roofs that have been in vogue over the last few years.


You're not alone. I don't like those buildings either, they do not fit in with the old headhouse.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Jul 26, 2012)

afigg said:


> One of the key issues in the GGW discussions is the call for 5,000 parking space capacity, almost all of it underground which may be a significant piece of the $7 billion figure.


Just wondering... Do 5,000 new parking spaces in central, downtown Washington coincide with the concept of 'smart growth'?

Or there is being just plain cynical: 

Maybe much of the parking is for Union Station's neighbor...

Congress!?! :unsure:

Then what would two, three or four billion be amongst friends? -_-


----------



## cirdan (Jul 26, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm not really a fan of a lot of those buildings...but then again, I tend to be decidedly _not_ a fan of the glass-heavy designs of the last few decades, or the wavy roofs that have been in vogue over the last few years.
> ...


The picture alone just makes me sick. look at that beautiful old headhouse, and then look at the cheap decrepitude behind it. A child of six with some lego bricks could have done a better design.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 26, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > One of the key issues in the GGW discussions is the call for 5,000 parking space capacity, almost all of it underground which may be a significant piece of the $7 billion figure.
> ...


I think the parking spaces are a concession to three elements of reality:

1) You can get lots of folks on the Metro, but you're not going to get everyone there.

2) They're moving a lot of people into downtown DC. Even if they don't use them much, a decent number of those folks will want to own cars and have them _reasonably_ nearby.

3) More to the point, though, I think some of the spaces may well be for people driving into WAS and taking the train. A lot of Amtrak lots are packed, and I don't _think_ that most metro stops really accommodate long-term parking (not to mention the fact that having your family drag 4-5 carry-ons between Metro trains isn't likely a fun experience, especially at rush hour).


----------



## afigg (Jul 26, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> Just wondering... Do 5,000 new parking spaces in central, downtown Washington coincide with the concept of 'smart growth'?
> 
> Or there is being just plain cynical:
> 
> ...


Congress and Capitol Hill has plenty of parking, believe me. The parking capacity issue is being discussed on the GGW blog. The current parking garage has around 2,200 spaces. I have used the WAS parking garage a number of times because I live in the Virginia suburbs. I have never seen the garage full, even over a holiday weekend. As the Master Plan states, only a small percentage of Amtrak and commuter rail passengers park at the station. Most of the times I have parked at WAS was because you can't take DC Metro to Union Station for a 5 AM Acela to NYP; DC Metro does not start until 5 AM on weekdays.

Keep in mind that Union Station is a retail and tourist destination, not just a train station. The Akridge development plan calls for a hotel, offices, even residences. Add in significant expansion of retail space and that is likely what is driving the goal of 5,000 parking spaces. But those will be really, really expensive parking spaces if 2 underground parking garages are built. My hope is that they would build the first approx 2,500 space parking garage and find that it rarely gets close to filling up. Most people will take the DC Metro, the street cars, taxis, walk, or ride a bike to get to Union Station, not drive. Demonstrate that and save a ton of money by not building a second underground garage.


----------



## afigg (Jul 26, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Well, I'm not really a fan of a lot of those buildings...but then again, I tend to be decidedly _not_ a fan of the glass-heavy designs of the last few decades, or the wavy roofs that have been in vogue over the last few years.


I am not paying much attention to the wavy roof and all-glass design shown in the renderings. By the time the process goes through the countless DC committees, commissions, Capitol Hill review, budget & operating cost reviews, the final overall design look is going to be very different.

The keys are the floor plans, the internal layout, the major re-alignment of the tracks, the internals of new concourses, how the new train shed will be accessible to the west and north ends, the greatly expanded capacity and how much easier getting on the Amtrak trains should be. Overall, I like the boldness of the plan.

In today's Washington Post, there is an article on the challenges of turning the plan / vision into reality. The interesting piece of information is that former Mayor Anthony Williams is now President of the Federal City Council (presumably one of those countless commissions in DC) and on the governing board of the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation. If there is anyone in the DC local political circles who could shepherd the project through the maze (minefield?) and get all the parties on board and contribute, it would be former Mayor Williams.


----------



## VentureForth (Jul 26, 2012)

I am partial to the Googie Style architecture, myself. Trains can be futuristic and cool. But I digress. Classical Roman/Greek seem to fit best.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 26, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> I am partial to the Googie Style architecture, myself. Trains can be futuristic and cool. But I digress. Classical Roman/Greek seem to fit best.


That style is nice if you made the entire complex to that style. But since the station is already classical and one should not demolish it, the Googie style would be a poor fit.

Besides, I think that many of the buildings would deviate the station from it's purpose so that many people who visit Union Station would have nothing to do with Amtrak or trains. If your not going to take or at least consider taking a train, why go to a train station?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 26, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > I am partial to the Googie Style architecture, myself. Trains can be futuristic and cool. But I digress. Classical Roman/Greek seem to fit best.
> ...


Have you ever been to WAS? I'd been to that station many times before I ever took a train there (on trips to DC via bus w/groups). It has stores, restaurants and a food court. It's a short walk to the Capital Building and other area attractions. So, this is one station people will go to even when not taking a train.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 26, 2012)

AmtrakBlue said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > *If your not going to take or at least consider taking a train, why go to a train station?*
> ...


Yes I have. I understand your point, but then again, wouldn't it be even better if the people that went there would all take Amtrak sooner or later? Amtrak could somehow convince everybody or nearly everybody that comes in to take a train.

I just think that the concept looks like a big mess, a station divided and confusing, people going to the station would treat the Googie parts as the main part and the headhouse as an old relic that has no purpose, no trains.


----------



## afigg (Jul 26, 2012)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Yes I have. I understand your point, but then again, wouldn't it be even better if the people that went there would all take Amtrak sooner or later? Amtrak could somehow convince everybody or nearly everybody that comes in to take a train.
> 
> I just think that the concept looks like a big mess, a station divided and confusing, people going to the station would treat the Googie parts as the main part and the headhouse as an old relic that has no purpose, no trains.


The proposed new concourse layout will intermix the retail shoppers and tourists much more with the train concourse and waiting areas. The people will walk down the central concourse and see the Amtrak, MARC, VRE trains. Yes, some of them will think, hmm, why not take Amtrak to NYC? Many of the tourists and locals visiting Union Station are arriving and/or departing via the DC Metro. Which qualifies as taking a train. In the coming years, the streetcar system will be another way to get to Union Station.

The current configuration of WAS blocks the train platforms and train activity from much of a view within the station complex. This design opens that up. Looking at the diagrams, I suspect the north end of expanded concourse space will be a popular place for train watchers to hang out - if this plan gets built.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 27, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I think the parking spaces are a concession to three elements of reality:
> 
> 1) You can get lots of folks on the Metro, but you're not going to get everyone there.
> 
> ...


If i was driving to catch a train, I wouldn't drive into Washington if I could at all avoid it. Isn't that why Amtrak also serves suburban stations?

And that's maybe also another good reason to extend electrification South. Alexandria makes more sense as a park and ride site than Washington. And of course with electrification going further, there would be fewer trains having to turn or terminate at Washinton, and fewer movements over the track throat in connection with changing locomotives, and so maybe some of the proposed new tracks wouldn't be needed after all and that money actually put into electrification.


----------



## jis (Jul 27, 2012)

cirdan said:


> And that's maybe also another good reason to extend electrification South. Alexandria makes more sense as a park and ride site than Washington. And of course with electrification going further, there would be fewer trains having to turn or terminate at Washinton, and fewer movements over the track throat in connection with changing locomotives, and so maybe some of the proposed new tracks wouldn't be needed after all and that money actually put into electrification.


There are all sorts of good reasons to electrify south. However, I doubt that in general a preponderance of trains will run through to the south. There are couple of reasons:

1. The demand and traffic density actually drops off precipitously to the south of WAS and that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

2. Through trains tend to link up delays and eventually that works against good operations.

Even in New York, there are about 15 or so through trains. The rest are all terminators for both of those reasons.

Also as things progress, Just like NYP, WAS will also become a predominantly MARC and VRE traffic station with Amtrak trains being a distinct minority. And while a few VRE/MARC runthroughs will make sense and will happen, predominantly they will continue to terminate at WAS.

Bottom line is, the guys planning the track throat have studied all these to some extent and I don't think they are far off in their plan. I doubt that the track throat can be reduced significantly.


----------



## Ziv (Jul 27, 2012)

I used to live a block west of Union Station and we partied downstairs at Fat Tuesdays a good bit, and drunk or sober, walking up to the front of Union Station makes you proud to be living in DC. That is a fine building! It may be a mish-mash of architectural styles but it has a certain panache. It is a pity that they are going to tack a glass shoe box on the north end of it, but realistically, the renderings are probably about as good as you can expect from architects today. As is noted above, all that glass will work like a greenhouse if the glass isn't designed to reflect most of the light, which means it is going to shine during the daytime, which could be interesting.

I like the idea that there is an emphasis on making the facility more user friendly, the passenger lineups/congestion for NE Corridor trains are ridiculous. As Amtrak, MARC, VRE and the streetcars usage grows over the next decade, the current building will simply not work.

One thing I do like a lot is the much more open, spacious interior design. All in all, it makes me wish I could walk through the finished product. Now that is a software app I would like to see! ;-)


----------



## Oldsmoboi (Jul 27, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > One of the key issues in the GGW discussions is the call for 5,000 parking space capacity, almost all of it underground which may be a significant piece of the $7 billion figure.
> ...


If the plan is to triple passenger capacity at the station, isn't doubling parking capacity a reasonable thing to have coincide?


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Jul 27, 2012)

afigg said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I have. I understand your point, but then again, wouldn't it be even better if the people that went there would all take Amtrak sooner or later? Amtrak could somehow convince everybody or nearly everybody that comes in to take a train.
> ...


Oh, good. I haven't seen the new diagrams. Guess the new expansion isn't that bad.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 27, 2012)

1) I'll agree with Swadian on designs insofar as if you angle your operation to fit with Googie, Googie (even if more subdued) has a place. Personally, I'm partial to the Greek/Roman-based designs of the early 20th Century, but I find "subdued Googie" (that is, toning down some of the lights and colors but keeping the shapes) to be a bit more tasteful than the wavy roofs and all-glass structures of today.

2) As to avoiding driving into DC...again, in general I would agree, but if you're really looking to drive up longer-distance train travel you need to allow for a concession on this point and accommodate long-term parking somewhere. Now, you can do that at ALX or at some of the Metro stops, but I've generally gotten the feeling that at least with the Metro this is somewhat discouraged because of commuter demand. And VRE is annoyingly unidirectional (north in the morning, south in the evening). So if you've got to park people somewhere and the WMATA isn't "on the ball", it'll probably end up having to be Union Station unless you're trying to "force" people to add a connection. Moreover, the simple presence of available parking does seem to be a necessity if you're building the station up as a major center of retail, residences, and whatnot. The trend may be towards fewer cars and it is good to encourage that, but you're still going to have tourists and the like. And then there's the Capitol, as noted...which could almost assuredly use some additional capacity. Hey, if Amtrak can make a few million off of lobbyists parking at Union Station, why shouldn't they?

3) I think that a larger portion of the reason for trains not running through at NYP than you suspect has to do with the sheer turnover volume there: NYP has just under 9m passengers per year as of FY11, while the total ridership of all trains touching NYP in some form is 17.13m, giving a ratio of about 52.5%. If there were more through traffic (and the proportion of that does seem to be rising), there would likely be more trains. By the way, I'm including the six LD trains that use NYP in this count; excluding them, I think the share may rise to 55% or so. The same goes for the "Virginia Regionals" watering down that share, as the majority of the VA business stops short at WAS, PHL, etc., or even stays in-state.

Anecdotally, the Acela basically dumps out there, even when running through. The Regionals aren't quite as "vigorous" in this regard, but even there I've gathered that NYP is a major on/off market.

4) Another point to be had here: Though it is a longer-term batch of plans, I know that VA wants to get up to 9/day to Hampton Roads, and the plans do seem to be in the works to add at least another train to the Lynchburg route (assuming that growth resumes in some form). If SEHSR plays out in any meaningful form, that's going to be at /least/ worth a second Carolinian, and probably a third eventually. The point here is that in the longer term, there's likely to be a good deal more through traffic to the south...

...and of course, all of this ignores the MARC/VRE discussions on both running trains through (to reduce on-site storage, if nothing else) and VRE wanting to add capacity and/or trains (likely necessary if the network expands by a few stops, as does seem likely over the next decade). Basically, I don't see a massive increase in trains from the south terminating at WAS, but I do see room for Amtrak to consider it wise to add platforms to accommodate a lot more through traffic over the next 15-20 years.


----------



## afigg (Jul 28, 2012)

Anderson said:


> 2) As to avoiding driving into DC...again, in general I would agree, but if you're really looking to drive up longer-distance train travel you need to allow for a concession on this point and accommodate long-term parking somewhere. Now, you can do that at ALX or at some of the Metro stops, but I've generally gotten the feeling that at least with the Metro this is somewhat discouraged because of commuter demand.


To say that long term parking is extremely limited at Metro parking garages is an understatement. The WMATA parking page says that only 3 stations have multi-day parking and only 15 to 17 spaces each at those 3 stations. I don't know why they bother unless there is a requirement that WMATA has to provide long-term parking, but does not specify minimum number of spaces.

For long term parking, there is always Reagan National Airport which is an easy connection to Metro. In circa 2018, Dulles Airport with its huge parking capacity should join the Metro system, but that will be a tad far out of town.



Anderson said:


> ...and of course, all of this ignores the MARC/VRE discussions on both running trains through (to reduce on-site storage, if nothing else) and VRE wanting to add capacity and/or trains (likely necessary if the network expands by a few stops, as does seem likely over the next decade). Basically, I don't see a massive increase in trains from the south terminating at WAS, but I do see room for Amtrak to consider it wise to add platforms to accommodate a lot more through traffic over the next 15-20 years.


The Master plan shows that the station will still have 8 through tracks to the First Ave tunnel. The platforms will be wider, straighter and should have much better & faster access to the concourse and waiting areas. With several high level platforms for Amtrak (and MARC?) and several low level for VRE (cross section diagram only shows one which I suspect is a drawing error), people will be able to exit and board the trains from and heading south more quickly. Which will help throughput for VRE and MARC trains going to L'Enfant Plaza (which is reportedly being considered as part of going to 4 tracks and catenary at L'Enfant).

Until the route south of WAS is electified, the Amtrak trains will spend a while at WAS switching engines. However, I hold the opinion that by the time or if the station project gets to the Phase 4 stage called for in this Plan, oil prices and availability by the 2020s will result in widespread push for electrification, but that is another topic.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 28, 2012)

Dulles may well work for folks living in parts of NOVA (particularly off in Loudon County), but for those either in Maryland or off to the south that's really not an answer. Likewise, if I'm driving into DC National...well, as bad as Pennsylvania Avenue can be, at some point I'm going to be left wondering "Why am I taking a 30-minute side trip to National instead of just biting the bullet and driving to Union Station?" $8/day is great if you can save it...but that can be a bit of an "if" and it can be a pain to pull off for a 2-3 day trip. And of course, at peak seasons that parking at National might not exist.

