The original Penn Station lives on only in photographs.
Amongst the transit literati and New York architect community, nothing triggers more nostalgia than old Penn Station. The McKim, Mead and White original met its demise 49 years ago, and its destruction along with the threatened demolition of Grand Central led to today’s wave of overly enthusiastic preservation. Yet, thanks to the dingy, cramped and ugly underground replacement, someone always wants to find a way to bring Penn Station back.
This time around, the argument belongs to Michael Kimmelman, architect critic for The New York Times. In a piece set to appear in Sunday’s paper but already available on the web, Kimmelman argues for a grand restoration of dignity for Penn Station commuters. His overall idea is an intriguing one. When the Javits Center is torn down as part of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s convention center scheme, we will move Madison Square Garden to 34th St. and 11th Ave. and rebuild a grand train station where the Garden is now. Sounds great, right? Stay tuned.
In the piece Kimmelman is very dismissive of the Moynihan Station plan. Why? Read on:
Because the open secret about the Moynihan plan is that Amtrak alone would move across Eighth Avenue. Long Island Rail Road, New Jersey Transit and the subways wouldn’t budge. And only 30,000 of those 600,000 people who use Penn Station each day take Amtrak, never mind all the subway riders passing through.
That’s right: 95 percent of commuters will still have to contend with Penn even when the Moynihan plan is realized.
It’s true that the Moynihan plan will eventually improve a few access routes to subways and commuter trains. But it will add no new tracks and have limited effect on the congestion and misery of Penn Station. New tracks aside, the challenge is at the bare minimum to bring light and air into this underground purgatory and, beyond that, to create for millions of people a new space worthy of New York, a civic hub in the spirit of the great demolished one, more attuned to the city’s aspirations and democratic ideals.
This, of course, is no secret for many of us. We’ve bemoaned the dollars to be sunk into Moynihan with little to no upgrade to train capacity. It’s a similar story at Fulton Street where the headhouse represents a large chunk of an expensive project and sits a block away from a $4 billion PATH hub that also won’t increase capacity. In fact, as he proposes this new Penn Station, Kimmelman draws a comparison with the PATH hub.
“We depend on developers to improve neighborhoods,” he writes, “and at the same time we waste unconscionable amounts of public money on architectural follies like the much-delayed World Trade Center PATH station, which is projected, even after ground zero is fully developed, to serve only perhaps 60,000 riders and whose exploding cost is already approaching $4 billion, a scandal still waiting to dawn on New Yorkers.”
So the solution here appears to be…spending billions to build something that will create a “light-filled Penn Station” without increasing train capacity? Kimmelman manages to skirt the real issue: We can build the most glorious Penn Station possible and spend lavishly on it, but without an added tunnel underneath the Hudson River, without an expansion of track capacity underneath Penn Station and an increase in the number of trains that can cross into and out of New York City, we will just be repeating the same spending mistakes transplanted a few miles north from the World Trade Center site.
Maybe one day we’ll have a glorious train station on the West Side. Maybe we’ll have something to match the splendor of Grand Central (and hopefully, it will be a little less bland than the LIRR’s Atlantic Terminal). But we shouldn’t ask to spend billions at 34th Street just for the sake of aesthetics. A pretty building might look good, but it won’t allow for more trains and more rail commuters.
76 comments
I remember walking through the real Penn Station a number of times with my mom and my aunt several times and my memory of it is so clear. What a beautiful place and what a crime that it was demolished – no other way to say it. And when you think about it, two great buildings were demolished to be replaced by the ugliness that we have now. The previous Madison Square Garden was a great place as well. It would have been great to see the Knicks and Rangers win their championships there, instead of that auditorium at 8th Avenue and 33rd Street.
I only saw Penn Station from th outside so I don’t know of its beauty inside. But back then in 1963, per-Landmarks conservation, the prevalent thinking was that anything me and modern was good, and anything old was bad. You never heard the term “old fashioned” used in the positive sense. We didn’t know how to take care of old buildings. They were all soot covered and never cleaned which didn’t start happening until the late 1970s. From the outside the old Penn Station looked dirty and ugly which is why there were only small protests when it was demolished. Perhaps if it had been steam cleaned before it as been demolished, the demolition never woud have occurred, because then the young people would have seen the building how it was intended to be seen by the architects and would have joined in the protests.
I cant see the garden moving anytime son especially after the mass renovation it just underwent
The damage has already been done.
The rennovation is a long-term project. I think it might be about 1/3 of the way done. The last administration made a huge mistake in not getting MSG to move when the renovation plan was being hatched. That said, even a renovated MSG won’t be as nice as the new Atlantic Yards facility or the Prudential Center. It would take guts to stop the renovation or to get the Dolans to eat it and move on, but getting MSG out of there seems a pretty obvious prerequisite to making Penn Station something other than a rabbit warren.
