Penn Station South Is Unnecessary
Several prominent voices have claimed that trans-Hudson rail riders need an enlarged Penn Station to go along with new Hudson tunnels. Having used the station many times, it is clear why most travelers would support the $8 billion Penn South project, which would condemn an entire Midtown city block to expand Penn Station with eight station tracks that would be linked to New Jersey but not to Queens. However, a closer look reveals that everything Penn South would do can instead be done in the station’s existing footprint with improved operations and passenger circulation.
At track level, the railroads prioritize independent, stub-ended New Jersey and New York suburban train operations at the expense of capacity. Although most platform tracks connect to both New Jersey and Queens, many trains reverse out, causing conflicts that decrease throughput. Trains that don’t reverse discharge all passengers and run to yards, a procedure called “drop and go”. These outdated practices enable New York and New Jersey trains to use independent crew pools and power sources—third rail in New York and overhead wire in New Jersey. By contrast, other cities’ suburban rail networks feature through running, where trains carry passengers from a suburb through the city center to another suburb without reversing. Among them is London, whose network, like ours, features both overhead wire and third rail. It uses dual-power trains similar to our M8s. Replacing the NJ Transit and LIRR fleets—totaling around 2,200 cars—with dual-power units should cost $4—5 billion and yield large benefits. Today’s service, which runs frequently during peak times and sparsely otherwise, requires many crews to split their workday—half in the morning and half in the evening. In contrast, a through running operation would keep trains and staff in continuous service, which would cost less per service hour. Moreover, the new cars would brake, accelerate, and load passengers more quickly than many current ones, especially the NJ Transit Multilevels. Most express trains could be converted to locals and still cut travel time. These additional stops combined with one-seat service from New Jersey to Long Island and Connecticut would induce new ridership, especially from inner suburbs that are currently underserved.
A 2014 Amtrak study confirms that through running is feasible at Penn Station. It finds that each track could handle 5 trains per hour with through running, noting that passenger flow to and from the trains is the limiting factor. The fifteen through tracks alone, seven per direction, thus afford 35 trains each way per hour, today’s peak-hour volume from Queens. Use of tracks 1 – 4 to turn trans-Hudson trains and using tracks 20 – 21 to “drop and go” from Queens contributes additional capacity. The analysis ignores the platform stairwells being built under the Moynihan project, meaning it likely understates the potential of through running.
Upstairs, fragmented management of the concourse levels causes inefficient flow. Although Amtrak owns the whole station, it only manages the western portion of the concourse, renting the northern part to the LIRR and the southeastern portion to NJ Transit. Signage and design cues encourage each company’s passengers to only board trains through “their” area of the station. For example, prominent overhead signs just inside the 32nd Street and 7th Avenue entrance tell NJ Transit passengers to immediately turn left. They give no indication that further access to the same tracks lies straight ahead or that many NJ Transit trains board to the right, where ticketing and information for them is nonexistent. Instead, the departure information for all trains should be displayed all around the station. Moreover, all signage needs to be unified and use a clear naming convention for the different station areas. For example, each row of platform gates could be assigned a letter. Finally, all suburban ticket machines should sell fares to all destinations served by suburban trains.
On top of unified management and information systems, Penn Station still requires some construction. Today, very little of the station’s upper or lower concourse floors is open to passengers, and unlike the original design, little light reaches the platforms. Retail and office space needs to be converted to circulation area and use as much glass as possible, as the refurbished West End Concourse already does.
Small changes in the time a train spends at the platform, the dwell, have big effects. Amtrak assumes that through running allows each track to process a train every 12 minutes, presumably using the worst pre-Moynihan platform clearance times. Fortunately, by next year, the Moynihan project will have added enough stairwells to cut the worst clearance times by a minute or so. Those stairwells will also speed access for boarding passengers; the combination of faster egress and ingress between concourse and train should cut the time per train to 10 minutes from today’s values of 15 — 18 minutes, allowing 42 trains per hour each way on the through tracks. Continuing to turn a limited number of trains back to New Jersey on tracks 1 — 4 should give a total station capacity around double today’s peak trans-Hudson volume of 25 trains per hour.
A 2008 analysis showed that while 1,600 passengers could clear a train via one of the northern platforms in 2 – 3 minutes, it took around 6 minutes at the southern platforms, which had fewer stairwells. Today, Penn Station gets 34,000 arriving passengers in the peak hour from Queens plus 26,000 from New Jersey. East Side Access is to divert around half of the Queens passengers to Grand Central, and the Gateway Program would roughly double inbound passengers from New Jersey, giving a total of around 70,000 inbound passengers during the peak hour. The Moynihan project will allow up to 800 passengers to enter and exit each of the eleven platforms per minute, which would let detraining passengers clear most trains within 3 – 4 minutes and allow ample time for new boardings. Other projects to further speed passenger flow, such as completion of the “Central Concourse”, which is now in design, should be prioritized. The cost of it plus enlargement of nearby hallways is estimated at $340 million. There is little reason to worry that such projects depend on Penn South; NYC Transit and Amtrak are undertaking circulation work at Grand Central and at Washington Union Station, respectively, with little to no property acquisition. Note that the cost of circulation improvements and new trains fits well within the $8 billion that Governor Cuomo is apparently prepared to spend on Penn South.
Summary of Penn Station circulation parameters expected after completion of the Moynihan Train Hall project.
Penn Station circulation capacity and clearance times at each platform with (B) and without (NB) stairwells being delivered under the Moynihan Train Hall project.
Longer term, New York should further modify Penn Station’s track level to speed boarding and minimize instances where opposing trains cross paths. Removal of station tracks to widen platforms and stairwells would allow ample two-way passenger flow, cutting train dwells from several minutes to 1 — 2 minutes. After new Hudson tunnels are dug, terminal tracks at Penn Station (tracks 1 – 4) and the lower level of Grand Central (tracks 105 — 112) should be connected. This project would eliminate turnarounds, provide even more one-seat rides, and spread out passengers between two stations rather than one, increasing efficiency. Judging by the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access, $2 – 3 billion should afford this connection and the associated station work. Similarly, tracks 20 – 21, which currently lead to the West Side Yard, should be connected to the Empire Line to take LIRR trains to the Upper West Side and the Hudson Valley. This connection requires a much shorter tunnel than that needed to connect to Grand Central.
Effectively, these connections would result in Penn Station hosting the following three trunk lines, listed from south to north:
New Jersey — Westchester County via new “Gateway” trans-Hudson tunnel and new tunnel to Grand Central.
New Jersey — Long Island/Connecticut via existing Hudson and East River tunnels 1 and 2.
Upstate New York — Long Island via new Empire Line tunnel and existing East River tunnels 3 and 4.
Since New York gets the least transit construction per dollar in the world, it needs to choose projects very carefully. The MTA budget has increased markedly over the last decade, and Amtrak’s finances have (justifiably) stabilized, without a corresponding improvement at Penn Station. This shows that a new approach that challenges institutional inertia and territoriality is needed to maximize the reach of dollars. Political leaders seem prepared to spend billions of dollars on Penn Station. If that cash is channeled into a modern through operation rather than into accommodation of the outdated terminal strategy, an enviable station experience and rail network is within the reach of New York.