The alternative, with the Metro (assuming that you can't get a ride to/from a stop) is often going to be the bus. Given the lousy frequencies, I wouldn't bet on the bus.

Finally, as to the odd low number of multi-day spaces, I've gathered that those are basically aimed at people who expect to be stuck working overnight; I think the same thing applies with similar spaces for the VRE, but I could be wrong here. It also may have been a sop to what was seen as a gadfly concern 20-40 years ago.

Moving on to the run-throughs, has there been serious talk about running anything through to Alexandria? I don't necessarily mean ALX-the-station, but it at least looks to me like there might be room in the still-extant RoW to stuff a couple of storage tracks in the ex-Potomac Yard area between the Metro line and the active tracks or between the active tracks and GW Parkway; at the very least, this might conceptually allow a train to be "run through" WAS at peak hours without bothering with an engine change and then moved back around during slower hours.

Finally...every-so-often, I end up hearing passing chatter about electrifying the RF&P as part of SEHSR/VA's HSR push from Richmond to DC (the two are so entangled now that it isn't even funny, but somehow RVR-WAS gets discussed separately from SEHSR most of the time anyway). On the one hand, this would be nice; on the other hand, it would make the situation in and around Richmond...well, interesting (as in, where do you plan to store a dozen spare electric locos down there?), not to mention causing all sorts of problems if the move isn't handled in tandem with the planned shift from the A-line to the S-line.

P.S. Just came to mind, but remind me...how do they move the Cap from WAS to the Auto Train facility for maintenance (it _is_ seen to there, right?)?


----------



## Eric S (Jul 28, 2012)

afigg said:


> With several high level platforms for Amtrak (and MARC?) and several low level for VRE (cross section diagram only shows one which I suspect is a drawing error), people will be able to exit and board the trains from and heading south more quickly.


When I looked closely at that cross-section view, I thought it looked like there were 2 low-level platforms, 1 island platform serving 2 tracks and 1 side platform along the right side of the view.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 28, 2012)

Anderson said:


> P.S. Just came to mind, but remind me...how do they move the Cap from WAS to the Auto Train facility for maintenance (it _is_ seen to there, right?)?


Nope. The Cap is serviced right there in DC @ the Ivy City yard and in Chicago. Heavy duty work is sent to Beech Grove.

The AT's heavy maintenance facility, save total refurbs & rebuilds, is in Sanford Florida. Lorton can only do minor things to keep the cars running long enough to get back to Sanford.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 28, 2012)

Ps. If the AT were transferring cars to the Cap to get them to/from Beech Grove, then they'd follow the same route as the Regionals from Richmond take to get to DC. Then they'd head into Ivy City and eventually go out on either the Cardinal or the Cap.


----------



## afigg (Jul 28, 2012)

Eric S said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> > With several high level platforms for Amtrak (and MARC?) and several low level for VRE (cross section diagram only shows one which I suspect is a drawing error), people will be able to exit and board the trains from and heading south more quickly.
> ...


I see the low level on the far edge on the east side of Track 29, but it is not clear that far edge platform would be accessible via escalators, although it would presumably have access staiirs. But this cutaway drawing is a concept or baseline framework drawing. If VRE needs additional low level platform capacity, the pass through tracks could be configured to have 2 high level platforms serving 4 tracks and 2 low levels serving 4 tracks. 4 tracks with improved platform access and high level platforms are probably enough to handle the volume of Amtrak trains going south of WAS, even with major increases in the number of Amtrak trains with the tracks with low levels available for backup use.

The line at WAS this morning for the northbound Regional coming up from RVR was _long_ and took an equally long time to board the Regional on the lower track. The rebuild for the concourse and low level pass through tracks can't come soon enough.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 28, 2012)

One major problem with eectrifying south of Washington is clearances in the First Street tunnel. By the time you stuff a 25 kV or even a 11 kV overhead line in it you would be just barely clear the amfleet. Lowering the track is not likely possible due to the street overpass just south of the south portal. Having seen the GG1's come in on through trains to the south, they pantograph was just barely above lockdown when they went under the concourse.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 28, 2012)

You could lower S. Capitol Street and Washington Ave a little bit to solve that problem. The bigger problem is that the First Ave tunnel crosses over the Metro Orange line just before coming out of the south portal. I'm not sure how much clearance there is between the two tunnels, but it can't be all that much.

I'm just now starting to wrap my brain about this expansion, having spent the last week out in the woods at scout camp. My first impression is that it would be awesome if they could get this done. WAS is a hot mess during rush hour, and the demand for more MARC/VRE service is there if the space were to become available.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 28, 2012)

George Harris said:


> One major problem with eectrifying south of Washington is clearances in the First Street tunnel. By the time you stuff a 25 kV or even a 11 kV overhead line in it you would be just barely clear the amfleet. Lowering the track is not likely possible due to the street overpass just south of the south portal. Having seen the GG1's come in on through trains to the south, they pantograph was just barely above lockdown when they went under the concourse.


Those tunnels can clear a Superliner car, unlike the North River tunnels which do have catenary in them and cannot clear a Superliner. Now I'm not sure if you could clear a Superliner with Cat, but certainly one can clear amfleets without issue with 11KV Cat if the North River tunnels can clear both Amfleets & NJT's multi-level cars without incident. Perhaps 25KV might be pushing things, I'm not certain of that and don't know enough about tunnel heights & electric arcing to say for sure. But again, 11KV should certainly be possible.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 28, 2012)

One thing that I'd like to see in the plans, and I admit that I haven't looked at them, would be either a flyover or a tunnel that would allow moves from the lower level to the yard without the need to shut down the NEC like happens right now.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 30, 2012)

AlanB said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > One major problem with eectrifying south of Washington is clearances in the First Street tunnel. By the time you stuff a 25 kV or even a 11 kV overhead line in it you would be just barely clear the amfleet. Lowering the track is not likely possible due to the street overpass just south of the south portal. Having seen the GG1's come in on through trains to the south, they pantograph was just barely above lockdown when they went under the concourse.
> ...


*sighs at the derail*

What's the difference between 25KV and 11KV (other than the obvious)? Likewise...how many tracks run through? 2 or 3?


----------



## cirdan (Jul 30, 2012)

Am I misinterpreting the plans, or am I right that there is a big glass roof but that the sunlight doesn't actually go down to track level. So all the natural light and airiness is for the retail customers, and train passengers have yet another smelly dark hole in which to catch trains?


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Jul 30, 2012)

cirdan said:


> Am I misinterpreting the plans, or am I right that there is a big glass roof but that the sunlight doesn't actually go down to track level. So all the natural light and airiness is for the retail customers, and train passengers have yet another smelly dark hole in which to catch trains?


First off, this is a Master Plan, not a finalized design. It represents an idea about what could be built and a draft to shape further discussion.

Under the current plans, tracks 5-10 & 20 will be under the trainshed and will have natural light. Track 21 will probably get a good deal of natural light, since it's just across the platform from 11. Tracks 1-4 will not be directly under the trainshed, and will not get a whole lot of light, but those are mostly for MARC trains anyway. The Lower Level (22-29) will not get any natural light, and neither will the future HSR tracks which will be fully underground.

That does not mean that passengers are going into a "dark, smelly hole". The platforms will likely be much better than they are today. Currently, most of the Upper Level is dimly lit and platforms are obstructed by huge columns supporting the parking deck.

But the fact is that the government has sold the air rights over the tracks, so development is going to go in there. I think this plan does a reasonable job accommodating both the development and trains.

Here's a view looking northwest from above track 20. Note there are several tracks in the foreground that are under the trainshed.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 30, 2012)

Anderson said:


> What's the difference between 25KV and 11KV (other than the obvious)?


Clearance distance. You (or a metal train car) can get closer to 11kV (little "k" big "V") than you can to 25kV without it arcing over. If you get too close the current will actually arc over to you and find an alternative path to ground (through you), with predictably bad results.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference between 25KV and 11KV (other than the obvious)?
> ...


BTW, NEC South is 12kV nominally. Not 11kV. In the past it used to be 11kV but not any more.

Inside a tunnel there are techniques using insulated padding along the roof to allow the contact wire (or rail as is often used) to have much smaller clearance from the roof than would be in the case if just air was used as the insulation medium. Delhi Metro for example makes extensive use of such in the underground sections. Delhi Metro uses 25kV 50Hz overhead catenary in its entire network irrespective of whether it is in tunnels or in the open.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 30, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > What's the difference between 25KV and 11KV (other than the obvious)?
> ...


That is theoretically true, but from a practical standpoint, there is no real difference. The dry air arc distance of 11kV or 25kV is effectively the same: about 1 inch verses 2 inches. Arcing does not become a real issue until you get to transmission-class voltages: 69kV and up.


----------



## jis (Jul 30, 2012)

PRR 60 said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Anderson said:
> ...


Although using a dry air gap distance as the design parameter is generally asking for trouble since in areas like where NEC is located the air is seldom dry and often in addition to being wet it is also salty wet  which does wonders to conductivity and flashover distances.


----------



## RRUserious (Jul 31, 2012)

So Amtrak doesn't actually have the money? $7 billion seems like a lot for a train organization with derailments, what, every month? Every week? I keep losing track (no pun intended). This reminds me of the monumental projects that African dictators planned instead of dealing with the poverty that plagued their countries, a topic that aid experts like to talk about in the 60's and 70's.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 31, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> So Amtrak doesn't actually have the money? $7 billion seems like a lot for a train organization with derailments, what, every month? Every week? I keep losing track (no pun intended). This reminds me of the monumental projects that African dictators planned instead of dealing with the poverty that plagued their countries, a topic that aid experts like to talk about in the 60's and 70's.


I guess that because there will be a high degree of commercial usage that Amtrak is hoping to bring private investors on board.

Just think of all the rental income from that office space, from the retail stores etc.


----------



## Anderson (Jul 31, 2012)

cirdan said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> > So Amtrak doesn't actually have the money? $7 billion seems like a lot for a train organization with derailments, what, every month? Every week? I keep losing track (no pun intended). This reminds me of the monumental projects that African dictators planned instead of dealing with the poverty that plagued their countries, a topic that aid experts like to talk about in the 60's and 70's.
> ...


Well, and the fact that it isn't likely to all be Amtrak money (and in fact, Amtrak might well not be terribly involved in some aspects of the financial side when the dust settles). I could see Amtrak's involvement being limited to the station alterations and to long-term leases on a lot of the air rights as a means to pay for those improvements. If they do maintain lots of control by not taking _too_ much private money...again, there's a _lot_ of rent/lease money to be generated from a bunch of apartments and offices within a few blocks of the the Capitol. Not to mention just how space-limited DC is because of the height restrictions throughout the city...


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2012)

The core additions to the station excluding the 6 additional tracks under the station is not likely to cost more than $1 billion, and possibly considerably less. I suspect the additional tracks under the station itself would eat up another billion though it really should not. The rest is likely to be all real estate driven financed the way real estate development is financed.

The station components will likely be jointly funded in some combo among Amtrak, MARC, VRE and WMATA. So I doubt that Amtrak itself will ever have to come up with anything more than a fraction of the $7 billion pricetag.

In New York for example, how much money do you think is going into the Moynihan headhouse and pedestrian improvement project (Phase I) either directly or indirectly via Amtrak?


----------



## afigg (Jul 31, 2012)

jis said:


> The core additions to the station excluding the 6 additional tracks under the station is not likely to cost more than $1 billion, and possibly considerably less. I suspect the additional tracks under the station itself would eat up another billion though it really should not. The rest is likely to be all real estate driven financed the way real estate development is financed.
> 
> The station components will likely be jointly funded in some combo among Amtrak, MARC, VRE and WMATA. So I doubt that Amtrak itself will ever have to come up with anything more than a fraction of the $7 billion pricetag.


Union Station is owned by US DOT and operated by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) which also operates and receives all the revenue from the parking garage. Amtrak owns the tracks and platforms. Where exactly the dividing line is between Amtrak and USRC/USDOT ownership, don't know. Akridge now owns the air rights above the tracks.

USRC is likely to be the or a lead agency in the oversight of the project. DC government agencies will also be playing a major role in any major station expansion project with DDOT (DC DOT) likely contributing to the road, sidewalk, bike paths, H Street modifications, and streetcar access portions of the station project. US DOT as the owner of Union Station will be involved as well in approving the various parts of the design and projects.

Just to complicate matters, Columbus Plaza in front of the station entrance is owned and maintained by the National Park Service (NPS). The Plaza is currently being rebuilt and reconfigured in coordination with improving the access to the front of Union Station. If they want to build a parking garage under Columbus Plaza, then the NPS would have to approve. If you continue across the Plaza to the south side of Mass Ave, once you are on the sidewalk, you are on land under the control of the Architect of the Capitol and his boss, Congress.

There are many stakeholders in these plans for the Union Station expansion and many of them would be expected to contribute some portion of the costs. Getting all the stakeholders to agree to the various components of the project will almost certainly stretch out the schedule for the phases of the project. If they were to drop the idea of a second parking garage under Columbus Plaza on the south end of the station, that would simplify the process by leaving the NPS and the Architect of the Capitol out of the main aspects of the project.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 31, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> $7 billion seems like a lot for a train organization with derailments, what, every month? Every week? I keep losing track (no pun intended).


Amtrak isn't having derailments every month or every week for that matter.

Amtrak is being affected by freight train derailments, but there is nothing that Amtrak can do about that since Amtrak owns neither the tracks nor the freight trains.


----------



## cirdan (Jul 31, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Amtrak is being affected by freight train derailments, but there is nothing that Amtrak can do about that since Amtrak owns neither the tracks nor the freight trains.


Seeing some freight lines allow their track to deteriorate to the point that they can tell Amtrak to either pay to fix it or live with the slow orders, it is maybe the next step that they will tell Amtrak to fix stuff so it doesn't derail.


----------



## RRUserious (Aug 2, 2012)

> Amtrak isn't having derailments every month or every week for that matter.


Just google Amtrak derailment. It isn't all freight trains. Plus Amtrak is running on the tracks that derail both types of trains. The infrastructure is in decay. And this is like Caesar building himself a fancy temple celebrating his love of his ego.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 2, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> > Amtrak isn't having derailments every month or every week for that matter.
> 
> 
> Just google Amtrak derailment. It isn't all freight trains. Plus Amtrak is running on the tracks that derail both types of trains. The infrastructure is in decay. And this is like Caesar building himself a fancy temple celebrating his love of his ego.


One key difference: Caesar couldn't charge a bunch of vendors rent to make his temple turn a profit. Amtrak can.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 3, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> > Amtrak isn't having derailments every month or every week for that matter.
> 
> 
> Just google Amtrak derailment. It isn't all freight trains. Plus Amtrak is running on the tracks that derail both types of trains. The infrastructure is in decay. And this is like Caesar building himself a fancy temple celebrating his love of his ego.


I did, and didn't see any weekly derailments. How about you provide us with some dates to support your claim?