I agree with not building some huge light-filled station when the tracks are not modified. However, I strongly disagree with the statement, “95 percent of commuters will still have to contend with Penn.” Once ESA opens, a huge number of LIRR passengers will no longer use Penn. They will switch to Grand Central and be closer to their jobs.
And the businesses of Penn worry about that constantly. They know it, their customers know it and the powers that be should know it. I even think Apple knows it.
And to some extent, there is little to be done about it. Penn was turned into the Fulton Mall of Midtown West, full of dingy fast food and shops full of shoddy crap. Traffic congestion and suppressed street life pretty well guarantees it isn’t going to be the high-end residential mecca the east side, Greenwich Village, or even Williamsburg happen to be.
In what way does the Penn Station area have “suppressed street life”? During rush hours the streets around Penn Station (and especially the dash between Herald Square and Penn) are way crowded, to the point where pedestrians take over the streets to get around the masses. Koreatown, Times Square, the “Garment” (“Fashion”?) District are packed with pedestrians. Obviously it’s not a “high-end residential mecca” — Midtown West is way less affluent than Midtown East and always has been, but don’t confuse affluence with vibrance. Midtown East is more office workers in suits and professional 20/30-something white people; Midtown West is a diverse mix of tourists, transplants, Asians, etc. Of course the west side of Penn is a dead zone. It’s historically been industrial over there, but we all know that’s getting less so.
Also the amount of retail in Penn Station is pretty modest. I don’t think anybody who lives or works in the area would view it as a retail destination, so the comparison to Fulton Mall–which is the major retail destination for the transit-dependent of Outer Brooklyn–doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s basically just convenience retail for people who are using the station anyway.
It’s busy, but it doesn’t attract the extent of street life, some of which is boutique I admit, other neighborhoods attract. That doesn’t mean it isn’t busy. And I don’t mean there are no exceptions either. The area around 34th Street, though, is…well, almost dingy, and it’s choked with cars.
As for Penn or the bus terminal and those blocks in between being a retail destination, well, anecdotally, you’d be surprised at some of the things people tell me. 😐
I work on 8th Ave between Penn and Port Authority…Let me tell you, we in my office call it crackwhore village. Chock full of a crazy cast of characters.
The capacity freed up by ESA will probably be replaced somewhat by Metro North trains down the road.
Apropos of which, Metro North plans to avail themselves of the underutilized Empire Corridor along the Hudson into Penn, including building another station, probably around 125th Street over the Fairway parking lot in the shadow of Riverside Drive.
Currently, Amtrak only runs a handful of trains through that corridor. Under that plan, pulling some of the Metro North Hudson Line traffic out of GCT should bring at least somewhat more balance to the Penn/GCT equation.
Where would metro North store trains? Could it use the west side yards? I’ve often wondered what Penn will look like when ESA gets done (assuming this ever happens). I don’t see much demand at all for Penn access from LIRR commuters. It’d be a second choice terminal for nearly everyone using the LIRR trains now.
Penn Station will still be the best stop for LIRR riders who use the subways to get to their destination, with the A, C, and E on 8th Ave, the 1,2, and 3 on 7th Ave, the B, D, F, and M on 6th Ave, and the N, Q, and R trains at Herald Square. Great connections to Wall Street or the West Side.
The East Side Access station will be convenient to the already overcrowded Lexington line and the 42nd St Shuttle, and for walking to work in East Midtown.
Penn Station will remain the first choice of plenty of riders on the LIRR.
Depending on how long the trip is, I’d think getting to lower Manhattan would be easier from GCT. I’m not asserting that this is the case, but you’d have the 4/5 right there for an express trip without having your train traverse all of midtown to reach the 2/3 tracks.
Anyway, that’s an interesting take. I’m sure the EIS covers all this. Intuitively, it always seemed like the vast majority of Manhattan jobs are just not around Penn and are very much around GCT.
I don’t follow your logic. The 2/3 is perfectly fine for going downtown, climbing two sets of stairs (one from LIRR to the LIRR concourse level, then from that level to the 2/3 platform) would be much faster than ascending from the very deep LIRR platforms.
Not to mention the crowding that already exists on the 4/5…
I have to agree considering I don’t know what the connection from the deep cavern is going to look like to the main terminal itself.
Where would metro North store trains? Could it use the west side yards?
Ideally the Hudson Line trains would run through Penn Station and Hell Gate to become New Haven Line trains. If we can’t get one Metro-North line to run through to another, we have no hope of getting NJT/Metro-North or NJT/LIRR run-through.
But where would they be warehoused during the day? NJT stacks trains in Queens for the pm rush, and the LIRR stacks them at the west side yards. Would MN be able to use of of those facilities?
