NEW YORK | Empire Station District | 9 Towers (18-20 msf)| FT | FLOORS

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

train daddy doesn’t hold back on penn plans —

Months into new job at Amtrak, Andy Byford blasts boss’s Penn Station plans
…

“It’s not just about building something that’s more aesthetically pleasing — important as though that is, Penn Station is kind of an embarrassment — but you can’t fix it by just putting in a few light boxes, by just heightening the ceilings, by just widening a few corridors,” Byford said.

Byford also argued that expanding Penn Station a block south would not be necessary if the train hub employed “through-running,” or consolidated NJ Transit and Long Island Rail Road service so each railroad wouldn’t need to stop and turn around after reaching Midtown.

“Why not take the opportunity to fix the damn thing once and for all, which is, I’m going to say: get rid of the pillars, which means move MSG, but at the very least, do something with the track configuration to enable through-running,” Byford said.

Omg, a public official that understands the problem and proposes an actual solution! Whenever Andy Byford speaks, it's like breathing in fresh air after being so used to smog

[mrnyc]

^ lol — thru running and get rid of msg — whoda thunk that?!

i guess its rocket science to mta and nys.

or more likely, kryptonite.

[NYguy]

Andy Byford, the former NYC Transit president who joined Amtrak in April as an executive overseeing high-speed rail, said last month that the plan was unnecessary.

“It would break my heart to see beautiful buildings torn down on Eighth and Seventh Avenues when they don’t need to be,” said Byford, whom New Yorkers nicknamed “Train Daddy” when he worked for the MTA from 2018 to 2020.

Just another clown who doesn’t get it, or thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. Spoiler alert. He’s not.

One of these days when I get a chance, I’ll film some of these “beautiful” buildings people speak of. Everything sounds good for a soundbite, until you confront reality. And don’t get me started on the through-running fantasy. But at least with the expansion south they could actually try to implement some through service.

[Crawford]

Yeah, that's a really dumb quote. Byford is a great transit leader, but apparently a not-so-great urban planner.

And there are no buildings of particular note on that block. Even if there were, the block needs to be cleared for Penn South.

[NYguy]

^ They seem to be under the impression that if the expansion south didn’t happen, those buildings would stand forever. Another spoiler alert, with the coming improvements to Penn Station and the surrounding area, those buildings become prime development sites anyway.

[Busy Bee]

Heaven sent. Twice.

[Busy Bee]

Byford is just stating from his perspective - and Amtrak's - the entire multi billion dollar endeavor of a Penn South station expansion might not be necessary if the regional rail operations were streamlined and through-running maximized. I don't believe he is commenting from a position of great concern about the structures that would be razed in a station expansion and real estate mega-project nor that private real estate development couldn't or shouldn't occur there, just that it need not be part of a wildly expensive rail station expansion if found to be unneccesary by better and more sensible train operations.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Byford is just stating from his perspective - and Amtrak's - the entire multi billion dollar endeavor of a Penn South station expansion might not be necessary if the regional rail operations were streamlined and through-running maximized. I don't believe he is commenting from a position of great concern about the structures that would be razed in a station expansion and real estate mega-project nor that private real estate development couldn't or shouldn't occur there, just that it need not be part of a wildly expensive rail station expansion if found to be unneccesary by better and more sensible train operations.

This is basically it. With appropriate modifications and the two new river tunnels Penn could handle many more trains and you don't need Penn south or some other deep cavern stub like ARC to get the capacity. It's way more cost effective to make all the railroads play nice with each other and cooperate on through running and sharing space. ESA is emblematic of letting each of these agencies maintain their little fiefdoms at absolutely any cost.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Byford is just stating from his perspective - and Amtrak's - the entire multi billion dollar endeavor of a Penn South station expansion might not be necessary if the regional rail operations were streamlined and through-running maximized. I don't believe he is commenting from a position of great concern about the structures that would be razed in a station expansion and real estate mega-project nor that private real estate development couldn't or shouldn't occur there, just that it need not be part of a wildly expensive rail station expansion if found to be unneccesary by better and more sensible train operations.

