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

51–253 PDF 2009

THE CONGRESSIONAL VISION FOR 

A 21ST CENTURY UNION STATION: 

NEW INTERMODAL USES AND A 

NEW UNION STATION LIVABLE 

COMMUNITY 

(111–52) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 22, 2009 

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 

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 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

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 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

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 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Akridge, John ‘‘Chip,’’ Chairman, Akridge Corporation ....................................... 22 

Alleman, Steven, General Superintendent, Amtrak ............................................. 22 

Ball, David, President, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation .................... 5 

Klein, Gabe, Director, District Department of Transportation ............................ 22 

Leach, David, President & CEO, Greyhound Lines, Inc. ..................................... 5 

Lustig, Barry, Senior Vice-President of Leasing and Development, Ashkenazy 

Acquisitions Corporations .................................................................................... 22 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 44 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Akridge, John ‘‘Chip’’ ............................................................................................... 45 

Alleman, Steven ....................................................................................................... 52 

Ball, David ................................................................................................................ 56 

Klein, Gabe ............................................................................................................... 62 

Leach, David ............................................................................................................ 71 

Lustig, Barry ............................................................................................................ 79 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Akridge, John ‘‘Chip,’’ Chairman, Akridge Corporation, responses to questions 

from the Subcommittee ........................................................................................ 49 

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

to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................................. 59 

Klein, Gabe, Director, District Department of Transportation, responses to 

questions from the Subcommittee ....................................................................... 69 

Leach, David, President & CEO, Greyhound Lines, Inc., response to question 

from the Subcommittee ........................................................................................ 78 

Lustig, Barry, Senior Vice-President of Leasing and Development, Ashkenazy 

Acquisitions Corporations: ...................................................................................

Map of Union Station ................................................................................... 84 

Responses to questions from the Subcommitee .......................................... 99 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Amtrak, Joe McHugh, Vice President of Government Affairs and Corporate 

Communications: ..................................................................................................

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee ......................................... 112 

Supplemental information ............................................................................ 115 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 51253.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 51253.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 51253.003
(1) 

HEARING ON CONGRESSIONAL VISION FOR A 

21ST CENTURY UNION STATION: NEW 

INTERMODAL USES AND A NEW UNION STATION LIVABLE COMMUNITY 

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 

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 2:12 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor 

Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. We are pleased to welcome today’s witnesses to our 

oversight hearing on Union Station, its entire complex and the actions taken since our last hearing to carry out the Congressional 

vision and mandate that Union Station become one of the Nation’s 

most important state-of-the-art intermodal transportation centers 

for all modes of transportation, maximizing the available space, including the planned multi-use addition, a result of the congressional competition that awarded air rights over the rail tracks behind Union Station. 

Designed by Daniel Burnham, for whom the new development, 

Burnham Place, is to be named, Union Station first opened in 1907 

as a train facility for the Nation’s capital with a grand design commissioned by Congress that produced its 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, Congress passed the Union Station Redevelopment Act, 

which authorized the Secretary of Transportation to create the 

Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, or USRC, a non-profit 

corporation, which later spearheaded the redevelopment of Union 

Station. 

In 1988, after a $180 million renovation, Union Station, which 

had been a neglected, boarded up wasteland, hardly fit for trains, 

reopened as a fully and historically restored beautiful facility and 

shopping mall. Thus was a 20th century Union Station reborn, but 

Congress wanted much more and mandated that Union Station become a model all-purpose transportation center. 

To continue to maximize the value of the historic station, in 

2002, Congress, through the General Services Administration, bid 

and later sold the 15 acres of air rights above the adjacent Union 

2 

Station rail yard. As a result of that sale, a new development adjacent to Union Station, Burnham Station, is expected to bring an 

additional 2 million square feet of development, including hotel, office space and expanded transportation capabilities and the like. 

By statute, the ownership of Union Station, as the Union Station 

Redevelopment Act report reiterated, remained with the Federal 

Government. However, we were unable to find evidence of congressional oversight of Union Station since its redevelopment. This 

Subcommittee resolved to fill this unfortunate hiatus in much 

needed oversight, including hearing testimony and complaints from 

the public, at our first hearing exactly a year ago, July 22nd, 2008. 

The hearing is a continuation of what will be regular oversight 

hearings, sometimes more than annually. 

Even after the hearing last year, the Full Committee and Subcommittee has had to press Union Station management even to 

provide basic intercity bus transportation. Instead, intercity bus 

service continued to bang at the door of Union Station. Even a bus 

company seeking to sub-lease of unused spaces was turned away 

for unjustifiable reasons. On March 20th, the leaders of the Committee and Subcommittee, including the Ranking Member of the 

Full Committee, who is here today, Mr. Mica, and I wrote a letter 

asking for the co-location of an intercity bus terminal at Union Station to further enable passengers to seamlessly move from one 

mode of transportation to another. 

Considering the public/private investment in Union Station, and 

its intermodal center mandate, it seemed indefensible that the addition of mere bus transportation had not occurred long ago. However, the Subcommittee and Committee leadership had to write 

again to Union Station management on May 7th, 2009, urging expeditious handling of the relocation of Greyhound to Union Station. 

No world class intermodal facility would operate without intercity 

bus services included in its package of transportation services. We 

want to learn today whether aggressive and expeditious action has 

been taken to bring intercity services to Union Station. 

We are determined to speed the slow walk of Union Station toward true intermodalism. Today, Union Station offers Amtrak, the 

Washington Metropolitan Transit service rail and bus, the Virginia 

Rail Express, or VRE, the Maryland Area Rail Commuter, or 

MARC, a bike sharing program, and tourist-friendly transportation 

services. Union Station is already the busiest rail stop on the 

WMATA subway line, with over 30,000 daily riders and visitors. 

However, the facility covers 12 acres, with 2200 parking spaces 

and 125 stores, and the new Intermodal Center will require parking facilities for buses, new rail concourses, and additional homeland security improvements. The District of Columbia is currently 

completing a state-of-the-art bike facility and is assisting in improving the traffic circle and taxi access. VRE is planning to extend 

its service to New York City, while at the same time MARC is extending to Fredericksburg and other Virginia locations. Amtrak 

will operate many of these new routes, but major renovation at the 

facility will be required in order to do so and will be necessary to 

bring Union Station into the congressional 21st century vision. 

3 

We look forward to a status report on Union Station from the full 

array of the responsible parties and thank each of them for today’s 

testimony. 

I would like to ask the Ranking Member, Mr. Mica, who has long 

had an interest in Union Station, if he has any opening remarks. 

I am pleased to have him join us today. 

I ask, of course, unanimous consent that the Ranking Member of 

the Full Committee sit with us at today’s hearing. So ordered. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. Good to be here today and also to 

present some viewpoints from our side of the aisle. 

First, I have to commend you, Ms. Norton, for calling this hearing and for taking time to spend congressional oversight and attention to a very important issue. 

Now, this isn’t a hearing about Union Station and it being a 

train depot just in another community; this is about probably one 

of our most significant transportation intermodal centers in the 

United States, and certainly one of the most important and key 

components to transportation across the entire northeast corridor 

that serves a huge portion of America’s population. 

If people don’t know it, they need to know that Amtrak, again, 

is more than just a train terminus; it is our major transportation 

hub, it provides connections to Amtrak throughout the northeast 

corridor of the United States. It is intermodal to our Metro system, 

which now links us both to Reagan National and will soon link us 

to Dulles Airport. We have connections to BWI. We have both a 

commercial and business center. We have surface transportation 

links that include commercial carriers, charter carriers, tour carriers, circulators throughout the communities. It is, indeed, our 

major hub for transit in our Nation’s capital. 

So we are talking about a very important component of infrastructure not just for this community, but for the whole region and 

the Nation. 

I am very pleased, again, that the focus of the hearing is going 

to be the vision for 21st century because we have to look ahead. 

We have to make certain, as Ms. Norton said, that this is a world 

class facility and that it in fact serves and is intermodal to all of 

the transportation modes and some for the future. I cannot think 

of a better time for this Committee to act both in looking at the 

long-term plan, looking at some of the things that we have developed in a bipartisan basis as priorities. 

There is absolutely no reason in the world why people who take 

our major long distance and short distance surface transportation 

commercial carriers, whether it be Greyhound or some other commercial carrier, should be treated as second class citizens, dumped 

in some other part of the community, and then have to make their 

way to our major intermodal hub. So I think getting surface transportation and, again, accommodating all the other needs in that 

intermodal center, will be a great step forward. So I join in offering 

anything from our side of the aisle to move a successful completion 

of some of our previous efforts and the vision you are looking to establish for the future. 

Let me say, finally, we cannot act at a better time on behalf of 

taxpayers and the people of the United States. To fulfill the proper 

vision for Union State, we may need to look at acquiring back some 

4 

of that air space that we sold or some of that space to make certain 

that we have adequate space and we can accommodate all modes 

at that intermodal center. So I am willing to work again with Ms. 

Norton and everyone to try to make certain that we have the blueprint and the physical capability of accommodating all of those 

modes. 

The other thing is we will never get better deals, either from people we might have to get some space back from or if we have to 

acquire new space. I had here today no buyer for Watergate at auction. Property is distressed not just in our Nation’s capital, but 

across the land. So if we can acquire back space or we can acquire 

new and additional space by planning for the future, I think it will 

be a great plus for everyone, including the taxpayers. 

Finally, NoMa again an is important key component, and we 

have got to make it a success. It will be one of the most vibrant 

parts of this community in the future, and we are going to make 

certain that it is working with Ms. Norton and others. She does an 

incredible job representing the District, its interest in these type 

projects. And, finally, she said we are going to do it right, world 

class, and I am committed to whatever it takes and will join her 

in that effort. 

So I am pleased to be here and I know our Ranking Member, 

who isn’t here, Mr. Diaz-Balart—oh, I am sorry, well, he will come 

forward and said Amen after I am finished. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I yield back to Mr. Diaz-Balart or to the 

Chair. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. He was on a roll. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, we could see that, particularly when you got 

all the way over to NoMa. 

I do want you to know that part of what we are committed to 

do is to open up the back of Union Station to H Street, the NoMa 

side of Union Station. 

I am particularly pleased that the Ranking Member has joined 

us, because he has been a very important part of the bipartisan 

push for a world class intermodal Union Station from the very beginning, and I appreciate having him here today and am pleased 

now to ask Ms. Edwards if she has any opening remarks for us 

today. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chair, I will only say to Mr. Mica, Amen. 

I remember Union Station of old as a kid. I remember and have, 

of course, used Union Station that we know today, and I am looking forwards to working with you, Madam Chairwoman, and our 

Committee on building the Union Station of the 21st century that 

really does envision every mode of transportation, becomes really 

an example for this Country about how we can develop these hubs 

of transportation that serve multiple different needs of community, 

whether those are commercial needs, recreational needs, and basic 

multiple modes of transportation; and just look forward to continuing to work with you on that. 

Union Station, when you travel to Union Station and you visit 

the other stations, particularly along the eastern corridor, Union 

Station actually really does stand out as an example of what we 

can do around transportation, and many of the other stations in 

5 

this corridor have gone through their own revisioning and revamping as a result of the fine work that was done here; and I think 

that that, Madam Chairwoman, will actually continue into the future. So what we do here is really important not just to serve this 

city and the millions who come to visit here each year, but also to 

serve as a model for what will happen in these transportation hubs 

around the Country. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Ms. Edwards and I will 

be looking to the entire regional delegation, particularly as VRE 

and MARC expand. None of that can happen if Union Station remains as it is. 

With all respect, of course, to the Ranking Member of our Full 

Committee, I am pleased to welcome the real Ranking Member to 

offer opening remarks at this time, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I apologize 

that I was a little late. I actually really need to say Amen to Ms. 

Edwards, Amen to Mr. Mica’s Amen. I think the Ranking Member 

has actually stated it very succinctly and, if that is all right with 

you, Madam Chairwoman, again, I thank you for your leadership. 

You have put together another great group of experts that I know 

have been waiting, so I would love to hear from them. Thank you 

very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

We are pleased now to hear from our first two witnesses. Let’s 

begin with Mr. Ball and then go to Mr. Leach. 

Mr. Ball is the President of the Union Station Redevelopment 

Corporation, David Ball. David Leach is the President and CEO of 

Greyhound Lines, Inc. 

Mr. Ball. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID BALL, PRESIDENT, UNION STATION REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; AND DAVID LEACH, PRESIDENT & CEO, GREYHOUND LINES, INC. 

Mr. BALL. Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, 

also known as USRC, to provide testimony support of The Congressional Vision for a 21st Century Union Station: New Intermodal 

Uses and a New Union Station Livable Community. It is important 

to note that USRC is the custodian for Union Station. 

Since last coming before this Committee in July 2008, USRC and 

other Union Station stakeholders have met and held serious discussions about constructing an intercity bus terminal at Union Station, which Greyhound would be a participant, increasing the intermodal use of the station and how best to ensure that what we do 

today improves access and usability for the station’s constituents. 

USRC and its stakeholders view this opportunity as a chance to 

take a holistic approach to intermodal improvements at Union Station. We are framing solutions to reduce patron congestion in the 

Amtrak passenger concourse, to bring new retail opportunities into 

the station, to improve pedestrian and vehicular access in and 

around Columbus Plaza, to install a perimeter security bollard sysVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:21 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51253 JASON
6 

tem at that station, also, to work on an immediate solution to construct an intercity bus terminal in the parking garage. 

We look to gain new pedestrian access into the proposed intercity 

bus terminal via the WMATA pedestrian tunnel and the proposed 

vertical access shaft adjacent to H Street. We are doing this along 

with the installation of 10 new escalators in the parking garage to 

enhance patron egress and ingress. Our attention to these matters 

will improve the services rendered to our current intermodal transportation providers: WMATA buses, Metro subway, the tour buses, 

the D.C. Circulator, Amtrak, VRE, and MARC. 

