[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNION STATION: A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE PRIVATE MANAGEMENT, THE
PUBLIC SPACE, AND THE INTERMODAL SPACES PRESENT AND FUTURE
=======================================================================
(110-155)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 22, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-753 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
VACANCY
(ii)
?
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chairwoman
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Virginia
Pennsylvania, Vice Chair CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee York
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota JOHN L. MICA, Florida
(Ex Officio) (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Ball, David, President, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation.. 13
Chambers, Bryant, Assistant General Manager, Jones Lang Lasalle,
Inc............................................................ 13
Leach, David, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greyhound
Lines, Inc..................................................... 41
Levy, Daniel, Counsel from Kriss and Feuerstein LLP, Ashkenazy
Acquisition Corporation........................................ 13
McCann, Erin, Private Photographer............................... 6
Moneme, Emeka, Director, District Department of Transportation... 41
Wilbur, Thomas, Senior Vice President, Akridge Corporation....... 41
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 58
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 59
Graves, Hon. Sam, of Missouri.................................... 68
Mica, Hon. John L., of Florida................................... 73
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 77
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 81
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Ball, David S.................................................... 82
Chambers, Bryant P............................................... 125
Leach, David..................................................... 128
Levy, Daniel..................................................... 131
McCann, Erin..................................................... 143
Moneme, Emeka.................................................... 156
Wilbur, Thomas................................................... 160
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Ball, David, President, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation,
responses to questions for the record.......................... 105
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
American Bus Association, Peter J. Pantuso, President and CEO,
written statement.............................................. 163
Government of the District of Columbia, Department of
Transportation, Frank Seales, Jr., Interim Director, written
statement...................................................... 168
Megabus Northeast, LLC, Don Carmichael, Vice President, written
statement...................................................... 170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.003
UNION STATION: A COMPREHENSIVE HEARING ON THE PRIVATE MANAGEMENT, THE
PUBLIC SPACE, AND THE INTERMODAL USES PRESENT AND FUTURE
----------
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Norton. Good morning. I welcome today's witnesses to
our Subcommittee hearing on public access, security and the
future of the Union Station complex as an important intermodal
center for all modes of transportation.
The current management structure at Union Station, the
Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, or USRC, was created
in 1981 at the direction of Congress, and Congress later
competed the air rights that will expand the station's capacity
to become a world-class intermodal and mixed use public-private
facility.
Ownership of Union Station, as the bill report reiterated
and made clear, "shall remain with the Federal Government."
However, we are unable to find evidence of congressional
oversight of Union Station since its redevelopment. Now that
there is a new congressional majority with Union Station under
our jurisdiction, this hearing commences regular oversight.
Union Station began as a train facility for the Nation's
Capital whose grand design was commissioned by Congress to
produce a landmark building. However, as rail use declined in
the 1950s, the station rapidly deteriorated, and a series of
failed ideas, wasted Federal funds, cost overruns, major
utility needs, mismanagement and litigation resulted.
In 1981, after portions of the roof collapsed during
structural repairs, Union Station was closed to the public,
forcing passengers to walk a third of a mile around a closed
building to the replacement station. Congress stepped up later
that year and spent purchase payments on Union Station to
obtain earlier-planned Federal ownership from Baltimore and
Penn Terminal Reality.
After $180 million public-private renovations, Union
Station reopened to public applause in 1987, fully restored.
The congressional authorization to purchase Union Station
mandated the creation of a management structure, the return of
the station to its important rail beginnings, transition to an
intermodal center, and the private investment that has resulted
in the retail available there today.
Congress delegated to the Union Station Realty Corporation
the authority and responsibility to order priorities and
mediate the sectors in Union Station in order to safeguard the
public interest. Like the District of Columbia itself, the
Union Station completion contains a mix of Federal, local and
private entities, but the overriding public interest had never
been in doubt, to provide the public access to a federally
owned facility, to expand modes of travel to and from the
Nation's Capital, and to provide a secure environment.
The public interest was strengthened when in 1971 the
Federal Government created Amtrak in response to the sustained
decline of passenger rail, and today the Congress puts billions
of dollars into Amtrak to sustain this valuable public
resource. At least since 9/11, we have seen a sharp increase in
riders using Amtrak, whose national headquarters is Union
Station, making more rapid movement toward genuine intermodal
status essential. However, we have not seen evidence that the
Union Station Redevelopment Corporation understands the
increasingly central role of national intermodal hubs today,
yet gas prices are driving record numbers of Americans to use
whatever ground transportation is available.
March 2008 showed a 4.3 percent drop in vehicle miles
traveled, the sharpest drop for any month in U.S. highway
history. In 2007, Americans' use of public transportation
reached its highest levels in 50 years. What an extraordinary
opportunity this is for the Union Station complex.
The House has just passed the first stand-alone transit
legislation bill since Metro was created, just as Metro is
bursting at the seams. This week, Metro had its highest
ridership day in its history, and eight of its top 10 ridership
days have occurred this year.
The House also authorized the Nation's first high speed
rail a few weeks ago, and it will travel between the District
and New York.
The Capitol Visitor Center is scheduled to open in
December. This new attraction, which will bring many more
visitors to Washington, is one of the reasons Congress has
insisted on a true intermodal center at Union Station.
Today, Union Station covers 12 acres and has 2,200 parking
spaces, 125 retail outlets, and provides access to Amtrak, the
Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, rail and bus, the
Virginia Rail Express, the Maryland Rail Commuter Line, taxies,
bicycle sharing, and other tourist-friendly transportation
services.
Union Station is the busiest stop on the WMATA line, with
over 30,000 daily riders using this stop. Because of
congressional mandates and Federal funds, the intermodal center
at Union Station will have new parking facilities for tour
buses, new rail concourses, streetcars that connect Union
Station to the neighborhood, and additional security
improvements.
In the Balanced Budget Act of 1977, Congress directed GSA
to dispose of the land over the railroad tracks at Union
Station, and in 2002 the General Services Administration bid
and sold 15 acres of air rights above the rail yard adjacent to
Union Station. The result of the sale will be Burnham Place at
Union Station, a 3 million square foot mixed use development
built above the rail yard just north of Union Station and
scheduled to include expanded transportation capabilities,
mixed use amenities, a hotel and the like.
The concept of Union Station as a modern intermodal center
was detailed in a 1967 report by the National Capital Planning
Commission, which envisioned combining intercity and intracity
bus service with intercity rail transportation.
Congress has strongly supported the intermodal concept with
funds in every transportation reauthorization bill since 1991
and in several annual appropriation bills. I secured $2.25
million for the study currently being conducted by the District
of Columbia Department of Transportation on the Intermodal
Transit Center at Union Station.
Four months ago, Chairman Jim Oberstar, Ranking Member John
Mica, and I sent a letter to the USRC encouraging relocation of
District's Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal located several
blocks to the north of Union Station. A state of the art
intermodal center is by definition a facility that allows
passengers to seamlessly choose and get access to all modes of
ground transportation. Our letter reiterated the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee's continued work on intermodal
development at Union Station.
I followed with another letter on May 2, 2008, to the USRC
asking for access for additional intercity bus companies, some
of which currently drop off and pick up passengers on already
crowded District streets for lack of a space to drop their
passengers. The response to our letter cited business
relationships as a reason why MegaBus was not allowed to
sublease a parking spot in the parking garage.
However, this is just the sort of arrangement that is
needed to help Union Station more rapidly fulfill the
congressional intermodal mandate while Burnham Place is being
constructed and integrated over the next decade. This and other
steps can be taken now to begin the process of converting what
today is only a transportation hub to the world class
intermodal center Congress has mandated. Nor did the response
to our letter mention any other way to accommodate MegaBus or
similar companies. Accommodation of low-cost intercity bus
operators should not be only incorporated into USRC's business
plan, but long ago should have been actively sought to increase
the intermodal options available at Union Station.
Reported first amendment violations and denial of access by
press and the public, as well as inconsistent messages by Union
Station personnel, are especially troubling. In June, a
photographer was detained by Union Station security personnel
for taking noncommercial photographs. A real-time display of
the confusion about access came when Channel 5 TV, a major
television outlet here, was shut down by security personnel
while interviewing the chief spokesman for Amtrak who was
explaining that photography was allowed. Although management
officials asserted that a ban on photography was not the
policy, Channel 5, National Public Radio, tourists and a host
of amateur photographers, have been shut down or given
inconsistent directions on photography at Union Station.
The evidence of confusion and arbitrary actions by security
personnel reflects the continuing absence of clarity concerning
public access. Union Station's study appears to be a case study
for the necessity of my bill, H.R. 3519, the Open Society with
Security Act, to assure public safety while maintaining the
highest level of free and open access to the public.
The Homeland Security Committee has already indicated an
interest in moving H.R. 3519, and it has been referred to our
Committee by the Parliamentarian. However, the Union Station
Redevelopment Corporation and the Union Station Management
Company are not alone responsible for the problems and issues
that have been reported and have arisen at Union Station. For
years, Congress has failed to provide the necessary oversight
and guidance. As Congress continues to invest in its intermodal
vision of Union Station, we have a responsibility to resume
oversight of the entire complex.
We welcome today's witnesses and look forward to hearing
their testimony.
I am pleased now to ask the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee for any remarks he may have.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for recognizing me. I am, I guess, an
ex officio Member of all the Subcommittees. I am not Sam
Graves, even though I wish I was as young and handsome as him.
I regret that he couldn't with us this morning.
I hadn't planned on being here, but I saw the topic and
couldn't resist being with Ms. Norton and joining her in I
think a very important oversight hearing on Union Station to
look at the management, public space issues and intermodal
access questions. I commend her for that.
Mr. Graves is not able to be with us because of connecting
flight difficulties. Someone ought to do something about that
in transportation, but that is the subject of another hearing.
But I do have his statement which I would like entered into the
record.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
Mr. Mica. Again, thank you for holding this hearing. I do
have a statement which I will submit for the record. But I
remember Union Station when I first came to Washington was as a
staffer back in the seventies, that was before Ms. Norton was
born. But actually I came back again, reoccurring in the early
eighties as Chief of Staff in the Senate. I will never forget
Union Station was an absolute disaster, birds flying around,
water leaking into it, a failed attempt at making it a visitors
center. It was absolutely beyond description.
It was through a public-private partnership and a
substantial amount of public money, too, investment that we
had, were able to complete, I think Elizabeth Dole was the
Secretary of Transportation, an absolutely magnificent
restoration and utilization of what has become a transportation
hub, a commercial center of activity, restoration of a
beautiful public building.
I am not going to get into who can photograph what. I will
leave that to Ms. Norton. There has always been controversy
about what could be exposed in Union Station dating back to, I
think it was Gaudens, who did the statues. They had the nude
males which they had to cover with the shields. Maybe now we
have to keep the press from uncovering our barest security
secrets, but I will let you deal with that.
My interest today is that we do conduct adequate oversight
of the private management in these public-private partnerships.
I was saddened to see that it took the developer, is it Akridge
Corporation, since 2006, when they planned to do additional
rights--I am sorry, they planned to do additional development
and secured air rights for a 3 million square foot mixed-use
development which would be a great addition on a comprehensive
intermodal station. What is stunning to me, as a former
developer, it is 2008, 2 years I guess to get some of that
resolved. I am sorry for the developer. Time costs money and we
don't see the projects evolving. But maybe we will hear more
about some of the trouble they encountered. I understand it has
to do with some of the height of the air rights and the issues
of how much footage you can get into that space, and certainly
when we enter into an agreement with a developer, the deal has
to make sense for the developer and the Federal Government and
also comply with some of the restrictions.
Hopefully we won't get ourselves into that pickle and they
can move forward with the intermodal terminal and this new
addition.
As they develop that and as they make improvements at Union
Station, one of my concerns, and Chairwoman Norton has also
expressed it, it is an intermodal center and that all modes be
accommodated at that location. She had written with my joining
her our desire to see our national surface transportation
carrier, most people don't realize this, but we do have one, it
is a private company, its name is Greyhound, it is actually a
private company that makes money and stays in business by
returning a profit, and I think we should do everything we can
to accommodate that carrier, whether it be Greyhound or if in
the future it is succeeded by some other private transportation
company or, if it has competition, whoever provides that
surface transportation should be located in not just Union
Station, but in any federally funded intermodal center in the
United States.
The time to dump--the time that we dump people who use
Greyhound or some other surface transportation at the edge of
town or in some inconvenient location has passed. These are not
Third World, third-class travelers. These are passengers who
should be accommodated with intermodal surface connections, and
we should not fund one dollar in public money for any
intermodal center, whether it is Union Station or anywhere
else, without making accommodations for these passengers.
They do it so cost-effectively and actually make a return
on investment, which is amazing sometimes in the realm of
government thinking. But the least we can do is make an
accommodation for that service.
So I came here this morning to make a plea, not only at
Union Station, but across the country. We do need to look at
these public-private partnerships. I advocate working with the
Chairwoman Norton. This is an incredible city to let Union
Station, whether it was 1980 or we have examples of the old
Post Office which has sat there for years and not been utilized
to its maximum, whether it is the Federal Trade Commission
building, the Apex building, or others. We can find solutions
that work and accommodate our public need, our public facility
requirements, and also enhance this great city and other great
cities in the process.
So, we need to look at these public-private partnerships
and make certain that we help in making them go forward, that
they are good deals for the taxpayer, good deals for the
developer and investors who are our partners.
So those are a couple of the points that I wanted to make
this morning. I am trying to see if there are any other points.
I think I have angered maybe a few people. Maybe we upset a
couple of folks with these radical ideas like good investment
of taxpayer dollars and convenience for the traveling public.
But, again, I can't do anything but compliment Ms. Norton for
her time and effort in trying to make these things work and be
more effective and responsive.
So I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Well, I thank the Ranking Member, and I
certainly thank the Ranking Member of the Full Committee for
attending this Subcommittee hearing. But it does speak to his
long involvement in the Union Station matter.
As I think his comments bear out, I remind the Committee
that the intermodal concept of Union Station has been a
perfectly bipartisan concept. When he was in the majority and I
was in the minority, we were on the same page, and we will
continue to be on the same page, particularly given the Federal
funds that are increasingly necessary to achieve that vision.
I agree with the Ranking Member about how long it took to
get the air rights. This was one of the most frustrating
matters that I have been involved in since I have been in
Congress. Obviously you have to let the parties negotiate, but
Mr. LaTourette was the Chair. He and I and the Ranking Member,
then Ranking Member Mr. Oberstar, met in order to press this
forward. It was such a waste that it took so very long.
That is why you will see Congress impatient with getting on
with the job of intermodal work and getting on with it well
before Burnham Place sees the light of day. This could be made
an intermodal transportation center now, right now, with what
it has, if there was the vision to do so on the part of those
in charge.
In order to simply lay the predicate, because I hate to ask
witnesses about what somebody said when the people who said it
are right here, so in order to lay the predicate for the first
amendment part of this hearing, I have asked Erin McCann, who
represents photographers who have been turned away, if she
would testify precisely what her experience was.
TESTIMONY OF ERIN McCANN, PRIVATE PHOTOGRAPHER
Ms. McCann. Hello. Chairwoman Norton, Members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today. I have a short statement, and then I will
be happy to answer any questions.
My name is Erin McCann, and I am an amateur photographer. I
am also an active member of a group called DC Photo Rights,
which exists to document and discuss incidents in which
photographers have been harassed by security officers or
police. These officers often mistakenly believe that taking
pictures in public places is illegal or requires a permit or is
an indication that the person holding the camera is somehow a
threat.
I have never been clear on why exactly a camera is
considered threatening. In the aftermath of the 2005 transit
bombings in London, for instance, officials appealed to the
public for snapshots taken before and after the attacks in
their search for clues.
An open photography policy can be a security team's best
friend. It also liberates security and police from the task of
investigating people like me, as I take photographs in the most
obvious way possible. With a 10-inch lens on my camera, there
is no disguising what I am doing.
In Washington, certain places have the reputation of being
unfriendly to photographers. In the 4 years that I have been
shooting in the city, Union Station has always been one of
those places.
In February, I began a series of phone calls and e-mails to
Amtrak and Jones Lang LaSalle Management to find out why. I
have included with my written statement a timeline of my
involvement and my frustrating search for answers. Often, my
calls and e-mails have resulted in being given conflicting
information, sometimes minutes apart by people in the exact
same office.
The statement also includes details of some of the
incidents in which photographers have been harassed, told
incorrect policies by misinformed station officials, and in
certain instances been threatened with arrest for daring to
take a simple snapshot of a national treasure. In almost every
incident, a guard or officer has wrongly told a photographer
that Union Station is private property and photography is not
allowed.
The reasons given for this fake policy vary. I was once
told that my camera is too professional. Others have been told
that the PATRIOT Act bans photography in train stations, a law
that I am sure would come as a surprise to the organizers of
the annual Amtrak station photography contest.
I have been stopped twice in the last 3 months while
photographing in the public areas of Union Station. Both were
after I received explicit assurances from Amtrak and Jones Lang
LaSalle Management that photography is allowed.
The most recent incident was Friday when an Amtrak employee
who refused to tell me her name or identify herself in any way
said the building was private property and that all photography
is prohibited.
