Washington Union Station Expansion Project: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is included in the proposed Washington Union Station Expansion Project?

The proposed project includes reconstructing and realigning tracks and platforms, developing new passenger concourses, improving multimodal transportation facilities, and improving and expanding other supporting facilities.

Who is proposing the Washington Union Station Expansion Project?

The Washington Union Station Expansion Project is a proposal by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC) and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).

What is the purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project?

The purpose of the Washington Union Station Expansion Project (the Project) is to support current and future growth in rail service and operational needs; achieve compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and emergency egress requirements; facilitate intermodal travel; provide a positive customer experience; enhance integration with the adjacent neighborhoods, businesses, and planned land uses; sustain the Station’s economic viability; and support continued preservation and use of the historic station building.

Why is the Washington Union Station Expansion Project needed?

The Project is needed to improve rail capacity, reliability, safety, efficiency, accessibility, and security, for both current and future long-term railroad operations at this historic station. Many station facilities are currently at or exceed their practical capacity. Additional growth in rail service and ridership will quickly push the Station beyond its capacity unless substantial efforts are made to accommodate the growth. WUS’s passenger facilities, including platforms, waiting areas and customer support services are not adequate to serve existing or projected future passenger demand for Amtrak and commuter rail. Multimodal operations and access are frequently constrained today and will be more so in the future. The passenger experience at WUS is not befitting of a central rail terminal in the nation’s capital and needs to be addressed. The layout and siting of the Station restrict connectivity with neighbors and need to be enhanced. Finally, to provide for a sustainable future for WUS’s preservation and maintenance, the Station needs to remain financially viable.

What is the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC)?

USRC is a non-profit organization that acts as the landlord for Washington Union Station and is its public steward. USRC is committed to working closely with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which owns the Union Station building, to ensure the preservation of this essential historic transportation facility. For more information, go to www.usrcdc.com.

What is USRC’s role in the Project?

USRC, along with Amtrak, is one of the two proponents of the Project. USRC, in coordination with Amtrak, has developed concept plans for the station expansion.  The concept plans were submitted to FRA to support the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process.

What is Amtrak?

Amtrak operates a nationwide rail network, serving 500 destinations across the country and portions of Canada. It is the nation's only high-speed intercity passenger rail provider and is also the operator of choice for state-supported corridor services in 15 states and for four commuter rail agencies. Amtrak owns the rail infrastructure (tracks, platforms, and supporting facilities) at Washington Union Station and is the majority owner of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) rail network between Washington, D.C., and Boston, MA.

What is Amtrak’s role in this Project?

Amtrak, along with USRC, is one of the two Project proponents. Amtrak is responsible for planning improvements to the tracks and platforms at the station. Both Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) and Virginia Railway Express (VRE) have maintenance and/or operating agreements with Amtrak to provide commuter rail service at Union Station and along portions of the Northeast Corridor. For more information, go to www.nec.amtrak.com.

What is FRA?

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was created by the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. It is one of ten agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation concerned with intermodal transportation. FRA’s mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a strong America, now and in the future. FRA is the owner of Union Station. For more information about FRA, visit www.fra.dot.gov.

What is FRA’s Role in this Project?

FRA, as owner of Washington Union Station, is the lead federal agency preparing the EIS to evaluate the potential impacts to the human environment of the Project.

What is the 2012 Union Station Master Plan?

The 2012 Union Station Master Plan is a vision plan created by Amtrak, Akridge, and USRC without public involvement. USRC and Amtrak subsequently proposed the Project to address the intermodal transportation needs at Washington Union Station.

How does the Project relate to the 2012 Union Station Master Plan?

The 2012 Union Station Master Plan was an aspirational vision and planning effort that helped Amtrak, Akridge, and USRC define goals for long-term expansion of the station and near-term improvements to passenger facilities. The Project is being developed by USRC and Amtrak in a public EIS process led by FRA, in coordination with responsible governmental agencies and in accordance with applicable laws. During the Project EIS process, certain elements of the 2012 Union Station Master Plan vision were determined to be impractical or inconsistent with other relevant policy and planning goals. The Project would implement the 2012 Union Station Master Plan objective for an improved station that meets multimodal transportation needs, enhances the customer experience, and facilitates future air-rights development. 

