Union Station in DC by Geoff Livingston.

Union Station in DC is a key transportation hub serving 37 million riders annually on various modes of transit, but the station is also in need of a makeover to address a range of issues, from insufficient train tracks to long passenger bottlenecks. The $5 to $7-billion Washington Union Station Expansion Project involves myriad different local and federal agencies, private developers, and of course, the public. And they’re not all in agreement on how to get it done.

Amtrak wants to update its tracks for a growing number of passengers, and the nonprofit Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC), which leases and manages much of the station, wants to protect its history, maintain retail, and ensure it’s up to modern standards. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which is one of nine agencies that make up the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), owns the complex, and is in charge of figuring out how the project will impact the area. To add to the complexity, development firm Akridge wants to execute a sibling project above the Amtrak rail yard called Burnham Place.

Some local Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners (ANCs) and Akridge have concerns about recent project designs. They also say communication from the FRA, which is leading the revitalization efforts, has been sparse.

On October 29, local ANCs held a public meeting along with Akridge to express some of their concerns. As we will unpack in upcoming stories, the main issues are the amount of parking needed on the site, whether intercity buses remain at the station, traffic congestion along K Street, and the fate of H Street and the garage that faces that street.

A rendering of the proposed Union Station revitalization area. Image by FRA.gov.

A brief timeline of how this project came to be

In October 2008, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), which called for the FRA to come up with a vision to “promote an integrated, cohesive, efficient, and optimized national rail system for the movement of goods and people[.]” The Union Station project is a local part of this national plan. The following year the FRA presented its Preliminary National Plan, which emphasized that rail plans should incorporate other modes of transit.

According to the data from the FRA’s 2010 National Plan Progress Report, “Americans require the freight system to move 40 tons of freight per person annually. This includes bulk commodities such as coal for power, grains for food, and high-value consumer goods.” Project organizers predict that demand for rail will increase, since the US population is expected to grow by 70 million people within the next 25 years, and by 100 million over the next 40 years. This translates to about 2.8 and 4 billion more tons of freight over this span of time.

In 2012, Amtrak presented its Washington Union Station 2012 Master Plan Vision laying out a plan to modernize the station in four phases, which would between 10 to 13 years to complete. Plans include a new train shed, tracks, and platforms to accommodate more passengers and improve accessibility and comfort.

During a March 2018 public meeting, the FRA presented various alternatives in its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), along with conceptual designs for the project. It further expressed the need to renovate the station to meet the growing demand for rail and other multi-modal services which goes through Union Station.

What exactly is the Revitalization Plan?

Union Station is over 111 years old. It was designed by Daniel Burnham in 1908 and was named a historic site in 1964. Because it is older, many things need to be upgraded to meet the national rail plan requirements. This includes preparing for long term growth, ensuring all the platforms are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible, and improving circulation and emergency exits.

The revitalization plan actually encompasses two locations. There is the project directly on the Union Station site, which will basically revamp everything including the tracks, the mall, the train hall, the garage behind the station, even the concourse in front of the station.

A phasing of the Union Station Revitalization project. Image by Amtrak.

And then there is the Burnham Place project, which will be built on top of the rail tracks.

Burnham Place is a 14-acre development that would add 1,300 residential units, 500 hotel rooms, office space, and 100,000 square feet of retail, according to the 2012 vision for the site. Private developer Akridge owns the air rights above the rail tracks and is in charge of this project. The development site is in the Union Station North (USN) zone, which was created specifically for this project.

A rendering of the entrance from the NoMa neighborhood up to Burnham Place or into Union Station.  Image by Shalom Baranes Associates used with permission.

The many types of services offered at Union Station translate into a large number of players connected to the revitalization plan. The FRA is the lead agency running point on the project. However, there are several other agencies that either owns a portion of the area, or have a vested interest in the project.

Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA), the Virginia Department of Rail & Public Transportation (VDRPT), the National Park Service (NPS), the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Amtrak, USRC, and Akridge are all connected to the process and execution of this project.

Plus other entities want to weigh in, like the local Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, ride-hailing companies that will utilize the facilities, and the many bus companies that will flow in and out of the station.