For many tourists, Union Station is the first stop and the
first impression of the Nation's Capital. For a family to be
warned or even threatened upon arrival for simply taking photos
in one of the city's beautiful public places is reprehensible.
My interest now is the same as it was in February when I
first started asking questions: One, to understand what the
photography policy is at Union Station; two, to assure that if
there are restrictions on photography, they are clearly posted
throughout the building; three, to make sure that those
restrictions are fair, given the Station's unique ownership and
its role as a major gateway for thousands of the city's
visitors each year; and finally and most importantly, I want to
make sure that the private guards, Amtrak police and everyone
else in a position to interact with the public understands what
the policy is.
Despite repeated assurances from the management of Amtrak
and Jones Lang LaSalle, ill-informed station employees are
still taking it upon themselves to interpret the policies as
they see fit or to make up contradictory policies. Amtrak and
Jones Lang LaSalle have so far been unable to communicate the
policy to their security employees. I believe Washington,
D.C.'s train station deserves smart, well-trained, high quality
security, and my experience with its representatives so far has
been exceedingly disappointing.
Curious about how other cities and stations handle
photography, it took me 30 seconds on Google to come up with
the policy at Grand Central Terminal at New York City. They
post it right there on their Web site and they welcome
photographers with open arms.
It has taken over 6 months and dozens of conversations, not
to mention a congressional hearing, to understand the policy at
Union Station, and we still have no guarantee that when new
guards or officers are hired they too won't automatically
assume that a camera is a threat.
My hope is that after today visitors to Union Station will
be free to explore and photograph the building without being
viewed as lawbreakers. Security officers and Amtrak employees
should have more important things to do than investigate a
tourist with a camera.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Well, I am a Member of the Homeland Security
Committee, and the notion that security guards in a facility
like Union Station are busy keeping track of a photographer
rather than trained the way the airlines are training people to
spot those who may do us some damage is very distressing to
hear. But what is most distressing is to hear that you were
stopped twice, according to your testimony, in the last 3
months in public areas of the station.
Where were you?
Ms. McCann. The first incident was on, let me find my
actual timeline here, was in the beginning--middle of May, May
14. This was after the NPR photographer was stopped and
threatened with arrest.
Ms. Norton. The NPR photographers, do you know about that?
Ms. McCann. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Would you tell us about the NPR photographers?
Ms. McCann. Do you want me to do that first, and then tell
you my incidents?
Ms. Norton. Either way.
Ms. McCann. The NPR photographer, he was there as a private
citizen. He just happens to work for NPR. He was using a tripod
in the Great Hall. And as far as I have been able to tell from
Jones Lang LaSalle, tripod use is actually prohibited.
But once that issue was cleared up, he had I think four
separate security officers telling him conflicting statements
about why exactly he couldn't take photos. One said that it was
the tripod. One said it was the camera. Two or three of them
threatened him with arrest. I have a summary of the incident on
page 8 of my testimony, and it also includes a link to him.
Ms. Norton. Were those threatening with arrest security
officers or peace officers?
Ms. McCann. They were the ITC, the private security
officers contracted by Jones Lang LaSalle. So I read his post
and his account, and having spent several months and knowing at
least as far as management told me that photography was allowed
and knowing that security----
Ms. Norton. How did management relay to you that
photography was allowed? Was it in writing?
Ms. McCann. Yes. I got an e-mail from Joan Malkowski, who
is the Vice President for Union Station, from Jones Lang
LaSalle in I believe February. She said, "In general, we do
allow individuals to take pictures for their personal,
noncommercial use. However, from time to time it is necessary
to prohibit photography, depending on the situation." Then she
went on to say that using a tripod or taking professional
pictures without the express written permission of Union
Station management is prohibited.
What happened was they posted these signs around the
station forbidding tripod photography. My understanding is that
security guards read those signs and interpreted them to mean
that all photography was prohibited.
Ms. Norton. The security officers read what signs?
Ms. McCann. Jones Lang LaSalle posted some prohibitions
around the station. It was things like no running, no
skateboarding. And at the very bottom of those things they
prohibit in the station they include tripod photography or
taking professional pictures. These signs went up after I first
contacted Jones Lang LaSalle. I think they went up late March
or early April. They are unclear on the rights of private
photographers to take snapshots or artistic photos or anything
at all. The only thing that they prohibited was professional
photography.
Ms. Norton. Are you talking about the list, the 18
prohibited uses?
Ms. McCann. Yes, and I think tripod photography you see
there is 17 or 18 on that list.
Ms. Norton. On that list, of course, it goes on to say
"Union Station reserves the right to prohibit photography of
any kind, in their sole discretion."
Ms. McCann. Yes. That is where the confusion comes in.
Ms. Norton. The confusion, who wouldn't be confused about
it are the courts of the United States of America. This is a
public space, then you go from tripods, and, by the way, at our
discretion, whenever we feel like it, we can just, without
giving any indication of what kind of photography we are
talking about? This is pathetic.
The timeline that you laid out I think sends the message to
Union Station, you don't know who you are fooling with. These
are very serious, educated people, and that is why I put her
on. They are not simply reporting by hearsay. They have written
evidence of their own. They have your written evidence and you
are continuing to see these issues. Now, the next thing that is
going to happen is a lawsuit.
Ms. McCann. May I tell you about my specific two incidents?
The first came after the NPR photographer was stopped when I
was standing there with my camera, this is the camera that I
carry around. It has a very large lens on it. It is not a
professional camera. One of the guards who stopped me told me
that my camera was too professional.
Ms. Norton. What is a professional camera? You are a
photographer. What is a professional camera?
Ms. McCann. I am unclear on that. I know at one point I
asked, after a security guard told me my camera was too
professional, I asked Joan Malkowski if they were going to
distribute a list of specific cameras and lenses that were
allowed and were not allowed if that was the argument they were
going to make. And the guard that I spoke with that night, he
was very polite, but he was confused. He had gotten conflicting
information from me and from his superiors, and he just didn't
know.
So, that night I told him that I had been talking with Joan
Malkowski, and he tried to call her to get some background
information. He couldn't get in touch with her. She already
left for the day. He told me that because I could say her full
name and had clearly had some sort of interaction with her, he
would let me shoot that night. It was him and another guard.
And I got the impression if I hadn't dropped her name, I know I
would not have been allowed to take a photo that night. And I
was very upset when I left, because it wasn't about me, it was
about making sure this didn't happen to someone who hadn't
spent 6 months e-mailing management to try to get an answer.
The most recent incident that I encountered was last
Friday, and that was when I was standing in the Amtrak area,
and a woman at the Amtrak security kiosk, as soon as I pulled
my camera out at 6:45 in the morning, the woman at the Amtrak
security kiosk told me I had to put it away.
She said Amtrak is private property. I was not allowed to
take any photos anywhere in the building. She was speaking for
the Amtrak area and the Jones Lang LaSalle area. She said no
photography whatsoever anywhere in the building.
I asked her for her name. She was standing there with a
name tag at the Amtrak security kiosk. She turned her name tag
around and told me she did not have to give me her name. A
police officer, a uniformed Amtrak security officer came up
next to her, and took me aside and I chatted with him. I gave
him some of the background.
He called his supervisor, who told him that yes, I am
allowed to take photographs. I asked that officer what happens
when I leave, somebody else comes up and the woman who refused
to give her name interacts with another photographer or a
family of tourists just arriving down from New York on the
northeast regional train and are told to put their camera away?
This happens all the time. It depends on what guard is
there, who is working, what their impression of the policy is,
in Amtrak or the Jones Lang LaSalle area. They are just making
it up on the spot.
Ms. Norton. Your testimony concerning the guard, they are
the outward and visible sign of an outrageously pathetic
policy. They are carrying out a non-policy. They are doing
whatever they feel like doing. It raises very serious questions
about their training, and all of this goes back to the
management. People do what you tell them to do, what you train
them to do.
Do you believe that there is any new signage in Union
Station that clarifies the policy on photography or public
access?
Ms. McCann. Absolutely not. Right now the signs, when you
enter the buildings there are actually old signs that actually
say "no photography allowed." The Amtrak security officer I
spoke with on Friday, he referred to them as the old signs. He
also said that----
Ms. Norton. He said what? I am sorry?
Ms. McCann. The signs on the outside of the door----
Ms. Norton. How are those signs mounted?
Ms. McCann. I believe they are actually painted on the
glass.
Ms. Norton. So painted on the glass is the words "Union
Station is private property"?
Ms. McCann. I don't know if it actually says that. It does
say photography is not allowed. But he told me that since he
had been working there----
Ms. Norton. Otherwise known as written in stone.
Ms. McCann. Right. He told me that when he first started
working there, and his name tag said that he had been working
there since 2007, that when he first started, that photography
was not allowed anywhere in the station. His understanding was
that it had been prohibited for a very long time and had only
recently been allowed. So nobody quite knows when it was
allowed and when it wasn't allowed. But the signs on the
outside of the station do say prohibited and then the Jones
Lang LaSalle signs that are put up say that it is private
property, they reserve the right to restrict photography, no
tripods, those signs.
So right now there is absolutely no clear indication
anywhere in the building that photography is allowed. When a
photographer is stopped and they are asked--and they ask, you
know, where is this posted, security guards, at least the Jones
Lang LaSalle ITC security guards generally refer to the posted
signs saying "we reserve the right to prohibit photography."
Another photographer that I have spoken with in the last
couple of weeks was stopped in the Amtrak area and was told
that he--he was told that the whole building is private
property and no photography allowed. He asked for a list of
station rules and two Amtrak officers refused to give them to
him and one referred to the no photography rule as being an
unwritten rule.
So right now people are stopped and they have nowhere to
go, because the management who are actually in the building and
the people they will refer you to will tell you that no
photography is allowed.
When I first started making calls to Amtrak, the first
three or four people I spoke with told me photography wasn't
allowed. It was after I sort of became very upset and made a
pain of myself after learning about the Amtrak photography
contest that I finally asked to be transferred to somebody in
the corporate relations office who could explain it to me. She
told me that it appeared that the security, the Union Station
station manager and other people in the station were taking a
policy set up for news photography and applying it for all
photography.
What it is for news photography, if you wanted to do a news
story and go down on the tracks and get photos or video of the
train arriving, you do need an Amtrak escort as far as their
policy is concerned. But, again, employees are seeing this
policy for news or professional photographer and they are
applying it to anybody with a camera.
Tourists have been stopped. I have been stopped. I don't
really make a distinction between myself and a tourist. They
don't know that I live in D.C. when they are telling me I can't
photograph. Everybody there sort of makes up the policy on the
spot.
Ms. Norton. Ms. McCann, these intrusions into what would be
considered even in many private facilities ordinary kinds of
actions are particularly troubling to me as a public official
and someone who had some experience as a lawyer in first
amendment matters, who taught labor law where the notion of
what is a public place and what is a private place comes up all
the time, and where the courts have been clear about the
importance of the first amendment. Of course, the first
amendment could not be more important in a facility owned by
the people of the United States of America.
I have put you on first because I thought that Union
Station leaders should have the opportunity to hear directly
and it should not be a matter of my hearsay, that they should
hear directly the complaints that have come so they could
respond. The reason I thought I had to do that is that Union
Station has repeatedly said that it does not bar photography.
So while I did not know what your testimony would say, the fact
that you have taken the trouble to go through a timeline to
indicate precisely when you or others encountered, and
particularly you, because you have been real clear about your
own experience, encountered these violations of policy, this is
only fair so that Union Station, perhaps they don't know. In
law we have a notion know or should have known, but perhaps
they don't know. At this hearing, if they didn't know, they
found out, and they found out I think thanks to you and to what
is really very closely written and documented testimony.
Now, if it is not true, Union Station can come forward and
say it is not true. But in any case, they are certainly going
to have to respond.
As a Member of Congress who represents this city, I want to
offer my apologies to the amateur photographers who have
experienced this treatment in a facility that enjoys the
patronage of the Congress of the United States through funding.
We are having this hearing obviously not only because of your
complaints, but because we haven't had a hearing on Union
Station, and when you leave people on their own for decades
then they develop their own policies. That ceased today.
I thank you very much, Ms. McCann, for your testimony.
Ms. McCann. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Could we ask the President of the Union Station
Development Corporation to come forward, David Ball; the
Assistant General Manager of Jones Lang LaSalle, Incorporated,
Bryant Chambers; and the Counsel for the acquisition company,
Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation, Daniel Levy.
Why don't you begin, Mr. Ball?
TESTIMONY OF DAVID BALL, PRESIDENT, UNION STATION REDEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION; BRYANT CHAMBERS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, JONES
LANG LaSALLE, INC.; AND DANIEL LEVY, COUNSEL FROM KRISS AND
FEUERSTEIN L.L.P., ASHKENAZY ACQUISITION CORPORATION
Mr. Ball. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Members
and Members of the Subcommittee. I am David Ball, President of
Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, or USRC. I am very
pleased to be here this morning on behalf of USRC to testify
about management at Union Station, its intermodal uses, and
other important matters concerning the care and custody of
Washington's Union Station that has been entrusted with USRC. I
also would thank Ms. McCann for her testimony this morning.
USRC is a small office and we serve as the trustees for
this public building that is privately held.
First and foremost, Union Station is a train station and a
retail success for Washington, D.C. It is Washington's
intermodal transportation facility serving MARC, VRE, Amtrak,
WMATA buses and Metrorail. On an average day, there are over
1,200 taxi pickups and most likely an equal number of taxi
discharges at the station. About 12,000 tour buses a year park
in the garage and over 32 million people a year go in and out
of this station.
In 2005, USRC obtained a $38 million construction bank loan
to expand the capacity of the parking garage. In expanding the
garage, we are also created a separate area for rental cars
that allowed USRC to create the bus decks for buses only.
USRC is required to accommodate several parking market
segments in the garage due to existing contractual
relationships. Part of what we need to do is make available 600
conveniently located spaces for the retail use to provide a
parking validation program. We allowed the developer 75 spaces
for rental car parking and established a fee structure that
discourages long-term parking and encourages prompt turnaround.
These policies coexist with the requirement to make parking
available to Amtrak travelers. As to the parking garage that
has a capacity of about 600 cars, it normally reaches capacity
by 7:30 in the morning with Amtrak travelers.
Not unlike our station retail parking, whom we will hear
from later today at USI, who is attempting to create the right
mix of retail venues with their exciting redevelopment plans
for the station, USRC must work to identify the users of the
bus deck that will allow the station to maximize its intermodal
transportation possibilities.
On the bus deck, we work to accommodate the local and out-
of-state tour buses, the D.C. Circulator, FlexCars and WMATA.
We are in the early discussions with Greyhound concerning their
proposed tenancy at Union Station, the number of buses
required, the passenger express services, any boarding-waiting
area issues, along with security concerns at the station.
Greyhound, USI, Amtrak and USRC all must reach an agreement on
the use issues, as well as the economics of the deal.
We have had discussions with the team from the Capital
District Center concerning parking Capitol Hill's tour buses at
Union Station to help facilities visitors to the Capitol
building. We have also talked about running a shuttle bus from
Union Station to the Hill.
At the city's request, we provide in and out services for
tour buses that work with the city on a master plan for tour
bus parking. We have had early discussions with Akridge on how
best to maximize the use of the bus deck in their proposed
Burnham development plans. The garage cannot accommodate
everyone's needs, so we look forward to the results of the ITC
study to help us charter the Union Station position as the
city's intermodal transportation facility.
As noted in my written testimony, the success of Union
Station is derived from the Union Station Redevelopment Act of
1981, which was signed into law by President Reagan. Former
Chairman of the House and Transportation Infrastructure and
former Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta was the sponsor
and champion of the bill in the House. Without his efforts,
there would have been no redevelopment act and there would be
no money to complete the parking garage and there would not be
a redevelopment project. The Secretary of Transportation then,
Elizabeth Hanford Dole, secured the needed funding from Amtrak
and agreed to work with USRC to select a developer.
USRC is a nonprofit corporation and is governed by a board
of directors that sets the policies for USRC. The current board
consists of the Secretary of Transportation, the President of
Amtrak, the Mayor of the City, the President of the Federal
City Council, and the Federal Railroad Administrator.
We are proud of what this intermodal transportation center
has done for Capitol Hill and the city as a whole. A short list
of contributions to the city are we brought commercial and
office development to the area, the restoration of the Union
Station complex increased neighborhood real estate values,
Union Station now accounts for over 5,000 permanent jobs. In
2004 Union Station generated $9.5 million worth of sales tax;
in 2005, $9.9 million in sales tax; 2006, $10.6 million; and in
2007, about $10.7 million in sales tax for the city. Union
Station is a revenue generator for the city.
In closing, I am compelled to let you all know about the
proposed threat by the District of Columbia's Possessory
Interest Tax to Washington's Union Station and its continued
viability. In my written testimony, I provided information that
I have given before the City Council on our concerns with the
PIT.
I see my time is up. At this point Chairman Norton and
Members of the Committee, I want to thank you again for the
opportunity to speak before you today on behalf of Union
Station. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Ball.
Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Bryant Chambers. I am the
Assistant General Manager for Jones Lang LaSalle at Union
Station, and I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
testify on behalf of them about the management of Union Station
in particular.