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2012)

RRUserious said:


> > Amtrak isn't having derailments every month or every week for that matter.
> 
> 
> Just google Amtrak derailment. It isn't all freight trains. Plus Amtrak is running on the tracks that derail both types of trains. The infrastructure is in decay. And this is like Caesar building himself a fancy temple celebrating his love of his ego.


Since you made a seemingly absurd claim perhaps you'd care to give us a list of Amtrak derailments in the last three months and if possible identify which ones were caused by track (infrastructure) fault? Thanks.


----------



## afigg (Aug 3, 2012)

If I may get this back on topic, some of the DC preservation organizations are starting to weigh in on the plans for Union Station. Washington Post article. The Committee of 100 for the Federal City, Capitol Hill Restoration Society, the DC Preservation League and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have formed the Union Station Preservation Coalition and have issued a briefing on their position (~1 MB PDF file). They are in favor of the project (the Committee of 100 has a number of local businessmen), but will have a strong influence on the planning and design.

According to numbers I saw elsewhere, Akridge is planning to build a $1.5 billion mixed use project, the Burnham Place, with a total of 3 million square feet over the tracks. It would have a 500 room hotel, 1300 residential units, and (I don't have a number) a lot of office space. Given the prime location near Capitol Hill; easy access to commuter trains, Amtrak trains to NYC & Philly, DC Metro; southern edge of the rapidly developing NoMa district, the office space and residential units will command premium prices.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 3, 2012)

jis said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> > > Amtrak isn't having derailments every month or every week for that matter.
> ...


According to the FRA, Amtrak has had 8 derailments in 2012 through the end of May


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2012)

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > RRUserious said:
> ...


Right. Of those how many were on main line track, and how many of those were due to track defect in main line tracks, since afterall only those would be primarily consequential as far as affecting passengers in service goes. An yard incident could have an impact on service but not as directly as main line incident.

How does this compare with comparable operations elsewhere?


----------



## Paulus (Aug 3, 2012)

FRA data doesn't show. As for comparison, the entirety of Europe reported 177 derailments in 2009, including freight. They're a wee bit better than us.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Aug 3, 2012)

Paulus said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > RRUserious said:
> ...


MODS: I suggest this subthread be split into its own thread.

Paulus, thanks for sharing this tool. I didn't know it existed.

Let's look at the derailments:

#1: February 5: DERAILMENT: NJT Extra MMC Drill Crew shoving train in yard in Harrison NJ derailed one truck of one coach. Cause was switch previously run through.

#2: February 26: DERAILMENT: Train 291 derailed while backing onto end of Mansfield track in Rutland VT. Cause was worn switch points.

#3: March 2: DERAILMENT: 1 locomotive hauling 2 cars as a special train #861. Locomotive and first truck of first car derailed in NS yard in Spencer NC. Cause was weak ties allowing rails to spread.

#4: March 5: DERAILMENT: 1 switcher locomotive running light derailed in Washington Terminal rail yard in Washington DC. Cause was rails out of gauge by 5/8 inch.

#5: March 6: DERAILMENT: 1 switcher locomotive pushing 1 loco and 1 car into King Street station derailed in Seattle WA. Cause was a switch not lined and locked.

#6: March 16: DERAILMENT: 1 locomotive, 5 cars making reverse move into yard in Oakland CA derailed. Cause was switch improperly lined.

#7: March 29: DERAILMENT: Acela Express lead power car derailed in Davisville RI (MP 168). Passengers aboard. No injuries. Cause not specified.

#8: May 10: DERAILMENT: 2 locomotives running light (no cars) derailed in the MNRR yard in New Haven CT. Cause was deteriorated tie conditions allowing the rails to spread.

All of these derailments except for #7 happened in rail yards. #7 and #3 happened with passengers aboard, though #3 was a special not running on normal trackage.

It appears that #1 was actually a NJ Transit derailment, listed under Amtrak because Amtrak owns the yard.

#2, #3, and #8 were all derailments caused by deteriorated track conditions on track not owned by Amtrak.

#7 was discussed on this forum, here. Apparently, a maintenance crew did not properly line the switch frogs. The derailment happened at 15 mph.

EDIT: Added location of derailment #2.


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Aug 3, 2012)

jis said:


> Right. Of those how many were on main line track, and how many of those were due to track defect in main line tracks, since afterall only those would be primarily consequential as far as affecting passengers in service goes. An yard incident could have an impact on service but not as directly as main line incident.


Well, the FRA has that data too, going back to 1975.

For *Amtrak*: derailments on main line track:

Key: YEAR: *total ML derailments */ caused by track | total injuries (ML derailment) / total deaths (ML derailment)

1975: *10* / 6 | 24 inj / 0 kld

1976: *39* / 21 | 155 inj / 0 kld

1977: *41* / 15 | 27 inj / 0 kld

1978: *50* / 23 | 55 inj / 0 kld

1979: *50* / 21 | 108 inj / 2 kld

1980: *45* / 23 | 78 inj / 0 kld

1981:* 33* / 18 | 47 inj / 0 kld

1982: *38* / 23 | 40 inj / 1 kld

1983: *12* / 8 | 40 inj / 4 kld

1984: *19* / 10 | 72 inj / 4 kld

1985: *18* / 8 | 98 inj / 0 kld

1986: *14* / 6 | 51 inj / 0 kld

1987: *17* / 7 | 42 inj / 0 kld

1988: *12* / 5 | 34 inj / 0 kld

1989: *10* / 1 | 40 inj / 0 kld

1990: *19* / 6 | 201 inj / 0 kld

1991: *10* / 3 | 50 inj / 8 kld

1992: *11* / 3 | 29 inj / 0 kld

1993: *15* / 6 | 123 inj / 47 kld

1994: *13* / 5 | 52 inj / 0 kld

1995: *6* / 2 | 41 inj / 1 kld

1996: *12* / 4 | 17 inj / 0 kld

1997: *20* / 8 | 70 inj / 1 kld

1998: *16* / 5 | 25 inj / 0 kld

1999: *5* / 3 | 8 inj / 0 kld

2000: *20* / 10 | 75 inj / 0 kld

2001: *15* / 9 | 65 inj / 1 kld

2002: *12*/ 7 | 206 inj / 4 kld

2003: *12* / 10 | 2 inj / 0 kld

2004: *11* / 6 | 56 inj / 1 kld

2005: *13* / 7 | 49 inj / 0 kld

2006: *15* / 12 | 19 inj / 0 kld

2007: *8* / 5 | 1 inj / 0 kld

2008: *10* / 3 | 3 inj / 0 kld

2009: *14* / 8 | 6 inj / 0 kld

2010: *7* / 3 | 28 inj / 0 kld

2011: *9* / 4 | 4 inj / 0 kld

EDIT: Adding this bit of clarification:

For example, look at 1993. The 47 deaths (and 103 of the injuries) were caused by the collision of a barge with a bridge over Big Bayou Canot, which misaligned the track and caused a mainline derailment of the _Sunset Limited_. Not Amtrak's fault, but it's counted because it was a derailment.


----------



## Paulus (Aug 3, 2012)

Where did you find the derailment details if I may ask?


----------



## Tracktwentynine (Aug 3, 2012)

Paulus said:


> Where did you find the derailment details if I may ask?


On the same FRA website you pointed us to. I didn't know it existed, but you can get any kind of report you want.

For the derailment details: Home -> Data drop down, select "query" -> FRA Accident/Incident Query -> Reportable Rail Equipment Accidents -> Accident Detail Report

And then select the following fields:

Railroad: AMTRAK

Type of Accident: DERAILMENT

Unfortunately, you can only search one month at a time, so that's a little tedious.

You can filter by track type (Main, Yard, etc), state, county, cause of accident, passenger only, etc.

But there are lots of other reports you can generate, too.


----------



## williamflemming (Aug 3, 2012)

I don't understand. Wouldn't it be more useful to make NY penn station tall enough to hold superliners :blink: ? I would like that more than Washington DC improvement for the HSR, though, a 200 mph ICE like rail network would be nice


----------



## NY Penn (Aug 3, 2012)

There's also the problem that NY Penn has only high-level platforms, which the Superliner cannot use. And Penn Station will not give up its EXTREMELY limited capacity for a low-level platform.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 3, 2012)

Not to mention there's a lot of stuff that would rip the top off of a Superliner all along the NEC.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 3, 2012)

afigg said:


> If I may get this back on topic...


Nice try! :lol:


> ...some of the DC preservation organizations are starting to weigh in on the plans for Union Station... ...They are in favor of the project...


 Good news for the project.


> According to numbers I saw elsewhere, Akridge is planning to build a $1.5 billion mixed use project, the Burnham Place... ...over the tracks. It would have... 1300 residential units...


 :excl: With private sidings for one's PV? :wub:


----------



## jis (Aug 3, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> There's also the problem that NY Penn has only high-level platforms, which the Superliner cannot use. And Penn Station will not give up its EXTREMELY limited capacity for a low-level platform.


Not to mention that no track in Penn Station has clearance for a Superliner and getting such clearance will require tearing down stuff above the tracks and will possibly cost close to a billion in and of itself to make it completely Superliner compliant. That is not taking into account any tunnels leading in and out of Penn Station which will all have to be replaced too. you cannot expand a bored tunnel with concrete steel ring lining cheaply. And the return on that investment will be close to zero while other more important things will languish for lack of resources. It would eventually be a boondoggle of the Big Dig proportions with much less return on the investment


----------



## afigg (Aug 3, 2012)

The Davy Crockett said:


> > According to numbers I saw elsewhere, Akridge is planning to build a $1.5 billion mixed use project, the Burnham Place... ...over the tracks. It would have... 1300 residential units...
> 
> 
> :excl: With private sidings for one's PV? :wub:


Given the challenges they reportedly have with enough room to store MARC and VRE trains during the day, might be difficult to find a siding to store your PV on. Well, unless you are rich enough to afford having a private sidings built for you. Maybe buy the Uline Arena, build a rail siding bridge across Delaware Ave, and use a rebuilt Uline building to store your PVs in! Well, I did say "rich enough". :lol:

If Akridge does build 1,300 residential units, then the dedicated railfan can move into one of residences, ideally one with a view to the north of the tracks leading to WAS. Then asked where he (or she) lives, he can say he lives on the NEC!


----------



## williamflemming (Aug 3, 2012)

NY Penn said:


> There's also the problem that NY Penn has only high-level platforms, which the Superliner cannot use. And Penn Station will not give up its EXTREMELY limited capacity for a low-level platform.



I always had the dream that the LSL would have super liner equipment  . Well, they gave the superliner equipment to the most boring Chicago-East run IMHO. I which the cardinal had it more than The CL


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 3, 2012)

williamflemming said:


> I always had the dream that the LSL would have super liner equipment


It takes all kinds. The only thing I like about the Lake Shore Limited is its Viewliner sleepers.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2012)

williamflemming said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > There's also the problem that NY Penn has only high-level platforms, which the Superliner cannot use. And Penn Station will not give up its EXTREMELY limited capacity for a low-level platform.
> ...


Superliners will never run on the NEC, so the Cardinal is out.

There are similar clearance problems on the approaching NYP from the north, so the LSL is out too.

They gave the Superliner equipment to the only train that it could physically run on.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 6, 2012)

Honestly, I like the hotel plan a lot, if just because it offers a potential _really_ close link between a train and a hotel room. In particular, this would be nice for connecting to a revived Montrealer and/or for dealing with missed connections.


----------



## afigg (Aug 6, 2012)

Anderson said:


> Honestly, I like the hotel plan a lot, if just because it offers a potential _really_ close link between a train and a hotel room. In particular, this would be nice for connecting to a revived Montrealer and/or for dealing with missed connections.


The planned hotel would be convenient for overnight stays at Union Station, but given the scale of the project and the prime location, it is likely to be a high end hotel. And high end hotels in DC can get seriously expensive. Not the type of hotel that Amtrak would put passengers with missed connections in overnight.

Looking for info on the Akridge plans, I looked up their Burnham Place at Union Station website. On the Project Vision page, there is a new 5:57 long Aerial Flythrough Video with renderings of the proposed station. Worth viewing because it shows the scale of the planned expansion and provides additional view angles.


----------



## afigg (Sep 12, 2014)

It has been 2 years since there was much public news about the big plans for DC Union Station, although the studies and planning have continued.

The Washington Post has a lengthy and in-depth article from Steven Pearlman on the latest concepts, plans and potential economic impact for a major revamp of Union Station: Reimagining Union Station. The article has a neat clickable multi-layer diagram of the levels of the proposed revised Union Station.

Some excerpts:



> According to urban legend, the opening of Verizon Center in 1997 was the catalyst for the revival of Washingtons old downtown. Ever since, a string of projects National Harbor, Nationals Park, the Silver Line have promised to change the face of the city or the region.
> 
> While such assessments involve more than a bit of hyperbole, one project that has received scant attention could well be the biggest game changer of all.
> 
> ...





> With the era of exurban sprawl having run its course, people and jobs are moving back to more densely populated urban areas. Thats happening not just in Washington, but also in Boston, Austin, Seattle, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami. The only way these cities can accommodate such growth, and realize the economic efficiency that it will generate, is to dramatically improve their public transportation infrastructure and increase the density of land use around key public transportation nodes.
> 
> Right now we are only scratching the surface in terms of the economic potential of Union Station, said David Tuchmann, who is managing Akridges part of the project.


 Too much space was given to retail and now it is very difficult to get it back.



> For all its promise, the Union Station master plan has one serious design flaw.
> 
> Twenty-five years ago, Burnhams original station was saved from disuse and disrepair by a costly and painstaking restoration paid for largely by the federal government. Because train travel was out of fashion back then, much of the original station was turned into an indoor shopping mall.
> 
> Where there were once ticket booths and waiting halls and a broad passenger concourse, shops and restaurants were installed to help fund the renovation and provide a steady stream of income to operate and maintain the facility. Train passengers were relegated to a cramped new passenger concourse, seemingly modeled after a Greyhound bus station, that was tacked onto the rear of Burnhams masterpiece, alongside an unsightly new parking garage.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 12, 2014)

I know Union Station was in sad shape before " The Mall" was installed, but hopefully this will allow it to once again better utilize the Station for Rail purposes whether Amtrak, VRE, MARC or the Metro!


----------



## jis (Sep 12, 2014)

And it will bring in considerable income from leases of air rights and real estate. That is the reason that the remaining air rights over Penn Station is being developed too. There is also talk of developing some of the air rights over Sunnyside.


----------



## VentureForth (Sep 13, 2014)

That's 9,000 millions.

Wow.


----------



## Railroad Bill (Sep 13, 2014)

Wow! I am impressed. But will any of us over 60 live long enough to see this happen.?


----------



## afigg (Apr 7, 2015)

News update on the plans for a major update to DC Union Station. Washington Post: Grand Central Terminal architect selected for Union Station expansion. Started this thread almost 3 years ago, but the plans are slowly chugging along.

Excerpts:



> The architectural firm behind the remake of New York’s Grand Central Terminal will lead the effort to plan a $10 billion proposed expansion of Union Station, a project that could triple passenger capacity at the station.
> 
> Beyer Blinder Belle, with offices in New York and Washington, oversaw design, master planning and the revitalization of Grand Central, turning the 1913 Beaux Arts-style train station into a more modern, accessible and efficient rail hub. The firm has done similar work rehabilitating historic buildings in Washington including for Smithsonian museums.
> 
> ...





