A new thread on plans for Washington's Union Station is appropriate. Although the topic popped up in a high-speed rail thread, re-developing the station has little do so with high-speed rail. The plans could go forward without high-speed rail and vice versa.
If you are happy with the recent news articles that Amtrak is going to spend $7 billion to redevelop Washington's Union Station, read no further. However, if you would like to know how the station is governed and, therefore, how the re-development process will be overseen, as well as its current financial status, you may be interested in the following.
The U.S. Department of Transportation is the owner of Washington's Union Station Complex. It is managed by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, which is a federally chartered, privately owned non-profit corporation. It was established to enter into a public/private partnership to refurbish and manage Union Station.
The USRC Board of Directors overseas the station's operations. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation is the board chair, and the Amtrak President is the vice chair. The other members of the board are the D.C. Mayor, the Federal Railroad Administrator, and the Federal City Council President.
Union Station Investco, LLC holds a 99 year least to manage the station property, whilst Union Station Parking Group, LLC leases and operates the parking garage. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., as the property manager, overseas Amtrak's leases on its offices, ticket counters, and waiting areas. It also manages the numerous retail leases associated with Union Station.
Amtrak's improvements presumably would have to be approved by the board. Amtrak is only one voice on it. To say or imply that Amtrak is going to re-develop the station by itself is not correct. Actually, its press release acknowledges that the master plan was developed with input from other tenants, but implies strongly that it is an Amtrak plan. That would not relieve it from obtaining board approval for its plan..
If the previous public/private financing arrangement is followed, approximately 45 per cent of the monies would come from Amtrak, with the remainder coming from the other railroad tenants, District of Columbia, and private developers.
The station is self-sustaining. It is not dependent on taxpayer support. Moreover, since it's re-opening in 1988 as a railroad station, not to be confused with its prior role as the National Visitor's Center, it appears to have covered all of operating and capital costs.
At the end of FY11 it had net assets of $35.2 million, which indicates that it has been managed soundly. However, on its face, this figure is a bit misleading. At the end of FY10 the net assets were a bit over $800,000. The increase in the net assets as per the end of FY11 resulted from the issuance of $30 million in new notes.
For the years ended FY11 and FY 10 revenues were $11.4 and $10.3 million. Expenses were $7.2 and $6.0 million, resulting in an increase in net assets of $4.3 and $4.2 million before an adjustment in FY11 for an unrealized loss on interest rate swaps of $2.9 million.
This is a good example of a public/private partnership that works. The public sector and the private sector have gotten or are getting their investment back. In fact, they are turning a profit whilst doing so.
Was there just last month on vac. The station has the feel of a large shopping mall and not a grand railroad terminal in my opinion.
SFbrkmn Was there just last month on vac. The station has the feel of a large shopping mall and not a grand railroad terminal in my opinion.
Your right! It does have the feel of a shopping mall. Nevertheless, when I am there, which is usually two or three times a year, looking up at the ceiling in what was the main waiting room is inspiring.
A quick review of the master plan suggests that management plans to restore some of the old grandur. I hope so. Washington's Union Station, along with Los Angeles and Grand Central terminals, are my favorite stations.
SAM1 thanks for the PPP analysis. Although I've looked I have not determined how much land and its plat that the unit owns. Also does it include tracks and is their a final trak plan diagram anywhere. reason asked is how track is laid out will determine its fluidity.
I will admit that the presence of many stores may be what makes the station profitable.
Was any of the large stations profitable to the railroads that owned them?
Johnny
This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/
blue streak 1 SAM1 thanks for the PPP analysis. Although I've looked I have not determined how much land and its plat that the unit owns. Also does it include tracks and is their a final trak plan diagram anywhere. reason asked is how track is laid out will determine its fluidity.
The Master Plan, which can be downloaded from Amtrak's website, has some diagrams of how the station, including the tacks, will be laid out. I have not had an opportunity to read all of it, but the pictures and diagrams are inspiring.
Murray This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/
As noted in my initial post, The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, which is a federally sponsored private nonprofit corporation, owns and manages Washington's Union Station. The corporation has met all of its financial obligations since its inception, including debt service on the bonds sold to fund the redevelopment of the station. Based on my read of the financial statements, the company is more than paying its way. Not only has it met its obligations to its key stakeholders (Amtrak, Washington, etc.), it pays property and other taxes to the District.
I am not a fan of having the government own or run any commercial enterprise that can be managed by a properly regulated, competitive business enterprise. It is no secret that I would privatize Amtrak in a heartbeat. Having said that, however, I try to be fair.
The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation is an example of a private/public partnership that has worked reasonable well. There is no reason to believe that it would not continue to do so after making the proposed updates to the station outlined in the master plan.
The 'Washington Times' isn't worth the newsprint and electrons they consume.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Deggesty Was any of the large stations profitable to the railroads that owned them?
Good question!
