DOCSLIB.ORG

Washington Union Station Expansion Project Concept Screening Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Washington Union Station Expansion Project Concept Screening Report Table of Contents 1 Purpose of this Report ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................................................. 5 4 What was the Concept Development Process? ....................................................................................................... 5 5 What was the Concept Screening Process? ........................................................................................................... 14 6 How has FRA Advanced Concepts to Preliminary Alternatives? ............................................................................. 23 6.1 Bus Access via New York Avenue Viaduct ................................................................................................ 24 6.2 Underground Bus Facility within the Station Area .................................................................................... 24 6.3 Metrobus/Commuter Bus in the Bus Facility ............................................................................................ 25 6.4 Element Options Outside Railyard Footprint, including Parking under Columbus Plaza ............................. 25 6.5 Repurposing the Historic Passenger Concourse ........................................................................................ 32 6.6 Bus Program Size ..................................................................................................................................... 35 6.7 Parking Program Size ............................................................................................................................... 35 6.8 Alternative Concept 5 that Separates Buses from Train Hall ..................................................................... 36 6.9 Reinstating the Ends of the Historic Passenger Concourse ........................................................................ 36 6.10 Alternate Belowground Parking Access Options ...................................................................................... 37 6.11 Bus Facility on 1st Street NE ..................................................................................................................... 37 7 What are the Preliminary Alternatives? ................................................................................................................ 38 8 What Issues will be Considered during Alternatives Refinement? ......................................................................... 42 9 What Follows Alternatives Refinement? ............................................................................................................... 44 Appendices………………. ................................................................................................................................................. 45 A Public Meeting Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………46 B Agency Comments ................................................................................................................................... 51 C Public Comments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 87 List of Figures 2-1 Project Area ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 2-2 Private Air-Rights Area ..................................................................................................................................... 4 4-1 Shared Track Plan Options (TI 14 and TI 16) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 4-2 Combined Concourse Plan Common To All Concepts……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Concept Screening Report i July 31, 2017 4-3 Ride-for-Hire Options Common to All Concepts………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 4-4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Common to All Concepts……………………………………………………………………………………..8 4-5 Historic Station Common to All Concepts……………………….…………………………………………………………………………………..8 4-6 Concept 1A ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 4-7 Concept 1B ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 4-8 Concept 2A ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 4-9 Concept 2B ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 4-10 Concept 3A ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 4-11 Concept 3B ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 4-12 Concept 4A ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 4-13 Concept 4B ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 4-14 Concept 5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 5-1 Retained Concept 1A ....................................................................................................................................... 20 5-2 Retained Concept 1B ....................................................................................................................................... 20 5-3 Retained Concept 4A ....................................................................................................................................... 21 5-4 Retained Concept 4B ....................................................................................................................................... 22 5-5 Retained Concept 5 .......................................................................................................................................... 23 6.4-1 Overview of Outside the Railyard Footprint Options ........................................................................................ 26 6.4-2 Belowground Constraints for Sites 1a, 1b, and 2 ............................................................................................... 28 6.4-3 Conceptual Future WMATA Metrorail Rail Line and Station .............................................................................. 29 6.4-4 Postal Square Building Sketch .......................................................................................................................... 30 6.5-1 Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Flow Diagram .............................................................................................. 34 7-1 Preliminary Alternative 1A ............................................................................................................................... 40 7-2 Preliminary Alternative 1B ............................................................................................................................... 40 7-3 Preliminary Alternative 4B ............................................................................................................................... 41 7-4 Preliminary Alternative 5 ................................................................................................................................. 41 8-1 Bicycle Access .................................................................................................................................................. 43 8-2 Pedestrian Access ............................................................................................................................................ 43 List of Tables 1-1 Steps in Concepts to Alternatives Process for WUS Expansion Project .............................................................. 1 4-1 Summary of Concepts ................................................................................................................................... 13 5-1 Project Purpose and Screening Criteria ........................................................................................................... 15 5-2 Screening Results ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Concept Screening Report ii July 31, 2017 Concept Screening Report 1. Purpose of This Report This Concept Screening Report was prepared by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an agency within the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), for the Washington Union Station (WUS or the Station) Expansion Project (Project). This report was produced as part of the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] § 321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railway Employee Records for Colorado Volume Iii
    RAILWAY EMPLOYEE RECORDS FOR COLORADO VOLUME III By Gerald E. Sherard (2005) When Denver’s Union Station opened in 1881, it saw 88 trains a day during its gold-rush peak. When passenger trains were a popular way to travel, Union Station regularly saw sixty to eighty daily arrivals and departures and as many as a million passengers a year. Many freight trains also passed through the area. In the early 1900s, there were 2.25 million railroad workers in America. After World War II the popularity and frequency of train travel began to wane. The first railroad line to be completed in Colorado was in 1871 and was the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad line between Denver and Colorado Springs. A question we often hear is: “My father used to work for the railroad. How can I get information on Him?” Most railroad historical societies have no records on employees. Most employment records are owned today by the surviving railroad companies and the Railroad Retirement Board. For example, most such records for the Union Pacific Railroad are in storage in Hutchinson, Kansas salt mines, off limits to all but the lawyers. The Union Pacific currently declines to help with former employee genealogy requests. However, if you are looking for railroad employee records for early Colorado railroads, you may have some success. The Colorado Railroad Museum Library currently has 11,368 employee personnel records. These Colorado employee records are primarily for the following railroads which are not longer operating. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad employee records of employment are recorded in a bound ledger book (record number 736) and box numbers 766 and 1287 for the years 1883 through 1939 for the joint line from Denver to Pueblo.