They've been over this, and been over this, and been over it yet again. Anyone who uses Penn Station regularly will tell you that through running on those tracks in that station isn't practical. If you want to double the size (width) of Penn Station, so you can build sizable platforms underneath, have at it. But as it is, with even the modest expansion they are planning, people are losing their shit. So good luck with that. But no, through running at Penn is nothing more than a dream concept, one not steeped in any reality. Ever see how people have to be herded like cows over at Moynihan just to reach the platforms? That's because they are incredibly narrow. I see this nonsense daily, and laugh at the thought of through-running (which basically means people coming and going), making Penn one super, large subway station. Not to mention the numerous issues with delays in either tunnels (Hudson or East river) that would cause backups all the way to timbuktu. It's a lovely thought, but no, Penn isn't and wasn't built for it. But, as I've said, there's a chance to get some through running at the station. That's the reason the expanded tracks would be at a lower depth than the current tracks (the need to go below the subway). That portion of the station will be built from scratch.




https://hellgatenyc.com/what-is-happening-with-the-penn-station-redesign

What the Hell Is Happening With the Penn Station Redesign?
We know you have questions—and we answer (almost) every single one of them.




July 28, 2023






MTA



(FXCollaborative / WSP / John McAslan / MTA)



(FXCollaborative / WSP / John McAslan / MTA)


ASTM



The ASTM vision for inside their Penn Station (ASTM / PAU / HOK)



ASTM's grand Eight Avenue entrance, looking west (ASTM / HOK / PAU)

[Busy Bee]

Every single Penn through running concept reduces the number of tracks to create wider platforms.

[Crawford]

There is no Penn thru-running concept. That isn't a thing. Maybe when the MTA figures out a way to merge with NJ Transit, and get all the unions to play together, and NY, NJ and CT become one jurisdiction, we can have this conversation.

And if all this were true, there would still be a need for Penn South. Penn needs a massive track expansion regardless. There will be a third tunnel at some point, too. Even Penn South and the tunnel will not serve NJT's long term needs. Not with Acela planning to double service in short order, with much greater ambitions long-term. NJT will still be squeezed, and Christie's cancellation of ARC will be a decision that harms NJ commuters for 50 years.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There is no Penn thru-running concept. That isn't a thing. Maybe when the MTA figures out a way to merge with NJ Transit, and get all the unions to play together, and NY, NJ and CT become one jurisdiction, we can have this conversation.

And if all this were true, there would still be a need for Penn South. Penn needs a massive track expansion regardless. There will be a third tunnel at some point, too. Even Penn South and the tunnel will not serve NJT's long term needs. Not with Acela planning to double service in short order, with much greater ambitions long-term. NJT will still be squeezed, and Christie's cancellation of ARC will be a decision that harms NJ commuters for 50 years.

Yeah, this isn't true. MTA/NJT studied it and found they could get as much as 35TPH before the new tunnels are done with through running but simply decided not to do it because they'd have to cooperate and hid behind capacity justifications to keep working on the footprint expansion instead. The work also would not have precluded future expansions if needed.

MTA is the same agency that decided to build the East Side Access because LIRR/MNRR refused to work together and said none of the alternatives would meet capacity requirements. Upper Loop Alternative would have accommodated 18-20TPH while the deep cavern can do 24TPH in theory. That's a whole lot of money and years for potentially 4 trains an hour and looks even worse now given the ridership and rolling stock issues.

[Busy Bee]

^ To be fair there were legitimately good reasons for not using the lower level and loop track of GCT beyond this notion that MNR and LIRR didn't want to work together or some notion of fiefdom. That primary reason was supposedly cost savings but there were significant engineering challenges in the lower level option as well as the loss of capacity/limiting of future service expansion for Metro-North the taking over of much of the lower level would have entailed.

