BY SAM TURVEY (Chairperson, ReThinkNYC) | A presentation by Amtrak, the MTA and New Jersey Transit (the Railroads) will take place on Monday morning, August 5, at NYU. Click here to register for the event, which will give the Railroads “an opportunity to discuss their plans for Penn Station and the prospects for implementing through running in this century.” With that in mind, I though it might be helpful to provide a relatively comprehensive discussion in visual format of what through-running and ReThinkNYC’s track proposal for Penn Station entails.
Toward that end, I refer you to a 23-minute Vimeo of the presentation by Lane Rick, then a partner in the ReThinkNYC’s Studio, of what through-running and ReThinkNYC’s proposal to unify regional rail in Greater New York is all about. I promise you it is interesting and compelling. Click here to view Rick’s presentation. While a quite modest amount of the material and cost information is somewhat dated (the presentation is from May of 2017), the core thinking and principles come crashing through on this and it may be the very best presentation we have on the subject.
What continues to emerge from all this is that today’s Penn Station–which already is configured as a through-running station–is perfectly situated today for a conversion, with the advent of the Gateway Tunnels. Most of the connectivity is already in place other than systems integration and stations outside of Manhattan. A large undertaking, certainly, but one well worth the investment which is far more cost effective and transformative than present plans for Penn Station.The Railroads, we believe, will continue to insist that through-running can’t happen at today’s Penn Station even though it is already configured for through-running.
Rather, they will suggest they want to take steps to commence what may be a century-long progression towards through-running in the region via a destructive downpayment in the form of the southern expansion of Penn Station to the south which will–they promise-through-run to Long Island sometime after 2080. This actually represents implementation of through running from scratch, generations out and will require additional demolition in Manhattan and two new East River tunnels. Their through running post-2080 will likely cost over $100 billion dollars plus in today’s dollars to implement. This is inexcusable when the far superior through running capability (which is clearly favored in federal guidelines), at a steep fraction of the cost, is sitting within reach at today’s Penn Station.
There is no reason to expand Penn Station to the south if you can so easily and cost effectively extend through running to the region with the existing through-running station and track layout. Accordingly, the threat to demolish the neighborhood at exorbitant expense, evicting current residents from affordable housing, displacing hundreds of small businesses and reducing even more noteworthy buildings in the neighborhood to dust should be taken off the table.
It really is as simple as that.
And with that, here are some questions we need answered at the August 5 Penn Station forum.
Why hasn’t an independent review or independent peer review been commissioned and carried out? Numerous civic groups, think tanks, area residents and community boards have requested an independent review of through-running proposals that do not require demolition in the Penn Station neighborhood. The Port Authority Bus Terminal project made successful use of independent peer review and ultimately took eminent domain and demolitions in the neighborhood off the table. The MTA’s L Train “Repair in Place” project retained a bevy of highly regarded academics from leading New York universities who determined the L Train could be repaired in place instead of closed for a year – which would have made life miserable for thousands of commuters. Both projects are going forward with considerable public support while Penn Station’s future and funding is in disarray. The independent review should not be done by or for the Railroads but should be done by a sufficiently independent party with the public interest coming first and no fingers on the scale from anyone?
Why does the Railroads’ proposal entail demolishing an entire block and a half of Midtown in the near term – and possibly more later – in order to implement through-running to the south of Penn Station? The Railroads can’t seem to accept that through-running can happen in the existing Penn Station. Yet they have recently acknowledged that all of Penn Station’s 21 tracks are through-running capable. This concession is welcome as the Railroads, via a May 2021 report of the FX Collaborative and WSP, inexplicably asserted that tracks 1-4 and 17-21 were not candidates for through-running. The Railroads and WSP have corrected this material inaccuracy in the past few months – all tracks at today’s Penn Station can be converted to through-running.Nevertheless, the Railroads’ approach to through-running is to implement it – if at all – by building new tracks to the south of Penn Station. The Railroads would forgo the through-running capabilities of the existing Penn Station and its connectivity to the East River tunnels and recreate this capability to the south. Creating through-running capabilities to the south of Penn Station can only come at exorbitant expense, including the resort to deep cavern engineering, two new East River tunnels and new connections to those tunnels under Midtown Manhattan from Seventh Avenue east to the river. The costs of this southern route – which doesn’t use existing Penn Station infrastructure (including today’s East River tunnels and the connections to those tunnels) – could easily exceed $100 billion. This is unlikely to take place before the turn of the 22nd century. One has to question an approach that fails to take advantage of Penn Station’s existing configuration for through-running and which could be converted comparatively price effectively in the current half of the 21st century.
Hence our question: Why do the Railroads (unnecessarily) insist on demolishing the neighborhood to the south of Penn Station and justify their plan as necessary to the implementation of through-running when it is not true? Why can’t the Railroads do what the Port Authority did in taking neighborhood demolition off the table, thereby garnering public support for its plans for a renovated bus terminal?
Why hasn’t Amtrak’s Andy Byford, one of the world’s most experienced executives and authorities on mass transit by commuter rail – with particular expertise in through-running – been brought in to the Gateway/Penn Station project? Byford has a sterling international reputation which includes his tenure in New York. He has few, if any, peers in terms of experience with through-running. He headed the Toronto transit system which uses through-running for six years and led London’s efforts to implement the recently opened Elizabeth Line cross rail line and is experienced with their other through-running capabilities. While we recognize Amtrak’s management prerogatives, we believe the public interest must prevail on this point. Andy Byford, similar to former New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton, brought his brand of candor, competence and integrity to his years in New York. He also brought quite positive results, often quite dramatic, that could be measured quantitatively. Yes, this challenges the status quo and makes some uncomfortable – that is always the price of positive change. With over $50 billion of taxpayer money on the line for the Gateway/Penn Station project, the public deserves to have the best people on the job: Andy Byford is just such a person and this should be an easy decision to make. Gateway has announced the abrupt departure of some senior executives recently; somewhere in the various organizations running these projects there should be room for Byford to meaningfully participate. Engaging Byford at Penn Station will be critical if the public is to be allowed to get their best return on investment for the Gateway/Penn Station project.