You’re missing the point. The trains would not be “warehoused” during the day. They would be running.
A peak Hudson Line train would become a contra-peak New Haven Line train. A peak New Haven Line train would become a contra-peak Hudson Line train.
You only need to “warehouse” trains for the excess peak capacity. Under initial plans, the extra peak trains would all run to Grand Central; Penn would get off-peak Metro-North service all day long, without extra peak service.
Metro-North would have to order additional dual-mode (underrunning third rail / catenary) trains.
Not sure about that one. I’m sure the Connecticut DOT doesn’t want it’s new trains running anywhere but on Connecticut ROWs. Seeing as those are the only trains with 3rd rail and catenary power equipment, I don’t see that happening.
you are correct!
I’m willing to place a bet into the future of the concept that having a grand head house in conducive or influences the thoughts of expanding underground rail capacity. Let’s start with Grand Central as an example.
Over all these years when it was just Metro-North and the subways, especially after it’s Amtrak days all anyone could ever dream of is having something significant travel there. (LIRR) And that plan has been under some form of construction for the past 40 years. And finally (hopefully) in this decade ESA will be completed and the dream realized, but then I feel the same will hold true for Fulton Street. Ideas have already come up prior to the thoughts of rebuilding the station below and above ground. LIRR came up as an idea over the A line. Airtrain has been brought up as an option to Fulton Street as well. Now what about that ridiculous PATH station? I honestly feel that NJT is going to become a topic of conversation some time in the future.
Moral of the story. People seem to look at a grand head house and ask the question of what actually goes there. And that leads to ideas of what could travel there when it comes to expanded rail. When Fulton is done. Not many will complain because that complex was a disaster. So the expense above ground might get a pass. PATH, the same can’t be said as many complain that what was there was perfectly fine. More so than not the PA is going to try and find a way to insert NJT into the topic of conversation. Now where the money is going to come from for these new tunnels? Good question.
Curious,..do you think LIRR could ever reactivate its connection to the Jamaica El and run service back to Chambers Street? The building has the platform capacity to handle this, the Nassau line itself is lightly used it would seem so track capacity can be dealt with, and this would bring LIRR to downtown Manhattan. The only costs i could see would be renovating Chambers (which we all agree could use it), opening up some of the abandoned areas of the station, and some track reconfiguration.
Too many of the curves on that line are too tight for the LIRR’s 75 foot M-7 cars. Probably one of the reasons the Archer Avenue extension from the past possibly could have been rethought out with an additional level for LIRR expanded service somehow, but the main problem when constructing the extension was the ground. It’s a very soft mix. It was one of the first projects in the city to use the slurry wall method.
Maybe they could build cars to especially run on the Jamaica El. Hey, the IRT did it for the Steinway Tunnel with their “Steinway cars”; why not here?
Let’s dismiss (for now) the quality of thought that justifies building pretty headhouses for transit hubs without expanding capacity in those locations, and ask – Could we get a pretty headhouse as a result of a market based business solution to reuse of an old site?
Consider the future, when LIRR runs into an 8 (?) track stub at GCT, and someone gets the “bright idea” of sending some Metro North trains into NYP. At that time, will the politicians have successfully moved NYC’s convention business out of the Javits Center leaving the area open for redevelopment? Could anyone justify moving MSG to a new site, replacing the Javits Center, then building on the old MSG site? If so, could there be a public-private plan to redevelop the newly vacated MSG site and rectify many of the problems with the current NYP site?
I see no reasons why a major rail terminal can’t be elegant, functional, and connected to a major office complex (or other structure). But I do see reasons why a project like this could be botched – especially if the ambiance (for lack of better word) of the rail station is neglected, as it was 50 years ago….
Considering my looming 11:30 post, curious as to why you put “bright idea” in quotes. Such a plan is already in the works — or at least in the very early stages of being in the works.
I am typically the first person to say that the MTA needs to focus on being experts at their own expertise which is moving people. However in this economic and public funding climate they need to expand their portfolio into real estate. They sit on probably and king’s ransom worth of air rights.
Let’s start with Fulton Street. They didn’t have air rights there and the below ground was a cob web. The retail above ground made no sense for the area. A huge AT&T wireless store, an upstairs Sleepy’s, Dunkin Donuts and I believe a nail place and below ground barbershop all in a short two story building. If not the MTA than Pace might have tried to grab the space or someone else for that matter just the same way Pace grabbed up 180 Broadway. Now you build yourself a head house and clean up the below ground and add a multitude of retail businesses to the above ground. You make a percentage off of the sales. Win-Win.
West Side Yards, charge a posting fee for acquiring the air rights and an annual building and integrity fee. Win-Win.
Same thing in Brooklyn with the Barclay’s Arena.