> Because Union Station is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and overseen by a bevy of federal and local government bodies, any changes to it require many layers of approvals.


The approval process is probably going to make a snail look like Usain Bolt.


----------



## neroden (Apr 12, 2015)

FWIW, I was in DC Union recently, and although a lot of the retail space was in use, a fair amount of the retail space is vacant, unrented. It should be possible to get *some* of it back without much difficulty.


----------



## dlagrua (Apr 12, 2015)

Union Station in WAS seems perfectly acceptable and working well for its intended use. I don't see the logic in putting $7 billion into improvements when Amtrak needs so many other things.... superliner sleepers, diners, coaches, additional motive power, upgraded coffee machines and new routes.


----------



## Ryan (Apr 12, 2015)

You've obviously never been there during rush hour.


----------



## StriderGDM (Apr 12, 2015)

RyanS said:


> You've obviously never been there during rush hour.


I have been. Many times. Still not 100% sure convinced this is the best use of Amtrak money.

However, as a matter of DC/Fed Money in addition to Amtrak, perhaps. It's the gateway to the Capitol, it's only going to get busier. Let's plan for the 21st century.

(and include a new northern path Blue Line.)


----------



## afigg (Apr 14, 2015)

dlagrua said:


> Union Station in WAS seems perfectly acceptable and working well for its intended use. I don't see the logic in putting $7 billion into improvements when Amtrak needs so many other things.... superliner sleepers, diners, coaches, additional motive power, upgraded coffee machines and new routes.


The price tag is now $8.5 billion in the New York Times article posted today on the plans for the station: Union Station in Washington Has a Grand Development Plan.

Keep in mind that the upgrades for the station itself are only a modest part of the $7 or $8.5 billion cost estimate. Much of the total cost is for the big private development project for 1,300 residential units, a 500 room hotel, retail and office space to be built in the air rights over the tracks. The developers will be funding that part. Another major piece are the underground parking garages, much of which can be funded by bonds to be paid off by parking revenue. Amtrak does not own DC Union Station, the federal government does. So Amtrak's part concerns only the passenger boarding areas, the new platforms, and tracks (which it does own). Very little of the funds that will be spent on upgrading Union Station would otherwise be available for non-NEC services or trains.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 14, 2015)

I hope the development includes hot meals for Silver Star sleeper passengers to buy. :giggle:


----------



## afigg (Aug 18, 2015)

After a period of no public news that I'm aware of, came across a fact sheet on the NEC Amtrak website about the expansion of the concourse space at WAS.; WASHINGTON UNION STATION CONCOURSE EXPANSION PROGRAM FACT SHEET (webpage with link to 2 page PDF).

According to the fact sheet, construction will start this fall by first relocating mechanical equipment and other facilities, then in the summer of 2016, construction will start on expanding the concourse. Projected completion date is 2019. This work appears to just on rebuilding and expanding the concourse space to provide more space for the passengers waiting to board their trains. So it mainly just a remodeling of the concourse area which is likely not that costly. The rest of the Master Plan is another matter.

Excerpts from the fact sheet:



> Increased Passenger Capacity
> Significant concourse area will be gained as approximately 40,000 square feet of underutilized and currently isolated portions of the concourse are absorbed by demolishing dividing walls. In addition, select Amtrak support services which are currently dispersed throughout the concourse will be relocated to more strategic areas in the station, resulting in a vastly more unified concourse. Support services that will be relocated in 2015/2016 include police services, management offices, employee gym, and east/west mechanical rooms. As design advances, consideration for the relocation or expansion of Club Acela and passenger restrooms will be considered.
> 
> ....
> ...


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 18, 2015)

This is good news, but the 2019 Completion date is optimistic! I wouldn't bet the house on it being completed on time or budget!

And how are the repairs coming along from the earthquake that damaged the Washington Monument and Union Station?

I've always thought that it was too much like a Mall, and had lots of wasted space not used for passenger service that perhaps the remodel will remedy if the announced plans are correct!


----------



## afigg (Aug 19, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> This is good news, but the 2019 Completion date is optimistic! I wouldn't bet the house on it being completed on time or budget!
> 
> And how are the repairs coming along from the earthquake that damaged the Washington Monument and Union Station?
> 
> I've always thought that it was too much like a Mall, and had lots of wasted space not used for passenger service that perhaps the remodel will remedy if the announced plans are correct!


Yes, they turned DC Union Station into a shopping mall, but it is a successful shopping and restaurant mall that generates significant revenue to the redevelopment corporation that runs the station. Which gets back into maintaining and improving the station. BTW, the lower level space where the food court is will have a Walgreens opening soon. Might be useful as a place to get needed supplies for those making connections between LD trains at WAS.

As for the earthquake damage, I think they fixed almost all of it a while back. But in the course of repairing the damage to the ceiling in the main hall, they discovered problems with peeling gold leaf and crumbling plaster. So the repair work was expanded for a more extensive repair and renovation, which is still going on. USRC webpage on the main hall repair.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 19, 2015)

Thanks for the update and link!

I look forward to seeing my old "Home" Station once again in October @ the Gathering!


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Aug 19, 2015)

jimhudson said:


> This is good news, but the 2019 Completion date is optimistic! I wouldn't bet the house on it being completed on time or budget!
> 
> And how are the repairs coming along from the earthquake that damaged the Washington Monument and Union Station?
> 
> I've always thought that it was too much like a Mall, and had lots of wasted space not used for passenger service that perhaps the remodel will remedy if the announced plans are correct!


Confess that I didn't read the pdf report. But in the quoted paragraphs, there's nothing stating that more mall or retail facilities are in the plan. If they're removing walls and various Amtrak-itself facilities to make more openness in the currently cramped space, then hip, hip, hooray!


----------



## Eric S (Aug 19, 2015)

Of course, nothing in the fact sheet about Amtrak's boarding procedures causing a nontrivial portion of the congestion. (Not that I expected to see anything about changing those procedures, though.)


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 19, 2015)

I wonder where the ClubAcela will move to?


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 19, 2015)

The Davy Crockett said:


> I wonder where the ClubAcela will move to?


The current location is good, it just needs to be larger!

Wherever it ends up being, easy access to the gates, as now exists, will be the ideal way to go!

Hopefully it won't end up downstairs with the rats where the theater used to be!


----------



## afigg (Oct 13, 2015)

While there has not been much publicity on the progress of the master plan for WAS, Amtrak is seeking to acquire the Railway Express building and property that is adjacent to the tracks on the eastern side for $35 million through eminent domain. Whether the $35 million is coming entirely from Amtrak or some from the developer who wants to build over the tracks and/or Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, article doesn't get into that aspect.

Washington Business Journal: Amtrak forced to defend decision to condemn a Northeast D.C. office building. Excerpt:



> Amtrak has condemned a commercial office building in Northeast D.C. as it gears up for a major expansion project at Union Station nearby — and the move has left the property's owner crying foul.
> 
> That's because Amtrak gave what the building's owner considers an overly vague reason for using eminent domain to take the roughly 113,000-square foot Railway Express building at 900 Second St. NE along with an adjacent lot. Both are located next to the railroad tracks just north of Union Station. Fluorine LLC argues in new court filings that the $35 million Amtrak offered for the property before filing for eminent domain was less than the income-generating office building is worth and that Amtrak has failed to show it had the legal authority to take it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hal (Oct 13, 2015)

afigg said:


> While there has not been much publicity on the progress of the master plan for WAS, Amtrak is seeking to acquire the Railway Express building and property that is adjacent to the tracks on the eastern side for $35 million through eminent domain. Whether the $35 million is coming entirely from Amtrak or some from the developer who wants to build over the tracks and/or Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, article doesn't get into that aspect.
> 
> Washington Business Journal: Amtrak forced to defend decision to condemn a Northeast D.C. office building. Excerpt:
> 
> ...


They had the opportunity about 25 or 30 years ago to buy that building and it was a hugh mistake in my opinion that Amtrak decided not to buy it back then. It did not require any foresight with the substation there that they would need that property. Also since then many Amtrak offices are renting space in the building. Washington operations and Commuter operations are in there.


----------



## neroden (Oct 13, 2015)

The developer's claim that Amtrak doesn't have legal authority to take the building is totally bogus; I'm pretty sure Amtrak will get a ruling that it has legal authority to take the building very quickly.

There will probably be a drawn-out case over the money.


----------



## StriderGDM (Oct 13, 2015)

neroden said:


> The developer's claim that Amtrak doesn't have legal authority to take the building is totally bogus; I'm pretty sure Amtrak will get a ruling that it has legal authority to take the building very quickly.
> 
> There will probably be a drawn-out case over the money.


What legal authority? I think it depends in part of Amtrak wants to claim it's a private organization or a government agency. If it's the former, I'm not sure what DC's stance is since Kelo vs. New London was decided (which certainly would permit DC to take it on behave of a private organization).


----------



## PRR 60 (Oct 13, 2015)

StriderGDM said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > The developer's claim that Amtrak doesn't have legal authority to take the building is totally bogus; I'm pretty sure Amtrak will get a ruling that it has legal authority to take the building very quickly.
> ...


I can confirm first hand that Amtrak has federal eminent domain authority. A few years ago I was on the wrong end of an eminent domain take by Amtrak.


----------



## neroden (Oct 14, 2015)

Amtrak has explicit eminent domain provisions written into federal law just for Amtrak.


----------



## StriderGDM (Oct 14, 2015)

neroden said:


> Amtrak has explicit eminent domain provisions written into federal law just for Amtrak.


Ah interesting, I was not aware of that. Thanks.


----------



## afigg (Oct 14, 2015)

Hal said:


> They had the opportunity about 25 or 30 years ago to buy that building and it was a hugh mistake in my opinion that Amtrak decided not to buy it back then. It did not require any foresight with the substation there that they would need that property. Also since then many Amtrak offices are renting space in the building. Washington operations and Commuter operations are in there.


Amtrak could presumably have brought the building and property for a _whole lot_ cheaper 25 to 30 years ago. Even 10+ years ago it would have been much less expensive to buy property in what is now known as the NoMA neighborhood. Now the area north of Union Station has undergone a major renaissance and property values have shot up. So it will cost Amtrak at least $35 million to acquire the property, which is not chump change.


----------



## StriderGDM (Oct 14, 2015)

afigg said:


> Hal said:
> 
> 
> > They had the opportunity about 25 or 30 years ago to buy that building and it was a hugh mistake in my opinion that Amtrak decided not to buy it back then. It did not require any foresight with the substation there that they would need that property. Also since then many Amtrak offices are renting space in the building. Washington operations and Commuter operations are in there.
> ...


30 years ago everyone was still holding their breath waiting for Amtrak to go away. Them trying to get money to buy real estate would have been impossible.

Even 10 years ago them getting money to buy a building probably wouldn't have passed the bean counters.


----------



## jis (Oct 15, 2015)

I don't believe anyone was holding their breath for Amtrak to go away on the NEC by 1985, unless they were positively suicidal. The LD network maybe, but not the NEC.


----------



## Blackshirt Husker (Oct 15, 2015)

DC already has one of the better big city stations in the country. Wish they'd take that same money and use it to upgrade Los Angeles Union Station.


----------



## west point (Oct 15, 2015)

No money for LA Union station. Amtrak does not own it Metrolink does or some subsidiary.. There might be some federal money in the future to build the thru tracks.


----------



## Blackshirt Husker (Oct 15, 2015)

west point said:


> No money for LA Union station. Amtrak does not own it Metrolink does or some subsidiary.. There might be some federal money in the future to build the thru tracks.


Thanks, West Point. Didn't know that.


----------



## neroden (Oct 15, 2015)

LA Union has upgrade plans well in hand, thanks to LA Metro. Chicago has plans, but nobody ever seems to fund them. Really the big city stations which need major upgrades are stations like Detroit, Cleveland, Jacksonville... but the smaller stations need far more work.


----------



## afigg (Oct 15, 2015)

west point said:


> No money for LA Union station. Amtrak does not own it Metrolink does or some subsidiary.. There might be some federal money in the future to build the thru tracks.


LA Union Station is doing fine. It is the hub station of the expanding LA Metro transit system. The through track project is now called the Southern California Regional Interconnection Project (SCRIP) and the schedule calls for construction to start in 2017. Thanks in large part to Governor Brown, CA has money to spend on transit and rail improvement projects.

As for the complaint about spending money on improving DC Union Station, I think those complaining have not been in WAS when the passenger area is jammed with boarding lines extending out of sight. From the days when the station was rebuilt into a shopping and dining destination, passenger traffic for Amtrak, MARC, and VRE has out grown the shrunk down space that was left for the passenger waiting and boarding area. The station needs a major overhaul to handle the current passenger traffic and expected growth over the next 20-30 years, put in new modern wide platforms with improved access, build a new concourse area, all in combination with the developer plans for a complex of buildings to go over the tracks. I don't expect the final result will be as fancy or nice as what was put into the Master Plan in 2012, the inevitable cuts to reduce costs will chip away at the station rebuild project over the several decades laid out in the plan. But DC Union Station will eventually see major incremental improvements in the rail passenger part of the station complex.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 15, 2015)

Concur completely. WAS is 100% broken and dysfunctional during rush hour.


----------



## west point (Oct 15, 2015)

The worse station without a doubt is San Antonio. On any Tuesday both east and west bound Sunset limited trains arrive in the middle of the night and then depart. If both are late and the southbound Eagle is very late which turns to the northbound Eagle you will have passengers for three outbound trains waiting. All this into a waiting room that can hold 20 -35 persons. Access to platforms is possible but the platforms are crummy and poorly lit. The other days Sunset operates is not as bad but ---------

If the Sunset ever goes daily then every day has the possible crowding.

New station in Atlanta is also needed. Here is a city built on Railroads and now has the world's highest passenger count at ATL airport.


----------



## keelhauled (Oct 15, 2015)

In a wholly arbitrary measure of crappiness divided by number of passengers, it still seems like DC needs investment more. San Antonio may suck, but it only sucks for 60,000 people. Union Station serves five million. Is Union Station really 83 times worse than San Antonio?


----------



## Carolina Special (Oct 15, 2015)

If you only travel through San Antonio and not DC, San Antonio would indeed suck more. But DC has many more visitors to help pay for their station upgrades than does San Antonio, so it should even out in suck terms.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 15, 2015)

I agree that the SAS Station sucks, but Kansas City does too!

They've has done a great job on saving/rehabbing Historic Union Station but Amtrak has a small crummy Bus Station like waiting room with bright lights,uncomfortable benches, vending machines, and a cubby hole ticket counter and baggage room by the catwalk going to the platform.

St. Louis is another one that's a new Intermodel Station, but the Amtrak part is too small and has very uncomfortable seats, plus a silly policy of line up in the Hall on the way to the escelators/Elevators down to the platforms to have your ticket scanned.

Meanwhile Beautiful Union Station sits moldeting away @ the top of the Hill as a Failed Mall, with an Upscale Hotel in the Headhouse!


