Control of Penn Station, NY

EuroStar wrote:The current European model seems to be that infrastructure is owned and maintained by one company while multiple others pay to run trains on it. While I do not see something like this working well here, I wonder how they avoid turf wars in Europe. At least in NYC it seems that the MTA, NJT and Amtrak all want control of their terminal -- ESA and ARC are/were purposefully separate from existing terminals. While I am not intimately familiar with the workings of the European railroads it seems that at least in continental Europe the train operators coexist just fine when it comes to commuter and long distance trains operating on the same tracks and terminals. Is there something they know that we don't?

It seems to have become endemic in present day US culture, that parties that have no responsibility in the control function of any enterprise always feel and express that they can do a better job than those that are doing the job day in day out - UNTIL they happen to gain control and they are then overwhelmed with the complexity of the issues they thought they had the answers for, when in reality - they never understood the question, let alone had answers for the REAL questions.

It is always easier to criticize something than to actually do it.

EuroStar wrote:The current European model seems to be that infrastructure is owned and maintained by one company while multiple others pay to run trains on it. While I do not see something like this working well here, I wonder how they avoid turf wars in Europe. At least in NYC it seems that the MTA, NJT and Amtrak all want control of their terminal -- ESA and ARC are/were purposefully separate from existing terminals. While I am not intimately familiar with the workings of the European railroads it seems that at least in continental Europe the train operators coexist just fine when it comes to commuter and long distance trains operating on the same tracks and terminals. Is there something they know that we don't?

In the EU, it's "simpel" in the most EU country's the state own the railinfrastructure, and every company who wants to run train can do that with the right papers.

i 've said it al before, to safe Amtrak, bring the entire NEC(including empire corridor to Albany) corridor under single government ownership(Amtrak ore US DOT), then let the commuter, freight and IC traffic pay for the miles and times they use the NEC, the owner use that generated money to keep the NEC in a good state of repair.
It's ridiculous that NJT just pay $ 1.5 million for everything, i would like to know what LIRR is paying for Penn.... no wonder that Amtrak haven't has enough money for propper maintaining the NEC.

New Jersey Transit pays several 10's of millions of dollars annually for use of the Northeast Corridor. Fair use quote:

"What is NJ Transit paying for?
Of NJ Transit's $74 million payment, $55.28 million covers the NEC between Penn Station New York and Trenton. Another $1.9 million is for the Atlantic City line and $1.1 million is for the rail route used by Atlantic City line trains to get to and from the 30th Street Station in Philadelphia.
The "rent" for using the NEC and other Amtrak facilities is $93 million annually for the next five years. That amount is based on usage."
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/201 ... _rent.html

Ken W2KB wrote:

east point wrote:Wonder what a fair real estate evaluation of NYPS would be ? About for the Station alone $4.0B ? North river tunnels $ 8B ? East river tunnels $12.0 B Those figures are replacement values not depreciated value. Then of course the track work going on now at full value.

Commercial real estate value is typically evaluated (assessed) for property tax purposes based upon the profits generated. An alternate means of valuation is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an arms length transaction. Under either of these methods, the valuation would likely be substantially negative since the present use incurs a substantial loss. For the value of Penn Station to be positive, an assumption that the building would no longer be used for transportation and that it would be developed to its highest and best commercial use would need to be applied, which of course, would not be practical.

Sorry, but I can't imagine a situation in which the value of a 2-square-block chunk of Midtown Manhattan real estate is negative. I doubt Amtrak is losing money on the rent charged the various retail establishments within the station complex. In fact, it's entirely possible that the place is cash-flow positive on an operating basis.

SRich wrote:i 've said it al before, to safe Amtrak, bring the entire NEC(including empire corridor to Albany) corridor under single government ownership(Amtrak ore US DOT), then let the commuter, freight and IC traffic pay for the miles and times they use the NEC, the owner use that generated money to keep the NEC in a good state of repair.

The only parts Amtrak doesn't own are New Rochelle-New Haven, and Spuyten Duyvil-Croton Harmon. The ownership of the ex-NYNH&H main line is split between the states of CT and NY; the ex-NYC Hudson Division is State of NY. And by far the heaviest users of those stretches of track-- by a factor of at least 10x on the NH-- is Metro-North. I don't think putting those tracks under Amtrak ownership (which would be politically impossible to accomplish anyway) would solve anything.

Amtrak doesn't own the NEC in MA, in fact the new agreement seems to rip off MA. They are a tenant at BOS

Ridgefielder wrote:The only parts Amtrak doesn't own are New Rochelle-New Haven, and Spuyten Duyvil-Croton Harmon. The ownership of the ex-NYNH&H main line is split between the states of CT and NY; the ex-NYC Hudson Division is State of NY. And by far the heaviest users of those stretches of track-- by a factor of at least 10x on the NH-- is Metro-North. I don't think putting those tracks under Amtrak ownership (which would be politically impossible to accomplish anyway) would solve anything.

The Hudson and Harlem Lines are owned under an agreement with Argent/TDR Trust, formerly owned by Penn Central.

The PANYNJ (Port Authority) should not even be considered for Penn Station. To think that the same people who run LaGuardia and the bus terminal near Times Square, both of which are atrocious and dilapidated, should be given anything else?

SouthernRailway wrote:The PANYNJ (Port Authority) should not even be considered for Penn Station. To think that the same people who run LaGuardia and the bus terminal near Times Square, both of which are atrocious and dilapidated, should be given anything else?

Don't forget the bus terminal in New Jersey.

The ye old Port Authority I think wouldn't want it...

However, perhaps a "PSNY Operating Company" might a smart idea where Amtrak, MTA, and NJ Transit all have interest.

This garbage is exactly why it matters that NJT is putting out a BS false narrative that describes Amtrak as the neglectful landlord. Politicians and local buffoons are eating it up, and before you know it, we're going to have real problems.

AgentSkelly wrote:The ye old Port Authority I think wouldn't want it... However, perhaps a "PSNY Operating Company" might a smart idea where Amtrak, MTA, and NJ Transit all have interest.

I'm thinking perhaps transfer of Penn Station (and Farley Building) to GSA, with a sub-operating entity in charge.

That would be the worse idea ever

I don't think it should happen either, but GSA is good at managing facilities from vendors and tenants to HVAC and decor. I could think of many worse entities to control the PSNY passenger levels.

Doesn't solve the track level though. Also, if NJ had wanted a piece of Penn, they should've bought in when Penn Central was having its fire sales.

Believe all of the LIRR concourse retail and maintenance is handled by MTA.