with each redesign , a sparer Penn station emerges

Today,10/26/06 in the Metro section. the New York Times Shows the three
proposed interior designs for the Moniyhan station.

Here is a link to the free content material noted by Mr.Budd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyreg ... locks.html

Brief passage:

• THE creation of a visionary new Pennsylvania Station is a goal I strongly support,” Gov. George E. Pataki said last week as he tried to advance the latest version of a 13-year-old plan to expand the station westward across Eighth Avenue into the landmark General Post Office, or James A. Farley Building.
  
  Because it was opposed by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the current plan failed to win the unanimous approval of the Public Authorities Control Board on Oct. 18. Whether it is now dead or somehow salvageable remains to be seen.

As I've previously noted, early, very early, in the Spitzer administration, there will be a showdown to see just who is 'Big Man Up the River'. In one corner will be Gov. Spitzer (anybody giving the "other guy' a prayer?) and in the other Rep Silver (does he even have an opponent?).

This Moynihan/Penn Station matter could well be the "powder keg' issue.

I like the simpler ones. A train station should be functional and aesthetic, but not an amusement park. The first one seems to put so much in that the value of putting it in a Charles McKim building is totally lost.

-asg

Given that Farely is dead (and it SHOULD BE, IMHO), could be go onto the much more needed replacement of Penn/MSG on the current site?

I don't see why everyone wants to get rid of MSG's excellent transit access, simply to make a feel good train station. The new Penn should be under the new MSG, period. That doesn't mean it has to be bland or cramped.

But, if they do that (fat chance any of this will ever be built - it's the new millenium's 2nd ave subway), it only makes sense to go all the way to track level and start THERE.

I am a fan of the first design. I understand the need for practicality above all else, but I cannot escape the feeling that the current Penn Station is too spartan. I feel that the first design will serve its purpose and, at the same time, recreates the look of a more traditional railroad station: it reminds me a lot of South Station in Boston with the high ceilings and such.

-Kyle

^I find there's a difference between spartan and simple. Simplicity can be elegant and beautiful. It doesn't need to be crowded not to be spartan. For the first design, you don't even really seem to be using the historic buildings. The second and third have even higher ceilings and actually make use of the historic nature of the building.

^^Isn't the new MSG supposed to be built to the west of the post office on the site of the failed stadium? There's no way you could access the platforms from that far west and the post office provides a gateway to the new arena that a new station under the office building that would be replacing MSG-IV would not. I don't view it as just a "feel good" station.

Also, the Second Ave. Subway is shaping up as the 21st century's Second Ave. Subway, so far.

-asg

Nasadowsk wrote:I don't see why everyone wants to get rid of MSG's excellent transit access, simply to make a feel good train station. The new Penn should be under the new MSG, period. That doesn't mean it has to be bland or cramped.

The simple answer to that question is people still regret the Pennsylvania Railroad's decision to tear down the railroad station building in the mid-1960's.

Hi,

Hate to rain on y'all's parade, but the bottom line will be, and always is, MONEY. Whatever the budget is, is what it is.

I still haven't gotten over the loss of the original Pann Station in Manhattan.

The station (NYP) and its public facilities are fine and can be "tweaked" and altered. It is the track portion that is an impediment to growth. Thus the new station is based on the idea of more train capacity on Manhatten Island rather than people capacity (but the growth for people capacity follows). The current two tracks to Jersey just won't accomodate anymore trains; so new tunnels, new track, new rail facilities have to be built to accomodate growth. Just putting two new tracks into NYP won't do it either, nor can you add platforms or yard space as configured now.

...I don't think so. I use Penn Station regularly and find it oppressive, badly laid out, poorly maintained and depressing. Other stations such as Grand Central or 30th Street in Philly, or Union Station are so much more inviting.

Grand Central's airy feeling is one reason - the lack of a dining car and the commuter unfriendly schedules are others - why I am switching to Metro-North as my choice of carrier from upstate NY.

I know all is not right at NYP as far as crowd control goes...but it has had many physical and use changes over the years. And part of the point is that you can't just keep making changes. While I emphasized the track needs above, the fact is that a new station will also change the "people" needs at NYP, hopefully easing the crowd somewhat (but I feel that is more of a pipedream than anything). So while another station is to alleiviate track congestion, it should also ease pedestrian congestion somewhat. But this is New York City and there are very few absolutes except more congestion.

Mr. Nasadowski wrote:I don't see why everyone wants to get rid of MSG's excellent transit access, simply to make a feel good train station

Personally, I'd rather that concertgoers or sports fans walk a number of blocks so that they arrive at the station slightly winded and in the mood to relax, as opposed to being treated to a down-the-stairs easy trip towards the platforms while still in overly-high spirits and moving at full speed. It'd make for better crowd control versus a sudden crunch.

For the record, let us please stop equating Moynihan "Station" (read: concourse) with Penn Station…

Mr. Norman wrote:This Moynihan/Penn Station matter could well be the "powder keg' issue

With many other issues in the way, this would spell high superfluity among the candidates thereof. Moynihan Concourse would not even be as far up in the ranks as it is, were it not for Warrington adding his half-hearted voice to it (among with several other "sudden boondoggles" on NJT's plate thanks to him)…

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Other than Amtrak being a mere tenant, what does this topic have to do with Amtrak?

Like the FOUR other threads discussing this topic, this one's headed to the same place.

wigwagfan wrote:MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Other than Amtrak being a mere tenant, what does this topic have to do with Amtrak?

Like the FOUR other threads discussing this topic, this one's headed to the same place.

Perhaps the MODERATOR could take note that the conventional wisdom as shown through the four threads is that the topic belongs in the Amtrak forum and reflect that in his moderation (term used loosely). It is at least connected to a station owned by Amtrak--Penn Station. (Though the new facility itself may not be owned by them, it will certainly have an effect on the existing Penn Station.)

I recommend the moderators accept that topics often can belong in more than one forum--I would have thought that a foregone conclusion, but perhaps not--and stop punting on any topic whenever they see another place they could possibly put it.

Actually, based on the general quality of moderation at the Amtrak forum, which is too involved, unconducive to discussion, and--frankly--immoderate and biased, I recommend that the moderators be dismissed.

-asg

I fail to see how this is not an topic that belongs in the Amtrak forum. One third of all Amtrak passengers either board or exit trains at NYP. Divorcing discussion of NYP from the Amtrak forum is like suggesting issues affecting ATL airport are not of interest to Delta Airlines. Amtrak is not a "mere tenant" at NYP, and NYP is not just another station to Amtrak. Amtrak owns NYP and anything that affects NYP and the value and utility of NYP to Amtrak and its passengers is absolutely an Amtrak issue.