Recent USRC successfully worked and obtained agency approval 

from the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Capital Planning 

Commission, and the D.C. State Historic Preservation Officer for 

the implementation of security upgrades at the station and the rehabilitation of Columbus Plaza. DDOT is preparing the bidding 

documents. As part of the Columbia Plaza improvements, WMATA 

will gain 10 free bus slips in the garage to enhance bus travel in 

the area. The D.C. Circulator currently runs two routes out of the 

garage. 

The draft Intermodal Transportation Center study being conducted by DDOT provided data and insight into the future uses 

and expectations of the Union Station complex. The ITC identified 

the northern portion of the garage as the most feasible location for 

an intercity bus terminal. The majority of stakeholders concur that 

the best location for an intercity bus terminal was in the north end 

of the garage. 

In February 2009, Representative Mica requested that Amtrak, 

Greyhound, USRC, and the District meet in his office to discuss 

Greyhound’s tenancy at Union Station. His directions were clear: 

think outside the box; don’t be limited by lease lines or contractual 

issues. His goal was to make the intercity bus terminal work. 

The best solution that seemed to work for the stakeholders was 

locating the intercity bus terminal in the north end of the bus deck 

and creating a vertical connection from the H Street bridge to the 

WMATA pedestrian tunnel. This plan would allow patrons to come 

directly from Metro to gain access to the intercity bus terminal via 

walking a short distance through a climate controlled, well lit 

walkway to reach their destination. It would improve passenger 

flow at the Union Station Metro station and reduce potential traffic 

flow problems in the Amtrak passenger areas. The intercity bus 

terminal would be designed to have a prominent presence on H 

Street. 

In May, Representative Norton, you and I met to discuss our 

progress to date. Even though we were on the right track, you requested that we find a way to speed up the process to construct 

this intercity bus terminal. To that end, USRC and Greyhound 

have engaged an engineering firm to investigate the physical limitations of the existing bus deck to determine where utilities can be 

found to support the new use. 

The results of that study are due in August. Once the cost for 

the delivery of the utilities and the structural carrying capacity of 

the deck has been identified, a cost can be established for building 

the terminal. The stakeholders will focus on this data and we 

should be able to make end-user, design, construction, financing, 

7 

and scheduling decisions by late this fall. That is our goal. Most 

recently, USRC has provided the new Greyhound management 

with a site tour of the garage and we have also received their concurrence that the north end of the bus deck is most situated for the 

terminal. 

We look forward to working with Greyhound and all other parties to make the intercity bus terminal a reality for Union Station. 

At this time, I want to thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

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

Mr. Leach. 

Mr. LEACH. Chairwoman Norton 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 its operations to Union Station 

and has been actively engaged in discussions focused on making 

that happen. I greatly appreciate your strong support for that initiative. 

When I appeared before you a year ago, I said that after years 

of off and on again efforts, forces were converging that made me 

optimistic that plans could be finalized for Greyhound to move to 

Union Station in the fairly near future. 

My optimism proved premature. Because of concerns of various 

parties, Greyhound went through a series of four options, as outlined in my testimony, for its relocation to Union Station. Finally, 

when various parties suggested that our relocation be delayed until 

a further expansion of the bus deck for the long-range Burnham 

Place development, we dug our heels in. 

Our position was that although we strongly supported the longrange Union Station plans, Greyhound’s move to Union Station 

needed to be, and could be, completed in a much shorter time 

frame on the existing bus deck. Our surveys indicated that even at 

peak periods, buses occupied less than one-third of the bus deck 

parking spaces. 

Since the May 7th, 2009 congressional letter urging that Greyhound be moved to Union Station expeditiously, there have been a 

series of discussions among the major relevant parties. Out of those 

discussions, I believe a consensus has emerged on a plan to create 

an intercity bus terminal on the existing bus deck. Here are the 

key parts of the plan as I see it: 

First, I believe that all parties are in agreement that the location 

of the intercity bus terminal on the rear of the bus deck, toward 

H Street, is the preferred option. This is Option 1 in my prepared 

testimony. 

Second, there needs to be a feasibility study to determine any 

weight restrictions for the terminal and issues with regard to utility access. Greyhound and USRC have agreed to split the cost of 

that feasibility study, which is about to start. We hope that it can 

be completed in about 30 days. 

Third, the completion of the Metro tunnel to H Street, with moving walkways and vertical access to the bus deck, is essential to the 

location of the bus terminal at the rear of the deck. This also has 

major benefit to residents and office workers in NoMa in that it 

provides climate controlled, convenient access to Union Station. 

8 

Fourth, funding of the tunnel and vertical access is a critical 

issue. DDOT has indicated that it intends to make available existing Federal planning funds for the design and engineering work on 

the tunnel and vertical access. Other sources of funding will need 

to be identified for the construction. 

Fifth, existing easements that will be impacted by the tunnel and 

vertical access must be identified and addressed. 

Sixth, USRC and Greyhound must negotiate agreement for lease 

for the space for the terminal and buses. Both parties have indicated a willingness to start negotiating in the near future. 

Seventh, other uses of the bus deck must be addressed. DDOT 

has indicated an interest in moving all of the curbside operators to 

the bus deck so that it can be a complete intercity bus terminal like 

the Boston South Station. Greyhound does not object to that approach, but it must be done in a comprehensive manner that provides equity in both access and cost-sharing. 

Eighth, the bus terminal must be constructed. Greyhound has 

committed to pay for the construction of the terminal if it is a 

Greyhound facility, and has already expended considerable resources on design and location. 

Ninth, timeliness needs to be identified and adhered to. Greyhound has suggested to all parties that a realistic goal for completion and occupancy of the bus terminal is three years from now. 

Tenth, Greyhound must sell its NoMa location in order to free 

that property up for future development. Greyhound fully intends 

to do so, although not until its future at Union Station is secure. 

In closing, we have got a lot of work to do to make an intercity 

bus terminal at Union Station a reality. But based on recent developments, I have a renewed sense of optimism that it can be done. 

Chairwoman Norton, your strong support for this project has been 

essential to getting us to this point and will be critical to its successful completion. Thank you very much for that support. I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Leach. I appreciate the 

detail in your testimony. 

First, let me start with a more general question to Mr. Ball. 

The Union Station Development Act, of course, indicates that 

transportation is the raison d’etre of the facility and, of course, particularly today, when rail, light rail, public transportation of all 

kinds is what Congress and the President are focused on. We want 

to keep to that focus. 

But as we look at what happened, finally, with Union Station in 

the 1980s, we got through almost the end of the century before we 

brought Union Station into the 20th century, and, as you know, 

even then Congress, with its mandate for a 21st century true intermodal facility, looking at some facilities that were springing up already around the Country, envisioned a 21st century even as we 

were applauding finally getting into the 20th century. And we 

were, we were delighted with the new facility, and, of course, even 

that is undergoing a makeover. 

I would like to hear your vision. Indeed, I would like to know 

whether the Corporation has itself designed a plan that it would 

then submit to Congress for accomplishing the intermodal vision 

that Congress has on paper, but obviously set up the Corporation 

9 

to deliver. Has the board ever charged you or you gone to the board 

and said if we are going to make this happen, we have got to do 

what any master developer would do; we would put on paper what 

the plan is to achieve this grand intermodal vision that Congress 

keeps talking about so that they know what resources are necessary, what time frame we envision as possible, etcetera? Has that 

ever happened? 

Mr. BALL. Ms. Norton, back in 2000—I want to say it was probably 2000, maybe 2000 when Tom Nelson, I think was president of 

Amtrak, he did what was considered a 10-year master plan for 

Union Station; interviewed all the stakeholders, public/private, 

neighborhood constituents, and took a look in terms of what was 

going on at the station, how they viewed the station. 

And a couple of things that came out was that the access to and 

from Union Station was hard to get in; handicap accessibility from 

Union Station up to Capitol Hill did not exist; the cobblestone 

pavements in Columbus Plaza were not in good repair. Out of that 

10-year master plan we have finally moved through all our hurdles 

and got the okay from the Commission of Fine Arts, NCPC to redo 

Columbus Plaza; a new traffic circle, new lights, improvements. It 

is a whole new look at Union Station; bollards in front of Union 

Station. That was 10 years ago. 

To answer your question, we can always go back and do a 10- 

year look in terms of where Union Station is. When we did it last 

year, we understand that ridership from Amtrak has increased 

over the period of time. There is more use of Union Station. When 

we went before the board, we increased our parking garage a couple years ago, we started the garage expansion program and put 

the new parking space in parking garage. 

During that same time period, the last three years the retail side 

of the station was sold, so we have been working with the developer, trying to understand his concept; working with the developer 

in terms of getting his plans to the Commission of Fine Arts and 

really trying to put the pieces together. At the same time, Amtrak’s 

ridership has grown. 

So a lot of things have happened to the station. We are really 

trying to figure out what this nut is that we have. So between the 

meetings that we have with the stakeholders, I believe we are in 

a good position to sort of understand what we need to do just in 

the next couple of years just to make the station work for the people that are in there today. So I hope that answers your question. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, it is certainly important what you are doing, 

because the master plan notion in the station, which is rapidly 

being changed, regardless of what you do, means that you are trying to keep up with current very rapidly changing conditions, and 

I appreciate the master plan notion. 

However, you will note that here we have VRE and MARC expanding great distances. Some of that funding, I believe, has already begun in planning and design. That is going to happen somehow. The kind of planning I am talking about envisions a Burnham 

Place. I mean, it is in keeping with Congress’s grand vision. You 

can’t always put in place a grand vision, but the point is to know 

where you are going. 

10 

And the 10-year master plan is extremely important because 

Union Station is experiencing great changes just by the pressures 

being brought on you; the new pressures on Amtrak, the new pressure on intercity rail, the demand for biking, the culture transition 

that is finally happening in our society as we finally understand 

the limits of automobile travel. All eyes focused really on various 

kinds of rail. 

This Congress, having reauthorized Amtrak, $13 billion into Amtrak, which had been starved. Competition, now several years completed, for Burnham Place. The kind of plan I am talking about is 

not a true master plan, but master development plan. It is the kind 

of plan that, for example, we did here in Congress when we passed 

the Southeast Federal Center Act. We need to know here, for the 

first time, almost 50 acres of Federal land along M Street we were 

going to open up and create what amounted to a new section of 

Washington, D.C. Well, we didn’t say, well, we need a developer 

here and a developer there; we said what is the grand vision. Well, 

out of the grand vision we quickly began to fill in the spots and 

places. 

I am asking whether or not anyone on the board or you have in 

mind, given what we already know about the plans, which take us 

a long way now forward from where we are, structurally forward, 

whether or not you believe that it is time to have a 21st century 

plan for Union Station and whether you believe you have the capacity to produce such a plan. 

Mr. BALL. Well, if I understand your question correctly, yes, we 

believe in a growing Union Station, the intermodal use, and take 

a look at what is called just the Union Station complex, the area 

within Union Station, how that should actually be looked at and 

used. And we have done that to a point. We may not have ‘‘the 

plan’’ written down or developed and written down, but from the 

ownership that encircles Union Station, we are in constant talk 

with them in sort of understanding where they are, what needs to 

be done at the station. So we don’t operate within a vacuum, but 

we look to the outside developers, the ones who have ideas, that 

can bring new ideas, and we try to work with them and see Union 

Station sort of like the hub, and we support their activities. 

If you want us to come back and develop what you would consider sort of like a master development plan so you can get an idea 

where the different pods go, that can be done; we can look at something like that. That is not a problem. 

Ms. NORTON. The reason that I ask, Mr. Ball, is that if this vision that Congress talks about all the time is to come about, guess 

what? Congress is going to have to come up with some funds too. 

If Greyhound wants to move in, we would have to make a decision 

if they were going to have exclusive control and what that would 

be worth to them. There are decisions that would have to be made, 

and I tell you one thing. It is hard enough to get money if there 

is a grand plan, but it is impossible if Congress doesn’t see something that looks worthwhile. 

So you have got Members of Congress talking about the grand 

plan as if you could go ahead and do it tomorrow, when there is 

not a plan. If the President, for example, were to say here is the 

ultimate stimulus package; we are going to do exactly what FDR 

11 

did. If you go to Constitution Avenue and Independence Avenue 

today, every cornerstone has some 1930s on it, because he used the 

stimulus funds to build the whole Federal network. We are not in 

a position to even ask for those funds because we don’t have that 

kind of plan. 

Let me go to Mr. Leach. Yes, I think such a plan is in order. I 

think it is very important so that we know where we are going, 

even though how long it would take to get there, what its component parts are, what the needs are, what the finances would look 

like, what is the undone business so that we don’t go, step by step, 

to have people come to us to say, for example, they can’t lease even 

unleased spaces for buses. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Ball. Has Amtrak ever said to you that 

for any reason the management of Amtrak opposes buses in Union 

Station? 

Mr. BALL. No. 

Ms. NORTON. Have they expressed any compunction about buses 

in Union Station? 

Mr. BALL. Not so much buses directly, but just the fact that their 

passenger waiting room is tight. We just need to make certain that 

if buses come, that we can provide services to Amtrak travelers as 

well as Greyhound travelers. 

Ms. NORTON. Has that matter, which is perfectly legitimate, ever 

been presented to Congress for whatever help Congress might provide? And I am not here suggesting that it has help to provide, but 

has anyone ever had a request based on Amtrak’s concerns? It 

seems to me a legitimate concern. 

Mr. BALL. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you are the man in charge. I would expect it 

to come from you. I will ask the Amtrak president when he steps 

forward. But, again, I am trying to look at whether or not anybody 

wants this to happen enough to make it happen and to make us 

make it happen and to make the other actors make it happen, because I can tell you something, we can’t even get a bill out of Committee or Subcommittee if we don’t make it happen. 

Mr. BALL. I understand. We will look at, as you said, and we will 

also look to the ITC study for some of the data collection in terms 

of actually taking a look at the overall picture. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I would appreciate that, Mr. Ball. 

Mr. Leach, is it your understanding that Amtrak had some opposition to Greyhound moving into Union Station? 

