Washington, District of Columbia
A Modern Transit Hub for the Nation's Capital City
Washington, DC has a well-established transportation network linking the city to all points of interest in the US. DC also has a robust local transportation network, linking a wide variety of points of interest, by way of passenger car, bus, streetcar, metro, light rail, and traditional rail connections to nearby destinations and along the shared coast. The transportation programme aims to provide service to its 671,000 residents, in addition to a regularly-flowing tourist influx.
Any station proposal would seek to seamlessly integrate with that system, covering any potential gaps in service where possible, and improving existing facilities to ensure proper connection between the city and the National grid.
The primary proposal for a National connection is the current Union Station. The station is in good shape, but has limited capacity and little room to grow. There is a current proposal to redevelop and add onto Union Station, with no changes to the actual throughput, but adding residential, and switching out local parking (a sizeable portion of the station's operating revenues) with a better-integrated bus terminal. The majority of the redevelopment plan is geared towards making the station taller, and attaching modern glass fixtures to the classical marble existing structure.
While Union Station would be the ideal destination of the Redline, as it is centrally located and connected to a variety of local transit options, the capacity limitations of geology and existing tunnels and/or buildings makes it difficult to assess whether the station could be developed properly downward, accommodating tunnels to enter and exit the city without disturbing the existing cityscape.
With those questions in mind, a variety of other potential solutions and additions are proposed.
DC Union Station
A New Dawn for the Nation's Rail System
If it should come to pass that restrictions on development are found to be without merit, and the hardened rock subsurface can be reliably worked, an extension of Union Station is offered.
The primary aim of the downward expansion is the establishment of new tunnels for train service.
The construction of Union Station in 1907 was with white granite, which makes up the exterior, the later renovation in the 2000s involved a substantial amount of marble for the interior. A similar expansion using stone blocks would be employed in this case, with more modern elements similar to that of the current proposal being offered. A comprehensive analysis of repair estimates, longevity, and replacement/refurbishment costs would be included for the purpose of ensuring a long life for any new construction.
DC Union Station Alternative
Circumventing Foundation Issues By Going Next Door
One of the primary obstacles of developing new station area and tunneling in the existing Union Station footprint is the quasi-permanent foundation that the station is built on.
As a method of getting around the numerous potential problems of geology, the expansion for a Maglev terminal could be achieved by undergrounding the majority of the station terminal under adjacent public and private property.
2 Massachusetts Ave has recently been opened to potential sale, and is located cattycorner to Union Station proper. By overtaking that property area, it would allow for a small surface footprint over top of an expansive underground station, which would then be connected to the main Union Station complex according to current and future development planning.
The general aim of the Maglev passenger service is to streamline transit in a manner similar to Metro or other "card-based" access token systems. The Maglev service is city-to-city, and, depending on a comprehensive analysis of the economics, could be almost fully automated, with numerous trips per day on the primary routes. In theory, "hop on / hop off" could be achieved, reducing overhead and providing sufficient available transportation "supply" for regular use at a respectable price, or otherwise linking tickets to a digital registration on the card for access to the terminal itself (with kiosks in a small footprint "station" to provide cards in a manner similar to WMATA). While perhaps security theater would be provided, and perhaps baggage could be handled like that of airports, in theory the time cost of trains should maintain a cost-benefit improvement over air travel from a concerted design perspective.
Olympic Park Station
A New Station for New Journeys
As a gateway to Olympic Park and a connective feature of Union Station, a hybridized modern and classical Roman architecture would be employed, surrounding patrons with marble while simultaneously allowing light to illuminate the halls from glass features. The scale of the structure should be considered monumental in its own right, whether with a separate ornate gateway attached in path from the station, or within the station itself.
Intermodal Transfer Station at Hechinger Mall
An Alternate Model of High-Capacity Logistics
As a branch from the main passenger station, private freight shipments would be routed through the transfer station, facilitated with automation and directed into last-mile delivery. Traditional rail shipments that need an intermediate step (intermodal trucking), would make use of existing facilities for that purpose.
While a model similar to Chicago's Merchandise Mart could be employed, a predominantly warehousing and transfer system is the primary aim, accommodating "big box" retailers like Walmart and Costco, and ubiquitous online retailers like Amazon.
This facility could coincide with USPS package services facilitated by the proposed closer integration of rail service to offset long-range and mid-range trucking costs.