----------



## Lonestar648 (Oct 15, 2015)

As for SAS, the city of San Antonio has a plan to rebuild an old station on the west side of the downtown area to be a multi-use facility (City bus, Regional bus, proposed trolley, proposed regional rail, and Amtrak), but that is planned. Like many stations across the country, the local communities need to upgrade, like MSP completed recently. The fact that rail usage is growing is a good thing, so improving station facilities is necessary, but the red tape and committees to select committees to CYA all decisions will triple the completion times at best.


----------



## neroden (Oct 16, 2015)

DC could eliminate most of the overcrowding simply by adding some benches and letting people wait on the platforms. Problem Solved.

Need to make more space? Move all the shops on the ground level to the upstairs level of the mall, which is more than half vacant, and thus clear out the ground level.

This is easy. Fixing Cleveland is hard. Detroit needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 16, 2015)

neroden said:


> DC could eliminate most of the overcrowding simply by adding some benches and letting people wait on the platforms. Problem Solved.
> 
> Need to make more space? Move all the shops on the ground level to the upstairs level of the mall, which is more than half vacant, and thus clear out the ground level.


Agree completely. Amtrak seems to approach the situation with the mindset that the boarding process (single access point with tickets checked there) must remain the same but the space can be significantly expanded by adding new platforms and such. Why not approach the situation with the mindset that the station is largely fixed (other than rearranging what is where, as you suggest) and that the boarding process can be changed. Organization before electronics before concrete.



neroden said:


> This is easy. Fixing Cleveland is hard. Detroit needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.


There is occasional talk of replacing Cleveland's station, or incorporating it in a larger intermodal station in roughly the same location that would tie together Amtrak, Greyhound (and any other intercity buses), and RTA light rail and buses.

I want to say that at some point I read that the long term "plan" (if it can be called that) is to replace the Detroit station with a new station on the south side of the tracks where there is a largely empty lot and parking lot.


----------



## Hal (Oct 16, 2015)

neroden said:


> DC could eliminate most of the overcrowding simply by adding some benches and letting people wait on the platforms. Problem Solved.
> 
> Need to make more space? Move all the shops on the ground level to the upstairs level of the mall, which is more than half vacant, and thus clear out the ground level.
> 
> This is easy. Fixing Cleveland is hard. Detroit needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.


The problem won't be solved that way. Most of the time it can't be predicted much in advance what track the train will leave out of as the equipment is being turned as soon as it comes in off the road. Engines are turned at the last minute too. Even if the equipment is there farther in advance it is not ready for passengers until close to the boarding times. As for the shops that is not controlled by Amtrak. Amtrak does not own that mall. I don't think it is half vacant though.

The present configuration was designed when Marc had a lot less service and before there was a VRE. Union Station needs a total redo. It is unsafe the way it is now.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 16, 2015)

Upstairs is nowhere near half vacant, and even if it were totally vacant, there wouldn't be enough space to move everything upstairs.

Platforms are a non starter for the reasons mentioned above. Same store with boarding process. New platforms? Where?


----------



## Eric S (Oct 16, 2015)

By "new platforms" I was referring to the massive multi-billion dollar expansion proposal. I agree that the station needs work. But I remain unconvinced that the methods and practices currently in place can't be adjusted/altered/changed/rethought to reduce the amount of work that is needed.

If more waiting area space is needed, and moving shops out of the main level would create that space, then look at what would be more cost-effective - moving those shops (which could mean buying control of that space) or building elsewhere. I don't know the answer, but I'm just suggesting that when we're contemplating spending billions of dollars, let's make sure we're doing so wisely.

Similarly, would it cost more to change operating practices so that there is more consistency in what trains use what platforms, or in redoing platforms as suggested in the plan, or whatever.

Before spending money to build new stuff, let's make sure we're using the existing stuff efficiently. I'm not going to pretend to know the answers, I just worry that the push is always to expand before looking to see if things could be adjusted in a way that would expand capacity.


----------



## jis (Oct 16, 2015)

I find it interesting that in general highway and airline enthusiasts seldom raise caution when there is a proposal to spend money on expansion. But some railfans are a more prudent lot. They get alarmed whenever a large project is proposed and seem to want not to spend money on expansion of anything.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 16, 2015)

Could it be that most railfans are older, on a fixed income and tend to be fiscal conservatives, hence they worry when the word "Billions" is used? ( but not me!)


----------



## west point (Oct 16, 2015)

Study the track and platform proposals carefully.

1. New platforms at a sub basement level may be lower than the present lower level commercial facilities. That may preclude some commercial stores. These lower level platforms will be much wider than present platforms.

2. The upper level tracks will be moved and platforms also much wider.

3. The wider platforms may "MAY " allow passengers to on platforms before trains arrive. The 3 concourses will also speed boarding.

4. The lower level will use some area not presently used for platforms. There will be 2 - 3 low level platforms for VRE use and of any Superliner type train arriving from the south. Continuing to north way in future.


----------



## A Voice (Oct 16, 2015)

jis said:


> I find it interesting that in general highway and airline enthusiasts seldom raise caution when there is a proposal to spend money on expansion. But some railfans are a more prudent lot. They get alarmed whenever a large project is proposed and seem to want not to spend money on expansion of anything.





Bob Dylan said:


> Could it be that most railfans are older, on a fixed income and tend to be fiscal conservatives, hence they worry when the word "Billions" is used? ( but not me!)


Probably true, and also more senior individuals tend to be shocked at how much projects seem to cost anymore, but there is also the factor that passenger rail advocates have for decades been conditioned that rail is the poor, neglected stepchild of U.S. transportation infrastructure. While billion dollar projects are lavished upon road and air seemingly without blinking an eye, how many (relatively minor) problems and issues beg attention nationwide across the Amtrak system - and which could be fixed for a few (say, 2-10) _million_ (with an _"M"_) dollars each or less - but for which no money is available (and we can all imagine the howls of protest from some politicians and passenger rail critics if we even tried to get a budget for such things).

So, when we hear of a $7 billion dollar project to be spent on one station it seems extravagant; We can imagine what a fraction of that $7 billion would do for the rest of the Amtrak system; You could "fix" all but the largest stations, buy new equipment, start new trains and routes, and make investment in tracks and infrastructure to permit faster running times - with money left over. Of course, you would still need to fix Washington too - and all the other big ticket Northeast Corridor items (Hudson & B&P tunnels, etc.). But again, as rail advocates we've been relegated to hoping for some crumbs off the table while billion dollar projects are spent on other modes; It is hard to imagine ever spending so much on a single station, much as we would love to see such things happen.


----------



## Eric S (Oct 16, 2015)

jis said:


> I find it interesting that in general highway and airline enthusiasts seldom raise caution when there is a proposal to spend money on expansion. But some railfans are a more prudent lot. They get alarmed whenever a large project is proposed and seem to want not to spend money on expansion of anything.


I can't speak to why highway and air enthusiasts are or are not concerned. But, my concern is primarily that given the limited funding for rail (and transit) that is available, that it be spent wisely and most effectively. Just because one mode is wasteful doesn't mean others should be too. If one particular project can be constructed more cheaply and still accomplish the goals, that leaves more funding for other projects. (And, yes, I realize that there isn't a $7 billion pot sitting out there for WAS and that if only $3.5 billion is spent is suddenly becomes available for spending on other stations or track improvements or new equipment.)


----------



## StriderGDM (Oct 16, 2015)

Keep in mind far more Senators and Representatives pass though WAS than say Cleveland or Denver or other stations.


----------



## Andrew (Oct 21, 2015)

Does this plan include longer platforms and realigned switches to eventually accommodate longer Acela train-sets?


----------



## keelhauled (Oct 21, 2015)

There will be no longer Acela trainsets. Maintenance facility size prevents it.


----------



## neroden (Oct 21, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Upstairs is nowhere near half vacant


I went through there a couple of months ago. I counted. It's half vacant. Fact.
Some of the vacant locations were occupied by the sort of sketchy fly-by-night "stores" which squat in vacant locations for a month or two

at minimal rent -- I'm not counting those as occupied.


----------



## neroden (Oct 21, 2015)

A Voice said:


> So, when we hear of a $7 billion dollar project to be spent on one station it seems extravagant; We can imagine what a fraction of that $7 billion would do for the rest of the Amtrak system; You could "fix" all but the largest stations, buy new equipment, start new trains and routes, and make investment in tracks and infrastructure to permit faster running times - with money left over. Of course, you would still need to fix Washington too - and all the other big ticket Northeast Corridor items (Hudson & B&P tunnels, etc.). But again, as rail advocates we've been relegated to hoping for some crumbs off the table while billion dollar projects are spent on other modes; It is hard to imagine ever spending so much on a single station, much as we would love to see such things happen.


Indeed, for $7 billion, we could have:

-- bought a daily Sunset Limited at UP's exorbitant price several years ago ($0.5 billion upfront and about $0.02 billion/year)

-- completed phase II of Moynihan Station (estimated at $1-2 billion)

-- revived the Broadway Limited and run it for several years, ($0.01 billion/year)

-- completed the Chicago Union Station Master Plan (estimated at $1-2 billion)

-- built high platforms, freight bypass tracks, and new road overpasses at Hudson Station (less than $1 billion)

-- and done a *dozen* other significant projects which would be of great benefit.

Waste is waste. DC Union doesn't need $7 billion in improvement.

Even airline fans objected to the gross overbuild of Denver Insane-national Airport, pointing out that it was designed for levels of traffic which would never actually arrive.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 21, 2015)

neroden said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Upstairs is nowhere near half vacant
> ...


That's nice. I'm through there 10 times a week. Your contention is false, and as I elaborated on, doesn't matter.


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2015)

Ryan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


I was there over an entire weekend many times during the AU Gathering, and I do tend to agree with Ryan. At present there is a chage-over going on from one set of stores to another both upstairs and in the basement, which might give one an impression that spaces are unoccupied. but the impression is mistaken in the long run. For example, it would be a mistake to believe that the space where Walgreen's is moving in in the basement is "unoccupied".


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Oct 21, 2015)

I killed time at WAS on the Sunday of the gathering while waiting for my train home. I wandered the two floors of retail shops and don't recall any if them being unoccupied.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 21, 2015)

Ryan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Since I had some free time before my train just now, I wandered upstairs and counted noses, so to speak. 17 open storefronts against 3 vacancies. Don't think that many of the downstairs merchants will fit in those three spaces.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 21, 2015)

neroden said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > So, when we hear of a $7 billion dollar project to be spent on one station it seems extravagant; We can imagine what a fraction of that $7 billion would do for the rest of the Amtrak system; You could "fix" all but the largest stations, buy new equipment, start new trains and routes, and make investment in tracks and infrastructure to permit faster running times - with money left over. Of course, you would still need to fix Washington too - and all the other big ticket Northeast Corridor items (Hudson & B&P tunnels, etc.). But again, as rail advocates we've been relegated to hoping for some crumbs off the table while billion dollar projects are spent on other modes; It is hard to imagine ever spending so much on a single station, much as we would love to see such things happen.
> ...


How much of that $7B is coming from a source that can reasonably spent on the rest of the system?

How much of that $7B is going towards massive overbuilding for nonexistent traffic?

(The answer to both is the same - "not much")


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2015)

I tend to agree on both counts.


----------



## afigg (Oct 21, 2015)

Ryan said:


> How much of that $7B is coming from a source that can reasonably spent on the rest of the system?
> 
> How much of that $7B is going towards massive overbuilding for nonexistent traffic?
> 
> (The answer to both is the same - "not much")


Yes, in the protests about spending $7 billion on DC Union Station, what we don't know is how much of that is for the 3 million square feet mixed use development project proposed to go over the Union Station tracks. When the $7 billion figure was announced 3 years ago for the Master Plan concept, there was no cost breakdown for it. I doubt that Akridge corporation or the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation are going to contribute funding for Moynihan station, Chicago Union Station, the restoration of the Broadway Limited or various NEC projects.

Akridge's website for the Burnham Place at Union Station development plan.

As for the current retail space at WAS, the station is going through a refurb and expansion project for the lower level and food court space in combination with the project to revamp the front hall configuration and layout to provide more space for people traffic.


----------



## Carolina Special (Oct 21, 2015)

Are they actually expanding the food court area at WAS? I'm glad to hear that, because I was under the impression that they were just booting out the food vendors to make room for Walgreens, and was disappointed in the selection when I was there back in May, compared to a previous visit.

And I've never found Walgreens' menu to be quite up to the standards for a proper restaurant.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 21, 2015)

I don't think any food vendors were being relocated.


----------



## jis (Oct 21, 2015)

Most of that area had already been vacated the previous time I was there a month and a half back. Part of it had been unoccupied for more than a year.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Oct 21, 2015)

Carolina Special said:


> Are they actually expanding the food court area at WAS? I'm glad to hear that, because I was under the impression that they were just booting out the food vendors to make room for Walgreens, and was disappointed in the selection when I was there back in May, compared to a previous visit.
> 
> And I've never found Walgreens' menu to be quite up to the standards for a proper restaurant.



The food vendors were systematically priced out over the last few years. That is why most of the remaining vendors are chains. Very few local "mom and pop" can afford the lease payments.

What a shame.


----------



## Carolina Special (Oct 21, 2015)

When I visited last November I was amazed by all the food vendors down there. In May it looked like a number of those had disappeared and the area where most had been was boarded up, presumably where Walgreens is going.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

jis said:


> At present there is a chage-over going on from one set of stores to another both upstairs and in the basement, which might give one an impression that spaces are unoccupied. but the impression is mistaken in the long run. For example, it would be a mistake to believe that the space where Walgreen's is moving in in the basement is "unoccupied".


Aah. So they were vacant, but because the landlords were deliberately kicking stores out to make way for future stores with higher rent. I have seen that happen elsewhere; the old storeowners tend to be very bitter about it.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

Ryan said:


> How much of that $7B is coming from a source that can reasonably spent on the rest of the system?


Well, if Amtrak isn't planning to spend any of1) its own money,

(2) money intended for railroad service,

(3) money intended for railroad stations,

Then whatever. It's all very well if the developer who runs the mall proposes to pay for it.

Why is Amtrak even proposing the plan? If the money is coming from funding sources which are not related to railroad service, it's frankly not Amtrak's business. And quoting it as a "$7 billion plan" is all wrong if the plan is for developers to *pay* Amtrak billions of dollars for air rights.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 22, 2015)

Sometimes it pays to read beyond the headline.

Also, nobody has said that Amtrak wasn't spending *any* money.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > At present there is a chage-over going on from one set of stores to another both upstairs and in the basement, which might give one an impression that spaces are unoccupied. but the impression is mistaken in the long run. For example, it would be a mistake to believe that the space where Walgreen's is moving in in the basement is "unoccupied".
> ...


Yeah. It is the equivalent of gentrification of localities that often happen when infrastructure is improved. The existing tenants are bitter about it and a small battle ensues. I saw this happen when HBLRT gentrified Jersey City water front. But inevitably the existing order loses and the higher rent payers move into new constructions.

