U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43–753 PDF 2008

UNION STATION: A COMPREHENSIVE 

LOOK AT THE PRIVATE MANAGEMENT, THE PUBLIC SPACE, AND 

THE INTERMODAL SPACES PRESENT 

AND FUTURE 

(110–155) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 22, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Ball, David, President, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation .................... 13 

Chambers, Bryant, Assistant General Manager, Jones Lang Lasalle, Inc. ........ 13 

Leach, David, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greyhound Lines, Inc. ... 41 

Levy, Daniel, Counsel from Kriss and Feuerstein LLP, Ashkenazy Acquisition 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 13 

McCann, Erin, Private Photographer .................................................................... 6 

Moneme, Emeka, Director, District Department of Transportation .................... 41 

Wilbur, Thomas, Senior Vice President, Akridge Corporation ............................ 41 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 58 

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 59 

Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri ............................................................................... 68 

Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida ................................................................................ 73 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 77 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 81 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Ball, David S. ........................................................................................................... 82 

Chambers, Bryant P. ............................................................................................... 125 

Leach, David ............................................................................................................ 128 

Levy, Daniel ............................................................................................................. 131 

McCann, Erin ........................................................................................................... 143 

Moneme, Emeka ...................................................................................................... 156 

Wilbur, Thomas ....................................................................................................... 160 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Ball, David, President, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, responses 

to questions for the record ................................................................................... 105 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

American Bus Association, Peter J. Pantuso, President and CEO, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 163 

Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation, 

Frank Seales, Jr., Interim Director, written statement .................................... 168 

Megabus Northeast, LLC, Don Carmichael, Vice President, written statement ...................................................................................................................... 170 

vi 


43753.001
vii 


43753.002
viii 


43753.003
(1) 

UNION STATION: A COMPREHENSIVE HEARING ON THE PRIVATE MANAGEMENT, THE 

PUBLIC SPACE, AND THE INTERMODAL 

USES PRESENT AND FUTURE 

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Good morning. I welcome today’s witnesses to our 

Subcommittee hearing on public access, security and the future of 

the Union Station complex as an important intermodal center for 

all modes of transportation. 

The current management structure at Union Station, the Union 

Station Redevelopment Corporation, or USRC, was created in 1981 

at the direction of Congress, and Congress later competed the air 

rights that will expand the station’s capacity to become a worldclass intermodal and mixed use public-private facility. 

Ownership of Union Station, as the bill report reiterated and 

made clear, ′′shall remain with the Federal Government.′′ However, 

we are unable to find evidence of congressional oversight of Union 

Station since its redevelopment. Now that there is a new congressional majority with Union Station under our jurisdiction, this 

hearing commences regular oversight. 

Union Station began as a train facility for the Nation’s Capital 

whose grand design was commissioned by Congress to produce a 

landmark building. However, as rail use declined in the 1950s, the 

station rapidly deteriorated, and a series of failed ideas, wasted 

Federal funds, cost overruns, major utility needs, mismanagement 

and litigation resulted. 

In 1981, after portions of the roof collapsed during structural repairs, Union Station was closed to the public, forcing passengers to 

walk a third of a mile around a closed building to the replacement 

station. Congress stepped up later that year and spent purchase 

payments on Union Station to obtain earlier-planned Federal ownership from Baltimore and Penn Terminal Reality. 

After $180 million public-private renovations, Union Station reopened to public applause in 1987, fully restored. The congressional 

authorization to purchase Union Station mandated the creation of 

2 

a management structure, the return of the station to its important 

rail beginnings, transition to an intermodal center, and the private 

investment that has resulted in the retail available there today. 

Congress delegated to the Union Station Realty Corporation the 

authority and responsibility to order priorities and mediate the sectors in Union Station in order to safeguard the public interest. Like 

the District of Columbia itself, the Union Station completion contains a mix of Federal, local and private entities, but the overriding 

public interest had never been in doubt, to provide the public access to a federally owned facility, to expand modes of travel to and 

from the Nation’s Capital, and to provide a secure environment. 

The public interest was strengthened when in 1971 the Federal 

Government created Amtrak in response to the sustained decline 

of passenger rail, and today the Congress puts billions of dollars 

into Amtrak to sustain this valuable public resource. At least since 

9/11, we have seen a sharp increase in riders using Amtrak, whose 

national headquarters is Union Station, making more rapid movement toward genuine intermodal status essential. However, we 

have not seen evidence that the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation understands the increasingly central role of national intermodal hubs today, yet gas prices are driving record numbers of 

Americans to use whatever ground transportation is available. 

March 2008 showed a 4.3 percent drop in vehicle miles traveled, 

the sharpest drop for any month in U.S. highway history. In 2007, 

Americans’ use of public transportation reached its highest levels 

in 50 years. What an extraordinary opportunity this is for the 

Union Station complex. 

The House has just passed the first stand-alone transit legislation bill since Metro was created, just as Metro is bursting at the 

seams. This week, Metro had its highest ridership day in its history, and eight of its top 10 ridership days have occurred this year. 

The House also authorized the Nation’s first high speed rail a 

few weeks ago, and it will travel between the District and New 

York. 

The Capitol Visitor Center is scheduled to open in December. 

This new attraction, which will bring many more visitors to Washington, is one of the reasons Congress has insisted on a true intermodal center at Union Station. 

Today, Union Station covers 12 acres and has 2,200 parking 

spaces, 125 retail outlets, and provides access to Amtrak, the 

Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, rail and bus, the Virginia Rail Express, the Maryland Rail Commuter Line, taxies, bicycle sharing, and other tourist-friendly transportation services. 

Union Station is the busiest stop on the WMATA line, with over 

30,000 daily riders using this stop. Because of congressional mandates and Federal funds, the intermodal center at Union Station 

will have new parking facilities for tour buses, new rail concourses, 

streetcars that connect Union Station to the neighborhood, and additional security improvements. 

In the Balanced Budget Act of 1977, Congress directed GSA to 

dispose of the land over the railroad tracks at Union Station, and 

in 2002 the General Services Administration bid and sold 15 acres 

of air rights above the rail yard adjacent to Union Station. The result of the sale will be Burnham Place at Union Station, a 3 million 

3 

square foot mixed use development built above the rail yard just 

north of Union Station and scheduled to include expanded transportation capabilities, mixed use amenities, a hotel and the like. 

The concept of Union Station as a modern intermodal center was 

detailed in a 1967 report by the National Capital Planning Commission, which envisioned combining intercity and intracity bus 

service with intercity rail transportation. 

Congress has strongly supported the intermodal concept with 

funds in every transportation reauthorization bill since 1991 and in 

several annual appropriation bills. I secured $2.25 million for the 

study currently being conducted by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation on the Intermodal Transit Center at 

Union Station. 

Four months ago, Chairman Jim Oberstar, Ranking Member 

John Mica, and I sent a letter to the USRC encouraging relocation 

of District’s Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal located several 

blocks to the north of Union Station. A state of the art intermodal 

center is by definition a facility that allows passengers to 

seamlessly choose and get access to all modes of ground transportation. Our letter reiterated the Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee’s continued work on intermodal development at Union 

Station. 

I followed with another letter on May 2, 2008, to the USRC asking for access for additional intercity bus companies, some of which 

currently drop off and pick up passengers on already crowded District streets for lack of a space to drop their passengers. The response to our letter cited business relationships as a reason why 

MegaBus was not allowed to sublease a parking spot in the parking garage. 

However, this is just the sort of arrangement that is needed to 

help Union Station more rapidly fulfill the congressional intermodal mandate while Burnham Place is being constructed and integrated over the next decade. This and other steps can be taken 

now to begin the process of converting what today is only a transportation hub to the world class intermodal center Congress has 

mandated. Nor did the response to our letter mention any other 

way to accommodate MegaBus or similar companies. Accommodation of low-cost intercity bus operators should not be only incorporated into USRC’s business plan, but long ago should have been 

actively sought to increase the intermodal options available at 

Union Station. 

Reported first amendment violations and denial of access by 

press and the public, as well as inconsistent messages by Union 

Station personnel, are especially troubling. In June, a photographer 

was detained by Union Station security personnel for taking noncommercial photographs. A real-time display of the confusion about 

access came when Channel 5 TV, a major television outlet here, 

was shut down by security personnel while interviewing the chief 

spokesman for Amtrak who was explaining that photography was 

allowed. Although management officials asserted that a ban on 

photography was not the policy, Channel 5, National Public Radio, 

tourists and a host of amateur photographers, have been shut down 

or given inconsistent directions on photography at Union Station. 

4 

The evidence of confusion and arbitrary actions by security personnel reflects the continuing absence of clarity concerning public 

access. Union Station’s study appears to be a case study for the necessity of my bill, H.R. 3519, the Open Society with Security Act, 

to assure public safety while maintaining the highest level of free 

and open access to the public. 

The Homeland Security Committee has already indicated an interest in moving H.R. 3519, and it has been referred to our Committee by the Parliamentarian. However, the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation and the Union Station Management Company are not alone responsible for the problems and issues that 

have been reported and have arisen at Union Station. For years, 

Congress has failed to provide the necessary oversight and guidance. As Congress continues to invest in its intermodal vision of 

Union Station, we have a responsibility to resume oversight of the 

entire complex. 

We welcome today’s witnesses and look forward to hearing their 

testimony. 

I am pleased now to ask the Ranking Member of the Full Committee for any remarks he may have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for recognizing me. I am, I guess, an ex 

officio Member of all the Subcommittees. I am not Sam Graves, 

even though I wish I was as young and handsome as him. I regret 

that he couldn’t with us this morning. 

I hadn’t planned on being here, but I saw the topic and couldn’t 

resist being with Ms. Norton and joining her in I think a very important oversight hearing on Union Station to look at the management, public space issues and intermodal access questions. I commend her for that. 

Mr. Graves is not able to be with us because of connecting flight 

difficulties. Someone ought to do something about that in transportation, but that is the subject of another hearing. But I do have his 

statement which I would like entered into the record. 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

Mr. MICA. Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I do have 

a statement which I will submit for the record. But I remember 

Union Station when I first came to Washington was as a staffer 

back in the seventies, that was before Ms. Norton was born. But 

actually I came back again, reoccurring in the early eighties as 

Chief of Staff in the Senate. I will never forget Union Station was 

an absolute disaster, birds flying around, water leaking into it, a 

failed attempt at making it a visitors center. It was absolutely beyond description. 

It was through a public-private partnership and a substantial 

amount of public money, too, investment that we had, were able to 

complete, I think Elizabeth Dole was the Secretary of Transportation, an absolutely magnificent restoration and utilization of 

what has become a transportation hub, a commercial center of activity, restoration of a beautiful public building. 

I am not going to get into who can photograph what. I will leave 

that to Ms. Norton. There has always been controversy about what 

could be exposed in Union Station dating back to, I think it was 

Gaudens, who did the statues. They had the nude males which 

they had to cover with the shields. Maybe now we have to keep the 

5 

press from uncovering our barest security secrets, but I will let you 

deal with that. 

My interest today is that we do conduct adequate oversight of the 

private management in these public-private partnerships. I was 

saddened to see that it took the developer, is it Akridge Corporation, since 2006, when they planned to do additional rights—I am 

sorry, they planned to do additional development and secured air 

rights for a 3 million square foot mixed-use development which 

would be a great addition on a comprehensive intermodal station. 

What is stunning to me, as a former developer, it is 2008, 2 years 

I guess to get some of that resolved. I am sorry for the developer. 

Time costs money and we don’t see the projects evolving. But 

maybe we will hear more about some of the trouble they encountered. I understand it has to do with some of the height of the air 

rights and the issues of how much footage you can get into that 

space, and certainly when we enter into an agreement with a developer, the deal has to make sense for the developer and the Federal Government and also comply with some of the restrictions. 

Hopefully we won’t get ourselves into that pickle and they can 

move forward with the intermodal terminal and this new addition. 

As they develop that and as they make improvements at Union 

Station, one of my concerns, and Chairwoman Norton has also expressed it, it is an intermodal center and that all modes be accommodated at that location. She had written with my joining her our 

desire to see our national surface transportation carrier, most people don’t realize this, but we do have one, it is a private company, 

its name is Greyhound, it is actually a private company that makes 

money and stays in business by returning a profit, and I think we 

should do everything we can to accommodate that carrier, whether 

it be Greyhound or if in the future it is succeeded by some other 

private transportation company or, if it has competition, whoever 

provides that surface transportation should be located in not just 

Union Station, but in any federally funded intermodal center in the 

United States. 

The time to dump—the time that we dump people who use Greyhound or some other surface transportation at the edge of town or 

in some inconvenient location has passed. These are not Third 

World, third-class travelers. These are passengers who should be 

accommodated with intermodal surface connections, and we should 

not fund one dollar in public money for any intermodal center, 

whether it is Union Station or anywhere else, without making accommodations for these passengers. 

They do it so cost-effectively and actually make a return on investment, which is amazing sometimes in the realm of government 

thinking. But the least we can do is make an accommodation for 

that service. 

So I came here this morning to make a plea, not only at Union 

Station, but across the country. We do need to look at these publicprivate partnerships. I advocate working with the Chairwoman 

Norton. This is an incredible city to let Union Station, whether it 

was 1980 or we have examples of the old Post Office which has sat 

there for years and not been utilized to its maximum, whether it 

is the Federal Trade Commission building, the Apex building, or 

others. We can find solutions that work and accommodate our pubVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:49 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43753 JASON
6 

lic need, our public facility requirements, and also enhance this 

great city and other great cities in the process. So, we need to look at these public-private partnerships and 

make certain that we help in making them go forward, that they 

are good deals for the taxpayer, good deals for the developer and 

investors who are our partners. 

So those are a couple of the points that I wanted to make this 

morning. I am trying to see if there are any other points. I think 

I have angered maybe a few people. Maybe we upset a couple of 

folks with these radical ideas like good investment of taxpayer dollars and convenience for the traveling public. But, again, I can’t do 

anything but compliment Ms. Norton for her time and effort in trying to make these things work and be more effective and responsive. 

So I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank the Ranking Member, and I certainly 

thank the Ranking Member of the Full Committee for attending 

this Subcommittee hearing. But it does speak to his long involvement in the Union Station matter. 

As I think his comments bear out, I remind the Committee that 

the intermodal concept of Union Station has been a perfectly bipartisan concept. When he was in the majority and I was in the minority, we were on the same page, and we will continue to be on the 

same page, particularly given the Federal funds that are increasingly necessary to achieve that vision. 

I agree with the Ranking Member about how long it took to get 

the air rights. This was one of the most frustrating matters that 

I have been involved in since I have been in Congress. Obviously 

you have to let the parties negotiate, but Mr. LaTourette was the 

Chair. He and I and the Ranking Member, then Ranking Member 

Mr. Oberstar, met in order to press this forward. It was such a 

waste that it took so very long. 

That is why you will see Congress impatient with getting on with 

the job of intermodal work and getting on with it well before 

Burnham Place sees the light of day. This could be made an intermodal transportation center now, right now, with what it has, if 

there was the vision to do so on the part of those in charge. 

In order to simply lay the predicate, because I hate to ask witnesses about what somebody said when the people who said it are 

right here, so in order to lay the predicate for the first amendment 

part of this hearing, I have asked Erin McCann, who represents 

photographers who have been turned away, if she would testify 

precisely what her experience was. 

TESTIMONY OF ERIN McCANN, PRIVATE PHOTOGRAPHER 

Ms. MCCANN. Hello. Chairwoman Norton, Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today. I have a short statement, and then I will be happy 

to answer any questions. 

My name is Erin McCann, and I am an amateur photographer. 

I am also an active member of a group called DC Photo Rights, 

which exists to document and discuss incidents in which photographers have been harassed by security officers or police. These officers often mistakenly believe that taking pictures in public places 

7 

is illegal or requires a permit or is an indication that the person 

holding the camera is somehow a threat. 

I have never been clear on why exactly a camera is considered 

threatening. In the aftermath of the 2005 transit bombings in London, for instance, officials appealed to the public for snapshots 

taken before and after the attacks in their search for clues. 

An open photography policy can be a security team’s best friend. 

It also liberates security and police from the task of investigating 

people like me, as I take photographs in the most obvious way possible. With a 10-inch lens on my camera, there is no disguising 

what I am doing. 

In Washington, certain places have the reputation of being unfriendly to photographers. In the 4 years that I have been shooting 

in the city, Union Station has always been one of those places. 

In February, I began a series of phone calls and e-mails to Amtrak and Jones Lang LaSalle Management to find out why. I have 

included with my written statement a timeline of my involvement 

and my frustrating search for answers. Often, my calls and e-mails 

have resulted in being given conflicting information, sometimes 

minutes apart by people in the exact same office. 

The statement also includes details of some of the incidents in 

which photographers have been harassed, told incorrect policies by 

misinformed station officials, and in certain instances been threatened with arrest for daring to take a simple snapshot of a national 

treasure. In almost every incident, a guard or officer has wrongly 

told a photographer that Union Station is private property and 

photography is not allowed. 

The reasons given for this fake policy vary. I was once told that 

my camera is too professional. Others have been told that the PATRIOT Act bans photography in train stations, a law that I am 

sure would come as a surprise to the organizers of the annual Amtrak station photography contest. 

I have been stopped twice in the last 3 months while 

photographing in the public areas of Union Station. Both were 

after I received explicit assurances from Amtrak and Jones Lang 

LaSalle Management that photography is allowed. 

The most recent incident was Friday when an Amtrak employee 

who refused to tell me her name or identify herself in any way said 

the building was private property and that all photography is prohibited. 

For many tourists, Union Station is the first stop and the first 

impression of the Nation’s Capital. For a family to be warned or 

even threatened upon arrival for simply taking photos in one of the 

city’s beautiful public places is reprehensible. 