Mr. LEACH. It is exactly as Mr. Ball had expressed. There was 

a significant concern about congestion in the head house with the 

inclusion of Greyhound’s ticketing facilities in the head house. So 

that is why we looked at the back end of the bus deck as a separate 

bus facility area, so that we could get around the congestion issue. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you reached agreement on that? 

Mr. LEACH. We have. 

Ms. NORTON. I think your testimony indicated that you have. 

Before I go forward, I would like to ask the Ranking Member if 

he has any questions. 

Before I go to Ms. Edwards, I note that Ms. Markey is here and 

wonder if she has any opening remarks before we continue with 

Ms. Edwards. 

12 

Ms. MARKEY. No thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, 

though. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Markey. 

Ms. Edwards, have you any questions? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just a couple of questions, because I am very interested in the planning aspect of this, and I think that it really 

is important to take a vision with all of the stakeholders at the 

table and then come up with an idea, and there is going to be a 

lot of push and pull, I think, along the way. 

One of my questions is how do you then envision both what happens, or ought to happen, at Union Station with what is going on 

in the suburbs with VRE and MARC, and are those considered, 

then, partners at the table? And there is a lot of activity going on 

at our MARC stations and we did get, in fact, stimulus money and 

other resources to expand some of our MARC capacities in Maryland. That is going to have a huge impact, actually, on Union Station, but I am trying to envision what the planning table looks like 

for the purposes of creating this 21st century vision for Union Station. And if that doesn’t happen now, how does it happen if you 

want to get resources? 

Mr. BALL. If you are directing that question to me, in terms of 

VRE and MARC, we work with Amtrak, who actually brings the 

trains into Union Station and has to deal with their passengers on 

a day-to-day basis. So the problems or opportunities that Amtrak 

has with MARC and VRE are known to our office through Amtrak. 

So Amtrak is aware. If Amtrak is aware, we are aware. So we work 

in a partnership like that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But MARC is bringing—I know people out in my 

district, especially the farther reaches, and then when you get out 

to areas like Bowie, if they are getting on the MARC train, maybe 

they are coming in as commuters to then get on Metro. I mean, 

they are using Union Station as sort of that transfer point for them 

for regular commuting. 

Mr. BALL. The most critical aspect, as I understand it, is basically platform space and holding space for the trains on the platforms, and that is Amtrak’s sort of like long-term issue in terms 

of how do you actually bring trains in and get them out, because 

most of the trains from MARC, they actually dead-head into the 

station, so they sit on the platforms, other trains come in. So it has 

to do with capacity, where tracks are located, where platforms are 

located, and how they travel. So those are, I want to say, inherently rail issues, but the end result is that they do deposit people 

in Union Station. 

So we can work with the movement of people. We try to free up 

passengers. We have done a lot of movement studies within Union 

Station itself to see how people move, how to go back. Some deals 

with WMATA, who is not here today, but just for the ability of 

commuters to exit out of Union Station at the north end, because 

there is just not enough capacity to exit the number of people out 

of the north end of Union Station when the commuter rails come 

in. 

So we do see the same problem that you see. No matter how 

many people come in from the suburbs, there is the fact that, when 

you come to Union Station, we need to be able to get the people 

13 

out easily and quickly as they leave the station. So we understand 

that and we are working on that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, I guess I wonder, following up on the Chairwoman’s question and concern, that if you are not looking at sort 

of the entire footprint and saying, well, what do we need to do for 

WMATA purposes on Metro and bus, what do we need to do for 

VRE and MARC and Amtrak, and to really turn this into a hub 

for other modes of transportation, where is the place and who organizes how that footprint is designed? 

Mr. BALL. That data that you just asked for, a lot of that is found 

in the ITC study that is being done by DDOT. They have done 

polls, they have done surveys to understand where people are going 

and where people are moving. So that information is in that and 

they have identified some solutions in terms of moving people from 

point A to point B, east, west, north, and south. 

So when that document is published, it will give you a pretty 

good footprint of what is at Union Station, who is coming to Union 

Station, who uses Union Station, the access points of Union Station 

and the problems. So once that document comes out, that will sort 

of give us a viable footprint to sort of follow and understand all the 

issues that you just mentioned. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. Markey, do you want to listen some more before you ask any 

questions or do you have any questions at this time? 

Ms. MARKEY. I don’t have any questions at this time. I am really 

here to learn more about this plan. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. We are glad to have you. This is a facility that Congress envisioned as a model intermodal transportation 

center for the Country, and we are trying to kick it to the next 

step. 

Now, I have spoken of Greyhound because Greyhound has been 

energetic, because the District of Columbia, frankly, would like 

Greyhound to move from where they are, if at all possible, to this 

center because Greyhound, among other inter-bus transportation 

services, had to contend with how you in fact deal with people who 

want to get on a bus and get off a bus. I was personally mortified 

to see my constituents, especially as bus travel became more and 

more necessary and economical, to see them waiting out in front 

of public buildings in order to get buses, as if this were some, shall 

we say, third class city, because we were not providing inter-bus 

transportation. 

Now, by mentioning Greyhound, I make no judgment about who 

should be in the station. I want to know whether or not, Mr. Ball, 

you have been in touch with other intercity bus companies. Are 

there others who wish to get slots at Union Station at this time 

and what is the status of those inquiries or any action in response 

to those inquiries? 

Mr. BALL. We did do a survey and talked to several of the bus 

companies that do, I want to say, curbside pickup in the District 

at this time. Some of them believe that because how their constituents catch the bus, they sort of have preferred locations for the 

buses. I have worked with Greyhound just in terms of looking for 

their expertise in seeing how they actually design a bus facility. 

14 

Greyhound may not be the dominant person in that, they may be 

a small participant, but they have enough knowledge about how 

bus terminals work, movement of people that we need their expertise in here in terms of designing an intercity bus terminal in the 

parking garage. 

So, again, we want their partnership, but we do need their support as we go through to make intercity bus facility actually be 

able to function correctly. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, is there competition going on among bus companies who may want access to the station, or how does one get 

slots at Union Station? 

Mr. BALL. I don’t—— 

Ms. NORTON. What is the status of bus service coming to Union 

Station right now, with Mr. Leach or any other bus service? What 

is the status? How close are we with what bus companies? 

Mr. BALL. I think—— 

Ms. NORTON. Pursuant to what process? 

Mr. BALL. I think we are close to working with Greyhound. On 

the other bus companies, we did send out a survey, and, again, a 

lot of the bus companies are not interested in leaving their current 

location. 

Ms. NORTON. Let me just say a word about that, because we in 

the District of Columbia, who are trying to clean up our air, are 

not trying to facilitate people who pick up people on the side and 

let them off on the side. And I understand why that—they don’t 

have to pay, for one thing, to in fact have a facility, and yet they 

are in competition with people who do have a facility. 

Now, they offer lower fares, and that is one of the reasons why 

we want them there, but a city of this size can hardly tolerate increasing numbers of bus companies that are leaving people off at 

any curb they happen to find vacant. Then the city gets all kinds 

of complaints about traffic, which is already among the most congested in the Country. So I think you are right, but their preference is not the preference of either this Committee, the Congress, 

or the District of Columbia. 

Mr. BALL. And we will work in concert with DDOT in terms of 

how these curbside buses are picked up. 

Ms. NORTON. And I am sure DDOT doesn’t have any alternative 

now. That is why we are trying to see if there are alternatives that 

can be provided at Union Station so that we could curb curbside. 

Maybe we wouldn’t get rid of them all, but we really don’t need to 

have people in the middle of the day or the middle of rush hour 

being let off and picked up in downtown Washington. 

It absolutely goes against everything we are trying to do. We are 

trying to get people to get on buses, but not intercity buses. The 

kind of buses we are trying to get them on keep them going back 

and forth to the suburbs. So we don’t want to set up something at 

odds with the overall transportation goals of the region and of the 

Country, and that is something we are going to have to work on. 

Now, I don’t know the extent to which what you are doing with 

Mr. Leach or others would in fact drink up some of this curbside 

need. Do you have any idea? How many bus companies are out 

there letting people off and taking them on as if this were the 

Metro? How many are out there today? 

15 

Mr. BALL. Well, when we did a survey, it was either 10, 12, or 

13. They operate under different names, different postures. So it 

probably about 10, I would think. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Leach, this has become fairly common. Of 

course, they cost less because they don’t have any overhead, and 

I know you don’t consider that the best competition. We, of course, 

love the fact that our people can get the cheapest transportation, 

but we are very, very firmly committed to climate change and to 

easing congestion. So I would like to know how what we see here 

compares with other large cities. 

Mr. LEACH. Well, if I may, there were several questions I would 

like to comment on, Chairwoman. 

There are 15 bus operators that operate into Washington, D.C. 

that are private sector intercity bus operators. All of those—— 

Ms. NORTON. Fifteen different services, are you saying? 

Mr. LEACH. Fifteen different operators. And depending on who 

owns them, as Mr. Ball said, depends on how you classify them. 

For example, Greyhound runs an intercity bus service under the 

brand of Greyhound, but we also run a curbside service under the 

brand BoltBus. That is a wholly owned subsidiary of ours. 

Ms. NORTON. So you decided you better get in the curbside business or else this competition would just be a bit much. 

Mr. LEACH. Actually, there are two different consumer groups. 

The Greyhound business traditionally is friends and family going 

to see other friends and family in other cities around the Country. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the difference in cost between going, you 

know, luxury Greyhound style and going through your subsidiary? 

Mr. LEACH. The walk-up fares are identical, or very close, within 

three or four dollars. But on the curbside, depending on market demand, you shift the price. So you may get a seat for a dollar, you 

may get a seat for ten dollars, depending on the demand on that 

particular schedule on that particular day. It is a yield managed 

service, which is easy to do on a city pair specific basis. 

But when you are dealing with a national network, where you 

are going from Washington to Los Angeles or Denver, something 

like that, the consumer is a different consumer with a different 

need, and they are accessing a national network. 

So you have two different consumer needs. You have this city 

pair specific—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, now, do we have that, how these two different 

consumer needs are being met throughout the United States? 

Mr. LEACH. In the U.S. northeast they are. 

Ms. NORTON. In what? 

Mr. LEACH. In the U.S. northeast. So in Washington, Philly, in 

the large metropolitan centers where you have heavy congestion, 

we have a different lifestyle requirement, where there is more of 

a predominance of use of public transportation. In the rural parts 

of the Country, a curbside operation like BoltBus wouldn’t have the 

same reason for being as it does here; there is more of a requirement to travel larger distances with more members of family and 

for longer periods of time. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have curbside service at K Street, N.E.? 

Mr. LEACH. We do. 

Ms. NORTON. That is your only service? 

16 

Mr. LEACH. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Drop-off and pickup service? 

Mr. LEACH. Correct. And that is the BoltBus or curbside operation. 

Ms. NORTON. That is K Street, N.E. and what? 

Mr. LEACH. I am not 100 percent sure of the cross street, but we 

can certainly get that for you. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that near the old Greyhound and Trailways bus 

station? Is it the Convention Center site? What is the location of 

your drop-off and pickup? Northeast doesn’t sound right. 

Mr. LEACH. I will get it for you. 

Ms. NORTON. But it is one location? 

Mr. LEACH. It is one, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And if it is K Street, N.W., I can only ask you if 

that is a favorite location for pickup and drop-off. 

Mr. LEACH. The location is one where we felt the consumer need 

was there, so that is why we are positioned there. 

Ms. NORTON. K Street, that is one of the most awkward streets 

in Washington. 

Mr. LEACH. I don’t disagree with you at all, Chairwoman. In fact, 

we are—— 

Ms. NORTON. We have to ask D.C. how they figure this out with 

you, because this must have had the sign-off by DDOT. 

Mr. LEACH. Yes, there were numerous discussions. There are 

other competitors in the marketplace. We looked at where they 

were picking up and chose similar locations to where they were 

picking up. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, now, are they picking up? Where are they 

picking up, also along the K Street corridor? 

Mr. LEACH. Exactly where we were picking up. In fact, they were 

there first, so we went in afterwards. 

Ms. NORTON. So everybody comes to K Street? 

Mr. LEACH. There are several carriers that come to K Street. 

There are other carriers that don’t. And I will have to get you those 

locations if you want the specifics. 

Ms. NORTON. And we will ask D.C. how they came to that. So 

you think at least they converge on one terribly crowded spot to 

pick up. 

Mr. LEACH. Right. 

If I may, though, I think the point I was trying to make is that 

those network passengers, or the Greyhound traditional passengers, need a facility to transfer. They are traveling through 

Washington, D.C. as much as they are traveling to and from Washington, D.C., so there is a requirement for a facility. A curbside operator doesn’t necessarily need that transfer facility because people 

are originating or ending their trips at this location. 

I think it is important also to note that there are other cities—— 

Ms. NORTON. Actually, I understand that perfectly. But I also understand a lot about congestion, air pollution, and the most crowded section of the city. At some point we are going to have to make 

a decision in the city and in the Congress about what the tradeoffs 

there, because we want low-cost service. We understand the difference between having to make a connection and going on your 

17 

regular Greyhound service and just needing to get from here to 

New York the cheapest way you can. 

But we just passed a climate change bill. We are just trying to 

get people to get off the streets to use buses when they are traveling, rather than automobiles. This does that to some extent, far 

less so than your other facility. So that is something that needs 

some policy consideration is all I am saying, and we need to work 

with the city to see what their concerns are. 

Mr. LEACH. Agreed. And DDOT has expressed a desire to put all 

intercity bus operators into Union Station, for the record. They 

have asked us to consider that and we certainly do that in other 

cities. 

Ms. NORTON. So DDOT has made a formal request that all of 

these facilities be put at Union Station. 

Mr. LEACH. They have expressed a desire to consider that. I don’t 

think it is a formal request or a direction, but certainly have asked 

us to consider having all of the bus operators at one location. 

Ms. NORTON. Because, of course, they are trying to not be at odds 

with their own climate change policy and their own congestion policy. 

Mr. LEACH. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Just one question. 

Mr. Ball, what is the relative value of a location on site at Union 

Station to a commercial bus operator? 