All the agencies that own part of the Union Station site. Image by Federal Railroad Administration.

At a meeting about the project, some aired concerns

While the project is moving along and some preliminary designs have been released during public meetings, ANC members in Ward 6C and developers from Akridge feel that there isn’t enough transparency surrounding the project.

“I’m really concerned that we’re reaching a point where decisions are being made about an enormous project and the needs of the community just aren’t being taken into account,” said Drew Courtney, a Ward 6C commissioner who took office in June 2019. “The concerns that we have around how traffic is influencing the neighborhood, the emphasis we are putting on parking as opposed to transit and other ways of getting folks around. It seems like things are happening that is not bringing in that input at all.”

ANC members wrote letters to several agencies including DDOT and the FRA asking for answers about the plans and demanding more transparency.

“I would like to see more community involvement and I’d like to see more conversation at every level of the city government, emphasizing how critically important this is to the neighborhood,” Courtney said.

Mark Kazmierczak, the former chair of the Transportation and Public Space Committee for Ward 6C, agrees. He helped organize a public meeting about the project on October 29. “I don’t have a good grasp of what the FRA and other players, what their schedule is, and what they are intending,” Kazmierczak said.

Kazmierczak said that members of his committee reached out to the FRA and USRC to sit down and meet in February of this year. FRA couldn’t meet because of the government shutdown. Members of the USRC met, but follow up attempts to continue the conversation between ANC members, the community, and FRA have been slow.

“We haven’t really rekindled that,” Kazmierczak said. “And they’re certainly not making any efforts to reach out to us.”

A snapshot of the project timeline from March 2018. Image by Federal Railroad Administration.

David Tuchmann, VP of Development for Akridge, gave a presentation during the ANC meeting about early designs. He laid out key priorities that needed to be addressed for the project to be a “community asset” including prioritizing neighborhood compatibility, reducing parking and improving circulation, re-sizing and relocating the bus facilities and ensuring pick-up and drop off points are strategically located.

However, Tuchmann was also excited about the opportunity that the Union Station project presents.

“We need to think of our transportation facilities like Union Station as both working for transportation and working for us as a neighborhood,” Tuchmann said. “And that can be done. It has been executed elsewhere.”

Right now ANCs, developers and the community are waiting for the FRA’s draft of the EIS report and preferred design alternative in early 2020. They are hoping for a chance to talk to the FRA and other agencies about design concerns and how they may impact the Capital Hill and NoMa neighborhoods.

On November 12, the FRA responded to our inquiry about the number of public meetings for this project, stating: “The environmental impact statement process requires the Federal Railroad Administration (to) host one public meeting before the draft environmental impact statement public hearing. The Federal Railroad Administration exceeded this requirement by engaging with the public and the communities surrounding Washington Union Station on multiple occasions:

  • FRA has hosted four public meetings since 2015 and will host another in 2020 after completing the draft environmental impact statement.
  • FRA also participated in two meetings with a Community Communications Committee — a group composed of area residents, multimodal transportation users and commercial services — to get feedback, another effort to ensure effective public engagement.
  • In fall 2018, FRA and project proponents participated in 20 public events near Union Station and Capitol Hill to engage the public and community organizations while providing more information about the Washington Union Station Expansion Project.
  • Moving forward, FRA and the project proponents will continue to announce additional community engagement opportunities on the project websites.”

I also asked via email about potential plans to route all parking garage traffic through an entrance on K Street, where DDOT is currently performing a corridor safety study to reduce traffic through this residential.

The FRA responded by email: “FRA announced alternatives that will be evaluated in the environmental impact statement and presented them in detail at the fourth public meeting on March 22, 2018. Some alternatives include underground parking that is accessed from K Street. The District of Columbia Department of Transportation is a cooperating agency for the preparation of the environmental impact statement and is involved in transportation and traffic planning and analysis for the project. The project proponents and FRA are aware of and have coordinated with DDOT on the K Street corridor safety study.”

We’re going to continue to write about the revitalization proposals and delve into key issues that have come up so far. Stay tuned.

This story was updated with comment from the FRA on Friday, November 15, 2019.