Amtrak balking at Farley Station deal

congress is answerable ultimately to the PEOPLE, not pseudo-corporations which it lukewarmly supports which lose millions (billions?) of dollars of taxpayer money a year

An off topic observation or two.

Wow, Mr. Nip, I have not heard that term "psuedo-coproration" in many a moon.

At one time, "psuedo corporation' was a term used within the accounting profession for a corporation that made an "S Corporation" election, however, I cannot recall hearing that term since commencing private practice during 1982.

I am at a loss to know to which corporation you refer; be assured neither Amtrak nor CSX could remotely consider such an Election.

Also, I note your Presidential campaign is on hold until '08; thought you wanted to do a little "Bushwhacking"!!!

All in fun, Mr. Nip. (kill this if out of line, Mr. Vondrak)

Actually, the original description of Amtrak's corporate status was "quasi-nationalized", although that phrase hasn't been uttered around The Hill for many a moon either!

Sorry but I must dis-agree with some of you who seem to favor using the
post office building as an expansion of Penn Station.
This project will cost millions which would be much better spent in track,
signal andn equipment improvements. Up-state New York is getting
squeezed by the feds., state, Amtrak and CSX none of whom are able
and/or in the mood to spend to improve.
Item, a few months ago a very close call occurred just east of Syracuse
when an Amtrak passenger train headed right toward a CSX freight train
which happened to have a large number of hazardous materials. Had
these two trains bumped or collided, it would still be a hot topic today and
for some time to come.
Item, the post office building would not be an improvement for either
Amtrak nor for its passengers. The track layout at Penn Station is
something like a football with the points of the football facing east and
west. The wide part of the football corresponds to the present Penn
Station and not to the location of the post office a block or more to the
west. It is true that some tracks would be accessible from the post
office without much hassel but the tracks used by the Empire Service
trains would for the most part require an extra long walk and the loading
passengers would then find themselves at one end of a rather long
platform instead of the center of a long platform.
Penn Station is at a saturation point now, handling more passengers and
more train movements than it did when the Pennsylvania Railroad sold
the air rights and tore down the old station.
I do not think the present station has much less people room than the old
station did and it certainally is a nicer facility to spend time in waiting for a
departure.
I well remember the old station, cold in the winter, hot in the summer,
noisy, dirty and with its type of construction, it was difficult to hear train
announcements. I don't miss it one bit.
If there is money to burn, it should be put into cab signals, track
improvements and more equipment so that service can continue to be
attractive to all residents of New York STATE.
In my opinion, Penn Station will have less capacity if they expand to the
post office building as it will take longer to load some of the trains from
that point than it does now.
A change would also require a much longer walk from the near-by subway
stations, difficult at best and worse with luggage.
The present station, in my opinion, is not fancy but it is adequate for the
purpose intended. It is reasonably clean, announcements can be heard,
warm in the winter and cooler in the summer.
The old station might have been kept had there not been such a
discrimitory tax policy regarding the railroads over a period of many
years. Who can blame the Pennsylvania Railroad for un-loading the place
when their high taxes were being used to pay for a bus terminal for their
competetion just up the street or for the three area airports also for their
competetion.
Incidentally, I do not feel the same way about Grand Central, it was and is
well worth saving and I am glad to see that it has a bright future.
Noel Weaver

This project will cost millions which would be much better spent in track, signal and equipment improvements

New York State already spent $230 million to purchase the location from the US Postal Service. Certainly is worth considering where that money could have been redirected towards...and nobody should ever pretend that it was Amtrak's money to do anything with.

I well remember the old station, cold in the winter, hot in the summer, noisy, dirty and with its type of construction, it was difficult to hear train announcements. I don't miss it one bit

That description fit Grand Central Terminal, somewhat short of two decades ago. Would you have clamored for GCT's demolition on such grounds were it not a protected historical landmark, i.e. back then now that you claim to "not feel the same way" versus your feelings about the old NYP? Do you really prefer today's NYP? Or should we just go on a station-demolishing rampage just because the "old station" deserved its fate somehow...?

Incidentally, I do not feel the same way about Grand Central, it was and is well worth saving and I am glad to see that it has a bright future

It is the world's largest commuter rail station. It has no long-distance service departing from it. Merely a giant ornament for a wasteful public contrivance, yes...?

Actually, I have a better idea. Let us get back on topic and cease turning this thread into "NYP vs. GCT" or "Old NYP vs. MSG" or "MSG vs. Farley". This thread is about the pork project of NY state buying the Farley Post Office to turn into a concourse for a railroad that does not want it, does not find it practical nor can afford to rent it. Sound fair to everyone? Let us move on then...

For those who are still unsure about what constitutes "nitpicking," I offer this example:

[GCT] is the world's largest commuter rail station. It has no long-distance service departing from it.