What is Akridge?

Akridge is a private development company that purchased and owns a portion of the air rights over the tracks and platforms at Washington Union Station. The General Services Administration (GSA) administered and approved the sale of the air rights in 2006. Through this transaction, Akridge owns an approximately 14-acre area starting 70 to 80 feet above the rail terminal from north of the historic station to K Street NE. The areas currently occupied by the Claytor Concourse, vehicular ramps, and WUS’s bus and parking facility remain in Federal ownership.

What is Burnham Place?

Burnham Place is a private development project, proposed by Akridge, to be built within the air rights Akridge owns over the tracks and platforms at Washington Union Station.  Burnham Place is a separate and independent project from the Project. It does not involve Federal funding or require Federal approvals that would subject it to NEPA. Akridge is solely responsible for ensuring that Burnham Place undergoes any required review and regulatory process under applicable District of Columbia laws and regulations. For more information on the private development project  please visit: www.burnhamplace.com.

What is the NEPA process?

Passed by Congress in 1969, NEPA established a national policy and framework to ensure the potential environmental impacts of major federal actions (such as approvals, funding, or permits) are evaluated prior to decision making. FRA’s actions relating to the Project may include issuing approvals or providing funding in the future for design or construction. The Project Alternatives include the potential redevelopment of Federally owned air rights above WUS. If such development does occur in the future, FRA may be involved with the transfer, lease, or disposal of this property as a separate Federal action. Therefore, the Project must go through the NEPA process. FRA is the lead federal agency preparing the EIS for the Project.

What is an EIS? 

An EIS is prepared to document a federal agency’s NEPA analysis. The Project EIS evaluates the reasonable range of alternatives and the potential impacts of those alternatives on the human environment. As an essential part of this evaluation, FRA takes into consideration input from the public and appropriate federal, state, and local agencies throughout the EIS process. The Draft EIS was published on June 4 2020 for public review.  Comments are invited from the public on any and all of the alternatives under consideration and the evaluation of impacts of those alternatives. FRA will prepare a Final EIS addressing the comments received on the Draft EIS, which may include modifications to the analysis or alternatives, including the Preferred Alternative. A Record of Decision (ROD) will announce FRA’s decision(s) regarding the Project. FRA intends to issue a combined FEIS/ROD unless precluded by statutory criteria or practicability considerations.

What are the Cooperating Agencies?

As Lead Agency, FRA invited other agencies having jurisdiction by law or agencies with special expertise on resources potentially affected by the Project to be Cooperating Agencies for the EIS. Those agencies that have accepted cooperating agency status are:

• National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC): NCPC is the Federal government’s central planning agency for the National Capital Region. The Commission provides overall planning guidance for Federal land and buildings in the region by reviewing the design of Federal and certain local projects, overseeing long-range planning for future development, and monitoring capital investment by Federal agencies.
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA): FTA is a modal administration within the United States Department of Transportation. FTA’s purview is public transportation and transit systems.
• The National Park Service (NPS): A bureau of the United States Department of the Interior, NPS is the Federal agency with authority over Columbus Plaza, which is next to WUS. NPS has authority over any work associated with the redevelopment of Columbus Plaza or other NPS features. 
• District Department of Transportation (DDOT): DDOT manages and maintains the District’s publicly owned transportation infrastructure and is the owner of the District’s street network. DDOT has jurisdiction over rights-of-way in the District, including travel lanes, on-street parking, sidewalk space, and public space between the property line and the edge of the sidewalk nearest to the property line. DDOT is leading projects to replace the H Street Bridge and extend the DC Streetcar from Union Station to Georgetown, creating a need for coordination between DDOT and FRA as part of planning for the Project.

How does the EIS address impacts on nearby neighborhoods?

The EIS considers and evaluates the Project’s potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the areas adjacent to and surrounding Washington Union Station. The resource topic areas that are addressed include: air quality; water resources and water quality; natural ecological systems; noise and vibration; energy resources; greenhouse gas emissions and resilience; solid waste disposal and hazardous materials; aesthetics and visual quality; transportation; land use, land planning and property; social and economics; environmental justice; public health, elderly, and persons with disabilities; public safety and security; parks and recreation; and cultural resources.  For each of these main resource topic areas, FRA defined appropriate local and regional study area(s) to ensure that the potential impacts are fairly and accurately described in the EIS. 

