Amtrak/LIRR Moynihan Train Hall

The current Penn station is jammed and is a disgrace to the city. Travelers in Boston, Philadelphia and Washington enter through stations (rightly) restored to their rail age glory. The Farley building is exactly the right style and location for a train station (although the inscription on the top, "..neither rain nor hail nor dead of night shall stop these carriers from their appointed rounds..." would not necessarily apply to Amtrak (or the LIRR!)). To build a similar replacement at that location would cost hundreds of millions more than the existing station. The conversion is long overdue.

trainhq wrote:The current Penn station is jammed and is a disgrace to the city.

Lest we forget, "help is on the way" with the new NJTransit station.

While many well founded concerns regarding the completely separate station structure and North River tunnels can be raised, it does nevertheless represent additional track and passenger convenience capacity.

Finally, take it from one who "was there", you didn't want to see "Old Penn" circa 1964; that was the disgrace to the city.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, the only issue is the lack of clean and secure bathrooms for the exclusive use of ticketed Amtrak coach passengers. Other than that, I really don't have any complaints regarding the function, location or convenience of Penn Station.

Do you actually use it on a daily basis? It is one of the most confusing major rail stations in existence. It has numerous passageways that are cramped, horrible inconsistent signage, and inadequate space for the crowds it handles. If you're ever there when service is suspended, you will see how quickly it fills up. Yes, it's conveniently located to subways and MSG, but Grand Central is more convenient for thousands of workers, being closer to the midtown business district.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:

trainhq wrote:The current Penn station is jammed and is a disgrace to the city.

Lest we forget, "help is on the way" with the new NJTransit station.

While many well founded concerns regarding the completely separate station structure and North River tunnels can be raised, it does nevertheless represent additional track and passenger convenience capacity.

Finally, take it from one who "was there", you didn't want to see "Old Penn" circa 1964; that was the disgrace to the city.

I agree. While many criticize the new NJT plan for its lack of track connection to the existing Penn St, you can't deny it will help a great deal. NJT will be able to funnel passengers directly into the new terminal, reducing some crowding at the current Penn. If they're smart, they will have designated tracks for each line, as Septa does in Philly.

BTW, does anyone know if NJT is now out of the Farley Bldg? They were the only RR who had planned to go into it? Perhaps they will take over Amtrak's concourse at the current Penn.

NJT is not out in the Farley Building, there has been no changes to Penn Station with regard to the Farley Building as of yet. the only change as of late, is that NJT opened a stairway and entrance from its 7th Ave Concourse actually out to Seventh Ave. There was no access before. I do believe, however, that work is expected to being in the next year or two in expanding the lower track platforms west to connect with a new concourse for the Farley Buliding. I saw a timeline somewhere, but I can't remember if it was on NJT's site or the ARC or Moynaihan station site or even elsewhere.

The NJT 34th St. Station might not help as much as one would think, as a lot of those slots are destined for new service and expansion of existing service. While NYP might have a LITTLE relief, don't expect it to be that much, as MOST (not all, but MOST) of the trains that go to NYP now will continue to go to NYP in the future after 34th St. station opens.

I thought Moynihan was never dead, just that Amtrak wasn't on board. As far as I remember, NJT was going to be the lead tennent in there, and while it would have been desirable to have Amtrak on board, them not being on board didn't mean the project was dead. It would have been great for NY State and the Feds to pay for a pretty much exclusive NJT station area

the most important development would be through service NJT/MetroNorth. this would free up enough capacity and increase equipment utilization. If this were one organization, like SEPTA and the commuter tunnel, I have no doubt that Grand Central and Penn station would have been connected long ago.

bad signage has nothign to do with the station itself but management thereof. and what good reason has been given that modern HVACS couldn't have been installed in Penn station as it is currently? it doesn't have to be such sad shape as it is and that's the real crime.

I look at it this way. I prefer Grand Central because it is not a rat hole like Penn. I was fortunate enough at a very young age to see the inside of the old Penn station. And putting the trains into the old post office building is hell of a lot better than arriving in Madison Square Cavern as the present station should be called. Even South Station, Newark Penn, Washington Union are better stations than Penn. It's a disgrace. So better to enter though the old refurbished post office than enter the rat hole.