Mr. BALL. The buses, I think, are 10 feet wide by 45 feet long. 

It is 779 a month. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I am talking about commercial value. 

Mr. BALL. In terms of—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. If I were at an airport and the airport authority 

gave me permission to operate a ticket center or ticket counter at 

the airport, there is a value attached to that. What is the value of 

being able to operate out of Union Station? 

Mr. BALL. I think it is a strong intrinsic value to be at Union 

Station for all the services that are offered. If you have clients 

come and they can eat, they have a place to use the rest room. So 

the value is very beneficial to whomever uses Union Station. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So there is a commercial value. So, for example, 

if one had to compete for those spots at Union Station, could that 

be a kind of healthy competition, to be able to operate out of Union 

Station? 

Mr. BALL. I think that it could be, yes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So just for Union Station and its own operations 

and maintenance, why restrict that to one operator over another 

operator, or why not put it out for bid? I am just asking a question. 

I don’t really know very much about this, but why not put it out 

for competition if it actually has some commercial value that could 

be of benefit for Union Station’s ongoing operations? 

Mr. BALL. To answer your question, we do not discriminate 

against the different users. Some of the buses, talking about the 

curbside buses, they don’t want to pay for parking. They don’t want 

to pay. They don’t want to pay. Now, if that location were they 

were parking for free is not there, then they would understand the 

benefits of coming to Union Station, paying whatever fee is at 

18 

Union Station, and their customers would also reap the same benefits. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Right. So if there were some public policy reason 

that the District of Columbia decided that it didn’t want all those 

buses at the curbside operating, there would be some, at least, competition for access to Union Station if it were serving as a hub. So 

we wouldn’t just be having a conversation about Greyhound operating at Union Station. 

Mr. BALL. Correct. And I do believe that DDOT is working on a 

policy for the curbside buses, to get them off the streets. Then our 

facility would be one of the facilities where they can park. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So as part of your thinking, though, do you envision that—I mean, when I hear the description from Mr. Leach 

about the possibility of Greyhound basically developing its own facility, etcetera, Mr. Leach, you would envision that you own that, 

right? It is yours. So my question is why not Union Station and 

simply lease it out? 

Mr. LEACH. If I may answer that, we threw that option out as 

a motivator for Union Station and the folks in the station because 

we are a private sector organization with cash, and if cash is an 

issue in construction, then that is what we do. We own bus terminals all over the United States. We operate in 137 intermodal facilities and we are experts at doing this. And there is more than 

one way to skin the cat, and if USRC wants to own the facility, 

then we are more than willing to rent space. That is one business 

model that works very well. 

We have other ones where it is built by the community, by the 

State, by the Federal Government, where we have a head lease and 

we sublease to other carriers. There are clear rules and regulations 

to make sure that all intercity bus operations are treated fairly in 

the Country. We are the largest carrier, so we have to provide leadership in that role, but we do that everywhere else in the Country, 

and I don’t know why we couldn’t do it here. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And I guess, going forward, I am interested to 

know what the relative cost or benefit is to the public, to Union 

Station so that there is some sense that there is actually a fair deal 

that is really struck for the public. 

Mr. LEACH. And I think the answer to that question is the intermodal connectivity of the modes of transportation. In the northeastern part of the United States, again, that Washington to New 

York/Boston corridor, Greyhound itself moves upwards of 10 million people, and we have no access other than to carry luggage, 

suitcases and such, through the snow in the winter from our current facility, which we own and operate, to Union Station; and from 

a national transportation strategy perspective, it is lunacy. 

People should be able to get from public transportation to private 

sector transportation just as easily as they do from public to public; 

and there is a whole asset sitting there that would facilitate that. 

So we are not asking for preferential treatment as Greyhound; we 

are asking as an industry access to an intermodal transportation 

facility in one of the largest cities in the Country. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

19 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards, because you were getting 

toward, it seems to me, the salient question here. Now, Greyhound 

owns property. It was to leave property it owns. Guess what? It 

would sell that property. Now, as I expressed earlier, we don’t have 

a preference for whoever it is, but the first issue is if Greyhound 

wanted to be there and somebody else or other folks, first let me 

go back to Mr. Leach’s offer of a useful division about two tiers. 

Working with the District of Columbia, we might decide that we 

wanted two tiers in Union Station. That is a possible policy decision given our huge, huge—it is impossible to overemphasize our 

concern about air pollution and climate issues and congestion 

issues here in Washington. We could make that policy decision if 

it were ever put to us. That is why we are having this oversight 

hearing today, to see what are the outstanding decisions. So you 

could have a two tier system. 

Nevertheless, you get back to competition. We don’t do things 

otherwise. Now, a decision could be made, and I am the last one 

to suggest what decision it would be, but at least let me pose a hypothetical. If the Federal Government is facing the need to provide 

infrastructure for bus facilities and it decides that it cannot pony 

up the money, it could make a policy decision that a user might 

do so after the appropriate negotiations to allow that to happen. 

Or you could use some of what Mr. Leach was suggesting that 

happens all over the Country, you know, the city could be asked 

to kick in, the Federal Government could be asked to kick in. Both 

of them want this to occur. There could be public/private. If the 

provider were to do it, that wouldn’t do it by itself. There are all 

kinds of infrastructure and the provider would want to talk with 

the Federal Government, who is, even as I speak, with a new 

transportation bill, looking at Union Station to see what funds 

should go to Union Station. So there are many different ways to 

proceed. 

Mr. Ball, we can’t know what to do if there is not somebody in 

charge putting forward a plan that says to the Committee and to 

the Congress here are your options. We need policy direction on 

what to do. This I see, though. I see exactly what I saw on M 

Street, lost value. It was property that the Federal Government 

owned along M Street, the Southeast Federal Center, some of the 

most valuable property on the east coast sitting there fallow. 

The Congress has not been oblivious to lost value at Union Station. Air rights. So we have gone and tried to capture the value 

above the tracks, and the value right there before us is unused and 

we don’t have a plan or a request for how to get value out of that 

space. That, Mr. Ball, is the issue before the man in charge, and 

last time I heard that was you. That is why more than a 10-year 

plan or a 2-year plan is necessary to get anything done in Washington, and certainly out of the Congress. That has to be settled. 

If we are going to pay for it—because I can tell you this much, 

we are not going to pay for everything. We have got to find creative 

ways to pay for things today. And if there had been such a plan, 

it would have been up to Ms. Edwards and I and the regional delegation to get some stimulus money to start that happening. That 

is how you move things in Washington. 

20 

So I am concerned as to how we get there and what kind of guidance is going to be necessary without suggesting which is the preferred way, because, to be frank with you, no one has put before 

us the options that allow us to weigh them, to cost them out, and 

to see what the value is for the District of Columbia as well as for 

the United States Government. We need to have that. 

I take it that you have already decided, Mr. Leach, that it would 

be added value if you moved. So at least you would be in the running. Is that true? 

Mr. LEACH. Without question. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you ever had serious discussions about what 

it would take for you to become a provider, taking on some of what 

otherwise the public, District of Columbia, or the Government 

would do? Have you ever thought about that or had those discussions with anyone connected with the Corporation? 

Mr. LEACH. We have had discussions with Mr. Ball about Greyhound head-leasing the facility, about Greyhound owning the facility, about Greyhound providing management of the bus section of 

the facility, subleasing or at least facilitating the management of 

the subleasing of the facility. We do this all the time, all over the 

Country, and we have that expertise, so we have offered that expertise, I have offered it, all the resources that Greyhound can 

bring to bear to assist USRC in the development of an intermodal 

facility and the planning of such. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the status of those talks? 

Mr. LEACH. Right now, we have agreed that the best place to put 

an intercity bus facility is on the back end of the bus deck. We are 

now looking at a feasibility study—half paid for by Greyhound, half 

paid for by USRC—to look at what it is going to take to put that 

facility there. And there are several needs, infrastructure, physical 

plant changes that are going to be required, as I laid out in my testimony, so we are at that stage right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Who do you expect to provide them, Mr. Leach? 

Mr. LEACH. Between ourselves and USRC we will provide that 

feasibility study. 

Ms. NORTON. So you would be willing to share in those infrastructure improvements in return for locating, co-locating at Union 

Station? 

Mr. LEACH. I think it is important that it has to be cost-effective 

for Greyhound, so we need to keep that in mind. But certainly, as 

Greyhound’s investment in bus facility in this city, we are there 

and we are certainly prepared to do that. 

Ms. NORTON. That is the kind of thing that can’t happen without 

a larger vision and plan before us. 

Mr. Ball, at our hearing last year, we had public testimony. I 

would like to follow up on the status of the complaints from the 

public, for example, photographers. Can an ordinary photographer 

come into Union Station and begin to shoot pictures unobstructed 

today? 

Mr. BALL. To my understanding, Chairman, yes, they can. 

Ms. NORTON. So you have not had any complaints? We have not, 

so I want to know if you have had any complaints and have been 

able to straighten them out. 

Mr. BALL. We have not received any complaints in our office. 

21 

Ms. NORTON. We were concerned at training for guards. Guards 

seem to be at their own discretion on lots of matters. Photographers is only one where some stopped people, some didn’t. Some 

though Amtrak was in charge, some thought they were on their 

own in trying to figure out whether or not somebody should take 

pictures. Then when we got more deeply, we learned that there had 

not been rigorous training of guards. What training, if any, has occurred since our last hearing? 

Mr. BALL. I can’t speak specifically to that. I do know that they 

do have new management that oversees the—— 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. You are in charge. Here we go 

again. Remember, the three of you were sitting here when we had 

our last hearing, and it was hard to know that there was a Corporation with somebody who called the shots because we kept being 

flitted from Amtrak to Ashkenazy, or whoever happened to be 

there at the time. So I am asking, since you are the man in charge, 

my question is directed at you. Because even if you are not the one 

who would implement it, you are the director of the Corporation. 

Mr. BALL. So they have undergone different training within—if 

you ask me specifically what type of training, I can’t tell you specifically. I do know—— 

Ms. NORTON. Who did the training? Who took responsibility for 

doing the training? 

Mr. BALL. It would have been the security forces, IPC, and they 

would have done proper training. 

Ms. NORTON. Who employs them? 

Mr. BALL. They are employed by Jones Lang LaSalle, who actually works for Ashkenazy Corporation, or the retail developers of 

the station. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. 

I want to thank both of you for this testimony. It reveals that 

you have made some progress. We appreciate that some progress 

has been made. In my opening remarks I called it a slow walk. 

That is what I regard it as. I understand and accept full responsibility for what Congress must do if all of this is to happen. We are, 

indeed, the Chairman has written and we have looked at the transportation plan. It is going to be a very different transportation bill 

than SAFETEA-LU or the one that went before it, and even it isn’t 

going to come out right away. 

But if I were sitting where you are sitting, Mr. Ball, I would 

want to try my best to get in that four-year plan; and you can’t get 

in there by Norton writing something in there off the top of her 

head, because she has got to be able to back up anything that she 

asks the Congress to do. And the full Chairman of this Committee 

has encyclopedic knowledge of everything that happens, including 

knows more about Union Station than I will ever know. I will 

never get anywhere if I can’t demonstrate to him that there is a 

master plan to back up the Congress’s master vision, a non-self-implementing master vision at that. 

Thank you both very much for this testimony. 

I would like to call the next witnesses. Panel two, Gabe Klein, 

the District Department of Transportation; Steven Alleman, Amtrak General Superintendent; Barry Lustig, Senior Vice-President 

of Leasing and Development, Ashkenazy Acquisitions Corporation; 

22 

John Akridge, Chairman of the Akridge Corporation. Pleased to receive testimony from all of you at this time. 

Before we begin with Mr. Klein, going straight across after that, 

I want to welcome D.C. Health Academic Preparatory Program. 

Where are you? Raise your hands. Normally, I would be meeting 

with 30 students in my office. They have been to my office. They 

are high school graduates attending college in the fall and majoring 

in health-related fields. All of this is relevant. Stay as long as you 

would like. Very pleased to have you. 

Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein is the Director, District Department of 

Transportation. Pleased to have you, Mr. Klein. 

TESTIMONY OF GABE KLEIN, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; STEVEN ALLEMAN, GENERAL 

SUPERINTENDENT, AMTRAK; BARRY LUSTIG, SENIOR VICEPRESIDENT OF LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT, ASHKENAZY 

ACQUISITIONS CORPORATIONS; AND JOHN ‘‘CHIP’’ AKRIDGE, 

CHAIRMAN, AKRIDGE CORPORATION 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton and 

Members of the Subcommittee. I am Gabe Klein, Director of the 

District of Columbia Department of Transportation, more commonly known as DDOT. I thank you for the opportunity to join this 

discussion on The Congressional Vision for a 21st Century Union 

Station: New Intermodal Uses and New Union Station Livable 

Community. My remarks today will largely focus on the results of 

the draft Final Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center 

Feasibility Study and its recommendations for planned improvements. I did bring a hard copy for you, if you would like that today. 

Before going further, I would like to express the District’s gratitude and appreciation for the leadership role that the Subcommittee, and particularly Chairwoman Norton, has taken to support the development and improvement of Union Station. 

DDOT has been active in seeking improvement to Union Station 

for many years. When Union Station was renovated in the 1980s, 

the District of Columbia contributed $40 million towards the construction of the Union Station garage. In the late 1990s, DDOT 

also provided Amtrak with $3 million for lead paint abatement and 

renovation of train platform canopies. 

More recently, DDOT participated with the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, USRC, and several other local and Federal 

agencies in analyzing Columbus Circle and Columbus Plaza in 

front of Union Station. In 2000, a plan was developed to minimize 

conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. The plan entailed reconfiguring Columbus Circle and Columbus Plaza. 

In recent years, Amtrak has sought to add a system of bollards 

to this plan. This has resulted in considerable back and forth between the National Capital Planning Commission, NCPC, and the 

Commission on Fine Arts, CFA. In June, both agencies agreed on 

the bollard design. DDOT is now incorporating their latest guidance into the scope of work so that a solicitation for construction 

bids can go out this September. 