My interest now is the same as it was in February when I first 

started asking questions: One, to understand what the photography 

policy is at Union Station; two, to assure that if there are restrictions on photography, they are clearly posted throughout the building; three, to make sure that those restrictions are fair, given the 

Station’s unique ownership and its role as a major gateway for 

thousands of the city’s visitors each year; and finally and most importantly, I want to make sure that the private guards, Amtrak police and everyone else in a position to interact with the public understands what the policy is. 

8 

Despite repeated assurances from the management of Amtrak 

and Jones Lang LaSalle, ill-informed station employees are still 

taking it upon themselves to interpret the policies as they see fit 

or to make up contradictory policies. Amtrak and Jones Lang LaSalle have so far been unable to communicate the policy to their 

security employees. I believe Washington, D.C.’s train station deserves smart, well-trained, high quality security, and my experience with its representatives so far has been exceedingly disappointing. 

Curious about how other cities and stations handle photography, 

it took me 30 seconds on Google to come up with the policy at 

Grand Central Terminal at New York City. They post it right there 

on their Web site and they welcome photographers with open arms. 

It has taken over 6 months and dozens of conversations, not to 

mention a congressional hearing, to understand the policy at Union 

Station, and we still have no guarantee that when new guards or 

officers are hired they too won’t automatically assume that a camera is a threat. 

My hope is that after today visitors to Union Station will be free 

to explore and photograph the building without being viewed as 

lawbreakers. Security officers and Amtrak employees should have 

more important things to do than investigate a tourist with a camera. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am a Member of the Homeland Security 

Committee, and the notion that security guards in a facility like 

Union Station are busy keeping track of a photographer rather 

than trained the way the airlines are training people to spot those 

who may do us some damage is very distressing to hear. But what 

is most distressing is to hear that you were stopped twice, according to your testimony, in the last 3 months in public areas of the 

station. 

Where were you? 

Ms. MCCANN. The first incident was on, let me find my actual 

timeline here, was in the beginning—middle of May, May 14. This 

was after the NPR photographer was stopped and threatened with 

arrest. 

Ms. NORTON. The NPR photographers, do you know about that? 

Ms. MCCANN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you tell us about the NPR photographers? 

Ms. MCCANN. Do you want me to do that first, and then tell you 

my incidents? 

Ms. NORTON. Either way. 

Ms. MCCANN. The NPR photographer, he was there as a private 

citizen. He just happens to work for NPR. He was using a tripod 

in the Great Hall. And as far as I have been able to tell from Jones 

Lang LaSalle, tripod use is actually prohibited. 

But once that issue was cleared up, he had I think four separate 

security officers telling him conflicting statements about why exactly he couldn’t take photos. One said that it was the tripod. One 

said it was the camera. Two or three of them threatened him with 

arrest. I have a summary of the incident on page 8 of my testimony, and it also includes a link to him. 

9 

Ms. NORTON. Were those threatening with arrest security officers 

or peace officers? 

Ms. MCCANN. They were the ITC, the private security officers 

contracted by Jones Lang LaSalle. So I read his post and his account, and having spent several months and knowing at least as 

far as management told me that photography was allowed and 

knowing that security—— 

Ms. NORTON. How did management relay to you that photography was allowed? Was it in writing? 

Ms. MCCANN. Yes. I got an e-mail from Joan Malkowski, who is 

the Vice President for Union Station, from Jones Lang LaSalle in 

I believe February. She said, ′′In general, we do allow individuals 

to take pictures for their personal, noncommercial use. However, 

from time to time it is necessary to prohibit photography, depending on the situation.′′ Then she went on to say that using a tripod 

or taking professional pictures without the express written permission of Union Station management is prohibited. 

What happened was they posted these signs around the station 

forbidding tripod photography. My understanding is that security 

guards read those signs and interpreted them to mean that all photography was prohibited. 

Ms. NORTON. The security officers read what signs? 

Ms. MCCANN. Jones Lang LaSalle posted some prohibitions 

around the station. It was things like no running, no 

skateboarding. And at the very bottom of those things they prohibit 

in the station they include tripod photography or taking professional pictures. These signs went up after I first contacted Jones 

Lang LaSalle. I think they went up late March or early April. They 

are unclear on the rights of private photographers to take snapshots or artistic photos or anything at all. The only thing that they 

prohibited was professional photography. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you talking about the list, the 18 prohibited 

uses? 

Ms. MCCANN. Yes, and I think tripod photography you see there 

is 17 or 18 on that list. 

Ms. NORTON. On that list, of course, it goes on to say ′′Union Station reserves the right to prohibit photography of any kind, in their 

sole discretion.′′ 

Ms. MCCANN. Yes. That is where the confusion comes in. 

Ms. NORTON. The confusion, who wouldn’t be confused about it 

are the courts of the United States of America. This is a public 

space, then you go from tripods, and, by the way, at our discretion, 

whenever we feel like it, we can just, without giving any indication 

of what kind of photography we are talking about? This is pathetic. 

The timeline that you laid out I think sends the message to 

Union Station, you don’t know who you are fooling with. These are 

very serious, educated people, and that is why I put her on. They 

are not simply reporting by hearsay. They have written evidence 

of their own. They have your written evidence and you are continuing to see these issues. Now, the next thing that is going to 

happen is a lawsuit. 

Ms. MCCANN. May I tell you about my specific two incidents? 

The first came after the NPR photographer was stopped when I 

was standing there with my camera, this is the camera that I carry 

10 

around. It has a very large lens on it. It is not a professional camera. One of the guards who stopped me told me that my camera 

was too professional. 

Ms. NORTON. What is a professional camera? You are a photographer. What is a professional camera? 

Ms. MCCANN. I am unclear on that. I know at one point I asked, 

after a security guard told me my camera was too professional, I 

asked Joan Malkowski if they were going to distribute a list of specific cameras and lenses that were allowed and were not allowed 

if that was the argument they were going to make. And the guard 

that I spoke with that night, he was very polite, but he was confused. He had gotten conflicting information from me and from his 

superiors, and he just didn’t know. 

So, that night I told him that I had been talking with Joan 

Malkowski, and he tried to call her to get some background information. He couldn’t get in touch with her. She already left for the 

day. He told me that because I could say her full name and had 

clearly had some sort of interaction with her, he would let me shoot 

that night. It was him and another guard. And I got the impression 

if I hadn’t dropped her name, I know I would not have been allowed to take a photo that night. And I was very upset when I left, 

because it wasn’t about me, it was about making sure this didn’t 

happen to someone who hadn’t spent 6 months e-mailing management to try to get an answer. 

The most recent incident that I encountered was last Friday, and 

that was when I was standing in the Amtrak area, and a woman 

at the Amtrak security kiosk, as soon as I pulled my camera out 

at 6:45 in the morning, the woman at the Amtrak security kiosk 

told me I had to put it away. 

She said Amtrak is private property. I was not allowed to take 

any photos anywhere in the building. She was speaking for the 

Amtrak area and the Jones Lang LaSalle area. She said no photography whatsoever anywhere in the building. 

I asked her for her name. She was standing there with a name 

tag at the Amtrak security kiosk. She turned her name tag around 

and told me she did not have to give me her name. A police officer, 

a uniformed Amtrak security officer came up next to her, and took 

me aside and I chatted with him. I gave him some of the background. 

He called his supervisor, who told him that yes, I am allowed to 

take photographs. I asked that officer what happens when I leave, 

somebody else comes up and the woman who refused to give her 

name interacts with another photographer or a family of tourists 

just arriving down from New York on the northeast regional train 

and are told to put their camera away? 

This happens all the time. It depends on what guard is there, 

who is working, what their impression of the policy is, in Amtrak 

or the Jones Lang LaSalle area. They are just making it up on the 

spot. 

Ms. NORTON. Your testimony concerning the guard, they are the 

outward and visible sign of an outrageously pathetic policy. They 

are carrying out a non-policy. They are doing whatever they feel 

like doing. It raises very serious questions about their training, and 

11 

all of this goes back to the management. People do what you tell 

them to do, what you train them to do. 

Do you believe that there is any new signage in Union Station 

that clarifies the policy on photography or public access? 

Ms. MCCANN. Absolutely not. Right now the signs, when you 

enter the buildings there are actually old signs that actually say 

′′no photography allowed.′′ The Amtrak security officer I spoke with 

on Friday, he referred to them as the old signs. He also said 

that—— 

Ms. NORTON. He said what? I am sorry? 

Ms. MCCANN. The signs on the outside of the door—— 

Ms. NORTON. How are those signs mounted? 

Ms. MCCANN. I believe they are actually painted on the glass. 

Ms. NORTON. So painted on the glass is the words ′′Union Station 

is private property′′? 

Ms. MCCANN. I don’t know if it actually says that. It does say 

photography is not allowed. But he told me that since he had been 

working there—— 

Ms. NORTON. Otherwise known as written in stone. 

Ms. MCCANN. Right. He told me that when he first started working there, and his name tag said that he had been working there 

since 2007, that when he first started, that photography was not 

allowed anywhere in the station. His understanding was that it 

had been prohibited for a very long time and had only recently 

been allowed. So nobody quite knows when it was allowed and 

when it wasn’t allowed. But the signs on the outside of the station 

do say prohibited and then the Jones Lang LaSalle signs that are 

put up say that it is private property, they reserve the right to restrict photography, no tripods, those signs. 

So right now there is absolutely no clear indication anywhere in 

the building that photography is allowed. When a photographer is 

stopped and they are asked—and they ask, you know, where is this 

posted, security guards, at least the Jones Lang LaSalle ITC security guards generally refer to the posted signs saying ′′we reserve 

the right to prohibit photography.′′ 

Another photographer that I have spoken with in the last couple 

of weeks was stopped in the Amtrak area and was told that he— 

he was told that the whole building is private property and no photography allowed. He asked for a list of station rules and two Amtrak officers refused to give them to him and one referred to the 

no photography rule as being an unwritten rule. 

So right now people are stopped and they have nowhere to go, 

because the management who are actually in the building and the 

people they will refer you to will tell you that no photography is 

allowed. 

When I first started making calls to Amtrak, the first three or 

four people I spoke with told me photography wasn’t allowed. It 

was after I sort of became very upset and made a pain of myself 

after learning about the Amtrak photography contest that I finally 

asked to be transferred to somebody in the corporate relations office who could explain it to me. She told me that it appeared that 

the security, the Union Station station manager and other people 

in the station were taking a policy set up for news photography 

and applying it for all photography. 

12 

What it is for news photography, if you wanted to do a news 

story and go down on the tracks and get photos or video of the 

train arriving, you do need an Amtrak escort as far as their policy 

is concerned. But, again, employees are seeing this policy for news 

or professional photographer and they are applying it to anybody 

with a camera. 

Tourists have been stopped. I have been stopped. I don’t really 

make a distinction between myself and a tourist. They don’t know 

that I live in D.C. when they are telling me I can’t photograph. Everybody there sort of makes up the policy on the spot. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. McCann, these intrusions into what would be 

considered even in many private facilities ordinary kinds of actions 

are particularly troubling to me as a public official and someone 

who had some experience as a lawyer in first amendment matters, 

who taught labor law where the notion of what is a public place 

and what is a private place comes up all the time, and where the 

courts have been clear about the importance of the first amendment. Of course, the first amendment could not be more important 

in a facility owned by the people of the United States of America. 

I have put you on first because I thought that Union Station 

leaders should have the opportunity to hear directly and it should 

not be a matter of my hearsay, that they should hear directly the 

complaints that have come so they could respond. The reason I 

thought I had to do that is that Union Station has repeatedly said 

that it does not bar photography. So while I did not know what 

your testimony would say, the fact that you have taken the trouble 

to go through a timeline to indicate precisely when you or others 

encountered, and particularly you, because you have been real 

clear about your own experience, encountered these violations of 

policy, this is only fair so that Union Station, perhaps they don’t 

know. In law we have a notion know or should have known, but 

perhaps they don’t know. At this hearing, if they didn’t know, they 

found out, and they found out I think thanks to you and to what 

is really very closely written and documented testimony. 

Now, if it is not true, Union Station can come forward and say 

it is not true. But in any case, they are certainly going to have to 

respond. 

As a Member of Congress who represents this city, I want to 

offer my apologies to the amateur photographers who have experienced this treatment in a facility that enjoys the patronage of the 

Congress of the United States through funding. We are having this 

hearing obviously not only because of your complaints, but because 

we haven’t had a hearing on Union Station, and when you leave 

people on their own for decades then they develop their own policies. That ceased today. 

I thank you very much, Ms. McCann, for your testimony. 

Ms. MCCANN. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Could we ask the President of the Union Station 

Development Corporation to come forward, David Ball; the Assistant General Manager of Jones Lang LaSalle, Incorporated, Bryant 

Chambers; and the Counsel for the acquisition company, 

Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation, Daniel Levy. 

Why don’t you begin, Mr. Ball? 

13 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID BALL, PRESIDENT, UNION STATION REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; BRYANT CHAMBERS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, JONES LANG LaSALLE, INC.; AND 

DANIEL LEVY, COUNSEL FROM KRISS AND FEUERSTEIN 

L.L.P., ASHKENAZY ACQUISITION CORPORATION 

Mr. BALL. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Members and Members of the Subcommittee. I am David Ball, President 

of Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, or USRC. I am very 

pleased to be here this morning on behalf of USRC to testify about 

management at Union Station, its intermodal uses, and other important matters concerning the care and custody of Washington’s 

Union Station that has been entrusted with USRC. I also would 

thank Ms. McCann for her testimony this morning. 

USRC is a small office and we serve as the trustees for this public building that is privately held. 

First and foremost, Union Station is a train station and a retail 

success for Washington, D.C. It is Washington’s intermodal transportation facility serving MARC, VRE, Amtrak, WMATA buses and 

Metrorail. On an average day, there are over 1,200 taxi pickups 

and most likely an equal number of taxi discharges at the station. 

About 12,000 tour buses a year park in the garage and over 32 million people a year go in and out of this station. 

In 2005, USRC obtained a $38 million construction bank loan to 

expand the capacity of the parking garage. In expanding the garage, we are also created a separate area for rental cars that allowed USRC to create the bus decks for buses only. 

USRC is required to accommodate several parking market segments in the garage due to existing contractual relationships. Part 

of what we need to do is make available 600 conveniently located 

spaces for the retail use to provide a parking validation program. 

We allowed the developer 75 spaces for rental car parking and established a fee structure that discourages long-term parking and 

encourages prompt turnaround. These policies coexist with the requirement to make parking available to Amtrak travelers. As to 

the parking garage that has a capacity of about 600 cars, it normally reaches capacity by 7:30 in the morning with Amtrak travelers. 

Not unlike our station retail parking, whom we will hear from 

later today at USI, who is attempting to create the right mix of retail venues with their exciting redevelopment plans for the station, 

USRC must work to identify the users of the bus deck that will 

allow the station to maximize its intermodal transportation possibilities. 

On the bus deck, we work to accommodate the local and out-ofstate tour buses, the D.C. Circulator, FlexCars and WMATA. We 

are in the early discussions with Greyhound concerning their proposed tenancy at Union Station, the number of buses required, the 

passenger express services, any boarding-waiting area issues, along 

with security concerns at the station. Greyhound, USI, Amtrak and 

USRC all must reach an agreement on the use issues, as well as 

the economics of the deal. 

We have had discussions with the team from the Capital District 

Center concerning parking Capitol Hill’s tour buses at Union StaVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:49 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43753 JASON
14 

tion to help facilities visitors to the Capitol building. We have also 

talked about running a shuttle bus from Union Station to the Hill. 

At the city’s request, we provide in and out services for tour 

buses that work with the city on a master plan for tour bus parking. We have had early discussions with Akridge on how best to 

maximize the use of the bus deck in their proposed Burnham development plans. The garage cannot accommodate everyone’s needs, 

so we look forward to the results of the ITC study to help us charter the Union Station position as the city’s intermodal transportation facility. 

As noted in my written testimony, the success of Union Station 

is derived from the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981, 

which was signed into law by President Reagan. Former Chairman 

of the House and Transportation Infrastructure and former Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta was the sponsor and champion of the bill in the House. Without his efforts, there would have 

been no redevelopment act and there would be no money to complete the parking garage and there would not be a redevelopment 

project. The Secretary of Transportation then, Elizabeth Hanford 

Dole, secured the needed funding from Amtrak and agreed to work 

with USRC to select a developer. 

USRC is a nonprofit corporation and is governed by a board of 

directors that sets the policies for USRC. The current board consists of the Secretary of Transportation, the President of Amtrak, 

the Mayor of the City, the President of the Federal City Council, 

and the Federal Railroad Administrator. 

We are proud of what this intermodal transportation center has 

done for Capitol Hill and the city as a whole. A short list of contributions to the city are we brought commercial and office development to the area, the restoration of the Union Station complex increased neighborhood real estate values, Union Station now accounts for over 5,000 permanent jobs. In 2004 Union Station generated $9.5 million worth of sales tax; in 2005, $9.9 million in sales 

tax; 2006, $10.6 million; and in 2007, about $10.7 million in sales 

tax for the city. Union Station is a revenue generator for the city. 

In closing, I am compelled to let you all know about the proposed 

threat by the District of Columbia’s Possessory Interest Tax to 

Washington’s Union Station and its continued viability. In my written testimony, I provided information that I have given before the 

City Council on our concerns with the PIT. 

I see my time is up. At this point Chairman Norton and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you today on behalf of Union Station. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Ball. 

Mr. Chambers. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Members of 

the Subcommittee. My name is Bryant Chambers. I am the Assistant General Manager for Jones Lang LaSalle at Union Station, and 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf 

of them about the management of Union Station in particular. 

Union Station is one the most successful public-private partnerships in the history of the United States. In 1985, the U.S. Government, acting through the Secretary of Transportation, leased the 

15 

property to Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, USRC, a 

nonprofit District of Columbia corporation formed to redevelop 

Union Station under a ground lease. In turn, USRC subleased 

Union Station to Union Station Invesco, LLC, known as USI. 