Mr. Norman has a point (which nicely reflects what I was getting at in an earlier post) although it does not take away from the fact that today's facilities are still a disgrace compared to all the other major cities on the NEC that have a grand gateway. Due to deferred maintenance and deterioration, the "Out with the old; in with the new" developers of the '60s were given a major argument for the need to demolish the structure. Although there was some outrage, the fact that there was a great deal of short-sightedness in conjunction with the sentiment at the time (the afore mentioned quote) which was almost nationwide, many were given the impression that what would replace it would be much more appealing. (There’s a website that had scans of pamphlets that stated things such as "forgive our appearance as we spruce up your 'new' station, etc."; I'll see if I can dig it up). Of course it wasn't until the rat hole materialized that people finally understood what they lost.

My skepticism about the Farley building idea is that there are more ladders and switches under that building that would have to be removed, replaced or re-configured for the extension of the platforms. Furthermore as others have mentioned, it would force passengers to one location on the platform just to access the new concourse. This is the issue GCT had to deal with until they built the North end access passageways at the northern end of their platforms.

Although demolition and re-construction at the original site seems unfeasible; it has many other benefits other than sentimental. The original station concept provided for many platform access and egress points and despite the overcrowding, there's no question that things would be much worse if people had to cram into one egress point.

My guess is if/when the Farley building happens, most people will still come up into the rat hole due to what I mentioned in the paragraph above; especially those who are from out-of-town and don't know the facilities that well. Figure 3 to 4 egress points per platform at the existing facility; now add in 1 extra stairway to access the new concourse. That means that there's a 20% chance that one will enter "Penn" through the Grand Gateway. If you're looking at tourists and visitors, that percentage would probably drop when factoring in their inexperience with the facilities.

mlrr wrote:Mr. Norman has a point (which nicely reflects what I was getting at in an earlier post) although it does not take away from the fact that today's facilities are still a disgrace compared to all the other major cities on the NEC that have a grand gateway. Due to deferred maintenance and deterioration, the "Out with the old; in with the new" developers of the '60s were given a major argument for the need to demolish the structure. Although there was some outrage, the fact that there was a great deal of short-sightedness in conjunction with the sentiment at the time (the afore mentioned quote) which was almost nationwide, many were given the impression that what would replace it would be much more appealing. (There’s a website that had scans of pamphlets that stated things such as "forgive our appearance as we spruce up your 'new' station, etc."; I'll see if I can dig it up). Of course it wasn't until the rat hole materialized that people finally understood what they lost.

My skepticism about the Farley building idea is that there are more ladders and switches under that building that would have to be removed, replaced or re-configured for the extension of the platforms. Furthermore as others have mentioned, it would force passengers to one location on the platform just to access the new concourse. This is the issue GCT had to deal with until they built the North end access passageways at the northern end of their platforms.

Although demolition and re-construction at the original site seems unfeasible; it has many other benefits other than sentimental. The original station concept provided for many platform access and egress points and despite the overcrowding, there's no question that things would be much worse if people had to cram into one egress point.

My guess is if/when the Farley building happens, most people will still come up into the rat hole due to what I mentioned in the paragraph above; especially those who are from out-of-town and don't know the facilities that well. Figure 3 to 4 egress points per platform at the existing facility; now add in 1 extra stairway to access the new concourse. That means that there's a 20% chance that one will enter "Penn" through the Grand Gateway. If you're looking at tourists and visitors, that percentage would probably drop when factoring in their inexperience with the facilities.

The points you make illustrate what an unmitigated disaster the destruction of the old Penn Station continues to be to the fabric of the city.

I agree with the previously raised connection to Grand Central idea, however, it would be far easier to reduce overcrowding at Penn Station (and therefore open up slots for MetroNorth) by extending Amtrak and NJT trains through to Jamaica (giving them access to JFK--this is done at Paris and Geneva airports) and MetroNorth trains (from New Haven) to Newark Airport. It could also be possible to extend Hudson River line trains to Jamaica.

Obviously this idea would require a fair amount spent on electrification, yard space/facilities at EWR and Jamaica, but would this more than the cost of Moynihan station (I love Stanford White's architecture as much as anyone)?