A new bike station, which was envisioned as part of the Columbus Circle reconfiguration, has been able to proceed on its own and 

23 

DDOT expects the bicycle station to open near the end of September. 

The Union Station garage occupies only half of the air rights 

above the tracks immediately east of the station. As you know, the 

Akridge Companies acquired these air rights from the General 

Services Administration. Akridge proposed creating additional 

transportation-related facilities in association with their development of these air rights, and these proposed transportation facilities gave rise to the Intermodal Transportation Center funds appropriated by Congress. 

As an initial step, DDOT has used some of these funds to undertake a feasibility study for these facilities. Over the past year, 

DDOT has been analyzing the feasibility of new transportation facilities as part of this new proposed development in and around 

Union Station. Our analysis examines these new facilities’ impacts 

on Union Station’s existing facilities and services and on its ability 

to accommodate future passenger, rail, public transit, and tourism 

growth. 

The study represents the most comprehensive analysis to date of 

the myriad transportation alternatives at Union Station. The overarching purpose was to investigate the feasibility of the development, design, and construction of new intermodal transportation 

facilities as part of the proposed Burnham Place commercial and 

residential development. 

The study area of the project encompasses an appropriately 20 

square block site bounded by M Street to the north, 3rd Street to 

the east, Massachusetts Avenue to the south, and North Capitol 

Street to the west, and includes residential, commercial, and Federal stakeholders such as the Capitol Complex and the neighborhoods of Capitol Hill, NoMa, Stanton Park, Sursom Corda, and 

Near Northeast. 

After studying the existing demand for the multiple modes of 

transport at Union Station, we identified several key needs paramount to the goal of making Union Station a world class multimodal center. Number one, improved modal connections; number 

two, increased rail and bus capacity; and, number three, enhanced 

pedestrian circulation and weigh finding signage. 

We developed the following framework goals to guide the development of the improvements proposed in the Union Station ITC 

feasibility study and evaluated each recommendation on its ability 

to meet the aforementioned identified needs. The framework goals 

are: number one, maintain and enhance Union Station as a multimodal transportation hub; two, promote Union Station as a fluid 

pedestrian environment that supports comprehensive connectivity; 

three, ensure enhanced safety and security in and around the station; and, four, respect the architecture, cultural, and regional significance of the historic station. 

For the purposes of this testimony, I would like to focus on three 

of the study’s recommended improvements that are of particular interest to this body, and also maximizing leverage investments recently made by Union Station stakeholders, including Congress, 

Amtrak, USRC, as well as DDOT: number one, construction of an 

intercity bus station on the Union Station parking deck; two, completion of the WMATA pedestrian tunnel to 1st Street and vertical 

24 

connections to H Street; three, expansion of the train concourse 

areas, including improved weigh finding signage. 

Currently, DDOT is working with Greyhound, USRC, and 

Akridge to identify the optimal location for an intercity bus facility 

that will provide the necessary access and capacity for intercity bus 

operations on the existing Union Station parking deck. An essential element in creating an intercity bus terminal on the Union Station parking deck is determining the structural integrity of the existing parking deck to support passenger facilities that are associated with this intercity bus service. USRC has begun this analysis 

and the findings will influence decisions regarding the type of 

intercity facility that can be constructed. 

In addition, care must be taken to ensure operational compatibility between intercity bus services and the transit services, sightseeing services, and charter bus parking that must also share this 

space. Another challenge is to determine how Greyhound and other 

carriers can share an intercity bus terminal while paying their fair 

share for the terminal’s construction, operation, and maintenance. 

DDOT envisions a future intercity bus facility providing a new 

front door to Union Station from enlivened H Street with vertical 

pedestrian access for Metrorail occurring via the extension of the 

WMATA pedestrian tunnel from the northern Metrorail mezzanine 

to 1st Street, N.E., beneath the H Street overpass. Given the existing pedestrian conflicts, the northern Metrorail access and egress 

points, a new entrance at 1st Street, NE will provide residents, employees, and visitors to NoMa with direct unencumbered access to 

Union Station. 

We are currently working with WMATA to develop conceptual 

designs for the completion of this pedestrian tunnel and reconfiguration of the existing 1st Street entrance to facilitate improved pedestrian circulation between commuter rail, Metrorail, and intercity rail passengers. The cost estimates for these pedestrian improvements are approximately $9 million. 

Due to the projected growth in visitors to Union Station, the existing waiting areas and bathrooms at Union Station must be expanded. Expansion of the east-west concourse to the north, expansion of the mezzanine level, and expansion of the north concourse 

will provide more waiting areas and facilitate improved passenger 

circulation between regional and commuter rail passengers. The 

cost estimates for the phased improvements to these concourse and 

mezzanine areas are approximately $20 million. 

These improvements are but a small breakout of the detailed recommendations for improvements to Union Station provided in the 

Intermodal Transportation Feasibility Study. DDOT will work cooperatively with all of Union Station’s stakeholders to review each 

of the recommendations and design concepts developed under the 

ITC feasibility study to ensure a sound implementation plan that 

improves Union Station. 

I also want to note that DDOT has already submitted pre-applications to the Federal Railroad Administration for economic stimulus grants to assist with the waiting area enhancements and the 

reconfiguration of the existing Metrorail connection. 

In conclusion, DDOT is proud to be one of the partners that has 

helped make Union Station one of the premier intermodal transVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:21 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51253 JASON
25 

portation centers in this Country. We are grateful for your leadership and assistance in providing funding that makes continued improvements possible. With your help, we will allow even more people to find safe, convenient, and affordable ways to come to the Nation’s capital and access its many attractions. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify and I am happy to answer 

any questions. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Klein. And thank you for your help 

with that study; it is absolutely indispensable to our moving forward. 

I want to hear now from the General Superintendent of Amtrak, 

Steven Alleman. 

Mr. Alleman. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I am Steve 

Alleman, Amtrak’s General Superintendent, responsible for all rail 

operations at the Washington Union Station. Thank you for the invitation to testify. 

Amtrak has its monthly board meeting today, so, because of this 

conflict, our Board Chair, Mr. Tom Carper, and our CEO, Mr. Joe 

Boardman, are unable to attend. They asked me to express their 

regrets and to thank you on their behalf for your longstanding 

record of support for this station. 

Union Station is Amtrak’s second busiest station, and it sits at 

a point of convergence of three rail routes that connect Washington 

with destinations to the north, the west, and the south. Above the 

station tracks is a bus deck that provides travelers with connections to both intercity and local bus services. These connections are 

very important to Mr. Boardman’s vision of an interconnected rail 

system with complimentary transportation services. 

Mr. Boardman has a lot of experience in the transit world, and 

he appreciates the need for a close modal integration and the best 

way to provide travelers with a satisfactory range of transportation 

options. This belief is anchored in the knowledge that the network 

must provide the citizens of the District with transportation choices 

that will satisfy their needs. 

We expect train ridership trends will increase, and we can expect 

to see corresponding growth and demand on our facilities. Given 

the extraordinary demands that the various users are making on 

this historic structure, Amtrak believes the appropriate course of 

action is to form a joint consultive process involving all key stakeholders. This process needs to recognize Union Station’s unique 

and irreplaceable role as D.C.’s intermodal terminal and to address 

growth needs for rail and existing bus services. 

Once we have an idea of the engineering feasibility, a joint effort 

should undertake the necessary environmental studies to determine the impact and cost of major changes so that we can have a 

definite idea on what they likely would be. A consultive process will 

also allow us to bring our neighboring stakeholders, such as the 

NoMa Business Improvement District. 

We are currently working with D.C. DOT, USRC, as well as 

other involved entities to determine the best way forward. USRC 

is an excellent forum for these discussions, since the USRC board 

includes Amtrak, the city, and Federal City Council, all of whom 

are present today, and believe the board is an appropriate forum 

26 

for these discussions, and are interested in moving forward with a 

plan that is adaptive and reflective of the region and national goals 

for livable communities. 

In closing, I suggest we formalize the steps that we need to take 

by identifying the funding that we need to develop plans, assessing 

the impact of those plans, determining costs, and finding the funding to pay for feasible projects. 

I am confident that we can work together with all stakeholders 

on this, and I believe this collaborative effort will yield a vision for 

the 21st century Union Station. That vision will help us to make 

the intermodal improvements that we need to truly realize a new 

and revitalized Union Station. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. We will hear next from Barry Lustig, Senior VicePresident, Leasing and Development, Ashkenazy Acquisitions Corporation. 

Mr. Lustig. 

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

today on behalf of Union Station Investco LLC, USI, regarding the 

progress behind Union Station Investco LLC, the operation and 

management of Union Station, and its leasing and development 

plans over the past year since our last meeting a year ago. 

Union Station leasing and development activity. Union Station is 

not only an historic landmark, but an architectural gem. USI’s 

goals are to continue to enhance the functionality of the station as 

a premier intermodal transportation hub, while continually adhering to the architectural, historic, vendor/tenant equality and tenant/landlord communication standards for the property. Included 

within this presentation is an Exhibit A showing pictorially what 

I will be discussing today. I will now summarize for you what you 

will see in the following pages. 

The leasing and development activity since our acquisition within the station concourses is as follows, which is you see in this 

sheet here, which is 910 in activities. The proposed redevelopment 

within the station concourse/train concourse peninsula is presently 

in the architectural MEP design phase. The redevelopment incorporated new two-story visual presence for the train concourse/retailer visibility. A new hallway will be created from the train concourse to the station concourse on the far east side of the building 

so as to alleviate traffic pinch points. The leasing strategy for the 

peninsula development will remain consistent with present retail 

focus on the intermodal traveler retail, food, and dining needs. 

The leasing and development activities since last year’s hearing 

within the Metro concourse, or otherwise known as the food hall, 

has included nine new tenants. We also have redeveloped the 

Metro Marketplace with the introduction of a cart kiosk marketplace consisting of eight merchants which caters to the vast array 

of tourists on this level. 

Within the train concourse we are presently working, along with 

Amtrak, in developing an enhanced waiting gate area for the transit consumers. The train concourse redevelopment is within its first 

phase of design, operational feasibility, between USI, Amtrak, and 

USRC. Redevelopment involves the expansion and reconfiguration 

of the entire Amtrak waiting gate area to create a friendlier, relaxVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:21 Oct 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51253 JASON
27 

ing, and more security conscious area throughout the entire Amtrak gate zone. 

As we spoke last year, we continually work on the development 

for the main hall in creating a new Center Cafe structure along 

with communicating vertical stair elements, bringing property 

guests up and down to the present theater area within the Metro 

concourse. Replacement of current structure will enhance traffic 

flow and sight lines throughout the main hall, east, and west halls 

visibility. The entire project will be fully integrated to better represent a 21st century intermodal transportation hub. Status of this 

development, approximately nine moths have been spent working 

with the involvement of the CFA. 

We are also proposing to re-merchandise the west hall of the 

property with the introduction of a new category of fast, casual dining establishments with the ‘‘best in the category’’ quality of merchandising. Pleasant new interior patio space within the west hall 

will be created for visitors to enjoy the historic architecture and 

unique ambiance. Our goal is to develop a unique gathering space, 

promoting longer stays with customers of Union Station. Tenants 

proposed patios will be flex in nature to allow exhibits and property 

events to still remain. All architectural MEP design work has been 

completed. We are presently seeking acceptance and approvals 

from all appropriate parties. 

Burnham Place and Columbus Plaza Developments. USI and architects continually work to support the ability to improve Union 

Station for the addition of Burnham Place, which will be developed 

using the air rights located over the train tracks at Union Station. 

Finally, USI is in agreement with the National Park Service, 

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

made to Columbus Plaza adjacent to the Station. As part of the 

overall improvement project, city Metro buses will have a convenient location, front and center, for passenger boarding and drop-off. 

Possessory Interest Tax. Still looming over Union Station and all 

of the previously stated development plans is the unintended and 

unbudgeted impact of the District of Columbia’s Possessory Interest 

Tax legislation, otherwise known as PIT, which is the greatest single threat to the future and Union Station’s ongoing sustained viability. 

Prior to the adoption of the PIT legislation by the D.C. Government, and over the short period of time since the Redevelopment 

Corporation took charge of the rehabilitation of Union Station, it 

has transformed from a dilapidated building, condemned as unfit 

for human habitation, to a major transportation hub, retail center, 

and tourist destination catering to the residents of the District of 

Columbia, tourists, commuters from both D.C. and across America. 

The success of Union Station as an intermodal transportation facility is based on a careful and strategic balance of, one, budgeting 

for the ever-growing costs of maintaining, securing, and operating 

the century old national landmark; preserving the crucial tenant 

mix at Union Station; and the costs to improve Union Station as 

an intermodal transportation facility. 

The District’s PIT has endangered all of that process. For instance, the possessor interest tax under the proposed assessment 

for year 2008 to 2009 has increased by 278 percent above 2007. It 

28 

is USI’s position that the PIT is being wrongfully assessed against 

it and USI is vigorously fighting to save Union Station from the inevitable downward spiral that it would suffer as a result of the excessive PIT assessment and taxes that are currently sought by the 

District. 

USI has been negotiating with the D.C. Mayor and Council for 

the adoption of a pilot program that would specify and permit a 

reasonable amount of annual PIT for Union Station to pay. The 

D.C. Council has introduced such legislation and is currently pending action and funding. If passed, it would ensure that the future 

success of USI will not be sidetracked or endangered by such local 

taxation. 

Absent this significant local tax relief that has been vigorously 

championed by various D.C. Council members, including Mr. Evans 

and Mr. Wells, it is unlikely that USI will be able to pay the proposed PIT taxes together with all of the increased operating costs, 

security costs, tenant allowances, and improvements that are required to maintain and improve Union Station as an intermodal 

transportation facility which is state-of-the-art. 

In the unfortunate event that the pilot legislation does not pass 

or is not fully funded, then we may have to return to you in this 

Committee to seek congressional relief from the local District PIT 

in order to ensure the completion and success of the projects outlined in this testimony, as well as the overall viability and purpose 

of this important Federal building. 

