The original Pennsylvania Station New York opened for service in 1910 and lasted a mere 53 years. It was a magnificent edifice, reminiscent of the grandeur of the greatest structures of Ancient Greece and Rome. A few bannisters on the stairways down to the platforms remain from the old building, but essentially everything else fell to the wrecking ball to be replaced by the third incarnation of Madison Square Garden, roughly one mile from its original and namesake location. The tracks and platforms are still there, although the great station has been transformed into a subterranean maze where most riders who alight from the trains move quickly toward the street above or the Seventh and Eighth Avenue subways. I visited it once, when I was about ten and my mother and I went to see my father off on a business trip. I can’t say I remember any detail about the old station, but it was huge, impressive and magnificent.
Samuel Turvey is a lawyer and head ReThinkNYC, a planning organization that is attempting to improve the esthetics and utilization of public infrastructure in the city. He has proposed plans for making Penn Station a more desirable place. Among them is reconstructing the original 1910 building as closely as possible, and he is sure that it can be done. He has a model of the original station that he takes on “road shows” to demonstrate to his audiences what the city once had and what he hopes to restore. Turvey is also Chair of ReThink Penn Station, which concentrates on improving that facility.
Not Just Appearance
Turvey’s full restoration plan is popular with some advocates and planners who care about how the city looks. Still, it would be expensive, and it does not appear likely to be built, at least as things stand now. Turvey and his organization have other proposals that are not as grandiose, but they all have something in common at track level. They would change most or all of the existing station to facilitate through-running of the first type we described in the previous article in this series. The result would be that most trains would run through the station. For instance, trains coming from New Jersey on New Jersey Transit would no longer need to wait for an outbound opportunity to become available, and go out the way they came in. Instead, they would leave the station by going in the same direction onto another line, toward Long Island or providing local service on the Hell Gate Bridge route (which Amtrak now uses for trains going to Boston, Springfield or Vermont), a route where stations in the Bronx are under construction. The principle could be used elsewhere, too.
According to www.rethinknyc.org: “ReThinkNYC is an organization dedicated to applying innovative thinking to the future of New York City and its greater region. We focus integrally on transportation infrastructure, land use, governance and socio-economic issues.” Improving Penn Station is one of the organization’s priorities: “ReThink Penn Station NYC is an initiative of ours. Its goal is to replace the subterranean experience of present-day Penn Station with a re-envisioned version of the original edifice.”
While Turvey and his organization are pushing for a structure that would replicate the original Penn Station as closely as possible, they are also presenting more modest alternatives. Those plans also call for the current Madison Square Garden to move, and some would keep the cylindrical building that now houses the sports venue and reuse it as part of the station infrastructure.
ReThinkNYC is campaigning to encourage people to send e-mail messages to Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Eric Adams and New York City Transit (NYCT) President Craig Cipriano to move the Garden and change the station to one that would facilitate through-running, at least among lines that use the station today. They also suggested that anyone concerned contact their members of Congress and their state legislators if they live in New York State. The site encourages people who notice the campaign to “speak to power” and suggests a letter of support that begins: “I am writing to request your support in developing a modernized transit plan that includes a ‘through-running’ operating model and a new above-ground Station House at Penn Station. Additionally, I urge you to consider relocating Madison Square Garden to a more appropriate Manhattan location, which would create a great gateway, train station and sports arena for the state.” Turvey asked supporters to join him in requesting that nearby buildings not be demolished, as the Gateway Program proposal now under consideration would require. The suggested letter asked six questions concerning plans for Penn Station, and repeated a request that Turvey has also been making on behalf of ReThinkNYC: “We repeat our request that some style of independent review takes place so that the best ideas are allowed to emerge and be taken seriously. The independent peer review that took place with respect to improving the Port Authority Bus Terminal comes to mind.” At the conclusion, he added: “We deserve much better than what is presently planned and need your help in this regard.”