In the United States, Jones Lang LaSalle Retail is the largest 

third party regional shopping center manager, with a 50 million 

square foot portfolio of more than 100 regional malls, strip centers, 

power centers, lifestyle centers, ground-up development projects, 

mixed use centers, and transportation terminals across 28 States. 

Jones Lang LaSalle, the only real estate money management and 

service firm named in Forbes magazine’s 400 best big companies 

for 3 consecutive years, has a portfolio of 1.2 billion square feet of 

property under management worldwide, including more than 

10,000 retail locations on four continents. 

In 1986, Jones Lang LaSalle was awarded the development management of Union Station. As a result, over 120 stores, restaurants 

and a cinema were constructed, providing over 213,000 square feet 

of retail space to Union Station. 

Today at Union Station, and since the grand opening in 1988, 

Jones Lang LaSalle has managed the asset for our clients. In 2007, 

the leasehold interest was purchased by Union Station Invesco, 

LLC, who retained Jones Lang LaSalle’s management services. Our 

role as a management firm includes client accounting, financial 

services, skilled management and marketing services. 

In general, we oversee all contractor services at Union Station. 

That includes security, cleaning and repairs, and maintenance. 

Public events at Union Station are coordinated through our office 

as well. We establish annual capital plans for building improvements and repairs throughout the Station and execute these plans 

when approved by ownership, USI and USRC. In addition, tenant 

coordination for build-outs and remodels is the responsibility of our 

management team. 

Union Station is the national headquarters for Amtrak, as earlier 

stated, and Amtrak leases 106,200 square feet of office space and 

63,800 square feet of operation space for waiting rooms and customer services and ticket services. 

Also, Union Station is the hub for the MARC train, which is the 

Maryland Rail Commuter Train, and the VRE, the Virginia Railway Express, and the most heavily traveled stop on the Metro system. 

There are now over 130 merchants in Union Station. The property enjoys high sales performance and is one of the most visited 

sites in Washington, D.C. Over 32 million visitors pass through 

Union Station annually. Union Station serves as the venue for special events, including inaugural balls, art exhibits, concerts and 

other events that draw patrons to the Station. 

In 2007, Union Station restaurant operators and merchants contributed approximately $10,631,100 in sales tax to the District of 

Columbia. USI, through management agreements and contracts for 

cleaning and security services, employs approximately 124 employees. 

Union Station ownership has cooperated with the city on transportation and logistics, and city Metro buses will drop off and pick 

up passengers in front of Union Station when the Columbus Plaza 

16 

is complete. Also, a bicycle center will be located at the Station and 

the city will pay no rent for the premises due to the service it provides the citizens and patrons. 

We actively participate as members of the Capitol Hill Business 

Improvement District, and the General Manager serves on the 

Board of Directors as an executive committee member. 

Union Station is an active member in the Capitol Hill Merchants 

Association, and Union Station is a member of the Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, DC. 

We participate in the annual ′′ask me about Washington′′ function in conjunction with the D.C. Chamber of Commerce. We assist 

the Mayor’s office, working with the D.C. Film Commission, to increase awareness of Washington, D.C. and Union Station through 

films such as ′′Along Came a Spider′′ and ′′Wedding Crashers.′′ 

Union Station is an active member of the Washington Convention and Tourism Corporation, recently rebranded Destination 

D.C., to ensure that millions of regional, domestic and international 

tourists know about the cultural diversity and wealth of shopping 

and dining opportunities the city affords them. 

At this time, I am available for any questions that you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chambers. 

Mr. Levy. 

Mr. LEVY. Chairwoman Norton and the Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you 

today on behalf of Union Station Invesco, LLC, relating to the team 

behind Union Station Invesco, the operation and management of 

Union Station, its plans for the future of Union Station, and assessment of District of Columbia’s Possessory Interest Tax on 

Union Station and its likely effects. 

Union Station Invesco, LLC, an entity of Ben Ashkenazy, was 

the recent purchaser of the leasehold interest in Union Station. 

With over 20 years of experience in real estate and as chairman 

and CEO of Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp, he leads the company’s 

vision, and under his stewardship the firm has developed into one 

of the leading real estate investors and operators in the United 

States. 

Headquartered in New York City, Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation is a private real estate investment firm focusing on retail 

and office assets. With more than 70 properties, AAC has superior 

performance history in purchasing and managing premier assets. 

AAC has acquired over 13 million square feet of retail, office and 

residential properties located throughout the United States and 

Canada, some of which have been included in my written testimony. 

Bryant spoke to the specifics of the ownership structure, so, very 

generally, on January 25, 2007, Union Station Invesco acquired the 

leasehold interest from Union Station Venture II, LLC. Prior to the 

date of closing, AAC was selected as purchaser by USV and was 

approved by the USRC to acquire the leasehold interests. 

USI leases and operates certain parts of Union Station, and in 

turn has multiple retail sub-subleases with individual owners of 

over 120 stores and restaurants occupying Union Station, as well 

as a sub-sublease with Amtrak for offices and railroad operations. 

17 

Jones Lang LaSalle is currently engaged by USI to serve as development manager and property agent. Jones Lang LaSalle has 

been involved with Union Station for the past 20 years and has 

been largely responsible for the revitalization of Union Station. 

Union Station is not only a historical landmark but an architectural gem. One of USI’s goals is to enhance the functionality of the 

station while keeping the original concept of a major intermodal 

transportation hub. The project will reorganize pedestrian traffic 

flows to make the station more navigable and ease congestion. Directional signage and information screens will be added throughout 

the station. 

Attached is Exhibit A to my written testimony and, as I will address, are some of initiatives USI intends to undertake. 

With the proposed addition of Greyhound Lines, Inc. Union Station will further diversify the transportation option to its visitors. 

Greyhound cuing would be accessed by a new mezzanine deck directly connected to the parking garage along with rental cars and 

other travel services. All Greyhound amenities would be on the 

same level. The train concourse will be structured to intuitively 

streamline the congestion around waiting areas, cue areas and 

walkways. 

In conjunction with the District of Columbia Department of 

Transportation, a new bicycle transit center will be installed at the 

west end of the property. The new bicycle center is being built to 

provide convenience and access to commuters and visitors alike 

wishing to travel within the city by bicycle. 

USI and its architects continually work with the USRC, Amtrak 

and Akridge to improve Union Station and for the addition of 

Burnham Place, which will be developed utilizing the air rights located over the train tracks at Union Station. 

Additional improvements being undertaken in conjunction with 

Amtrak and the USRC are the installation of security bollards 

around the perimeter of the premises. 

Finally USRC is in agreement with the National Park Service, 

District of Columbia, and USRC for the enhancements to be made 

to Columbus Plaza adjacent to Union Station. At part of the overall 

improvement project, city metro buses will have a convenient location front and center for passengers boarding and drop-off. 

As David briefly mentioned in his written testimony, I also feel 

compelled to briefly discuss and call to your attention the 

possessory interest tax. The District of Columbia’s possessory interest tax legislation is the largest threat to the future success of 

Union Station and has the potential to unwind two decades of revitalization. The success of Union Station as an intermodal transportation facility is based on a careful and strategic balance of budgeting for ever-growing costs of maintaining, securing and operating 

the century old national landmark, preserving the crucial tenant 

mix at Union Station and the cost to improve Union Station as an 

intermodal transportation facility. USI has been working with the 

District of Columbia City Council and has appealed to the Board 

of Real Property Assessment and Appeals to save Union Station 

from the inevitable downward spiral it may experience as a result 

of the PIT assessment. 

18 

However, fearing the worse and without some kind of relief it is 

unlikely that USI will be able to pay that amount together with all 

of the other increased operating costs, security costs and improvements that are required to maintain and improve Union Station as 

an intermodal transportation facility. 

Chairwoman Norton and the Members of the Subcommittee, I 

thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you and would 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. While it is fresh in your mind, let me ask each of 

you to respond to the testimony of Ms. McCann. 

What is your reaction to her testimony? 

Mr. Ball. 

Mr. BALL. I guess basically I am just embarrassed that we don’t 

have a standard policy that people in general understand how to 

go through the process. I don’t think it is a hard policy to identify. 

I do know, over the years, we have gone back and forth in terms 

of what is required for a person to take pictures. After 9/11, we 

have gone through different reiterations of how security should be 

done while people are taking pictures. It seems like a very simple 

matter. I talked to Joan Malkowski. She believes that she has 

given out the right answer. 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry, who? 

Mr. BALL. Joan Malkowski, the vice president of Jones Lang LaSalle, the general manager whom Ms. McCann spoke about in her 

statement. 

Ms. NORTON. So if you get to the right official, you might be 

okay. 

Mr. BALL. Yeah, you might be okay. 

As in any building, like I said, there is over 5,000 people that 

work in the station in the course of a business day, and you may 

get many different answers on any issue at a given time. 

But that is not an excuse. If there are signs up there that are 

old or whatever, those signs need to be replaced. And I think, I 

have talked to Bryant, I don’t think that it is a hard policy to sort 

of figure out exactly what is required. I don’t set that policy, but 

I am very certain that, between Bryant and Daniel, they can probably get a clear answer, and each may go to a Web page and find 

out what information you need. At that point, I will leave it to 

these gentlemen. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, first of all, Mr. Levy, you are counsel, is that 

right? 

Mr. LEVY. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Has this matter ever been, the matter of photography, ever been formally presented to you, and what is your legal 

opinion, sir? 

Mr. LEVY. It has never been formally presented to me as an 

issue. 

Ms. NORTON. So what are you there for? 

Mr. LEVY. Excuse me? 

Ms. NORTON. What are you there for? You are the counsel. 

Mr. LEVY. Why am I here? 

Ms. NORTON. You are listed as counsel. 

Mr. LEVY. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. If not to you, then to whom? 

19 

Are you a lawyer, Mr. Ball. 

Mr. BALL. No, Ms. Norton I am not. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you a lawyer Mr. Chambers? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. No, Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Levy. 

Mr. LEVY. If you are asking for my legal opinion, I can give you 

my legal opinion. My legal opinion is that, yes, the building is 

owned by the Federal Government. However, they conveyed a 

leasehold interest to Union Station and in turn—to the USRC, and 

in turn the USRC conveyed a leasehold interest to us. 

Ms. NORTON. So your testimony is that because we leased the 

building—you may want to finish that sentence. Because the Federal Government leased, who owns the building, leased it to a private party, fill in the blank, sir. 

Mr. LEVY. I am not entirely sure what you are asking me. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you know—— 

Mr. LEVY. Are you asking me whether it is a public or private 

building? 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Levy, you are the counsel. You say you 

have never been consulted on this policy. Don’t you see why there 

is confusion here? 

Mr. LEVY. I mean, I would just like to call your attention to the 

fact that we recently acquired the leasehold interest in Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. When did you acquire the leasehold? 

Mr. LEVY. In January of last year. 

Ms. NORTON. How long have you been counsel? 

Mr. LEVY. Since about that time. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you hear Ms. McCann speak of very recent contradictory guidance and incidents brought to the attention of management? Is that enough time for you to have moved forward with 

a policy? 

Mr. LEVY. It is certainly a problem that needs to be addressed. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chambers. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I would actually like to address several of the 

comments that were made in the testimony. 

As someone more on the ground, I think I have a little bit more 

comprehensive information that may make this—we—actually, I 

was aware of the e-mails that were being sent back and forth by 

Mrs. McCann. And she is correct in stating that there was confusion. And I also speak on behalf of IPC Security that we hired to 

provide the security for the building. She is right in stating that 

there was confusion and that there were standards that were improperly, if not inconsistently, enforced throughout the building. 

I have actually taken proactive steps to combat those issues in 

the station. Number one, I would like to state that I was not aware 

of her most recent issues that she has had with the Amtrak security. I am not able to speak on behalf of Amtrak security, but for 

the purpose of this meeting, that will be followed up. We actually 

sit, Mr. Ball and I sit on a committee with all the stakeholders in 

the building. 

Ms. NORTON. And of course, Amtrak is on the same board—— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. —with everybody else? 

20 

Mr. CHAMBERS. So I will personally follow up the issue with 

them. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not trying to—— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Now, in—— 

Ms. NORTON. Go ahead. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. In reference to the standard being unclear, I 

have actually redrafted the standard, which is why I am probably 

a little bit more qualified to address that to make it more clear, to 

make it understood, that photography is most certainly welcome inside the building. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chambers, you indicated you were not a lawyer? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Levy is a lawyer. I am not sure Mr. Levy would 

feel competent to draft a policy. And I say this only because this 

is a public-private facility. I don’t know if you are aware of the 

NLRB cases, but the case law is replete with mall cases, for example, where First Amendment rights were upheld in what looks to 

be entirely private space, sir, unions being allowed to picket and 

the First Amendment being cited as well as the National Labor Relations Act. So the reason I bring this to your attention—in fact, 

let me say what I appreciate. See, what I didn’t appreciate was reiteration of the policy that, well, we let cameras in here, what is 

wrong with these fools, when in fact we continue to get reports. 

That is what I didn’t appreciate. 

All I ask those who come before us to do is to indicate that they 

will in fact respond accordingly. That is really—I am not asking 

you to go through the process here now. So I am going to ask the 

three of you together to get at least the outline of—this is a difficult issue, but not nearly as difficult as you think—get the outlines of the policy for photography in Union Station where it will 

be posted. I am going ask you to give that to outside counsel, 

meaning somebody who has perhaps practiced before the Supreme 

Court or before the Federal Courts and is familiar with the unbroken line of cases about; one, public access, and two, First Amendment rights. 

This is quite a special field that, Mr. Levy, I don’t expect you to 

be an expert in every field of law, but I do expect that any legal 

opinion will exercise a presumption in favor of public access, which 

includes photographers. I am not even going to get into commercial 

versus noncommercial types of cameras because that is so pathetic 

that I don’t think it deserves elaboration. There are narrow instances, the operative word is narrow, in which you can forbid 

property in a space leased by the United States Government. And 

if you don’t believe me, sue me. But we are not going to sit here 

and have complaints come back and forth about this. And I ask you 

to, 30 days, get us the outlines of a policy; within 60 days, get us 

a policy. We want to know where the policy will be posted, and let 

me move on, because photography was not meant to be the centerpiece of this at all. It is just the piece that most indicates that 

there may be problems at Union Station and that oversight is necessary. 

Mr. Ball, who is on the board of the corporation, the managing 

corporation? 

21 

Mr. BALL. For USRC, it is the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, 

Ms. Peters; President of Amtrak, Mr. Kummant is on board; Mayor 

of the City; President of Federal City Council represented by Edmond Cronin, who is President of the Washington Real Estate Investment Trust; and the Federal Railroad Administrator. We have 

a five-board member panel—five-board panel. 

Ms. NORTON. What was the last one? 

Mr. BALL. Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ball, you have just given the names of—was 

it five people? 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Four of whom are public officials. 

Mr. Levy, I ask you to keep that in mind when you cite the leasehold. The board is governed almost exclusively by public officials in 

this legislation long before I got here reinforcing congressional intent about this facility. We are very appreciative of the public-private nature of this facility. But, of course, I think most of us would 

have difficulties with this notice at Union Station that Channel 5 

delivered to us: Union Station is private property. The following depicts the rules of conduct for Union Station. 

Who is responsible for drafting this document, Mr. Levy? 

Mr. LEVY. I think it preceded our purchase of Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you—when you take over a business, you 

don’t look at all their documents, particularly when the business is 

governed by Federal law, to see if you are in compliance? 

Mr. LEVY. We do, however this isn’t your typical shopping mall. 

Ms. NORTON. This is what? 

Mr. LEVY. This is not your typical shopping mall or commercial 

property where you have—— 

Ms. NORTON. All the more reason for you to look closely at your 

obligation. 

Mr. LEVY. I agree. 

Ms. NORTON. You just heard me list four out of the five members 

being public officials. Why do you think Congress did that? 

Mr. Levy, the notion that this isn’t an ordinary shopping mall, 

I also commend you to the ordinary shopping malls in which the 

courts, including the Supreme Courts, have said, you have got to 

let people picket in there and exercise their First Amendment 

rights in there. So you needn’t cite this public-private partnership 

when the law has even allowed, in many circumstances, not all, but 

many circumstances, the exercise of First Amendment rights in private mall spaces. That is why I say you need outside counsel on 

this important issue. 

Mr.—all three of you, perhaps. I don’t know who can best answer 

this question. What is the long-term plan for Union Station? We 

understand that you are changing the mix of retail there, that 

there is, if anything, a wholesale makeover going on. The Committee is interested in the details of the makeover. 

Mr. BALL. Ms. Norton, I will start out. 

Union Station has probably had the same type of retail in it 

since it has opened up for the last 20 years. It is a customary practice in the shopping center business that every couple years, 15, 20 

years, you sort of do a look at your inventory, look at the type of 

retail you have. 

22 

Ms. NORTON. I will just say, you are absolutely right that the—— 

Mr. BALL. And make it competitive—— 

Ms. NORTON. You are absolutely right that—and we welcome 

anything you might do. 

Mr. BALL. So if you take a look at what has happened on 7th 

Street, even up in Chevy Chase, it is time for a remix to make a 

different set of—to revitalize the station a little bit, so—— 

Ms. NORTON. We don’t object. You understand the basis for my 

question. I am asking you for details, far from saying there should 

not be changes. I am saying we are unaware of the changes, and 

therefore I am asking you for details concerning the change. 

Mr. BALL. Okay. Then I will probably need to let him speak because I can only paint a broad picture. I can talk about Union Station as a whole, in general. I can talk about the things we are trying to do in terms of the parking garage. The leasing responsibility 

goes over to USI. Our responsibility at USRC is to look at their 

plans and get them to through the Commissioner of Fine Arts. But 

if you want a detailed response, then I will have to leave that to 

the developer. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chambers. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you any response to the details of the 

makeover? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. We actually, as a management company, do not 

handle the leasing. I would have to defer to Mr. Levy. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Let us pass the buck down to Mr. Levy. 

