Next Tuesday at MAS: Moynihan Station: What Needs to Happen Next?

When Pennsylvania Station was completed in 1910, The PRR and the City expected that it would serve as a catalyst for development of the surrounding area. Samuel Rea served as President of the Pennsylvania Railroad from 1913 to 1925 and during his term he struggled to develop the area around Penn (especially to the east). He wanted the area around Penn to flourish in the same manner that the area surrounding Grand Central had done.

Hilary Ballon wrote, "Pennsylvania Station functioned as an important transportation node, but it failed to shape a district."

This area was also supposed to flourish with the 1960s redevelopment of Penn, the construction of Madison Square Garden and One & Two Penn Plaza.

In the mid 1980s, we hoped that the Javits center would make the West Side come alive. All one has to do is take a walk from Penn eastward to Javits to see the results.

What makes us think that the Moynihan project will provide us with a different outcome? Why are things different now?

" Even when we had Penn Station, we couldn't afford to keep it clean." NY Times Editorial, "Farewell to Penn Station", October 30, 1963.

How will we afford to keep the Moynihan complex clean?

Columbia University Professor Hilary Ballon's opening line from her superb 2002 book entitled, "New York's Pennsylvania Stations" :

"Pennsylvania Station was unnecessary.

The train tracks were four stories underground. Nothing above street level was needed for railroad operations. Functional requirements could have been met by covered entrances at lower depths, like those to the subway. In short, a big station above ground was superfluous."

The Pennsylvania Railroad, the City of New York and the Madison Square Garden Corporation proved that Pennsylvania Station was unnecessary in 1961 by signing a deal to develop the air rights above the Station's fully functional, underground area and destroying the building itself. We have been living without Penn for all of this time.

What makes developing Farley/Moynihan necessary 45 years after the demolition of Penn? If we complete the project now, will someone in 50 years say that the Moynihan project was unecessary?

The MTA and LIRR has been aggressively pursuing the East Side Access project that will bring LIRR trains directly into Grand Central Terminal from Queens. Here is a quote from the MTA website about ESA:

“The principal goals of the East Side Access project are to:

• Provide a direct and faster trip between Long Island and East Midtown Manhattan and improve the quality of service for LIRR customers;

• Relieve LIRR train congestion in Penn Station;

• Increase East River commuter rail tunnel capacity and relieve serious overcrowding on LIRR trains to Penn Station and NYCT’s Queens Boulevard and Flushing line trains;

• Promote economic development and quality of life in the New York metropolitan region; and

• Reduce traffic congestion and improve regional air quality.”

From The LIRR website:

“The MTA Long Island Rail Road is the busiest commuter railroad in North America, carrying an average of 288,000 customers each weekday on 728 daily trains.

Nearly 500 of the railroad's daily trains originate or terminate at Penn Station in Manhattan.”

ESA service will allow 300 LIRR trains to operate in and out of Grand Central Terminal during a typical weekday which represents approximately 60, 000 commuters. Certainly this will have a great impact on the operations and foot traffic/ridership at Penn Station.

The two tunnels that bring trains to New Jersey are at capacity during the morning and evening rush. NJT’s ARC project (Access to the Regions Core) addresses additional tunnels and tracks at Penn.

ESA and ARC represent much needed changes to the region’s rail transportation infrastructure. None of the plans I have seen for Farley/Moynihan do anything to increase the working capacity of the transportation infrastructure in and around Penn Station. Yes we plan on having skylights a courtyard and new escalators down to platform level but no additional tracks and tunnels.

In addition to ARC and ESA maybe we need to entertain new access into the downtown/World Trade area. Certainly the time is right to do so and it would help stimulate redevelopment of the area. We will soon have East Side Access to the north of Penn. ESA to the south of Penn is certaily possible if we extend the LIRR from Flatbush avenue westward. This would be another great leap forward to easing the congestion in and out of Penn Station.

How will the ESA and ARC projects affect the Moynihan plan?
Once ESA and ARC are complete, will Moynihan @ Farley be necessary?

Last night I attended a lively MAS panel discussion on Farley/Moynihan and I would like to add some talking points on the Farley/Moynihan/Penn project. I will do so in stages so we can hopefully discuss them separately.

One of the attendees was a woman who very passionately described the current Penn Station as a “disgrace”. I would like to think that the officials at the LIRR, NJT and Amtrak would certainly disagree with her, especially after pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the station proper over the past 23 years. Great strides have been made within the station to increase/improve access, comfort and appearance. In particular, here are some of the improvements that have helped the disgraceful Penn Station that Charles Luckman gave us in the 1960s:

In 1985 Amtrak completed a renovation of the main concourse and rotunda area that completely opened up the station to increase capacity and circulation. They replaced most of the original stairways of the east and west track gates in the concourse with escalators. A cosmetic improvement was made also along with improved lighting. One of the great features of this improvement was the openness of the space between the rotunda and the concourse which was closed off since the “improved” Penn Station was built in the 1960s.
Around the year 2000 Amtrak gave us their “Acela” version of the station with a new waiting area for ticketed passengers, a new epoxy terrazzo floor, new track indicators and train boards. Unfortunately the “new” waiting area blocked the access to the concourse from the center of the main rotunda (former main room of Penn). This new waiting area was placed exactly where the original Penn Station waiting rooms were located. These original waiting rooms (58 x 100 ft) were destroyed in 1956 to make way for the new Lester Tichy electronic ticketing area. I guess what goes around comes around.
In 1994 the LIRR completed a very sorely needed project to improve access and circulation within their section of the station. They also covered the original painted, peeling concrete walls with Botticino marble, granite floors, improved lighting, added the Central corridor, renewed the northern half of the exit concourse and incorporated an art project (“Ghost Series”) which gives us an idea of some of the artwork that existed in and around the original Penn Station. The new entranceway on 34th street evokes the openness of the original train shed over the concourse. There is also an original (supposedly) clock which hangs at this entrance. This project was designed in a very tasteful and functional manner to the delight of any LIRR commuters who remember the dismal area that they had to use up until 1994.
The LIRR also added the West End concourse some time ago which greatly increased capacity and access to the platform level.
Recently, NJT has spent well over 100 million dollars to renovate the southern exit concourse and take an unused space originally occupied by the original southern baggage court, carriage drive and skylight (adjacent to the original arcade) and turned it into a magnificent station within Penn. Like the LIRR area it also features Botticino marble walls, granite floors and an additional level which increases capacity and circulation as well. NJT is also currently building a new entrance to their new station at the corner of 7th avenue and 31st street. Originally this was the southern carriage drive entrance to Penn. Please note that the signage indicating the fact that this is an entrance to Penn will be completely dwarfed by a gigantic electronic advertisement that will be erected at the insistence of Vornado Realty and Trust.
All of this being said, is the current Penn Station disgraceful? I think what she meant to say was that what we did to the original Pennsylvania Station in the mid 1950s and 1960s was a disgrace.
Lastly, does anyone think that after spending all of this money these current tenants within Penn will move to Farley/Moynihan and pay rent? I seriously doubt it.