Charles Allen pushing for no parking for Union Station overhaul

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're missing the point. The reason Union Station has that level of service and options is because it's in a dense, urban area. Which means that driving & parking is not the form of transit to prioritize. People who NEED to drive can drive to an outlying station if they don't want to deal with scarce parking at Union Station.

This is incorrect. Union Station serves the entire metropolitan region.

And who ever said driving was being prioritized? Plans are calling for a smaller garage than what’s currently there.

DP. It's not incorrect to say that Union Station is in a dense urban area.

And while a smaller garage is a good idea, an even smaller garage would be an even better idea. Parking should be scarce at Union Station.

Who disputed Union Station being in a dense urban area? The issue is the level of service provided at Union Station is due to the station serving as the central rail transportation hub for a metro area of over 6 million people. That’s not going to change.

Another thing that’s not going to change anytime soon is this region’s dependency on the automobile. As such, for a transportation hub that serves over 6 million people and has over 5 million annual passengers, parking should be made available to those who want or need to drive. I find nothing outlandish about the FRA proposal.

What folks in the city need to remember is that key assets like Union Station serve more than just the city. Don’t like it? Move to a real urban core like NYC.

It sure isn't going to change, as long as people keep building for cars on grounds that people have built for cars.

Union Station is in a city. Don't like it? Move to New Carrollton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're missing the point. The reason Union Station has that level of service and options is because it's in a dense, urban area. Which means that driving & parking is not the form of transit to prioritize. People who NEED to drive can drive to an outlying station if they don't want to deal with scarce parking at Union Station.

This is incorrect. Union Station serves the entire metropolitan region.

And who ever said driving was being prioritized? Plans are calling for a smaller garage than what’s currently there.

DP. It's not incorrect to say that Union Station is in a dense urban area.

And while a smaller garage is a good idea, an even smaller garage would be an even better idea. Parking should be scarce at Union Station.

Who disputed Union Station being in a dense urban area? The issue is the level of service provided at Union Station is due to the station serving as the central rail transportation hub for a metro area of over 6 million people. That’s not going to change.

Another thing that’s not going to change anytime soon is this region’s dependency on the automobile. As such, for a transportation hub that serves over 6 million people and has over 5 million annual passengers, parking should be made available to those who want or need to drive. I find nothing outlandish about the FRA proposal.

What folks in the city need to remember is that key assets like Union Station serve more than just the city. Don’t like it? Move to a real urban core like NYC.

It sure isn't going to change, as long as people keep building for cars on grounds that people have built for cars.

Union Station is in a city. Don't like it? Move to New Carrollton.

Union Station is in a city, but it serves an entire region, of which the city itself has only a fraction of the total population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems counterintuitive to make it harder to take the train. Not all train passengers live on metro lines.

Right? To take the train you have to get to the station on time! If it takes hours to get to the station because you have to travel by car to bus to metro, etc. etc. Why bother?

What’s totally irrational is the idea that you are going to *drive* to an intercity train station in the middle of a dense urban area to take the train. That makes zero sense. People who insist on driving to the train can get on at new carrolton. And it’s also nuts to think driving and parking your own car is going to be faster or more economical. Those parking spaces need to be priced to reflect their value. Just get an Uber.

Agreed. I literally don't know anyone who does this. People who live so far out they can't take transit or an Uber are way more likely to get on the train elsewhere, drive, or fly than drive into DC and park.

Fascinating. Care to back up those sweeping generalizations with some hard data?

DP. What hard data do you have in mind? The fact is that there are lots of people who get on the train at stations that aren't Union Station. Why would you drive all the way into DC when you can catch the train without having to drive all the way into DC?

That's not a fact. That's your assumption.

Dude. It's a FACT that lots of people get on the train at stations that aren't Union Station.

Lol. Saying it louder doesn't make it so.

Truly baffled that somebody is doubting the reality of people getting on trains at Rockville, New Carrollton, BWI, Alexandria, and so on.

I'm baffled that somebody is seriously comparing the level of service and options available at Union Station to the level of service and options available at these suburban whistle stops.

You're missing the point. The reason Union Station has that level of service and options is because it's in a dense, urban area. Which means that driving & parking is not the form of transit to prioritize. People who NEED to drive can drive to an outlying station if they don't want to deal with scarce parking at Union Station.

This is incorrect. Union Station serves the entire metropolitan region.

And who ever said driving was being prioritized? Plans are calling for a smaller garage than what’s currently there.

NP here, the newly proposed garage is still more than 3x the number of people who actually park at Union Station that are not just downtown commuters right now.