Mr. LEVY. Are you asking with respect to tenants or with respect 

to all types of improvements? 

Ms. NORTON. Sir, I can only ask you a general question, because 

I have no idea what kind of makeover is intended, nor am I objecting to it. Mr. Ball was exactly right. I am a Washingtonian. They 

can’t make over 7th Street fast enough for me. So that is not my 

issue. In fact, I have no issue. I seek information. 

Mr. LEVY. Although unfinalized, the idea is to create a state-ofthe-art intermodal transportation facility. One of those ideas—and 

if you look at—I don’t know if you have my written testimony before you, but the back pamphlet, Exhibit A, will delineate some of 

those ideas. The main grasp of the improvements are to improve 

our congestion problem in Union Station, make the station more 

navigable. And if you would like to turn to it, if you have it, I am 

happy to go through some of them, or if you have any specific questions, I can fill them in. 

Ms. NORTON. If you would summarize because those are interesting. And we are very pleased to have these pictures for the 

record. But some of these pictures go to things that can only be 

done when Akridge & Company get in there. And you are undertaking a makeover now, aren’t you? 

Mr. BALL. Well, Ms.—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are you about to change in some ways the existing 

facility? That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about 

the facility somewhere down the line. 

Mr. BALL. I am not certain what you may have in your hand 

now, but I do know what I have seen so far of the plans shows 

23 

some grand space in the station, the possibility of working with 

Amtrak because Amtrak has the area—— 

Ms. NORTON. So the new glass store fronts, for example, added 

to the back mezzanines. 

Mr. BALL. Right, those mezzanines, yes, those are some of the 

things that they talk about. 

Ms. NORTON. Will that bring more retail, more stores? 

Mr. BALL. It actually will help circulation more. So it is not so 

much about getting more square footage. It is about having people 

move from one part of the building to the other. 

Ms. NORTON. You can do that before—— 

Mr. BALL. Well, Akridge is a separate issue. And their work is 

what their work is. We can still move in the station independently 

of their work, but we have talked to them because there will be 

some places where there can be an opportunity to have a joint connection between the two. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you have at the bottom Mr. Ashkenazy—I 

mean, the Ashkenazy Corporation. Please forgive me, I think I 

have called the corporation several different kinds of things. It says 

lower level looking up to street level, new retail spaces replace existing movie theater. 

Mr. BALL. Right. Well, movie theaters are basically losing money. 

They don’t work in Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. For themselves, or for—— 

Mr. BALL. Well, for the station in general. They don’t pull the 

same type of crowd, because they don’t pull the same type of crowd; 

you have the same number of people shopping the stores. 

Ms. NORTON. So, in other words, we are not going to go to the 

movies at Union Station anymore. That I have no Federal jurisdiction over. 

Mr. BALL. I am a native Washingtonian, and I don’t go there 

often either to the movies. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I do go because I live on Capitol Hill. So you 

don’t intend to have other—you are going to have other retail 

there? 

Mr. BALL. I think for the developer, they are actually trying to 

figure out what is the best mix, what actually works at Union Station. How do you bring people back to Union Station? 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have a consultant doing that sir? 

Mr. BALL. I don’t have the consultant. That is the USI folks that 

have the retail responsibility. 

Ms. NORTON. Who? 

Mr. BALL. Ashkenazy. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Levy, who is doing this work? 

Mr. LEVY. What is that? 

Ms. NORTON. Obviously, you are doing some kind of market survey? 

Mr. LEVY. That is right. And we do that in-house. That is what 

our business is, to evaluate—— 

Ms. NORTON. So what have you determined thus far? 

Mr. LEVY. Well, thus far, what David spoke about, the feeders 

are underutilized and—— 

Ms. NORTON. So what kind of retail do you think, for example, 

in the basement might increase the utilization? 

24 

Mr. LEVY. I don’t think the idea is to replace the tenant. I think, 

obviously, working with the Commission of Fine Arts it is to create 

a walkway that would allow more light in to our food court and 

maybe upgrade the food court and make it more inviting than it 

is right now. 

Ms. NORTON. So you do anticipate food courts, food down where 

you have food now? 

Mr. LEVY. Yeah. We do anticipate—yes, we do anticipate having 

that food court. The only change there would perhaps be creating 

a walkway downstairs under the center cafe. 

Ms. NORTON. But the movie theaters wouldn’t be there, so what 

would replace the movie theaters? 

Mr. LEVY. Stairways, a walkway downstairs. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, goodness. So you are willing to give up whatever attraction they have and to simply replace it with infrastructure? 

Mr. LEVY. Because the plus side after creating that kind of traffic 

may encourage our retailers and our food courts. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, it is your business, so you must know what 

you are doing. But are you going to have the same food courts 

down there? 

Mr. LEVY. Perhaps. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to go to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

I have a few questions, and then you may have additional questions you seek answers for. 

Let me just get in time and space on the redevelopment project. 

Everything is in place to move forward with the additional development, the 3 million square feet, is that correct? Would Mr. Levy or 

Mr. Ball? 

Mr. BALL. That is a completely different project. What I believe 

you are referring to is the Akridge project—— 

Mr. MICA. Where is that? 

Mr. BALL. That is over top the air rights. That is between the 

Union Station parking garage and the FCC building. 

Mr. MICA. Is everything in place for that? 

Mr. BALL. I can’t answer that question. That is Mr. Levy. 

Mr. MICA. You are not involved. You are just involved in the current management? 

Mr. LEVY. Correct. 

Mr. BALL. And these are actually physically separated parts that 

the developers have to work together to determine how best to connect in certain areas, how best to get the right synergy between the 

two projects. They are separate entities, but we do communicate 

with the development partners. 

Mr. MICA. It is going to be part and parcel though to the existing 

station? 

Mr. BALL. It will be connected because we have negotiated access 

between the two properties, so they will—— 

Mr. MICA. Is that the property that would have the Greyhound 

facility? 

Mr. BALL. Currently Greyhound has had discussions with USRC 

as well as USI. Greyhound would like their presence to be inside 

of Union Station. The Ashkenazy Group has taken a look and has 

25 

identified the possibility of creating a mezzanine space in what is 

Amtrak’s current waiting area, a mezzanine space above the Amtrak’s waiting area to house a Greyhound ticket counter there. 

Mr. MICA. So it is not in then this new 3 million square foot addition, or is it? Would it be? We don’t know? 

Mr. BALL. That is the best answer, yeah. We have identified the 

possibility of it being within Union Station. Again, you know, they 

can park buses in the Union Station parking garage. They could 

possibly have a ticket counter within the station. 

Mr. MICA. I couldn’t imagine a 3 million square foot addition to 

not be interconnected to the current Amtrak facility. But you are 

saying there will be that connection, right? 

Mr. BALL. They are separate entities, correct, yeah. 

Mr. MICA. I know that, but the question—— 

Mr. BALL. It is almost like if you are a city block and you have 

two office buildings side by side. They may have a connected atrium; they may not. At this point, I think the plans, some are still 

fluid. And both developers, the Akridge developer as well as the 

Ashkenazy developer, have talked. 

Mr. MICA. Again, it will enhance the Amtrak project to be interconnected with the new project. Wouldn’t it be a benefit to both? 

Mr. BALL. I am not a developer. Yes, it could be. 

Mr. MICA. Pardon? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, it could be. 

Well, some deals with, in terms of when you take a look at the 

property, some of the elevations don’t line up. There are different 

elevations in terms of where access points are, physical impediments inside. So those are some engineering details that really 

need to be taken a look at. In concept, everything seems to be very 

good. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, to me, it would—the air space is being— 

who is granting the air space lease? Is that you all or the Federal 

Government or who, Amtrak? 

Mr. BALL. Federal Government, if I understand your question 

right. Akridge has purchased air rights from the Federal Government. 

Mr. MICA. I can’t imagine anyone allowing a development of that 

not to be accessible to your existing—— 

Mr. BALL. There is a connection between the Akridge air space 

and the Union Station project. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, to me, in our interest, I mean—and we 

are giving—if the Federal Government has title to this property, 

why you wouldn’t have a new 3 million square foot complex interconnected or inter accessible that would make it accessible to both, 

I just can’t imagine that. But I guess every day you get surprised 

around here. 

The improvements that you are talking about at Union Station, 

first of all, okay, you are operating the station, right, Mr. Levy? 

Mr. LEVY. Well, yes, we are managing and operating, along with 

JLL. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. And the corporation stills owns it, and they are 

the people that are actually doing the administration of the leases, 

et cetera, deciding future uses? 

Mr. LEVY. Yes. 

26 

Mr. MICA. The current Union Station development corporation, 

are they showing a profit or annual—what is their bottom line at 

the end of the last few years? 

Mr. BALL. USRC is a nonprofit corporation. 

Mr. MICA. I know, but you either make money or you lose money. 

Mr. BALL. No, we make money by the lease structure. 

Mr. MICA. You do? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, we do. 

Mr. MICA. Is that the money you are pouring back into these improvements that have been described, that the Chair showed for 

new ticket counters, for the bike racks, for the food courts, are you 

pouring that money back in? 

Mr. BALL. No, we are not. I mean, the way the lease is structured—— 

Mr. MICA. They do it. 

Mr. BALL. Yes, they do it. We have some capital responsibilities 

as USRC. We have the responsibility to make certain that the historical integrity of the building is maintained. 

Mr. MICA. So you are doing the bike stuff and all of that? 

Mr. BALL. The bike stuff is being done by the District of Columbia Government with some financial support by USRC. 

Mr. MICA. I am a has-been developer, but I looked at your bike 

racks there, and it looks like a nice—I can’t tell whether that is 

glass or some sort of awning cover. 

Mr. LEVY. It is glass enclosed. 

Mr. MICA. Yeah, that will look like crap in a little while. I would 

go back and—you have a historic building, and if you build a bike 

rack, build something that goes with the building that doesn’t look 

like it is going to look like a dust bin. Forget—well, just again, I 

think you could do something a little bit more conducive to the 

space. 

The food courts, has anybody here eaten down in the food courts 

lately? Okay. Let me tell you my last experience. I went down to 

the food court. I was going to catch like a train. I got there. I got 

there real early, so I go down to have some lunch in the food court 

rather than eat off—I would say I got panhandled at least four 

times downstairs. The food is pretty good. It was—— 

Ms. NORTON. They were too busy with photographers. 

Mr. MICA. Now, if they would stop harassing the photographers 

and get a little bit of order. I mean, I even offered to buy the people 

lunch. They didn’t want it. They just want the cash because they 

are going to go buy drugs or whatever. But you guys run the place. 

Stop the panhandlers down where people are trying to—what? 

Mr. BALL. I mean, that is a very serious point. 

Mr. MICA. I am telling you, I am a Member of Congress sitting 

there. They panhandled the living hell out of me. I haven’t been 

back since because it was an unpleasant experience. 

Mr. BALL. We work on that. That is even tougher than the—— 

Mr. MICA. What? 

Mr. BALL. That is an even tougher issue than the photographers. 

Ms. NORTON. Why is it tougher? I am sorry, were you—— 

Mr. MICA. No, I yield. 

Mr. BALL. No, just in terms of they, the panhandlers, are also 

citizens, you know. And you know, it is a delicate issue just to work 

27 

with them in terms of, you know, you just can’t kick them out. 

That is not allowed. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, wait a minute. You can kick photographers 

out, but you can’t kick the panhandlers out. 

Mr. BALL. I follow you. I will stop. 

Ms. NORTON. I will go back to the Ranking Member in a second, 

but I have to make the distinction. 

Mr. Levy is very quick to cite to me the private facility notion. 

But when it comes to panhandlers on this, quote, private facility, 

then of course you have problems kicking them out, and I must 

say, with some risk to your own bottom line since you don’t get Mr. 

Mica going again. But the distinction is this. In the streets of D.C., 

we cannot stop people from panhandling. That is entirely public. I 

just want to know if your answer to the Ranking Member is that 

you don’t have the legal authority to do so or you haven’t figured 

out how to do it; which? 

Mr. LEVY. You know—go ahead. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. As far as, just to take you through the procedure, 

because this is an ongoing issue that we have inside the station, 

where our security will address—you know, we do prohibit panhandling, as you called it, solicitation, inside the building. The 

challenge that we face is our security firm does not have arresting 

powers. Not that you can necessarily arrest somebody for doing 

such. But we reprimand an individual for soliciting; tell them to 

stop. 

Mr. MICA. I have got a suggestion for you. 

Now, anyone who has been on Capitol Hill, if you go over here 

to, is it First and C, in front of the Capitol Hill Club where you 

come up out of the metro station. Do you know where that intersection is? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Correct. 

Mr. MICA. There is an officer there. His name is Officer Thompson. And anybody who is familiar with Capitol Hill, you don’t jaywalk at that corner. You don’t get out of order in any way because 

Officer—you do not even cross when the light doesn’t have the little 

people sign on it because Officer Thompson enforces the law very 

strictly. I heard he is going to retire the end of this year. You ought 

to sure as hell interview him about going over to Union Station and 

enforcing some of the rules for folks that are trying to have a— 

would you take your family there? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I have. 

Mr. MICA. I won’t even go back because of the harassment I experienced. You are talking about shedding a little light on Union 

Station. I am talking about just getting some order. In fact, maybe 

you could have a bus service bring them over and take them down 

to the cafeteria here in the Hart Building and let them panhandle 

among the Members of Congress and the staff that eat in the Rayburn cafeteria. I have got a whole host of suggestions. 

But again, you know, I am busting your chops a bit. But I really 

would like to see the place succeed. It has succeeded well. The 

same thing I guess probably happened with the movie theaters. I 

would never go to a movie theater because of the harassment there. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. That is more along the lines of just other opportunities to go in the city in better theaters, quite frankly. 

28 

Mr. MICA. Maybe it is difficult because it is down in the—— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yeah, I mean, if you go to any theater nowadays 

with the stadium city, it is not something that is doable within our 

premises. 

Mr. MICA. Well, the other thing, I can’t express enough encouragement for, again, co-locating all transit, including the private 

carriers, in any reconfiguration, whether it is a new extended facility that is connected adjacently or the existing facility if there is 

a rehab. So just a couple of points and a little bit of harassment. 

I will yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much for that real-life example. I 

haven’t had quite that experience. 

Mr. MICA. Could I invite you to lunch over there some time? I 

am serious. I will take you down there. We will do it. We won’t tell 

them when we are coming. And then I will get that photographer, 

wherever she is. She can come and take a picture of us and then 

our friends that we acquired to panhandle. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, we are having a little fun at your expense. 

But we sit here also to assist you and to help you in any way you 

want to. 

I must say, Mr. Chambers, when I heard you say you had no arrest power, that is right, because security guards don’t have arrest 

power, I couldn’t help but think about photographers who were 

threatened with arrest by your security guards. I couldn’t help but 

think of that example—— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. As you gave us for the excuse of not getting panhandlers out. 

Let me be clear, we were not suggesting that people who are 

hungry be arrested. That was not what we had in mind. Normally, 

this kind of problem, because you say it has been a chronic problem—— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. For the Hill in general. 

Ms. NORTON. —would cause a corporation to do would be to get 

some advice from people who know something about homeless people about how to proceed. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. We do. 

Ms. NORTON. So you have a chronic problem. Who does your advice come from, sir? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. We actually have from the Capitol Hill bid. They 

actually have a homeless ambassador who deals specifically with 

these folks. And they advise us, and they also advise the members 

that are homeless where they can find shelter. 

Ms. NORTON. You need somebody who has—these people feed 

people. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. And we love it that they feed people. 

That is not the kind of advice you need. You need advice about 

how to in fact get panhandlers off the property short of arrest. I 

recognize about the limits of arrest, and I wish you wouldn’t cite 

or tell your security guards that they don’t have arrest power. You 

bother me with your security guards, because somebody is going to 

sue this corporation, Mr. Levy, for the way in which these security 

29 

guards are performing. Who is in charge of training security guards 

at Union Station? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. It is actually the training is handled internally 

by the company that we hire. They actually have a training program that they go through. It is required by their corporation, IPC. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, have you had enough evidence here today 

that your security guards are poorly trained? 

Mr. LEVY. I think it merits a discussion with IPC, and we are 

going to have a discussion with them. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am going to ask you to submit within 30 

days a plan for retraining each and every security guard now at 

Union Station and for indicating what the training program will be 

for new security guards. I suggest you get an outside consultant 

who knows something about how to train security guards. We don’t 

want—after this hearing, we expect these problems to go away. Let 

me ask—let me ask this question. I was asking about the 

makeover, and understanding that, just as we applauded the arrival of businesses, you would want to look again, but it looks like 

basically you are doing changes in infrastructure. 

Are you planning to change any of the tenants who are there, 

particularly long-term tenants? 

Mr. LEVY. No plans have been finalized. We are still in the midst 

of coming up with that final plan. I don’t want to kind of divert 

attention, but we are dealing with the possessory interest tax right 

now, which can be determinative what our future plans are. 

Ms. NORTON. What can be determinative? 

Mr. LEVY. The possessory interest tax. 

Ms. NORTON. What does that have to do with tenancy of people 

who have been there for some period of time? 

Mr. LEVY. Because we have to have enough money to run the 

station. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you mean the people who have been there for 

some period of time won’t pay what it takes as part of their leases? 

I don’t understand that. 

Mr. LEVY. Well, in determining—— 

Ms. NORTON. We are not getting into the business of the District 

of Columbia here, so you can put that aside. We don’t overturn 

what the District of Columbia does. And I am asking you a question that has nothing to do with that. I am simply trying to find 

out what is your policy with respect to long-term tenants? 

