Better Penn Station

Folks,

This was recently released:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/176397390/Penn-2023" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having briefly skimmed through the PDF, there seems to be an elephant in the room that the PDF does its best to avoid. Two elephants, actually:

1. How much that pie in the sky is going to cost

2. Who's going to pay for it

ARC went down in flames for precisely these reasons. Just in case someone hasn't been paying attention to the news lately: we're broke. New York is broke. New Jersey is broke. The entire country is broke, and is living off money borrowed from people who haven't even been born yet, and wouldn't be born for a long, long time. And no politician seems to think that there's anything wrong with that.

I have no horse in this race, I don't feel strongly one way or another, insofar as whether something like that, or a close facsimile thereof, should or would happen, or not. That's because one way or the other, I am not going to pay for any part of it, myself. Replacing the current Penn Station with this Taj Mahal of some kind would certainly be nice. No question about it. But it's also true that the current Penn Station seems to be holding up, so far, and doing its job. And I think that going into even more debt, to pay for something like that, will be extremely stupid.

But, nobody has ever accused the government of never doing anything stupid.

mrsam wrote:I have no horse in this race, I don't feel strongly one way or another, insofar as whether something like that, or a close facsimile thereof, should or would happen, or not. That's because one way or the other, I am not going to pay for any part of it, myself. Replacing the current Penn Station with this Taj Mahal of some kind would certainly be nice. No question about it. But it's also true that the current Penn Station seems to be holding up, so far, and doing its job. And I think that going into even more debt, to pay for something like that, will be extremely stupid.

But, nobody has ever accused the government of never doing anything stupid.

But borrowing money to improve this vital transportation artery is putting money to good use. It will be dividends for several generations!!

Instead of starting yet another thread, you could have simply posted this stuff in the existing Moynihan thread. I propose a merger.

But borrowing money to improve this vital transportation artery is putting money to good use. It will be dividends for several generations!!

Can you explain exactly what dividends, and how much of them, you expect to receive as a result of spending, well, I don't know, maybe five billion dollars for rebuilding Penn Station.

You've sunk five billion into rebuilding Penn Station. How are you going to make it back, with dividends on top of it?

Someone can say: well, the increased economic activity, that comes as a result of increasing capacity into Penn, will result in more tax revenue flowing to the government, which will be used to repay the costs. That's a plausible theory, and you can say that, I suppose, but unless there's some serious financial analysis done here, that arrives at that conclusion, this is nothing but guesswork, and some wishful thinking. The document you've referenced does everything but talk about the costs of this massive project, and without any costs, any kind of dividend calculation is not possible.

Again, if we're living high on the hog, right now, and are flush with extra cash, why not blow five big ones, to build a Taj Mahal of a train station? Nothing wrong with that.

But we're not. We're broke. And five billion, on second thought, that's just for starters. That sounds about right for rebuilding Penn Station alone, But even if the new Penn Station is made out of gold, without additional tunnel capacity it will do absolutely zero good, in terms of additional economic development. By itself, it adds exactly zero additional capacity into New York. You have to also add the cost of a new tunnel. And we do have some pretty good idea how much /that/ is going to cost too. The cost projections for that, getting blown through the roof, is why Christie canceled the whole boondoggle, after all.

So, any intangible benefit from having a new Penn station, plus more tunnels, is going to be more than made up by all the money sucked out of everyone's wallet, to pay for it. A lot of good the new Penn Station will do you, if you can no longer afford to live or work in New York City.

It's hard to put a dollar value on a monumental Penn Station, but New York needs and deserves one. The country that built Grand Central and Penn Station was actually far poorer than it is today. If there is no money, that is not because the country is poor or broke but because its resources are misallocated. In particular, resource allocation for public facilities and infrastructure must increase. Perhaps resource allocation to mega banks and corporate profits could decrease to free up some money for what the country really needs. Notice that JPMorgan will pay $13 billion in penalties to the government and it won't even materially affect their business.

mrsam wrote:But we're not. We're broke. And five billion, on second thought, that's just for starters. That sounds about right for rebuilding Penn Station alone, But even if the new Penn Station is made out of gold, without additional tunnel capacity it will do absolutely zero good, in terms of additional economic development. By itself, it adds exactly zero additional capacity into New York. You have to also add the cost of a new tunnel. And we do have some pretty good idea how much /that/ is going to cost too. The cost projections for that, getting blown through the roof, is why Christie canceled the whole boondoggle, after all.

But more borrowing--especially with times of high unemployment--might actually help grow the economy...

Imagine how many more tourists will come visit New York City and how many hours New Jersey commuters will save once the Gateway Tunnels open and Penn Station gets expanded!

JoeG wrote:It's hard to put a dollar value on a monumental Penn Station, but New York needs and deserves one. The country that built Grand Central and Penn Station was actually far poorer than it is today. If there is no money, that is not because the country is poor or broke but because its resources are misallocated. In particular, resource allocation for public facilities and infrastructure must increase. Perhaps resource allocation to mega banks and corporate profits could decrease to free up some money for what the country really needs. Notice that JPMorgan will pay $13 billion in penalties to the government and it won't even materially affect their business.

Exactly. Take just a quarter of the defense budget, and over three decades, you have a majority of the 5-10 trillion dollars that we need to invest just in rail infrastructure alone. And that's not including highways, electric grid, etc.