There should be no confusion about this - the ESA that was built was the best plan. I could dive deeper into the reasons and what future possibilities this set-up will allow but this isn't really on-topic.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^ To be fair there were legitimately good reasons for not using the lower level and loop track of GCT beyond this notion that MNR and LIRR didn't want to work together or some notion of fiefdom. That primary reason was supposedly cost savings but there were significant engineering challenges in the lower level option as well as the loss of capacity/limiting of future service expansion for Metro-North the taking over of much of the lower level would have entailed.

There should be no confusion about this - the ESA that was built was the best plan. I could dive deeper into the reasons and what future possibilities this set-up will allow but this isn't really on-topic.

Agree to disagree but yes that part is off topic.

[NYguy]

Some further reading for the "through-running" crowd.




































































































https://www.ourtownny.com/news/mta-s-pre...-on-penn-station-rebuild-plans-DX2660050

MTA’s Pres of Construction Gives Wide Ranging Interview on Penn Station Rebuild Plans



KEITH J. KELLY -MICHAEL ORESKES
04 AUG 2023

It is one of New York City’s most complex public building challenges ever. Improving the dismal Penn Station, with options constrained by the presence of it’s neighbor above, Madison Square Garden. The MTA, which runs the Long Island Railroad and Metro North is leading the reconstruction project on behalf of Penn Station’s owner, Amtrak and its other major user, New Jersey Transit. The questions pile one on top of another, much as Madison Square Garden is piled atop the cramped station and the even more cramped platforms.

The City Council will decide this month whether to give The Garden a new permit to operateits 20,000 seat arena above the station and under what terms. An Italian developer says it has a $6 billion plan for reconstructing Penn Station that will be both better and cheaper than the MTA’s $7 billion plan, even though ASTM would pay Madison Square Garden half a billion dollars for some of its property, which the MTA does not want to do.

In the meantime, community and planning activists have stepped up their effort to get the three railroads to reconsider their separate but related plan to expand the terminal to the south, taking down an adjoining block, to make way for more trains from New Jersey after a new Hudson river tunnel is finished. Straus News sat down with the official in charge of rebuilding Penn Station, Jamie TorresSpringer, President of MTA Construction and Development.

In a wide ranging interview Torres Springer said he was skeptical of the Italian firms cost estimates. “Its not putting a finger in the air based on some Starchitect drawings,” he said. He also said he believed it was unlikely that the railroads could replace expansion of PennStation by running LIRR and NJ Transit trains through Penn Station instead of terminating ther. e. Andy Byford, the one-time head of NYC’s subways and buses who now works for Amtrak created a stir with recently by floating the idea of “through running” trains. “We just don’t have the space,” Torres-Springer said of the station’s tracks and platforms.

Straus News: The last time our readers heard from you was your testimony at the City Council in which, among other things, you said you thought the Council shouldn’t grant a new operating permit to Madison Square Garden until you’d been able to reach an agreement with the Garden on what they needed to do to support Penn reconstruction. Where does that stand?

Torres-Springer: It stands were it stood then. We haven’t heard a word from Madison Square Garden. We’re awaiting that.

Straus News: The Council doesn’t seem likely to wait for that to happen?

Torres-Springer: It’s up to them. the city both through the Planning Commission and through the Council have asked the railroads to help to understand what it would take to make the arena compatible with the station. We’ve given them that information. We can talk about the specifics of what those things are. They’re not particularly difficult things to achieve. So if the question that they’re asking us is, ‘has Madison Square Garden done anything to come to an agreement with us that would insure compatibility?’ the answer is, no. They’ll have to decide what the implications of that are for the process.

Straus News: The Italian developer, ASTM, has gotten a lot of attention for their proposal to rebuild Penn Station and have asked the railroads to issue a Request for Proposals in which they could bid to be the overall developer in a public private partnership with the railroads. That is different from the RFP you’ve talked about?