Wash rinse repeat with most of the subway yards throughout the city which in turn will help decrease your security costs with the yards themselves being covered.
Efforts would be better spent on improving accessibility, correcting land use, and making sure these types of abortive modernist monstrosities aren’t inflicted on anyone else. Move MSG, and let a hungry developer build something better if it wants, but don’t expect a return to the gilded age. It’s gone, and we’re better off focusing on decreasing our dependence on oil and keeping intact what monuments we have.
Agreed . . .
Sounds defeatist. If Penn Station could be done with the technology and finance of the 19th century it can be done, better, today.
Tear down the piece of cr@p currently in it’s place, renovations or no. $1B later it’ll still be an ugly piece of cr@p; there’s no reason that it’s market value (what it’ll cost to remove via eminent domain) will increase by $1B simply because good money was wasted on it.
It’s not defeatist at all. Penn Station doesn’t even need to exist anymore, and wasting resources on a lost monument does us little good. Amtrak needs enough capacity to let Amtrak trains dwell for a little while as people board and alight and cram luggage in and restock the cafe cars and let crews change and all that other stuff trains need to do in a terminal. LIRR, MNRR, and NJT should not be using Penn as a terminal to begin with. 2-3 through tracks in each direction should be more than enough for the commuter railroads, all of which should be cooperating with each other to terminate elsewhere.
Want to not be defeatist? Find a way to use the resources to finish SAS and build the subway to Staten Island and do other things that pols won’t touch.
Could NJtransit trains be routed up the west side, hook east and go to GCT(there looks to be an abandoned spur/connection near Spuyten Duvil in the weeds once you cross the bridge)? GCT has alot of capacity currently and with LIRR going to the new lower level, would these alleviate Penn to be the highspeed, inter-city station for nyc
I dunno, maybe, but it seems roundabout to the point of being useless.
And MNRR doesn’t seem to want to share its extra space anyway, which is why all these deep-level monstrosities get proposed to begin with.
There is an abandoned wye at Spuyten Duyvil. The 2002 Metro-North MIS/DEIS Comparative Screening Report looked at reconstructing that (single-tracked) wye to permit Harlem Line trains to run to Penn Station — they’d use the Mott Haven wye to run up the Hudson Line (like the game day trains to Yankee Stadium) and then the Spuyten Duyvil wye to reach the West Side — but reported against it. It’s a long way round. For NJT trains it would be even longer: about 21 miles for a trip that as the crow flies is about a mile.
There’s also no easy way (probably not even a hard way) to link between the North River Tunnel portal at 10th Ave and 32nd St and the start of double tracking on the West Side Line at 39th St somewhere between 10th and 11th Aves.
Bolwerk, you underestimate how much passenger capacity Amtrak needs for:
– A bunch of Acelas
– A gazillion Regionals
– trains to Miami, New Orleans, Chicago, Montreal, Vermont, etc.
The latter group, which includes baggage and sleeper service, have *LONG* dwell times, and always will.
LIRR and NJT should most certainly be through-running; if they were, there would be plenty of track capacity at Penn. You could even remove tracks and widen the platforms.
But there still wouldn’t be enough passenger circulation capacity. Hence the need for a new headhouse, whether Moynihan, “Penn South”, or getting rid of MSG.
No, I do not underestimate it. Even if Acelas and Regionals for both directions need to be able to dwell simultaneously for crew changes and restocking, that’s only four tracks they’d need. No idea about those LD services, but at best they seem to run once or twice a day at most. Think about it four-dimensionally and there just isn’t that much of a track capacity problem.
As for circulation, maybe you’re right, but I don’t know where you get this notion that I object to a headhouse or passenger spaces. I just meant the old Penn Station is gone and there is no need to replace it with a similar monument.
It strikes me that a lot of mileage could be gotten out of tearing down that one large building on 7th avenue between 32nd-33rd atreet. I believe that this is Two Penn Plaza. Demolishing that building would allow the creation of areas where light can be brought down into that station, the ceilings raised, and create a landmark area where passersby could see the station and MSG. Addition by subtraction might be a relatively cheap way to enhance Penn.
Why even bother? This is a station where most people probably don’t spend more than 15m of their days, and few are embarking on days-long trips anywhere in the 21st century.
Because the current configuration of Penn Station is dangerous, inadequate and an afront to basic human dignity.
No, shitty transit is an affront to basic human dignity.
Penn can be fixed by combining some platforms and widening staircases. Let the private sector deal with beautification.
Let the private sector deal with the beautification of a public transit system? Where’s the logic there?
And people spend as little time as possible at Penn Station because who the hell wants to spend any time at Penn Station?
Beautification of a station, actually. I’m not for wasting public money on it.
The private sector probably would spend money on it in exchange for getting something from it (retail space, condos, air rights, whatever). Of course, the MTA should have a good revenue-sharing deal if it goes that route.