In pitching its vision for a new Penn Station, the appeal said: “The present plans for Penn Station are in disarray and, to the extent they are known, look to demolish the Penn Station neighborhood. An improved station plan, which would still be under Madison Square Garden, is in flux—as is the operating model at track level. These plans are not only in flux but are deeply flawed and depend on a dated transit operating model that contravenes Federal Railroad Administration guidance. Penn Station’s essential transit operation would remain unchanged, subjecting tens of thousands to crowded and dangerous conditions.” The site also criticized the current plan for keeping the station “buried beneath Madison Square Garden” and requiring demolition of much of the surrounding neighborhood, which would displace businesses and residents, as well as a historic church. The appeal concluded: “In sum, we should have a great and world class Penn Station that anchors a modernized unified regional rail capability. That is the opportunity clearly before us. We do not need to sacrifice the neighborhood to implement a lesser, more expensive and retrograde plan.”
RRWG and Penn Station Metro-Hub
We’ll have more to say about ReThinkNYC’s plan later, but first we will look at a scenario that was first proposed in 2003 by the Regional Rail Working Group (RRWG), an alliance of local advocacy groups that came together to promote rail service delivery on a region-wide basis, rather than as completely separate systems serving New Jersey, Long Island and Metro-North’s catchment area. Its Chair was George Haikalis, a longtime planner who had made his reputation by helping stop the Westway project, which would have greatly increased the footprint of the West Side Highway in Manhattan in the early 1970s. Today he is 89 and still active. RRWG’s plan, the Penn Station Metro-Hub Plan, was billed as “a short-term action plan to provide more trains, faster service and affordable fares.” Its goals were to expand capacity at Penn Station by operating it as a through terminal, and to increase service frequency and integrate fares.
RRWG said its plan would increase peak-hour capacity at Penn Station by 25% or more by eliminating conflicts among trains entering and leaving the station, as we have mentioned earlier in this series. The plan document described the operation this way: “Regional trains using the Hudson River tunnels, coming from New Jersey would make a stop at Penn Station and then continue directly through the East River tunnels to points in Long Island, the Bronx and Westchester, and to Sunnyside Yard. Additional trains from Queens and Long Island, using a second set of existing tunnels under the East River, would operate through the northern portion of Penn Station directly to West Side Yard, also avoiding conflicting moves in the station. A new rail service using the West Side Amtrak line would be added, using the existing [low-numbered] stub tracks (Tracks 1-4) at the south side of Penn Station.”
The plan called for frequent service, at least every 20 minutes outside peak commuting periods. It also called for regional-level fare integration, including among railroads and transit in New York City. The plan document claimed that “Gains in ridership and operating efficiency make the plan affordable” and that “riders from all three states benefit.” One of those benefits would be an ability to use the railroad within the City’s limits to gain additional connectivity, rather than having to use slower city transit. The stated goal: “With full support from elected officials, the regional transit agencies can take full advantage of Penn Station’s unique design and convert the commuter rail lines into an efficient regional rail system, to equal or surpass successful examples in London, Paris and Berlin.”
The RRWG would use the central part of the station, Tracks 7 through 14, for most of the proposed runs, which would make five platform tracks available for inbound trips. Even if each platform track could host a train only every 10 minutes, that would allow capacity of 30 trains per hour. The RRWG paper said that slight infrastructure improvements would be required, and that the proposal could be implemented in four years. As for other operating improvements, trains would run every 20 minutes, and the operation would make maximum use of dual-power locomotives and high-level platforms.