Torres-Springer: There is a lot of dialogue that is confusing a lot of these issues. Led by Governor [Kathy] Hochul, we have a master plan, all three railroads, for the reconstruction of Penn Station for its predominantly seventh avenue, 600,000 daily riders ...We are proceeding with that reconstruction project. We are in what’s called preliminary design. And when you do preliminary design–the station is enormously complex–we have a lot of work to do. When your done with that work, then you go out to seek your contractor, or your builder in an RFP process. We haven’t determined the best way to deliver yet. The RFP could be design/build. It could be p3 [Public Private Partnership]. It could be design then build. There will be that RFP that comes out at that stage. And that’s how the project will get built after we are through that preliminary stage of design.

Straus News: So the version they’ve proposed is one of several possibilities?

Torres-Springer: We would welcome their responding to our RFP when we’ve advanced designs sufficiently. ASTM is a private equity firm based in Italy, but that owns a contractor called Halmar. Halmar is a very good contractor for us.

Straus News: they’ve done other work for you?

Torres-Springer: Oh, yea. They are building Metro North Penn station access for us. They very successfully delivered the third track project to Long island. They are rebuilding the Park Avenue viaduct for us. They’re doing our first p3, which is the improvement of ADA stations that we awarded them at the end of last year. So when we come out with an RFP, or some sort of procurement to proceed with rebuilding the station, we welcome them to respond. Andthere are opportunities there–this is really the new MTA, and how we deliver more efficiently—for the contractor to come back and say we think you could do things differently. We think you could do it this way. We think you could do it that way. You could finance it differently. And then we get to take advantage of that. I have no idea where their cost estimate comes from. I see no information about it other than them coming out in public and saying it will cost $6 billion not $7 billion. But if its really true they can save us a billion dollars that’s great. And we really welcome them to enter the competition to deliver the project.

Straus News: One of the biggest differences in cost estimates seems to be their argument that you don’t need to rebuild that bridge that runs above the taxiway and brings fans from Seventh Avenue into Madison Square Garden.

Torres-Springer: I’m really not sure. I don’t know anything about their cost estimates. They allege that they are building our plan exactly. There has been some talk about not rebuilding the bridge. But then adding this Hulu Theatre, which is a billion to two billion dollars. By adding that it significantly increases the cost .... when we produce a cost estimate we have to do it to meet the requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration. It’s a serious business. Its not putting a finger in the air based on some Starchitect drawings. We have to include the cost of all the track outages. The flagging. The support. We have program management and project management. We have to make sure all those things are in. I suspect you’re seeing an estimate from a group that hasn’t included all those things.

As to the bridge. The governors vision and the vision of the three railroads is a vision that focuses on improving Penn Station for the majority of the people who use it. We look a the whole Penn precinct. 70 percent of riders are on the seventh avenue side of the station. Another 30 percent are on the eight avenue side. Only 15 percent are coming into Eight avenue or leaving from Eight avenue. The other 15 percent are using the A, C and E Eighth Avenue lines. And those users to the extent that they’re using Amtrak trains already have Moynihan train hall. So our focus has been on the Seventh Avenue side of the station. Creating a midblock train hall in that location, with the soaring height and natural light, is a huge opportunity for us to better serve those passengers and also to make the station more safe. Because this is all about making sure we can contain smoke in an emergency and maintain a tenable concourse. It means you need vertical height for smoke to rise into so that people have time to egress from the station. So all of that is going into this midblock train hall concept.

And yes our master plan has us rebuilding the chase square bridge which sits in the middle ofthat train hall. If we are going to spend money -- precious public dollars -- on improving PennStation we want to focus that energy on the Seventh avenue side. That’s why that’s our plan.But we are further evaluating it as we move through design.

Straus News: Are you also further evaluating ASTM’s proposal to buy the hulu theathre from Madison Square Garden and demolish it to create a grand entrance and train hall on Eight Avenue?

Torres-Springer: Yes, we will look at Eighth Avenue entrances. We will also look at loading which is a very important question. MSG is really loading either on the public street or in view of the public street. And our plan has an indoor loading facility within it. And we are going to look at that further and make sure that we’ve got the best possible plan for loading.

Straus News: One of the biggest flashpoints has been block 780 which is one of the complexities. It is yet a third issue. Demolishing the block south of Penn Station to make way for an expanded terminal for New Jersey Transit. Can you say a little but about Penn expansion and through running and where you see that at this point.

