US big city train station boom

[Lakelander]

The crazy thing is the city is talking about moving the convention center out of the historic rail terminal but transit agency is still trying to move forward with this spread out thing. In the worst case scenario, we'll drop another $200 million on a new convention center and end up with a big hole in the middle of an inefficient sprawling intermodal center.

[Swede]

^but, but... gah!

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

30th Street Station and the approaches add 45 minutes to the journey there to slow even with straightening so there bypassing it.

Well, this is just factually incorrect.

There are no excessively curvy approaches to 30th St.'s south side; on the north side, only Zoo Interlocking. Zoo does slow trains down, true, but does so in order to provide a high degree of transit connectivity.

You're reporting a slowdown more than 900% in excess with the actual, recorded slowdown.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by fountainhead

DC's Union Station proposal looks terrible. What does wave motion (the roof) have to do with train travel? This looks far too suburban in nature for its location. A simple and well thought out train shed connected to the back of Burnham's building would be so much nicer (and sexier).

Let's hope that this design is for marketing purposes only. Who wants to wait a couple decades for this?

I'll just copy and paste what I posted over at DCMud:

"To all those iffy on the architecture, its hard to imagine that if or when the funding is in place for such a project that it would take this rather preliminary form. I foresee some big guns like SOM brought in to hammer out the actual architecture when that time comes. Like the article informs, this announcment is really about creating a "vision" for a 21st century Union Station."

I've came to the simple conclusion that this was just a "vision rendering" for marketing purposes. For one, a firm as small as this would never ever ever get a commission this monetarily huge and complex. Second, there is no $7 billion to pay for this, therefore, well, therefore. And lastly, the dead giveaway is that hideous "navy pier food court" typography. No reputable firm would ever put their name on that.

Just for personal preference, I too hope the real design will be inspired by an actual barrel vault train shed and act as a single dramatic element, not this "more is more" approach.

[Lipani]

Sacramento's station should be interesting to follow since the Railyards area to the north is one of the largest infill projects in the US right now.

[Dale]

I'm pretty sure that they're planning a central station, for downtown Miami as well, part of the proposed, privately-financed fast-rail line from Miami to Orlando.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'll just copy and paste what I posted over at DCMud:

"To all those iffy on the architecture, its hard to imagine that if or when the funding is in place for such a project that it would take this rather preliminary form. I foresee some big guns like SOM brought in to hammer out the actual architecture when that time comes. Like the article informs, this announcment is really about creating a "vision" for a 21st century Union Station."

I've came to the simple conclusion that this was just a "vision rendering" for marketing purposes. For one, a firm as small as this would never ever ever get a commission this monetarily huge and complex. Second, there is no $7 billion to pay for this, therefore, well, therefore. And lastly, the dead giveaway is that hideous "navy pier food court" typography. No reputable firm would ever put their name on that.

Just for personal preference, I too hope the real design will be inspired by an actual barrel vault train shed and act as a single dramatic element, not this "more is more" approach.

HOK is not a small or disreputable firm.

[Busy Bee]

Where is there any mention of HOK being involved?

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Where is there any mention of HOK being involved?

http://www.burnhamplace.com/team.html

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/919/171/...lan-201207.pdf

[Busy Bee]

Ok, I learned something new today. Even more worrisome. When I think HOK, I don't think singular vision, I think skyboxes and sports themed retail somewhere in Kansas.

Would love to see what a firm like Diller, Scofidio & Renfro could come up with.

[fountainhead]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'll just copy and paste what I posted over at DCMud:

I've came to the simple conclusion that this was just a "vision rendering" for marketing purposes. For one, a firm as small as this would never ever ever get a commission this monetarily huge and complex. Second, there is no $7 billion to pay for this, therefore, well, therefore. And lastly, the dead giveaway is that hideous "navy pier food court" typography. No reputable firm would ever put their name on that.

Just for personal preference, I too hope the real design will be inspired by an actual barrel vault train shed and act as a single dramatic element, not this "more is more" approach.

It's good to know that there are other discerning people out there, not seduced by some misleading renderings.

[fountainhead]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Not that grand halls and waiting areas in historical stations aren't important spaces to be preserved, but...