Combining platforms requires convincing LIRR and NJT to do through-running (good idea, mind you, but LIRR would have to re-electrify with catenary. Also a good idea).
This would just dump more people into the overcrowded caverns above. Separate waiting areas are needed for people on the Amtrak trains *other* than Washington-Boston — who will frequently be waiting for long periods — to keep them from being overwhelmed by herds of commuters.
If there are “dangerous” conditions at Penn Station, I don’t imagine that skylights or higher ceilings will be much of a fix for them.
Bolwerk, tell that to the people riding the Lake Shore Limited, Cardinal, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Crescent, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Palmetto, Carolinian, Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, Ethan Allan Express, Empire Service, Keystone Service, Regional to Norfolk (coming soon), Regional to Lynchburg, and Regional to Newport News. Worse, tell it to someone making a *connection* to or from one of these trains.
There are an awful lot of people who spend *quite* a long time waiting for their trains in Penn Station (because they are embarking on many-hour-long trips if not multi-day trips), and they *do* need a decent station.
You seem obsessed with the commuter traffic, which doesn’t need a better station — but the intercity traffic needs a better station, period.
The vast majority of Penn Station traffic is commuter traffic, and it’s probably the vast majority of the concern at Penn. I don’t know what you’re inferring I’m against improving the experience of inter-city passengers from, but here is an actual thread where I commented on the subject. There just isn’t any reason to go crazy to improve it; better waiting rooms and maybe more seating would roughly suffice; people have pointed out ways to offer that on this thread, so I don’t need to repeat them.
Also, “inter-city” traffic isn’t that big a deal. “Long-distance traffic” constitutes the people with crappy waits. They’re the ones who are using those once-a-day services you mentioned, and you’re probably right the ones who transfer between such services have it the worst. But they’re probably only a small fraction of the Amtrak traffic, which is itself a small portion of Penn’s traffic.
I would love to be part of the wrecking crew to tear down MSG if it ever happens. God I would love Penn to be a nice place.
Probably won’t happen, I lost faith.
If it does happen, I bet there will be minimum parking requirements!
By the current plans, Amtrak is studying two (2) new stations at Penn Station — the Moynihan, and a really needed one to handle High Speed trains when they arrive in force on the Northeast Corridor.
The NEW station will occupy the full block 30th St to 31st, 7th Ave to 8th, largely owned by Amtrak already. It will sit above 4 to 6 new tracks and platforms, connecting to a new tunnel under the Hudson.
This NEW full-block building will give us an excellent chance to have an efficient and architecturally distinguished station which will welcome passengers to our city.
Unfortunately, the Moynihan plan does little or nothing to add tracks or platforms to gain new capacity for the crowded and inefficient underground workings of Penn Station. The Moynihan is on the to-do list apparently to please the politicians who want to convert the Main Post Office building and name it for a fellow politician. That building is a beauty, and it should be put to good use, but an Amtrak station is not a good use for it.
Meanwhile, the current 30,000 Amtrak passengers could grow to 100,000 or 200,000 or more within 10 years. Amtrak’s business plan is to buy new Acela cars to insert two each into the existing 20 six-car trainsets, increasing each train’s capacity by more than a third, almost 40%. Then it will buy still more Acelas (or Next Generation Acelas) to have enough fast trains to run not hourly, but on a half hour schedule, and then every 20 minutes.
Amtrak passengers will also grow as frequencies are increased and service improved (from projects currently underway) to Albany and Buffalo, to Hartford and Springfield, to Philly and Harrisburg, as well as on the long distance trains to Montreal, Chicago, and the South.
We need a new train station, and it will be built between 30th St and 31st, 7th Ave and 8th. That opportunity is what we should be looking at now.
Penn South, what you are referring to, is a sad substitution for a solution to the real problem; the lack of a third independent transit hub in New York City. London has 10 regional rail termini. Paris has 8 regional rail termini. Yet New York, which serves a metropolitan area larger than Paris and London combined, only had two main rail termini in Manhattan? Penn South is only going to add 7 tracks of capacity. Is that supposed to be a long-term solution to our capacity issues? Time to take all the money being proposed to retrofitting and renovating Penn Station and the PRR lines, and build a third transit hub from the ground up.
There is a Penn South already – the housing development a few blocks below the station and MSG on 8th Avenue.
This is exactly why I see at some point LIRR or AirTrain expanding to Fulton Street and NJT possibly to WTC.
Why stop with one block on the Penn South plan? (Not the housing development, but the future home of the Acelas, the Amtrak-owned block between 30th St and 31st, 7th Ave and 8th.)
Grab the next block, too, the one between 29th St and 30th, 7th Ave and 8th, put another 6 or 7 new tracks under there. Go ahead, get a starchitect to build a spectacular station — but leave room for a couple of skyscraper office buildings to help pay for the thing.