It does in this movie. But who cares? The FX alone made it a great evening at the drive-in.

OK, to bring this thing around (although it is interesting how you can't have an American disaster film without a train, isn't it?) These seem to be the issues:

1.) Amtrak doesn't want to pay rent on the new space.

2.) The "Farley" station is farther away than the current Penn, which impacts a variety of issues.

3.) The platforms down on that end are tapered, which make things difficult for circulation.

That brings up an interesting question - at least for me (because of my limited knowledge) : If Amtrak Train "A" is parked at a Farley Platform that further up the track is also a Penn platform, would the local transit train that is intended for that Penn platform be blocked by the Amtrak train, or are there crossovers that would allow that local transit train to go around the Amtrak train to it's intended spot at Penn?

Beyond that, is the question of real estate surrounding Farley: Is it now experiencing, or does it have immediate potential for, development? If it is a "dead" neighborhood (which seems unlikely in Manhattan, but what do I know?) that will not attract people? Is Amtrak being shoved out into a no-man's land?

<i>That description fit Grand Central Terminal, somewhat short of two decades ago.</i>

Not really. GCT had it's dark moments, but it was in a number of ways a lot more solid - just dirty.

<i> Or should we just go on a station-demolishing rampage just because the "old station" deserved its fate somehow...? </I>

No, but the old Penn was hardly the magical palace people make it out to be.

<i>
It is the world's largest commuter rail station. It has no long-distance service departing from it. </i>

New Haven's 78 miles away, Poughkipse is quite aways away. So's Brewster. If/when Shoreline East service gets extended to there, that'll put New London as the farthest reach of GCT. That's 1/2way to Boston, and practically in RI! New Haven service in particular is less 'commuter' (whatever that means), and more of a short 'intercity' run (whatever that means). It connects 5 cities on it's route (New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, New Rochelle, New York).

I wrote:That description fit Grand Central Terminal, somewhat short of two decades ago.

Not really. GCT had it's dark moments, but it was in a number of ways a lot more solid - just dirty.

What do you mean by "a lot more solid"...? Certainly, any building that has never faced the wrecking ball will be a "lot more solid". Not possible that NYP was also "just dirty" and that a restoration, just as GCT experienced, would not have turned the place around? Since we don't have the NYP building anymore, nothing can be proven either way, therefore comparative statements like you made have no basis in fact.

the old Penn was hardly the magical palace people make it out to be

Neither was GCT about two decades ago. Neither was Hoboken Terminal pre-restoration...nor any rail terminal, in fact. Let's hear your point.

I wrote:It is the world's largest commuter rail station. It has no long-distance service departing from it.

New Haven's 78 miles away, Poughkipse (sic) is quite aways away. So's Brewster. If/when Shoreline East service gets extended to there, that'll put New London as the farthest reach of GCT. That's ½-way to Boston, and practically in RI! New Haven service in particular is less 'commuter' (whatever that means), and more of a short 'intercity' run (whatever that means). It connects 5 cities on it's route (New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, New Rochelle, New York).

And Port Jervis, NY is 93 miles away from Hoboken Terminal. Does that make Hoboken a terminal for long-distance trains? GCT hosts the same kind of trains as Hoboken—commuter trains.

Again, let's get back on topic. As "magical palaces" go (whatever that means), what would the Farley PO be magically transformed into?

(PS. What with those "whatever that means" qualifiers, you are asking the whole forum to offer a concrete definition as to what Amtrak actually is. By stating that Metro-North Railroad, an operator of commuter trains, runs "intercity" or "long-distance" service, you are saying that Amtrak is also a commuter railroad—and if so, why should it then be treated differently from other commuter railroads, as it has been?)

>>It is the world's largest commuter rail station. It has no long-distance service departing from it.<<

Have you seen Waterloo in London? Or even Victoria?

Lest we forget, where doth Eurostar originate?

Trains to my ancestoral home of Kent all leave from Victoria as well, and while not certain in this "post Balkanization" era of British Railways, I believe such trains are still intercity. However, I am prepared to stand corredted as I hath not set foot on the "Mother Isle" since 1986.

I don't know very much about Penn Station's track layout, but as someone who has lived in New York City all his life I can tell you that the neighborhood around the Post Office, while not as bustling as the midtown business district around Grand Central, is by no means dead. Furthermore, it is undergoing significant revitalization as the formerly industrial waterfront is being redeveloped for residential space. In fact, being between 8th and 9th Avenues, it is situated about midway between the center of midtown on Fifth Avenue and the new residential space on the river.

