Amtrak balking at Farley Station deal

Dear Irish, Please do not get me wrong, I really appreciate nice old
railroad stations. Some that come to mind include: Grand Central;
30th Street, Philadelphia; Washington, D.C.; Newark, N.J.; New Haven;
South Station, Boston; Los Angeles; Rhinecliff, N.Y. (smaller but really
nicely restored) and others.
Its just that the old Penn Station was not really nice and there was no
money in the early 1960's available to make it nice. The old waiting
room might have been able to be made much nicer but the old train
concourse would still have been hot in the summer, cold in the winter and
probably generally un-pleasant.
As for advertiseing, railroad stations today for the most part are not
museum pieces but transportation facilities supported mostly by the
taxpayers and as such, any use that the authorities can get out of them to
gain revenues should be welcomed by all. If it wasn't for the advertiseing
on the stations and trains, I suspect that all of the commuters would be
paying higher fares.
Had the government(s) involved been more interesting in helping rail
passenger service in the 1960's instead of taxing the facilities and using
the taxes paid by the railroad companies to help their competetion, maybe
the old Penn Station could have been restored and still be with us today.
Noel Weaver

"Congressional mismanagement does not, in my opinion, give Amtrak a license to be stupid."

But the absence of normal market discipline means that patrons and taxpayers pick up the tab, on a continuing basis.

In fairness, no mode of transport operates in anything even remotely approaching a market ecomomy. But the greater the number of agencies involved, and the higher the stakes, the more likely the process will be decided by political, rather than financial criteria. Amtrak, by its nature, is forced to solicit most of its business in areas where the "beltway mentality" predominates.

I think the current Amtrak response is a negotiating ploy. They know they'll have to pay something to use the Farley Building, but they're trying
to start the negotiations as low as possible. Since they never have enough
$$$ anyway, from their point of view, the less they can spend the better.
I think they believe the city of New York will build a new Penn Station
anyway just to have a more visitor friendly terminal, and to try to score
the 2012 Olympics, so why not let them pay for it, and go along for the ride, so to speak.

As far as whether the $$$ would be well spent, I think having a quality
terminal would definitely improve ridership; how much is debatable.
The current Penn Station, in my opinion, presents a second-rate
image of Amtrak. Improving that would definitely help both ridership
and congressional $$$ support.

The current Penn Station, in my opinion, presents a second-rate
image of Amtrak.

So? Here's a brutal truth: That's not reason enough to get Farley off the dime.

Neither the Port Authority nor the airlines nor their passengers seem particularly upset about the aesthetic demerits of EWR, LGA or JFK. In fact, the one terminal building that DOES have some architectural merit made the National Trust's list of 11 most endangered historic places just last year. In other words, the residents of the Greatest City in the World don't share the railfan agenda. They don't particularly care whether the facility is purty. They just want a facility that works. (Philistines!)

But I'll bet the airfans have worked themselves up into a perfect fury.

If somebody didn't care Mr. Fels, why did anyone go and contract with the Caltravas firm to design a world class mass transit center at WTC?

Wouldn't the existing facility opened last November simply do the job?

And in your backyard, why have Amtrak and the commuter agency (what's its name, something religious I think?) chosen to use Dallas Union Terminal when an Amshack somewhere could move people?. Also, isn't your backyard actually Ft Worth? The Santa Fe station served the purpose if the objective again was simply to move people.

Quite simply, civic pride is part of the equation.

Whoo-eee, that's one wild lunge, from The Greatest City in the World to DFW. But what the heck

• Dallas Union Station is a relatively modest building, no monument to "civic pride." Further, it would have made no sense to construct an Amshack when there was already a perfectly suitable station building, constructed 1916.
• The Santa Fe depot served reasonably well as the Amtrak station when the only trains you could catch in Fort Worth were Amtrak's. The Intermodal Transportation Center was built for the transportation authority; the incremental cost of adding Amtrak capability was relatively modest.

If a Calatrava-designed depot is actually built in downtown Manhattan, it will have been erected on a broad foundation of 9/11-related sentiment. Nothing comparable exists midtown--and for that we should all be thankful.

