Peace Breaks Out At Station’s Centennial

It could be the gateway to New England.

Finally! And including good ideas, like the bus hub, that the previous state administration said were flat-out impossible. I wonder if the commercial space will rent; hope so.

The extension of Columbus to Union is the natural pathway for Route 1 and it will (I think?) create a perfect triangle building lot for a bunch of housing on the old Church Street South. I hope that development will include a prominent walking promenade that heads directly to the station itself, a Beaux Arts idea of a beautiful city that would perfectly match the station itself.

"Having the state and city work together to reconnect and rebuild Columbus Avenue from Church Street South to Union Avenue, thereby reducing traffic on Union Avenue immediately outside of the station."

I do hope this language suggests exactly Esbey's apparent interpretation -- as meaning a rebuilt Columbus Avenue that ends up directly in front of Union Station, in a time-honored City Beautiful manner utterly appropriate to the building itself. (And that thereby would create a direct link from in front of the station straight into the heart of Downtown.)

But I suspect that what it suggests is simply rebuilding Columbus Avenue as it appears on maps (currently interrupted), ending at Union Avenue opposite the north end of the current station parking garage.

It's very encouraging to know that planners are wanting a new through road between Church Street South and Union Avenue. Now they just need to get the placement right. Doing so would mean needing to negotiate with the current owners of the Church Street housing land for a right-of-way -- but the effort would benefit immensely the long-term future of New Haven.

Who owns the vacant lot across the street from the station?

buffaloqueso: Northland Investments.
https://northland.com

1644: yoi. That sounds like a messy saga

I think Cass Gilbert's office also did a masterplan for this area of town with a road axis projecting from the front of the station up to I think Temple Street, hitting it on a diagonal. After the demo of Church St South I thought this idea might have been resurrected to avoid the current troglodytic path under the highway.

This is a significant improvement over the original proposal.

But I wonder about the long-term financial viability of the garage for three reasons. First, in the wake of the pandemic, more people are going to work remotely, at least part of the time. Some the people who typically commute to New York or Stamford every day will choose to work from home one or more days per week. Let's say that half of commuters have the ability to work remotely, and such commuters do so one day per week on average. This reduces parking demand from commuters by 10%.

Second, fully-autonomous vehicles will almost certainly become common in the 20 years that it will take to pay off the bonds that finance the garage. If you have an autonomous vehicle, it may be cheaper to have it drop you off and pick you up, rather than pay for parking. This will also reduce parking demand. Let's say, ten years from now, you have an autonomous vehicle that costs $0.50 per mile to drive, including the cost of depreciation. If you live 10 miles away from the station, your round-trip cost of using your vehicle is $10. If it costs $14 to park for a full day, it will be cheaper to use your vehicle.

Third, ride-sharing companies are not going away, and the proposed garage sensibly accommodates them. But the option of using ride share constrains the amount the NH Parking Authority can charge. If you are making an overnight trip and the round-trip Uber fare from your home to the station is $18, the Authority will have a hard time asking you to pay twice that amount for parking for two days.

And all of these trends increase the uncertainty of the Authority's revenue forecasts. Bondholders, really, really dislike uncertainty and this dislike is reflected in higher interest rates.

I love train travel/mass transit, but this agreement, while laudable, ignores that we are in the middle of a massive disruption that may change the face of the state, the city, transit, and how and where we live and work. It seems to me that this is the moment to think deeply about how the future might be different from the past, and to build that awareness into the longterm structuring and planning for Union Station. Imagine it's 10 years from now. It's a different world. Looking back, we may read an article that points out that in the midst of a huge pivot in society, leaders of the city and the state seemed to be oblivious to the changes that were all around them. While it's possible that life will return to exactly what it was in January (hopefully without Trump as a factor!), it's not anything like a sure thing.

Union Station is a gem, built by the Company's no thought would ever fail, but who's heyday's where to end by the end of Union's first decade. Commuting is influx. If Yale New Haven and its Bio Pharmaceutical industries grow and the increase of people looking for more space and stable school systems, i.e. the suburbs may increase commuters into New Haven, using Metro-North, Shore Line East and Springfield Lines rather than leaving New Haven in the morning. How come technology for self driving cars way ahead while Mass transit is still operating on a 19th century business model? I think I know but any thoughts?

George Polk, the 19th century, for-profit, business model of mass transit ended decades ago. In the 1970s, Amtrak and regional authorities such as the MTA took over failing passenger rail systems. The state of Connecticut purchased the remnants of The Connecticut Company to form the Hartford, New Haven, and Stamford divisions of CT Transit. In other states, regional authorities took on responsibility for providing bus service.

The problem is that no one has come up with a good business model for mass transit. Even before COVID, regional authorities were hard pressed to pay their operating costs, much less their capital costs. At the same time, policy-makers and voters have been unwilling to view public transportation as a social good, similar to fire protection, funded solely by general tax revenue.

I love the idea of connecting all the streets that were cut off from each other because of the highway and the Route 34 connector. I also love the idea of a bus hub and ride service/share pick up and drop off plan, if done right. There also needs to be lots of secure bike storage. Since the future most likely will have less of us driving cars, and more of us using public transportation, the structure of the parking garage needs to be built so it can be easily converted to housing or business units as the future dictates. It will be very important to have the Transportation developers coordinate with the Church Street South developers for a complimentary and cohesive flow both in appearance and pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic use. Together they can create a valuable and beautiful overhaul of an area long neglected and while heavily used, difficult to navigate and unwelcoming to look at. This could be a wonderful gateway to the city and a desirable location for the economy for the State and the region.