Unfortunately, getting the information would be challenging. Many of the investor owned railroads, when they were in the rail passenger business, probably treated their stations as cost centers. They probably knew how much it cost them to build and operate the station as well as the revenues they took in from a variety of station activities, i.e. vendors, food service, parking, etc. However, they probably buried the results in their consolidated financial statements, thereby making it very difficult for an outsider to isolate the financial results for 'a station'.
An answer to your question might be obtainable from the corporate librarian of one of the surviving railroad companies, i.e. Union Pacific, Norfolk and Southern, etc. It might also be obtainable from one of the libraries with a large collection of railroad documents (Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, etc.). Lastly, one of the prominent railroad historians (Murray Klein) might have an answer.
Amtrak has three wholly owned subsidiaries: Chicago Union Station Company, Passenger Railroad Insurance Limited, LLC, and Penn Station, LLC. It also has a 99% interest in 30th Street Limited, L.P. These are its biggest station properties. The financial results for these subsidiaries are rolled into Amtrak's consolidated financial statements.
The results for Amtrak's other owned stations (approximately 58) are embedded in the company's financial statements and cannot be identified separately. The information probably could be obtained by filing a Freedom of Information Act request with the Inspector General of Amtrak.
Murray This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money.
You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
sam; DOES THE southern Ca Metrolink publish their LAX Union station result for some kind of comparsion ?? [please excuse capitalization problems keyboard failing ]
Sam and I often disagree, but all of Sam's arguments are supported by well researched actual facts and numbers. I never doubt those numbers, the disagreement is over whether or not it is money well spent.
I love Union Station in DC. It should be the model for many others. With leases to vendors, and sharing with other transportation providers, many stations could operate at a stand alone profit or at least be revenue neutral. That would greatly enhance Amtrak's financial picture.
Phoebe Vet Sam and I often disagree, but all of Sam's arguments are supported by well researched actual facts and numbers. I never doubt those numbers, the disagreement is over whether or not it is money well spent. I love Union Station in DC. It should be the model for many others. With leases to vendors, and sharing with other transportation providers, many stations could operate at a stand alone profit or at least be revenue neutral. That would greatly enhance Amtrak's financial picture.
Just to re-emphasize my previous point, Washington's Union Station is a successful private/public partnership. In a nutshell, it is paying its way.
Sam:
Isn't that what I said? If not, it's what I meant.
We agree more often than you realize because when we agree I just don't post.
Phoebe Vet Murray: This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money.
Murray: This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money.
Deggesty Phoebe Vet: Murray: This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money. And, the editorial was written by someone who did not know the facts concerning the ownership of the station. He apparently assumed that because Amtrak uses the station Amtrak is the owner. I trust someone has written a letter to the Washington Times that states the truth about the ownership and the financial staus of the corporation.
Phoebe Vet: Murray: This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money.
You just postulated a oxymoron - Washington Times & truth
Phoebe Vet Sam: Isn't that what I said? If not, it's what I meant. We agree more often than you realize because when we agree I just don't post.
Yes, I just wanted to be doubly sure that the participants understand that I believe that Washington's Union Station is a good deal.
We won't know for sure until it's done, but I believe that Charlotte is following that model on a smaller scale. The new Gateway Station will be shared by Amtrak, Greyhound, CATS buses, and CATS Red Line commuter train. They are looking to sell the air rights over it.
I wish Chicago Union Station would be upgraded. There is a plan, but nothing happening so far and it really is a dump.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 sam; DOES THE southern Ca Metrolink publish their LAX Union station result for some kind of comparsion ?? [please excuse capitalization problems keyboard failing ]
I could only find the FY10 LA Metro financial statements. LA Metro is the owner of Los Angeles Union Station. I plan to ask METRO next week to send me an electronic copy. They report segment activities in the FY10 annual financial statements, so the results for Union Station should be in the FY11 financial statements.
First of all we need to understand that The Washington Times is an extreme, right-wing, fringe publication. Everyone here in DC knows this and we don't take them seriously. The only paper here in DC is the Washington Post. The Washington Times operates at a loss to influence policy and, indirectly, are the sole reason why the Washington Post is still under a dollar at the newsstand price. They routinely publish inflammatory articles as "news" and this editorial is not surprising.
I have to say that I patronize Union Station quite often. I'm not happy that they recently raised parking fees for the first couple of hours to an unreasonable amount. If anyone remembers the National Park Service "Visitors' Center" debacle from the mid-1970s, most of the cost of that project was the parking garage which still stands today. Unfortunately the station was structurally in danger of collapse and in the 1980s underwent a $20M renovation privately financed and funded into what we now enjoy as the profitable shopping mall that has a train station attached to it. The Amtrak waiting area is a relatively new structure attached to the outside of the station. The train tracks are now outside under the parking structure and partially exposed. There is an abandoned movie theater under the Main Hall. Private railcar Dover Harbor uses the station as its home base.
