NYP Penn Station South

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:41 pm they really need not have access to long island , just providing extra space to NJT will free up platforms on north side for LIRR and Amtrak.

That is correct, but good luck convincing everyone including the politicians and the voters that building a new gleaming station for NJT just to get the dingy through tracks at the existing Penn free of NJT trains is a good investment. I do not disagree that this is the correct thing to build, just that it is a very hard sell politically. This is very similar to the reason why NJT has not built Penn South itself -- good luck convincing an NJ politician that investing billions of dollars into a station in another state is the proper thing to do.

If they've cleared the lot, I might suggest stacking a NJT stub-end station atop an LIRR stub end station if there isn't quite space to
- curve south
- do a platform
- curve north

THen maybe as an alterantive
LIRR enters from east and curves south and has a longer platform on one level, with stairs/street exit on the west
NJT enters from west curves south and has a longer platform on another level, with stairs/street exit on the east

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:45 pm https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 6282909681

Subchat sucks

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:50 pm shows track map here : https://images.app.goo.gl/aKyNL3JLSRi21fdN7

That's a nice map. <FOAM>

More FOAM: the map almost tempts me to say they should connect the new Gateway tunnels to the High Line but keep going down 30th, turn north at Park, and have two elevated stations at at 7th and GCT. Yeah. Now that's some real FOAM!

From Jaap's link:

Is there a reason, though, why LIRR couldn't have a few platforms on another level that would be "angled south" (on a slight diagonal vs the street grid?)

EuroStar wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:51 pm I am not sure if this is really going to happen. NY state building a new station for NJT and Amtrak? Sounds a little crazy to me.

There is no easy way to connect any of the new tracks to the tunnels going east to Long Island, so unless there is an unannounced plan for new East River tunnels, why is NY going to spend billions of dollars to build a terminal for NJT? While Amtrak has said that it will contribute money, NJ has said nothing. The new tracks also cannot connect to the existing North River tunnels, so until the new tunnels under the Hudson are built, the utility of this is zero. Cuomo will be out of the governor mansion before this has any chance to happen even if he runs for another term. This sounds more of a political posturing than a real plan to me.

NY is not building Penn South for NJ; all these travelers are working in New York, and paying taxes in NY, or spending money in New York. It's a win for New York. Yes, it does operationally benefit NJT and Amtrak, but it also benefits the MTA (LIRR and perhaps MNRR).

If you look at the track map, the Gateway tunnels have ladders both inbound to Penn and outbound to the North River tunnels as well.

Arlington wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:55 am Is there a reason, though, why LIRR couldn't have a few platforms on another level that would be "angled south" (on a slight diagonal vs the street grid?)

I suppose the could extend Penn South with some tail tracks extending back to the existing East River tunnels. It's just not necessary, though, as the additional platforms as Jaap noted alleviate the existing platforms which would help LIRR.

We're grateful that the original Penn Station has supported 100+ years of waxing, waning, and re-growth. I think we need another 100 year vision for NYC, either that Penn South "keep going" and turn north to meet GCT Under or that LIRR have access.

Posted in the NJT Topic:

I'm pretty sure any tunnel connection to MNRR is almost impossible for either utility or engineering reasons. Thus, my foam about an elevated link LOL.

Having more NJT trains stuck on stub end tracks is a good idea? Just more to send back west through the same two overcrowded tubes.

Edit: sorry didnt see the two new tunnels under the hudson in the previous pic.

I believe that plan is for the original idea, and doesn't reflect Andy "Rivers" "Shivers" Cuomo's plan which is just stick 8 tracks onto penn

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:03 am I believe that plan is for the original idea, and doesn't reflect Andy "Rivers" "Shivers" Cuomo's plan which is just stick 8 tracks onto penn

From the little I can find about the details, it seems like the same plan. Cuomo is taking credit for Amtrak's original plan? Politics maybe?

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:02 am I'm pretty sure any tunnel connection to MNRR is almost impossible for either utility or engineering reasons. Thus, my foam about an elevated link LOL.

The ARC Summary Report suggested it was physically feasible, but that it would require disrupting and moving around a track of the Lexington Av subway and possibly underpinning nearby buildings (along with a compatible fleet, of course). Seems like it's really just a question of how much interagency cooperation and subway/surface disruption is politically feasible today. I think Cuomo has reaffirmed that any rail project can move forward, or at least have the ball start rolling, regardless of merits or cost, if it has the right people backing it.