Mr. LEVY. And my answer is that it is still being finalized. We 

still haven’t come up with a final plan as to the long-term leasing 

goals of Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Levy, I have received a letter from a colleague 

that he sent on June 16th, writing on behalf of B. Smith’s Restaurant. This is a well-known restaurant located in Union Station 

for some years. And other Members of the Congressional Black 

Caucus approached me with respect to B. Smith in particular. The 

concern was, you can lease to who you want to, we understand 

that, but the concern was that if you have a business and you see 

a makeover going on, the absence of notice with no opportunity to 

prepare for possible relocation would be not in the interest of anybody concerned. It would be very poor business practice. That is 

why I am asking you. And you told me you didn’t expect big 

30 

changes in the basement. Do you expect big changes anywhere else 

in the restaurant? Because by not even responding to letters—you 

did not even respond. Mr. Ashkenazy did not even respond to a letter of June 16th from Congress Member Elijah Cummings, who has 

brought this matter to the attention of the 43-member Congressional Black Caucus. So it just escalated simply because there was 

no response. There was July 16th, what date is this, a letter from 

Alan Sills to B. Smith Restaurant. Letters were followed up with 

several telephone calls. Would you tell us whether those phone 

calls have helped this particular restaurant understand how it 

should proceed? 

Mr. LEVY. I can tell you what our ordinary course of business is. 

We frequently receive requests—I believe that was a request for a 

renewal, is that correct, renewal of lease? 

Ms. NORTON. I am not even aware. I suppose so. 

Mr. LEVY. I don’t have it in front of me, so I will just assume 

that that is what it is. And I know that our company—— 

Ms. NORTON. Extension of their lease currently ends in 2009. 

Mr. LEVY. Right. May 31, 2009. 

Ms. NORTON. For an additional term. 

Mr. LEVY. And we frequently get those types of requests, and 

they are answered in the ordinary course of business. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, this wasn’t answered in the ordinary course 

of business. 

Mr. LEVY. Well, we typically don’t negotiate. 

Ms. NORTON. This is 2008, and it is almost gone. 

Mr. LEVY. I understand. 

Ms. NORTON. This is a major restaurant. If it is going to have 

to move, don’t you think they deserve some notice? How much notice do you think they should have? 

Mr. LEVY. Well, I can tell you for certain that we will give them 

whatever notice they are entitled to under their lease, and whatever notice we can provide them outside of their lease. I know that 

it is not only our practice; That it is common real estate—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do the movie theaters have notice that they will no 

longer be in the building? 

Mr. LEVY. Those plans are not finalized, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. But you just told me about them. 

Mr. LEVY. They are things that we are working on in order—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, just a moment. We just heard that you do not 

intend to have movie theaters there. I am simply raising questions 

of fair notice to people who do business under your management. 

And frankly, it reflects on the Government of the United States if 

in fact people are not treated with normal business practice. That 

is why I am trying to find out, since I now know that the movie 

theaters won’t be there, they don’t even know it. 

Mr. LEVY. What is that? 

Ms. NORTON. You just said we weren’t sure whether the movie 

theaters will be there, but we just heard testimony that—— 

Mr. LEVY. Because the plans haven’t been finalized. We can’t tell 

them that they are not going to be there. Perhaps we will renew 

their lease. 

Ms. NORTON. Don’t you think you ought to have a meeting with 

the tenants? 

31 

Mr. Ball, you all may be confused about who is responsible, but 

do know that this Committee is going to hold that public corporation responsible. Don’t you think that you would want to meet with 

the tenants or instruct Mr. Levy and company to meet with the 

tenants in order to keep Members of Congress from having to intervene into your affairs as I am having to do with respect to a private matter that normally would not be any concern of mine? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, Madam Chairman, we will work on that. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you conduct a meeting of you, you, the corporation, a meeting of all the tenants, so that they can have some 

understanding of what is occurring, and would you have someone 

from the managing corporation there so at least people can have 

their questions answered so far as they can be? 

Mr. BALL. I will be glad to take that challenge. 

Ms. NORTON. You see there has been contradictory testimony 

here today about how we are going to open it up, and there won’t 

be movie theaters, but yeah, we haven’t really made that decision 

yet. That is very poor business practice. And so I am going to ask 

within 30 days there be a meeting of all the tenants where all of 

you all are there and indicate to them with the greatest clarity you 

can what your intentions are to the extent that you have not, 

which is the easy throw-away answer, decided, tell them when you 

expect to decide. 

These people are in business just like you are, Mr. Levy. 

Mr. Ball. 

Mr. BALL. The answer to your question is yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you aware, or surely you are aware, of the policy of the United States Government with respect to small business 

and disadvantaged businesses, minority businesses, women-owned 

businesses and the like? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, we are, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. How many such businesses are there in Union Station? 

Mr. BALL. I think the last count, I think it is maybe 40 or 55 

small, disadvantaged businesses. I don’t have the exact count. 

Ms. NORTON. Most of them would be small businesses by definition. How many are minority-owned or female-owned businesses? 

Mr. BALL. I think the number rests between 40 and 50. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, the number reported to us is less than half 

a dozen. 

Mr. Levy, do you have better figures? Maybe it is 40 to 50; 

maybe it is half a dozen. 

Mr. LEVY. As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2007, I believe 

there were approximately 54, so I don’t know where—— 

Ms. NORTON. Fifty-four minority- and women-owned, or womenowned businesses? 

Mr. LEVY. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Give me examples. 

Mr. LEVY. I am going defer to—I am just not all that familiar 

with the actual tenants there, so I am going to defer to Bryant just 

to kind of confirm this from the end of the quarter. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Some of the tenants we have listed here; Aurea 

is minority-owned. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are confirming 54? 

32 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, I am looking. 

Ms. NORTON. You don’t have to read the roll. 

Mr. LEVY. I just don’t have the updated report with me. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that how you made sure you were in compliance 

with Federal law on this matter, you reached out and brought in 

those tenants? 

Was Mr. Levy and Ashkenazy aware that that is the policy of the 

United States Government, Mr. Ball. 

Mr. BALL. Yes, we have had discussions—I have had a discussion 

with them on that issue. 

Ms. NORTON. In the makeover, Mr. Levy, are you aware that that 

policy will be—that that is the policy of the Federal Government? 

Mr. LEVY. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. Would—now, with this troika here I want to make 

sure I assign the right person. 

Mr. Levy I guess is the—I want to get—— 

Mr. BALL. Ms. Norton—— 

Ms. NORTON. —submitted within 30 days—Mr. Chambers, you 

are the director manager of the property? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, Third party. 

Ms. NORTON. Submit to me names of minority- and womenowned businesses in Union Station and whatever evidence you 

have that they are in fact minority- or women-owned. I just need 

to know that, because we have got this—we have got this conflicting—and it is a very good time to look at it, anyway, if there 

is going to be new things at Union Station. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Okay. 

Ms. NORTON. Buses. 

Mr. Ball, are you aware of the intermodal mandate of the United 

States Congress for Union Station? 

Mr. BALL. No. I havesome knowledge of intermodal. I know we 

do. But what you spoke of about directly, I don’t have direct knowledge of it. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that makes me want to cry. So you are not 

aware that Congress, ever since 1967 when NCPC, National Capital Planning Commission, recommended to Congress that Union 

Station be made an intermodal facility and we have been embarking on that ever since? 

Mr. BALL. I mean, that is what we work to. If you ask me about 

a specific bill or something, I can’t—— 

Ms. NORTON. I never ask about bills. I am asking, are you aware 

of the congressional mandate that Union Station become a true 

intermodal facility? 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you aware that it is not that now or anything 

close to it? 

Mr. BALL. I know—— 

Ms. NORTON. The fact that you put by dint of where the subway 

stops and where the bus stops a number of things in the same location, an intermodal center does not make. Let me proceed with a 

detail then. 

Mr. Ball, I believe you gave a rather short shrift, at least in a 

letter to me, about a proposal of a quite reputable intercity bus 

company to sublease spaces that were available in Union Station. 

33 

Here is another matter that comes to the Congress, that Congress 

has delegated to you, sir, and to the public officials that sit with 

you. And these people were told that there was something—that 

their business practice of not going through the right process. 

There was no indication of what process they should have used in 

order to give the people of this region access to low-cost bus travel 

in Union Station and to take these buses off of our streets or at 

least keep them from discharging people on the streets of the Nation’s Capital for want of a place to leave them notwithstanding the 

fact that the Congress of the United States for 40 years has mandated an intermodal facility at Union Station. Why was either a 

sublease or some other way for this bus company to be located at 

Union Station, why was it refused? 

Mr. BALL. On that issue, Ms. Norton, the company never even 

approached USRC on that issue. 

Ms. NORTON. When I am going to sublease, I approach the people 

who are holding the lease. And if they never approached you, why 

didn’t you say, we would be pleased to deal with them because we 

know the Congress means bus service to be in this facility? 

Mr. BALL. That probably would have been the best answer. At 

this point, we will look at our policy, and I will work with the District to see how we can accommodate these type of buses that you 

mention. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Ball, within 30 days, I ask you to be in touch with those bus 

companies to indicate that you are considering the access possibilities of those bus companies. This is extremely troubling to this 

Member of Congress. In my opening statement, I said the people 

are almost hitching a ride on anything they can find because of the 

gas prices. The notion that we are sitting here with an intermodal 

mandate and you are telling somebody, you used the wrong procedure, who told you it was the wrong procedure to sublease from the 

person who holds the lease? Did you, in fact—where does it say 

that in the lease hub? Was it Greyhound? 

Mr. BALL. No. Actually, I didn’t know that Megabus was coming 

into Union Station until I saw them on a Web page, a Web site 

that said what the services were going to be, so we had no idea. 

Ms. NORTON. So once you saw they were coming to drop people 

off because they had a valid sublease, you then decided that that 

lease could not be recognized because you hadn’t approved it? 

Mr. BALL. They never had contacted us. We had no lease. We 

had no business communication whatsoever, Ms. Norton, none. It 

is like—— 

Ms. NORTON. They had communication or were in the process of 

engaging in communication with the lease holder. 

Mr. Chambers, are you aware that Megabus was turned away? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I am not. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the policy? Does the policy remain what it 

was, that you can’t sublease from someone who holds a valid lease 

to spots at Union Station? Is that the policy? 

Mr. BALL. The garage lease is separate than the station lease. 

The garage lease, we have 100 percent jurisdiction over what happens in our garage. Us being USRC. In the station, they do the retail leasing within the station. 

34 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Now, to get past the jurisdictional, and 

I ask Mr. Chambers, and you all, don’t play those games with me. 

I am holding you, Mr. Ball, before the Congress of the United 

States responsible for every question I ask. You may want to delegate these people and make sure they do their job. But four out of 

five people from there are us, and therefore I want to know what 

the policy is going to be on—you already told me you would open 

the policy, then you turned to the management. So passing the 

buck won’t work before this Subcommittee. 

Mr. BALL. No, I didn’t pass the buck. I am saying clearly in the 

parking garage—— 

Ms. NORTON. Whose responsibility was it? You answered the letter, Mr. Ball. 

Mr. BALL. In the parking garage, it is USRC responsibility. 

Ms. NORTON. Huh? 

Mr. BALL. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation is my responsibility in the parking garage. 

Ms. NORTON. What responsibility do you have, Mr. Chambers, 

since you apparently have to do with the bus? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. No. For the parking garage, we have none. And 

we also do not have—— 

Ms. NORTON. Who has responsibility for the parking garage? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I do. For the parking garage is USRC. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you know what? This Committee has not in the 

past done what other Committees do, which is to swear people. Any 

testimony you give I have automatically taken to be true. But obviously, that wasn’t true because you then turned to others to your 

right or left. 

Mr. BALL. I am sorry, you misunderstand my answer. If you ask 

me again, I will answer it to the best of my ability. You are asking 

about who controls the parking garage. That is my office, Union 

Station Redevelopment Corporation. 

Ms. NORTON. Why did the corporation, through your letter, respond that subleases could not be granted? Was there a legal base 

for your response? 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Had you informed the lease holder that that would 

be the case? What was the policy reason for that response? 

Mr. BALL. The policy reason was because the MegaBus incident 

should have come to our office in terms of creating—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why did you not instruct them to come to 

your office so you could then consider the matter yourself? 

Mr. BALL. I made a mistake. 

Ms. NORTON. That is all right then. All I ask is, within 30 days, 

be in touch with them. I am not instructing you to lease to them. 

In fact, who holds the lease, please? I don’t know why this bus company wants to lease or sublease, but I ask two things: one, be in 

touch; and, two, submit to this Committee within 30 days what the 

sublease policy is. And if your policy is no subleases, you better 

have a very good reason why. 

I can understand why in the public interest you would want to 

have some approval and some say-so, ultimately, if that is your 

view. This was a flat turndown with no indication as to why; and 

I do not know whether it is orally or in writing, that competition 

35 

with Greyhound was cited or Amtrak or something. The reason 

that sticks in my mind is that competition is precisely what the 

Congress of the United States is trying to promote in Union Station. That is the whole point, to say when you go there, based on 

your means and your wishes, you can travel anywhere, and no way 

will be denied to you. 

I am going to tell you right now, how often does this corporation 

meet? 

Mr. BALL. The board of directors, this year—we probably met at 

least three times this year. We are in the seventh month right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Ball, I also ask you to brief the board or 

their representatives, because this Committee wants to see some 

form of bus service in Union Station by the end of this year or be 

presented with a very good policy reason why not. I mean, good 

policy reasons are, you know, security, not reputable company. 

By the way, before we write on behalf of a company, we investigate to make sure that we are dealing with a company that in 

fact is one we should be writing for. I will tell you one thing. I don’t 

think these people would want to sublease to somebody who 

wouldn’t pay their rent. This one was reputable. This one was. 

There may be others. Perhaps what you should do is a competition. 

But this would not have required that, because it was a sublease. 

So, be on notice. When it comes to subleases, I don’t know why 

that couldn’t be done by the end of this year. I want to know how 

many bus spots are not being used at Union Station on a regular 

or daily basis. 

Mr. BALL. Is that a question you want answered now? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BALL. Okay. As I said I think in my written testimony, we 

park maybe 12,000 buses a year in Union Station. Between March 

and the end of June, we are probably at 100 percent occupancy all 

the time, from let’s say 9:00 in the morning—— 

Ms. NORTON. This is very important. At 100 percent occupancy, 

people parking, what, by the day, by the hour? 

Mr. BALL. Well, buses come in probably between like 10:00 in the 

morning until probably about 3:00 in the afternoon. Then they pick 

back up from maybe like 5:00 to 6:00. 

Ms. NORTON. So they come to Union Station to let off people. Do 

they leave? 

Mr. BALL. They park. In most cases, they do park their buses. 

Ms. NORTON. The entire time. 

Mr. BALL. The entire time. 

Ms. NORTON. How much does that cost? 

Mr. BALL. $20 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. $10 between 7 p.m. and 

7 a.m. And if they want a reserved spot held, it is $50 for the reserved spot. 

Ms. NORTON. When you say you are always full, I must say—— 

Mr. BALL. Again, I am really talking about this period, spring period, D.C.’s tour period. Between March and June, we are very 

packed. Then it picks up again between, let’s say, September and, 

say, November. We pick back up again where the buses come again 

on a very frequent process. Other times, we aren’t that busy. 

So what we are really looking for is how to maximize using the 

bus space. We are looking forward to the information which comes 

36 

out from the ITC study just in terms of the different uses for the 

station. We look towards what Congress is doing in terms of the 

Capitol Hill Visitor Center, because we have had conversations 

with the Capitol Visitor Center in terms of—about their need to 

park 12 buses here. 

Ms. NORTON. I can tell you right now, Mr. Ball, that plan is 

dead. Because the plan was to somehow have the buses park there 

and then pay $1 to get to the Congress of the United States. That 

plan went up in smoke. I have already had discussions with the 

Sergeant at Arms. 

This is not your fault. This has nothing to do with you. But what 

killed it was that somehow buses which now come here to Botanic 

Gardens, leave and then go someplace, you have to provide place 

for them to go, that people get dropped off for free would then be 

sent to Union Station. We don’t mind them coming to Union Station. We are pleased about that. But we have been assured—and 

I speak now for myself, for the Appropriations Subcommittee—that 

the Botanic Gardens route has also to remain there. 

See, that is the kind of planning that has to go on. But that is 

something that was not within your entire sphere. And we also 

think we have come to a way where the District’s own line that it 

runs can in fact still be useful without being completely taken off 

the line by the Congress of the United States. 

It was the extra cost. It wasn’t anything about Union Station. 

But the city couldn’t tell us how many spaces, and we were very 

concerned by the fact that there is—how this would work with a 

bottleneck—you know, the framers did that—the bottleneck that 

the circle establishes. And having what they conceived of as a lot 

more tour buses to come up there right as we understand it, there 

will be some renovations on the outside of Union Station. 

Mr. BALL. That is a project between USRC, the National Park 

Service and the District of Columbia Department of Transportation. So there are a lot of things in the hopper just in terms of 

how it works out. 

Ms. NORTON. When is that construction going to begin? 

Mr. BALL. Whenever we get to the NCPC and Commission of 

Fine Arts, that construction should begin. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have the money already for that construction? 

Mr. BALL. USRC is doing a 20 percent match. In addition, the 

government does have the money I think from the Federal highway. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I live on Capitol Hill. In non-rush hours, I 

avoid that circle. I can’t imagine why anybody in the transportation 

business would want to put more buses up there, and we are not 

going to do it. 

But I need to know what your policy is and how you plan for 

buses to come and go in light of our interest in inner-city bus service. That is largely my concern and interest. Because I have no 

problem with tour buses coming up there now. 

You may have to think this through once you get to the construction phase. Indeed, in that regard, there is an unfinished entrance 

at Union Station that would allow more direct access from H 

Street. I understand that it required $2 million more, but then 

37 

there was some problem with obtaining indemnification from Amtrak. 