Union Station is one the most successful public-private
partnerships in the history of the United States. In 1985, the
U.S. Government, acting through the Secretary of
Transportation, leased the property to Union Station
Redevelopment Corporation, USRC, a nonprofit District of
Columbia corporation formed to redevelop Union Station under a
ground lease. In turn, USRC subleased Union Station to Union
Station Invesco, LLC, known as USI.
In the United States, Jones Lang LaSalle Retail is the
largest third party regional shopping center manager, with a 50
million square foot portfolio of more than 100 regional malls,
strip centers, power centers, lifestyle centers, ground-up
development projects, mixed use centers, and transportation
terminals across 28 States.
Jones Lang LaSalle, the only real estate money management
and service firm named in Forbes magazine's 400 best big
companies for 3 consecutive years, has a portfolio of 1.2
billion square feet of property under management worldwide,
including more than 10,000 retail locations on four continents.
In 1986, Jones Lang LaSalle was awarded the development
management of Union Station. As a result, over 120 stores,
restaurants and a cinema were constructed, providing over
213,000 square feet of retail space to Union Station.
Today at Union Station, and since the grand opening in
1988, Jones Lang LaSalle has managed the asset for our clients.
In 2007, the leasehold interest was purchased by Union Station
Invesco, LLC, who retained Jones Lang LaSalle's management
services. Our role as a management firm includes client
accounting, financial services, skilled management and
marketing services.
In general, we oversee all contractor services at Union
Station. That includes security, cleaning and repairs, and
maintenance. Public events at Union Station are coordinated
through our office as well. We establish annual capital plans
for building improvements and repairs throughout the Station
and execute these plans when approved by ownership, USI and
USRC. In addition, tenant coordination for build-outs and
remodels is the responsibility of our management team.
Union Station is the national headquarters for Amtrak, as
earlier stated, and Amtrak leases 106,200 square feet of office
space and 63,800 square feet of operation space for waiting
rooms and customer services and ticket services.
Also, Union Station is the hub for the MARC train, which is
the Maryland Rail Commuter Train, and the VRE, the Virginia
Railway Express, and the most heavily traveled stop on the
Metro system.
There are now over 130 merchants in Union Station. The
property enjoys high sales performance and is one of the most
visited sites in Washington, D.C. Over 32 million visitors pass
through Union Station annually. Union Station serves as the
venue for special events, including inaugural balls, art
exhibits, concerts and other events that draw patrons to the
Station.
In 2007, Union Station restaurant operators and merchants
contributed approximately $10,631,100 in sales tax to the
District of Columbia. USI, through management agreements and
contracts for cleaning and security services, employs
approximately 124 employees.
Union Station ownership has cooperated with the city on
transportation and logistics, and city Metro buses will drop
off and pick up passengers in front of Union Station when the
Columbus Plaza is complete. Also, a bicycle center will be
located at the Station and the city will pay no rent for the
premises due to the service it provides the citizens and
patrons.
We actively participate as members of the Capitol Hill
Business Improvement District, and the General Manager serves
on the Board of Directors as an executive committee member.
Union Station is an active member in the Capitol Hill
Merchants Association, and Union Station is a member of the
Guild of Professional Tour Guides of Washington, DC.
We participate in the annual "ask me about Washington"
function in conjunction with the D.C. Chamber of Commerce. We
assist the Mayor's office, working with the D.C. Film
Commission, to increase awareness of Washington, D.C. and Union
Station through films such as "Along Came a Spider" and
"Wedding Crashers."
Union Station is an active member of the Washington
Convention and Tourism Corporation, recently rebranded
Destination D.C., to ensure that millions of regional, domestic
and international tourists know about the cultural diversity
and wealth of shopping and dining opportunities the city
affords them.
At this time, I am available for any questions that you may
have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy. Chairwoman Norton and the Members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before
you today on behalf of Union Station Invesco, LLC, relating to
the team behind Union Station Invesco, the operation and
management of Union Station, its plans for the future of Union
Station, and assessment of District of Columbia's Possessory
Interest Tax on Union Station and its likely effects.
Union Station Invesco, LLC, an entity of Ben Ashkenazy, was
the recent purchaser of the leasehold interest in Union
Station. With over 20 years of experience in real estate and as
chairman and CEO of Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp, he leads the
company's vision, and under his stewardship the firm has
developed into one of the leading real estate investors and
operators in the United States.
Headquartered in New York City, Ashkenazy Acquisition
Corporation is a private real estate investment firm focusing
on retail and office assets. With more than 70 properties, AAC
has superior performance history in purchasing and managing
premier assets. AAC has acquired over 13 million square feet of
retail, office and residential properties located throughout
the United States and Canada, some of which have been included
in my written testimony.
Bryant spoke to the specifics of the ownership structure,
so, very generally, on January 25, 2007, Union Station Invesco
acquired the leasehold interest from Union Station Venture II,
LLC. Prior to the date of closing, AAC was selected as
purchaser by USV and was approved by the USRC to acquire the
leasehold interests.
USI leases and operates certain parts of Union Station, and
in turn has multiple retail sub-subleases with individual
owners of over 120 stores and restaurants occupying Union
Station, as well as a sub-sublease with Amtrak for offices and
railroad operations.
Jones Lang LaSalle is currently engaged by USI to serve as
development manager and property agent. Jones Lang LaSalle has
been involved with Union Station for the past 20 years and has
been largely responsible for the revitalization of Union
Station.
Union Station is not only a historical landmark but an
architectural gem. One of USI's goals is to enhance the
functionality of the station while keeping the original concept
of a major intermodal transportation hub. The project will
reorganize pedestrian traffic flows to make the station more
navigable and ease congestion. Directional signage and
information screens will be added throughout the station.
Attached is Exhibit A to my written testimony and, as I
will address, are some of initiatives USI intends to undertake.
With the proposed addition of Greyhound Lines, Inc. Union
Station will further diversify the transportation option to its
visitors. Greyhound cuing would be accessed by a new mezzanine
deck directly connected to the parking garage along with rental
cars and other travel services. All Greyhound amenities would
be on the same level. The train concourse will be structured to
intuitively streamline the congestion around waiting areas, cue
areas and walkways.
In conjunction with the District of Columbia Department of
Transportation, a new bicycle transit center will be installed
at the west end of the property. The new bicycle center is
being built to provide convenience and access to commuters and
visitors alike wishing to travel within the city by bicycle.
USI and its architects continually work with the USRC,
Amtrak and Akridge to improve Union Station and for the
addition of Burnham Place, which will be developed utilizing
the air rights located over the train tracks at Union Station.
Additional improvements being undertaken in conjunction
with Amtrak and the USRC are the installation of security
bollards around the perimeter of the premises.
Finally USRC is in agreement with the National Park
Service, District of Columbia, and USRC for the enhancements to
be made to Columbus Plaza adjacent to Union Station. At part of
the overall improvement project, city metro buses will have a
convenient location front and center for passengers boarding
and drop-off.
As David briefly mentioned in his written testimony, I also
feel compelled to briefly discuss and call to your attention
the possessory interest tax. The District of Columbia's
possessory interest tax legislation is the largest threat to
the future success of Union Station and has the potential to
unwind two decades of revitalization. The success of Union
Station as an intermodal transportation facility is based on a
careful and strategic balance of budgeting for ever-growing
costs of maintaining, securing and operating the century old
national landmark, preserving the crucial tenant mix at Union
Station and the cost to improve Union Station as an intermodal
transportation facility. USI has been working with the District
of Columbia City Council and has appealed to the Board of Real
Property Assessment and Appeals to save Union Station from the
inevitable downward spiral it may experience as a result of the
PIT assessment.
However, fearing the worse and without some kind of relief
it is unlikely that USI will be able to pay that amount
together with all of the other increased operating costs,
security costs and improvements that are required to maintain
and improve Union Station as an intermodal transportation
facility.
Chairwoman Norton and the Members of the Subcommittee, I
thank you again for the opportunity to speak before you and
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. While it is fresh in your mind, let me ask each
of you to respond to the testimony of Ms. McCann.
What is your reaction to her testimony?
Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball. I guess basically I am just embarrassed that we
don't have a standard policy that people in general understand
how to go through the process. I don't think it is a hard
policy to identify. I do know, over the years, we have gone
back and forth in terms of what is required for a person to
take pictures. After 9/11, we have gone through different
reiterations of how security should be done while people are
taking pictures. It seems like a very simple matter. I talked
to Joan Malkowski. She believes that she has given out the
right answer.
Ms. Norton. I am sorry, who?
Mr. Ball. Joan Malkowski, the vice president of Jones Lang
LaSalle, the general manager whom Ms. McCann spoke about in her
statement.
Ms. Norton. So if you get to the right official, you might
be okay.
Mr. Ball. Yeah, you might be okay.
As in any building, like I said, there is over 5,000 people
that work in the station in the course of a business day, and
you may get many different answers on any issue at a given
time.
But that is not an excuse. If there are signs up there that
are old or whatever, those signs need to be replaced. And I
think, I have talked to Bryant, I don't think that it is a hard
policy to sort of figure out exactly what is required. I don't
set that policy, but I am very certain that, between Bryant and
Daniel, they can probably get a clear answer, and each may go
to a Web page and find out what information you need. At that
point, I will leave it to these gentlemen.
Ms. Norton. Well, first of all, Mr. Levy, you are counsel,
is that right?
Mr. Levy. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Has this matter ever been, the matter of
photography, ever been formally presented to you, and what is
your legal opinion, sir?
Mr. Levy. It has never been formally presented to me as an
issue.
Ms. Norton. So what are you there for?
Mr. Levy. Excuse me?
Ms. Norton. What are you there for? You are the counsel.
Mr. Levy. Why am I here?
Ms. Norton. You are listed as counsel.
Mr. Levy. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. If not to you, then to whom?
Are you a lawyer, Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball. No, Ms. Norton I am not.
Ms. Norton. Are you a lawyer Mr. Chambers?
Mr. Chambers. No, Chairwoman.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy. If you are asking for my legal opinion, I can
give you my legal opinion. My legal opinion is that, yes, the
building is owned by the Federal Government. However, they
conveyed a leasehold interest to Union Station and in turn--to
the USRC, and in turn the USRC conveyed a leasehold interest to
us.
Ms. Norton. So your testimony is that because we leased the
building--you may want to finish that sentence. Because the
Federal Government leased, who owns the building, leased it to
a private party, fill in the blank, sir.
Mr. Levy. I am not entirely sure what you are asking me.
Ms. Norton. Well, you know----
Mr. Levy. Are you asking me whether it is a public or
private building?
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Levy, you are the counsel. You say
you have never been consulted on this policy. Don't you see why
there is confusion here?
Mr. Levy. I mean, I would just like to call your attention
to the fact that we recently acquired the leasehold interest in
Union Station.
Ms. Norton. When did you acquire the leasehold?
Mr. Levy. In January of last year.
Ms. Norton. How long have you been counsel?
Mr. Levy. Since about that time.
Ms. Norton. Did you hear Ms. McCann speak of very recent
contradictory guidance and incidents brought to the attention
of management? Is that enough time for you to have moved
forward with a policy?
Mr. Levy. It is certainly a problem that needs to be
addressed.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers. I would actually like to address several of
the comments that were made in the testimony.
As someone more on the ground, I think I have a little bit
more comprehensive information that may make this--we--
actually, I was aware of the e-mails that were being sent back
and forth by Mrs. McCann. And she is correct in stating that
there was confusion. And I also speak on behalf of IPC Security
that we hired to provide the security for the building. She is
right in stating that there was confusion and that there were
standards that were improperly, if not inconsistently, enforced
throughout the building.
I have actually taken proactive steps to combat those
issues in the station. Number one, I would like to state that I
was not aware of her most recent issues that she has had with
the Amtrak security. I am not able to speak on behalf of Amtrak
security, but for the purpose of this meeting, that will be
followed up. We actually sit, Mr. Ball and I sit on a committee
with all the stakeholders in the building.
Ms. Norton. And of course, Amtrak is on the same board----
Mr. Chambers. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Norton. --with everybody else?
Mr. Chambers. So I will personally follow up the issue with
them.
Ms. Norton. I am not trying to----
Mr. Chambers. Now, in----
Ms. Norton. Go ahead.
Mr. Chambers. In reference to the standard being unclear, I
have actually redrafted the standard, which is why I am
probably a little bit more qualified to address that to make it
more clear, to make it understood, that photography is most
certainly welcome inside the building.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chambers, you indicated you were not a
lawyer?
Mr. Chambers. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Levy is a lawyer. I am not sure Mr. Levy
would feel competent to draft a policy. And I say this only
because this is a public-private facility. I don't know if you
are aware of the NLRB cases, but the case law is replete with
mall cases, for example, where First Amendment rights were
upheld in what looks to be entirely private space, sir, unions
being allowed to picket and the First Amendment being cited as
well as the National Labor Relations Act. So the reason I bring
this to your attention--in fact, let me say what I appreciate.
See, what I didn't appreciate was reiteration of the policy
that, well, we let cameras in here, what is wrong with these
fools, when in fact we continue to get reports. That is what I
didn't appreciate.
All I ask those who come before us to do is to indicate
that they will in fact respond accordingly. That is really--I
am not asking you to go through the process here now. So I am
going to ask the three of you together to get at least the
outline of--this is a difficult issue, but not nearly as
difficult as you think--get the outlines of the policy for
photography in Union Station where it will be posted. I am
going ask you to give that to outside counsel, meaning somebody
who has perhaps practiced before the Supreme Court or before
the Federal Courts and is familiar with the unbroken line of
cases about; one, public access, and two, First Amendment
rights.
This is quite a special field that, Mr. Levy, I don't
expect you to be an expert in every field of law, but I do
expect that any legal opinion will exercise a presumption in
favor of public access, which includes photographers. I am not
even going to get into commercial versus noncommercial types of
cameras because that is so pathetic that I don't think it
deserves elaboration. There are narrow instances, the operative
word is narrow, in which you can forbid property in a space
leased by the United States Government. And if you don't
believe me, sue me. But we are not going to sit here and have
complaints come back and forth about this. And I ask you to, 30
days, get us the outlines of a policy; within 60 days, get us a
policy. We want to know where the policy will be posted, and
let me move on, because photography was not meant to be the
centerpiece of this at all. It is just the piece that most
indicates that there may be problems at Union Station and that
oversight is necessary.
Mr. Ball, who is on the board of the corporation, the
managing corporation?
Mr. Ball. For USRC, it is the U.S. Secretary of
Transportation, Ms. Peters; President of Amtrak, Mr. Kummant is
on board; Mayor of the City; President of Federal City Council
represented by Edmond Cronin, who is President of the
Washington Real Estate Investment Trust; and the Federal
Railroad Administrator. We have a five-board member panel--
five-board panel.
Ms. Norton. What was the last one?
Mr. Ball. Administrator of the Federal Railroad
Administration.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Ball, you have just given the names of--was
it five people?
Mr. Ball. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Four of whom are public officials.
Mr. Levy, I ask you to keep that in mind when you cite the
leasehold. The board is governed almost exclusively by public
officials in this legislation long before I got here
reinforcing congressional intent about this facility. We are
very appreciative of the public-private nature of this
facility. But, of course, I think most of us would have
difficulties with this notice at Union Station that Channel 5
delivered to us: Union Station is private property. The
following depicts the rules of conduct for Union Station.
Who is responsible for drafting this document, Mr. Levy?
Mr. Levy. I think it preceded our purchase of Union
Station.
Ms. Norton. Have you--when you take over a business, you
don't look at all their documents, particularly when the
business is governed by Federal law, to see if you are in
compliance?
Mr. Levy. We do, however this isn't your typical shopping
mall.
Ms. Norton. This is what?
Mr. Levy. This is not your typical shopping mall or
commercial property where you have----
Ms. Norton. All the more reason for you to look closely at
your obligation.
Mr. Levy. I agree.
Ms. Norton. You just heard me list four out of the five
members being public officials. Why do you think Congress did
that?
Mr. Levy, the notion that this isn't an ordinary shopping
mall, I also commend you to the ordinary shopping malls in
which the courts, including the Supreme Courts, have said, you
have got to let people picket in there and exercise their First
Amendment rights in there. So you needn't cite this public-
private partnership when the law has even allowed, in many
circumstances, not all, but many circumstances, the exercise of
First Amendment rights in private mall spaces. That is why I
say you need outside counsel on this important issue.
Mr.--all three of you, perhaps. I don't know who can best
answer this question. What is the long-term plan for Union
Station? We understand that you are changing the mix of retail
there, that there is, if anything, a wholesale makeover going
on. The Committee is interested in the details of the makeover.
Mr. Ball. Ms. Norton, I will start out.
Union Station has probably had the same type of retail in
it since it has opened up for the last 20 years. It is a
customary practice in the shopping center business that every
couple years, 15, 20 years, you sort of do a look at your
inventory, look at the type of retail you have.
Ms. Norton. I will just say, you are absolutely right that
the----
Mr. Ball. And make it competitive----
Ms. Norton. You are absolutely right that--and we welcome
anything you might do.