Reservoir Park Station
East-West Dedicated Station Route on North Capital
While Reservoir Park has only been recently rehabilitated, the site could serve as an integral part of a multi-station solution, linking Union Station to Reservoir Park Station by way of a route along North Capital, Olympic Park Station by way of H Street and Benning Road, and a separately proposed local line to Embassy Row to the West/North-West by way of Massachusetts Ave.
North Capital has been proposed as a selection for "boulevard reformation", turning a largely high-density above-ground vehicular transit corridor into a modern pedestrian and biker's dream. This seems reasonable, with the proper additions. Should a street car similar to that on H street be constructed, and a tunnel from Union Station to the proposed Reservoir Park Station constructed, this would allow for multiple transit links to multiple stations, connecting disparate routing alignments without the need for attempting to have all alignments go into and out of a single station.
While the park is a large site, and could be developed as a multi-use commercial and residential property with affordable housing and midrise apartment complexes over first floor retail, it could alternatively merely take over the North side and East corner of the property, while transforming some part of the open field into a manicured park and "waiting" area.
The East-West route primarily concerns a light rail route to Annapolis and the coast, making this station somewhat unique as the "beach rail station". That route is elaborated on in another section, but is principally DC to Annapolis. The exit path would aim to follow that of the John Hanson Parkway.
Waldorf Astoria / Smithsonian Station
Bringing Life to Federal Triangle
This location is not especially attractive to place a rail station. The building is not especially attractive for much of anything because of its look and because of its location. However, the location is on line with the Metro, it does have some high culture and luxury amenities nearby, and the ownership of the property is not looking like they will be able to take care of the property.
This site proposal aims to improve the foot traffic to the area by converting 1-3 floors of the Waldorf Astoria into the business end of the station, allowing for seating and lounges and bars. The tunnels would be far below, underneath the supports for the monstrous building, with entrances and exits in the surround structures as is feasible by appropriation.
The present setting of a stairway down to "guest and patron" rooms might serve as a primary gateway from within the new "station terminal".
The tunnels could run adjacent to the Metro lines, or otherwise configured to run along the general alignment of Route 1 and 395 to the South, and traversing the city around the Capitol towards the separately proposed Hechinger Mall Station location to the Northeast. The Hechinger Mall location, while originally proposed as an intermodal hub for the city, could remain as such, or it could be a transformation of the mall to accommodate a kind of transitory retail space, akin to the transformed rail station in Richmond, Virginia, with an elongated visiting space evoking a beer hall or market vibe in modernist form. This reconfiguration could still provide for the intermodal portion, while simultaneously providing a passenger extension from the Federal Triangle location without necessarily entering the Metro transit system.
The effect of the above connection is to provide a direct route between Federal Triangle to the site at Hechinger Mall (Maryland at H St/Benning Road), which is itself connected to the Streetcar running to both Union Station and the proposed RFK Olympic Park Station (in this form, for Metro, Streetcar, and Bus access). As the Federal Triangle location is unsuitable as a transit hub, the Hechinger mall location is a midway point between Union station and the proposed Bus services at or around RFK.
Waldorf Astoria Station Interior
The God of Travel Bids You Welcome
The original design of the statue was meant to be set atop a water fountain. It would be the aim to do it precisely so, with water splashing against the foot of Mercury, setting him aloft.
DCA Maglev Terminal
Trains, Planes, and Automobiles
Adjacent to the Ronald Reagan International Airport (DCA) at Crystal City, the Maglev train station allows flows from the airport onto the national grid, or allows airport users to quickly get to the international airport of their choosing within the DC Metro Area (BWI, Dulles, DC).
As the DCA airport is located on the DC Metro system, this allows for connection to the train station or airport from any of the three airports (for example, if a person who was set to fly from one airport is forced to divert to another in order to change flight itineraries). Direct access to DC's urban centers by Metro is an ideal situation for a suburban Maglev terminal.
Similarly, by virtue of the Metro and access to the highway network, a train station with complementary amenity fulfillments (eg car rentals) could benefit from the proximity.
A potential configuration would be a passenger terminal at DCA, a city terminal at the Waldorf Astoria, and a hybridized station at Hechinger Mall. The purpose is to provide access to different routes that overlap with the main line.
For example, the Waldorf Astoria line might be exclusively Maglev--light passenger city-to-city transit. The routes from the DCA station might include both Amtrak and Maglev routes. The routes from Hechinger mall might be car carriers on traditional rail, traditional freight, USPS Maglev, and limited passenger service / alternate pickup/dropoff. In effect, it provides versatility and a robust network for the region, capitalizing on pre-existing infrastructure.