Chairwoman Norton and the Members of the Subcommittee, I 

thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of Union Station Investco LLC. 

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

Mr. John Akridge of Akridge Corporation. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, my name is Chip Akridge and I am Founder and Chairman 

of Akridge, a Washington, D.C.-based company which owns the air 

rights adjacent to the north of Union Station. 

As you know, we were the winning bidder for this 15-acre property in the competition conducted by the GSA in 2002. Since then, 

we, along with our financial partner, Leucadia National Corporation, have spent a substantial amount of time and resources on 

plans and ideas for a new mixed-use development in the air rights 

above the rail yard. 

In the course of this comprehensive planning exercise for our private development, which we call Burnham Place, we have also devoted substantial resources to the rehabilitation, the reconfiguration, the rescue, if you will, of the intermodal transportation facilities at this crown jewel in the Nation’s inventory of grand, historic 

structures. 

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing. We 

believe that in the past year there has been a genuine momentum 

in this project, and that is primarily due to your support and focus. 

While the historic halls of Union Station are as grand as they 

come, the state of the adjoining intermodal transportation center is 

really not a very pretty one. Tourists passing from the historic 

main hall to the existing rail waiting areas must wonder if they 

have fallen down the rabbit hole when they see what is down there. 

29 

The finishes of the concourse area give no witness to the architectural treasure that is Union Station. The area is also congested, 

unsafe, inefficient, and generally unworkable. The ITC is, to be 

blunt, a dismal reflection upon the grand facility which houses it, 

and it is a frustrating disappointment to the citizens that use it 

daily. 

For example, during rush hour, woe is the commuter who is trying to navigate through the congested Amtrak or MARC concourse 

areas to reach Metro. Or the Amtrak passengers trying to move 

through the boarding cues to the platform. There are a couple pictures over there that tell the story much better than I can in 

words. Throw in the tourists trying to use the food court, and you 

have a frustrating mix of users all trying to move in cross purposes 

in the same place. 

In the 1980s, a badly neglected Union Station was restored with 

a public/private investment of almost $200 million. We feel the 

time has come to likewise shore up and modernize the intermodal 

center at Union Station. The current heavy over-utilization of the 

ITC shows no signs of abating. In fact, as you have heard here 

today, ridership on all modes at the station are growing, and they 

are growing fast. Add that to the intercity bus, high speed rail, 

streetcar, and other transportation uses that are on the boards and 

coming in the future, it is clear that the time to act is now. 

Akridge’s development of the air rights presents a once in a lifetime opportunity to address these challenges. The construction of 

our concrete deck and the connection to the north end of the station 

provides what now is the ideal time to undertake the required modernization of the ITC. While substantial Federal dollars will be required, this is a modest investment when you consider that over 25 

million people use this as a transportation center today, and the 

projected numbers will get only greater in the future, not to mention the importance of the station to regional and national security. 

As I mentioned, we have spent a lot of time and resources studying the infrastructure needs at Union Station and propose the following projects be undertaken to modernize the ITC. If the necessary Federal support is allocated, many of these components can 

be underway immediately, with the completion of these efforts in 

a five to six year window. We have coordinated the general concept 

of these projects with all the stakeholders and they are compatible 

with all the suggestions that you have heard here from my fellow 

panel members today. 

The first project is, to alleviate the severe passenger congestion, 

the current rail concourse must be upgraded and expanded. The 

concourse serves subway, commuter rail, Amtrak, and other station 

visitors and is dysfunctional, especially at these periods. Also, the 

north station entrance must be upgraded for better access to the 

station. These improvements would also be beneficial to the 

public’s safety officers handling emergencies. 

The second project is the construction of a new north-south concourse which would further lessen congestion by doubling the space 

available for passenger transfers among the various modes at the 

station. This project would connect directly to the existing concourse and the lower tracks. 

30 

In order to incorporate the intercity bus service which we have 

spoken about today, it will be necessary to create a new entrance 

for Metro passengers on 1st Street, N.E., below the H Street overpass, and construct a connecting walkway. A second new entrance 

for Metro passengers would also be beneficial on the H Street overpass, adjacent to the new intercity bus terminal. 

The fourth project is the future introduction of streetcar service, 

which also will require improvements to the H Street overpass. 

Also needed is the construction of an emergency connector road between Massachusetts Avenue to the south of the station and H 

Street to help avoid the difficult experience during the evacuation 

efforts of 9/11. Finally, hardening and other blast-proof features 

would improve security of potentially vulnerable portions of the 

station. 

It is our estimate at this time that the total budget for all these projects will be in the $150 to $200 million range. It could be, as 

I said earlier, completed over the next four to six years. 

Madam Chairman, you asked earlier the correct question. In undertaking large, complicated projects such as this one, it is always 

instructive to have a general plan. We have prepared such a plan 

and we have coordinated that with the many stakeholders involved. 

I brought with me today some images to share with the Committee 

because it is helpful to see some before and after pictures of what 

we are talking about. The plans that we have proposed, of course, 

are not final, but they are conceptual and they do address, I believe, all the issues that you have heard today. I think you will see 

that there is a sharp contrast between the unacceptable current 

conditions and the proposed modernizations. 

Madam Chairwoman, as you know, we are committed to the 

long-term success of Union Station. As a local development firm 

with 35 years of experience here, we have participated in the development of Washington, D.C. to a world class city, and a world class 

city needs a world class intermodal transportation system. This is 

a vision of Union Station which we know you share, and we again 

want to thank you for your relentless efforts to restore Union Station and its ITC as a national model. 

With that, Madam Chairwoman, I would be happy to answer any 

questions you or the Members may have. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Akridge. Indeed, all the 

testimony has been very important to hear. 

Now, I don’t know if all of you at the table are hearing what I 

am hearing, but what I am hearing are quite able parts of the 

whole, each of which is proceeding, it seems to me, in directions no 

one would take exception to in and of themselves. But what I hear 

are pieces that, if they come together, might constitute a vision and 

a master plan, as opposed to what I am more accustomed to as 

Chair of this Subcommittee, which is a master plan where each of 

the actors is tested by how it fits that plan, complete with costs, 

feasibility, and all that goes along with it. 

Am I wrong? Are you working to a master plan or are you doing 

the best you can knowing what you know about your part of Union 

Station, the part you play in Union Station? Is anybody working 

pursuant to some overall plan, master plan that might end up with 

what Mr. Akridge is talking about and testing what it is you want 

31 

to do in the interim against whatever that plan should be, or how 

do you work, if at all, together? 

Mr. LUSTIG. If I could speak on behalf of USI, we have had, our 

group with Akridge’s group, have had several meetings over the 

past year and a half, and the plan that we have in place, specifically the plan we have in place that addresses the needs of enriching the train concourse is in fact consistent with what would be the 

second phase, call it, when Burnham Place takes place. So that is 

a marriage, and it could only have been that way because of the 

meetings we had. 

And that really is the same, consistent with the meetings that 

we have had with Amtrak, the meetings with USRC, I believe 

there has been—at least I can speak—I believe there has been 

some very, very good, broad communication about what the desires 

were, what the needs were, and what the present problems of the 

property exist. 

I think we all share that there are extreme pinch points of the 

property today; there are security issues of the property today; 

there are lighting issues of the property today; there are materials 

that are used on the property today that are not state-of-the-art, 

that are not 21st century. We share the weaknesses and we have 

communicated amongst each other what each other’s visions are 

and try to create this one master plan. 

Ms. NORTON. That is the same way we operate in NoMa, Mr. 

Lustig; businesses on the same block communicate with one another and they each make sure that each other knows what they 

are doing. And I don’t want us to guess that I don’t hear that happening, nor that there is lack of communication, but there are people at this table who have a revenue stream and who don’t. There 

are people who have value; there are people who have a revenue 

stream; there are people who have an existing place in Union Station; and there are buses which aren’t at the table. 

Mr. Lustig, particularly Mr. Alleman, have you ever sat down 

with anyone to discuss the integration of buses into Union Station 

as part of the intermodal concept? 

Mr. ALLEMAN. Yes, we have. My superintendent of station operations has been involved in every one of the meetings regarding the 

bus proposals, taking it from the ticket office actually being in the 

station, to the concept of going out to H Street bridge, and now the 

bus deck. So Amtrak has participated in all discussions. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Madam Chairwoman, Akridge has met with Greyhound numerous times as well. I think there has been more coordination here than might be immediately obvious. 

Ms. NORTON. But who is the driver of the process? Of course you 

all, particularly those of you who have a bottom line, will drive 

your process accordingly, but, as you know, there is an actor I can 

assure you hasn’t been at the table, except insofar as I find funds, 

pick up funds here and there, and that is the Federal Government. 

So I can tell you right now that that should be a major actor. 

But except for Members of this Committee, I am not sure that 

they consider themselves—you all want to go ahead, recognizing 

that some people hold value, some people hold revenue. Mr. 

Akridge can’t move unless the transportation issues are settled and 

unless the infrastructure issues are done. And a master developer 

32 

would begin to put together that value with the revenue, with what 

people want to make more money and what people have who are 

sitting on top of value that are making nothing for anybody; and 

then they try to get together with the Federal Government, who is 

the only entity in the world, or at least in this Country, who can 

write a check without having money in the bank, and proceed from 

thereon in. 

I am just trying to indicate how, in this Subcommittee, we see 

projects move forward far less ambitious than this, where we are 

putting together transportation and development in the same package. Marvelous opportunity. Too bad we didn’t take advantage of 

that economy we had in the 1990s and up until then, and we could 

have gotten some of this started, gentlemen. 

Mr. Klein, you had wanted to respond to these questions. 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. I just wanted to speak to what role we are playing at DDOT, and also my point of view coming into this process 

somewhat late in the game. I have been on the job for about six 

months, so I will give you my perspective. 

It seems that there are some financially constrained long-range 

plans that obviously are not funded, so what we have been trying 

to do is collaborate as much as possible with all the stakeholders. 

We have been working on this study, which I think is going to be 

very valuable and really does look at all the different—— 

Ms. NORTON. Did you say that you had that study with you? 

Mr. KLEIN. I do. I have the latest draft. It is right here. It is basically finished. This is for you. What we have to do is go through 

the technical advisory committee review, which is basically all the 

stakeholders signing off, and then we have to go through a public 

review. So by September it will be official and it will be out there. 

So we have been working hard on this. And I realize I think we 

are a little behind on it, but it is about finished. Then we have 

been trying to identify low-cost interim solutions because of the financial constraints that we see with some of these $80 million, 

$100 million projects. 

I had a great meeting recently with Jane McClelland from First 

Group, which is the parent company for Greyhound. She was over 

from the U.K. and she seemed to be of the same mind that there 

were some things that could happen over a two-, three-, four-year 

period, including the vertical integration with H Street on that bus 

deck, building a large structure. 

But I said to her, I said, you know, looking at the state of the 

economy, looking at the business model for the curbside buses 

versus Greyhound, and now you are entering the curbside business 

as well, might we not want to look at a phased approach, phase 1, 

2, and 3, where we literally put kiosks in the parking lot and start 

moving the buses over? And then phase 2 we look at the—— 

Ms. NORTON. Kiosks in which parking lot? 

Mr. KLEIN. I am saying in the parking deck itself. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh. 

Mr. KLEIN. We can get the vertical integration. I think we can 

commit to that as a group. I think we can commit to some sort of 

structure. I don’t know how large it needs to be, and I think we 

will have a study by the end of August that will state what that 

deck can handle. But I guess what I am suggesting is that DDOT 

33 

can play a role in trying to facilitate more expedited approaches 

and solutions, which brings me to the fourth piece, which is that 

we have also been looking to identify funding for a variety of 

projects ranging from Columbus Circle Plaza, which we are 

$800,000 short, but we are going to find a way to plug that 

hole—— 

Ms. NORTON. Are you funding that out of your transportation 

funding? 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. We have an earmark and then I believe National 

Parks Service was committed to $800,000, which they have since 

backed out of, so we are considering trying to use some stimulus 

money or finding other local funds, even if we have to, because we 

want to keep to a September date to issue that contract. 

We have also been trying to help to identify other stimulus monies, particularly for enhancements within the station. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you met with Mr. Ball or anyone else at the 

table on this possible use of stimulus money and where would that 

be used? 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. Actually, my staff has been in close coordination 

with all the different stakeholders, so they have been a part of this, 

including the DOT delegation from Maryland. So we have really 

tried to reach out to everybody, and we have submitted a pre-application via FRA and we will submit a final application the 24th of 

August for, it looks like, approximately $31 million of improvements in the form of stimulus grants. 

So that is our role at this point, but we are open to playing whatever role you and others see fit. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, it is a very important role that the District 

would bring perhaps funds in that way, but what I am looking for 

is more than coordination. Mr. Klein can’t do that by himself; he 

has some revenue that we thrust upon him, but I get back to how 

the Federal Government is really not going to get in it until you 

have the kind of thinking that we have just seen to the point we 

can do this, this is what you can do, this is what you have, this 

is what you need; and I recognize that that may not fall to any single person at the table, but it has got to happen. 

I want to ask Mr. Alleman about his view of what the central 

issue has been for intercity bus travel. We have heard some quite 

horrendous things that—I can’t vouch for this; it wasn’t under 

oath—that Amtrak would prefer not to have the competition of 

buses there. 

What is an intermodal transportation center to? Well, it is associated with various infrastructure needs, and yet, you see, we didn’t 

see anybody moving to make it happen, which really led us to believe there was active resistance to the congressional mandate for 

intermodalism. So I have got to ask you what you see now that we 

understand where it is going to be. What issues, if any? We understand revenue is always an issue. I see how people who wanted to 

do it could begin to put together a package for revenue if there was 

the will to do it, but you folks know a whole lot more about that 

than I do. 