RRWG also called for fare integration among providers for both the city and suburban territory. Its proponents urged the MTA and NJ Transit to offer free transfers to and from NYCT subways and buses. Riders could also use regional rail lines that take them to their destinations within the city. In addition, the plan called for a Central Fare Zone that would include the area within the New York City limits and into New Jersey, including downtown Newark’s two stations (Penn Station and Broad Street Station) and as far as Newark Liberty International Airport. There would also be a new line in Queens to John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The RRWG plan did not obtain the political and other support it would have needed for implementation, but it represented an effort by knowledgeable advocates to prepare a plan that would improve service in the area, using through-running and fare integration (author’s note: This writer was a member of RRWG at that time). While that plan was not put into effect, it was followed by other through-running proposals that are under consideration today. ReThinkNYC, which suggests more-extensive modifications to Penn Station, is one of the organizations promoting its own plan.
Complex ReThinkNYC Plan
In addition to calling for a new Penn Station that would either replicate the monumental original building or at least place a stately building above the station now confined to the basement, ReThinkNYC’s appeal also mentioned some of the operational benefits that the organization claimed would come with its plan. They included connectivity for “20 million-plus” of the region’s residents, better safety, equitable and sustainable growth, and that it would “relieve pressures to cannibalize midtown Manhattan for supertalls.” Other claimed benefits for the ReThinkNYC proposal were that it “can be implemented contemporaneously with the opening of the Gateway Tunnels in 2040” and would “Increase capacity for NJT” [48 peak Trains Per Hour] and LIRR [6 peak Trains Per Hour].”
The “peak hour” that the appeal described has been defined by planners as counting trains that arrive at Penn Station from 7:50 AM until 8:49 AM, which is the busiest 60 minutes for arrivals of “commuter” trains on weekdays. Penn Station now hosts 25 arrivals during that hour at its partially stub-end facility. Other “morning peak period” trains continue to arrive before 7:50, as well as at 8:50 and later, before the transition to the midday schedule begins.
The “48” number comes from the old Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) Project, which we described in the previous article in this series. NJ Transit has continued using it, after former Gov. Chris Christie (a Republican) killed the ARC Project in 2010, and state and regional elected officials (Democrats) replaced it with the Gateway Program four months later.
Looking at the current situation, though, the “48” number does not consider the decline in traditional five-day commuting occurring since the COVID-19 virus hit the region five years ago and began on the LIRR as far back as the late 1980s. There have been demographic changes (“Baby Boomers” are retiring and giving up commuting), new technology (working from home or another remote location, at least on some days of the week, is now easier and more acceptable to some employers), and a dislike by many workers to spend so much time and money going to the office and coming back home every workday, the traditional commuting routine. Adding three trains on NJ Transit’s Raritan Valley Line into Penn station during the “peak hour” and adding one train on each of the other lines that now serve the station would bring the total up to 32, plus whatever arrivals Amtrak might add. Other proposals have made provision for up to 42 trains during the busiest hour, but none have matched the proposed 48. It remains unclear who would be riding on all those extra trains. The railroads involved seem to be demanding that 48 trains arrive at Penn Station during the busiest 60 minutes of the morning commute, but the case they made defending it a decade ago seems weaker now.
ReThinkNYC’s Trunk Line
In 2017, ReThinkNYC published a monograph that contained the organization’s detailed proposal for a new type of railroad that would serve four regional centers, the ReThink Trunk Line. Penn Station would be one of those centers, as would the existing Secaucus Junction Station on NJ Transit, where the Amtrak-owned Northeast Corridor (NEC) and historic Erie Railroad and Lackawanna Railroad Boonton Line trains that serve Hoboken cross at different levels allowing transfers between them. Another would be Sunnyside in Queens, near Sunnyside Yard, where Amtrak and NJ Transit store their trains that terminate and originate at Penn Station. After leaving Penn Station and Sunnyside, trains would run on the Hell Gate Bridge line. The other would be at Port Morris, in the Bronx. From there, new tracks would connect with Metro-North’s Hudson Line at one place and with the Harlem and New Haven Lines at another. ReThink’s plan is technical and comprehensive, and we can present only a few highlights. There are detailed descriptions of those stations at www.rethinknyc.org, under “hubs” on the website.
