Washington DC Union Station redevelpment plans

[Bob Dylan]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Andrew]

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

 

[keelhauled]

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

 

[neroden]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[jis]

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

I tend to agree on both counts.

 

[afigg]

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]

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.