The James V. Forrestal Building
Brutalism Reimagined for the Maglev Subway
"What to do about the Forrestal Building?"
Is it an eyesore? A monument to history? A functional place to work?
I suppose so.
However, the question of whether the property will stand has drawn my attention to it as a question of whether it, or its underlying property, could be used in the effort to bring Maglev service to DC. Its location on the Southern side of the city near the river and its bridges provides it an interesting location for the purpose of construction.
One of the principle issues with digging tunnels in an urban environment is establishing a place from which those tunnels can be dug laterally. This typically involves digging a big hole in the ground, and if you're trying to do that in a heavily trafficked area, it might cause substantive problems from a logistics and structural stability perspective (not to mention noise pollution and damage to city streets by construction equipment).
There has been talk of demolishing the building and replacing it with something else. Its footprint and the adjacent L'Enfant Plaza streetway could provide the necessary clearances for an elongated Tunnel Boring Machine launch area. In theory, just as with the Union Station alternative, this site could serve a hybridized upper complex over top of an underground terminal. A First Floor Train station could be topped by a largely residential expansion, improving the commercial/residential mix for the area that DC has been seeking.
It would be the aim of first establishing the tunnels, then reconstructing a complex over top that would highlight the 10th Street promenade through a vertical framing of that promenade, as the structure would no longer be limited to a contiguous span of a singular office complex. Just as was imagined in its construction, exiting the "Smithsonian corridor" on Independence Ave by passage through the "gate" of L'Enfant Plaza between the structures would open up to an open plaza area, with somewhat recessed glass-enclosed first floor station amenities on either side.
There could be an effort to frame the large glass portions with artfully formed limestone and marble structural members very lightly similar to the concept of "limestone ribs over glass", providing an interplay between old and new design. I imagine high archways and modestly large Doric columns with glass from floor to ceiling on the ends, with similar design along its lengths, with perhaps the play between the Forrestal building's architecture and the new structure along an elevated band along the top of the first floor enclosure.
Per Wikipedia:
The Forrestal Building is located at 1000 Independence Avenue SW. The site is bounded by Independence Avenue SW, 9th Street SW, 11th Street SW, and the CSX railroad tracks (which run below-grade along what used to be Maryland Avenue on a southwest–northeast alignment).[80] Although the site falls within the protected historic area of the National Mall,[81] the Forrestal Building itself is not on the National Register of Historic Places.[82]
The Legal Issue of Eminent Domain
Seizure of Union Station by a Governmental For-Profit
Eminent domain has a singular purpose:
Appropriate land that would not otherwise be sold for the purpose of providing public amenities, like public parks, or a highway system for use by all.
Amtrak, while technically classified as a governmental entity, is not a public service. It is a train operator that is controlled by the government and subsidized that Federal government to provide a service that is purchased by regular consumers. Amtrak, while never profitable, charges all passengers a fee for its use. Its stations are not public land, and up until the recent court decision granting Amtrak ownership of Union Station over the objections of its ownership group, the station was definitively private property. Prospective travelers buy tickets at a variable market rate, board the train, display their proof of purchase, and complete their trip.
For an assessment of the Amtrak "publicification" of the station, the Amtrak plan is to: add benches, take away parking, sell the air rights to a private developer, and reorganize the way buses enter and exit the station.
That's pretty much it. It is not improving the logistics throughput of the station, and it is not really proposing much of anything at all besides enclosing the terminal in glass and taking away a public bridge....for $8.8B, which is likely closer to $12B by now. They're moving rails around to make it prettier and grandiose in a modernistic sense--not to improve throughput. They say they are improving the throughput but their data says it isn't. It's the exact same number of rail lines, and the projection is simply a return to prior levels of use. The plan takes away the one reliable source of income--parking--and then expects its perpetually money-losing quasi-governmental management to operate for-profit retail successfully after over a history of 50 years of negative cash flow and routinely failing to meet its own budgeting analysis.
Again, Amtrak may be technically a government entity and its mission is to serve people, but its operations are not public use. Its tracks are privately owned, its stations are privately owned, and there is nothing "public" about what Amtrak is proposing. Its Focus is on Megabus-like private enterprise accommodations, private restaurants, private parking for private rental companies, its own use of the rails that go through the station (as MARC is additionally an Amtrak venture administered by Maryland DoT but operated by the private company Alstom, a subsidiary of GE), and its process of acquiring the station--proposing a valuation of approximately 1/3 of the current ownership appraisal--is securing the station for economic reasons--not public use reasons. Using the ultimate "public good" tool that the federal government can only use lacking another reasonable recourse, and only for the purpose of providing a public good like a utility or a public park (and even park entry fees are in the gray area within the National Park System) is a fundamental misuse of the eminent domain predicate.