Mr. Ball. So if you take a look at what has happened on 7th
Street, even up in Chevy Chase, it is time for a remix to make
a different set of--to revitalize the station a little bit,
so----
Ms. Norton. We don't object. You understand the basis for
my question. I am asking you for details, far from saying there
should not be changes. I am saying we are unaware of the
changes, and therefore I am asking you for details concerning
the change.
Mr. Ball. Okay. Then I will probably need to let him speak
because I can only paint a broad picture. I can talk about
Union Station as a whole, in general. I can talk about the
things we are trying to do in terms of the parking garage. The
leasing responsibility goes over to USI. Our responsibility at
USRC is to look at their plans and get them to through the
Commissioner of Fine Arts. But if you want a detailed response,
then I will have to leave that to the developer.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chambers.
Mr. Chambers. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Have you any response to the details of the
makeover?
Mr. Chambers. We actually, as a management company, do not
handle the leasing. I would have to defer to Mr. Levy.
Ms. Norton. All right. Let us pass the buck down to Mr.
Levy.
Mr. Levy. Are you asking with respect to tenants or with
respect to all types of improvements?
Ms. Norton. Sir, I can only ask you a general question,
because I have no idea what kind of makeover is intended, nor
am I objecting to it. Mr. Ball was exactly right. I am a
Washingtonian. They can't make over 7th Street fast enough for
me. So that is not my issue. In fact, I have no issue. I seek
information.
Mr. Levy. Although unfinalized, the idea is to create a
state-of-the-art intermodal transportation facility. One of
those ideas--and if you look at--I don't know if you have my
written testimony before you, but the back pamphlet, Exhibit A,
will delineate some of those ideas. The main grasp of the
improvements are to improve our congestion problem in Union
Station, make the station more navigable. And if you would like
to turn to it, if you have it, I am happy to go through some of
them, or if you have any specific questions, I can fill them
in.
Ms. Norton. If you would summarize because those are
interesting. And we are very pleased to have these pictures for
the record. But some of these pictures go to things that can
only be done when Akridge & Company get in there. And you are
undertaking a makeover now, aren't you?
Mr. Ball. Well, Ms.----
Ms. Norton. Are you about to change in some ways the
existing facility? That is what I am talking about. I am not
talking about the facility somewhere down the line.
Mr. Ball. I am not certain what you may have in your hand
now, but I do know what I have seen so far of the plans shows
some grand space in the station, the possibility of working
with Amtrak because Amtrak has the area----
Ms. Norton. So the new glass store fronts, for example,
added to the back mezzanines.
Mr. Ball. Right, those mezzanines, yes, those are some of
the things that they talk about.
Ms. Norton. Will that bring more retail, more stores?
Mr. Ball. It actually will help circulation more. So it is
not so much about getting more square footage. It is about
having people move from one part of the building to the other.
Ms. Norton. You can do that before----
Mr. Ball. Well, Akridge is a separate issue. And their work
is what their work is. We can still move in the station
independently of their work, but we have talked to them because
there will be some places where there can be an opportunity to
have a joint connection between the two.
Ms. Norton. Well, you have at the bottom Mr. Ashkenazy--I
mean, the Ashkenazy Corporation. Please forgive me, I think I
have called the corporation several different kinds of things.
It says lower level looking up to street level, new retail
spaces replace existing movie theater.
Mr. Ball. Right. Well, movie theaters are basically losing
money. They don't work in Union Station.
Ms. Norton. For themselves, or for----
Mr. Ball. Well, for the station in general. They don't pull
the same type of crowd, because they don't pull the same type
of crowd; you have the same number of people shopping the
stores.
Ms. Norton. So, in other words, we are not going to go to
the movies at Union Station anymore. That I have no Federal
jurisdiction over.
Mr. Ball. I am a native Washingtonian, and I don't go there
often either to the movies.
Ms. Norton. Well, I do go because I live on Capitol Hill.
So you don't intend to have other--you are going to have other
retail there?
Mr. Ball. I think for the developer, they are actually
trying to figure out what is the best mix, what actually works
at Union Station. How do you bring people back to Union
Station?
Ms. Norton. Do you have a consultant doing that sir?
Mr. Ball. I don't have the consultant. That is the USI
folks that have the retail responsibility.
Ms. Norton. Who?
Mr. Ball. Ashkenazy.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Levy, who is doing this work?
Mr. Levy. What is that?
Ms. Norton. Obviously, you are doing some kind of market
survey?
Mr. Levy. That is right. And we do that in-house. That is
what our business is, to evaluate----
Ms. Norton. So what have you determined thus far?
Mr. Levy. Well, thus far, what David spoke about, the
feeders are underutilized and----
Ms. Norton. So what kind of retail do you think, for
example, in the basement might increase the utilization?
Mr. Levy. I don't think the idea is to replace the tenant.
I think, obviously, working with the Commission of Fine Arts it
is to create a walkway that would allow more light in to our
food court and maybe upgrade the food court and make it more
inviting than it is right now.
Ms. Norton. So you do anticipate food courts, food down
where you have food now?
Mr. Levy. Yeah. We do anticipate--yes, we do anticipate
having that food court. The only change there would perhaps be
creating a walkway downstairs under the center cafe.
Ms. Norton. But the movie theaters wouldn't be there, so
what would replace the movie theaters?
Mr. Levy. Stairways, a walkway downstairs.
Ms. Norton. Oh, goodness. So you are willing to give up
whatever attraction they have and to simply replace it with
infrastructure?
Mr. Levy. Because the plus side after creating that kind of
traffic may encourage our retailers and our food courts.
Ms. Norton. Well, it is your business, so you must know
what you are doing. But are you going to have the same food
courts down there?
Mr. Levy. Perhaps.
Ms. Norton. I am going to go to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
I have a few questions, and then you may have additional
questions you seek answers for.
Let me just get in time and space on the redevelopment
project. Everything is in place to move forward with the
additional development, the 3 million square feet, is that
correct? Would Mr. Levy or Mr. Ball?
Mr. Ball. That is a completely different project. What I
believe you are referring to is the Akridge project----
Mr. Mica. Where is that?
Mr. Ball. That is over top the air rights. That is between
the Union Station parking garage and the FCC building.
Mr. Mica. Is everything in place for that?
Mr. Ball. I can't answer that question. That is Mr. Levy.
Mr. Mica. You are not involved. You are just involved in
the current management?
Mr. Levy. Correct.
Mr. Ball. And these are actually physically separated parts
that the developers have to work together to determine how best
to connect in certain areas, how best to get the right synergy
between the two projects. They are separate entities, but we do
communicate with the development partners.
Mr. Mica. It is going to be part and parcel though to the
existing station?
Mr. Ball. It will be connected because we have negotiated
access between the two properties, so they will----
Mr. Mica. Is that the property that would have the
Greyhound facility?
Mr. Ball. Currently Greyhound has had discussions with USRC
as well as USI. Greyhound would like their presence to be
inside of Union Station. The Ashkenazy Group has taken a look
and has identified the possibility of creating a mezzanine
space in what is Amtrak's current waiting area, a mezzanine
space above the Amtrak's waiting area to house a Greyhound
ticket counter there.
Mr. Mica. So it is not in then this new 3 million square
foot addition, or is it? Would it be? We don't know?
Mr. Ball. That is the best answer, yeah. We have identified
the possibility of it being within Union Station. Again, you
know, they can park buses in the Union Station parking garage.
They could possibly have a ticket counter within the station.
Mr. Mica. I couldn't imagine a 3 million square foot
addition to not be interconnected to the current Amtrak
facility. But you are saying there will be that connection,
right?
Mr. Ball. They are separate entities, correct, yeah.
Mr. Mica. I know that, but the question----
Mr. Ball. It is almost like if you are a city block and you
have two office buildings side by side. They may have a
connected atrium; they may not. At this point, I think the
plans, some are still fluid. And both developers, the Akridge
developer as well as the Ashkenazy developer, have talked.
Mr. Mica. Again, it will enhance the Amtrak project to be
interconnected with the new project. Wouldn't it be a benefit
to both?
Mr. Ball. I am not a developer. Yes, it could be.
Mr. Mica. Pardon?
Mr. Ball. Yes, it could be.
Well, some deals with, in terms of when you take a look at
the property, some of the elevations don't line up. There are
different elevations in terms of where access points are,
physical impediments inside. So those are some engineering
details that really need to be taken a look at. In concept,
everything seems to be very good.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, to me, it would--the air space is
being--who is granting the air space lease? Is that you all or
the Federal Government or who, Amtrak?
Mr. Ball. Federal Government, if I understand your question
right. Akridge has purchased air rights from the Federal
Government.
Mr. Mica. I can't imagine anyone allowing a development of
that not to be accessible to your existing----
Mr. Ball. There is a connection between the Akridge air
space and the Union Station project.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, to me, in our interest, I mean--and
we are giving--if the Federal Government has title to this
property, why you wouldn't have a new 3 million square foot
complex interconnected or inter accessible that would make it
accessible to both, I just can't imagine that. But I guess
every day you get surprised around here.
The improvements that you are talking about at Union
Station, first of all, okay, you are operating the station,
right, Mr. Levy?
Mr. Levy. Well, yes, we are managing and operating, along
with JLL.
Mr. Mica. Okay. And the corporation stills owns it, and
they are the people that are actually doing the administration
of the leases, et cetera, deciding future uses?
Mr. Levy. Yes.
Mr. Mica. The current Union Station development
corporation, are they showing a profit or annual--what is their
bottom line at the end of the last few years?
Mr. Ball. USRC is a nonprofit corporation.
Mr. Mica. I know, but you either make money or you lose
money.
Mr. Ball. No, we make money by the lease structure.
Mr. Mica. You do?
Mr. Ball. Yes, we do.
Mr. Mica. Is that the money you are pouring back into these
improvements that have been described, that the Chair showed
for new ticket counters, for the bike racks, for the food
courts, are you pouring that money back in?
Mr. Ball. No, we are not. I mean, the way the lease is
structured----
Mr. Mica. They do it.
Mr. Ball. Yes, they do it. We have some capital
responsibilities as USRC. We have the responsibility to make
certain that the historical integrity of the building is
maintained.
Mr. Mica. So you are doing the bike stuff and all of that?
Mr. Ball. The bike stuff is being done by the District of
Columbia Government with some financial support by USRC.
Mr. Mica. I am a has-been developer, but I looked at your
bike racks there, and it looks like a nice--I can't tell
whether that is glass or some sort of awning cover.
Mr. Levy. It is glass enclosed.
Mr. Mica. Yeah, that will look like crap in a little while.
I would go back and--you have a historic building, and if you
build a bike rack, build something that goes with the building
that doesn't look like it is going to look like a dust bin.
Forget--well, just again, I think you could do something a
little bit more conducive to the space.
The food courts, has anybody here eaten down in the food
courts lately? Okay. Let me tell you my last experience. I went
down to the food court. I was going to catch like a train. I
got there. I got there real early, so I go down to have some
lunch in the food court rather than eat off--I would say I got
panhandled at least four times downstairs. The food is pretty
good. It was----
Ms. Norton. They were too busy with photographers.
Mr. Mica. Now, if they would stop harassing the
photographers and get a little bit of order. I mean, I even
offered to buy the people lunch. They didn't want it. They just
want the cash because they are going to go buy drugs or
whatever. But you guys run the place. Stop the panhandlers down
where people are trying to--what?
Mr. Ball. I mean, that is a very serious point.
Mr. Mica. I am telling you, I am a Member of Congress
sitting there. They panhandled the living hell out of me. I
haven't been back since because it was an unpleasant
experience.
Mr. Ball. We work on that. That is even tougher than the--
--
Mr. Mica. What?
Mr. Ball. That is an even tougher issue than the
photographers.
Ms. Norton. Why is it tougher? I am sorry, were you----
Mr. Mica. No, I yield.
Mr. Ball. No, just in terms of they, the panhandlers, are
also citizens, you know. And you know, it is a delicate issue
just to work with them in terms of, you know, you just can't
kick them out. That is not allowed.
Ms. Norton. Well, wait a minute. You can kick photographers
out, but you can't kick the panhandlers out.
Mr. Ball. I follow you. I will stop.
Ms. Norton. I will go back to the Ranking Member in a
second, but I have to make the distinction.
Mr. Levy is very quick to cite to me the private facility
notion. But when it comes to panhandlers on this, quote,
private facility, then of course you have problems kicking them
out, and I must say, with some risk to your own bottom line
since you don't get Mr. Mica going again. But the distinction
is this. In the streets of D.C., we cannot stop people from
panhandling. That is entirely public. I just want to know if
your answer to the Ranking Member is that you don't have the
legal authority to do so or you haven't figured out how to do
it; which?
Mr. Levy. You know--go ahead.
Mr. Chambers. As far as, just to take you through the
procedure, because this is an ongoing issue that we have inside
the station, where our security will address--you know, we do
prohibit panhandling, as you called it, solicitation, inside
the building. The challenge that we face is our security firm
does not have arresting powers. Not that you can necessarily
arrest somebody for doing such. But we reprimand an individual
for soliciting; tell them to stop.
Mr. Mica. I have got a suggestion for you.
Now, anyone who has been on Capitol Hill, if you go over
here to, is it First and C, in front of the Capitol Hill Club
where you come up out of the metro station. Do you know where
that intersection is?
Mr. Chambers. Correct.
Mr. Mica. There is an officer there. His name is Officer
Thompson. And anybody who is familiar with Capitol Hill, you
don't jaywalk at that corner. You don't get out of order in any
way because Officer--you do not even cross when the light
doesn't have the little people sign on it because Officer
Thompson enforces the law very strictly. I heard he is going to
retire the end of this year. You ought to sure as hell
interview him about going over to Union Station and enforcing
some of the rules for folks that are trying to have a--would
you take your family there?
Mr. Chambers. I have.
Mr. Mica. I won't even go back because of the harassment I
experienced. You are talking about shedding a little light on
Union Station. I am talking about just getting some order. In
fact, maybe you could have a bus service bring them over and
take them down to the cafeteria here in the Hart Building and
let them panhandle among the Members of Congress and the staff
that eat in the Rayburn cafeteria. I have got a whole host of
suggestions.
But again, you know, I am busting your chops a bit. But I
really would like to see the place succeed. It has succeeded
well. The same thing I guess probably happened with the movie
theaters. I would never go to a movie theater because of the
harassment there.
Mr. Chambers. That is more along the lines of just other
opportunities to go in the city in better theaters, quite
frankly.
Mr. Mica. Maybe it is difficult because it is down in the--
--
Mr. Chambers. Yeah, I mean, if you go to any theater
nowadays with the stadium city, it is not something that is
doable within our premises.
Mr. Mica. Well, the other thing, I can't express enough
encouragement for, again, co-locating all transit, including
the private carriers, in any reconfiguration, whether it is a
new extended facility that is connected adjacently or the
existing facility if there is a rehab. So just a couple of
points and a little bit of harassment. I will yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for that real-life example.
I haven't had quite that experience.
Mr. Mica. Could I invite you to lunch over there some time?
I am serious. I will take you down there. We will do it. We
won't tell them when we are coming. And then I will get that
photographer, wherever she is. She can come and take a picture
of us and then our friends that we acquired to panhandle.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Well, we are having a little fun at your
expense. But we sit here also to assist you and to help you in
any way you want to.
I must say, Mr. Chambers, when I heard you say you had no
arrest power, that is right, because security guards don't have
arrest power, I couldn't help but think about photographers who
were threatened with arrest by your security guards. I couldn't
help but think of that example----
Mr. Chambers. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. As you gave us for the excuse of not getting
panhandlers out.
Let me be clear, we were not suggesting that people who are
hungry be arrested. That was not what we had in mind. Normally,
this kind of problem, because you say it has been a chronic
problem----
Mr. Chambers. For the Hill in general.
Ms. Norton. --would cause a corporation to do would be to
get some advice from people who know something about homeless
people about how to proceed.
Mr. Chambers. We do.
Ms. Norton. So you have a chronic problem. Who does your
advice come from, sir?
Mr. Chambers. We actually have from the Capitol Hill bid.
They actually have a homeless ambassador who deals specifically
with these folks. And they advise us, and they also advise the
members that are homeless where they can find shelter.
Ms. Norton. You need somebody who has--these people feed
people.
Mr. Chambers. Correct.
Ms. Norton. And we love it that they feed people.
That is not the kind of advice you need. You need advice
about how to in fact get panhandlers off the property short of
arrest. I recognize about the limits of arrest, and I wish you
wouldn't cite or tell your security guards that they don't have
arrest power. You bother me with your security guards, because
somebody is going to sue this corporation, Mr. Levy, for the
way in which these security guards are performing. Who is in
charge of training security guards at Union Station?
Mr. Chambers. It is actually the training is handled
internally by the company that we hire. They actually have a
training program that they go through. It is required by their
corporation, IPC.
Ms. Norton. Well, have you had enough evidence here today
that your security guards are poorly trained?
Mr. Levy. I think it merits a discussion with IPC, and we
are going to have a discussion with them.
Ms. Norton. Well, I am going to ask you to submit within 30
days a plan for retraining each and every security guard now at
Union Station and for indicating what the training program will
be for new security guards. I suggest you get an outside
consultant who knows something about how to train security
guards. We don't want--after this hearing, we expect these
problems to go away. Let me ask--let me ask this question. I
was asking about the makeover, and understanding that, just as
we applauded the arrival of businesses, you would want to look
again, but it looks like basically you are doing changes in
infrastructure.