Are there historic properties associated with the Project?

Yes, historic properties are associated with the Project.  Union Station, which includes the historic station building as well as the adjacent Columbus Plaza, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites. The Terminal Rail Yard and related structures, such as the Burnham Wall along First Street, the REA Building, and the K Street Tower, have also been determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Project is also adjacent or in proximity to multiple historic properties, including the City Post Office Building and the Capitol Hill Historic District.  Due to the potential for the Project, which requires federal approval, to affect historic properties, FRA is conducting a review in compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The DC State Historic Preservation Office (DC SHPO) has confirmed the identification of all historic properties that may be affected by the Project. Potential effects to historic properties are documented in the draft Assessment of Effects Report, which is included as Appendix D1 to the DEIS. 

What is Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act?

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.), along with its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. part 800) requires that federal agencies, like FRA, consider the effects of the projects they fund or approve on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), other consulting parties, and the public the opportunity to comment. The Section 106 process assesses the potential effects of the Washington Union Station Project on historic properties. An adverse effect is found when a project may alter the characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP, affecting both the significance and integrity of the property. The goal of Section 106 is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties from federal projects. For further details on the Section 106 process please see the ACHP website https://www.achp.gov/protecting-historic-properties/section-106-process/introduction-section-106 and http://www.achp.gov/work106.html.

What is Section 4(f)?

Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) protects public parks and recreational lands; wildlife refuges; and historic sites that are eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places from acquisition or conversion to transportation use. A United States Department of Transportation agency, including FRA, may approve a transportation project that uses these resources only if there is no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resources, or the use meets the requirements for a de minimis impact.

What is the agency's Preferred Alternative?

The “preferred alternative" is the alternative that the agency believes would best fulfill the purpose and need for the Project while balancing impacts on the natural and human environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA require Federal agencies to identify the agency’s preferred alternative in the Draft EIS if one exists.  FRA and the Project Proponents have identified Alternative A-C as the preferred alternative for this Project. Along with the reconstruction of the rail terminal, construction of new concourses, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements common to all Action Alternatives, Alternative A-C features an east-west train hall and a 40-slip bus facility and 1,600-space parking facility housed in a multimodal surface transportation center located approximately where the existing parking garage stands.

Why did FRA and the Proponents develop Alternative A-C and identify it as the preferred alternative?

FRA and the Project Proponents developed Alternative A-C after considering agency and public comments and concerns about the other Action Alternatives in order to better address public and agency concerns, meet the project purpose and need, and minimize impacts. Because Alternative A-C was developed with the intent of improving upon the other alternatives, and in light of the regulatory requirement to identify the preferred alternative in the Draft EIS if one exists, FRA has identified Alternative A-C as the Preferred Alternative.

Alternative A-C combines elements of two other alternatives (Alternatives A and C) in a manner that best responds to these comments and concerns. Specifically, Alternative A-C would:

• Minimize depth and complexity of construction by placing all parking above ground, requiring no significant excavation below the concourse level. 
• Provide the fewest parking spaces of the Alternatives..
• Retain intermodal uses close to the main station.
• Minimize operational traffic impacts on the H Street Bridge and surrounding public street network. 
• Make optimal use of the Federally owned air rights and minimize impacts on the private air rights. 
• Enhance the urban setting by aligning the multimodal surface transportation center with the western edge of the historic station building and enhancing potential commercial development opportunities around the multimodal surface transportation center.
• Reduce overall project costs through a flexible, above-ground solution for bus and parking and a more efficient train hall layout.

Are the alternatives not identified as the “preferred” still under consideration?

Yes. All six Action Alternatives and the No-Action Alternative are all evaluated in the Draft EIS. The identification of a preferred does not preclude FRA from ultimately selecting another alternative or making modifications to the Preferred Alternative based on public and agency comment.

How does the Project support and relate to regional rail planning?

