Washington DC Union Station redevelpment plans

[Anderson]

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? -_-

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]

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? -_-

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]

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.

 

[user 1215]

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]

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]

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?

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]

If your not going to take or at least consider taking a train, why go to a train station?

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.

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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? -_-

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

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

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.

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

 

[Anderson]

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]

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.

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

*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?