Are you planning to change any of the tenants who are
there, particularly long-term tenants?
Mr. Levy. No plans have been finalized. We are still in the
midst of coming up with that final plan. I don't want to kind
of divert attention, but we are dealing with the possessory
interest tax right now, which can be determinative what our
future plans are.
Ms. Norton. What can be determinative?
Mr. Levy. The possessory interest tax.
Ms. Norton. What does that have to do with tenancy of
people who have been there for some period of time?
Mr. Levy. Because we have to have enough money to run the
station.
Ms. Norton. Well, you mean the people who have been there
for some period of time won't pay what it takes as part of
their leases? I don't understand that.
Mr. Levy. Well, in determining----
Ms. Norton. We are not getting into the business of the
District of Columbia here, so you can put that aside. We don't
overturn what the District of Columbia does. And I am asking
you a question that has nothing to do with that. I am simply
trying to find out what is your policy with respect to long-
term tenants?
Mr. Levy. And my answer is that it is still being
finalized. We still haven't come up with a final plan as to the
long-term leasing goals of Union Station.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Levy, I have received a letter from a
colleague that he sent on June 16th, writing on behalf of B.
Smith's Restaurant. This is a well-known restaurant located in
Union Station for some years. And other Members of the
Congressional Black Caucus approached me with respect to B.
Smith in particular. The concern was, you can lease to who you
want to, we understand that, but the concern was that if you
have a business and you see a makeover going on, the absence of
notice with no opportunity to prepare for possible relocation
would be not in the interest of anybody concerned. It would be
very poor business practice. That is why I am asking you. And
you told me you didn't expect big changes in the basement. Do
you expect big changes anywhere else in the restaurant? Because
by not even responding to letters--you did not even respond.
Mr. Ashkenazy did not even respond to a letter of June 16th
from Congress Member Elijah Cummings, who has brought this
matter to the attention of the 43-member Congressional Black
Caucus. So it just escalated simply because there was no
response. There was July 16th, what date is this, a letter from
Alan Sills to B. Smith Restaurant. Letters were followed up
with several telephone calls. Would you tell us whether those
phone calls have helped this particular restaurant understand
how it should proceed?
Mr. Levy. I can tell you what our ordinary course of
business is. We frequently receive requests--I believe that was
a request for a renewal, is that correct, renewal of lease?
Ms. Norton. I am not even aware. I suppose so.
Mr. Levy. I don't have it in front of me, so I will just
assume that that is what it is. And I know that our company----
Ms. Norton. Extension of their lease currently ends in
2009.
Mr. Levy. Right. May 31, 2009.
Ms. Norton. For an additional term.
Mr. Levy. And we frequently get those types of requests,
and they are answered in the ordinary course of business.
Ms. Norton. Well, this wasn't answered in the ordinary
course of business.
Mr. Levy. Well, we typically don't negotiate.
Ms. Norton. This is 2008, and it is almost gone.
Mr. Levy. I understand.
Ms. Norton. This is a major restaurant. If it is going to
have to move, don't you think they deserve some notice? How
much notice do you think they should have?
Mr. Levy. Well, I can tell you for certain that we will
give them whatever notice they are entitled to under their
lease, and whatever notice we can provide them outside of their
lease. I know that it is not only our practice; That it is
common real estate----
Ms. Norton. Do the movie theaters have notice that they
will no longer be in the building?
Mr. Levy. Those plans are not finalized, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. But you just told me about them.
Mr. Levy. They are things that we are working on in order--
--
Ms. Norton. Well, just a moment. We just heard that you do
not intend to have movie theaters there. I am simply raising
questions of fair notice to people who do business under your
management. And frankly, it reflects on the Government of the
United States if in fact people are not treated with normal
business practice. That is why I am trying to find out, since I
now know that the movie theaters won't be there, they don't
even know it.
Mr. Levy. What is that?
Ms. Norton. You just said we weren't sure whether the movie
theaters will be there, but we just heard testimony that----
Mr. Levy. Because the plans haven't been finalized. We
can't tell them that they are not going to be there. Perhaps we
will renew their lease.
Ms. Norton. Don't you think you ought to have a meeting
with the tenants?
Mr. Ball, you all may be confused about who is responsible,
but do know that this Committee is going to hold that public
corporation responsible. Don't you think that you would want to
meet with the tenants or instruct Mr. Levy and company to meet
with the tenants in order to keep Members of Congress from
having to intervene into your affairs as I am having to do with
respect to a private matter that normally would not be any
concern of mine?
Mr. Ball. Yes, Madam Chairman, we will work on that.
Ms. Norton. Would you conduct a meeting of you, you, the
corporation, a meeting of all the tenants, so that they can
have some understanding of what is occurring, and would you
have someone from the managing corporation there so at least
people can have their questions answered so far as they can be?
Mr. Ball. I will be glad to take that challenge.
Ms. Norton. You see there has been contradictory testimony
here today about how we are going to open it up, and there
won't be movie theaters, but yeah, we haven't really made that
decision yet. That is very poor business practice. And so I am
going to ask within 30 days there be a meeting of all the
tenants where all of you all are there and indicate to them
with the greatest clarity you can what your intentions are to
the extent that you have not, which is the easy throw-away
answer, decided, tell them when you expect to decide.
These people are in business just like you are, Mr. Levy.
Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball. The answer to your question is yes.
Ms. Norton. Are you aware, or surely you are aware, of the
policy of the United States Government with respect to small
business and disadvantaged businesses, minority businesses,
women-owned businesses and the like?
Mr. Ball. Yes, we are, yes.
Ms. Norton. How many such businesses are there in Union
Station?
Mr. Ball. I think the last count, I think it is maybe 40 or
55 small, disadvantaged businesses. I don't have the exact
count.
Ms. Norton. Most of them would be small businesses by
definition. How many are minority-owned or female-owned
businesses?
Mr. Ball. I think the number rests between 40 and 50.
Ms. Norton. Well, the number reported to us is less than
half a dozen.
Mr. Levy, do you have better figures? Maybe it is 40 to 50;
maybe it is half a dozen.
Mr. Levy. As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2007, I
believe there were approximately 54, so I don't know where----
Ms. Norton. Fifty-four minority- and women-owned, or women-
owned businesses?
Mr. Levy. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Give me examples.
Mr. Levy. I am going defer to--I am just not all that
familiar with the actual tenants there, so I am going to defer
to Bryant just to kind of confirm this from the end of the
quarter.
Mr. Chambers. Some of the tenants we have listed here;
Aurea is minority-owned.
Ms. Norton. So you are confirming 54?
Mr. Chambers. Well, I am looking.
Ms. Norton. You don't have to read the roll.
Mr. Levy. I just don't have the updated report with me.
Ms. Norton. Is that how you made sure you were in
compliance with Federal law on this matter, you reached out and
brought in those tenants?
Was Mr. Levy and Ashkenazy aware that that is the policy of
the United States Government, Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball. Yes, we have had discussions--I have had a
discussion with them on that issue.
Ms. Norton. In the makeover, Mr. Levy, are you aware that
that policy will be--that that is the policy of the Federal
Government?
Mr. Levy. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. Would--now, with this troika here I want to
make sure I assign the right person.
Mr. Levy I guess is the--I want to get----
Mr. Ball. Ms. Norton----
Ms. Norton. --submitted within 30 days--Mr. Chambers, you
are the director manager of the property?
Mr. Chambers. Yes, Third party.
Ms. Norton. Submit to me names of minority- and women-owned
businesses in Union Station and whatever evidence you have that
they are in fact minority- or women-owned. I just need to know
that, because we have got this--we have got this conflicting--
and it is a very good time to look at it, anyway, if there is
going to be new things at Union Station.
Mr. Chambers. Okay.
Ms. Norton. Buses.
Mr. Ball, are you aware of the intermodal mandate of the
United States Congress for Union Station?
Mr. Ball. No. I havesome knowledge of intermodal. I know we
do. But what you spoke of about directly, I don't have direct
knowledge of it.
Ms. Norton. Well, that makes me want to cry. So you are not
aware that Congress, ever since 1967 when NCPC, National
Capital Planning Commission, recommended to Congress that Union
Station be made an intermodal facility and we have been
embarking on that ever since?
Mr. Ball. I mean, that is what we work to. If you ask me
about a specific bill or something, I can't----
Ms. Norton. I never ask about bills. I am asking, are you
aware of the congressional mandate that Union Station become a
true intermodal facility?
Mr. Ball. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Are you aware that it is not that now or
anything close to it?
Mr. Ball. I know----
Ms. Norton. The fact that you put by dint of where the
subway stops and where the bus stops a number of things in the
same location, an intermodal center does not make. Let me
proceed with a detail then.
Mr. Ball, I believe you gave a rather short shrift, at
least in a letter to me, about a proposal of a quite reputable
intercity bus company to sublease spaces that were available in
Union Station. Here is another matter that comes to the
Congress, that Congress has delegated to you, sir, and to the
public officials that sit with you. And these people were told
that there was something--that their business practice of not
going through the right process. There was no indication of
what process they should have used in order to give the people
of this region access to low-cost bus travel in Union Station
and to take these buses off of our streets or at least keep
them from discharging people on the streets of the Nation's
Capital for want of a place to leave them notwithstanding the
fact that the Congress of the United States for 40 years has
mandated an intermodal facility at Union Station. Why was
either a sublease or some other way for this bus company to be
located at Union Station, why was it refused?
Mr. Ball. On that issue, Ms. Norton, the company never even
approached USRC on that issue.
Ms. Norton. When I am going to sublease, I approach the
people who are holding the lease. And if they never approached
you, why didn't you say, we would be pleased to deal with them
because we know the Congress means bus service to be in this
facility?
Mr. Ball. That probably would have been the best answer. At
this point, we will look at our policy, and I will work with
the District to see how we can accommodate these type of buses
that you mention.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that.
Mr. Ball, within 30 days, I ask you to be in touch with
those bus companies to indicate that you are considering the
access possibilities of those bus companies. This is extremely
troubling to this Member of Congress. In my opening statement,
I said the people are almost hitching a ride on anything they
can find because of the gas prices. The notion that we are
sitting here with an intermodal mandate and you are telling
somebody, you used the wrong procedure, who told you it was the
wrong procedure to sublease from the person who holds the
lease? Did you, in fact--where does it say that in the lease
hub? Was it Greyhound?
Mr. Ball. No. Actually, I didn't know that Megabus was
coming into Union Station until I saw them on a Web page, a Web
site that said what the services were going to be, so we had no
idea.
Ms. Norton. So once you saw they were coming to drop people
off because they had a valid sublease, you then decided that
that lease could not be recognized because you hadn't approved
it?
Mr. Ball. They never had contacted us. We had no lease. We
had no business communication whatsoever, Ms. Norton, none. It
is like----
Ms. Norton. They had communication or were in the process
of engaging in communication with the lease holder.
Mr. Chambers, are you aware that Megabus was turned away?
Mr. Chambers. I am not.
Ms. Norton. What is the policy? Does the policy remain what
it was, that you can't sublease from someone who holds a valid
lease to spots at Union Station? Is that the policy?
Mr. Ball. The garage lease is separate than the station
lease. The garage lease, we have 100 percent jurisdiction over
what happens in our garage. Us being USRC. In the station, they
do the retail leasing within the station.
Ms. Norton. All right. Now, to get past the jurisdictional,
and I ask Mr. Chambers, and you all, don't play those games
with me.
I am holding you, Mr. Ball, before the Congress of the
United States responsible for every question I ask. You may
want to delegate these people and make sure they do their job.
But four out of five people from there are us, and therefore I
want to know what the policy is going to be on--you already
told me you would open the policy, then you turned to the
management. So passing the buck won't work before this
Subcommittee.
Mr. Ball. No, I didn't pass the buck. I am saying clearly
in the parking garage----
Ms. Norton. Whose responsibility was it? You answered the
letter, Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball. In the parking garage, it is USRC responsibility.
Ms. Norton. Huh?
Mr. Ball. Union Station Redevelopment Corporation is my
responsibility in the parking garage.
Ms. Norton. What responsibility do you have, Mr. Chambers,
since you apparently have to do with the bus?
Mr. Chambers. No. For the parking garage, we have none. And
we also do not have----
Ms. Norton. Who has responsibility for the parking garage?
Mr. Chambers. I do. For the parking garage is USRC.
Ms. Norton. Do you know what? This Committee has not in the
past done what other Committees do, which is to swear people.
Any testimony you give I have automatically taken to be true.
But obviously, that wasn't true because you then turned to
others to your right or left.
Mr. Ball. I am sorry, you misunderstand my answer. If you
ask me again, I will answer it to the best of my ability. You
are asking about who controls the parking garage. That is my
office, Union Station Redevelopment Corporation.
Ms. Norton. Why did the corporation, through your letter,
respond that subleases could not be granted? Was there a legal
base for your response?
Mr. Ball. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Had you informed the lease holder that that
would be the case? What was the policy reason for that
response?
Mr. Ball. The policy reason was because the MegaBus
incident should have come to our office in terms of creating--
--
Ms. Norton. Well, why did you not instruct them to come to
your office so you could then consider the matter yourself?
Mr. Ball. I made a mistake.
Ms. Norton. That is all right then. All I ask is, within 30
days, be in touch with them. I am not instructing you to lease
to them. In fact, who holds the lease, please? I don't know why
this bus company wants to lease or sublease, but I ask two
things: one, be in touch; and, two, submit to this Committee
within 30 days what the sublease policy is. And if your policy
is no subleases, you better have a very good reason why.
I can understand why in the public interest you would want
to have some approval and some say-so, ultimately, if that is
your view. This was a flat turndown with no indication as to
why; and I do not know whether it is orally or in writing, that
competition with Greyhound was cited or Amtrak or something.
The reason that sticks in my mind is that competition is
precisely what the Congress of the United States is trying to
promote in Union Station. That is the whole point, to say when
you go there, based on your means and your wishes, you can
travel anywhere, and no way will be denied to you.
I am going to tell you right now, how often does this
corporation meet?
Mr. Ball. The board of directors, this year--we probably
met at least three times this year. We are in the seventh month
right now.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Ball, I also ask you to brief the
board or their representatives, because this Committee wants to
see some form of bus service in Union Station by the end of
this year or be presented with a very good policy reason why
not. I mean, good policy reasons are, you know, security, not
reputable company.
By the way, before we write on behalf of a company, we
investigate to make sure that we are dealing with a company
that in fact is one we should be writing for. I will tell you
one thing. I don't think these people would want to sublease to
somebody who wouldn't pay their rent. This one was reputable.
This one was. There may be others. Perhaps what you should do
is a competition. But this would not have required that,
because it was a sublease.
So, be on notice. When it comes to subleases, I don't know
why that couldn't be done by the end of this year. I want to
know how many bus spots are not being used at Union Station on
a regular or daily basis.
Mr. Ball. Is that a question you want answered now?
Ms. Norton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball. Okay. As I said I think in my written testimony,
we park maybe 12,000 buses a year in Union Station. Between
March and the end of June, we are probably at 100 percent
occupancy all the time, from let's say 9:00 in the morning----
Ms. Norton. This is very important. At 100 percent
occupancy, people parking, what, by the day, by the hour?
Mr. Ball. Well, buses come in probably between like 10:00
in the morning until probably about 3:00 in the afternoon. Then
they pick back up from maybe like 5:00 to 6:00.
Ms. Norton. So they come to Union Station to let off
people. Do they leave?
Mr. Ball. They park. In most cases, they do park their
buses.
Ms. Norton. The entire time.
Mr. Ball. The entire time.
Ms. Norton. How much does that cost?
Mr. Ball. $20 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. $10 between 7 p.m.
and 7 a.m. And if they want a reserved spot held, it is $50 for
the reserved spot.
Ms. Norton. When you say you are always full, I must say--
--
Mr. Ball. Again, I am really talking about this period,
spring period, D.C.'s tour period. Between March and June, we
are very packed. Then it picks up again between, let's say,
September and, say, November. We pick back up again where the
buses come again on a very frequent process. Other times, we
aren't that busy.
So what we are really looking for is how to maximize using
the bus space. We are looking forward to the information which
comes out from the ITC study just in terms of the different
uses for the station. We look towards what Congress is doing in
terms of the Capitol Hill Visitor Center, because we have had
conversations with the Capitol Visitor Center in terms of--
about their need to park 12 buses here.
Ms. Norton. I can tell you right now, Mr. Ball, that plan
is dead. Because the plan was to somehow have the buses park
there and then pay $1 to get to the Congress of the United
States. That plan went up in smoke. I have already had
discussions with the Sergeant at Arms.
This is not your fault. This has nothing to do with you.
But what killed it was that somehow buses which now come here
to Botanic Gardens, leave and then go someplace, you have to
provide place for them to go, that people get dropped off for
free would then be sent to Union Station. We don't mind them
coming to Union Station. We are pleased about that. But we have
been assured--and I speak now for myself, for the
Appropriations Subcommittee--that the Botanic Gardens route has
also to remain there.