I am too young to remember the old Penn Station, but I have spent probably a cumulative hundred hours in the new one, and it is horrible. There is simply not enough space for passenger circulation. When Madison Square Garden and the current station were built, passenger numbers were about half of what they were now. The thirty years from 1963-1993 were the low water mark for New York City and American metropoles in general. In 1964, commuters were fleeing from the railroads to the automobile as fast as they could, and air travel was taking a larger share of the long distance market every year. Furthermore, crime rates were on the rise and no company wanted the massive expense of security that a building as monumental as the old station carried with it. It seemed that the new smaller Penn Station would be more than sufficient for the lower passenger levels of the future.

In recent years crime has dropped, New York has been cleaned up, and the commuting trains are more full and more frequent ever year. Additionally, because of recent events and economic factors, air travel is becoming less practical, even for business travellers. I think it is entirely possible that within twenty years the Air Shuttle will no longer be running between New York and Washington, and while air travel will remain available between those two points, it will be primarily as a connecting service and will not be run at the current frequencies. Similar things may happen to New York-Boston service as well, depending on the amount of time dropped from the Acela schedule. We need a new station for the future, in which rail travel will become more rather than less popular. The current building will only become more overcrowded each year. New York needs the Farley building.

I have ridden trains out of both Pennsylvania Station facilities in New York
many times and worked trains out of them for a long time too in the past.
There is not much difference in the amount of floor space between the
old building and the new building. Biggest difference is that the wasted
air space in both the waiting room and concourse were done away with
as the new building went up.
I am sure there are people reading this who do not remember the old
Penn Station or were not even born yet when the station was demolishled,
and to you, I recommend a book that is not really a railfan book but is
a good book about the buildings. It is titled "The Destruction of Penn
Station" and it is all pictures of the building(s) when in full operation as
well as many interesting pictures of the actual demolition. You need to
take a good look at the pictures of the station interior when it was in full
use and before construction started.
It is still my contention that the Farley Building will NOT be an improvement for Amtrak nor for its passengers.
Money is tight and the cost of alterations could be much better spent on
improvement of the signals from CP-169 (west of Schenectady) to
Buffalo and Niagara Falls. Might not be as pleasing to the eye but would do a lot more for Amtrak and its passengers.
Noel Weaver

Mr. Weaver, in his capacity as a retired New Haven Locomotive Engineer, has shared his thoughts on "Old Penn". I think it is time for me to add a couple of pennies to this discussion.

Circa 1953-65, I had enough occasion to use both GCT and "Old Penn"; neither were anything to "write home about".

Old Penn definitely was suffering from benign neglect. The walls were only cleaned "headroom high", the blackout paint mandated during WWII had never been removed from the skylights. The PRR in their "quest of modernism" decided that a new ticket cage would be the "hot setup". Unfortunately, it looked as if Baktu ("The Day the Earth Stood Still") had paid a visit to the Concourse rather than "The Mall' in Wash.

GCT resembled a "penny arcade", the New York Central was quite aggressive in selling every last ounce of ad space within the facility. You could definitely have a "Kodak Moment" therein, and you could conveniently be informed the time of day, along with a blurb to "Fly TWA". Even the space atop the Golden Clock was for sale; fortunately no takers.
Serious consideration was made to convert the Waiting Room into a bowling alley, also considered was a false ceiling for the concourse (gotta make the joint look like "New Penn").

Somehow, Jackie K and Carmella Soprano shared the same trait; they both .loved their philanderers. At the time, Jackie was simply too depressed and did not yet have a New York identity to "save Old Penn".

To envision Old Penn restored to the same extent as GCT, what a treasure.

As for the Farley/Monyham project, go forth, New York, in the memories of your "adopted First Lady" and your late Senator!

george matthews wrote:>>It is the world's largest commuter rail station. It has no long-distance service departing from it.<<

Have you seen Waterloo in London? Or even Victoria?

Do you have a subsequent point to add...? Or are you just quizzing me on what London railway terminals I've seen? in which case, it's all of them, Victoria, Paddington, Euston, St. Pancras, King's Cross, Waterloo, Liverpool Street, you name it.

How does this relate to my comment about GCT having no long-distance trains departing from it nowadays?

Mr. Weaver then wrote:There is not much difference in the amount of floor space between the old building and the new building. Biggest difference is that the wasted air space in both the waiting room and concourse were done away with as the new building went up

Ah, now it'$ into the dollar$ and ¢ent$ a$pe¢t. By utter ¢ontra$t, G¢T ha$ an in¢redible amount of "wa$ted air $pa¢e" that i$ $till being wa$ted from a purely monetary POV—how mu¢h money i$ that big overhead $pa¢e and that backward$-painted portrayal of the $olar $y$tem on the ¢eiling "lo$ing" annually? How about the pa$$enger waiting room at Hoboken Terminal, a¢ro$$ the Hud$on—plenty of air $pa¢e there that ¢ould be put to "better u$e". Hey, let'$ go $o far a$ to put adverti$ing wraps onto the ¢onductor$' uniform$, ¢orre¢t...? The dollar$ will $ave u$.