Torres-Springer: I would really recommend talking to Amtrak about that. Just as the MTA has the majority of the current riders of penn station–long island railroad riders and subway riders–and so we are somewhat managing acting on behalf of the group of three railroads on Penn reconstruction. I think Amtrak and New Jersey Transit are doing something similar on the expansion. Because the expansion is really going to serve those riders. I mean we are partners in this. We support doing the work in the same way they support doing the work that we are doing in Penn reconstruction. But that’s a good question to ask them, just to pursue it slightly.

Advocates have argued that running trains through the station would alleviate the need for expansion and the destruction of block 780. Through running involves New Jersey Transit, obviously. But it also involves the Long Island Rail Road and potentially even Metro North. It depends what you mean by through running. We are doing a study to look at alternatives for through running that should be done soon....We’ve been looking at those questions of whether through running is viable through the existing station or whether it really is more appropriate to achieve it through an expansion of the station.

Straus News: So the 2017 study that was recently reported was actually a piece of this larger study?

Torres-Springer: Right. It was a white paper of sorts that was done as part of this master plan for Penn Reconstruction and it gave us some helpful preliminary insight. But as you said we are into enviornmental review under the federal NEPA standards and that we are doing a fuller study building on that analysis that was done.

Straus News: how would you characterize the prelimary findings of that report.

Torres-Springer: I will say the report in a preliminary way determined that there was not really a viable path to building out the existing station for through running. But we are going to confirm that through this more rigourous study. Its about the limitation on the amount of track we have and the size of the platforms. To bring trains in and through in more of a through running mode you just need more room for passengers to wait on platforms, board and alight the trains. We just don’t have that space. Penn Station was built for 200,000 riders and it’s carrying 600,000 riders a day. We are trying to improve the experience for those 600,000 riders. Adding more riders and more capacity is really challenging. Its not just about Penn Station it’s also about what leads into Penn Station from both sides. The East River tunnels. What’s underneath Manhattan. Where you go under the Hudson. There is a real feasibility limitation on expanding the capacity of existing Penn. That I think leads us to the likelihood that it’s the expansion where you could do more train movements like that. But as I said we are researching it. We’re studying it and we’ll be out with something. ....It’s the same three railroads doing it together but its under an environmental review contract.

Straus News: Would moving the Garden allow you to do things you couldn’t otherwise do by pulling out presumably many of the columns that run down to the platforms and support the arena?

Torres-Springer: I’m really a little out of my depth here. But I really don’t think so. The Gardens columns are a problem. But it’s sort of marginal compared to the bigger capacity problems we have in the existing train shed.

Straus News: The public is often confused by all the intersecting and overlapping elements of this situation.

Torres-Springer: There are a lot of moving parts. But our guiding star here is: we have 600,000 people every day in the rabbit warrens of Penn Station having an uncomfortable experience that is not safe. And so we are laser focused on improving the existing Penn Station. You areright, there are lots of other things going on. But we are designing the improvements. We aredoing the environmental review and we are moving to actually getting work done before 2027when metro north penn access comes into penn and its going to be more difficult for us to get the outages that we need to work. That’s what we are about at the MTA. We are doing it in partnership with the railroads. So we just stay focused on that.

[streetscaper]

Thanks for the info.

Torres-Springer: I will say the report in a preliminary way determined that there was not really a viable path to building out the existing station for through running. But we are going to confirm that through this more rigourous study. Its about the limitation on the amount of track we have and the size of the platforms. To bring trains in and through in more of a through running mode you just need more room for passengers to wait on platforms, board and alight the trains. We just don’t have that space. Penn Station was built for 200,000 riders and it’s carrying 600,000 riders a day. We are trying to improve the experience for those 600,000 riders. Adding more riders and more capacity is really challenging. Its not just about Penn Station it’s also about what leads into Penn Station from both sides. The East River tunnels. What’s underneath Manhattan. Where you go under the Hudson. There is a real feasibility limitation on expanding the capacity of existing Penn. That I think leads us to the likelihood that it’s the expansion where you could do more train movements like that. But as I said we are researching it. We’re studying it and we’ll be out with something. ....It’s the same three railroads doing it together but its under an environmental