See, that is the kind of planning that has to go on. But
that is something that was not within your entire sphere. And
we also think we have come to a way where the District's own
line that it runs can in fact still be useful without being
completely taken off the line by the Congress of the United
States.
It was the extra cost. It wasn't anything about Union
Station. But the city couldn't tell us how many spaces, and we
were very concerned by the fact that there is--how this would
work with a bottleneck--you know, the framers did that--the
bottleneck that the circle establishes. And having what they
conceived of as a lot more tour buses to come up there right as
we understand it, there will be some renovations on the outside
of Union Station.
Mr. Ball. That is a project between USRC, the National Park
Service and the District of Columbia Department of
Transportation. So there are a lot of things in the hopper just
in terms of how it works out.
Ms. Norton. When is that construction going to begin?
Mr. Ball. Whenever we get to the NCPC and Commission of
Fine Arts, that construction should begin.
Ms. Norton. Do you have the money already for that
construction?
Mr. Ball. USRC is doing a 20 percent match. In addition,
the government does have the money I think from the Federal
highway.
Ms. Norton. Well, I live on Capitol Hill. In non-rush
hours, I avoid that circle. I can't imagine why anybody in the
transportation business would want to put more buses up there,
and we are not going to do it.
But I need to know what your policy is and how you plan for
buses to come and go in light of our interest in inner-city bus
service. That is largely my concern and interest. Because I
have no problem with tour buses coming up there now.
You may have to think this through once you get to the
construction phase. Indeed, in that regard, there is an
unfinished entrance at Union Station that would allow more
direct access from H Street. I understand that it required $2
million more, but then there was some problem with obtaining
indemnification from Amtrak.
I am so confused by that. If that is all that is standing
in the way, particularly given how that would relieve some of
the traffic around the circle, I have to ask you, what is the
problem with indemnification from Amtrak for want of a $2
million upgrade that would allow the unfinished entrance more
directly from First and H Street?
Mr. Ball. I am not familiar with that issue. I do know----
Ms. Norton. Excuse me, sir. Who would be?
Mr. Ball. I have never heard that, so I don't know.
Ms. Norton. The tunnel that was never completed, Union
Station----
Mr. Ball. That is a pedestrian tunnel. That would not
accommodate--if we are referring to a segment that runs
parallel to First Street----
Ms. Norton. Let me indicate that Union Station Plaza
Associates, whoever that is, has an office building near First
and H Streets. They have proposed completing the tunnel for
approximately $2 million.
Mr. Ball. That would be a pedestrian access. That would go
from the north end of the Union Station Metro stop down to the
existing H Street underpass.
Ms. Norton. That would be very useful, because people could
at least be dropped off there on foot.
Again, this goes to whether you are thinking through the
intermodal----
Mr. Ball. No, we talked about many of those issues, and I
didn't realize that is what you were talking about. So that is
one item that has been looked at.
Ms. Norton. All right, I just want to get your final
testimony on that.
The indemnification from Amtrak issue is what apparently
stopped the tunnel from going forward initially, because it was
always planned and would already be there. Are you aware of
what that issue is?
Mr. Ball. I am not aware of what that issue is.
Ms. Norton. All right. Have Amtrak within 30 days submit to
us what that issue is so we can understand that.
Is there a different security policy for retail, Mr. Levy,
for Amtrak, for the parking garage? Who is in charge? Who is
the master security czar who sees that security intersects?
Because, as you indicate, there are different kinds of entities
there.
Mr. Chambliss. There is no czar, Chairwoman. There actually
are different entities. You have the Amtrak side of the house,
which houses Amtrak security and also Amtrak police. You have
our management firm with the approval of USI that hires IPC
Security to provide customer service and public safety just in
the common area spaces.
Mr. Ball. There is one umbrella. We have what is called the
Station Action Team, where Union Station Redevelopment
Corporation, Amtrak and station development all meet and figure
out security in the building, understand the conditions that go
in the building every day. If there is a fire alarm which goes
off, all three entitles meet, if there is a problem in the
station. So those things are discussed. There is one umbrella
arm.
Ms. Norton. They are under one roof, after all.
Mr. Chambers. Yes. And we are all chairs on that.
Mr. Ball. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Is that in writing?
Mr. Ball. Yes, it is.
Ms. Norton. Well, I ask you----
Mr. Ball. It was not in my written testimony, but we do
have a written--we can provide you with a copy of the station
action plan.
Ms. Norton. We would just like to study all this so we know
what we are talking about.
Mr. Chambers. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. So we would like whatever is in writing in 30
days.
Mr. Chambers. Absolutely.
Ms. Norton. Who wrote this thing, which begins, "Union
Station is private property."
Mr. Chambers. That precedes, I believe, all of us at this
table.
Ms. Norton. What?
Mr. Chambers. I believe that precedes--that came--it is
from the management office.
Mr. Ball. Ms. Norton, we will find out where it came from.
Mr. Chambers. We will find out. That was established prior
to us being here.
Ms. Norton. Is it still in circulation?
Mr. Chambers. It is still posted, but it is being revised,
as I stated earlier in my testimony.
Ms. Norton. Could I ask it be withdrawn immediately?
Mr. Chambers. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Ms. McCann testified that other intermodal
facilities manage to put their policy right on the Web site.
This embarrasses me here in the Nation's Capital. I ask that
this be withdrawn, because it contains factual errors,
including the factual error that is an insult to the government
of the United States, "Union Station is private property."
Most of these would, of course, be the kinds of things you
want, no smoking inside and so forth. But it is here that the
tripod camera distinction is made, and it is here that the
Union Station management reserves the right to prohibit
photography of any kind in their sole discretion. This is why I
asked Mr. Levy to give this matter to an outside counsel.
Mr. Chambers. In the draft we do have, that has been
stricken. When we do go out to outside counsel----
Ms. Norton. We would be rather be helpful than critical. If
you would submit to us before anything is published so we can
have a look at it. I am asking that you need help in doing
this, and this is no reflection on you.
Mr. Chambers. Absolutely.
Would you like to also have the draft that is in place now,
or do you want the final product?
Ms. Norton. We would be glad to look at it, yes, sir,
rather than have people come back here sending us letters. The
confusion I am most concerned about is, of course, the
confusion with security guards, who are left really on their
own.
Mr. Ball, the notion of a security guard turning around her
name, I think that was an Amtrak security guard----
Mr. Chambers. Correct.
Ms. Norton. There are some policies with respect to
security, behavior, courtesy, that are universal, and those
things are being in writing. I don't blame somebody for being a
little afraid if someone asks them a question about what their
name is. If nobody has told them that has to be in place all
the time and you have got to answer accordingly, then some
people will try to protect themselves.
Well, they don't have to protect themselves, as far as I am
concerned, because the fault lies with both of you, Mr.
Chambers and Mr. Levy, and ultimately with Mr. Ball. And so I
am expecting that in the revised training policy, such as it
is--because I can't find in place any training policy at the
moment--that this level of detail will be in the new policy so
that this matter is off of our table.
Our concern is with the comprehensive intermodal concept
and with making sure that private management in fact is in
keeping with that, not with these details that we have been
forced to spend considerable time with today.
What is the annual operating cost, Mr. Levy?
Mr. Levin. I don't have that figure with me.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Ball would have that figure for the entire
operation, would you not?
Mr. Ball. Yes, but I am more familiar with USRC's cost.
Ms. Norton. We have no idea what we are doing here in
Congress. We are giving money to an entity, and so we got to
find out what we are doing.
Mr. Chambers. We can provide that detail for you, along
with all the other documentation we are submitting, to see to
it that you have it.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Before you leave, I want you to know that, as tough as our
questioning is, it is always tough. As tough as it is, this
Subcommittee has a reputation for being of assistance to
agencies.
We had a very serious problem to occur with Federal
Protective Service where we found a felon running a security
matter. We found people not being served. But we had to bring
it out.
This was a part of Homeland Security. We worked closely
with the official in charge, the Assistant Secretary, and when
they fixed this so the contractors were paid on time and they
reordered the way they did contracting and they put out written
material and they established a czar, we had a press conference
with them. And this was a Republican administration. I asked
the Assistant Secretary to stand with me, very unusual, with a
Member of Congress, to say what the agency, not in my immediate
control, had done, because I was so pleased with how they
responded to tough questioning at our hearing.
Our view is, if you are going to be tough--and that is the
only way you can find out anything in your questioning--then
when the agency performs you have got to be equally generous in
making sure that the public knows.
We had a press conference. We didn't just write them a
letter, had a press conference. See what these people have done
in the administration to fix this agency?
We are more than ready to do that with this federally owned
facility and working in partnership with you.
Mr. Ball, you had something to say before you leave?
Mr. Ball. I am sorry. I didn't mean anything. Go ahead.
Ms. Norton. You just seemed to be befuddled. That is all
that was. Don't be befuddled. We gave that example just because
it is the most recent example of how we follow up. Even though
the questioning may reflect "gotcha," we don't go "gotcha."
Look, let's get together. That was really "let's get together
and fix this."
Mr. Ball. I can appreciate that. I think you raised some
very valid points, and it gives me a chance to go back and look
at the policies we have had in place for a period of time. So I
appreciate that and welcome criticism, and we will respond to
your questions.
I have been at Union Station for 20-plus years. I know back
in 1984 we received $7 million for Amtrak, for the restoration
of the station, and the city put $40 million in to rebuild the
parking garage behind Union Station. But, since that, we
haven't received any other Federal monies that have come into
the station. So what we have done----
Ms. Norton. That is why we set up a public-private
partnership, because the monies received now will go into the
intermodal notion. Union Station will and has indeed received
funds, but it doesn't go into its operations. That public-
private partnership is supposed to in fact make sure its
operations sustain themselves.
Of course, we have to see what your books show us on that.
We want to see whether or not you are operating in the black or
not, and you need to submit that to this Committee. Don't
expect us to subsidize this public-private partnership. That is
the whole point. That doesn't mean we don't have the same kind
of oversight we have over a Federal agency, and we intend total
exercise it.
I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I want you
to know that the Subcommittee, indeed, the Congress, has
examples of the kinds of things we are talking about when we
say submit something. If you would like examples or you would
like guidance, the Subcommittee staff is prepared to offer you
guidance on what we mean. We don't mean to just leave you out
there saying find it the best way you can. The best way may be
simply to submit something to us, to have the Subcommittee look
at it. Then you go back, and it won't be we are handing down
the law, it will be for our comment. Then we will ask for your
comments. That is how we do business.
Thank you very much, all three of you.
Do you want to call the next witnesses?
David Leach, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Greyhound; Emeka Moneme, the Director of our D.C. Department of
Transportation; and Thomas Wilbur, Senior Vice President of
Akridge.
Our apologies that you have waited so long. We are holding
the first oversight hearing on the first comprehensive hearing
on Union Station in memory, and that accounts for the many
issues that were before us. Your testimony is very important to
us.
Let's proceed with Mr. Moneme, the Department of
Transportation, and then go to Mr. Leach and, finally, Mr.
Wilbur.
TESTIMONY OF EMEKA MONEME, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; DAVID LEACH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; AND THOMAS WILBUR, SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, AKRIDGE CORPORATION
Mr. Moneme. Good afternoon.
Chairman Norton, thank you for having me here to speak on
behalf of Mayor Adrian Fenty.
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Emeka Moneme, Director of
the District of Columbia Department of Transportation. We also
referred to as DDOT. I thank you for this opportunity to join
in the discussion on the current uses and future improvements
of Union Station.
DDOT has been tasked with the responsibility of analyzing
the feasibility of future development in and around Union
Station specifically as it relates to the ability of the
adjacent transportation system to accommodate that development.
As such, my remarks will focus on the Union Station Intermodal
Transportation Center Feasibility Study that DDOT is currently
managing.
Before expounding on the feasibility study, let me offer a
few thoughts on congestion and transportation options in the
region.
Over the past 20 years, the District has witnessed a
tremendous explosion of vehicle trips within and through the
city. In a recent Texas Transportation Institute Study,
Washington, D.C., was rated the second most congested city in
the Nation. Unfortunately, this trend is expected to continue.
The Metropolitan Council of Governments forecasts that
vehicle trips within and into the District will increase by
approximately 32 percent by 2030. We have seen a similar trend
in transit ridership with Metrorail breaking daily and monthly
ridership records. At the current rate of ridership growth,
Metrorail crowding will be unmanageable by 2013, unless
capacity expanding investments are made. Finally, the Maryland
Transit Administration also reports that most MARC commuter
train lines are running near capacity, with some lines already
at capacity.
In order to combat these alarming trends while allowing the
city to continue to grow and provide for the millions of
visitors to the Nation's Capital, the capacity to move people
into and around the District must be expanded. The District is
implementing a number of initiatives, including bicycle
sharing, enhanced transit service, and a performance parking
program to encourage the use of multiple non-vehicular options
which will reduce the number of vehicle trips into and through
the city. WMATA is moving forward on full utilization of eight-
car trains in the coming years, and MTA plans to infuse over
half a billion dollars into the MARC system over the next 25
years to procure rail cars and expand and modernize service.
More than ever, we are in need of a state-of-the-art,
multi-modal transportation hub in our region to accommodate the
billions of dollars in transit investments previously
mentioned. The historic Union Station has served the region and
the country well, but its present infrastructure limitations
restrict its ability to accommodate the current and future
transit demand. As such, a new ITC is needed for the District
and for the region to continue to thrive.
The feasibility study began in February of 2008. Its
overarching purpose is to investigate how to make feasible the
development of the Burnham Place development, design and
construction of a new ITC at Union Station, including the
proposed commercial and residential development.
The study area of the project encompasses an approximately
20-square-block site bounded by M Street to the north, Third
Street to the east, Massachusetts Avenue to the south, and
North Capitol Street to the west. In particular, the study is
analyzing the impacts of creating enhanced access to the
multiple modes of transportation at and around Union Station.
The study's analysis is considering the following areas: a
baseline transportation improvement study, new rail passenger
concourse, upgraded Amtrak passenger concourse, improved
emergency access and egress to the station, improvements to the
existing rail concourse, tour bus and commuter parking
accommodations, the D.C. streetcar and integrating that system
into the ITC, a pedestrian tunnel from Union Station to First
Street Northeast, a new Metrorail entrance from the H Street
bridge, a baseline environmental study, and then, finally, the
interrogation of the Metropolitan Branch Trail to the facility
and the possibility of an additional bicycle storage facility.
So there is much being considered in this study. It really
is the first comprehensive study of the Union Station
transportation network, and it will prompt us to conduct
further detailed analysis and develop a framework for
implementing the study's short-term and long-term
recommendations.
DDOT has developed two advisory committees to educate the
public and key stakeholders on the parameters of the study. A
Community Leaders Committee was created, consisting of
representatives from the local A&C commissions, resident
councils, neighborhood associations and other community based
organizations. A Technical Advisory Committee was also formed,
comprised of over 20 business, government and quasi-
governmental groups. Both groups were briefed on the study this
spring. Collectively, the committees will comment on the
study's technical analysis and offer timely feedback.
Since the early spring, the study team has provided
briefings on the project to civic and citizen organizations
upon request. Additional community meetings and a tour of the
facility are planned for later this summer following their
review of the draft report on the basic technical studies.
The data collection phase of the study began in mid-
February and lasted through mid-June of this year. The data
analysis phase immediately followed and lasted from mid-May
through mid-July. Currently, we are preparing to begin
formulating preliminary architectural concepts derived from the
baseline studies and anticipate the study will be completed in
the late fall of this year, where final recommendations will be
unveiled.
In conclusion, DDOT welcomes the opportunity to lead this
feasibility study. Its findings will inform and incent billions
of dollars of future development at Union Station. But, most
importantly, it will create a path for major capital
enhancements that will significantly improve and expand
transportation options for millions of individuals traveling
through and within our Nation's Capital.
DDOT will continue to work with the community and other
partners to complete the study, and we will look forward to
implementing its recommendations to ultimately create a world-
class transportation hub at Union Station.
Thank you for the patience in reading the testimony. I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Moneme.
Next we go to Mr. Leach. Mr. Leach is the President of
Greyhound.
Mr. Leach. Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss Greyhound's plans to relocate to Washington Union
Station.
Greyhound is eager to move to Union Station and has been
actively engaged in discussions focusing on making that happen.
I greatly appreciate the strong support for that initiative
shown by this Subcommittee and the Full Committee leadership.
Greyhound has been operating in its current terminal
location at First and K Streets, Northeast, since 1987. There
have been off and on discussions about Greyhound moving to
Union Station ever since, but, up until recently, they have not
been successful. Despite these setbacks, Greyhound has remained
very interested in moving to Union Station.
We strongly believe in intermodal terminals and are now
located in over 100 intermodal facilities nationwide. That
number has been steadily increasing. These intermodal
facilities greatly benefit the traveling public by allowing
travelers to use public transportation, both local and
intercity, to travel seamlessly from origin to destination.
The benefits to D.C. residents of Greyhound moving to Union
Station are particularly striking. Over 50 percent of riders at
Greyhound's current location get to Greyhound by local transit.