This is an incredibly well thought out proposal. It recognizes the need for a better Penn Station, and ties it to new development. Gateway, Moynihan, and a new Penn Station together would really be excellent for the center of America's busiest passenger rail line.

This is the low hanging fruit in terms of being relatively cheap with incredibly high payback when looking at rail development in the US.

CTRailfan wrote:This is the low hanging fruit in terms of being relatively cheap with incredibly high payback when looking at rail development in the US.

That could not have been said any better.

My question is, though, what is the best--and most appropriate--way to expand Penn Station? (I have heard 8 track with four tracks being able to be expanded to the east, but I have not seen that on any diagram)...

Thanks.

This plan, layering a new station on top of the Gateway plan, looks really good. The additional terminal tracks are a good idea as well, as NJT is seeing the growth, has more lines that want to get into NJT, and the more NJT trains they get off the through tracks, the more room there is for Amtrak, LIRR, and MN. If anything I would think it would be justifiable to try and resurrect ARC in addition to the Gateway project to have 6 tunnels total, but I'm not sure if there is an alignment left for ARC, as part of Gateway seem to be built on the ARC alignment. The idea of the deep tunneling into a terminal is good though, as it avoids the whole problem of having to find room to build the thing. Tunneling NJT to GCT is a good idea as well, given how many good jobs are around GCT.

What I'm wondering is why no one is looking at the whole region- it seems to be kind of piecemeal. These projects could affect each other, either directly in terms of physically connecting to each other, or getting in each others' ways, but the biggest thing is that they indirectly affect each other in terms of "competing" or interconnecting. NYC is also somewhat unique in how big it is. You can spend an hour traveling and still be in NYC! Try that in Boston, and you'll quickly be in another city. I think a rail plan that looks at all of NYC, and then all of the commuter areas in Westchester, CT, LI, and NJ is warranted, and then a plan developed from that. All that being said, the Gateway project is a good start, and is the most important rail project in the country, in concert with the $117B NEC.

Spending a huge amount of money to change Penn Station is STUPID STUPID STUPID!!! People to not travel to or through New York to see Penn Station but rather they travel through New York maybe making a connection at Penn Station which does job quite well or to do something in New York which again Penn Station does quite well. The track layout at Penn Station has not change very much since the old Penn Station was first opened way, way back when. The general waiting room/concourse layout again has not changed that much either although the old Penn Station had a lot of wasted space both on the ground and in the air. The old Penn Station was hot in the summer, cold in the winter, dirty at all times and noisy beyound belief. It was like an echo chamber when trying to listen to a train announcement on the PA system. I have an old recording of two train announcements there and the echos are so bad that you can't make out much of one of the train announcements. I used and remember the old Penn Station quite well and believe me the present facility while it is not perfect is still better than what it replaced. Millions upon millions of dollars are badly needed to improve track, signal, wire, power and other problems and money spent for these is far more important than money spent on Penn Station, New York.
Noel Weaver

Mr. Weaver, thanks for sharing with the Fourm your thoughts regarding 'Old Penn'; they are essentially mine as well - and we both were around to say 'been there done that'.

These youngsters around here never knew the Long Island area with all its exposed steel beams, seedy concession stands, and train announcements that were simply inaudible.

If they want to make a better penn station, add private restrooms for the Amtrak waiting area.

I think that is a beautiful station, but like it's been said, it's expensive in a time we don't have a lot of money. It is true that investing money in transportation infrastructure (in a place it will be used) is a worthwhile investment, but it also needs to be a smart investment. Could we make functional upgrades that cost 1/10th of the price and offer 11/10th the return on investment?

Taking money from one place and putting to another isnt' solving the borrowing problem though, but this is a train forum, not a national debt forum.

Its true that the old Penn Station, although monumental, wasn't a great success as a railroad station. In addition to the flaws mentioned by Mr Weaver, it had bad traffic flow. Presumably we have learned something about station design in the last hundred or so years. No one is suggesting that an improved Penn Station duplicate the 1910 version. But the greatest city in the country is entitled to a better station than the current slum. And the country can well afford it if resources are allocated intelligently. A great city is diminished if its transportation gateways are dirty, cramped and uninviting.

CTRailfan wrote:This plan, layering a new station on top of the Gateway plan, looks really good. The additional terminal tracks are a good idea as well, as NJT is seeing the growth, has more lines that want to get into NJT, and the more NJT trains they get off the through tracks, the more room there is for Amtrak, LIRR, and MN. If anything I would think it would be justifiable to try and resurrect ARC in addition to the Gateway project to have 6 tunnels total, but I'm not sure if there is an alignment left for ARC, as part of Gateway seem to be built on the ARC alignment. The idea of the deep tunneling into a terminal is good though, as it avoids the whole problem of having to find room to build the thing. Tunneling NJT to GCT is a good idea as well, given how many good jobs are around GCT.

I think that if they are looking at a total of 6 tunnels, Gateway and Seven Subway Extension to Secaucus is the way to go, instead of Gateway and ARC.

CTRailfan wrote:The idea of the deep tunneling into a terminal is good though, as it avoids the whole problem of having to find room to build the thing. Tunneling NJT to GCT is a good idea as well, given how many good jobs are around GCT.

Well, it does appear that Amtrak is at least considering that. After all, did you see the blue alignment in the diagram?