Torres-Springer: There are a lot of moving parts. But our guiding star here is: we have 600,000 people every day in the rabbit warrens of Penn Station having an uncomfortable experience that is not safe. And so we are laser focused on improving the existing Penn Station. You areright, there are lots of other things going on. But we are designing the improvements. We aredoing the environmental review and we are moving to actually getting work done before 2027when metro north penn access comes into penn and its going to be more difficult for us to get the outages that we need to work. That’s what we are about at the MTA. We are doing it in partnership with the railroads. So we just stay focused on that.

Does Penn Station really have 600,000 riders per day still? I highly doubt that based on ridership levels post pandemic (70%) and the recent diversion of some LIRR passengers to Grand Central. It's probably closer to 350-400,000 I'd assume.

[HyperPower]

The powers-that-be at Pennsylvania Station have new ideas about the future of the important gateway to New York.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-o...06-joelpvkg4faoxd3ovip63cuw7i-story.html



Surprised the bots and noobs didn't post this article (Aug 6th). Its getting interesting to say the least with ole MSG and Dolan 😂

[k1052]

No through running because of 8 minute (lol) dwells and EMU consists that can't handle a not even 3% grade. The BS is so transparent as to be insulting.

That Amtrak report is just an excuse not to veer from their plans and avoid having to do any work that would benefit the rest of the tenants at Penn but might inconvenience themselves at least temporarily.

[Sky88]

If I were in the position of the city council, I would give Dolan an extension of 4-5 years in order to find a new place for the MSG which would continue to function in the meantime. Then I would begin demolishing block 780 to make room for the new station and build a single large 1,800 ft high office tower on top of it. 15 Penn Plaza I'd do it better and 1,300ft taller. On sites 4 and 5, I will construct two 800ft residential towers.

[NYguy]

Originally Posted by k1052

No through running because of 8 minute (lol) dwells and EMU consists that can't handle a not even 3% grade. The BS is so transparent as to be insulting.

That Amtrak report is just an excuse not to veer from their plans and avoid having to do any work that would benefit the rest of the tenants at Penn but might inconvenience themselves at least temporarily.

The thing is, they are correct.

But frankly, I don't understand why it is you people seem to think through-running at Penn Station is the answer to everything, when it clearly isn't. Would it be nice to get some through-running at Penn? I'm sure it would be. But let's be clear - the vast majority of people riding either NJ Transit or the LIRR (and in the future, Metro-North) do so to get to PENN STATION.......I'll let that sink in a little, and repeat it again - the vast majority of people riding either NJ Transit or the LIRR (and in the future, Metro-North) do so to get into Penn Station. That same Penn Station that was built to handle a fraction of the population it now handles. Also, the same Penn Station that they are trying to squeeze even more people into with the upcoming congestion pricing (scheduled to begin next year). So, in that end, just getting more trains in won't help the circulation. Penn Station needs to be expanded. Even with the expansion, it's not going to solve every problem, (Moynihan is open, and it's still crowded), but it will spread the people across more area, creating more ease of movement.

But another problem with the through-running as a solve-all solution is that even if every single train continued on through Penn, that would only lead to more disaster. Because anyone who rides the subway regularly enough will tell you that things happen almost every day to throw trains off course, or even out of service. It is no different on the commuter lines. Be it Amtrak, NJ Transit, or the LIRR, there are almost daily issues that lead to delays. Now, if you're relying on through-running to get your service out of Penn into Long Island, or vice versa, you're in for a nasty little surprise. Now try explaining to the thousands that are waiting to get home to Long Island why they can't, because one of the many thousands of issues with Amtrak or NJ Transit is holding up their train. Ah, fun times.

Again, some through running would be fine. And the expansion is exactly where it belongs.