    [Show full text]
  • During Track Work And/Or Rail Shutdown Events, This Bus Stop Will Also Be Served by Metro Shuttle Buses. NOTE
    – Bus Service from Union Station Silver Spring Eastern Ave BUS BOARDING MAP BUS SERVICE AND BOARDING LOCATIONS schematic map The table shows approximate minutes between buses; check schedules for full details LEGEND not to scale 16th St BOARD AT MONDAY TO FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY Rail Lines Metrobus Routes t t S ROUTE DESTINATION BUS STOP AM RUSH MIDDAY PM RUSH EVENING DAY EVENING DAY EVENING t S L G d t S n s l Metrobus Major Route 2 80 1 o ARLINGTON-UNION STATION LINE t Frequent, seven-day service on the core i Metrorail H St p H St route. On branches, service levels vary. a 13Y Ronald Reagan Washington Nat’l Airport m -- -- -- -- 30* -- 30* -- Station and Line C B h D6 Metrobus Local Route Alaska Ave t M r F Less frequent service, with some evening o NORTH CAPITOL ST LINE and weekend service available. N G Pl Union Station 80 Fort Totten m 8-15 15 10 30 30 30 30 30 X1 Metrobus Commuter Route Takoma Government EF Printing Office H Parking Peak-hour service linking residential areas Garage 80 Kennedy Center 14-20 30 20-30 30 30 30 30 30 Commuter to rail stations and employment centers. Georgia Ave GN G St G St Railroad Western Ave Bethesda X9 MetroExtra Route 80 McPherson Sq m 14-20 30 20-30 -- -- -- -- -- Transfer National Bureau of GN Limited stops for a faster ride. Days, times Guard Labor Statistics t Q Points S and service levels vary by route. EAST CAPITOL ST LINE Memorial t N s M 1 as E sa 96 Tenleytown-AU m 20 24 21 33 25-30 30-35 30-35 30-35 Map Symbols Routes Operated by ch J us National ett City/County Systems s A Postal 96
    [Show full text]
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • (September 2014). News and Tips from the St
    VOL. 6, NO. 9 — SEPTEMBER 2014 OF NOTE Special Collections is now the History and Genealogy Department The Special Collections Department has changed its name to the History and Genealogy Department, effective Sept.1. The department’s email address has also changed. Requests for lookups and general information can now be sent to [email protected]. Email sent to the former address ([email protected]) will still reach the department staff, however. The department is still located on Tier 5 (the top floor) of St. Louis County Library Headquarters. The tele- phone number, (314) 994-3300, ext. 2070, also remains unchanged. Department staffing changes Kamphoefner at St. Louis County Library The History and Genealogy Department has recently wit- Walter D. Kamphoefner, Ph.D., Professor of History at nessed the retirement of a several long-time staff members: Texas A&M University, Organization of American Historians Distinguished Lecturer, and notable expert on Joyce Loving retired as manager on July 31, a position German-American history, spoke at St. Louis County she had held since 1997, when the Special Collections Library Headquarters on Saturday, Aug. 9. Dr. Kamp- Department was still under development. hoefner‘s lecture, “St. Louis Germans: Insiders or Outsiders,” drew more than 200 attendees and was Ruth Ann Hager, who had worked in the department since 2000, retired on June 30. sponsored by the History and Genealogy Department. April Webb, who had worked in the department part- time since 2010, retired on May 31. joined the reference staff as part-time employees. Others on the reference staff include part-time members Jay Buck and In other changes, Scott Holl, formerly the assistant manager, Kelly Draper, and full-timer members Chris Flesor, Larry was promoted to manager of the department on Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Ford's Theatre National Historic Site Scope of Collection Statement
    DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE FORD'S THEATRE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE Scope of Collection Statement Recommended by: _________________________________________________________________________ Bob Sonderman, Regional Curator, National Capital Region Catherine Dewey, Chief of Resource Management, National Mall and Memorial Parks Prepared by:_______________________________________________________________________________ Mark Nelson, CESU Project Staff, Museum Resource Center Elena Popchock, CESU Project Staff, Museum Resource Center Reviewed by:______________________________________________________________________________ Laura Anderson, Museum Curator, National Mall and Memorial Parks Renny Bergeron, Supervisory Museum Curator, National Capital Region Approved by:______________________________________________________________________________ Gay Vietzke, Superintendent, National Mall and Memorial Parks TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 A. Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................1 B. Purpose of the Scope of Collection Statement ............................................................................2 C. Legislation Related to the National Park Service Museum Collections .....................................2 D. Site History, Significance, Purpose, Themes and Goals ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson Memorial Accessibility Ramps
    THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL Submission to the National Capital Planning Commission for March 29, 2019 Project Overview Description of Project Area The Thomas Jefferson Memorial is located at 701 E NCPC Plans and Policies Basin Drive SW. The site of the Memorial is located in Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital West Potomac Park on the shore of the Potomac River Tidal Basin. This project is in line with the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital (2016), specifically the Parks & Based on the McMillan Plan, the famous architect Open Space Element. The project complies with the John Russell Pope designed a monolithic pantheon, following policies: which faces towards the White House. The site for the Memorial was low, swampy land created from fill from • Preserve and maintain cultural landscapes, river dredging. including their natural and constructed elements. The Tidal Basin flanks the north and the west side • Protect or restore viewsheds that contribute to of the Memorial. To the south of the Memorial is the cultural landscapes and the aesthetic quality, busy, heavily traveled East Basin Drive SW. This road is historic significance and visitor experience of the traveled by pedestrians, buses, bicyclists, tour groups, parks and open space system. etc. The main point of access to the Memorial for most • Protect the image of Washington, along with visitors traveling via vehicle is from the south of the the lighting hierarchy established by iconic civil Memorial. The east of the Memorial is a wooded area landmarks including the U.S. Capital, White House, that is filled with paths to the Memorial.