Do passengers prefer to wait in a large open space or if given the choice will they seek out smaller waiting areas nearer to their platform/gate? Such is the case at airports, I'd think to some extent train stations would be the same way. Building a new train room where seating, amenities, retail are combined a short walk to your platform and you can sit and watch other trains roll through the station seems more pleasant than being on a hard bench in a giant, impossible to heat or cool, 19th century headhouse and you have to walk 1000 feet down to a dungeon-like platform.

I guess it depends on if what you value is to restore a historical but dated facility to its former function and glory, or provide a fully modern facility that creates a great customer experience for riders and still preserves a heritage building?

The current building works wonderfully. Burnham's building functions the way it was supposed to, as a grand entrance hall. Not unlike New York's old Penn Station.

To answer your question, no restoration is needed. That was done over 20 years ago. The goal should be to create a space where people catch trains, it should explore that and find what is interesting in that. Not create another shopping mall.

[afiggatt]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I'll just copy and paste what I posted over at
...
"To all those iffy on the architecture, its hard to imagine that if or when the funding is in place for such a project that it would take this rather preliminary form. I foresee some big guns like SOM brought in to hammer out the actual architecture when that time comes. Like the article informs, this announcment is really about creating a "vision" for a 21st century Union Station."

I've came to the simple conclusion that this was just a "vision rendering" for marketing purposes.

That is my take on the renderings of the interiors and exteriors with the all glass look with a wavy roof. The final design and look will likely be quite different after the umpteen local commissions & committees weigh in and after design firms submit their proposals.

The key parts of the master plan proposal are the reconfiguration of the tracks, new wider & straighter platforms, underground parking garage, much improved access and flow to the platforms, expanded and extended concourse with a open train shed space for the main center tracks. The details that are likely to stick are the new track and platform layouts and the extended and open concourse space.

As for the $7 billion price tag, they did not release any sort of breakdown of how that figure is derived, but a large piece of that has to be new office & residential buildings and hotel which will be up to Akridge to pay for. The two underground parking garages are also big ticket items, but dropping the plan for a second underground parking garage under Columbus Circle/Plaza would save $100s of millions. My take on the Union Station plan, as someone who lives in the DC area, is that we will indeed see much of what is called for in the master plan built, although not all by 2028. Not all the trimmings, but a lot of it.

[novawolverine]

The logistics involved with reconfiguring the tracks to make longer and wider platforms are very expensive. Here's an excerpt from Matt Yglesias blog post after having talked to someone involved with the project:

The plan comes essentially from the conjunction of two separate issues. One is that way back in 2002, Akridge paid a considerable amount of money for the right to build a platform over a lot of these Union Station tracks. Atop the platform will sit a bunch of buildings, as well as a reconnection of the currently disrupted street grid. That will include a renovation of the existing H Street Bridge, which is currently quite old and in need of some form of replacement.

The money for all this work is separate from the Master Plan proposal and would all come from Akridge. But once this is done, it will become practically impossible to ever move the Union Station tracks.

Amtrak/MARC/VRE’s contention, however, is that moving the tracks would be highly desirable. Why? Because they want to make the platforms wider. Why do they want to do that? For starters, they say the existing 18 foot platforms aren’t compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act and National Fire Protection Association guidelines for safety. New train stations are normally constructed with platforms in the 25-30 foot width range. The practical transportation capacity issue here is that the current platforms are allegedly too narrow to let passengers be getting on/off of the tracks on both sides of the platform simultaneously. Wider platforms allow for simultaneous boarding allow for greater capacity.

But moving the tracks without shutting the station down is difficult. So they want to start by re-activating a pair of tracks on the far west side of the station that are currently blocked by a few structures used for station operations. So the idea is to first remove the structures, then re-activate those tracks, then start piecemeal relocation of tracks and widening of platforms.

Except to move the tracks you need to remove the garage that’s currently sitting above part of them since the new track locations would conflict with where the existing pillars are.

Once you’re removing the garage, it seems like it would make sense to permanently eliminate the weird eyesore and shift it underground. And once you’re digging a cavern beneath the existing tracks it makes sense to add some underground concourses. Those will allow people to get on/off the trains with less platform walking, and will also allow Union Station to be open on more sides giving the neighborhood more access to the station.

Last and basically least, as long as the garage is gone why not replace it with a cool-looking train shed that will make the whole station attractive and appealing?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...7_billion.html

Still not sure of the $7 billion number, but it's a large development that would cost in the $1 billion+ range under normal commercial real estate circumstances in a location of moderate-high demand in the city.