“London has 10 regional rail termini. Paris has 8 regional rail termini.”
This is a disadvantage, not an advantage. Paris has developed a new regional rail system (the RER) which runs through the city without termini. London has been trying to accomplish the same with projects like Thameslink and Crossrail. NY is lucky enough not to need any deep tunneling to achieve through running at Penn Station. On occasion, plans to allow through running between Penn and GCT have been proposed as well.
“London has 10 regional rail termini. Paris has 8 regional rail termini.”
I think in Manhattan – and that where we’re talking about – that this would be a disadvantage. And one that would carry a staggering cost. People come from everywhere, work everywhere, play everywhere, eat everywhere and shop everywhere throughout the city. Creating more centralized locations to dump them into, and doing it by building the equivalent of Trump Tower underground, is the least efficient way to do it. Penn Station is the perfect example.
It’s highest function is to take tens-of-thousands of people who come from the west – New Jersey – and the east – Long Island – and redistribute them throughout the borough by connecting them with subway and bus lines. Everybody knows that those tens-of-thousands of commuters don’t work walking distance from Penn Station. They’re funneled into Penn, and then they disperse from there.
So if you’re a planner working for NJTransit Trains, for example, you look at a map, realize that most of your infrastructure is designed to support pumping bodies into and out of Manhattan every day, and you come up with something like the ARC project – to ease the congestion, provide for future expansion and facilitate that redistribution of people. But the cost of hollowing out a skyscraper under Manhattan is 4 times the cost of building the two new tunnels designed to provide access to it.
This is why the 7 train to Lautenberg is such a brilliant alternative. Because what it does is a better job of distributing the same bodies, along more subway lines, and at a fraction of the cost. It is by NOT building more termini, but by increasing the number of rail lines and connectivity, that better, cheaper and safer results can be achieved.
An added 21st century bonus of this change of philosophy is that the potential system redundancy can help make our trains less of a terrorist target – because as it stands right now, any fool can fill his backpack with C-4 and effectively close one of the only two tunnels that NJTransit enters Penn by. And the same goes for the two tunnels that service the LIRR under the East River. To call either one of those scenarios a crippling blow to the region would be a gross understatement.
Manhattan, for better or worse, is already the de facto “hub” of ALL of our systems. MNRR, LIRR, NJTransit and every subway except the G line attest to that fact. We’ve got a hub with all spokes – and no wheel!! Instead of yet another focal point to funnel people into (only to have to redistribute them outward again anyway) what we should be building is an inner and outer beltway for the subway system.
As it stands right now, so much of the congestion in our subways is a result of the fact that people who live in Brooklyn and work in the Bronx, or who live in Bronx and work in Queens, or who live in Queens and work in Brooklyn, all have to go through Manhattan to get where they’re going. That’s insane!
Rather than creating more focal points to crowd people into, we should be looking to DECENTRALIZE our mass-transit system. More lines going more places – more options for more commuters – more options for the MTA – but no more hubs. The answer is – Beltways.
I think that centralized transit hubs are important to an extent in that they maximize tranportation resources most efficiently if proper transit connections are made to these hubs. For instance, if there were a central transit hub in Times Square, where Amtrak, LIRR, MNRR, and NJ Transit all met, this would be ideal for commuters because of the number of subway lines that converge there. The most number of people can get to the most number of places because everything is centralized. Having centralized transit hubs also to a large part maximizes rail resources in terms of limiting the number of separate trips to separate destinations. For instance, if New York had 20 possible smaller termini compared with 3 central termini, then from a given stop along each rail line, that train would go to one of 20 stations as opposed to one of 3. This would mean that more trains would have to run at more times to accomodate demand, which would increase cost and lower efficiency.
I think 10 termini (London) or 8 termini (Paris) is too much. And New York already has hub stations at Flatbush Avenue and in Jamaica. But there needs to be a new centralized transit hub to stay current with the rising demand for regional rail transportation in the region. I also think that a third transit hub is important in order to best plan for the (eventual) construction of a high speed rail network. Again, having a centralized transit hub that could connect metro commuters with local lines and regional high speed lines maximizes resources.
I look at it in terms of addressing the problem most efficiently. I don’t think that adding 7 tracks and two tunnels to an overcrowded Penn Station is the solution. Running the 7 train to Secaucus would be silly considering, again, who actually uses Secaucus on a given day. Sure there are commuters during rush hours, I believe around 20,000 daily passengers. But no one lives there or in the surrounding area. To boot, there are no local connections (BUS doesn’t count). HBLR wouldn’t go there in the future, again, because no one lives there. Even parking there is a hassle.