Civic Pride is indeed important, but it needs bucks to back it up.

Here in Seattle, in the go-go 90's and in the name of Civic Pride, we passed an expansive bond issue that provided new libraries throughout the city, and replaced our 60's era central library with something that everyone describes as "World-Class" (a tiresome Seattle phrase if there ever was one - we're terribly insecure as a city and want desparately to be like San Francisco We did the same for schools and parks.

Trouble is, that glitzy new library is still getting shut down two weeks out of every year because there's no money to keep it open - the "friends of the Library" association still has to have booksales to help fund the system.

After all the speeches have been completed, and everyone has oohed and ahhed over the new station, will Amtrak be stuck paying rent on an expensive and expansive "world-class" toy? Will the "Moynihan Authority" still be around to clean all those windows and keep the bathrooms clean? Will Amtrak be in the hot seat when and if the politicians decide to start looking for someone to blame?

Most importantly - will this station improve the passenger experience BOTH in the waiting room and in terms of expediency of passage?

Slightly OT, but the TWA terminal at JFK is likely to be saved at this point, JetBlue has expressed strong interest in moving into it. For those who've never seen it, it was (and still is) quite a spectacular building, and also very unique.

Farley? IMHO, it's pretty much dead at this point. NY likes to come up with big money projects, but in the end, not all get built (second ave subway anyone?). I don't think the push is there from the users of Penn, or from anyone downstate.

What's ironic about it, though, is that in all this fuss about destroying the origional Penn station (though, the origional station is STILL there, just not the above street level portion we all think about), railbuffs think that it's ok to destroy another, almost equally old building to 'recapture the spirit' of the old Penn.

Saying that the "old Penn Station is still there" is equivalent to saying that the "old CNW station" in Chicago is still there—certainly the tracks and platforms are there, but the building has been replaced by the Ogilvie Center.

Platforms, tracks, the floors are still the 1910 origionals (you could see the glass inserts in them durring the last renovation), the stairways down, etc etc etc. In fact, a good chunk from the first level below street level on down is still there, it's all just covered up.

When the LIRR section was being renovated, they had pulled back some of the 70's vintage walls and such, and you could see old PRR era painted signs on some beams directing passengers. While the Amtrak side was redone, if you went to the exit concourse and looked up, you could see the origional underside of the floor, glass inserts and all. IIRC, parts of the topside were worn to the origional surface back in the mid 90's before the new stuff went down, too.

Theoretically, they could grind away the existing floor and reveal the origional floor again.

At the track level, there's plenty of PRR era stuff, especially up on the ceiling. Look, and it's there.

BTW, the origional 1910 or so flood doors are still on the east side tunnels. I believe they were recently reactivated after years of disrepair (dating to the PRR era).

When people talk about the old Penn being 'demolished', it implies the entire station was uprooted and replaced - this isn't what really happened, though. The above street part was torn down, but below the street, a lot still remains.

Nasadowsk wrote:What's ironic about it, though, is that in all this fuss about destroying the origional Penn station (though, the origional station is STILL there, just not the above street level portion we all think about), railbuffs think that it's ok to destroy another, almost equally old building to 'recapture the spirit' of the old Penn.

The main, 8th Avenue facade of the Farley Post Office will remain intact. Only a relatively small (and architecturally unremarkable) side street / mid-block section of the exterior will be "transformed."

As for the Farley's interior. . . .

I worked there as a postal clerk for several years while attending college. Trust me, there's nothing pretty about it. Or worth preserving.

Apart from the "public" area overlooking 8th Avenue (which will remain a post office), the remainder of the building's block-long interior has no carved woodwork, no fancy stonework. In fact, it has no interior decoration at all.

It's simply a factory, circa 1933 -- packed to the rafters with grime-caked mail sorting machinery, mountains of filthy mail sacks, battered furniture left over from the Great Depression, and acres of disgruntled employees (who typically spend much of their shift staring at the government-issue Institutional Green and Institutional Grey walls).

I wouldn't want to see the Farley torn down and a Wal-Mart erected in its place. But its proposed adaptation to a train station, if it ever happens, will hardly deprive New York of an architectural treasure.