I am so confused by that. If that is all that is standing in the 

way, particularly given how that would relieve some of the traffic 

around the circle, I have to ask you, what is the problem with indemnification from Amtrak for want of a $2 million upgrade that 

would allow the unfinished entrance more directly from First and 

H Street? 

Mr. BALL. I am not familiar with that issue. I do know—— 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me, sir. Who would be? 

Mr. BALL. I have never heard that, so I don’t know. 

Ms. NORTON. The tunnel that was never completed, Union Station—— 

Mr. BALL. That is a pedestrian tunnel. That would not accommodate—if we are referring to a segment that runs parallel to First 

Street—— 

Ms. NORTON. Let me indicate that Union Station Plaza Associates, whoever that is, has an office building near First and H 

Streets. They have proposed completing the tunnel for approximately $2 million. 

Mr. BALL. That would be a pedestrian access. That would go 

from the north end of the Union Station Metro stop down to the 

existing H Street underpass. 

Ms. NORTON. That would be very useful, because people could at 

least be dropped off there on foot. 

Again, this goes to whether you are thinking through the intermodal—— 

Mr. BALL. No, we talked about many of those issues, and I didn’t 

realize that is what you were talking about. So that is one item 

that has been looked at. 

Ms. NORTON. All right, I just want to get your final testimony on 

that. 

The indemnification from Amtrak issue is what apparently 

stopped the tunnel from going forward initially, because it was always planned and would already be there. Are you aware of what 

that issue is? 

Mr. BALL. I am not aware of what that issue is. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Have Amtrak within 30 days submit to 

us what that issue is so we can understand that. 

Is there a different security policy for retail, Mr. Levy, for Amtrak, for the parking garage? Who is in charge? Who is the master 

security czar who sees that security intersects? Because, as you indicate, there are different kinds of entities there. 

Mr. CHAMBLISS. There is no czar, Chairwoman. There actually 

are different entities. You have the Amtrak side of the house, 

which houses Amtrak security and also Amtrak police. You have 

our management firm with the approval of USI that hires IPC Security to provide customer service and public safety just in the 

common area spaces. 

Mr. BALL. There is one umbrella. We have what is called the Station Action Team, where Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, Amtrak and station development all meet and figure out security in the building, understand the conditions that go in the building every day. If there is a fire alarm which goes off, all three entiVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:49 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43753 JASON
38 

tles meet, if there is a problem in the station. So those things are 

discussed. There is one umbrella arm. 

Ms. NORTON. They are under one roof, after all. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes. And we are all chairs on that. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that in writing? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, it is. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I ask you—— 

Mr. BALL. It was not in my written testimony, but we do have 

a written—we can provide you with a copy of the station action 

plan. 

Ms. NORTON. We would just like to study all this so we know 

what we are talking about. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. So we would like whatever is in writing in 30 days. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. Who wrote this thing, which begins, ′′Union Station 

is private property.′′ 

Mr. CHAMBERS. That precedes, I believe, all of us at this table. 

Ms. NORTON. What? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe that precedes—that came—it is from 

the management office. 

Mr. BALL. Ms. Norton, we will find out where it came from. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. We will find out. That was established prior to 

us being here. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it still in circulation? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. It is still posted, but it is being revised, as I stated earlier in my testimony. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask it be withdrawn immediately? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. McCann testified that other intermodal facilities manage to put their policy right on the Web site. This embarrasses me here in the Nation’s Capital. I ask that this be withdrawn, because it contains factual errors, including the factual 

error that is an insult to the government of the United States, 

′′Union Station is private property.′′ 

Most of these would, of course, be the kinds of things you want, 

no smoking inside and so forth. But it is here that the tripod camera distinction is made, and it is here that the Union Station management reserves the right to prohibit photography of any kind in 

their sole discretion. This is why I asked Mr. Levy to give this matter to an outside counsel. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. In the draft we do have, that has been stricken. 

When we do go out to outside counsel—— 

Ms. NORTON. We would be rather be helpful than critical. If you 

would submit to us before anything is published so we can have a 

look at it. I am asking that you need help in doing this, and this 

is no reflection on you. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Absolutely. 

Would you like to also have the draft that is in place now, or do 

you want the final product? 

Ms. NORTON. We would be glad to look at it, yes, sir, rather than 

have people come back here sending us letters. The confusion I am 

39 

most concerned about is, of course, the confusion with security 

guards, who are left really on their own. 

Mr. Ball, the notion of a security guard turning around her 

name, I think that was an Amtrak security guard—— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. There are some policies with respect to security, behavior, courtesy, that are universal, and those things are being in 

writing. I don’t blame somebody for being a little afraid if someone 

asks them a question about what their name is. If nobody has told 

them that has to be in place all the time and you have got to answer accordingly, then some people will try to protect themselves. 

Well, they don’t have to protect themselves, as far as I am concerned, because the fault lies with both of you, Mr. Chambers and 

Mr. Levy, and ultimately with Mr. Ball. And so I am expecting that 

in the revised training policy, such as it is—because I can’t find in 

place any training policy at the moment—that this level of detail 

will be in the new policy so that this matter is off of our table. 

Our concern is with the comprehensive intermodal concept and 

with making sure that private management in fact is in keeping 

with that, not with these details that we have been forced to spend 

considerable time with today. 

What is the annual operating cost, Mr. Levy? 

Mr. LEVIN. I don’t have that figure with me. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Ball would have that figure for the entire operation, would you not? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, but I am more familiar with USRC’s cost. 

Ms. NORTON. We have no idea what we are doing here in Congress. We are giving money to an entity, and so we got to find out 

what we are doing. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. We can provide that detail for you, along with all 

the other documentation we are submitting, to see to it that you 

have it. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Before you leave, I want you to know that, as tough as our questioning is, it is always tough. As tough as it is, this Subcommittee 

has a reputation for being of assistance to agencies. 

We had a very serious problem to occur with Federal Protective 

Service where we found a felon running a security matter. We 

found people not being served. But we had to bring it out. 

This was a part of Homeland Security. We worked closely with 

the official in charge, the Assistant Secretary, and when they fixed 

this so the contractors were paid on time and they reordered the 

way they did contracting and they put out written material and 

they established a czar, we had a press conference with them. And 

this was a Republican administration. I asked the Assistant Secretary to stand with me, very unusual, with a Member of Congress, 

to say what the agency, not in my immediate control, had done, because I was so pleased with how they responded to tough questioning at our hearing. 

Our view is, if you are going to be tough—and that is the only 

way you can find out anything in your questioning—then when the 

agency performs you have got to be equally generous in making 

sure that the public knows. 

40 

We had a press conference. We didn’t just write them a letter, 

had a press conference. See what these people have done in the administration to fix this agency? 

We are more than ready to do that with this federally owned facility and working in partnership with you. 

Mr. Ball, you had something to say before you leave? 

Mr. BALL. I am sorry. I didn’t mean anything. Go ahead. 

Ms. NORTON. You just seemed to be befuddled. That is all that 

was. Don’t be befuddled. We gave that example just because it is 

the most recent example of how we follow up. Even though the 

questioning may reflect ′′gotcha,′′ we don’t go ′′gotcha.′′ Look, let’s 

get together. That was really ′′let’s get together and fix this.′′ 

Mr. BALL. I can appreciate that. I think you raised some very 

valid points, and it gives me a chance to go back and look at the 

policies we have had in place for a period of time. So I appreciate 

that and welcome criticism, and we will respond to your questions. 

I have been at Union Station for 20-plus years. I know back in 

1984 we received $7 million for Amtrak, for the restoration of the 

station, and the city put $40 million in to rebuild the parking garage behind Union Station. But, since that, we haven’t received any 

other Federal monies that have come into the station. So what we 

have done—— 

Ms. NORTON. That is why we set up a public-private partnership, 

because the monies received now will go into the intermodal notion. 

Union Station will and has indeed received funds, but it doesn’t go 

into its operations. That public-private partnership is supposed to 

in fact make sure its operations sustain themselves. 

Of course, we have to see what your books show us on that. We 

want to see whether or not you are operating in the black or not, 

and you need to submit that to this Committee. Don’t expect us to 

subsidize this public-private partnership. That is the whole point. 

That doesn’t mean we don’t have the same kind of oversight we 

have over a Federal agency, and we intend total exercise it. 

I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I want you to know 

that the Subcommittee, indeed, the Congress, has examples of the 

kinds of things we are talking about when we say submit something. If you would like examples or you would like guidance, the 

Subcommittee staff is prepared to offer you guidance on what we 

mean. We don’t mean to just leave you out there saying find it the 

best way you can. The best way may be simply to submit something to us, to have the Subcommittee look at it. Then you go back, 

and it won’t be we are handing down the law, it will be for our 

comment. Then we will ask for your comments. That is how we do 

business. 

Thank you very much, all three of you. 

Do you want to call the next witnesses? 

David Leach, President and Chief Executive Officer of Greyhound; Emeka Moneme, the Director of our D.C. Department of 

Transportation; and Thomas Wilbur, Senior Vice President of 

Akridge. 

Our apologies that you have waited so long. We are holding the 

first oversight hearing on the first comprehensive hearing on Union 

Station in memory, and that accounts for the many issues that 

were before us. Your testimony is very important to us. 

41 

Let’s proceed with Mr. Moneme, the Department of Transportation, and then go to Mr. Leach and, finally, Mr. Wilbur. 

TESTIMONY OF EMEKA MONEME, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; DAVID LEACH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GREYHOUND LINES, 

INC.; AND THOMAS WILBUR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

AKRIDGE CORPORATION 

Mr. MONEME. Good afternoon. 

Chairman Norton, thank you for having me here to speak on behalf of Mayor Adrian Fenty. 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am Emeka Moneme, Director of 

the District of Columbia Department of Transportation. We also referred to as DDOT. I thank you for this opportunity to join in the 

discussion on the current uses and future improvements of Union 

Station. 

DDOT has been tasked with the responsibility of analyzing the 

feasibility of future development in and around Union Station specifically as it relates to the ability of the adjacent transportation 

system to accommodate that development. As such, my remarks 

will focus on the Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center 

Feasibility Study that DDOT is currently managing. 

Before expounding on the feasibility study, let me offer a few 

thoughts on congestion and transportation options in the region. 

Over the past 20 years, the District has witnessed a tremendous 

explosion of vehicle trips within and through the city. In a recent 

Texas Transportation Institute Study, Washington, D.C., was rated 

the second most congested city in the Nation. Unfortunately, this 

trend is expected to continue. 

The Metropolitan Council of Governments forecasts that vehicle 

trips within and into the District will increase by approximately 32 

percent by 2030. We have seen a similar trend in transit ridership 

with Metrorail breaking daily and monthly ridership records. At 

the current rate of ridership growth, Metrorail crowding will be unmanageable by 2013, unless capacity expanding investments are 

made. Finally, the Maryland Transit Administration also reports 

that most MARC commuter train lines are running near capacity, 

with some lines already at capacity. 

In order to combat these alarming trends while allowing the city 

to continue to grow and provide for the millions of visitors to the 

Nation’s Capital, the capacity to move people into and around the 

District must be expanded. The District is implementing a number 

of initiatives, including bicycle sharing, enhanced transit service, 

and a performance parking program to encourage the use of multiple non-vehicular options which will reduce the number of vehicle 

trips into and through the city. WMATA is moving forward on full 

utilization of eight-car trains in the coming years, and MTA plans 

to infuse over half a billion dollars into the MARC system over the 

next 25 years to procure rail cars and expand and modernize service. 

More than ever, we are in need of a state-of-the-art, multi-modal 

transportation hub in our region to accommodate the billions of dollars in transit investments previously mentioned. The historic 

Union Station has served the region and the country well, but its 

42 

present infrastructure limitations restrict its ability to accommodate the current and future transit demand. As such, a new ITC 

is needed for the District and for the region to continue to thrive. 

The feasibility study began in February of 2008. Its overarching 

purpose is to investigate how to make feasible the development of 

the Burnham Place development, design and construction of a new 

ITC at Union Station, including the proposed commercial and residential development. 

The study area of the project encompasses an approximately 20- 

square-block site bounded by M Street to the north, Third Street 

to the east, Massachusetts Avenue to the south, and North Capitol 

Street to the west. In particular, the study is analyzing the impacts 

of creating enhanced access to the multiple modes of transportation 

at and around Union Station. 

The study’s analysis is considering the following areas: a baseline 

transportation improvement study, new rail passenger concourse, 

upgraded Amtrak passenger concourse, improved emergency access 

and egress to the station, improvements to the existing rail concourse, tour bus and commuter parking accommodations, the D.C. 

streetcar and integrating that system into the ITC, a pedestrian 

tunnel from Union Station to First Street Northeast, a new Metrorail entrance from the H Street bridge, a baseline environmental 

study, and then, finally, the interrogation of the Metropolitan 

Branch Trail to the facility and the possibility of an additional bicycle storage facility. 

So there is much being considered in this study. It really is the 

first comprehensive study of the Union Station transportation network, and it will prompt us to conduct further detailed analysis 

and develop a framework for implementing the study’s short-term 

and long-term recommendations. 

DDOT has developed two advisory committees to educate the 

public and key stakeholders on the parameters of the study. A 

Community Leaders Committee was created, consisting of representatives from the local A&C commissions, resident councils, 

neighborhood associations and other community based organizations. A Technical Advisory Committee was also formed, comprised 

of over 20 business, government and quasi-governmental groups. 

Both groups were briefed on the study this spring. Collectively, the 

committees will comment on the study’s technical analysis and 

offer timely feedback. 

Since the early spring, the study team has provided briefings on 

the project to civic and citizen organizations upon request. Additional community meetings and a tour of the facility are planned 

for later this summer following their review of the draft report on 

the basic technical studies. 

The data collection phase of the study began in mid-February 

and lasted through mid-June of this year. The data analysis phase 

immediately followed and lasted from mid-May through mid-July. 

Currently, we are preparing to begin formulating preliminary architectural concepts derived from the baseline studies and anticipate the study will be completed in the late fall of this year, where 

final recommendations will be unveiled. 

In conclusion, DDOT welcomes the opportunity to lead this feasibility study. Its findings will inform and incent billions of dollars 

43 

of future development at Union Station. But, most importantly, it 

will create a path for major capital enhancements that will significantly improve and expand transportation options for millions of 

individuals traveling through and within our Nation’s Capital. 

DDOT will continue to work with the community and other partners to complete the study, and we will look forward to implementing its recommendations to ultimately create a world-class 

transportation hub at Union Station. 

Thank you for the patience in reading the testimony. I will be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Moneme. 

Next we go to Mr. Leach. Mr. Leach is the President of Greyhound. 

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss Greyhound’s plans to relocate to Washington Union Station. 

Greyhound is eager to move to Union Station and has been actively engaged in discussions focusing on making that happen. I 

greatly appreciate the strong support for that initiative shown by 

this Subcommittee and the Full Committee leadership. 

Greyhound has been operating in its current terminal location at 

First and K Streets, Northeast, since 1987. There have been off and 

on discussions about Greyhound moving to Union Station ever 

since, but, up until recently, they have not been successful. Despite 

these setbacks, Greyhound has remained very interested in moving 

to Union Station. 

We strongly believe in intermodal terminals and are now located 

in over 100 intermodal facilities nationwide. That number has been 

steadily increasing. These intermodal facilities greatly benefit the 

traveling public by allowing travelers to use public transportation, 

both local and intercity, to travel seamlessly from origin to destination. 

The benefits to D.C. residents of Greyhound moving to Union 

Station are particularly striking. Over 50 percent of riders at Greyhound’s current location get to Greyhound by local transit. This is 

so even though those riders who come by Metrorail have to walk 

three long blocks with their luggage from Union Station or almost 

the same distance from the new Florida Avenue Metro Station. 

These riders would benefit tremendously from being able to just 

ride up or down the escalators to get from Metro to Greyhound. 

Furthermore, this dramatically improved convenience would lead to 

increased usage of the Metro Greyhound connection at a time when 

the public is searching for affordable and convenient public transportation. 

Fortunately, a series of circumstances are converging that provide a unique opportunity to finally make this move a reality. The 

Greyhound terminal lies at the heart of NoMa, the area north of 

Massachusetts Avenue that the D.C. Government has targeted as 

one of the most important elements for development in downtown. 

This means that both the city and Greyhound have a strong vested 

interest in moving the Greyhound operations to Union Station as 

soon as possible so that Greyhound can sell its property for redevelopment. 

44 

At the same time, the Ashkenazy Company, the new landlord at 

Union Station, has developed preliminary plans for renovation and 

expansion of Union Station’s interior space. This will enable Greyhound to substantially reduce its Union Station footprint and the 

capital cost of its space. With the sale of its existing terminal, 

Greyhound will have the funds to build out its interior space, as 

well as construct limited facilities on the bus deck. 

Finally, the support that the leadership of this Subcommittee 

and Committee has shown for Greyhound’s move to Union Station 

have been very helpful. Your March 20, 2008, letter expressing 

strong support for the relocation was the catalyst for this action. 

With all of these favorable developments, the parties have been 

meeting. I believe there is a common desire among the parties to 

make the move happen as soon as possible, but there are issues 

that need to be addressed. 

Amtrak needs to get fully engaged. Although the plans have been 

drawn to separate the bus and rail ticketing and waiting functions 

on different levels, it is important that there be a dialogue with key 

Amtrak decisionmakers on these plans. I met with Mr. Kummant 

on this issue today, and we have agreed to work together on any 

security or passenger concerns that Amtrak may have. 

The plans for the renovation and expansion of the interior area 

need to be finalized and approved. The financial terms of the 

project need to be negotiated and agreed to. This includes the level 

of Greyhound’s capital contribution and its lease terms for the occupancy of the space. 