Eminent domain is used for developing *parks*, not selling off air rights to private developers who are already asking for a waiver of city height restrictions so as to provide more apartments that fill their own private coffers.
As mentioned in the above sections, there are numerous alternatives to Union Station if you actually want to serve the public, either as a private enterprise or as a public one or some joint arrangement, and it is a lack of imagination or the bloodthirst of an overzealous political machine that prompts them to make such brazen steps to take what is not theirs and do nothing to serve the public in its "reimagining".
Union Station certainly is the "crown jewel" of DC. It would be a shame for it to be relegated to a decade of renovation work only to do exactly what it's doing now, just with benches.
The Court Authorization of Eminent Domain
Additional Information
Amtrak must show "necessity" regarding the taking of land for rail transportation.
Amtrak must do the "taking" in conjunction with Congress and the Department of Transportation.
Use of Union Station must first be a transportation hub and secondarily be a commercial hub.
Condemning authorities must prove the taking is for public use
City of Stockbridge v. Meeks (2007)
The present court cited the 1973 Amtrak Improvement Act that granted "the corporation" with that authority of eminent domain. The lender raised a substantive legal question regarding Amtrak's authority, just as i did, but the court disagreed based on the Congressional authority that was granted. The Supreme court ruled (5-4) that the US government could seize property for economic development, but effectively encouraged States to defend private property owners against its misuse. The "neccesity" rule is the critical component or protection.
"Even considering it now, Lender has not demonstrated error. Lender focuses on Congress’s policy statement at the start of the USRA that “the purposes of this Act are to achieve the goals of historic preservation and improved rail use of Union Station with maximum reliance on the private sector and the minimum requirement for Federal assistance.” Id. at 15 (quoting Pub. L. No. 97-125, 95 Stat. 1667, § 2(7). Lender is correct that the USRA authorized—though did not require— the Secretary of Transportation to enter into agreements with private entities to rehabilitate and redevelop Union Station, 95 Stat. at 1670, § 115(a), and enter into lease agreements to manage and operate the property, id. § 116(b). It also set out as a goal “[c]ommercial development of the Union Station complex that will, to the extent possible, financially support the continued operation and maintenance of such complex.” Id. § 112(c). But what Lender ignores is that Congress expressly prioritized the USRA’s purposes. It tasked the Secretary with “provid[ing] for the rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Union Station complex primarily as a multi-use transportation terminal system serving the Nation’s Capital, and secondarily as a commercial complex.” Id. § 112 (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent Lender suggests the court should have ignored or discounted Amtrak’s stated present and future goals for improving rail passenger service in favor of maintaining Union Station’s commercial character, that approach has it backwards."
"Defendant also claims that Exhibit 10 does not support necessity because it shows that Amtrak “seek[s] to revert Union Station to a large waiting area for Amtrak customers.” Lender’s Mem. at 18. That description is grossly inaccurate. Exhibit 10 contemplates a redesign of Union Station that admittedly would prioritize the customer experience, but it also includes areas for retail and food offerings (albeit fewer than now), event spaces, and offices for Amtrak crew, police, and support functions. To be sure, Exhibit 10 is a concept design, and the court understood it as such. But it does convey the importance, at least to Amtrak, of reconfiguring Union Station from its present layout to one that would enhance the rail passenger customer experience."
"Lender identifies five types of irreparable harm: (1) the loss of its property interest in a landmark building, (2) the “carefully-crafted ownership structure of Union Station will be disregarded,” (3) its “entire corporate purpose will be undermined, and its existence as a business will assuredly cease,” (4) its relationship with vendors will be harmed, and (5) Amtrak may make large-scale and irreversible alterations to Union Station. Lender’s Mem. at 24–27. Notably, Lender has offered no evidence in the form of an affidavit, or otherwise, to support any of these claimed harms. All of them (except perhaps the fifth) can, in a sense, by answered by a single response: the grant of immediate possession is not a final judgment. Lender still may seek to prove that Amtrak’s taking of the Leasehold Interest does not satisfy the requirements of § 24311. If that happens, Lender will resume control of the Leasehold Interest, having suffered harm only temporarily. The same result would obtain if Lender were to convince the D.C. Circuit that the court erred after entry of final judgment, albeit on a longer timeline. Return of the Leasehold Interest, plus compensation for financial losses, presumably would repair any damage suffered by Lender."