So I want to know what you who are the largest user at Union 

Station believe should be done as the next steps to at least get bus 

service of some kind in there, whether or not, as a business model, 

34 

you think that somebody who brought value himself, brought 

money is going to be necessary in order to accomplish the infrastructure needs that you yourself want to see occur, or if you see 

some other way for bus service to come to Union Station before the 

next millennium. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. Well, with Amtrak, the bus service, as far as we 

are concerned, could start tomorrow using the bus deck in a limited 

style, maybe a smaller service. But that doesn’t affect Amtrak. And 

we support the—— 

Ms. NORTON. So actually that—there have been people wanting 

to sublease. So we could get some buses in there tomorrow and get 

that value. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. From Amtrak’s view, that would be fine. There is 

no hindrance there for Amtrak. Were Amtrak—— 

Ms. NORTON. Even if Greyhound weren’t ready to try to make a 

deal to get in there? Some of these intercity bus people who have 

been trying to get in there you are saying you would have no objection? 

Mr. ALLEMAN. Amtrak would have no objection. 

Ms. NORTON. And there would be value added, wouldn’t there be, 

because somebody would have to compete and pay to get in there, 

and you would have to measure that against the vacancies that are 

there or, for that matter, the people who are there, the services 

that are there? 

Mr. ALLEMAN. We have numerous intermodal stations throughout the Country, so we know and understand the benefit both from 

a revenue perspective with the connectivity along with just being 

able to offer diverse transportation services in one hub. So Amtrak 

supports the intermodal approach. 

Where Amtrak gets concerned is with the impact on our queing 

area. We started to take things into our own hands, working with 

Ashkenazy, working with DDOT, speaking with Akridge and, of 

course, USRC, and we are currently working to do an analysis on 

our passenger queuing area. When that was designed—— 

Ms. NORTON. Your what? I am sorry. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. The passenger queuing area, where folks go to 

board the trains. As you may remember, before the station was revitalized, that is where the trains actually stopped. The steel gates 

that you walk through into our queuing area was actually trackage. So when the station was redeveloped in the 1980s, it is almost 

as if there was an afterthought for Amtrak. We ended up actually 

outside the natural structure with a canopy. That worked fine 

when Amtrak—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, how in the world did that occur? It was a 

train station first and foremost. We are trying to make it train 

plus. You weren’t at the table? Amtrak was not at the table? 

Mr. ALLEMAN. I can’t speak to that. I have been here 32 years, 

but I was not at that table. 

Ms. NORTON. That is what I mean. You don’t have any vision as 

to what you are doing, then you just slapped together something 

that turned out to be gorgeous, but guess what? It didn’t accommodate Amtrak, which was the whole purpose in the first place. 

35 

Mr. ALLEMAN. And I believe that the rail trends that we are seeing today may not have been expected when that construction was 

done. 

Ms. NORTON. That is understandable. But the fact that you found 

yourselves on the outside looking in from the beginning, that is unfortunate. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. So we have worked closely and we are looking, I 

believe, in August that Ashkenazy will have a preliminary design 

on how to integrate that structure and be able to increase the capacity for queuing our passengers, both Amtrak, VRE, and MARC. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, you are bearing in mind VRE and MARC 

wanting to expand rather substantially? 

Mr. ALLEMAN. We are currently working with MARC and VRE 

on capacity analysis. Again, this facility was built over 100 years 

ago and it is seeing traffic now that it hasn’t seen for 100 years. 

Ms. NORTON. And that is without anything else you would need 

to do something. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. That is correct. So that stands alone as far as infrastructure, adjustments, increases, and such for higher capacity 

with trains. But that is currently under discussion also. But right 

now my focus with Amtrak is to do the work in the passenger 

boarding area that now gives us a more livable station. 

Ms. NORTON. And that appears to be satisfactory to those concerned? 

Mr. ALLEMAN. It is moving along well. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Klein, I have to ask you something about charters. This is something I need to work with the District. First of 

all, do any of you know whether there are charter buses, like day 

buses, that wait for people on a daily basis at Union Station? 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes, there are. Those buses are currently on the deck. 

I was over there yesterday, and as you speed through the morning, 

towards 9:00, 10:00, it starts to fill up. 

Ms. NORTON. How awful. I can’t believe that isn’t the least value 

you could get from the use of the available space. I mean, correct 

me. If you rent them out on a day basis, as opposed to negotiating 

to get a player in there or several players who get into competition, 

which is the best way to get the most value from what there is 

there? 

Mr. KLEIN. No, I think that is absolutely right and I think that— 

we are working on regulations right now, so the curbside buses will 

not be able to operate unregulated. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Klein, let me ask you about the charter buses. 

I am not talking about curbside. If anything, the District has been 

forward-looking. You understand what the policy is and you didn’t 

have a lot of choices here with curbside. I want to ask you about 

the charters, but curbside, is it true that they all gather at K 

Street the way we heard, and is that the best place and is it better 

to have them in one place? How did you arrive at that? 

Mr. KLEIN. Well, okay, so there are a number of places throughout the city where they pick up, and it depends on the company, 

but we have tried to push them towards the old convention center 

lot area. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, the lot that is vacant there. I see. 

Mr. KLEIN. So they will pick up primarily—— 

36 

Ms. NORTON. So they go inside the lot. Oh, all right. 

Mr. KLEIN. They can. A lot of them pick up actually around the 

sides because you have that sort of unused dedicated bus lane and 

you have a lot of curb space. So you will see—— 

Ms. NORTON. But why wouldn’t we at least make them go inside? 

That is also—what are we talking, 9th Street? 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes, 9th Street. 

Ms. NORTON. Busy street. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. The 700 block of H Street. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it too much to ask it to go inside, let off your 

passengers, as if we were a real world class city? What is the reason why? Do they get crowded or something? Is there a reason why 

it is preferable, perhaps, to be on the outside? I don’t know, so I 

need to ask that question. 

Mr. KLEIN. I think that is a good question. I think they prefer 

it that way; it is sort of easy in, easy out. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Well, if I could interrupt, I think that the use of 

the old convention center site as a pickup spot is a new turn of 

events. The standard pickup spots are in the 700 block of H Street, 

the 800 block of I Street, and some other outlying areas there. That 

is where—— 

Mr. KLEIN. 15th and K. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. 15th and K. That is where their riders know to 

come and they just haven’t been asked or encouraged to move to 

the old convention center site. Some have. Some have. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Klein, I am really going to ask you to do that. 

We have accommodated them. You had to. We would like them off 

the streets altogether, as long as you have room. And I commend 

the city for finding a use of that space. Maybe—tell me if I am 

wrong—is there some payment to go on the inside, not to go on the 

curb? Is there—— 

Mr. KLEIN. There is. There is. We have tried to work with the 

parking provider on that. We sort of hit a roadblock, but the real 

issue is that that is going to be under construction relatively soon. 

So we are going to—— 

Ms. NORTON. That will take care of it because it will be under 

construction and—oh, you mean the old—— 

Mr. KLEIN. The old convention center lot. 

Ms. NORTON. You really think that is going to be under construction soon? 

Mr. KLEIN. Well—— 

Ms. NORTON. That is good news too. 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes, preconstruction. But what we want to do is we 

want to start moving those folks over to Union Station once we 

pass these regulations. 

Ms. NORTON. So that is the policy of the District of Columbia, 

you would like curb sides to be at Union Station? All right, we 

don’t have a difference there, and it is very important. As important as it was to keep it going, we don’t want to keep it going like 

charters. I mean the charters that we must have, the tourists who 

come in. Are they using Union Station as well, and is that the 

highest and best use for Union Station? 

37 

Mr. KLEIN. It is not the highest and best use. I think they can 

drop off and then we can put them at RFK or there are various 

other lots that we can look at—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Klein, let me ask you when—I believe it was 

under Mayor Williams—a plan was drawn for the life of us—Did 

you find it? We searched and searched. Staff tells me that they 

found this plan for RFK. If so, I would like Mr. Klein to perhaps 

come in and see what can be done, because there we have, of 

course, unused space as well, and we recognize—I endorse the 

city’s policy of making sure we keep these tour buses coming, but 

over and over again—we went through this horrific process when 

the Visitor’s Center opened, and it came up then. That is when we 

began looking for this old plan. 

So I would appreciate your coming in perhaps next week to talk 

about the RFK plan. We apparently have been able to find part of 

it. We would like to clear those decks, at least, if it is feasible to 

do so. 

Mr. Akridge, don’t all of these infrastructure matters have to be 

taken care of before Burnham Place even rolls off our lips as a possibility? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Well, I wouldn’t say all of them, Madam Chairman, but it would be preferable for many of them to be accomplished before we start construction, especially on the north end of 

the existing station, where the two projects—— 

Ms. NORTON. As you envision it, Burnham Place, what would be 

its relationship to the greater Union Station complex? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. It will be similar to what Gallery Place is to the 

Verizon Center, with the Verizon Center being the existing Union 

Station and, of course, we built Gallery Place next door and they 

are an integrated structure working together. So we have finished 

over the last year our conceptual plan of what the Burnham Place 

development will look like. 

We have about 2.5 million square feet of space with retail, office, 

hotel, and parking. It will integrate with the north end of the station and the connections there are not optimal right there. If they 

are not good for the station, they won’t be good for our project. And 

it is where that intersection occurs where the majority of economies 

are to be gained by doing the construction there in conjunction 

with our construction of our platform. 

But some of the other areas that we were talking about improving that have been mentioned here, part of project number one, 

which I have described, about relieving some of the passenger congestion and getting on the trains, Amtrak’s number one goal, can 

be done in part before we start construction and independent of our 

construction. Part of it is integrated with our construction. 

So the projects fit together. Some things need to be done together, but some can be done in advance, which is one of the reasons why I suggested that now is the time to be moving on some 

of these projects in this appropriations bill that some of these 

projects can be begun now. They will stretch out over four or five 

years. They fit perfectly, the funding frequency of this piece of legislation, and I think we have a lot of the bones of what you are 

looking for here. 

38 

They may not be pulled together just the way you would like to 

see them tied in a nice, neat little package, but the folks at this 

table and our staffs have thousands of hours. We spent seven figures on planning for the public portion of this project, as have 

these gentlemen as well. 

So I think a lot of the bones are laying around. I think we just 

need to work with you as to how we can best put them together 

so that they are comprehensible, because I think we are ready to 

go do the fight with the Congress and with the Committee to get 

this funding passed. 

Ms. NORTON. Normally, I speak to you, Mr. Akridge, as a developer in the city with considerable experience and success. Normally, you’re sitting at the table with maybe the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia has—you bring certain value to 

the table. The District of Columbia brings other kinds of value and 

together, working with the District of Columbia, with only the developer and usually the city, perhaps the Federal Government 

could have something to do with it, but basically these, I won’t call 

them deals, are put together with, you know, a couple of actors. 

Now, I see more than a couple of actors. I see the District of Columbia already is talking about stimulus funds and the rest of it. 

You all are aware of that, apparently. I see Mr. Lustig, he is doing 

a makeover as we speak on the mall, trying to upgrade the mall, 

get it ready, I guess, for Burnham Place. I see Amtrak both, Mr. 

Alleman, Mr. Lustig, of course, has at least the revenue stream. So 

does the District of Columbia. You haven’t been called yet for that 

part of it. That doesn’t mean you don’t have value. 

What I am trying to understand is that with actors, all of whom 

need some parts of this to be done by others, why the typical bringing together of the available parties, some of whom have value, 

some of whom don’t have as obvious a value, why that has not 

taken place and whether that can take place even now. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Well, I think in general the answer to that question is the interests here are very disparate and cover different 

areas of the project. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, are they? And that is what this Committee 

wants to put before you, because I can tell you this, Mr. Akridge, 

the Congress will never see it that way. The Congress will see this 

as interests who depend one upon another. And if they can’t figure 

out that co-dependence, the Congress will not get into it. It’s as 

simple as that. I can guarantee you that. 

They want to know what value everybody at the table is bringing 

to the table, and with Congress locked in all kinds of call upon 

what funds are available to it, that’s the only way to get anything 

out of Congress. That’s why when I looked at more than the usual 

number of actors, I am looking to see whether anyone is looking 

for the co-dependence that ultimately is going to be there. And I 

recognize it is a little premature, Mr. Akridge, a little more premature for you than for others. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Well, I don’t think it is premature and I don’t 

think that we are not cognizant of the fact that there is co-dependence on all of us. I think the amount of cooperation that has been 

exhibited amongst this group over the last at least 18 months is 

exemplary. 

39 

Ms. NORTON. Resulting in what? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. In a plan which is pretty close to being—— 

Ms. NORTON. What plan is that? Has it been submitted? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. No, it has not been submitted. Well, we have a 

plan that we would be happy to submit to you that we prepared, 

that we have circulated with all these people, that they have looked 

at. 

Ms. NORTON. And that plan is for what? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. It is for—well, we have two plans. We have one for 

the public portion of the project, which all these people have seen 

and commented on numerous times; and we have one for the private portion of the project, which we have just finalized and we are 

getting ready to submit to the District and zoning process. 

So as I said, I think we are further along than we have made 

it clear to you. We don’t have anything ready to present to you 

today, but hearing what it is that you are looking for, I think we 

can put our collective heads together and in pretty short order 

come back to you. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I agree. I see the makings of a plan. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. It is there, and it hasn’t been without discussions 

and not without give and take, understanding what the needs certain people have, the restrictions others have. And I think so far, 

it has been a pretty cooperative process. 

I would ask my fellow panel members to comment on that. 

Mr. LUSTIG. And if I could comment further, Madam Chairwoman, it is truly that plan that Akridge had showed us more than 

18 months ago, and supplementary plans after that, that really 

spurred our idea, and I am sure it spurred Amtrak’s as well, to go 

forward with this development and this plan on the train concourse 

as it relates to the queuing line with Amtrak and expanding and 

addressing a lot of those things that were in Akridge’s plans, so 

when Akridge does do their development, our development will be 

seamless with theirs. 

Ms. NORTON. I am not sure we have seen the plan. I am sure 

we will. But Mr. Klein said something that was important. Any 

project this monumental is necessarily incremental. The reason 

that a plan is important to see is that following that plan, you 

know in what order what should proceed and who is prepared to 

fund what. And that is the kind of planning we are accustomed to, 

at least when we are dealing with this magnitude of change. 