The Introduction to the plan says: “The disunity among Manhattan, New Jersey, Brooklyn/Queens and the Bronx results in individualistic communities that ultimately is crippled from long-term economic growth.” ReThinkNYC’s ultimate objective is “unifying the region” with transit that would work on a region-wide basis. ReThink criticized today’s planning efforts for presenting “many disconnected plans” in the region and instead suggested: “Let’s use our existing project budgets for a sensible and unified regional plan.”
The plan is huge. It involves new construction for connectivity across modes and across existing regional transportation authorities. Plans call for a large office neighborhood near the proposed Sunnyside station, a new connection to LaGuardia Airport, and relocating the Javits Center (a major convention center) from the Far West Side slightly north of Penn Station to the proposed Port Morris terminal area.
Reconfigured Penn Station
We have reported on Scott Spencer’s AmeriStarRail plan for the NEC, which calls for through-running not only at Penn Station, but also at Washington D.C. Union Station. Trains would turn at Alexandria, Va. (after the now-proposed second span of Long Bridge over the Potomac River is placed into service), to speed travel time by eliminating the time it takes to turn a train at a stub-end terminal. The ReThinkNYC plan uses Penn Station similarly, eliminating as much stub-end terminal operation as possible. The west end of the proposed trunk line would be at NJ Transit’s Secaucus Junction Station, which would have a new yard for trains that would turn there. Port Morris would be at the east end, also with turning facilities. Because trains would run through, there would be a new traffic pattern at Penn Station, one that ReThinkNYC believes would be far more efficient than the one running today.
The plan criticized the current Penn Station design, with its narrow platforms, mostly 19 to 28 feet wide, although one is only 14 feet wide. The monograph said: “Narrow platforms are considered a safety hazard. Overcrowding on platforms is mitigated through staged boarding, which forces outbound passengers to wait on the mezzanine level until the train arrives.” ReThinkNYC also criticized the lack of vertical circulation, especially on the low-numbered tracks, where NJ Transit is the primary user. The report went on to say: “Without addressing the issues of vertical platforms and limited vertical circulation, overcrowding cannot be avoided.”
To solve the problem, ReThinkNYC suggested eliminating some tracks from service. Through-running does not require as many tracks, because trains do not dwell as long when they can leave the station a few minutes after another train, rather than waiting to leave a stub-end terminal. That would be done by placing “platform cars” on tracks that would no longer be needed. The result would be platforms that would be 30 to 36 feet wide. The report said (at 27): “A through-running Penn Station design would allow single-track configuration, which provides opportunity to widen the platform width. In addressing congestion, it provides extra platform space for additional vertical circulation. This improvement alleviates bottleneck conditions at the platform and the mezzanine levels.”
An additional feature of the plan is that trains pulling into a station with a platform on both sides allows the crew to open the doors on one side for inbound passengers to alight before opening the doors on the other side to allow outbound passengers to board. That practice, used in Toronto (GO Transit, Union Station) Madrid and Barcelona, is rare in the United States. It exists now at Park Street on the MBTA’s Red Line subway in Boston. The Hudson & Manhattan Railroad (predecessor of today’s PATH) developed it in 1908; is in use at Hoboken and 33d Street stations today. NYCT employs it on the Grand Central (S) Shuttle, at both termini. It was also used at the old Hudson Terminal in Manhattan’s Financial District before the original World Trade Center (1971-2001) was built.
One major feature of the current Gateway Program is Penn Station South (Penn South), a southward expansion of Penn Station that would extend the current stub-end station southward with four new platforms serving seven new tracks. Advocates for through-running, regardless of the proposals they suggest or support, strongly dislike Penn South. ReThinkNYC is no exception. The report (at 23) says: “Amtrak’s current proposal squanders the opportunity afforded by the Gateway Project’s new Hudson tunnels by constructing a new terminal just south of Penn Station.” ReThinkNYC also leveled criticism for the Penn South proposal for planning to demolish the area around Penn Station, a process that has started with the demolition of the Pennsylvania Hotel, where Glen Miller and His Orchestra played during the 1930s. ReThink continued: “Not only does Penn Station South needlessly demolish the fabric of the neighborhood, but it also eliminates the possibility of creating a unified regional rail system for New York. It would extinguish any reasonable possibility of bringing New Jersey-originating trains through Penn and on to Long Island. Trains would dead-end in Manhattan without ever being able to connect across landmasses, and this disconnectivity cuts off Long Island and the Bronx from the benefits of future growth and development.”
