Washington DC Union Station redevelpment plans

[Ryan]

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

 

[jis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sometimes it pays to read beyond the headline.

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

 

[jis]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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")

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...