I see this happening at many transport hubs irrespective of whether it is owned by a private landlord or a public agency landlord. For example this is exactly what is going on in spades at Newark Airport as we speak, specially in Terminal C.



Ryan said:


> Sometimes it pays to read beyond the headline.
> 
> Also, nobody has said that Amtrak wasn't spending *any* money.


Yep, Amtrak, MARC and VRE will be spending plenty of their money to improve and expand the passenger circulation and waiting areas well beyond what the mall owners will do. Notwithstanding some beliefs that Union Station does not need such, it is self-evident that it does once you spend a couple of rush hours there. The Amtrak boarding even in non-rush hours is just a slightly controlled chaos these days, mostly due to lack of space for people to line up. They designed the current passenger circulation area for boarding four car trains, not 8 car trains.

Also the whole issue of addressing ADA concerns at the lower level platforms will be handled by the rail operators, not the mall operators.


----------



## afigg (Oct 22, 2015)

Carolina Special said:


> When I visited last November I was amazed by all the food vendors down there. In May it looked like a number of those had disappeared and the area where most had been was boarded up, presumably where Walgreens is going.


The lower level with the food court has a lot of unused space in the movie theater complex that closed 4 or 5 years ago, The announced plan several years ago was to relocate one or two of the restaurants located in the center of the front hall down into the movie theater space with escalators leading down from the front hall to the restaurants and expanded retail space. The Walgreens will probably be on the south side of the food court probably using part of the former movie theater space. What is going on is a major refurb and reconfiguration of the lower level along with a do-over of the front hall. When that will be completed and what the new layout will look like, don't know.


----------



## A Voice (Oct 22, 2015)

Ryan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > A Voice said:
> ...


I completely agree, but that's not the point I was trying to make. Rather, rail advocates may be shocked at the idea of spending $7 billion on a single station (even though the amount may be justified, and we certainly want to see major investment in passenger rail infrastructure) while small ticket items across the system - a few hundred thousand dollars to a few million, perhaps - beg attention for years where no money is available. It is not that scaling back the Washington project will make money available, but in addition to such big ticket projects, we are keenly aware of what even a fraction of that amount could accomplish if wisely invested across the nation.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

jis said:


> Notwithstanding some beliefs that Union Station does not need such, it is self-evident that it does once you spend a couple of rush hours there. The Amtrak boarding even in non-rush hours is just a slightly controlled chaos these days, mostly due to lack of space for people to line up. They designed the current passenger circulation area for boarding four car trains, not 8 car trains.


Having spent rush hour at Chicago Union Station and at NY Penn Station as well as at DC Union Station, I am *not* impressed by the crowding at rush hour in DC Union. (This should not be surprising: LIRR & NJT have weekday ridership of ~574K, Metra has weekday ridership of ~290K although only ~72K goes to Union, but MARC + VRE have weekday ridership of a mere ~43K. Amtrak has twice as many passengers at NY as at DC. Chicago has 3.4 million yearly Amtrak passengers versus 5.0 million at DC, but more Chicago passengers are hanging around longer to change trains.)
It should cost far less to fix crowding at DC than it should to fix the really terrible Chicago and NY crowding problems. Since the current plans for NY cost $1-2 billion and the plan for Chicago costs less, the plan for DC had damn well better cost less, or it's money poorly spent.

DC platforms are already wider than Chicago platforms or (yeech) NY platforms. And yes, people should be waiting on the platforms. Someone said "Oh, well, they don't send the same train to the same track each time" -- well, that's much easier and cheaper to fix than building giant new waiting rooms. Organization before electronics and electronics before concrete, as the Germans say.

As has been pointed out above, Amtrak has not actually said how much the plan will cost the railroads. Advertising the $7 billion number is a problem, terrible PR, and should not be happening.

The Chicago plans look like they're actually going to *happen*. By avoiding grandiosity, they've managed to get the price tag down to reasonable levels and break the plans into digestible bite-sized chunks where most of them can be done even if one of them runs into some kind of problem. Amtrak is already doing the early action items and is trying to have contracts signed within two years to do the whole thing in four years. Do you really think this "$7 billion plan for DC" has any chance of actual *execution* in that kind of timeframe? It seems like architect wanking, not like practical proposals. I'd like to see serious, practical proposals for improving DC Union Station; this isn't one.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 22, 2015)

I'm not sure that there's a direct correlation between amount of crowding and the cost to correct it.

Edit: In fact, I'm pretty sure that there isn't at all. Regardless of how crowded CHI is, it's a big building with lots of empty space. Any fix would be cheap. WAS is a big building, but it doesn't have a lot of empty space so fixes are going to be more costly.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

jis said:


> The Amtrak boarding even in non-rush hours is just a slightly controlled chaos these days, mostly due to lack of space for people to line up.


There's an obvious solution to this, which is used in train stations all over the world. *Stop making people line up*.
DC upper level platforms are big, and they're wide, and there's plenty of room to have people wait on the platform like they do in *normal train stations*. Say 10% get to the platform very early, 15% get there fairly early, 50% get there 10 minutes ahead of time, and 25% rush in at the last minute -- you've still got way more capacity than you had by putting everyone in a line.

Heck, they don't even make people line up in Boston North Station, which I wouldn't use as a model because it has poor operations. At North Station, they don't announce what track a train is on until 1-2 minutes before scheduled departure (terrible practice), and as a result everyone stands back in the waiting room staring at the big board. When the track number comes up, everyone rushes the door, but they then promptly spread themselves along the length of the train to use all the open doors to enter and exit, which spreads people out.

It's worth referring to this again:

http://www.vox.com/2014/3/31/5563600/everything-you-need-to-know-about-boarding-an-amtrak-train


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

Ryan said:


> I'm not sure that there's a direct correlation between amount of crowding and the cost to correct it.
> 
> Edit: In fact, I'm pretty sure that there isn't at all. Regardless of how crowded CHI is, it's a big building with lots of empty space. Any fix would be cheap. WAS is a big building, but it doesn't have a lot of empty space so fixes are going to be more costly.


There's gobs of empty space in DC Union Station. Let's start with the big, wide platforms, and the giant largely-wasted open space immediately in front of them (before you get to the unnecessary and counterproductive "gates")... We can continue with the rotunda in the front. I might point out the vast, spacious corridors in the "off limits" part of the basement, big enough to drive trucks through (and indeed trucks are driven through there), which I've ridden on a Red Cap cart when being taken to the taxi stand. Shall I move on to the Railway Express building, or have I made my point?

NY Penn has a lack of space induced by the demolition of the original building, which is why they're planning to cross the street into the post office to expand it. Chicago has a lack of space induced by the demolition of the original concourse building, which is why facilities are being moved across the street into the (thankfully preserved) headhouse, which unfortunately needs massive asbestos/lead remediation and major HVAC work. DC Union is *dripping* with space by comparison.

I think the problem is architect wanking. I don't see a polite way to describe that, though someone else may know a better way to describe it; architects drawing pretty pictures which make them feel good without any regard to practicality. There have been a dozen proposals for fixing Chicago Union Station prior to the current one, and they all suffered from grandiosity and architect wanking, and so none of them ever got built. This "plan" for DC Union feels exactly like all the *older* plans for Chicago which never got built. Hire a more practical-minded group of architects, and you can probably get a plan which accomplishes all the important points, more cheaply. It won't be *cheap* but it won't be *wasteful* either, and it'll be more likely to actually get *funded*. I don't even think you want a plan which is "scaled back" exactly -- you just want a plan which doesn't unnecessarily waste the resources you already have. Sometimes you need to build big new things (Chicago's plan involves a new three-block pedestrian tunnel, a new two-block pedestrian tunnel, four new direct exits from platforms to the street, at least seven new elevator banks, relocation of escalators, conversion of a steam tunnel into a passenger tunnel, etc. etc.) but you should try to leverage what you've got first. And at DC the architects don't seem to have tried; the worst waste is keeping everyone off the platform and trying to funnel everyone through "gates". At Chicago, Metra is, by contrast, planning for multiple direct paths from platform to street.

So I might be wrong about the problem. The core problem might be security theater. It is possible that the idiotic platform controls, which Metra is *not* doing, will be demanded by crazy DHS guys in Washington. If that's the problem, then I say don't build anything in DC until you are in a position to ignore those guys. We should not waste billions to accomodate that kind of dumb.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

Nobody said that the passenger flow fix in DC is expensive or difficult. But it is still worth doing. bringing in Penn Station and what not is just obfuscating the matter. i don't think anyone is suggesting that money should not be spent on Penn Station. But that does not mean that Union Station in DC needs to be robbed of the smaller investment needed there to clean up the mess that is Penn Station. Money that can be found for fixing Union Station from its users, other than Amtrak can hardly just be directed for use on Penn Station or Chicago Union Station. So let us please keep focused on the subject of this thread, which is DC Union Station. Feel free to start another thread to discuss the woes of Penn Station, one of my favorite subject, since it is a poster child at present of how not to manage anything.


----------



## neroden (Oct 22, 2015)

The



jis said:


> Nobody said that the passenger flow fix in DC is expensive or difficult.


The whole point is that they claimed it would cost $7 billion!



> But it is still worth doing. bringing in Penn Station and what not is just obfuscating the matter.


Just price comparisons.



> i don't think anyone is suggesting that money should not be spent on Penn Station. But that does not mean that Union Station in DC needs to be robbed of the smaller investment needed there


If it actually is a smaller investment, great, yay, go for it.
If it's $7 billion, that's actually *not* smaller, that's a *larger* amount than is planned for Penn Station.

Which is what started the entire argument. The price tag seemed way off.


----------



## jis (Oct 22, 2015)

See http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/49380-amtrak-to-unveil-7-billion-plan-for-dc-union-station/?p=629255

I am assuming that we still do not know the breakdown, but creating the retail space mentioned cannot come for cheap considering what they have to do to create the space. OTOH, I also don't know how much of the track rearrangement, platform widening and rearrangement of the lower level is included and what that costs. So we are probably getting ourselves worked up based on not much. It is also not clear where the overall funding is coming from. So just got to wait until more info is available I suppose.

The reason that we need to get the breakdown of the source of funding to have a meaningful discussion is, if the bulk of the funding for the retail space is coming from the local real estate interests, that is funding that cannot just be transferred to New York or Chicago. There is no point in carping about it at that point. If New York local real estate interests do not want to spend money on Penn Station then it is just New York's loss. Given their reluctance to spend money even on the Moynihan Mall, maybe it is just the way things are in New York. Who knows? Similarly, just because a $7 billion vision has been put together does not mean that it will actually get funded by anyone either. OTOH New York with PA has shown itself to perfectly capable of pissing away many billions over silly vanity projects too. So bottom line is we've got to wait and see what actually materializes.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 22, 2015)

I'm beginning to wonder if Neroden and I are talking about the same Washington Union Station. Big wide platforms? Hardly. Tons of space between them and the gates? Where?

Waiting on platforms? Already shot down.



Hal said:


> The problem won't be solved that way. Most of the time it can't be predicted much in advance what track the train will leave out of as the equipment is being turned as soon as it comes in off the road. Engines are turned at the last minute too. Even if the equipment is there farther in advance it is not ready for passengers until close to the boarding times.


----------



## jebr (Oct 22, 2015)

If our comparison point is NYP, then WUS is a dream by comparison.

Of course, that's somewhat like comparing a high-speed internet connection to dial-up. Not exactly a glowing or particularly meaningful comparison.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 22, 2015)

Somewhat. In comparing platform widths, typical Penn Station platforms are ~30 feet wide. Typical WAS platforms are ~20 feet wide. (both numbers based on roughly 45 seconds of Google, so they may be wrong)


----------



## jebr (Oct 22, 2015)

Penn Station has support beams and access stairs/elevators that much more noticeably reduce space, though. My gut feeling was that NYPs platforms felt a lot smaller and more constrained than WUS' did.


----------



## west point (Oct 22, 2015)

The Amtrak plan for will not link but go to the Amtrak web site, click reports, and click Washington union station master plan. On page 13 there is a rendering of the eventual track lay out. If you read through the whole report you will find that the new tracks that are shown under the present upper level tracks are designated thru tracks to go to the south to where 1where Virginia avenue tunnel joins CSX at the 1st street tunnel.

Also note that the plan calls for wider platforms.


----------



## west point (Oct 22, 2015)

Note that widening of the platforms will reduce upper level tracks by 2 and one less platform. It may be that work will have to start at the west end of the station next to the Metro line. If so 4 tracks will have to be taken out of service there to build just track - platform - track. Then maybe another 4 tracks to build track - platform - track -track - platform - track. Of course other order of construction may happen with maybe some at other end of station.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

jebr said:


> Penn Station has support beams and access stairs/elevators that much more noticeably reduce space, though. My gut feeling was that NYPs platforms felt a lot smaller and more constrained than WUS' did.


The support beams and access stairs/elevators block off an actual majority of the platform on most of the Penn Station platforms. There's typically 5 feet of walking space on each side.  DC Union Station upper level platforms are pretty clear of such obstructions, though I can't speak to the lower level (for some reason I'm always coming or going on the upper level).


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

jis said:


> I am assuming that we still do not know the breakdown, but creating the retail space mentioned cannot come for cheap considering what they have to do to create the space. OTOH, I also don't know how much of the track rearrangement, platform widening and rearrangement of the lower level is included and what that costs. So we are probably getting ourselves worked up based on not much. It is also not clear where the overall funding is coming from. So just got to wait until more info is available I suppose.


Yeah....

I'm not really expecting to see anything get done. The Chicago plans are exciting because they're actually progressing. And frankly so are the New York plans. DC plans? Well, I guess property acquisition has started...


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

Ryan said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if Neroden and I are talking about the same Washington Union Station. Big wide platforms? Hardly. Tons of space between them and the gates? Where?


Try paying attention next time you go through the station. I know if you go through a station a lot you start operating on automatic. About 20 feet of wasted depth along the entire upper level.


----------



## west point (Oct 23, 2015)

Off topic but Penn south is planning for wider platforms.


----------



## Ryan (Oct 23, 2015)

neroden said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm beginning to wonder if Neroden and I are talking about the same Washington Union Station. Big wide platforms? Hardly. Tons of space between them and the gates? Where?
> ...


I think I know where you're talking about, it's usually crowded with people and redcap/Maitenance carts going back and forth. It's also how you come off the platforms and get over to the entry doors. When rush hour trains unload, it's packed.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that the space is broken up by walls and obstructions. Consider what would happen if that space was made continuous with the space on the other side of the gates, rather than obstructed by a wall. I'm not sure how many structural pillars there are, but the space could be a lot more permeable. More permeable spaces allow for more people than spaces cluttered with obstructions.

The mall in Union Station did a similar thing: the original station design has a lot of wide open through-flowing spaces and the mall obstructs this, narrowing the pathways down to smaller bottlenecks. The upper level isn't really a problem here, but the main level mall is.

This is a basic conflict between train station design and mall design; the mall wants to obstruct you at every turn to divert you into the stores. The train station wants free-flowing, open space.