"At the hearing, DC Council Chairman (and NCPC Commissioner) Phil Mendelson calculated that at 80% average utilization of the 2,200 spaces (a number which was reported at the hearing), minus the monthly parkers, “that leaves 386 that are used on a daily basis.” (that is, by non-monthly pass holders)"

https://ggwash.org/view/75579/to-park-or-not-to-park-that-is-the-picvotal-question-of-a-union-station-revonation-project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're missing the point. The reason Union Station has that level of service and options is because it's in a dense, urban area. Which means that driving & parking is not the form of transit to prioritize. People who NEED to drive can drive to an outlying station if they don't want to deal with scarce parking at Union Station.

This is incorrect. Union Station serves the entire metropolitan region.

And who ever said driving was being prioritized? Plans are calling for a smaller garage than what’s currently there.

DP. It's not incorrect to say that Union Station is in a dense urban area.

And while a smaller garage is a good idea, an even smaller garage would be an even better idea. Parking should be scarce at Union Station.

Who disputed Union Station being in a dense urban area? The issue is the level of service provided at Union Station is due to the station serving as the central rail transportation hub for a metro area of over 6 million people. That’s not going to change.

Another thing that’s not going to change anytime soon is this region’s dependency on the automobile. As such, for a transportation hub that serves over 6 million people and has over 5 million annual passengers, parking should be made available to those who want or need to drive. I find nothing outlandish about the FRA proposal.

What folks in the city need to remember is that key assets like Union Station serve more than just the city. Don’t like it? Move to a real urban core like NYC.

It sure isn't going to change, as long as people keep building for cars on grounds that people have built for cars.

Union Station is in a city. Don't like it? Move to New Carrollton.

Union Station is in a city, but it serves an entire region, of which the city itself has only a fraction of the total population.

So what? I'm going to say it in capital letters: UNION STATION IS IN A CITY. If people in the region want to get there, they can get to it in a city way. If they want to get to a rail station in a suburban way (drive and park), there are plenty for them to choose from that are not Union Station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems counterintuitive to make it harder to take the train. Not all train passengers live on metro lines.

Right? To take the train you have to get to the station on time! If it takes hours to get to the station because you have to travel by car to bus to metro, etc. etc. Why bother?

What’s totally irrational is the idea that you are going to *drive* to an intercity train station in the middle of a dense urban area to take the train. That makes zero sense. People who insist on driving to the train can get on at new carrolton. And it’s also nuts to think driving and parking your own car is going to be faster or more economical. Those parking spaces need to be priced to reflect their value. Just get an Uber.

Agreed. I literally don't know anyone who does this. People who live so far out they can't take transit or an Uber are way more likely to get on the train elsewhere, drive, or fly than drive into DC and park.

I do, often. I frequently take a train to NYC or Philly for afternoon meetings and dinner, and then either return very late at night or stay over and get back in the morning. I have had difficulty getting a cab or Uber/Lyft at both times (not every time, but often enough). I'd much rather have my car there to I can get home, or get to work, easily when I return.

ok then you should pay accordingly for that luxury. or just get the train in New Carrolton.

I don't have any issue with paying for it. But (i) the PP suggested that no one does this, so I wanted to disabuse her of that notion, and (ii) if the proposal is to eliminate all parking, that won't be an option anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're missing the point. The reason Union Station has that level of service and options is because it's in a dense, urban area. Which means that driving & parking is not the form of transit to prioritize. People who NEED to drive can drive to an outlying station if they don't want to deal with scarce parking at Union Station.

This is incorrect. Union Station serves the entire metropolitan region.

And who ever said driving was being prioritized? Plans are calling for a smaller garage than what’s currently there.

DP. It's not incorrect to say that Union Station is in a dense urban area.

And while a smaller garage is a good idea, an even smaller garage would be an even better idea. Parking should be scarce at Union Station.

Who disputed Union Station being in a dense urban area? The issue is the level of service provided at Union Station is due to the station serving as the central rail transportation hub for a metro area of over 6 million people. That’s not going to change.

Another thing that’s not going to change anytime soon is this region’s dependency on the automobile. As such, for a transportation hub that serves over 6 million people and has over 5 million annual passengers, parking should be made available to those who want or need to drive. I find nothing outlandish about the FRA proposal.

What folks in the city need to remember is that key assets like Union Station serve more than just the city. Don’t like it? Move to a real urban core like NYC.

It sure isn't going to change, as long as people keep building for cars on grounds that people have built for cars.

Union Station is in a city. Don't like it? Move to New Carrollton.