FRN9 wrote: I agree with the previously raised connection to Grand Central idea, however, it would be far easier to reduce overcrowding at Penn Station (and therefore open up slots for MetroNorth) by extending Amtrak and NJT trains through to Jamaica (giving them access to JFK--this is done at Paris and Geneva airports) and MetroNorth trains (from New Haven) to Newark Airport. It could also be possible to extend Hudson River line trains to Jamaica.

Obviously this idea would require a fair amount spent on electrification, yard space/facilities at EWR and Jamaica, but would this more than the cost of Moynihan station (I love Stanford White's architecture as much as anyone)?

I like the idea of extending Keystone and perhaps Albany trains to Jamaica but I think it'd be more useful to have run throughs of Trenton to New Haven for commuter trains, not to mention some GCT connections.

I still am not clear why the current Penn Station couldn't have been renovated all these years or why modern HVAC units couldn't have been installed. A new station would be nice, but do people really have to put up with decades of deferred maintenance while its plight is decided?

FRN9 wrote:Obviously this idea would require a fair amount spent on electrification, yard space/facilities at EWR and Jamaica, but would this more than the cost of Moynihan station (I love Stanford White's architecture as much as anyone)?

Yes, by orders of magnitude.

Jim

mlrr wrote:Mr. Norman has a point (which nicely reflects what I was getting at in an earlier post) although it does not take away from the fact that today's facilities are still a disgrace compared to all the other major cities on the NEC that have a grand gateway. Due to deferred maintenance and deterioration, the "Out with the old; in with the new" developers of the '60s were given a major argument for the need to demolish the structure. Although there was some outrage, the fact that there was a great deal of short-sightedness in conjunction with the sentiment at the time (the afore mentioned quote) which was almost nationwide, many were given the impression that what would replace it would be much more appealing. (There’s a website that had scans of pamphlets that stated things such as "forgive our appearance as we spruce up your 'new' station, etc."; I'll see if I can dig it up). Of course it wasn't until the rat hole materialized that people finally understood what they lost.

The simple, unavoidable truth is that New York Penn Station was redeveloped because it was worthwhile to do so. Manhattan real estate was valuable, and old Pennsylvania Station occupied a huge amount of that real estate and represented a tremendous financial burden to its owners. It's worth remembering that it was private property, and that ultimately, it's redevelopment was entirely successful, as the function of the station was maintained while also generating profits that helped offset the huge losses accrued by the intercity and commuter passenger services.

Was the 1963 demolition of old Pennsylvania Station short-sighted?

No, I'd argue that the original, horrendously space inefficient 1910 design was the fatal, short sighted flaw, and that the PRR management hadn't understood the concept of "air rights" as well as the NYC management of the same period.

Suburban Station wrote:the most important development would be through service NJT/MetroNorth. this would free up enough capacity and increase equipment utilization. If this were one organization, like SEPTA and the commuter tunnel, I have no doubt that Grand Central and Penn station would have been connected long ago.

There is absolutely no purpose to running through commuter service between the Hudson LIne and the NE Corridor, even though it would be hypothetically possible through the Empire Connection.

More to the point, a tunnel between NY Penn and Grand Central would cost tens of billions and would be redundant, as it is already possible to bypass Grand Central and Amtrak has been doing so every day since 1991.

Someone mentioned earlier the presence of freight elevators making the current NYP platforms narrow and hazardous in spots.

Given that there are only a handful of LD trains that handle baggage (and perhaps mail/express, does Amtrak even do that anymore?) could they be restricted to one or 2 designated platforms and the elevators at the other platforms be removed so as to open up the space?

Jon

Budd1964 wrote: Even South Station, Newark Penn, Washington Union are better stations than Penn.

Newark Penn is debateable! The waiting area is okay, despite the bums who are always hanging out, but the track level platforms and overhead structures really need to be rebuilt. The southern end up the platforms are closed off because they are crumbling, and the roof is falling down onto them. The vagrant problem is bad enough that after midnight, the main entrance and waiting room are closed, and you can only enter the station by walking to an obscure back entrance. On the plus side, there is a decent police presence.