Greyhound plans to pay for the build-out of this space, but the 

contribution needs to be amortized through its lease payments, and 

the lease terms must be consistent with Greyhound being able to 

continue to provide affordable transportation in an economically 

viable manner. 

The timeline for completion of the project must be agreed to so 

that Greyhound can move forward with the sale of its current property. 

The transfer date needs to fit with the projected move-in date at 

Union Station. 

I believe that all these issues can be resolved. The project has a 

very high priority for Greyhound, and I commit to you that Greyhound will do everything in its power to make it succeed. I have 

been and will continue to be personally involved. I believe that 

other parties have a similar commitment, and I am confident that 

we can succeed. 

Thank you for this opportunity to receive testify, and I am happy 

to answer any questions you might have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Leach. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Wilbur. 

Mr. WILBUR. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, 

I am Tom Wilbur and I am a Vice President with Akridge, the 

Washington-based company that purchased the air rights adjacent 

to Union Station above the rail yards. Thank you very much for 

this opportunity to discuss our plans and ideas for this crown jewel 

in the Nation’s inventory of grand historic buildings. 

Today, I will provide an update on our project and describe some 

of the exciting improvements for the station and adjacent areas we 

45 

are studying. However, let me begin by expressing our enthusiasm 

and commitment to the long-term success of Union Station. 

As a local development firm with more than 30 years of experience here, we have participated in the redevelopment of the city. 

From the Homer Building, which we completed in 1990, to Gallery 

Place in 2003 and now in the Southeast, Southwest and Northeast 

quadrants, where we have projects in our pipeline totaling more 

than 7 million square feet, we have seen the District of Columbia 

become a world-class city, a place with outstanding architecture 

and mixed use, 24-7 neighborhoods rivaling any major city in the 

world. 

Our company’s commitment to the civic, cultural and environmental health of our city is long-standing. In fact, our firm’s founder, Chip Akridge, regrets that he is unable be here today, but commitments in his capacity as the Chairman of the Trust for the National Mall have taken him out of town. 

Union Station is a unique resource which is representative of the 

renaissance of Washington, D.C. Because it is located at the intersection of the central business district, Capitol Hill, the Capitol 

complex and the merging NoMa and near northeast neighborhoods, 

our development, called Burnham Place, and Union Station serve 

as critical anchors for the development of the eastern portion of 

downtown Washington. 

Union Station is the entry to the city for every walk of life, from 

the Wall Street banker arriving from New York to the legislator 

working on Capitol Hill to the Metro rider from Silver Spring to 

tourists from Phoenix, a commuter from Baltimore, or a student 

riding from Gallaudet by bicycle, all of these people converge and 

rely on Union Station. 

Our project, named after Daniel Burnham, the architect who designed Union Station, provides an opportunity to reclaim the property over the tracks, currently a void which divides several important neighborhoods, and turn it into another great mixed-use 

neighborhood, bringing vibrant activity and economic benefits to 

the city. As a model, think of the Park Avenue air rights development at Grand Central Station in New York that occurred early 

last century. 

A little history. As you know, in 1997, Congress mandated the 

fair market sale of the 15-acre Amtrak air rights parcel, with the 

proceeds to be deposited in the Federal Treasury. In 2002, the GSA 

conducted a competitive bid process and accepted our proposal. We 

closed on the property in 2006, and since that time we have been 

planning for a 3-million-square-foot mixed-use development. We 

also have been working with DDOT on plans to modernize and expand the intermodal transportation facilities at Union Station, as 

well as preserve options for future transportation modes. 

Earlier this year, we engaged the architectural firm, Shalom 

Baranes Associates, to begin the planning and design of Burnham 

Place. Like Akridge, Shalom Baranes has played an integral role 

in shaping the development of the National Capital Region. Its list 

of newly designed and redeveloped buildings include the Warner 

Theater, American Red Cross National Headquarters, the John 

Wilson Building, International Spy Museum, and the Homer Building atop Metro Center, which houses Akridge’s offices. The firm is 

46 

also currently working on the redevelopment of the Waterside Mall, 

Southeast Federal Center, the Old Convention Center site and expansion and redevelopment of GSA’s National Headquarters. 

Our early plans for Burnham Place indicate a number of potential uses such as first-class office, hotel, retail, entertainment, cultural and residential buildings. This project presents a rare opportunity for substantial downtown redevelopment without any displacement in a land-constrained city. These developments will also 

leverage significant public investments already made in the area, 

such as the construction of the New York Avenue Metro Station 

and D.C.’s Great Streets Initiative, which includes planned streetcar service on H Street, Northeast. 

The strategic importance of Union Station is what attracted our 

firm to this development opportunity. Its centrality to the success 

of Washington is also what has motivated our partnership with 

DDOT and our desire to help facilitate public improvements for the 

station. A more efficient, pleasant and safe intermodal facility is 

critical for the City, the region and, indeed, the entire Nation. And 

the station has no shortage of critical needs and opportunities for 

improvements. 

Originally used solely for intercity rail service, Union Station 

now serves over 100,000 passengers via 14 modes of transportation 

in addition to thousands of visitors and shoppers. Many station 

places are crowded, uncomfortable, and pose conflicts for those utilizing the station for different purposes. Akridge’s development of 

the air rights presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address 

these challenges. Construction of our concrete deck and connection 

to the north end of the station provide an ideal time to concurrently undertake many important forms of modernization in the 

ITC. 

Some of the ideas that we are looking at include a newly expanded Amtrak and VRE passenger concourse with upgrades to the 

existing waiting areas; a new pedestrian connection between H 

Street and the station to disperse the flow of people entering and 

leaving the building; a new emergency evacuation roadway between Columbus Circle and H Street; the creation of a facility to 

accommodate Greyhound buses; a new extension of the Metro tunnel pedestrian walkway to H Street; a pedestrian connection between NoMa and Burnham Place near First and Eye Streets, 

Northeast; and expanded parking facilities for tour and commuter 

buses. 

Executing many of these ambitious ideas will require intensive 

collaboration and support from the stakeholders who have a vested 

interest in the operation and future of the station. Akridge is glad 

to have Amtrak, WMATA, MARC, VRE, DDOT, USRC, the 

Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation and many others as key allies 

in this process; and we look forward to continuing these partnerships to study and execute these important projects. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. That concludes my remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions the Committee 

might have. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilbur. 

47 

Mr. Moneme, I was pleased just to say a few words at the DDOT 

community outreach, I guess it was, in relationship to the intermodal transportation study you are embarking upon. I indicated, of 

course, to management and to the corporation that they should proceed on the intermodal concept well before we get this mega-facility 

built. Nevertheless, your work is centrally important. 

Could I know, first, what is the expected time frame for the final 

report? 

Mr. MONEME. Yes. We plan to have final recommendations September-October of this year. 

Ms. NORTON. Very good. Do you have any estimates now on the 

cost for the intermodal center at Union Station? 

Mr. MONEME. I don’t believe we are that far along to actually 

have a sense of what the real costs would be. Hopefully, coming out 

of the recommendations in the study, we can begin then to put 

some cost estimates on the elements and the recommendations that 

come out of the study. We will probably have some detailed reports 

and technical reports to begin to flesh out the full costs of the elements. 

Ms. NORTON. I have been relishing this description of what is 

being planned, much of it public infrastructure, and then I have 

been scratching my head to say how will we pay for this. And, of 

course, Mr. Wilbur knows I have been getting small amounts out 

toward the infrastructure, part of it. Congress is very serious about 

it, and the more public transportation becomes indispensable—is 

the only word for it—the more serious we got to get. 

But have any of you given any notion to how one would put together a package that paid for the public portion of this matter? 

Mr. MONEME. Well, I think there has been some thought given 

to how that might happen. I think in my testimony I did touch on 

some of the ways it is actually happening. Maryland, the State of 

Maryland, has already made a commitment to make improvements 

in the service coming from both the Penn and the Camden lines 

that come in and stop at Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. At Union Station, Mr. Moneme? 

Mr. MONEME. Most of it is focused on their rolling stock for the 

majority of it, but I think there may be some improvements that 

we could commit both from them—the improvements for the D.C. 

streetcar are coming from D.C. local funds. 

So there are contributions that are coming from people that are 

being serviced from Union Station. I think we can bundle those 

contributions together to get some sense of what public resources 

are being committed to the project. And then we can also look 

across the aisle to our private partner. We know there are going 

to be resources they will be making in making sure that Burnham 

Place comes off. 

I do anticipate that there will be some gap there, and I think 

that is where it is probably anticipated that we will be talking to 

you and telling you a little bit about what that gap looks like, what 

we think makes the most sense to fund, or maybe how to fund that 

gap there. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. Because we are talking train concourses, 

grand design, which is exactly what we ought to be talking about. 

And, obviously, the Federal Government has to be in this and in 

48 

this substantially. I say this at the same time that we are on paygo up here, and it is hard to eak out money. 

Nevertheless, the reason that this is an intermodal system is the 

Federal Government, the District of Columbia and the private sector each have so much to gain from it. So, obviously, the more we 

are able to get elsewhere, such as from the reauthorization of the 

transportation funds for the District of Columbia as one source, the 

greater leverage I have in reminding Congress of its vested interest 

in this project. 

Mr. Wilbur, how long did it take you to negotiate with Union 

Station for the details that finally freed you up to begin to work 

pursuant to the air rights? 

Mr. WILBUR. We spent about 4 years, about 3-1/2 years, from the 

time that we won the bid for these air rights from GSA until we 

were able to close, which was spent—some planning was actually 

done during that period, but a lot of it was being able to take care 

of some technical issues with it, some title issues, so we could make 

sure exactly. 

It was a pretty complex set of improvements throughout there, 

and defining exactly where those air rights would start and where 

they would end was quite a bit of work. But over that period of 

time we developed a great relationship I think with USRC, with 

the retail operator on the project, with the D.C. Government, and 

we basically got started on our planning at that point. 

Since then, we spent a fair amount of time working on getting 

our team together. I would say it has been about 7 or 8 months 

now that we have been in deep levels of planning with this, with 

Shalom Baranes and with two different structural engineers. 

One of the biggest issues that we have when you talk about 

costs, obviously, the project costs are something we have to make 

work, also, and the most crucial aspect of this is how to build the 

platform for this project over those tracks. The cost of that is the 

thing we are spending a considerable amount of time technically to 

figure out how that is going to work. 

Ms. NORTON. You mean the platform for passengers? 

Mr. WILBUR. Actually, this is a platform where our project would 

actually be elevated about 20 feet above the track level. 

Ms. NORTON. You mean for the entire project? 

Mr. WILBUR. For the entire project. So, basically, where we have 

our air rights, we have to penetrate all of our columns down in between the tracks and in some areas span over a number of tracks 

where the tracks start to converge. 

Ms. NORTON. That is not unprecedented in this country, is it? 

Mr. WILBUR. Excuse me? 

Ms. NORTON. Building over such air rights, that is not unprecedented, is it? 

Mr. WILBUR. No, it is actually the most common in areas like 

Chicago and New York. 

Ms. NORTON. I have in mind Chicago in particular. 

Mr. WILBUR. Lots of them in Chicago. I think it happens where 

people—particularly where you have areas where you could build 

very tall buildings and you have a lot of density, because the expense of building over the tracks is very expensive, and then if you 

49 

have more square footage that you can build up above, you can 

spread that over that construction. 

Because, basically, the cost to build a platform for one or two or 

three stories is not that much different than it is for 20 or 30 stories. It is basically the construction techniques you have to work 

on by building this platform above operating railroad tracks. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, let me just say for the record I am pleased 

that you have developed a good working relationship, as you testified, with the corporation. The Committee was frustrated by having 

to meet with the corporation simply to say we don’t care what you 

decide. But, in our judgment, it took much too long to get to the 

point where you could proceed. 

You see, we have gotten to the point where now the economy is 

in trouble. Actually, I think that is a good time to invest in infrastructure. But that was very bothersome for the Committee as we 

looked at the corporation. We knew that the Akridge company 

wanted to proceed quickly, and we also were mindful of the complexity. But there is impatience in this Subcommittee to proceed, 

and the Full Committee. The Full Committee Chairman has been 

the moving figure almost since he came to Congress, and he has 

been here almost since there has been a Congress, we laugh and 

tell him. 

So this is a project of long-standing concern; and, even as I press 

for its realization, I am mindful that even under the best of circumstances we can’t get the new intermodal center for years to 

come. 

I want to ask all three of you whether you consider Union Station an intermodal system now and, if so, why, and, if not, what 

would you do to make it an intermodal center? 

I haven’t heard you from, Mr. Leach. Maybe you should be first. 

Mr. LEACH. Well, I wouldn’t consider it an intermodal because 

intercity bus isn’t there. There are some charter operations, but we 

need Greyhound in that facility. We need other intercity bus operators in that facility. 

Ms. NORTON. But Greyhound cannot go in there until the new facility is built, or could it go earlier? 

Mr. LEACH. We believe it can go right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you in discussions that might make that happen? 

Mr. LEACH. We are currently working with the corporation on 

those efforts, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. You indicate that Amtrak needs—looking at your 

testimony—needs to be fully engaged. You say, I am planning—I 

know that, because Greyhound has come to see us, knowing of our 

Federal interests. But you say, ′′It is important that there be a dialogue with key Amtrak decisionmakers on these plans.′′ 

Then you say, as if this had to be done by now, because there 

is a hearing, and you didn’t mean this, but you just mean to tell 

us at least it is proceeding, that you meet with Mr. Kummant on 

this issue today. 

Mr. LEACH. Yes. Actually, I had breakfast with him this morning. 

Ms. NORTON. I need to know what you discussed, and I need you 

to know that the notion that this missing ingredient from the interVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:49 Jun 24, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43753 JASON
50 

modal vision needed Amtrak and that a ′′dialogue′′ is beginning 

makes us believe that the intermodal may be very long—some long 

time in coming. 

Have there been any discussions before today with Amtrak? 

Since you detail the involvement of Amtrak and the ticket counter 

and the rest in other parts of your testimony, was today the first 

time you had a dialogue with anybody from Amtrak? 

Mr. LEACH. No, ma’am, there has been dialogue for approximately 5 or 6 months. 

Ms. NORTON. Why do you say that it is important that there be 

a dialogue with key decisionmakers? Have these have been unkey 

decisionmakers? 

Mr. LEACH. We have had difficulty in getting key decisions made 

from the folks at Amtrak. I have been assured by Mr. Kummant 

this morning that that would not be the case going forward and 

that we would get all of the appropriate concerns that Amtrak has 

with Greyhound being a part of Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t mean to put you or Mr. Kummant on the 

spot here. I will tell you who is on the spot: moderate- and lowincome people in the District of Columbia who are denied what you 

can easily get in any major city worth the name. 

I have to ask Mr. Moneme, what happens? We have had complaints about people being dropped off and picked up. They made 

this sound like a one-horse town. Do you have any information on 

how these companies do business here, or are they simply deterred 

from doing business at all because there is no place to have any 

kind of passenger drop-off? 

Mr. MONEME. If I could, I want to see if I can answer your first 

question about whether or not Union Station is an ITC, and then 

I will speak to the inner city. 

By pure definition, I think that Union Station—and this is by 

USCOT definition, where two or more modes of transportation 

intersect, you have an ITC; and, by definition, we do have an 

ITC—— 

Ms. NORTON. We certainly don’t have one. We already had that 

at the time that Union Station was constructed. 

Mr. MONEME. Exactly. 

Ms. NORTON. So you go to the lowest common denominator and 

then you have one. At the time, in 1981, they already had two or 

more, and yet Congress has been trying to say make yourself intermodal ever since then. 

So, Mr. Moneme, I understand your pride in making sure that 

everybody knows there are places for some diverse sets, taxis, for 

that matter, but I do want you to understand that Congress would 

not be talking about making this an intermodal system if all you 

needed was a place for a couple of modes of transportation to rest 

and then to get up and leave. In that respect, there are places outside of Union Station that would qualify. Greyhound qualifies, because I can get a taxi there, and I can get a bus there. 

So we need to press you towards pressing all concerned so that 

we have an intermodal facility where everybody can, in fact, find 

access, perhaps not the access we will have when Akridge is finished, but access to all modes of transportation in the Nation’s 

Capital. 

51 

Mr. MONEME. I agree with that comment completely. And I think 

one of the things we are doing, even on a separate track from the 

investment that we will be seeing from Akridge on the development, is tying together all those modes of transportation there, 

making sure that there is appropriate signage for those that decide 

to bike to that location to find out where the other modes are, 

whether it would be commuter rail, whether it be Metrorail, whether it be taxi or, one day, eventually tying in inner-city buses. 

So we agree with you. It needs to be more intermodal, I guess— 

if that is such a term—more intermodal, more tied together, more 

connected. 

As for the inner-city bus issue, we are very, very well aware of 

it; and I think the city’s position is it is obviously a very important 

part of our transportation network. It is transportation options for 

people across the board of all socio-economic—across the strata of 

socio-economics. 

What we have been working on over the really last 7 weeks is 

we have heard the increased desire for more of those options to be 

identified and have a home or have a place in the city. We have 

heard from the business community that some of the locations 

downtown are not the most ideal for the operation of the downtown, the central business district. They do take up sidewalk space 

and impact people’s ability to move around, but we also believe 

that they have a rightful place somewhere in the city. 

So we are spending time learning more about the industry, not 

just I guess the names that you hear more about, the biggies, I 

guess you call them, the Greyhounds and whatnot. But there are 

other operators in the city getting started, and we feel they have 

a role to play in our service options available to people. 

So we are identifying locations where it makes sense to congregate, provide space for them, so that both the day-to-day operation of the city can still function and so also people can get access, 

easy access, to those locations. We are hoping within a few, few 

short months, we will have a more clarified plan about how to organize. 

Ms. NORTON. So you don’t know where these folks are, really? 

Mr. MONEME. We do. We do. We have surveyed. 

Ms. NORTON. How many people are leaving people and picking 

them up where they can? 