Like other train stations on the NEC, this station is at capacity due to Amtrak's success with the NEC and the extremely heavy ridership on the many VRE and MARC trains that use the station. To help fund expansion, the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation plans to demolish most of the old parking structure and develop the air rights over the Washington Terminal Railroad to include a new train station, retail, residential, and office/commercial space. The first phase that will enhanced the existing terminal is to happen around 2015. The air-rights development and new station are not envisioned to happen until well into the 2020s. They've already sold $10M in air rights to one developer back in 2006 who is still waiting to build.
In the meantime, they have to deal with earthquake damage that shattered the Main Hall ceiling and cracked many windows in the area formerly known as the Concourse (where the shopping mall is now).
Also, the Greyhound bus terminal will be moved very close to Union Station. Columbus Circle is also being completely redesigned and rebuilt to accomodate buses, taxi/livery, and the hugely popular tour buses that originate from the front of Union Station.
The new, long-term project being attacked by this editorial will actually completely sustain itself by air rights alone, just as the Union Station Redevelopment Corportation has had and continues to sustain itself.
" Columbus Circle is also being completely redesigned and rebuilt to accomodate buses, taxi/livery, and the hugely popular tour buses that originate from the front of Union Station."
Now I know why Columbus Circle appeared as it did when I was in Washington in April and May this year. I trust that work will have been finished when I next expect to be in Washington (2014?)
I have no quarrel with the current first class accomodations in the station, but I wish there were a little more variety in the snack food available.
BaltACD Murray This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ The 'Washington Times' isn't worth the newsprint and electrons they consume.
Agree! They are very good at shining a "dark" on things!
Finding ways to develop train stations into multimodal, multiuse facilities with PPPs seems to be a good thing.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
When I first heard of this plan, my thoughts went immediately to Chicago's Union Station. Perhaps Chicago is acceptable as a commuter station but it is inadequate to Amtrak passenger's needs. The railroads that owned the station sold the air rights in 1968 at a bargain basement prices; future users of the station were the big losers in the deal.
I am very suspicious it is proposed to happen again.
Dakguy201 When I first heard of this plan, my thoughts went immediately to Chicago's Union Station. Perhaps Chicago is acceptable as a commuter station but it is inadequate to Amtrak passenger's needs. The railroads that owned the station sold the air rights in 1968 at a bargain basement prices; future users of the station were the big losers in the deal. I am very suspicious it is proposed to happen again.
Are all the air rights sold? I am not sure they are.
Deggesty Phoebe Vet Murray: This editorial was in today's Washington Times:EDITORIAL: Monumental wasteTime to derail Amtrak’s $7.5 billion Union Station face-lifthttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/7/monumental-waste/ You don't have to read very far into that article to discover the blatant partisan purpose. It is filled with derogatory references to Liberals, Democrats, and the President, and is not supported by any actual facts, just the usual assumptions that the government can't do anything right and Liberals want all your money. And, the editorial was written by someone who did not know the facts concerning the ownership of the station. He apparently assumed that because Amtrak uses the station Amtrak is the owner. I trust someone has written a letter to the Washington Times that states the truth about the ownership and the financial staus of the corporation.
Sigh....
Your expecting too much from some of the posters here, that missed the key word "EDITORIAL". Washington Times is owned and run by the Moonies. Although I do not agree with their religion, I certainly agree with their desire to counter the Washington Post and they generally grant journalistic independence to the journalists that work for the Times. Ben Bradlee former Editor of the Post and now sits on the Posts Editorial Board has made several favorable comments about the Times coverage and has admitted it has kept the Post on it's toes. A number of the Washington Times journalists have moved on to join both Liberal and Conservative publications so it is recognized in the newspaper industry for excellence in reporting as well.
Sam1 blue streak 1 sam; DOES THE southern Ca Metrolink publish their LAX Union station result for some kind of comparsion ?? [please excuse capitalization problems keyboard failing ] I could only find the FY10 LA Metro financial statements. LA Metro is the owner of Los Angeles Union Station. I plan to ask METRO next week to send me an electronic copy. They report segment activities in the FY10 annual financial statements, so the results for Union Station should be in the FY11 financial statements.
From 1990 until April 2011, Los Angeles Union Station was owned by the real estate company Catellus (which since combined with Prologis), so depending on when Metro closes the books on their fiscal year relative to the calendar year, the data might be clouded by the transition.
When I became familiar with the station during the last decade of Catellus, it was a commercial desert: only a single restaurant (closed before lunchtime), a bagel shop, and a newsstand. I remember having to rush out to Olvera St, Cesar Chavez, and even the downtown mall in between trains in search of real food. Now there's a convenience store (Famima), Starbucks, Subway, See's Candy, and Ben&Jerry's (the restaurant and newsstand remain, though the bagel shop closed) along with a second newsstand in the Patsaouras bus station at the far end of the tunnel leading to the tracks. I would suppose that the public agency Metro earns a lot more from concession rental fees than the private company Catellus did.
Re: The Union Station. I was born and raised in Washington . Whatever they do let's not have another fiasco like that visitor complex.. Also I'm following with great interest any program of restoring any portion of our great old street car system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.