Good to see that the City and State are working together better these days. Mostly good news. The 600 additional parking spaces looks like a compromise of sorts, though, and still too much IMO. But, in addition to the commentators above, if we're serious about tackling things like emissions, climate change, traffic safety, congestion, etc, then it'd be better to focus on getting folks to Union Station by transit (and biking/walking) instead of by driving/parking. Run more frequent train service on the Hartford Line and Shore Line East. Likewise for CT-Transit buses. Someone living in in Madison, for example, should find it easier to take Shore Line East to Union Station to then transfer to Metro North or Amtrak instead of driving to Union Station to take MN or Amtrak. E-Toll the major highways to make it all happen, which is needed to pay for the state roadway system anyways and would also be able to fund more/better transit service, more frequent train/bust service, and so on. Better yet, congestion-price the major highways with pricing levels sufficient to provide uncongested highways flows even during rush 'hours' (wouldn't that be nice), which would be a net positive for the state in the (not so) long run and, again, would provide revenue for other more sustainable forms of transit. Of course, this is all contingent on what happens with COVID-19, how long this pandemic drags on, and the serious economic effects that are resulting from it - but the same could also be said about uncertainties for the future of the parking industry

HeatherC,

Parking structures are built with less structural capacity than buildings for people because cars weigh less. And they vibrate. And they're water permeable. And their floor to floor height is less. And half of the deck is usually sloped unless you go back to an old split level model (used at St Raphaels) but which is a less efficient diagram.
Change most of those things and you've no longer built a parking garage But something much more expensive and developers don't spend money on what might happen; their pro forma projects the cost and income of the building with the facts they have during development.

Robn- oh well, then I guess when our individual car culture ends due to global warming disaster measures (western states burning every year, southern and eastern states being hit by increasingly massive hurricanes, increasing number of tornados in the all of the states east of the Rockies,) and the decreasing number of baby boomers able to drive due to aging, and millennials not interested in getting their license, never mind own a car, then we can always tear the parking garage down, and build housing or commercial space at that time.

@Kevin. Passenger service has never been a money maker even during the heyday of Vanderbilt, it was freight and mail contracts that made profits for the rail companies. It is the 19th century infrastructure the trains are running on is the bigger problem. High Speed Trains need straight tracks, will the government use eminent domain to take property and bulldoze high priced real estate through Fairfield and Westchester Counties? The investment needs to be into autonomous operations and on a revolutionary system that will allow both express and local to run seamlessly. While Long Distant Train Travel is "Romantic" I don't see a return of The 20th Century Limited much less "Theater Trains, the majority of passengers are picked up and dropped off in the suburbs, the majority are not getting on in New Haven and getting off in NYC on a regular basis. The reason the Acela only saves you 45 minutes on a trip to D.C is that the train is only allowed to reach top speed in a stretch in Delaware, the rest of the time it must weave its way through commuter transit systems. While cars are becoming autonomous, adding safety features every model year, not so much on Metro-North. Another reason for the lack of "investments" of mass transit is that the government competes with its self. They build and maintain the roads and highways that compete with the trains. For Union Station to thrive their needs to be commerce and foot traffic, commuters and travelers arrive at a station shortly before the train leaves or boards and depart when they arrive, Grand Central is in a mid-town cross walk, Union Station and most others are on the outskirts of town, the failure of The Michigan Central Train Station in Detroit among other reasons was that the expected city expansion never reached the station.

Mr. Polk,
thanks for your informative comment.
t was a more realistic analysis.
Maybe king Ned should give you a call.

@George Polk, sharing trackage with commuter railroads is part of the reason that Acela trains cannot operate anywhere near their design speed. But in addition, as you note, much of the Northeast Corridor is curvy, precluding high speed operation. And a number of NEC bridges are obsolete. Most notably, the 120 year old Walk Bridge in Norwalk has a 30 mph speed limit.

I'm actually more optimistic about Union Station than you. People spend relatively little time in the station now in part because it has few amenities. I suspect that few people hung around NY Grand Central or Washington's Union Station in the decades before restaurants and retail facilities were built there. (That was certainly my experience as a daily commuter to Chicago's Union Station many years ago.) Another factor is that housing is increasing in the immediate area. About 400 units have recently opened or are under construction in the immediate vicinity of the station. It is likely that the first phase of the Coliseum project will go forward, with 200 more units. And eventually Church Street South will be redeveloped.

@Kevin, Union Station will always be here but I am cautious about some of the real estate plans and the debate between the future of rail service can be separate issues. Most train enthusiast's I know concentrate on the actual trains, I have always been interested in the actual Train Stations, they are America's Castle's. The structures where so inspiring and grand, that communities wanted them saved even though fewer trains passed by or even after the tracks had been torn up. For a time the buildings where repurposed as Museum's, others Hotel's and Apartments and malls Houston's former station was incorporated into The Astro's Baseball Stadium, smaller town stations became restaurants, while Detroit's, Buffalo's Huge complexes stand idle to far gone to be renovated but even in decay to majestic to tear down. Waterbury's Union Station has stood too see the decline of two industries. Canaan's Union Station is a survival story in itself. I believe if commercial office space where to expand towards Union Station and perhaps with the New large Hotel on Long Wharf commuters from the east shore, Wallingford and perhaps southern New Haven County training into work will increase the foot traffic maybe having happy hour at the station or pick up food items before departing. An Apartment complex's with residents that work and live in New Haven I don't think will have the same effect. Keeping the area safe will also be important. During Grand Central's revitalization in the 90's they removed the bench's from Vanderbilt Hall into a waiting room (When the terminal opened there where separate men and woman waiting rooms), in which to sit there you needed to show a ticket. Easy access to bus and shuttle service is also important. The Hospital and all the college's have shuttle services to Union Station having CT Transit centered there doesn't seem to be as vital.