Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely disgusting that they are pushing this idea of no cars. When will this war on cars end?

Where did it say that no cars were allowed? You must mean parking.

Hey OP, you really need to stop having these conversations with yourself. Can't you and your alternative personalities just text each other rather than inventing threads on DCUM?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have the article link handy, but a few notes from the existing report:

- Estimates that something like 300-400 spaces are actually in use by train users on a daily basis, as opposed to the 1500 spaces currently suggested by the Federal Rail Administration
- In every other major city that has had a train station rehab like this, they have not included parking.
- The proposed garage would be 10 stories tall and would impact the views of the station and of the Capitol dome from the rest of the development.

I can see the argument for a small garage, but the proposal for 1500 spaces is way beyond what's needed. The space would be better used for more offices or residences.

Sounds like a bunch of Amtrak workers want free parking.

I think it's actually that Union Station wants the revenue from parking lots of.people who commute downtown.

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?

I don't like this at all

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I don't have the article link handy, but a few notes from the existing report:

- Estimates that something like 300-400 spaces are actually in use by train users on a daily basis, as opposed to the 1500 spaces currently suggested by the Federal Rail Administration
- In every other major city that has had a train station rehab like this, they have not included parking.
- The proposed garage would be 10 stories tall and would impact the views of the station and of the Capitol dome from the rest of the development.

I can see the argument for a small garage, but the proposal for 1500 spaces is way beyond what's needed. The space would be better used for more offices or residences.

Sounds like a bunch of Amtrak workers want free parking.

Anonymous wrote:I don't have the article link handy, but a few notes from the existing report:

- Estimates that something like 300-400 spaces are actually in use by train users on a daily basis, as opposed to the 1500 spaces currently suggested by the Federal Rail Administration
- In every other major city that has had a train station rehab like this, they have not included parking.
- The proposed garage would be 10 stories tall and would impact the views of the station and of the Capitol dome from the rest of the development.

I can see the argument for a small garage, but the proposal for 1500 spaces is way beyond what's needed. The space would be better used for more offices or residences.

10 stories?!! that’s absurd.

I don't have the article link handy, but a few notes from the existing report:

- Estimates that something like 300-400 spaces are actually in use by train users on a daily basis, as opposed to the 1500 spaces currently suggested by the Federal Rail Administration
- In every other major city that has had a train station rehab like this, they have not included parking.
- The proposed garage would be 10 stories tall and would impact the views of the station and of the Capitol dome from the rest of the development.

I can see the argument for a small garage, but the proposal for 1500 spaces is way beyond what's needed. The space would be better used for more offices or residences.

Anonymous wrote:Good - I hope he succeeds.

There are myriad ways to get to Union Station and valuable space that has multiple other better uses should not be wasted to store cars.

FWIW very few of the current spaces are even being used by people taking the train so based on current uses it appears that the parking spaces are a solution in search of a problem.

I agree. I never understood why Union Station has to be the de facto parking for commuters working in that area. That's not Union Station's best use. Their employers or other private buildings can make that economic decision.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

For suburbanites, Allen's idea simply makes taking the train less attractive. The time difference between train and bus is very close, so his idea simply pushes people like me to take the bus from Bethesda.

I think that’s fine.

Or drive to BWI and catch train there. Plenty of parking and ticket is cheaper.
We stopped taking the train from union station once we realized getting there via metro from shady grove or parking would take just as long as leaving from BWI.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with Allen. We shouldn’t be encouraging car use. People should think twice (Or thrice!) before driving. Why dedicate precious downtown space to parking?

Focus that "people should think twice before driving" attitude on the regular commuters who drive into or within DC for work when they could take Metro.

Don't focus it on occasional or even regular Amtrak users who are already choosing the train over driving to NY or Wilmington or Richmond etc--but who may not live near Metro to get to the station, may not be able to get Ubers whenever and wherever to get to the station, etc. They ARE trying to stay off the road for their longer trips.

But many commuters who already live near enough to Metro to use it choose to drive instead. Work on getting THEM out of cars first. Their numbers are far greater than the numbers taking Amtrak each day. Provide parking spaces for Amtrak users who may need them but not for commuters who park at Union Station all day. Many Amtrak users will take Metro or cabs or Uber to get to the station, sure, but some (and the people who need to pick them up) will sometimes find that logistically difficult.

The Post article notes that of the garage's 2,200 spaces, about 1,400 are used by commuters. If that means commuters who are not using Amtrak but who are merely using the garage to park and then go to work--those are the people to push out.

Anonymous wrote:

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

For suburbanites, Allen's idea simply makes taking the train less attractive. The time difference between train and bus is very close, so his idea simply pushes people like me to take the bus from Bethesda.

I think that’s fine.

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

For suburbanites, Allen's idea simply makes taking the train less attractive. The time difference between train and bus is very close, so his idea simply pushes people like me to take the bus from Bethesda.