This is so even though those riders who come by Metrorail have
to walk three long blocks with their luggage from Union Station
or almost the same distance from the new Florida Avenue Metro
Station. These riders would benefit tremendously from being
able to just ride up or down the escalators to get from Metro
to Greyhound. Furthermore, this dramatically improved
convenience would lead to increased usage of the Metro
Greyhound connection at a time when the public is searching for
affordable and convenient public transportation.
Fortunately, a series of circumstances are converging that
provide a unique opportunity to finally make this move a
reality. The Greyhound terminal lies at the heart of NoMa, the
area north of Massachusetts Avenue that the D.C. Government has
targeted as one of the most important elements for development
in downtown. This means that both the city and Greyhound have a
strong vested interest in moving the Greyhound operations to
Union Station as soon as possible so that Greyhound can sell
its property for redevelopment.
At the same time, the Ashkenazy Company, the new landlord
at Union Station, has developed preliminary plans for
renovation and expansion of Union Station's interior space.
This will enable Greyhound to substantially reduce its Union
Station footprint and the capital cost of its space. With the
sale of its existing terminal, Greyhound will have the funds to
build out its interior space, as well as construct limited
facilities on the bus deck.
Finally, the support that the leadership of this
Subcommittee and Committee has shown for Greyhound's move to
Union Station have been very helpful. Your March 20, 2008,
letter expressing strong support for the relocation was the
catalyst for this action.
With all of these favorable developments, the parties have
been meeting. I believe there is a common desire among the
parties to make the move happen as soon as possible, but there
are issues that need to be addressed.
Amtrak needs to get fully engaged. Although the plans have
been drawn to separate the bus and rail ticketing and waiting
functions on different levels, it is important that there be a
dialogue with key Amtrak decisionmakers on these plans. I met
with Mr. Kummant on this issue today, and we have agreed to
work together on any security or passenger concerns that Amtrak
may have.
The plans for the renovation and expansion of the interior
area need to be finalized and approved. The financial terms of
the project need to be negotiated and agreed to. This includes
the level of Greyhound's capital contribution and its lease
terms for the occupancy of the space.
Greyhound plans to pay for the build-out of this space, but
the contribution needs to be amortized through its lease
payments, and the lease terms must be consistent with Greyhound
being able to continue to provide affordable transportation in
an economically viable manner.
The timeline for completion of the project must be agreed
to so that Greyhound can move forward with the sale of its
current property.
The transfer date needs to fit with the projected move-in
date at Union Station.
I believe that all these issues can be resolved. The
project has a very high priority for Greyhound, and I commit to
you that Greyhound will do everything in its power to make it
succeed. I have been and will continue to be personally
involved. I believe that other parties have a similar
commitment, and I am confident that we can succeed.
Thank you for this opportunity to receive testify, and I am
happy to answer any questions you might have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Leach.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Wilbur.
Mr. Wilbur. Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee, I
am Tom Wilbur and I am a Vice President with Akridge, the
Washington-based company that purchased the air rights adjacent
to Union Station above the rail yards. Thank you very much for
this opportunity to discuss our plans and ideas for this crown
jewel in the Nation's inventory of grand historic buildings.
Today, I will provide an update on our project and describe
some of the exciting improvements for the station and adjacent
areas we are studying. However, let me begin by expressing our
enthusiasm and commitment to the long-term success of Union
Station.
As a local development firm with more than 30 years of
experience here, we have participated in the redevelopment of
the city. From the Homer Building, which we completed in 1990,
to Gallery Place in 2003 and now in the Southeast, Southwest
and Northeast quadrants, where we have projects in our pipeline
totaling more than 7 million square feet, we have seen the
District of Columbia become a world-class city, a place with
outstanding architecture and mixed use, 24-7 neighborhoods
rivaling any major city in the world.
Our company's commitment to the civic, cultural and
environmental health of our city is long-standing. In fact, our
firm's founder, Chip Akridge, regrets that he is unable be here
today, but commitments in his capacity as the Chairman of the
Trust for the National Mall have taken him out of town.
Union Station is a unique resource which is representative
of the renaissance of Washington, D.C. Because it is located at
the intersection of the central business district, Capitol
Hill, the Capitol complex and the merging NoMa and near
northeast neighborhoods, our development, called Burnham Place,
and Union Station serve as critical anchors for the development
of the eastern portion of downtown Washington.
Union Station is the entry to the city for every walk of
life, from the Wall Street banker arriving from New York to the
legislator working on Capitol Hill to the Metro rider from
Silver Spring to tourists from Phoenix, a commuter from
Baltimore, or a student riding from Gallaudet by bicycle, all
of these people converge and rely on Union Station.
Our project, named after Daniel Burnham, the architect who
designed Union Station, provides an opportunity to reclaim the
property over the tracks, currently a void which divides
several important neighborhoods, and turn it into another great
mixed-use neighborhood, bringing vibrant activity and economic
benefits to the city. As a model, think of the Park Avenue air
rights development at Grand Central Station in New York that
occurred early last century.
A little history. As you know, in 1997, Congress mandated
the fair market sale of the 15-acre Amtrak air rights parcel,
with the proceeds to be deposited in the Federal Treasury. In
2002, the GSA conducted a competitive bid process and accepted
our proposal. We closed on the property in 2006, and since that
time we have been planning for a 3-million-square-foot mixed-
use development. We also have been working with DDOT on plans
to modernize and expand the intermodal transportation
facilities at Union Station, as well as preserve options for
future transportation modes.
Earlier this year, we engaged the architectural firm,
Shalom Baranes Associates, to begin the planning and design of
Burnham Place. Like Akridge, Shalom Baranes has played an
integral role in shaping the development of the National
Capital Region. Its list of newly designed and redeveloped
buildings include the Warner Theater, American Red Cross
National Headquarters, the John Wilson Building, International
Spy Museum, and the Homer Building atop Metro Center, which
houses Akridge's offices. The firm is also currently working on
the redevelopment of the Waterside Mall, Southeast Federal
Center, the Old Convention Center site and expansion and
redevelopment of GSA's National Headquarters.
Our early plans for Burnham Place indicate a number of
potential uses such as first-class office, hotel, retail,
entertainment, cultural and residential buildings. This project
presents a rare opportunity for substantial downtown
redevelopment without any displacement in a land-constrained
city. These developments will also leverage significant public
investments already made in the area, such as the construction
of the New York Avenue Metro Station and D.C.'s Great Streets
Initiative, which includes planned streetcar service on H
Street, Northeast.
The strategic importance of Union Station is what attracted
our firm to this development opportunity. Its centrality to the
success of Washington is also what has motivated our
partnership with DDOT and our desire to help facilitate public
improvements for the station. A more efficient, pleasant and
safe intermodal facility is critical for the City, the region
and, indeed, the entire Nation. And the station has no shortage
of critical needs and opportunities for improvements.
Originally used solely for intercity rail service, Union
Station now serves over 100,000 passengers via 14 modes of
transportation in addition to thousands of visitors and
shoppers. Many station places are crowded, uncomfortable, and
pose conflicts for those utilizing the station for different
purposes. Akridge's development of the air rights presents a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to address these challenges.
Construction of our concrete deck and connection to the north
end of the station provide an ideal time to concurrently
undertake many important forms of modernization in the ITC.
Some of the ideas that we are looking at include a newly
expanded Amtrak and VRE passenger concourse with upgrades to
the existing waiting areas; a new pedestrian connection between
H Street and the station to disperse the flow of people
entering and leaving the building; a new emergency evacuation
roadway between Columbus Circle and H Street; the creation of a
facility to accommodate Greyhound buses; a new extension of the
Metro tunnel pedestrian walkway to H Street; a pedestrian
connection between NoMa and Burnham Place near First and Eye
Streets, Northeast; and expanded parking facilities for tour
and commuter buses.
Executing many of these ambitious ideas will require
intensive collaboration and support from the stakeholders who
have a vested interest in the operation and future of the
station. Akridge is glad to have Amtrak, WMATA, MARC, VRE,
DDOT, USRC, the Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation and many
others as key allies in this process; and we look forward to
continuing these partnerships to study and execute these
important projects.
Thank you again for this opportunity. That concludes my
remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions the Committee
might have.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilbur.
Mr. Moneme, I was pleased just to say a few words at the
DDOT community outreach, I guess it was, in relationship to the
intermodal transportation study you are embarking upon. I
indicated, of course, to management and to the corporation that
they should proceed on the intermodal concept well before we
get this mega-facility built. Nevertheless, your work is
centrally important.
Could I know, first, what is the expected time frame for
the final report?
Mr. Moneme. Yes. We plan to have final recommendations
September-October of this year.
Ms. Norton. Very good. Do you have any estimates now on the
cost for the intermodal center at Union Station?
Mr. Moneme. I don't believe we are that far along to
actually have a sense of what the real costs would be.
Hopefully, coming out of the recommendations in the study, we
can begin then to put some cost estimates on the elements and
the recommendations that come out of the study. We will
probably have some detailed reports and technical reports to
begin to flesh out the full costs of the elements.
Ms. Norton. I have been relishing this description of what
is being planned, much of it public infrastructure, and then I
have been scratching my head to say how will we pay for this.
And, of course, Mr. Wilbur knows I have been getting small
amounts out toward the infrastructure, part of it. Congress is
very serious about it, and the more public transportation
becomes indispensable--is the only word for it--the more
serious we got to get.
But have any of you given any notion to how one would put
together a package that paid for the public portion of this
matter?
Mr. Moneme. Well, I think there has been some thought given
to how that might happen. I think in my testimony I did touch
on some of the ways it is actually happening. Maryland, the
State of Maryland, has already made a commitment to make
improvements in the service coming from both the Penn and the
Camden lines that come in and stop at Union Station.
Ms. Norton. At Union Station, Mr. Moneme?
Mr. Moneme. Most of it is focused on their rolling stock
for the majority of it, but I think there may be some
improvements that we could commit both from them--the
improvements for the D.C. streetcar are coming from D.C. local
funds.
So there are contributions that are coming from people that
are being serviced from Union Station. I think we can bundle
those contributions together to get some sense of what public
resources are being committed to the project. And then we can
also look across the aisle to our private partner. We know
there are going to be resources they will be making in making
sure that Burnham Place comes off.
I do anticipate that there will be some gap there, and I
think that is where it is probably anticipated that we will be
talking to you and telling you a little bit about what that gap
looks like, what we think makes the most sense to fund, or
maybe how to fund that gap there.
Ms. Norton. Yes. Because we are talking train concourses,
grand design, which is exactly what we ought to be talking
about. And, obviously, the Federal Government has to be in this
and in this substantially. I say this at the same time that we
are on pay-go up here, and it is hard to eak out money.
Nevertheless, the reason that this is an intermodal system
is the Federal Government, the District of Columbia and the
private sector each have so much to gain from it. So,
obviously, the more we are able to get elsewhere, such as from
the reauthorization of the transportation funds for the
District of Columbia as one source, the greater leverage I have
in reminding Congress of its vested interest in this project.
Mr. Wilbur, how long did it take you to negotiate with
Union Station for the details that finally freed you up to
begin to work pursuant to the air rights?
Mr. Wilbur. We spent about 4 years, about 3-1/2 years, from
the time that we won the bid for these air rights from GSA
until we were able to close, which was spent--some planning was
actually done during that period, but a lot of it was being
able to take care of some technical issues with it, some title
issues, so we could make sure exactly.
It was a pretty complex set of improvements throughout
there, and defining exactly where those air rights would start
and where they would end was quite a bit of work. But over that
period of time we developed a great relationship I think with
USRC, with the retail operator on the project, with the D.C.
Government, and we basically got started on our planning at
that point.
Since then, we spent a fair amount of time working on
getting our team together. I would say it has been about 7 or 8
months now that we have been in deep levels of planning with
this, with Shalom Baranes and with two different structural
engineers.
One of the biggest issues that we have when you talk about
costs, obviously, the project costs are something we have to
make work, also, and the most crucial aspect of this is how to
build the platform for this project over those tracks. The cost
of that is the thing we are spending a considerable amount of
time technically to figure out how that is going to work.
Ms. Norton. You mean the platform for passengers?
Mr. Wilbur. Actually, this is a platform where our project
would actually be elevated about 20 feet above the track level.
Ms. Norton. You mean for the entire project?
Mr. Wilbur. For the entire project. So, basically, where we
have our air rights, we have to penetrate all of our columns
down in between the tracks and in some areas span over a number
of tracks where the tracks start to converge.
Ms. Norton. That is not unprecedented in this country, is
it?
Mr. Wilbur. Excuse me?
Ms. Norton. Building over such air rights, that is not
unprecedented, is it?
Mr. Wilbur. No, it is actually the most common in areas
like Chicago and New York.
Ms. Norton. I have in mind Chicago in particular.
Mr. Wilbur. Lots of them in Chicago. I think it happens
where people--particularly where you have areas where you could
build very tall buildings and you have a lot of density,
because the expense of building over the tracks is very
expensive, and then if you have more square footage that you
can build up above, you can spread that over that construction.
Because, basically, the cost to build a platform for one or
two or three stories is not that much different than it is for
20 or 30 stories. It is basically the construction techniques
you have to work on by building this platform above operating
railroad tracks.
Ms. Norton. Well, let me just say for the record I am
pleased that you have developed a good working relationship, as
you testified, with the corporation. The Committee was
frustrated by having to meet with the corporation simply to say
we don't care what you decide. But, in our judgment, it took
much too long to get to the point where you could proceed.
You see, we have gotten to the point where now the economy
is in trouble. Actually, I think that is a good time to invest
in infrastructure. But that was very bothersome for the
Committee as we looked at the corporation. We knew that the
Akridge company wanted to proceed quickly, and we also were
mindful of the complexity. But there is impatience in this
Subcommittee to proceed, and the Full Committee. The Full
Committee Chairman has been the moving figure almost since he
came to Congress, and he has been here almost since there has
been a Congress, we laugh and tell him.
So this is a project of long-standing concern; and, even as
I press for its realization, I am mindful that even under the
best of circumstances we can't get the new intermodal center
for years to come.
I want to ask all three of you whether you consider Union
Station an intermodal system now and, if so, why, and, if not,
what would you do to make it an intermodal center?
I haven't heard you from, Mr. Leach. Maybe you should be
first.
Mr. Leach. Well, I wouldn't consider it an intermodal
because intercity bus isn't there. There are some charter
operations, but we need Greyhound in that facility. We need
other intercity bus operators in that facility.
Ms. Norton. But Greyhound cannot go in there until the new
facility is built, or could it go earlier?
Mr. Leach. We believe it can go right now.
Ms. Norton. Are you in discussions that might make that
happen?
Mr. Leach. We are currently working with the corporation on
those efforts, yes.
Ms. Norton. You indicate that Amtrak needs--looking at your
testimony--needs to be fully engaged. You say, I am planning--I
know that, because Greyhound has come to see us, knowing of our
Federal interests. But you say, "It is important that there be
a dialogue with key Amtrak decisionmakers on these plans."
Then you say, as if this had to be done by now, because
there is a hearing, and you didn't mean this, but you just mean
to tell us at least it is proceeding, that you meet with Mr.
Kummant on this issue today.
Mr. Leach. Yes. Actually, I had breakfast with him this
morning.
Ms. Norton. I need to know what you discussed, and I need
you to know that the notion that this missing ingredient from
the intermodal vision needed Amtrak and that a "dialogue" is
beginning makes us believe that the intermodal may be very
long--some long time in coming.
Have there been any discussions before today with Amtrak?
Since you detail the involvement of Amtrak and the ticket
counter and the rest in other parts of your testimony, was
today the first time you had a dialogue with anybody from
Amtrak?
Mr. Leach. No, ma'am, there has been dialogue for
approximately 5 or 6 months.
Ms. Norton. Why do you say that it is important that there
be a dialogue with key decisionmakers? Have these have been
unkey decisionmakers?
Mr. Leach. We have had difficulty in getting key decisions
made from the folks at Amtrak. I have been assured by Mr.
Kummant this morning that that would not be the case going
forward and that we would get all of the appropriate concerns
that Amtrak has with Greyhound being a part of Union Station.
Ms. Norton. I don't mean to put you or Mr. Kummant on the
spot here. I will tell you who is on the spot: moderate- and
low-income people in the District of Columbia who are denied
what you can easily get in any major city worth the name.
I have to ask Mr. Moneme, what happens? We have had
complaints about people being dropped off and picked up. They
made this sound like a one-horse town. Do you have any
information on how these companies do business here, or are
they simply deterred from doing business at all because there
is no place to have any kind of passenger drop-off?
Mr. Moneme. If I could, I want to see if I can answer your
first question about whether or not Union Station is an ITC,
and then I will speak to the inner city.
By pure definition, I think that Union Station--and this is
by USCOT definition, where two or more modes of transportation
intersect, you have an ITC; and, by definition, we do have an
ITC----
Ms. Norton. We certainly don't have one. We already had
that at the time that Union Station was constructed.
Mr. Moneme. Exactly.
Ms. Norton. So you go to the lowest common denominator and
then you have one. At the time, in 1981, they already had two
or more, and yet Congress has been trying to say make yourself
intermodal ever since then.