----------



## west point (Oct 23, 2015)

Ryan is correct. The WASH plan to have 3 exits from each platform to a cross connecting concourse. That "MAY " allow for faster egress from the platforms especially for commuters. One does have to wonder if Amtrak and especially LD trains will empty and board at the platforms faster. It will all depend on baggage checking, ticketing,, finding and descending from two of the concourses to the platforms. passenger support facilities at the new concourses will really affect this. The lower level boarding and alighting of southern trains always seems to jam up the escalators.


----------



## afigg (Oct 23, 2015)

west point said:


> Off topic but Penn south is planning for wider platforms.


IIRC, the plans for Boston South Station expansion with new platforms and tracks also call for wider platforms (and access from a new over the tracks mezzanine). The goal certainly appears to be to install modern wider platforms with improved access at the major city stations of the NEC where it is feasible. Can't realistically rebuild and widen the platforms for the current NYP. 30th Street is ok as it is for both platform width and length. But the opportunity exists to modernize both BOS and WAS over the next 10-15 years, so take advantage of the opportunity.


----------



## afigg (Oct 23, 2015)

west point said:


> Note that widening of the platforms will reduce upper level tracks by 2 and one less platform. It may be that work will have to start at the west end of the station next to the Metro line. If so 4 tracks will have to be taken out of service there to build just track - platform - track. Then maybe another 4 tracks to build track - platform - track -track - platform - track. Of course other order of construction may happen with maybe some at other end of station.


I think the plan is to first rebuild the lower level platforms and tracks (aka the through tracks to the First street tunnel) in combination with digging out and building the underground parking garage on the east side of the station complex. The upper level or stub tracks and platforms on the western side are pinned down by the pillars for the parking garage, so those tracks and platforms can't be significantly shifted until the parking garage has been removed. Which in turn requires the new underground parking garage open first. Akridge needs to remove the parking garage in order to build the Burnham Place complex over the tracks, so Akridge is motivated to move the multi-stage project along.

One comment, the Master Plan concept was published in July, 2012 so it is now 3 years old. The plan is only a 28 page concept document. The design and engineering studies have continued since then, presumably refining and revising the concept laid out in the 2012 document. So I would expect some parts of the layout and configuration shown in the 2012 renderings and diagrams have changed. At some point, a more detailed and updated plan should be published; when, no idea. Presumably when that happens, we will get a better idea of how Amtrak, USRC, and the other players expect to pay for the whole thing.


----------



## west point (Oct 23, 2015)

Platform width is interesting. When passing thru Sacramento on the Starlight was very startled to see how wide that platform was. Someone needs to measure the platform. One reason it may be so wide is that there are overhead hose reels to refill the potable water tanks of each car. But there is plenty of room to run carts back and forth without interfering with passengers.


----------



## neroden (Oct 23, 2015)

west point said:


> Ryan is correct. The WASH plan to have 3 exits from each platform to a cross connecting concourse.


That certainly looks like a good idea.


> That "MAY " allow for faster egress from the platforms especially for commuters. One does have to wonder if Amtrak and especially LD trains will empty and board at the platforms faster. It will all depend on baggage checking, ticketing,, finding and descending from two of the concourses to the platforms. passenger support facilities at the new concourses will really affect this.


Oh yeah. At the moment procedures are causing more trouble than layout.


> The lower level boarding and alighting of southern trains always seems to jam up the escalators.


----------



## afigg (Nov 10, 2015)

The FRA has posted a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion plans for DC Union Station. So, the Master Plan concept was published 3 years ago. Since then Amtrak, USRC, and I expect Akridge has conducted engineering studies and advanced the conceptual plan. Now the process moves into the EIS process which will likely take a few more years. Then they will have to figure out how to pay for it. A long sloooowwww process.

FRA eLibrary link: Notice of Intent for Washington Union Station Expansion Project. Excerpt:



> USRC in coordination with Amtrak propose the Project to expand Washington Union Station, the main project within the 2nd Century Plan. The Project is anticipated to require federal funding and approval. The EIS for the Project will address the reconstruction and expansion of the rail terminal (track and platforms), construction of new concourses, changed and improved access, and associated improvements to modernize the multi-modal services of the station.


----------



## afigg (Dec 1, 2015)

The next public step for the EIS process for the Union Station project is a Public Scoping Meeting on December 7, 2015. Presentations for public scoping meeting tend to be very general and more about the process than what the plans might be, so if anyone goes, don't expect a lot.

FRA website for the EIS effort: Washington Union Station Expansion Project with details on the public meeting.


----------



## sitzplatz17 (Dec 1, 2015)

afigg said:


> The next public step for the EIS process for the Union Station project is a Public Scoping Meeting on December 7, 2015. Presentations for public scoping meeting tend to be very general and more about the process than what the plans might be, so if anyone goes, don't expect a lot.
> 
> FRA website for the EIS effort: Washington Union Station Expansion Project with details on the public meeting.


I live pretty close to Union Station now so I'll probably be at that meeting. If anyone else here goes PM me and I'll be sure to say hi.

Otherwise I'll just try and report back what I hear if I go.


----------



## afigg (Mar 23, 2016)

There is a public information presentation next week on March 30 from 4 to 8 PM at the DC Union Station to present the latest on the design and environmental study work underway for the Union Station Expansion Project: Federal Railroad Administration to Host Informational Forum for Washington Union Station Expansion Project.

Note the picture on the announcement page of the rehabilitated front hall ceiling and the now closed restaurant and bar.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 23, 2016)

I like how it's strategically taken to not show the mass of scaffolding directly over and behind the photographer.

This is conveniently timed for a quick stop in on the way home from work, I'll report back on what's going on.


----------



## afigg (Mar 29, 2016)

Ahead of the public information presentation on the status of the Union Station Expansion Project studies, Amtrak has posted a news release on the next actual construction step, the Concourse Modernization project, with a rendering of what the expanded concourse should (may?) look like.

Concourse renovation will increase passenger capacity, modernize station. Excerpt:



> WASHINGTON – Amtrak is advancing a near-term comprehensive renovation of Washington Union Station’s intercity and commuter rail concourse, which will add approximately 20,000 square feet of new passenger space – nearly doubling the concourse’s current capacity.
> 
> Design is underway to upgrade passenger amenities including new restrooms, boarding gates, seating and a ClubAcela lounge. The design will also include new architectural features and natural light elements to enliven the space for travelers. The result will be a vastly reconfigured, modernized and unified concourse that will improve the passenger experience by providing better accessibility, circulation, wayfinding and multimodal connectivity. Amtrak today unveiled two conceptual renderings of the renovation.
> 
> ...


If Chicago is getting a bigger and upgraded lounge, the WAS Club Acela lounge is presumably going to get a major do-over as well.

Rendering of the expanded concourse. Of course, in reality, there will be long lines waiting to get pass the gate keepers.


----------



## afigg (Mar 30, 2016)

The Washington Post has an article on the concourse expansion project which provides info on the cost ($50 million) and has a second rendering image showing the new Club Acela lounge located in a new level over the main concourse above the gates. If the elevators to the lower level platforms are rebuilt, could they have them provide direct access from the new lounge to the lower level platforms?

Washington Post: Amtrak unveils $50 million solution to cramped conditions at Union Station. Excerpts:



> In a design Amtrak released Tuesday, the station’s north wall on the concourse level will be pushed back to add another 20,000 square feet of space and bring new restrooms, boarding gates, seating, an Amtrak police station and ClubAcela lounge. Passengers would be able to look out on the train tracks through a glass wall.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Easy to forget to overlook the access road to the parking garage and the garage when looking from inside the current concourse area at how it might get expanded.

What I don't see in the news release or the Post article is any mention of improvements to the lower level tracks such as putting in several high level and wider platforms for level boarding and ADA compliance. Is that a follow-on project to the concourse expansion or a less publicized part of it?


----------



## sitzplatz17 (Mar 30, 2016)

Ryan said:


> I like how it's strategically taken to not show the mass of scaffolding directly over and behind the photographer.
> 
> This is conveniently timed for a quick stop in on the way home from work, I'll report back on what's going on.


Hey Ryan, I'm going to try and be there as well around 6:00. If you see me around say hi!


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2016)

That was my plan, but due to an amazing day at work where everything came together, I'm actually done and heading for the train station now. If I end up getting delayed, I'll keep an eye out.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 30, 2016)

Formal presentations at 4:30 and 6:30. Somewhat worthwhile. I'll write it all up when I get home.


----------



## afigg (Mar 30, 2016)

The viewgraph and display board presentations for the March 30 meeting are available on the FRA Washington Union Station Expansion Project EIS webpage. Mostly general planning framework and transportation mode high level material. With pictures of various modern train and bus/multimodal stations from around the world to show what other cities have done.

But there are 2 track and platform layout options presented in the board display set. Both options have different configurations of 30' wide high level platforms ranging from 900' to 1350' long with one 30' wide low level platform and one narrower 20' wide half wide low level platform for the lower level through tracks (for VRE and Amtrak Superliner trains).


----------



## Ryan (Apr 6, 2016)

OK, I'm a big time slacker and haven't written anything up on attending the meeting. Really, the viewgraphs and posters cover everything that was talked about.

In the audio, they were big on stressing that there were three different projects going on:

1) The shorter term Concourse Modernization program. Desperately needed. Construction starting soonish.

2) The Burnap Place development being done by Akridge using the air rights over the tracks to the north of the station. That's their bag, and a private property.

3) The longer term Union Station project that's going to tie everything together and making it amazing. This was a scoping and ideas session for that. Options to be presented later this year, and then onward with the schedule as shown in the slides.

On a nearer term note, the netting is down, and the scaffolding is being peeled out of the entry hall. First sunrise I've seen in there since the earthquake. I'll go for some better pictures at not-sunrise and hopefully the whole room will be opened up soon.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Apr 6, 2016)

Thanks for the pics Ryan! Good to know the ugly stuff in Union Station is starting to go away! 

Now if they'd just finish the Capitol, WWII didn't take this long!!


----------



## Ryan (Apr 6, 2016)

That's actually starting to come down as well...


----------



## afigg (Jul 25, 2016)

There will be an Open House at DC Union Station this Thursday, July 28 from 4 to 7 PM in the Starlight room. The open house will present information on the plans for the Concourse modernization project. The announcement of the Open House is on the NEC projects WAS webpage. Anyone passing through WAS this Thursday afternoon may want to stop in see what the plans are for the concourse expansion and new Acela lounge.

I would expect the display boards or viewgraph presentations from the open house will be posted on the net sometime afterwards.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 25, 2016)

I'll be banging through on the way home from work, if anyone else is going to be around give a shout.


----------



## ToniCounter (Jul 26, 2016)

that looks great for $7 billion budget.

but why does it seem like other Amtrak stations are only given a *$7 budget *for improvements? just went through one yesterday and all they had were two vending machines and two driking water fountains. according to the Amtrak guy at the ticket window, one of the water fountains has not worked for 2 years because they didn't have the budget to replace it.(beyond repair)


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> that looks great for $7 billion budget.
> 
> but why does it seem like other Amtrak stations are only given a *$7 budget *for improvements? just went through one yesterday and all they had were two vending machines and two driking water fountains. according to the Amtrak guy at the ticket window, one of the water fountains has not worked for 2 years because they didn't have the budget to replace it.(beyond repair)


Is that station building owned by Amtrak or someone else?


----------



## ToniCounter (Jul 26, 2016)

jis said:


> ToniCounter said:
> 
> 
> > that looks great for $7 billion budget.
> ...


pretty sure it was Amtrak... said Amtrak on the outside.. .only Amtrak used it for it's 3 daily trains... of course I forgot to ask the station manager to see the deed to the station... should have strolled down to the city hall on the next block and ask the clerk to look up who actually owned the station?


----------



## Eric S (Jul 26, 2016)

It's often not that simple. Stations, even if only or mostly used by Amtrak, are often owned by the freight railroad, the municipality, the local/regional transit system, or other non-Amtrak entities.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 26, 2016)

When you shop at a shopping center and see a Sears or Penny's on the outside of a building, do you assume Sears or Penny's owns the building? Most likely they're tenants, just like all the other stores in the shopping center.


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > ToniCounter said:
> ...


I did not realize that the charges you were leveling at Amtrak and its budgeting policies were born out of utter ignorance of how things work. Oh well ... In fact many stations with big Amtrak sign on them are not owned or maintained by Amtrak. Without knowing who is responsible for maintenance it is hard to say who should be held responsible for replacing the water fountain. So yeah, you did need to investigate a bit further. The information you seek is actually available on the web and does not necessarily require a trip to the city hall.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 26, 2016)

Amtrak actually owns very few stations. Chicago Union Station, New York Penn, Philadelphia 30th Street, Baltimore Penn are Amtrak owned. But everywhere else is owed by some other entity: a municipality, a transit district, a freight railroad, a private developer. In some instances a station building may be owned by a municipality, but the platforms are owned by the freight railroad.

Washington Union Station is actually owned by the U.S. Department of Transportation


----------



## afigg (Jul 26, 2016)

ToniCounter said:


> pretty sure it was Amtrak... said Amtrak on the outside.. .only Amtrak used it for it's 3 daily trains... of course I forgot to ask the station manager to see the deed to the station... should have strolled down to the city hall on the next block and ask the clerk to look up who actually owned the station?


You don't have to do that, the basic information on ownership of each station, the platforms, parking lot, and tracks is provided on the Great American Stations website. Just enter the city or station code for the station with the broken drinking fountain and look it up. Many stations are owned by the local government or sometimes for "legacy" stations, the freight railroad.

The ownership of stations and related facilities can be quite complex for large stations. Here is the GAS entry for WAS which shows the station itself is owned by the federal government, US DOT as the agency, and (portions of it) Washington Terminal Corporation, which is a holding company that goes back to the days of Penn Railroad. US DOT owns the parking garage, Washington Terminal Corporation owns the platforms and tracks.


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2016)

And Washington Terminal Company is now substantially owned by Amtrak IIRC. There was a recent flap about the whole thing and I am not sure which way it was resolved.


----------



## afigg (Mar 22, 2018)

Resurrecting an old topic, there was a public presentation scheduled for today (March 22, 2018) on the revised plan for the expansion for Washington Union Station.

The Greater Greater Washington blog posted a preview and one person's take on the now scaled back Master plan for WAS: See details for Union Station’s future expansion. In short, a smaller concourse than proposed in the earlier Master Plan, a major reduction in the number of spaces for the parking garage and parking space, but space is to preserved for up to a 4 track Metro line (or perhaps 2 new Metro line side by side) running under the station.

Not sure when the material being shown at the March 22 public presentation will be posted on the net. Although GGW and other blogs are likely to post stuff.

Phase 1, the expansion of the Clayton Concourse, appears to have started as I noticed what appeared to be at least some pre-construction or utility relocation work underway when I was at WAS a few weeks ago.


----------



## sitzplatz17 (Mar 23, 2018)

I was at the public presentation today. Nothing too exciting or new to report except that there are a whole bunch of new renderings of what the 4 to 5 alternatives are now.

Really it comes down to the question of a perpendicular over the tracks extended concourse, or a parallel over the tracks extended concourse and where to put the parking garages and the buses.