    [Show full text]
  • DEIS for Washington Union Station Expansion Project
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Washington Union Station Expansion Project Appendix C1 – Methodology Report April 2018 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Washington Union Station Expansion Project This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Impact Statement Methodology Report FINAL April 2018 Draft Final EIS Methodology Report Contents 1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Study Areas ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 General – Analysis Years ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 General – Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.6 General – Evaluation Impacts ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.7 Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references as of the date of publication, the references may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Year 2021 Committee Budget Report
    FISCAL YEAR 2021 COMMITTEE BUDGET REPORT TO: Members of the Council of the District of Columbia FROM: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh Chairperson, Committee on Transportation & the Environment DATE: June 25, 2020 SUBJECT: DRAFT Report and recommendations of the Committee on Transportation & the Environment on the Fiscal Year 2021 budget for agencies under its purview The Committee on Transportation & the Environment (“Committee”), having conducted hearings and received testimony on the Mayor’s proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2021 for the agencies under its jurisdiction, reports its recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Support Act of 2020, as proposed by the Mayor, and proposes several of its own subtitles. Table of Contents Summary ........................................................................................... 3 A. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Operating Budget Summary Table .................................................................................................. 7 C. Full-Time Equivalent Summary Table ............................................................................................. 9 D. Operating & Capital Budget Ledgers ........................................................................................... 11 E. Committee Transfers ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroad Emergency Response Manual
    Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Railroad Emergency Response Manual Approved by the COG Fire Chiefs Committee Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Second Edition May 2020 MWCOG Railroad Emergency Response Manual 2nd Edition – May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This manual could not have been written without the assistance of many Dedicated rail safety personnel and members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments regional emergency response agencies that have spent many hours providing the material for the creation of this manual. We thank all emergency responders from all jurisdictions, including our federal agency partners that shared their firsthand experiences of recent commuter railroad incidents. Many of their experiences were incorporated into sections of this manual. Many Railroad representatives, private industry and governmental organizations provided their invaluable technical assistance. This committee would like to thank Steve Truchman formerly of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Greg Deibler from Virginia Railway Express (VRE), David Ricker from the Maryland Rail Commuter (MARC), Paul Williams of Norfolk Southern Railway Corporation and Mike Hennessey of CSX Transportation, all of whom provided the specific diagrams, illustrations and other technical information regarding railroad equipment. We recognize Elisa Nichols of Kensington Consulting, LLC for her contributions to this manual as well as representatives from many Federal Agencies who also provided information on the technical accounts of railroad equipment and their integrity on past railroad incidents. The members of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) Passenger Rail Safety Subcommittee gratefully presents this manual to both Fire and Rescue Service and Railroad organizations in an effort to instill readiness within our own personnel that they might effectively and collaboratively respond to a railroad incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Control Point Virginia Tower
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Property name _Control Point (CP) Virginia Tower_______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address __Southeast Corner of 2nd Street SW and Virginia Avenue SW, Washington, DC_________ Square and lot number(s) __0582 0856_________________________________________________ Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission ______ANC 6D_____________________________ Date of construction __1904-1906____ Date of major alteration(s) __1930s___________________ Architect(s) __Unknown______________ Architectural style(s) ____________________________ Original use _Railroad Interlocking Control Tower_ Present use ___Railroad Infrastructure Property owner _CSX Transportation, Inc._____________________________________________ Legal address of property owner _500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ________________ NAME OF APPLICANT(S) _CSX Transportation, Inc.____________________________________ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]