And I am very interested to know, for example, what should be 

the first step, given what you know now, and who would it involve? 

Mr. LUSTIG. Well, if I could speak. Our first step, like I described 

in my testimony, is going forward, to go forward with I would say 

probably the most major step of the four call it ‘‘redevelopments’’ 

of the property, the most major step is, again, working with Amtrak, working with over 50,000 square feet of the property and reinvigorating and revitalizing, opening areas, opening ceilings, 

redoing all of the MEP structure within that area, to create a truly 

world-class experience for anybody coming. 

Ms. NORTON. How would you fund that, Mr. Lustig? 

Mr. LUSTIG. How would we fund that? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

40 

Mr. LUSTIG. We are looking for the government to assist us in 

that. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, that is what I mean. And the government is 

looking for a plan where the actors at the table—— 

Mr. LUSTIG. I agree with you and I really do believe that when 

you call for a plan, I mean, the depth of what I have seen with 

Akridge and what we will have finished over the next, let’s say, 60 

days, the incorporation of those two plans would be very well on 

our way to show what, as it relates to the core structure. Of course, 

DDOT will have to come in and understand how it relates to the 

bus concourse, which—— 

Ms. NORTON. Will the plan have a financial component to it? 

Mr. LUSTIG. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. Indicating the, I am taking Mr. Klein’s idea of incremental steps so that one could, for example, begin on the plan 

this or next year. 

Mr. LUSTIG. Yes, that is our goal. 

Ms. NORTON. What do you all think? This is going to happen over 

20, 25 years, you know. So first we have to have a plan then somebody has got to start doing something. And Congress tends to get 

interested when it sees something happening. It goes completely 

asleep and lets sleeping dogs lie if nothing happens. I just put it 

out there. 

Let me ask Mr. Klein about this so-called pilot legislation that 

apparently members of the Council are championing. I think Mr. 

Lustig—was it Mr. Lustig who raised that? I know that I dealt 

with the District on a pilot. 

Mr. LUSTIG. A pilot program in relationship to the taxes? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. I want to ask Mr. Klein the status of—— 

Mr. LUSTIG. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. Klein? 

Mr. KLEIN. I have to be honest. I am not familiar with that. It 

sounds like—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you know the status—that really isn’t in 

DDOT’s bailiwick, but I thought there might be—members of the 

Council, you suggest that some kind of pilot legislation, which of 

course the District has done before, to pay for—to help pay for infrastructure projects would be necessary in order for you to move 

forward. 

Now, what is the status of that, Mr. Lustig? 

Mr. LUSTIG. The pilot program that I was referring to was a pilot 

program that we are trying to have consideration is in lieu of the 

possessory interest tax for the property, having nothing to do with 

DDOT. 

Ms. NORTON. I know. So what is the status of that? 

Mr. LUSTIG. We are going through the process. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is proceeding and the District is considering 

it? 

Mr. LUSTIG. Yes, it is in front of the District right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Klein, it is page two, I think, of your testimony 

you mention you support garage expansion tied to—and I didn’t understand quite what—removal of sedan parking from the deck referred to. What kind of sedans park up there? 

41 

Mr. KLEIN. So, okay, so right. That was speaking about the old 

garage before the expansion. And I guess there are rental cars on 

the deck at this point. 

Ms. NORTON. They are rental cars? Okay, that’s a part of the 

intermodal transportation, so I am not—— 

Mr. KLEIN. Right. Right. There were rental cars on the deck. 

Rick just clarified for me. They have been moved off of the deck at 

this point, so I am not sure if that is what you were—— 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, whatever was the sedans you spoke about. I 

didn’t understand what that meant. 

Mr. KLEIN. Okay. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you satisfied with the corporation’s community 

outreach? We don’t like to hear after the fact about community outreach on something as important as this expansion is to the city. 

Mr. KLEIN. Yes. I mean I think this is a joint effort, you know. 

I mean, right now our next steps, as I have laid out some of them 

for you, are working on the stimulus grants, getting the feasibility 

study out to the public, getting the regs finished for the curbside 

buses so they can start to move to Union Station, if everybody 

agrees. We can move the other buses to RFK. 

And we want to see movement and we want to see it this year. 

We also would hope to start construction on Columbus Circle by 

the end of the year as well. 

Ms. NORTON. We very much want to meet with you. The Capitol 

Hill community doesn’t want those buses coming down the street. 

We have thought of ways to get them over. We think you have been 

put in the worst position because some of them remain outside of 

the Smithsonian because we don’t want to lose them, and yet we 

have not used this plan. This is very important that we proceed on 

that. 

I have to ask you, Mr. Lustig. You started this virtual entire 

makeover, at least downstairs in Union Station before the economy 

fell flat on its face. It is never coming back like it was. This is a 

structural make-money economy. It is going to be far more stable. 

It is going to be harder to get money even for the best of them and 

the largest developers and businesses. 

So I wanted to know whether the economy has affected your 

plans, how it has affected, and surely it has affected them. Are you 

able to get the requisite financing in this economy to continue at 

what pace for the makeover that was underway? 

Mr. LUSTIG. All of the areas that, outside of what we are discussing with Amtrak, is going to be self-funded through our organization. As it relates to—— 

Ms. NORTON. What does that mean, please? 

Mr. LUSTIG. That we are not looking to the government. 

Ms. NORTON. You are not going to borrow in order to make 

these? 

Mr. LUSTIG. Correct. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you make that decision before the economy—— 

Mr. LUSTIG. Well, I was just going to get into that. I mean, what 

the economy has done is fortunate for the fact that there are 25 

million, arguably some people say between 28 million and 30 million people that come through the property every year. For the 

most part, the retail expansion across the United States, as we all 

42 

know, has pretty much to a screeching halt, as far as retail expansion. 

We have been fortunate because of the dynamics of the asset, because of the dynamics of Union Station and the amount of people 

coming through to still attract retailers to the asset. What has become more problematic today that we didn’t have when we came 

onto the property two years ago was that it costs us more to bring 

the tenant to the property. 

The fact that they do not have open-to-buys, we have to spend 

more money, give more allowance, have more consideration in a 

rent role than we would have considered two years ago. But we 

still have an active pace with transactional activity at the property, 

if that is what you are asking. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, and so that is a function of the economy, how 

you have to market. 

Mr. LUSTIG. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you experiencing the same thing, Mr. Akridge? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. On a slightly different scale, yes, we are. 

Ms. NORTON. And that is understandable. I have one more question. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Could I add to that, though, that the current financial situation is not affecting our—— 

Ms. NORTON. Could you say that again, please? 

Mr. AKRIDGE. The current general financial situation is not affecting our interest or our time frame on this project. We have a 

number of approval processes we need to go through with the Zoning Commission, with the Commission on Fine Arts, with the Architect of the Capitol, with Historic Preservation. We have a number of years of approval processes that we still need to go through. 

Ms. NORTON. Absolutely. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. That is why it is so important to us that we get 

these infrastructure projects in the station begun and underway so 

that when they are finishing, we can start and link up with them. 

Ms. NORTON. I couldn’t agree more. And I hope everybody has 

heard what I said. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. We heard you. 

Ms. NORTON. If you all don’t get together and make a deal, don’t 

even come here. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. When we come back, we will have a plan. Okay? 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. 

This is a final question for Mr. Alleman. I am pleased to hear 

about your partnership with the National Association of Minority 

and Women Owned Law Firms in connection with the fact that you 

use outside law firms and you set yourself something of a goal of 

5 percent of whatever you spend for outside counsel on women-and 

minority-owned law firms. Have you reached that goal yet? What 

is the status of that controversy? It was apparently something you 

negotiated. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. Madam Chair, I would not be able to answer that 

question for you. I will have to check into it and we will be back 

to you. 

Ms. NORTON. Seven days, we would like the answer to that question. 

Mr. ALLEMAN. Seven days, yes, ma’am. 

43 

Ms. NORTON. The number of black-owned firms—the word minority is not a word that has any meaning any longer. It is going to 

be a minority Country in a few minutes, people, so we want it broken down: black, Hispanic, whatever else we now are building up 

in this Country; then woman, and that broken down to see what 

we have. We are not suggesting through the breakdown that you 

must have any particular breakdown. It is just that we like to 

know what data we are looking at and what it means. 

This oversight hearing where you see me asking lots of questions 

really has more to do with educating me, who will have to be the 

chief advocate for Union Station in the larger mix on the Transportation Committee if anything is to be done competing with very 

well planned, some in operation, intermodal facilities who now 

want to spread out and do more. 

We are in an extraordinary position. The only thing that we don’t 

have or can’t have on the ground, we can get you do in probably 

10 minutes, and that is to National Airport. I couldn’t be more 

pleased with what you have done so far. It does not begin to meet 

what Congress in its always grand vision expects because we always look at any one facility measured against what we see elsewhere. 

And intermodalism is becoming a virtual catch-word in the transportation bill that we are preparing. It is very results-oriented and 

is going to reward people who are results-oriented, have proceeded 

X distant and then come and say, see what we have done; can you 

help us get the rest of the way? 

I mean, the Chairman is on the record and on the bill that has 

been produced so far, so committed to that that that is why I am 

trying to educate myself as to what we have got going, because 

some of the intermodal systems we have seen do not have as many 

actors as we have in Washington. In fact, most do not have as 

many actors as we have in Washington. 

And most of them start with one, try to get—they have buses 

and they usually have some major rail. Then they have to figure 

out how to get the rest. And so, you know, they create great big 

malls. And we are very pleased that we have a very good mall, but 

they are way beyond us in air rights and in looking for other ways 

to out-do one another in intermodalism. 

So when I get to talking to the Committee, they are not going 

to say, oh, isn’t that terrific, Eleanor. Somebody on this very large 

Committee is going to pipe up what is being done in some other 

metropolis, and you know, then I sound off about the Nation’s Capital, the center of the universe, the congressional mandate for 

intermodalism. And then I have to fill in the blanks. 

You have helped me to begin to fill in the blanks. I ask you to 

get me a master plan for a 21st century Union Station. And then 

with the region and with other Members of our Committee, I am 

prepared to go the full distance. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. AKRIDGE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[Whereupon, at 4:51 p.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

44 


Insert offset folio 4 here 51253.004
45 


Insert offset folio 5 here 51253.005
46 


Insert offset folio 6 here 51253.006
47 


Insert offset folio 7 here 51253.007
48 


Insert offset folio 8 here 51253.008
49 


Insert offset folio 9 here 51253.009
50 


Insert offset folio 10 here 51253.010
51 


Insert offset folio 11 here 51253.011
52 


Insert offset folio 12 here 51253.012
53 


Insert offset folio 13 here 51253.013
54 


Insert offset folio 14 here 51253.014
55 


Insert offset folio 15 here 51253.015
56 


Insert offset folio 16 here 51253.016
57 


Insert offset folio 17 here 51253.017
58 


Insert offset folio 18 here 51253.018
59 


Insert offset folio 19 here 51253.019
60 


Insert offset folio 20 here 51253.020
61 


Insert offset folio 21 here 51253.021
62 


Insert offset folio 22 here 51253.022
63 


Insert offset folio 23 here 51253.023
64 


Insert offset folio 24 here 51253.024
65 


Insert offset folio 25 here 51253.025
66 


Insert offset folio 26 here 51253.026
67 


Insert offset folio 27 here 51253.027
68 


Insert offset folio 28 here 51253.028
69 


Insert offset folio 29 here 51253.029
70 


Insert offset folio 30 here 51253.030
71 


Insert offset folio 31 here 51253.031
72 


Insert offset folio 32 here 51253.032
73 


Insert offset folio 33 here 51253.033
74 


Insert offset folio 34 here 51253.034
75 


Insert offset folio 35 here 51253.035
76 


Insert offset folio 36 here 51253.036
77 


Insert offset folio 37 here 51253.037
78 


Insert offset folio 38 here 51253.038
79 


Insert offset folio 39 here 51253.039
80 


Insert offset folio 40 here 51253.040
81 


Insert offset folio 41 here 51253.041
82 


Insert offset folio 42 here 51253.042
83 


Insert offset folio 43 here 51253.043
84 


Insert offset folio 44 here 51253.044
85 


Insert offset folio 45 here 51253.045
86 


Insert offset folio 46 here 51253.046
87 


Insert offset folio 47 here 51253.047
88 


Insert offset folio 48 here 51253.048
89 


Insert offset folio 49 here 51253.049
90 


Insert offset folio 50 here 51253.050
91 


Insert offset folio 51 here 51253.051
92 


Insert offset folio 52 here 51253.052
93 


Insert offset folio 53 here 51253.053
94 


Insert offset folio 54 here 51253.054
95 


Insert offset folio 55 here 51253.055
96 


Insert offset folio 56 here 51253.056
97 


Insert offset folio 57 here 51253.057
98 


Insert offset folio 58 here 51253.058
99 


Insert offset folio 59 here 51253.059
100 


Insert offset folio 60 here 51253.060
101 


Insert offset folio 61 here 51253.061
102 


Insert offset folio 62 here 51253.062
103 


Insert offset folio 63 here 51253.063
104 


Insert offset folio 64 here 51253.064
105 


Insert offset folio 65 here 51253.065
106 


Insert offset folio 66 here 51253.066
107 


Insert offset folio 67 here 51253.067
108 


Insert offset folio 68 here 51253.068
109 


Insert offset folio 69 here 51253.069
110 


Insert offset folio 70 here 51253.070
111 


Insert offset folio 71 here 51253.071
112 


Insert offset folio 72 here 51253.072
113 


Insert offset folio 73 here 51253.073
114 


Insert offset folio 74 here 51253.074
115 


Insert offset folio 75 here 51253.075
116 


Insert offset folio 76 here 51253.076
117 


Insert offset folio 77 here 51253.077
118 


Insert offset folio 78 here 51253.078
119 


Insert offset folio 79 here 51253.079
120 


Insert offset folio 80 here 51253.080
121 


Insert offset folio 81 here 51253.081
122 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 82 here 51253.082