So, Mr. Moneme, I understand your pride in making sure that
everybody knows there are places for some diverse sets, taxis,
for that matter, but I do want you to understand that Congress
would not be talking about making this an intermodal system if
all you needed was a place for a couple of modes of
transportation to rest and then to get up and leave. In that
respect, there are places outside of Union Station that would
qualify. Greyhound qualifies, because I can get a taxi there,
and I can get a bus there.
So we need to press you towards pressing all concerned so
that we have an intermodal facility where everybody can, in
fact, find access, perhaps not the access we will have when
Akridge is finished, but access to all modes of transportation
in the Nation's Capital.
Mr. Moneme. I agree with that comment completely. And I
think one of the things we are doing, even on a separate track
from the investment that we will be seeing from Akridge on the
development, is tying together all those modes of
transportation there, making sure that there is appropriate
signage for those that decide to bike to that location to find
out where the other modes are, whether it would be commuter
rail, whether it be Metrorail, whether it be taxi or, one day,
eventually tying in inner-city buses.
So we agree with you. It needs to be more intermodal, I
guess--if that is such a term--more intermodal, more tied
together, more connected.
As for the inner-city bus issue, we are very, very well
aware of it; and I think the city's position is it is obviously
a very important part of our transportation network. It is
transportation options for people across the board of all
socio-economic--across the strata of socio-economics.
What we have been working on over the really last 7 weeks
is we have heard the increased desire for more of those options
to be identified and have a home or have a place in the city.
We have heard from the business community that some of the
locations downtown are not the most ideal for the operation of
the downtown, the central business district. They do take up
sidewalk space and impact people's ability to move around, but
we also believe that they have a rightful place somewhere in
the city.
So we are spending time learning more about the industry,
not just I guess the names that you hear more about, the
biggies, I guess you call them, the Greyhounds and whatnot. But
there are other operators in the city getting started, and we
feel they have a role to play in our service options available
to people.
So we are identifying locations where it makes sense to
congregate, provide space for them, so that both the day-to-day
operation of the city can still function and so also people can
get access, easy access, to those locations. We are hoping
within a few, few short months, we will have a more clarified
plan about how to organize.
Ms. Norton. So you don't know where these folks are,
really?
Mr. Moneme. We do. We do. We have surveyed.
Ms. Norton. How many people are leaving people and picking
them up where they can?
Mr. Moneme. Approximately 12 to 13 companies operate in the
District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. They are competing with you, Mr. Leach, aren't
they? Some of them can't possibly compete with you. They are
not going to have ticket facilities, and I know in some ways
accommodating them may mean more competition to you. But I
would like to ask your view on these people who now don't have
to even have any overhead whatsoever in order to compete with
you. We are for keeping the fares low but not at the expense of
traffic in the District of Columbia. So will you give us your
view of this and where they should be located?
Mr. Leach. Well, Madam Chairman, we have watched as these
curbside operations have successfully grown the market. They
haven't necessarily impacted Greyhound or Greyhound's network
of routes. We have a lot of strength in the network. But city--
--
Ms. Norton. In fact, you are making money here, unlike some
of the modes we deal with on the Transportation Committee,
isn't that so?
Mr. Leach. That is correct.
Ms. Norton. Unlike Amtrak, unlike the airlines, unlike
WMATA, you are making money.
Mr. Leach. That is correct. We have watched these curbside
operations grow the market. So what we have done in response to
that is launched our own curbside operation. In fact, we think
we have the most superior of those curbside operators----
Ms. Norton. How do you do it, Mr. Leach?
Mr. Leach. --in Bolt Bus, which is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Greyhound. So we recognized the need for
competition.
Ms. Norton. Do they come to D.C., Mr. Leach?
Mr. Leach. They do, absolutely.
Ms. Norton. How do they manage to leave people? I don't
blame you. I would not do otherwise if I were in business. But
how do they manage to come here and leave passengers and take
them away?
Mr. Leach. We work on a pure Internet basis, so people have
to buy tickets on the Internet. They get on on the curbside and
they get off on the curbside. We operate in Boston-New York,
New York-Philadelphia and New York-Washington.
Ms. Norton. I am not going to make you incriminate yourself
to the District of Columbia. They know how to get that
information from you.
Mr. Leach. We share it regularly.
Ms. Norton. Those curbsides are in downtown Washington
somewhere or other?
Mr. Leach. Correct.
Ms. Norton. How can you do anything else? There is a huge
demand for that service. The service is being filled by people
who are competing with you with none of the expenses you have.
So you make your own subsidiary, adding to traffic in DC.
Mr. Moneme, you have done an admirable job in
transportation, but, on this notion, I don't see how you could
have let this go on this long. I am not suggesting that you had
a way to get them into Union Station. I mean, Greyhound can't
get in there until this construction takes place. But I don't
know why you wouldn't have been pushing with everybody else to
get them to have some kind of drop-off space there.
We are not asking for the tickets to be sold there. We are
not asking for the accommodations that Greyhound will have to
put up capital money to get. We are just asking for
accommodations, frankly, to our residents and to regional
residents who are in increasingly big trouble with this
economy.
So I appreciate that you are working on the intermodal
plan, but I want to ask you within 30 days to get us the names
of all of these companies and your suggestions. We are willing
to work with you on a temporary way to accommodate this. These
people don't have to be let off in the most convenient spot in
the city.
They are just glad to get here. They will get themselves a
metro or some other way. Members of Congress complain daily
about traffic downtown and try to get into our business. And I
am left here to push back. But I need the city to help,
particularly with the drop-offs. You can't just get on there
and say here is my fare. At least Greyhound can't. I don't even
know about the rest of them. But the city, if they are coming
into our city, has the capacity to demand certain kinds of
information from that. If you can't get it they cross regional
lines of the country and we can get it.
So we are willing to help you very much. But that is a big
problem that we can get rid of with a little concentrated
thinking. And I ask you in 30 days to at least give us your
thinking on ways to do it. I mean things like possible
destinations. They don't have to be the final ones. Whether or
not--because on this I have no view whether or not what Mr.
Leach does, which says, look, you have got to do it on line, is
the only way to do it. Some of these are the poorest people in
the world. They may not have any other way to do it. So either
Mr. Leach's people are fairly upscale relative to many
residents of the region. You may want to consult with Mr. Leach
and his own subsidiary who will have some sense. But I ask you
to proceed to do that within 30 days. Now, again, not a
finished product, but to show us that you are starting on that.
Mr. Moneme. No, I appreciate your comments. That is very
much what we had in mind. Actually, I can share with you some
of the plan interactions we did have with the operators in
several months, to actually sit down with all the operators and
talk a little bit about what has been their experience, some of
the concerns, many of them that you have raised already, that
we have. The one thing that we have been very mindful of is we
want to provide as many transportation options to the citizens
of not just the D.C. Region, but frankly the entire East Coast
that use this service. And we don't want to, as you said
before, we don't want to discourage competition in any way, we
want to actually be a catalyst for the benefit of our
residents, so we have been trying to walk a fine line. And we
appreciate being of assistance.
I think some of your questions and comments are very much
on point, and we will be more than happy to share with you our
thinking thus far.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Wilbur, I know this is early to ask, but people in your
business always try to make some--get some sense of where what
they are doing is leading in terms of what those who will be
there will need. I wonder if you have any sense of the expected
increase in ridership once Burnham Place is completed and what
connection you see between Burnham Place and the rest of the
facility?
Mr. Wilbur. We have not had an economic study done at this
time to evaluate your first question. I would say that the
second question really----
Ms. Norton. You do realize that some people are going to
be--let us look at the mixed use part--are going to be moving
precisely because you are so close to the transportation
center?
Mr. Wilbur. Yes, I do. One thing I would like to say is
that I think 25 years ago when I first came to Washington is
when this plan for Union Station came about. And I think at the
time it was really a visionary thing to be able to bring retail
into that area. And I think it has been a very successful
project in the sense of having the retail there. Obviously 25
years later we have a very different Washington, D.C. than we
had before. That was a very neglected area, it wasn't an area
that was attracting much investment. And also in that time I
think the advantages of mixed use development have become much
more evident to people. Also, the word "smart growth" didn't
even exist at that time, which was the idea of getting
development and putting it around transportation hubs.
So I would say absolutely the thing that is really one of
the main things missing in this ITC is the fact of having more
mixed use development. And that is really what our development
is going to bring. We have some challenges.
Ms. Norton. And by that you mean what; would you describe
what you might expect there?
Mr. Wilbur. First of all, maybe I could just tell you a
little bit about the project. We are still very much in the
planning phases, but kind of how this works, because there was
some question on that in questions earlier, and I don't think
that the folks who were there were quite able to do it because
they don't really know what is happening there. But I think you
have to think about, first of all, connections, which is really
what this project is all about. We are very much connected to
the Union Station. We are also connected to the H Street
bridge. And the H Street bridge connects us to the
neighborhoods. The elevation of this project, if you are going
to go to it from inside Union Station, you would go up the
escalators up to where the parking garage is at. And once you
get up to that elevated area, that would really be our first
floor of our building. And that is at about where the crown of
the H Street bridge is. So again it is a little hard to
visualize because we are probably about 25 feet above where the
tracks are at. There would be access to our project both from H
Street and to Union Station.
Ms. Norton. Without going outside?
Mr. Wilbur. The opening between the H Street and Union
Station, right now we are looking to have that space open to
the sky with people walking through. But your experience going
through that space is going to be superior architecture and it
will be retail. Not retail of the type that Union Station has,
but it will be just first floor retail that would be engaging
to someone so that the walk that would take place, which is a
pretty long walk, would be a pleasant one. And you would be
able to get from H Street in the neighborhoods over to Union
Station. And then of course from Union Station, you would be
able to come up to our project also.
That area south of H Street, between H Street and the
connection to Union Station, would have a platform above the
first floor, where the first floor would be all retail, we
would probably have three to four different buildings that
would be built there that would be office and residential that
would provide the density that would be able to support our
construction of the slab. On the north side of H Street,
originally when we were looking at this project we weren't
quite sure we could build anything there, and now we are
looking definitely to build there, and on the other side of H
Street, north of H Street, we are looking at probably putting
in a hotel, maybe a residential project, it could be some
supplemental parking.
So we are looking at a very dense project. It is one that
would be very connected to Union Station. It would add a
tremendous amount of daytime population as well as nighttime
population and 7-day a week population for people who would not
only use the transportation system, because the people who are
going to be attracted to those properties are going to be those
who buy into the economic and/or environmental advantages of
using the public transportation system. So I think that is
good.
The other aspect is you will have the people there that
will provide more vibrancy for the area, which again makes it
more of a people place because the transportation, the kind of
energy that you get from that is one thing, but you have got to
have the people there and you want them there basically 24/7.
So that is kind of our overall vision for the project, to
take what right now has got a nice retail operation there.
Fortunately Ashkenazy has taken over. They are going to put
major capital improvements into the retail. They are going to
retool that for a new retail environment today. And then
basically we are going to make them into a mixed use project,
because we are going to bring the other uses, the office,
residential, some retail, but fairly minor amount of retail,
and hospitality uses to the project. And then there could be
some other things, some cultural uses, too.
But I think what we are going to be doing is making that
link together seem like a single project, and I would say that
that is similar to what we did at Gallery Place. Remember that
we have a project that is next to the Verizon Center and we
connected that project to the Verizon Center so we could get
the synergies between it. We also had opening areas between the
streets so the people could walk through so that there was good
transportation patched through even whether it is on streets or
even alley ways. And that is the way we want to have this
project.
We don't have a city grid to deal with here. But we are
going to do the best that we can to make it a more walkable
neighborhood by combining our project in with Union Station.
Ms. Norton. When you talk about H Street, a city as compact
and small as D.C. Cannot afford that wasteland between North
Capitol and maybe First Street or even beyond. And there it is,
you know, nothing happening. Can't afford it, can't live with
it, and we are going to find that out during this period when
we are experiencing some financial difficulties. This has been
very fortunate until now and will be more fortunate than the
rest of the country. But even as I heard you speak with some
innovation, I see possibilities when paying for this
infrastructure, when you talk about all that is going to go on
there, if there is a will I see a way to move forward given the
amount of private expenditures that are planned and the vested
interest that the private sector, especially commercial sector,
has in its happening. And we have got to think that way or
getting it done with large amounts of Federal funds and the
like is going to not only delay it, but make it impossible.
Who is your major contact, Mr. Wilbur? Is it the
corporation, the public corporation, or is it the management
that run Union Station complex?
Mr. Wilbur. We work through USRC, but we are going to need
to work closely with all the groups. That is Ashkenazy, we have
had meetings with them, too, and they are excited about our
plans.
Ms. Norton. I am sure you are briefing everybody. I just
want to make sure, who do you go to when you need to get
something done by others and by the corporation itself?
Mr. Wilbur. David Ball would be our person to go to.
Ms. Norton. Well, that is right. And that is why I told him
the buck stops with him. He just can't pass it, because
Congress created this public corporation with almost no private
sector members precisely to be able to locate responsibility.
So it is important that that is your understanding as well.
One final question, Mr. Moneme, not because I intended it,
but somebody raised the bus notion. And you know that is my big
disappointment with the District of Columbia, because for all
the good work you have been doing in transportation this notion
about people having to go to Union Station and then pay a buck
to come see their Member of Congress, I have saved you from the
perils of Members who if we had allowed that plan to go ahead
would have left all your expectations in complete and total
disarray.
I need you to come see me. I won't take the entire time. I
have met with others. You have not been back to us. I will say
that we want to use the Circulator. We think we have found a
way to do it without charging people extra money. We do not
believe that it is feasible to send the tour buses or the
larger number of tour buses to Union Station. We will be
using--we will continue to use to the greatest extent possible
the Botanic Garden site. The golf carts are underused. They
have, I think they said, two of six on the average are what are
used. We are not satisfied given the fact that you have to go
to the front with even the golf carts. We believe there is a
way for the Circulator to come up Constitution Avenue, let
people off at the corner.
We applaud your notion of public transportation. We decided
not to rest on having another fight with the Senate on going to
First Street. That is my biggest fight yet to be solved,
because I think you had a good plan for that. I want you to
know the task force is looking at better screening for the
buses. They have been informed. You can screen all you want to.
Those buses are not going into the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
They will not go across First Street. I don't care if its safe
enough to put babies in. We are not going to increase pollution
in that section of Capitol Hill. That lower section of Capitol
Hill is a very residential part of the District of Columbia.
So it is either the Circulator, which has to be innovative
enough to get the dollars it hopes to get from rerouting
people, or it is what we hope and are clear must be some other
form of public transportation. I would be pleased to brief you
on where we are. The Sergeant of Arms--in the absence of the
District of Columbia in coming up with a plan that would not be
instantly overturned by Congress, the Sergeant of Arms will be
writing you about the plan that will be in place for at least
tour buses coming to the Capitol of the United States. There
was very deep concern in Congress about how long it was taking.
And because we now have a plan that we think will be
satisfactory to the District of Columbia we would like to sit
down with you for any alternations you might suggest in it at
your convenience.
Your testimony, gentlemen, has been as important as the
testimony we heard before. You are the real engines that make
this run. Mr. Leach, you are--I just have to thank you for keep
pressing ahead in terms of what you outlined as what kinds of
need you will have in terms of your capital costs and
amortization. I mean anybody in business would understand that
those are the kinds of things you do if you want something to
happen.
Our concern about Greyhound and interbus travel is that we
have seen no will, no will on the part of the corporation, or
for that matter even the people who have something to gain
economically, the management. Nothing happens, especially in a
city like this, without will. You make things happen. And thus
we are going to make happen intercity bus travel for residents
of the District of Columbia. You are more indispensable than
ever.
Mr. Moneme, you have a very tough mandate and you have
acquitted it well. We are sorry about the problem that arose
with respect to the--what do you call it--the Circulator. I
always want to call it the commuter. The Circulator. But
Members of Congress saw that as a way for the District of
Columbia to fund the Circulator. If you want me to be clear,
that is how Members perceived it. And I didn't have any answer
to that because I saw piling up, as you know from your
testimony, piling up the buses at Union Station. I thought it
was a traffic hazard, not to mention the dollar that I knew
would be the end of it.
Mr. Wilbur, long before you get a full fledged intermodal
center up, I ask you, because you are in business, Akridge has
been one of the most innovative developers in the city, to help
the corporation and the management on the road to true
intermodal. And the impatience that is reflected in me as a
Subcommittee Chair about getting us quickly, more quickly to
the grand visionary part of this, we are prepared to act on. It
will take private sector funding innovation to help us do it if
we want to get the infrastructure part completed. The likes of
Akridge are in the business of figuring things out of this
kind, and I ask you to continue what appears to be a very good
relationship with the actors at Union Station complex, and
especially to share with them some of that creativity that has
made Akridge one of the leading developers in the region.
I thank Akridge here right on the record for what you are
doing for the mall. The fact that Akridge, that Chip Akridge is
heading the extraordinary effort to solicit half a billion
dollars in funds for the National Mall is an indication of the
success you have had in your business because that is not
something Mr. Akridge would undertake without such success, or,
if I may say so, that he would be asked to undertake by the
public sector unless he had shown extraordinary success in his
own business.
Thank you all for your testimony at this hearing, and
please continue to communicate with Subcommittee staff and with
my own staff to the extent that we can be helpful to any of
you. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3753.122