AmeriStarRail Proposal
The RRWG’s Penn Station Metro-Hub Plan and the ReThinkNYC plan are concerned primarily with trains operating outside New York City, but within its region, as defined by current operations on NJ Transit, the LIRR and Metro-North. We have previously reported on AmeriStarRail (ASR) and its plan for enhanced service and operations on Amtrak’s NEC and its branches, but that company is interested in introducing through-running not only on the NEC itself, but also to places outside Amtrak’s service area.
Scott R. Spencer, AmeriStarRail’s Operations Director, told Railway Age about the company’s plan. It “is to turn Penn Station into a truly through-running station” by eliminating stub-end operation as much as possible. He proposes using platform cars to remove tracks that are not needed for the through operation, which would create wider platforms for easier and less-crowded boarding and alighting.
A map furnished by Spencer indicates that his plan would operate through-service on the NEC as it runs now, from Washington, D.C. into Penn Staton from the southern part of the NEC, through the Hell Gate Bridge route, and to Boston and other New England points. In addition, ASR proposes running trains on two other lines hourly or on two-hour headways. One operation would go from points south to Penn Station and then to Jamaica (the LIRR’s major transfer point) as LIRR trains do today. They would then proceed on the LIRR Main Line to Ronkonkoma, where the electrification ends. Amtrak is currently considering a similar service from the NEC to Ronkonkoma, but ASR would also take Amtrak Empire Service trains coming from New York State to Ronkonkoma, as well. Spencer said: “We plan to have a mutually beneficial operating and maintenance agreement with LIRR for the use of their slots.”
The other proposed operation would run from Richmond, Va. to Newark Penn Station, but not to New York. Instead, it would use NJ Transit’s Waterfront Connection to get to Hoboken Terminal, the historic waterfront facility built by the Lackawanna Railroad in 1907. Today it is a major transit hub for Hudson County, N.J., as well as for connections to Lower Manhattan. NJ Transit trains on the Montclair-Boonton and Morris & Essex Lines (including Gladstone) use the terminal, as do Main-Bergen (including limited service to Port Jervis) and Pascack Valley Line trains. The terminal also hosts the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, PATH, ferries, a bus route to Manhattan, and local buses. As with its proposed operations that would go to Long Island, AmeriStarRail would also run service to the connection-rich Hoboken Terminal to avoid turning trains at Penn Station in New York. As with the LIRR, those trains would be operated under an agreement with NJ Transit.
Is This Really the Answer?
There are many other issues that could make it very difficult to plan and implement a through-running operation in the New York area. The equipment fleets run by all three regional railroads today are incompatible. Can that be remedied? The is also the railroads’ demand for 48 trains during the busiest hour of the morning commuting peak. Would that high a density of service be needed in the future? A new stub-end terminal like the proposed Penn South would be tremendously expensive, and might not even be necessary, if recent ridership trends continue. These are important issues, and we will deal with them later in this series.
In the meantime, there is another shortcoming common to all the plans we examined that fails to solve a major problem that many commuters and other riders heading toward Midtown Manhattan still face. The plans present a variety of ideas for through-running at New York’s Penn Station and east of there. However, they still do not connect Manhattan’s West Side with its East Side at Grand Central Terminal, which means that riders do not have a choice of going to either side of Midtown when they board their train. We will examine the issue of serving both sides of Midtown in the next article in this series.