Union Station is in a city, but it serves an entire region, of which the city itself has only a fraction of the total population.

So what? I'm going to say it in capital letters: UNION STATION IS IN A CITY. If people in the region want to get there, they can get to it in a city way. If they want to get to a rail station in a suburban way (drive and park), there are plenty for them to choose from that are not Union Station.

NP here. The flagship line at Union Station is the Acela, which doesn't stop at the suburban stations. There are 39 trains to NYC tomorrow; 17 of them (about 43%) are Acelas. It's not as simple as "just drive elsewhere"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. The flagship line at Union Station is the Acela, which doesn't stop at the suburban stations. There are 39 trains to NYC tomorrow; 17 of them (about 43%) are Acelas. It's not as simple as "just drive elsewhere"

Then if you want to take the Acela, you should plan on getting to Union Station in a way that doesn't involve driving yourself and parking your car. That's how simple it is.

DC is not obliged to accommodate suburban residents who want to be able to drive to Union Station.

[Anonymous]

The current Union Station parking garage is under-utilized by people going to Union Station. To the extent that spaces are getting used, it’s often by people who work nearby in NoMa who want cheaper/more abundant parking than is available at their buildings even though Metro is RIGHT THERE. So, yes, it’s fine for the city to think about ways to reduce car dependency within the city. Why should they expend the garage beyond its current capacity when the current capacity is too large for the train station’s needs?

[Anonymous]

They could use the rent for the spots to pay to clean the filthy bathrooms and house the homeless around the station.

[Anonymous]

Can we just get rid of all the bike lanes instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the bike lanes instead?

No, but we could certainly reallocate some road space from cars to bike lanes and sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You're missing the point. The reason Union Station has that level of service and options is because it's in a dense, urban area. Which means that driving & parking is not the form of transit to prioritize. People who NEED to drive can drive to an outlying station if they don't want to deal with scarce parking at Union Station.

This is incorrect. Union Station serves the entire metropolitan region.

And who ever said driving was being prioritized? Plans are calling for a smaller garage than what’s currently there.

DP. It's not incorrect to say that Union Station is in a dense urban area.

And while a smaller garage is a good idea, an even smaller garage would be an even better idea. Parking should be scarce at Union Station.

Who disputed Union Station being in a dense urban area? The issue is the level of service provided at Union Station is due to the station serving as the central rail transportation hub for a metro area of over 6 million people. That’s not going to change.

Another thing that’s not going to change anytime soon is this region’s dependency on the automobile. As such, for a transportation hub that serves over 6 million people and has over 5 million annual passengers, parking should be made available to those who want or need to drive. I find nothing outlandish about the FRA proposal.

What folks in the city need to remember is that key assets like Union Station serve more than just the city. Don’t like it? Move to a real urban core like NYC.

It sure isn't going to change, as long as people keep building for cars on grounds that people have built for cars.

Union Station is in a city. Don't like it? Move to New Carrollton.

Union Station is in a city, but it serves an entire region, of which the city itself has only a fraction of the total population.

So what? I'm going to say it in capital letters: UNION STATION IS IN A CITY. If people in the region want to get there, they can get to it in a city way. If they want to get to a rail station in a suburban way (drive and park), there are plenty for them to choose from that are not Union Station.

NP here. The flagship line at Union Station is the Acela, which doesn't stop at the suburban stations. There are 39 trains to NYC tomorrow; 17 of them (about 43%) are Acelas. It's not as simple as "just drive elsewhere"

So let me get this straight - we should provide a 10-story parking garage for people who want to drive into the very center of DC from the suburbs to catch the Acela? Is that right?

[Anonymous]

I know there are hundreds of thousands of people driving in DC every day, but will someone please think of the tens of people -- maybe even 100! -- who want to ride their bikes instead. Can we please focus on that tiny minority of people for once?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know there are hundreds of thousands of people driving in DC every day, but will someone please think of the tens of people -- maybe even 100! -- who want to ride their bikes instead. Can we please focus on that tiny minority of people for once?

You haven't been in DC lately, have you?

And again, just because people are driving now, doesn't mean that DC must forevermore continue to accommodate drivers. Especially not drivers who don't even live in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know there are hundreds of thousands of people driving in DC every day, but will someone please think of the tens of people -- maybe even 100! -- who want to ride their bikes instead. Can we please focus on that tiny minority of people for once?

You haven't been in DC lately, have you?

And again, just because people are driving now, doesn't mean that DC must forevermore continue to accommodate drivers. Especially not drivers who don't even live in DC.

I see a lot of bike lanes that are barely used.

And been in DC since it was super dangerous, thank you.