The Project would improve a critical piece of rail infrastructure to accommodate increased intercity and commuter rail service into the future. By reconstructing all tracks and platforms, as well as providing new internal circulation space and amenities, the Project would accommodate the levels of train service envisioned in FRA’s NEC FUTURE plan and support new service such as MARC-VRE through-running trains and the Metropolitan intercity service.

The Project complements other regional rail projects, including the Long Bridge Project and the implementation of the DC2RVa project in Virginia. The Project would allow Amtrak, MARC, and VRE to achieve the higher levels of service outlined in their long-term plans.

How does the Project support multimodal transportation at Washington Union Station?

The Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981, which has guided the successful revitalization of the Station, calls for it to be a multimodal transportation center. The Project would enhance multimodal connections at the Station. It includes new concourses that would improve internal passenger circulation among transportation modes, including enhanced connections to the Union Station Metrorail Station. A more direct station access to the DC Streetcar would be established. Additional bicycle parking and storage would be provided, and improvements would be made around the Station to improve pedestrian access. The Station would continue to be the District’s principal hub for intercity and tour/charter buses with a new facility including enhanced amenities for passengers.

As a multimodal facility, Washington Union Station also includes parking, which serves Amtrak passengers, other WUS users, and rental car companies. All Action Alternatives would reduce the amount of parking at WUS while maintaining adequate space to meet anticipated future needs. All Action Alternatives also provide curbside spaces for pick-up and drop-off activities at major station entrances.

Why is a bus facility proposed and what services would be provided?

Buses provide an important transportation service at the multimodal Washington Union Station. Tour/charter buses have been incorporated in the facility since its opening and intercity buses were brought into the facility as part of a cooperative initiative of USDOT, the District Department of Transportation (DDOT), USRC, and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. The bus facility provides convenient access for scheduled intercity travel and connections for visitors to the District of Columbia.

All Action Alternatives replace the bus facility to serve both tour/charter and intercity buses with a modern facility designed to accommodate their future growth. To minimize the size of the bus facility and the number of bus slips while meeting increased future demand in an efficient manner, the Project incorporates an active management approach, which would limit the time a bus can spend in the facility to 30 minutes. The new bus facility would include new and expanded waiting areas for passengers and eliminate conflicts between pedestrians and buses within the facility. 

The Action Alternatives place the bus facility in different locations above the rail yard. In the Preferred Alternative, it would be in a similar location to today, which would facilitate convenient connections between bus service and other transportation modes.

Why is pick-up and drop-off distributed throughout the Project?

Like all major transportation hubs, Union Station is expected to see continued growth in pick-up and drop-off demand, particularly “for-hire” services like Uber or Lyft. Providing multiple pick-up and drop-off locations can reduce the existing challenges at the front of the Station and better manage spillover of pick-up and drop-off activity onto adjacent streets. Multiple locations would be convenient to different directions from the station and can also shorten the walking distance for station passengers in accessing their ride. Pick-up and drop-off locations are proposed on First Street NE, 2^nd Street NE, at the H Street level, and, in some Alternatives, in a below-ground facility accessed from K Street NE.

Why is parking provided in the Project?

Parking provides multimodal access and connectivity for intercity rail and bus passengers, in addition to visitors to the station complex. EIS analysis indicates that there is substantial future demand for parking at WUS. Parking is also an important source of revenue for the preservation of the historic station building. Rental car companies, which serve both intercity and local needs, also require parking space. Providing parking can help to manage overall vehicular demand at the station, including pick-up and drop-off activity.

Depending on the alternative, the Project includes above-ground or below-ground parking, or both. The Preferred Alternative, Alternative A-C, provides an above-ground parking facility above the proposed bus facility, at the approximate location of the existing parking garage. Together, the bus and parking facilities form a multimodal surface transportation center. An above-ground facility could more easily be repurposed if parking demand were to change in the future relative to what is projected today, than a below ground facility.

The size of the parking program was initially determined by assessing future parking demand based on current conditions and trends. In the course of planning, FRA and USRC reduced the parking program in light of comments from agencies and the public. The program is for approximately 1,600 spaces, a 38 percent reduction relative to the existing parking garage.

FRA recognizes the substantial public interest in the amount of parking included in the Project. Following the publication and public review of the Draft EIS, FRA will consider public comments on the parking program.