New York should have a mix of centralized transit hubs with multiple transit connections and decentralized mini-hubs, like Fulton Street, Flatbush Ave, Jamaica, etc. I just think spending billions on a modest expansion of Penn is a poor uses of resources when that money can be used to create something new and much more accomodating.
I don’t think we need a new station there at all. People are always calling it cramped, but there is in fact a lot of empty space there.
The biggest problem with Penn Station is the dispatching. It is impossible to predict which track a train will end up on until shortly before it arrives or departs. Everyone has to stand in the same few places in front of the monitors, watching for which track they need to go to. Then, when they find out, everyone has to rush, at the same time, through one or two narrow staircases.
This is not normal. I can’t think of another city I’ve lived in where there is such chaotic, last-minute train dispatching. Of course I would never expect an American train system to run like clockwork as they do in Japan, but I remember even in Chicago I knew far ahead of time which track a train would depart from. If the trains could more reliably stick to a schedule and simply be where you expect them to be, the station would feel a lot less cramped.
That is where the money should be spent: more reliable service. Which I’m sure is obvious to anyone who regularly uses LIRR, NJT, or Amtrak, but unfortunately few of the decision-makers in this town do.
Besides that, why on earth would you move the station further west? All the action in Manhattan is east of Penn.
Doesn’t it work the same way in Grand Central?
Trains @ GCT have something like 40 platform tracks to sit at, so it’s its own yard. The movements @ PS are because the NJT/LIRR trains are being brought in form the adjacent yard, not just sitting there for 20 mins like the MNR trains do.
Additionally, they know where every unit needs to go in the afternoon, so inbound trains are terminated at the appropriate track.
Tsuyoshi — yes, Yes, and YES.
We don’t need to build a new station there AND a new station one block south of it. And Alon keeps reminding us that Penn Station space is wasted with Amtrak offices, storage rooms, and who knows what that cramps passageways and underground circulation.
Great news in Michael Kimmelman’s piece in the Times was a mention that Jenette Sadik-Khan and crew are looking at the traffic issues from possibly CLOSING the block of 33rd St between 7th Ave and 8th to make it a pedestrian area.
The idea is to provide new access to the station and light to the dungeon spaces below.
Some of us remember the impact just from adding that a entrance with escalators to 34th St. Now imagine another two or three pairs of escalators, and some elevators for us old guys. Easier entry and exit, passengers spread out instead of concentrated at a few chokepoints, open place with high ceilings or even natural light to ease the claustrophobic mood of the place.
Above ground, that block is not a pretty one, lined with Modernist mediocracies rendered in concrete slabs and cold stone. Derelict open spaces are made ominous by the post- 9/11 security measures standing stark in the emptiness. Instead, the streetscape could be opened up with new doors and windows, entrances to escalators, elevators, landscaping, restaurants, sidewalk cafes, etc.
Nothing could make the Modernist mediocracies become appealing, but the plan Sadik-Khan is working on could greatly improve things. This plan gets the transformation started, if not quite finished, while she is still in office and able to get it done.
Tearing down Madison Square Garden and replacing it with a new Penn Station, shoot, we should all live so long.
“I don’t think we need a new station there at all. People are always calling it cramped, but there is in fact a lot of empty space there.”
This is a misinformed statement. Penn Station is extremely cramped. At the pm rush, the slightest delays cause crowding conditions in central waiting areas. When there are big delays, access to teh station is literally controlled by cops who force passengers to line up on the streets outside. Maybe Penn is cool for students taking 3 pm trains to Newark airport, but that’s not how its largest customer base experiences the place.
Before MSG gets demolished, the following will happen…
1. The Giants will win 5 more superbowls.
2. The Mets will go through 8 managers.
3. The Yankees will win 7 more world series.
4. The jets will lose 1 super bowl & win 1.
5 The rangers will win the Stanley cup more than once.
If the only precondition was #2, we could get the site ready by June.
I dunno. Jim Dolan is the greedy sort of f*cker who’d jump at the chance to snag the Javits center site on the cheap when MSG gets too “dingy” in about 30 years from now.
While the renovation is going on today, given the “greedy dog/reflection of a bone” ethos that today’s team owners have towards wanting the most modern facilities if someone else builds a newer stadium/arena than theirs, the Garden’s current work will probably only satiate the Dolans for 15-20 years, max, before they’re back to harping about their infrastructure.
…which is not necessarily a bad thing, as far as the future of Penn Station goes. You’re never going to get rid of the Garden by shoving it to a site on the far west side, even after the 7 extension is built, because the current location not only allows for better north/south subway access, but commuter rail access as well from Long Island and New Jersey (which could even expand if Metro North is ever granted access once the LIRR settles in at Grand Central). But given the current state of arena design — which goes back to the ‘old look’ of higher, but closer-in balconies minus the obstructed view poles that the Garden on 50th Street had — it is possible to create a retro design that would mimic the look of the old Penn Station at street level, allow for skylight over at least half of the block, while placing a more rectangular-shaped MSG over the other half of the two-block station (the lost 2 Penn Plaza office space could be made up with a new building on the block between 33rd and 34th streets).