Why are the Railroads’ priorities so unrealistic and inflated for NJ Transit? Can the Railroads – more specifically NJ Transit – explain why they need to increase Penn Station capacity by 100 % when post-COVID 19 demand has seen ridership decline by at least 25%? How do these demand projections reflect the permanent shift in work patterns since the pandemic due to working from home? Who generates these demand projections? Every day we see media reports of vacant office space and a permanent shift in work patterns due to working from home? Do the Railroad’s projections adequately reflect the new realities, including the new definition of “rush hour” that was already being talked about before the rise of the working-from-home phenomena? Were these demand calculations performed by sufficiently disinterested parties?
Can the Railroads’ proposed design really achieve an increase of 48 trains per hour at Penn Station as they claim? If so, did the Railroads use Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) software — the industry standard for rail capacity calculations – to arrive at this conclusion? If so, what were the results?If RTC was not used, what method was employed to arrive at the number of 48 trains per hour and why wasn’t RTC used as it’s the norm for projects of this magnitude and complexity? The Railroads need to share whatever calculations they used to stress test this assertion. If the Railroads used RTC, why have they not shared the results with the public?
We would also like to know how the Railroads intend to achieve 48 trains per peak hour as they have not yet revealed their station design, track layout or RTC capacity calculations, if any. Parenthetically, we have serious doubts that they can get to 48 trains per hour if they continue to utilize a stub-end operating model with crossing and returning trains as part of the mix. Included within this question, we would like to see their proposed track layout and method for getting trains through the new Gateway tunnels and into Penn Station while the existing Hudson River tunnels are being repaired.
We would also like to see the track layout they envisage once the Gateway Tunnels and the Hudson River tunnels — once they have been repaired – are fully operational. We want to be assured that the current Gateway portals are not being constructed in such a manner that would require a track configuration that would doom the block just below Penn Station (Block 780) to destruction.
We would also like to see the RTC cases used to analyze the capacity of credible through-running proposals, including that of ReThinkNYC.
Has anyone conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Railroads’ plan to build new stub-end terminal tracks at Penn Station (connecting to nothing) compared to a through-running model with a capacity of 42 or more NJ Transit trains at peak hours? The Railroads are suggesting the need to spend nearly $20 billion to expand Penn Station below 31st Street using “deep cavern” engineering because they claim there is a need for the station to handle 48 trains per hour and this is the way to do it. Their analysis, which includes not a few self-serving assumptions, indicates that ReThinkNYC’s through-running plan can only get to 42 trains per hour, or close to 90% of the needed capacity. The Railroads will spend as much as $10 billion more than ReThinkNYC’s through-running plan would cost and demolish a neighborhood to achieve an estimated 10% uptick in capacity. We believe a cost-benefit analysis is called for and further public discussion is warranted.
At ReThinkNYC, we believe that we can achieve 48 trains per hour and doubt the Railroads’ proposal can get there. But what if through-running can only achieve 46 NJ Transit trains per peak hour? Or 44? Or 42? Shouldn’t we take into account the transformational benefits that would flow from the heightened connectivity through-running would enable And shouldn’t we include the increases in Long Island Railroad service, six trains per hour, under ReThinkNYC’s proposal, in assessing which plan makes sense at Penn Station? And again, there’s the matter of having to demolish one and a half blocks of Midtown Manhattan – unnecessarily chloroforming a vibrant neighborhood – in order to support the Railroads’ plan to add tracks below 31st Street.
Stated differently, should we forgo an approach to through-running that will materially benefit more than 20 million residents of Greater New York (through greatly enhanced connectivity) and increase capacity to and from both New Jersey and Long Island, in favor of a proposal that might give us two, four or perhaps six more trains per peak hour to New Jersey and no increase in capacity for Long Island commuters? With $50 billion at stake – a once-in-a-century infrastructure investment – shouldn’t we construe the benefits as broadly rather than as narrowly as possible? Railroads – where is the cost-benefit analysis?
What is the status of the MTA’s design work at Penn Station? For that matter, what is the status of Governor Hochul’s June 2023 call for an architectural competition for a world class Penn Station? Radio silence. Silence can be golden but not always and not where there is so much at stake. What gives?
NOTE: The views expressed by our Guest Opinion writers are not necessarily those of Chelsea Community News–an independent, hyperlocal news, arts, events, info, and opinion website made possible with the help of our awesome advertisers and the support of our readers. Our Promise: Never a paywall, no pop-up ads, all content is FREE. With that in mind, if circumstances allow, please consider taking part in our GoFundMe campaign (click here). To make a direct donation, give feedback, send a Letter to the Editor, or contact our founder/editor, send an email to Scott Stiffler, via scott@chelseacommunitynews.com.
To join our subscriber list, click here. It’s a free service providing regular (weekly, at least) Enewsletters containing links to recently published content. Subscribers will also be sent email with “Sponsored Content” in the subject line. That means it’s an exclusive message from one of our advertisers—whose support, like yours, allows us to offer all content free of charge.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login