How has the Project been coordinated with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT)?

DDOT is a Cooperating Agency for the EIS. Cooperating Agencies are agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise on resources potentially affected by a project. Since the beginning of the Project, FRA has met more than 40 times with DDOT staff, including with representatives of the H Street Bridge Replacement and DC Streetcar teams. The EIS Alternatives all consider the replacement of H Street Bridge and Streetcar expansion projects in their design. FRA has also coordinated closely with DDOT on the multimodal planning of the Project and the transportation impact analysis. The circulation patterns for Alternative A-C and the other Alternatives were developed in collaboration with DDOT. Coordination with DDOT will continue through the issuance of the ROD. After public review of the Draft EIS, FRA will work with DDOT on selecting measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on the transportation network around Washington Union Station.

How would the Preferred Alternative manage Station-related traffic?

The Preferred Alternative employs multiple approaches to manage traffic related to the station. The alternative makes use of both the existing east and west ramps to distribute traffic internally, limiting concentration of trips on H Street. A one-way circulation plan is used for access to the bus and parking facilities as well as to the pick-up/drop-off areas next to the train hall in order to reduce the number of turning movements from and onto H Street. First Street would be reversed in direction at Massachusetts Avenue to reduce congestion and enhance pedestrian movement at the front of the station.

FRA and the Project Proponents project that the greatest generator of vehicular trips to and from Union Station by 2040 will be cars (either private or for-hire) picking up or dropping off passengers at the station. To minimize the associated impacts on traffic, the Project includes the creation of several designated pick-up and drop-off areas that would distribute cars across several locations and contribute to keep pick-up and drop-off traffic away from local residential streets. As in all other Action Alternatives, the station circulation network allows for linking certain pick-up and drop-off trips together, thus reducing the overall number of trips generated by the Station (linked trips are when a vehicle picks up a person immediately after dropping one off at the same location). Alternative A-C does also include the option of using the multimodal transportation center to help manage pick-up and drop-off activity.

How does the Project preserve and enhance the historic station building?

All Project Alternatives preserve and enhance the historic station building. They all maintain the building as the primary entrance to the station and a grand welcoming space worthy of the nation’s capital. Both types of train hall proposed in the Action Alternatives (north-south and east-west) retain the symmetrical orientation of the station’s Beaux-Arts design. All Action Alternatives remove the existing parking garage, which features an overhang that disrupts the profile of the station and the view along First Street NE. The Project includes increased retail space and parking, the revenue from which would continue to fund the station’s preservation and rehabilitation. 

How does the Project incorporate urban design, placemaking, and neighborhood integration?

The Project’s conceptual design is intended to incorporate world-class architecture, befitting the rare opportunity and special location of Washington Union Station. The Project creates a great public train hall to complement the historic building and its architecture. The train hall and other major public concourses would include active uses, amenities, and architectural features to enhance the public realm of the Nation’s Capital. The train hall will transform the experience of passengers arriving at WUS and provide an attractive gateway to the District of Columbia.

The sides of the rail yard would remain a level above First and 2nd Streets NE and the Project would create a new H Street Concourse, with entrances below the H Street Bridge punctuating the rail yard wall along First and 2nd Streets NE, enhancing and activating the urban setting and providing a friendlier pedestrian connection between the NoMa and Capitol Hill neighborhoods than the existing H Street Bridge. At the H Street Bridge level, all Project Alternatives would provide new connections to the Station through either a north-south oriented train hall or an entrance to the new H Street Concourse below.

In all Action Alternatives, some Project elements would be adjacent to a planned private air-rights development (Burnham Place), located above the rail yard between K Street and the back of the Station. While Burnham Place is a separate and independent project, the Union Station Expansion Project provides opportunities for enhanced urban design and public spaces along H Street. The Project bus facility options and pedestrian access points have defined entrances on H Street that contribute to an active sidewalk with defined street walls. 