None of that’s happening until about 2030 at the earliest. But it’s something people wanting to restore Penn Station to it’s former glory should anticipate, in proposing/designing something that offers something to both sides instead of trying to banish the Garden off to the cornfield over on the Hudson so that the station can be rebuilt exactly as was in 1962.
Atlantic Terminal isn’t so bad. No, it isn’t as good as the old one was in its Heydey, and its bloody “Modern” architecture; soulless, plain, and even gaudy, but it could have been worse.
Moynihan will at least be a beautiful building, and have access to the 8th Avenue Line. If we can have Metro-North trains serve Moynihan instead of Penn, we can ease capacity at Penn. I’m sure East Side Access will not create as much capacity at Penn as one would think. Building platforms under Moynihan will ease things along when the Metro North commuters need to go to the West Side, and at least give them a station that’s as comparatively beautiful as Grand Central Terminal.
What I can’t understand is that for the price of all of this renovation and retrofitting, New York City can just build a third transit hub in a completely different location in the city. This would solve almost all existing problems in one. You’d get increased capacity in the form of new cross-hudson rail tunnels and additional tracks at the terminus (compare with the 7 additional tracks in the planned Penn South). You’d also get a brand new, grand structure, a transportation landmark. And if you plan it right, you can connect this new transit hub to different mass transit options in parts of the city not serviced by Penn Station or Grand Central. The costs are enormous ($15 Billiion for Gateway Project, $10 Billion for 7 train extension to Secaucus), all to accomplish what? A poor retrofitting of a dumpy station no one likes. Lets take that money and put it into a new project, something people can rally behind.
No, you couldn’t. Well, you couldn’t replace the AMTRAK function of Penn station anywhere else, not for a reasonable price. (Not only new Hudson tunnels, but new approaches from Newark, new East River tunnels, etc.) and remember, you still need to locate the station in Midtown or Downtown Manhattan. It would cost upwards of $50 billion, easily.
I’m not sure where the $50 billion price tag came from. But the new tunnels would have to be installed regardless of where you increase capacity. And why do you need east river tunnels? Does a new high speed line have to go through Queens? Can’t it either 1) go up the west side line to a branch off the MNRR Hudson Line, or 2) return back to NJ and loop north that way? After all, I’d hope it would be a brand new alignment anyway, no point of going over two rivers if you don’t have to. Locating the station would likely be the more difficult thing to do, with costs of property acquisition and what not… But what about if you put the station on the Hudson River, and make connections to local transit that way. Presumably, development would build around the station (if you build it, they will come). When the original Grand Central was built, that part of town was a wasteland. Locating a new transit hub outside of the densest parts of the city would be a good thing for development. Midtown, after all, already has two transit hubs. My biggest criticism of the proposed transit projects is that they lack creativity. They ask the question, how can we add to what we have, as opposed to what can we do to build the system for the future. Europe and Asia are dominating the high speed rail race (if there is one), and I can’t imagine any great high speed rail network passing through Penn Station.
Fat chance of it going up the partly single tracked Hudson line, particularly if there will be commuter service too. Plus, that takes you in an almost entirely different direction from Boston.
I don’t really see where the third hub is needed either. Probably the main thing that’s needed is a rail transit connection between the two existing hubs that doesn’t blow, but that could be cheap surface-running LRT. Or even BRT, since we like wasting more money to slum. Commuter rail into GCT from NJ would be nice, but the only entity that should pay for such a thing is NJ.
As for a new “hub,” I don’t know where he gets $50B either, but $2-4B is probably not out of the question if you do it at the sane prices we in New York can only dream about. So $10B might not be a bad ballpark figure. And I don’t see why a new hub is needed.
I forgot about one major by product of East Side Access and MN trains to Penn. Finally some real relief at 53rd and Lexington Avenue.
You honestly could consider sending the F back to 53rd Street at that point and running the M up to 63rd Street and the 63rd Street station wouldn’t or couldn’t be called useless at that point because by then the Q from 96th will be running through it.
[…] about getting lost. Want to have more tips getting around Manila? Well, this post is for you!What to do in Getting Around Manila As the capital of the Philippines and a major metropolitan city,…ital of the Philippines and a major metropolitan city, getting around Manila is relatively easy. […]
[…] about getting lost. Want to have more tips getting around Manila? Well, this post is for you!What to do in Getting Around Manila As the capital of the Philippines and a major metropolitan city,…ital of the Philippines and a major metropolitan city, getting around Manila is relatively easy. […]