Mr. MONEME. Approximately 12 to 13 companies operate in the 

District of Columbia. 

Ms. NORTON. They are competing with you, Mr. Leach, aren’t 

they? Some of them can’t possibly compete with you. They are not 

going to have ticket facilities, and I know in some ways accommodating them may mean more competition to you. But I would like 

to ask your view on these people who now don’t have to even have 

any overhead whatsoever in order to compete with you. We are for 

keeping the fares low but not at the expense of traffic in the District of Columbia. So will you give us your view of this and where 

they should be located? 

Mr. LEACH. Well, Madam Chairman, we have watched as these 

curbside operations have successfully grown the market. They 

haven’t necessarily impacted Greyhound or Greyhound’s network of 

routes. We have a lot of strength in the network. But city—— 

52 

Ms. NORTON. In fact, you are making money here, unlike some 

of the modes we deal with on the Transportation Committee, isn’t 

that so? 

Mr. LEACH. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Unlike Amtrak, unlike the airlines, unlike 

WMATA, you are making money. 

Mr. LEACH. That is correct. We have watched these curbside operations grow the market. So what we have done in response to 

that is launched our own curbside operation. In fact, we think we 

have the most superior of those curbside operators—— 

Ms. NORTON. How do you do it, Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. —in Bolt Bus, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Greyhound. So we recognized the need for competition. 

Ms. NORTON. Do they come to D.C., Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. They do, absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. How do they manage to leave people? I don’t blame 

you. I would not do otherwise if I were in business. But how do 

they manage to come here and leave passengers and take them 

away? 

Mr. LEACH. We work on a pure Internet basis, so people have to 

buy tickets on the Internet. They get on on the curbside and they 

get off on the curbside. We operate in Boston-New York, New YorkPhiladelphia and New York-Washington. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not going to make you incriminate yourself to 

the District of Columbia. They know how to get that information 

from you. 

Mr. LEACH. We share it regularly. 

Ms. NORTON. Those curbsides are in downtown Washington 

somewhere or other? 

Mr. LEACH. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. How can you do anything else? There is a huge demand for that service. The service is being filled by people who are 

competing with you with none of the expenses you have. So you 

make your own subsidiary, adding to traffic in DC. 

Mr. Moneme, you have done an admirable job in transportation, 

but, on this notion, I don’t see how you could have let this go on 

this long. I am not suggesting that you had a way to get them into 

Union Station. I mean, Greyhound can’t get in there until this construction takes place. But I don’t know why you wouldn’t have been 

pushing with everybody else to get them to have some kind of dropoff space there. 

We are not asking for the tickets to be sold there. We are not 

asking for the accommodations that Greyhound will have to put up 

capital money to get. We are just asking for accommodations, 

frankly, to our residents and to regional residents who are in increasingly big trouble with this economy. 

So I appreciate that you are working on the intermodal plan, but 

I want to ask you within 30 days to get us the names of all of these 

companies and your suggestions. We are willing to work with you 

on a temporary way to accommodate this. These people don’t have 

to be let off in the most convenient spot in the city. 

They are just glad to get here. They will get themselves a metro 

or some other way. Members of Congress complain daily about traffic downtown and try to get into our business. And I am left here 

53 

to push back. But I need the city to help, particularly with the 

drop-offs. You can’t just get on there and say here is my fare. At 

least Greyhound can’t. I don’t even know about the rest of them. 

But the city, if they are coming into our city, has the capacity to 

demand certain kinds of information from that. If you can’t get it 

they cross regional lines of the country and we can get it. 

So we are willing to help you very much. But that is a big problem that we can get rid of with a little concentrated thinking. And 

I ask you in 30 days to at least give us your thinking on ways to 

do it. I mean things like possible destinations. They don’t have to 

be the final ones. Whether or not—because on this I have no view 

whether or not what Mr. Leach does, which says, look, you have 

got to do it on line, is the only way to do it. Some of these are the 

poorest people in the world. They may not have any other way to 

do it. So either Mr. Leach’s people are fairly upscale relative to 

many residents of the region. You may want to consult with Mr. 

Leach and his own subsidiary who will have some sense. But I ask 

you to proceed to do that within 30 days. Now, again, not a finished product, but to show us that you are starting on that. 

Mr. MONEME. No, I appreciate your comments. That is very 

much what we had in mind. Actually, I can share with you some 

of the plan interactions we did have with the operators in several 

months, to actually sit down with all the operators and talk a little 

bit about what has been their experience, some of the concerns, 

many of them that you have raised already, that we have. The one 

thing that we have been very mindful of is we want to provide as 

many transportation options to the citizens of not just the D.C. Region, but frankly the entire East Coast that use this service. And 

we don’t want to, as you said before, we don’t want to discourage 

competition in any way, we want to actually be a catalyst for the 

benefit of our residents, so we have been trying to walk a fine line. 

And we appreciate being of assistance. 

I think some of your questions and comments are very much on 

point, and we will be more than happy to share with you our thinking thus far. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilbur, I know this is early to ask, but people in your business always try to make some—get some sense of where what they 

are doing is leading in terms of what those who will be there will 

need. I wonder if you have any sense of the expected increase in 

ridership once Burnham Place is completed and what connection 

you see between Burnham Place and the rest of the facility? 

Mr. WILBUR. We have not had an economic study done at this 

time to evaluate your first question. I would say that the second 

question really—— 

Ms. NORTON. You do realize that some people are going to be— 

let us look at the mixed use part—are going to be moving precisely 

because you are so close to the transportation center? 

Mr. WILBUR. Yes, I do. One thing I would like to say is that I 

think 25 years ago when I first came to Washington is when this 

plan for Union Station came about. And I think at the time it was 

really a visionary thing to be able to bring retail into that area. 

And I think it has been a very successful project in the sense of 

having the retail there. Obviously 25 years later we have a very 

54 

different Washington, D.C. than we had before. That was a very 

neglected area, it wasn’t an area that was attracting much investment. And also in that time I think the advantages of mixed use 

development have become much more evident to people. Also, the 

word ′′smart growth′′ didn’t even exist at that time, which was the 

idea of getting development and putting it around transportation 

hubs. 

So I would say absolutely the thing that is really one of the main 

things missing in this ITC is the fact of having more mixed use development. And that is really what our development is going to 

bring. We have some challenges. 

Ms. NORTON. And by that you mean what; would you describe 

what you might expect there? 

Mr. WILBUR. First of all, maybe I could just tell you a little bit 

about the project. We are still very much in the planning phases, 

but kind of how this works, because there was some question on 

that in questions earlier, and I don’t think that the folks who were 

there were quite able to do it because they don’t really know what 

is happening there. But I think you have to think about, first of 

all, connections, which is really what this project is all about. We 

are very much connected to the Union Station. We are also connected to the H Street bridge. And the H Street bridge connects us 

to the neighborhoods. The elevation of this project, if you are going 

to go to it from inside Union Station, you would go up the escalators up to where the parking garage is at. And once you get up 

to that elevated area, that would really be our first floor of our 

building. And that is at about where the crown of the H Street 

bridge is. So again it is a little hard to visualize because we are 

probably about 25 feet above where the tracks are at. There would 

be access to our project both from H Street and to Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. Without going outside? 

Mr. WILBUR. The opening between the H Street and Union Station, right now we are looking to have that space open to the sky 

with people walking through. But your experience going through 

that space is going to be superior architecture and it will be retail. 

Not retail of the type that Union Station has, but it will be just 

first floor retail that would be engaging to someone so that the 

walk that would take place, which is a pretty long walk, would be 

a pleasant one. And you would be able to get from H Street in the 

neighborhoods over to Union Station. And then of course from 

Union Station, you would be able to come up to our project also. 

That area south of H Street, between H Street and the connection to Union Station, would have a platform above the first floor, 

where the first floor would be all retail, we would probably have 

three to four different buildings that would be built there that 

would be office and residential that would provide the density that 

would be able to support our construction of the slab. On the north 

side of H Street, originally when we were looking at this project we 

weren’t quite sure we could build anything there, and now we are 

looking definitely to build there, and on the other side of H Street, 

north of H Street, we are looking at probably putting in a hotel, 

maybe a residential project, it could be some supplemental parking. 

So we are looking at a very dense project. It is one that would 

be very connected to Union Station. It would add a tremendous 

55 

amount of daytime population as well as nighttime population and 

7-day a week population for people who would not only use the 

transportation system, because the people who are going to be attracted to those properties are going to be those who buy into the 

economic and/or environmental advantages of using the public 

transportation system. So I think that is good. 

The other aspect is you will have the people there that will provide more vibrancy for the area, which again makes it more of a 

people place because the transportation, the kind of energy that 

you get from that is one thing, but you have got to have the people 

there and you want them there basically 24/7. 

So that is kind of our overall vision for the project, to take what 

right now has got a nice retail operation there. Fortunately 

Ashkenazy has taken over. They are going to put major capital improvements into the retail. They are going to retool that for a new 

retail environment today. And then basically we are going to make 

them into a mixed use project, because we are going to bring the 

other uses, the office, residential, some retail, but fairly minor 

amount of retail, and hospitality uses to the project. And then 

there could be some other things, some cultural uses, too. 

But I think what we are going to be doing is making that link 

together seem like a single project, and I would say that that is 

similar to what we did at Gallery Place. Remember that we have 

a project that is next to the Verizon Center and we connected that 

project to the Verizon Center so we could get the synergies between 

it. We also had opening areas between the streets so the people 

could walk through so that there was good transportation patched 

through even whether it is on streets or even alley ways. And that 

is the way we want to have this project. 

We don’t have a city grid to deal with here. But we are going to 

do the best that we can to make it a more walkable neighborhood 

by combining our project in with Union Station. 

Ms. NORTON. When you talk about H Street, a city as compact 

and small as D.C. Cannot afford that wasteland between North 

Capitol and maybe First Street or even beyond. And there it is, you 

know, nothing happening. Can’t afford it, can’t live with it, and we 

are going to find that out during this period when we are experiencing some financial difficulties. This has been very fortunate 

until now and will be more fortunate than the rest of the country. 

But even as I heard you speak with some innovation, I see possibilities when paying for this infrastructure, when you talk about all 

that is going to go on there, if there is a will I see a way to move 

forward given the amount of private expenditures that are planned 

and the vested interest that the private sector, especially commercial sector, has in its happening. And we have got to think that 

way or getting it done with large amounts of Federal funds and the 

like is going to not only delay it, but make it impossible. 

Who is your major contact, Mr. Wilbur? Is it the corporation, the 

public corporation, or is it the management that run Union Station 

complex? 

Mr. WILBUR. We work through USRC, but we are going to need 

to work closely with all the groups. That is Ashkenazy, we have 

had meetings with them, too, and they are excited about our plans. 

56 

Ms. NORTON. I am sure you are briefing everybody. I just want 

to make sure, who do you go to when you need to get something 

done by others and by the corporation itself? 

Mr. WILBUR. David Ball would be our person to go to. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is right. And that is why I told him the 

buck stops with him. He just can’t pass it, because Congress created this public corporation with almost no private sector members 

precisely to be able to locate responsibility. So it is important that 

that is your understanding as well. 

One final question, Mr. Moneme, not because I intended it, but 

somebody raised the bus notion. And you know that is my big disappointment with the District of Columbia, because for all the good 

work you have been doing in transportation this notion about people having to go to Union Station and then pay a buck to come see 

their Member of Congress, I have saved you from the perils of 

Members who if we had allowed that plan to go ahead would have 

left all your expectations in complete and total disarray. 

I need you to come see me. I won’t take the entire time. I have 

met with others. You have not been back to us. I will say that we 

want to use the Circulator. We think we have found a way to do 

it without charging people extra money. We do not believe that it 

is feasible to send the tour buses or the larger number of tour 

buses to Union Station. We will be using—we will continue to use 

to the greatest extent possible the Botanic Garden site. The golf 

carts are underused. They have, I think they said, two of six on the 

average are what are used. We are not satisfied given the fact that 

you have to go to the front with even the golf carts. We believe 

there is a way for the Circulator to come up Constitution Avenue, 

let people off at the corner. 

We applaud your notion of public transportation. We decided not 

to rest on having another fight with the Senate on going to First 

Street. That is my biggest fight yet to be solved, because I think 

you had a good plan for that. I want you to know the task force 

is looking at better screening for the buses. They have been informed. You can screen all you want to. Those buses are not going 

into the Capitol Hill neighborhood. They will not go across First 

Street. I don’t care if its safe enough to put babies in. We are not 

going to increase pollution in that section of Capitol Hill. That 

lower section of Capitol Hill is a very residential part of the District of Columbia. 

So it is either the Circulator, which has to be innovative enough 

to get the dollars it hopes to get from rerouting people, or it is what 

we hope and are clear must be some other form of public transportation. I would be pleased to brief you on where we are. The Sergeant of Arms—in the absence of the District of Columbia in coming up with a plan that would not be instantly overturned by Congress, the Sergeant of Arms will be writing you about the plan that 

will be in place for at least tour buses coming to the Capitol of the 

United States. There was very deep concern in Congress about how 

long it was taking. And because we now have a plan that we think 

will be satisfactory to the District of Columbia we would like to sit 

down with you for any alternations you might suggest in it at your 

convenience. 

57 

Your testimony, gentlemen, has been as important as the testimony we heard before. You are the real engines that make this 

run. Mr. Leach, you are—I just have to thank you for keep pressing 

ahead in terms of what you outlined as what kinds of need you will 

have in terms of your capital costs and amortization. I mean anybody in business would understand that those are the kinds of 

things you do if you want something to happen. 

Our concern about Greyhound and interbus travel is that we 

have seen no will, no will on the part of the corporation, or for that 

matter even the people who have something to gain economically, 

the management. Nothing happens, especially in a city like this, 

without will. You make things happen. And thus we are going to 

make happen intercity bus travel for residents of the District of Columbia. You are more indispensable than ever. 

Mr. Moneme, you have a very tough mandate and you have acquitted it well. We are sorry about the problem that arose with respect to the—what do you call it—the Circulator. I always want to 

call it the commuter. The Circulator. But Members of Congress saw 

that as a way for the District of Columbia to fund the Circulator. 

If you want me to be clear, that is how Members perceived it. And 

I didn’t have any answer to that because I saw piling up, as you 

know from your testimony, piling up the buses at Union Station. 

I thought it was a traffic hazard, not to mention the dollar that I 

knew would be the end of it. 

Mr. Wilbur, long before you get a full fledged intermodal center 

up, I ask you, because you are in business, Akridge has been one 

of the most innovative developers in the city, to help the corporation and the management on the road to true intermodal. And the 

impatience that is reflected in me as a Subcommittee Chair about 

getting us quickly, more quickly to the grand visionary part of this, 

we are prepared to act on. It will take private sector funding innovation to help us do it if we want to get the infrastructure part 

completed. The likes of Akridge are in the business of figuring 

things out of this kind, and I ask you to continue what appears to 

be a very good relationship with the actors at Union Station complex, and especially to share with them some of that creativity that 

has made Akridge one of the leading developers in the region. 

I thank Akridge here right on the record for what you are doing 

for the mall. The fact that Akridge, that Chip Akridge is heading 

the extraordinary effort to solicit half a billion dollars in funds for 

the National Mall is an indication of the success you have had in 

your business because that is not something Mr. Akridge would undertake without such success, or, if I may say so, that he would be 

asked to undertake by the public sector unless he had shown extraordinary success in his own business. 

Thank you all for your testimony at this hearing, and please continue to communicate with Subcommittee staff and with my own 

staff to the extent that we can be helpful to any of you. Thank you 

very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

58 


43753.004
59 


43753.005
60 


43753.006
61 


43753.007
62 


43753.008
63 


43753.009
64 


43753.010
65 


43753.011
66 


43753.012
67 


43753.013
68 


43753.014
69 


43753.015
70 


43753.016
71 


43753.017
72 


43753.018
73 


43753.019
74 


43753.020
75 


43753.021
76 


43753.022
77 


43753.023
78 


43753.024
79 


43753.025
80 


43753.026
81 


43753.027
82 


43753.028
83 


43753.029
84 


43753.030
85 


43753.031
86 


43753.032
87 


43753.033
88 


43753.034
89 


43753.035
90 


43753.036
91 


43753.037
92 


43753.038
93 


43753.039
94 


43753.040
95 


43753.041
96 


43753.042
97 


43753.043
98 


43753.044
99 


43753.045
100 


43753.046
101 


43753.047
102 


43753.048
103 


43753.049
104 


43753.050
105 


43753.051
106 


43753.052
107 


43753.053
108 


43753.054
109 


43753.055
110 


43753.056
111 


43753.057
112 


43753.058
113 


43753.059
114 


43753.060
115 


43753.061
116 


43753.062
117 


43753.063
118 


43753.064
119 


43753.065
120 


43753.066
121 


43753.067
122 


43753.068
123 


43753.069
124 


43753.070
125 


43753.071
126 


43753.072
127 


43753.073
128 


43753.074
129 


43753.075
130 


43753.076
131 


43753.077
132 


43753.078
133 


43753.079
134 


43753.080
135 


43753.081
136 


43753.082
137 


43753.083
138 


43753.084
139 


43753.086
140 


43753.087
141 


43753.088
142 


43753.089
143 


43753.093
144 


43753.094
145 


43753.095
146 


43753.096
147 


43753.097
148 


43753.098
149 


43753.099
150 


43753.100
151 


43753.101
152 


43753.102
153 


43753.103
154 


43753.104
155 


43753.105
156 


43753.106
157 


43753.107
158 


43753.108
159 


43753.109
160 


43753.110
161 


43753.111
162 


43753.112
163 


43753.113
164 


43753.114
165 


43753.115
166 


43753.116
167 


43753.117
168 


43753.118
169 


43753.119
170 


43753.120
171 


43753.121
172 

Æ 


43753.122