The Action Alternatives with an east-west train hall, including the Preferred Alternative, allow for general locations termed “access zones” that are predominantly (or fully depending on the Alternative) located within the private air-rights development.  In the “access zones” the private air-rights developer could provide daylighting features for the central concourse below and a visual connection from H Street to the new train hall and station within the Visual Access Zone, which could be centered on the historic station building. These “access zones” located within the privately-owned air rights would remain unobstructed by Project elements and would be available to the private developer to create visual connections between H Street and the historic station building as well as public open space as part of the private development design. In Alternative A-C, the southern end of the Visual Access Zone would be within the Federally owned air rights. However, neither the Project nor the potential Federal air-rights development would create an obstruction in that part of the Visual Access Zone.

What is the cost of the Project and major cost drivers?

Initial construction cost estimates indicate that the Project would cost approximately from $5.8 billion to $7.5 billion to build, depending on the alternative selected. The principal costs are for the below ground concourses and facilities; the reconstruction of tracks and platforms; construction of the train hall; and bus and parking facilities. In general, alternatives with more below ground parking cost more than those with above ground parking. Cost estimates include escalation over the long duration of construction. Construction of the air-rights deck, foundations, and associated elements to support development of Burnham Place, and potential Federal air-rights development in some alternatives, is not part of the Project and the cost of constructing them (estimated at $1.5 to $2 billion) is excluded from the cost of each Project alternative. Based on the initial cost estimates, the Preferred Alternative would be the least expensive alternative to construct (approximately $5.8 billion) due to its flexible and compact above-ground bus and parking facilities and efficient train hall layout.

Has any funding been identified for the Washington Union Station Expansion Project?

The Project is currently in the project planning process. Upon completion of the environmental review and if FRA selects one of the Action Alternatives in its Record of Decision (ROD), USRC and Amtrak will pursue implementation of the Project using the financing tools available, which may include federal grant and loan programs.

What are the temporary and long-term economic benefits associated with the Project?

Temporary economic benefits associated with WUS would include supporting thousands of jobs annually in several fields (construction, architecture and engineering, related service industries) over the life of the construction period. These jobs would generate income that would be spent in the local and regional economy, resulting in secondary job and income benefits. Initial modeling indicates an overall regional economic benefit of up to $1.4 billion annually.

In the long-term, the expansion of Union Station and the potential development of the Federally owned air rights would bring thousands of new jobs to the area. Regionally, the increased intercity and commuter rail service that the expanded Union Station could support would more efficiently connect the District of Columbia to the broader region and job and market opportunities along the east coast.

What is the duration and nature of construction for the Project?

Depending on the alternative, construction of the Project would take between approximately 11 years, 5 months and 14 years, 4 months. The Project would be built in four phases of unequal length, starting from the east side of the rail terminal and moving toward the west side. Between Phases 1 and 2, there would be a 12-month “intermediate phase” during which only work within the First Street Tunnel and the historic station building would take place. The phased approach would minimize impacts on rail service during the construction period. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative A-C) would be one of the two alternatives with the shortest construction period (11 years and 5 months).

Activities would include the construction of support of excavation (SOE) walls around the rail terminal; excavation; drilled shaft construction; and construction of the various project elements. The type of activity and resulting impacts would vary across the construction period and across each phase. Impacts, including construction-related traffic, would be greatest during SOE wall construction and excavation, and least during the 12-month intermediate phase. The longest period of excavation would be during Phase 4 of construction (along the west side of the rail terminal). The Draft EIS includes an analysis of the construction impacts and presents avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, including the preparation of Construction Transportation Management Plan.

How has the Project been shared with the public and with neighbors?

Since the beginning of the Project, FRA has hosted four public meetings (in December 2015, March 2016, October 2016, and March 2018). FRA and the Proponents have also attended many local public events, including local festivals and markets, to provide information to local residents. FRA and USRC have met with representatives of ANC 6C and last made a presentation at the March 2020 meeting of the Transportation and Public Space Committee.

How has the Project been coordinated with the Burnham Place development?

The Project and Burnham Place have different purposes and objectives. The Project accommodates but does not require development of air-rights for Burnham Place. FRA and the Project Proponents have met more than 40 times with Akridge, the developer of Burnham Place. Through the EIS process, Akridge comments have been considered in the development and refinement of the Action Alternatives and in the development of Alternative A-C. With regard to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative A-C minimizes Project use of the private air-rights parcel owned by Akridge and limits bus circulation to Federally owned property, two issues raised by Akridge during the EIS process.