There should be a bunch of those renderings up on the website in the next few days, I'll try and post a couple tomorrow if they're not up yet.


----------



## frequentflyer (Mar 23, 2018)

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Document/17180


----------



## sitzplatz17 (Mar 23, 2018)

So they’ve narrowed it down to 5 options:




(As mentioned previously, there will be more detailed renderings available on the site within a few days, but for discussion purposes here I’m providing a little bit of an overview)

Key items to note here are that alternatives B-E all would build a parking garage under the stub end tracks. The only difference being that some of the options would be one level of parking others will have two levels.

Additionally, it should be noted that alternate C splits the bus terminal up. For intercity, local, and commuter buses there would be a garage north of H street, either west or east. The small line of purple between Claytor hall and the new train hall would be for the tourist buses only.

Note that in all cases the actual platform and track layout stays the same. It seems that Amtrak is pretty firm in the design happening there.

Unfortunately when I went the representatives of DC DOT had already left so I couldn’t ask about the H street bridge replacement project.

But there was this handout:




If I think of anything else or have time to upload more detailed photos of the alternatives I’ll be sure to add them.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Ryan (Jun 16, 2022)

4 years later....

Some new renders of what is to come.... maybe.... someday....



https://www.cfa.gov/system/files/meeting-materials/1b_CFA-16JUN22-1_FRA-WUS_Expansion-priv-dev%28pres-6-15%29.pdf





https://www.cfa.gov/system/files/meeting-materials/1_CFA-16JUN22-1_FRA-WUS_Expansion-publ-prop%28pres%29.pdf


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 16, 2022)

I'm skeptical of underground concourses. Sure, they look all nice and shiny in the renderings. Current Penn Station probably did, too.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 16, 2022)

joelkfla said:


> I'm skeptical of underground concourses. Sure, they look all nice and shiny in the renderings. Current Penn Station probably did, too.


Doesn't WAS have a little too much diesel traffic to have an underground concourse?
I suppose this is not completely underground, but it seems like it might be a problem.


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Doesn't WAS have a little too much diesel traffic to have an underground concourse?
> I suppose this is not completely underground, but it seems like it might be a problem.


Tier IV diesels with big enough exhaust fans over the tracks hosting them should be able to adequately address that problem. One should refrain from getting a classic Alco belching black smoke in there though.


----------



## jis (Jun 16, 2022)

Here is the WaPo article on it. If you have read too many WaPo articles already, might require subscription...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/06/16/union-station-dc-redevelopment-photos


----------



## A.H. Rudd (Jun 16, 2022)

Whatever will become of my beloved K-Tower?


----------



## west point (Jun 17, 2022)

Skimming this report had many surprizes. At the end was one had not heard aboutat all. Washington US has a sub basement. The platform tracks that lead to 1st street tunnel pass over the sub basemet. The sub basement roof is in such poor condition that it has temporary shoring to prevent the collaspe of the tracks above. To fix this problem the track 22 restoration is needed to do whatever is neeeded to the sub basement ceiling rebuild.. Timeline is June 2023 to start construction.

https://nec-commission.com/app/uplo...nvestment-Plan-02-Appendix-Amended-Mar-22.pdf

Page A3-298

Also 1st street tunnel will receive high density signaling.


----------



## Jack Davis (Jun 17, 2022)

dlagrua said:


> I have reviewed the 6 pages of pictures of the planned Washingon Union Station. As a preservationist what scares me is that nowhere in the architects drawings do I see anything of the original station. It must be saved as it is a historic gem that could never be built again. Does anyone know of the plans for the old station?


I recall arriving into the D.C. Station a couple of decades ago and I was told by friends that it had just undergone a renovation that kept its historical status. The ceiling was beautiful as I recall. So, now the yahoos of industry are out there doing their best to 'upgrade' everything they can, no matter the significance.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 17, 2022)

There are no "yahoos of industry" trying to "upgrade" anything. This project is all about the expansion of the station and air rights over the track. The historical portion will remain in its current glory. Every post immediately after this 10-year old post that you've quoted points this out. @dlagrua was wrong 10 years ago, and he remains wrong today.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 17, 2022)

A.H. Rudd said:


> View attachment 28639
> 
> 
> Whatever will become of my beloved K-Tower?


My understanding is that it will be relocated and reconstructed as a restaurant. This piece of historic railroad infrastructure will continue to be celebrated.


----------



## tricia (Jun 17, 2022)

jis said:


> Here is the WaPo article on it. If you have read too many WaPo articles already, might require subscription...
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/06/16/union-station-dc-redevelopment-photos



Beat me to posting this. 

FWIW, the comments on this article lean heavily toward complaint that this is mainly an expensive boondoggle to benefit private developers.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 17, 2022)

west point said:


> Skimming this report had many surprizes. At the end was one had not heard aboutat all. Washington US has a sub basement. The platform tracks that lead to 1st street tunnel pass over the sub basemet. The sub basement roof is in such poor condition that it has temporary shoring to prevent the collaspe of the tracks above. To fix this problem the track 22 restoration is needed to do whatever is neeeded to the sub basement ceiling rebuild.. Timeline is June 2023 to start construction.
> 
> https://nec-commission.com/app/uplo...nvestment-Plan-02-Appendix-Amended-Mar-22.pdf
> 
> ...


I'm going to withhold comment on what might be lurking there in that basement.... But very interesting find. That's quite an expensive repair (I don't know how large it is, what the structure is and/or how bad it is (plus I don't know the labor rates in DC plus the recent inflation on construction has clouded estimates). 

I also loved how they described NY Penn as "two basements" in the report!


----------



## west point (Jun 18, 2022)

Hope some one can come up with a track diagram for the lower level of WASH US. Especially how track 22 is going to avoid the sub basement problem at the throat of the 1st stree tunnel.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jun 18, 2022)

west point said:


> Hope some one can come up with a track diagram for the lower level of WASH US. Especially how track 22 is going to avoid the sub basement problem at the throat of the 1st stree tunnel.


Wasn't too hard to find. Starts on page 292.


https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-06/Appendix%20B_Terminal%20Infrastructure%20Report_WUSDEIS_pdfa.pdf


----------



## b1xn00d (Jun 18, 2022)

How much of the congestion there would be relieved if Amtrak used the same boarding procedure as every other railroad, i.e. tell people which track their train is on and leave it to them to be on the platform when it comes? The airline-style gate check is a huge bottleneck IMO, and rebuilding the station (expensive) to relieve congestion before even trying operational changes (cheap) seems foolish.

I'm also a bit perplexed by the lack of any obvious mention of the subway in the documents I've seen about this.

I love the planned renovation but can't help but wonder if it's really the best use of $10 billion in scarce transportation funding. That's enough money to electrify every passenger route in Virginia and the Carolinas with enough left over to do some serious curve straightening on the NEC.


----------



## west point (Jun 19, 2022)

Skimmed the WASH US EIS on redoing the tracks and platforms. Option 14 is the choice. The station will have to run on a very tight on time schedule. The overhaul will rotate shut downs of many of the tracks and platforms. It appears that all the operators will need to arrive on time and depart on time during the years of construction. As well quicker turn times. The higher NEC speeds may mean no reductions in schedules. Instead keep WASH from getting out of sync.

Consideration of changing the thru trains to Diesel power at PHL was also mentioned. That happening when several of the lower level tracks will be out of service especially for the sub basement overhaul. It seems that the sub baement overhaul is key to much of the other works. However it appears work cannot start until Amtrak gets control of the station lease. Part of the station above the sub basement is not part of Amtrak's lease.

The thru put of the 1st street tunnel is limited to one train at a time due to diesel emissions. Ventilation cannot really be improved as new ventilation shafts would exit on the capitol grounds.



https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-06/Appendix%20B_Terminal%20Infrastructure%20Report_WUSDEIS_pdfa.pdf


----------



## jis (Jun 19, 2022)

This document lists projects involving Washington Union Station that are of relevance to this thread 



https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2022/03/FY22-26-Capital-Investment-Plan-02-Appendix-Amended-Mar-22.pdf


----------



## NES28 (Jun 19, 2022)

west point said:


> The thru put of the 1st street tunnel is limited to one train at a time due to diesel emissions. Ventilation cannot really be improved as new ventilation shafts would exit on the capitol grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-06/Appendix%20B_Terminal%20Infrastructure%20Report_WUSDEIS_pdfa.pdf


Seems as if electrifying the 1st Street tunnel is critical. With the the next generation of NEC trains on order being dual-mode this would seem to be doable. Does anyone know its vertical clearance?


----------



## west point (Jun 19, 2022)

NES28 said:


> Seems as if electrifying the 1st Street tunnel is critical. With the the next generation of NEC trains on order being dual-mode this would seem to be doable. Does anyone know its vertical clearance?


Agree about eletrifying both bores. We do know that both bores will clear Superliners but not double stacks. How close it would be from top of rail to CAT have no idea. Might have to use a power rail system. It may depend on if the ceiling is mostly flat or curved. Too curved a ceiling the pan might short out on the ceiling? Maybe soeone can find a clearance diagram. Maybe 1st street bores will need notching.

But none of this can be done until Amtrak gets full control of the sub basement area as part of the whole station. Have no idea if track 22 work can connect to the tunnel bores tracks until Amtrak gets control.

Electrifying to ALX is important but dealing with CAT on CSX tracks ??? IMO this is one more reason that the second Long Bridge is completed as soon as possible along with 4 tracking from 1st street to ALX.


----------



## jis (Jun 19, 2022)

west point said:


> Agree about eletrifying both bores. We do know that both bores will clear Superliners but not double stacks. How close it would be from top of rail to CAT have no idea. Might have to use a power rail system. It may depend on if the ceiling is mostly flat or curved. Too curved a ceiling the pan might short out on the ceiling? Maybe soeone can find a clearance diagram. Maybe 1st street bores will need notching.


For what it is worth, here you go. The original drawings for your perusal.









Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers : American Society of Civil Engineers : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


v. 29-30 include papers of the International Engineering Congress, Chicago, 1893; v. 54 includes papers of the International Engineering Congress, St. Louis,...



archive.org





Nominally the limiting clearance is 17' from ToR to crown, though most of it would appear to be 18' from ToR to the crown. It seems feasible to lower the ToR by a foot or two, so with some effort it would appear that electrification is feasible with even adequate clearance for 25kV.. Due to the structure of the tunnel, notching may be difficult.


----------



## west point (Jun 19, 2022)

jis : agree. If the rest of the tunnel bores are the same as those above the sub basement. Have often wondered why CAT only went 400 feet into the bores.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 20, 2022)

What good would extending it further into the tunnel have done in the past?


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 20, 2022)

Wow. This thread started 10 years ago and literally nothing has been moved forward on at WAS.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 20, 2022)

VentureForth said:


> Wow. This thread started 10 years ago and literally nothing has been moved forward on at WAS.


Better take a trip and see the work being done on Track 22.



This was from a year ago. It was a lot further along the last time I passed through, which was in March 2022 or thereabouts.


----------



## west point (Jun 20, 2022)

Descriptions and better still photos would be info on track 22 approaches to the 1st street tunnel.

Theere is another surprize when thumbing through the 2035 service tables. There are no additional LD services south of WASH Union Station planned.. That seems to iexclude a third train to Florida and any day train to / from ATL.


----------



## jis (Jun 22, 2022)

west point said:


> Theere is another surprize when thumbing through the 2035 service tables. There are no additional LD services south of WASH Union Station planned.. That seems to iexclude a third train to Florida and any day train to / from ATL.


As long as the total train count remains the same, which trains are designated Intercity and which LD is a detail that is a matter that usually gets resolved on an ongoing basis way after the thing is built, if it is that is. So beyond the total train count, the operating patterns and division of the count among different types is not something that at least I worry about at this stage.

But yeah, I had noticed that when I read the document the first time many weeks back.


----------



## NES28 (Jun 22, 2022)

west point said:


> Theere is another surprize when thumbing through the 2035 service tables. There are no additional LD services south of WASH Union Station planned.. That seems to iexclude a third train to Florida and any day train to / from ATL.


The law was changed in about 2008 to make clear that Amtrak has to fund operations of long distance trains itself while regional trains (less than 750 miles) are now "state-supported" service. I don't think that there has been a new long distance train established for years; it would, essentially, take an act of Congress. The real problem with this construct is that it doesn't accommodate long regional day trains serving multiple city pairs: NYC-Atlanta, NYC-Chicago, or Chicago-Florida.


----------



## west point (Jul 5, 2022)

Speculation: It may be that the primary leasee holder is requiring Amtrak to stay into the limits of Amtrak's sub leasee. Sort of a payback on Amtrak's Eminent Domain filing for complete control of Union Station?. If someone has access to a diagram of Amtrak's actual lease limits that would probably counter this speculation.


----------



## jis (Nov 14, 2022)

Another WaPo article on Washington Union Station



https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/11/13/union-station-dc-rail-renovation/


----------



## jis (Nov 19, 2022)

MODERATOR'S NOTE: A large number of posts about current facilities, convenience and experiences of Washington Union Station have been moved out of this thread into the following dedicated thread on those subjects:

https://www.amtraktrains.com/thread...facilities-convenience-and-experiences.83700/
Please use this new thread to discuss current facilities, experiences and whether the station is convenient for accessing Washington DC or not at the present time and reserve the original thread for discussing the redevelopment project.

Thank you for your understanding, cooperation and participation.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 1, 2023)

Here's a nice little "high level" video that shows what the refurbished Union Station will look like (You'll have to click through to You Tube to view it.).



Looks like they'll have 3 concourses and multiple vehicle drop-off locations, so they can spread out the commuter crowd from all having to congregate at the south end concourse. You'll be able to access the platforms from the middle of the trains. I'm hoping that will reduce or even eliminate the cattle lines for the Amtrak trains. The only thing they need to worry about is getting people away from accessing the station from Columbus Circle. The additional drop-off locations will help, and they can reroute Metrobuses to stop at different places, but the Metro station will still be feeding passengers into the south end. Maybe they could build a passageway with a moving sidewalk to get people up towards H St. That would also allow a more obvious connection to the trolley.

No real information about what the waiting areas will look like, or whether there's going to be a new Club Acela/Metropolitan Lounge. Of course, most MARC/VRE riders don't wait around too long, if at all. Also, it wasn't clear about how many of the lower-level platforms will be high-level platforms. They're going to need to retain a few low level-platforms for the VRE trains, and the Capitol, too, as long as it keeps using Superliners, but with more and more Northeast Regionals continuing on to Virginia, it would speed up loading and unloading if they could open all the train doors and passengers didn't have to climbdown steps. They won't have the time cushion of the engine change after the new dual-modes come into service, although I guess Washington will still be a crew change, so they won't be unloading, loading and on their way in 2 minutes or whatever.


----------



## joelkfla (Jan 1, 2023)

MARC Rider said:


> Here's a nice little "high level" video that shows what the refurbished Union Station will look like (You'll have to click through to You Tube to view it.).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was there any space shown for dining and retail, other than a coffee stand? If there was, I missed it.

I'm not a fan of stepping from the classical architecture of the Great Hall directly into an oversized airport terminal. Seems like culture clash.


----------