The current Penn Station is certainly "the pits." But the interior of the Farley was (and from all reports still is) an absolute toilet.

To add to the previous entries, station preservation and use is fine as
long as the public has good service and good use of the facilities.
Dallas is a fine example of a preserved (thank goodness) station which is
serving the public very well. I was there last month and was very
impressed with the job that has been done there. It is a very user
friendly facility with easy connections between Amtrak, commuter rail to
and from Fort Worth (Trinity Express) and two light rail lines.
A person can change between all three at Dallas without any major
hassels or long walks.
Presently at Penn Station, a person can change between Amtrak, New
Jersey Transit, Long Island Rail Road and several subway lines without an
excessive amount of walking.
The proposal to use the Farley Building will require at least one long block
of addition walking to connect to Amtrak from any of the other lines and
might result in two long blocks in some cases.
Amtrak passengers frequently travel with at least some luggage and this
change could create a hardship for some of them.
Imagine arriving on the L.I.R.R. in Penn Station and their facilities are
nearer to 7th Avenue than 8th Avenue, having to walk a long block west
to purchase Amtrak ticket than walking back east because their train to
Albany is leaving from track 5 and that track would not be able to be
accessed from the Farley building. Trains to Albany can only be handled
from tracks 5 through 9 inclusive.
I would settle for most anything just to avoid all of that walking.
I do not see Amtrak getting any benefit from the Farley Building.
People do not go to Penn Station to admire the facility, they go there to
board a train out of New York to go somewhere, the most civilized way in
or out of New York period.
Noel Weaver

Yes, you're right, Mr. Weaver. I'm very happy with the current Penn Station the way it is, and its location. Besides, as you also just said, I only go there to board my service to either Orlando FL, Toronto, ON, or my hometown Boston/Braintree, MA. I don't go there just to "take a wonderful look at it", unlike Grand Central Terminal. I only go there to Penn Station only when its absolutely necessary for me. And Penn station looks fine with me too.

You're also right about the walking distances, I agree with you, Noel. I wouldn't want to walk "5 miles" just to get to the subways and that, I'd rather get the subways right there at Penn, so I'm with you on this one.

Come what may with the Farley project, "we" here at the Forum should be pleased to know that work on what really counts, namely what is "down below", moves forth.

A "brief passage" form Today's New York Times:

"Fixing Problems in Tunnels, but Keeping Trains Running
By MICHAEL LUO

Published: June 2, 2004


The tunnels that feed into Pennsylvania Station have long troubled those who have seen them.

A serious train accident under the East or Hudson Rivers could send panicked passengers stampeding up the spiral staircases that rise 10 stories to the surface but are so narrow that rescue workers would not be able to descend at the same time. Passengers trying to walk out might have to edge along narrow, crumbling ledges along the walls. And firefighters rushing to help would be hampered by the absence of a water supply that runs the length of the tunnels".

Also, for those who wish to "read all about it":

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/02/nyreg ... nnels.html

Lastly, even though we have considerably less abuse on this matter here at our Forum than elsewhere, please note that this posting is comprised of a pasted "brief passage" of copyrighted material that falls well within the "fair use" provisions as set forth by United States Code, a conclusion I have drawn from reviewing such, and a link to the copyrighted material that, at present, The New York Times Company has chosen to make available. If they have chosen to impose conditions on the access to that material, be it registration, spam, or exposure to pop ups and banners, so be it.

That is their perogative; likewise it is your perogative not to visit their site.

I think you have to remember, the Farley project is tied into the ARC
project, which will have new platforms way below ground, probably
right below Farley. The current situation operationally isn't really that
bad; it just looks lousy. You're really going to have problems with
Penn capacity if/when the new tunnel across the Hudson gets dug, and
NJ transit capacity gets doubled. That's when it will start making a lot
of sense to move Amtrak over to Farley, and maybe a few NJTransit
trains, while leaving the current station for NJtransit/LIRR.

As far as covering the distance between the two stations, I see no reason why they can't put escalators/people movers in, like they do in airports. It's certainly doable.