Access to the Region’s Core in NY Times

the tunnel project study map
I’ve written about Access to the Region’s Core – the new two-track rail tunnel under the Hudson River, but today The New York Times has an extensive write-up of the project, Tunnel Milestone, and More to Come:

But the tunnels reached their peak-hour capacity in 2003 when the Secaucus transfer hub opened. So New Jersey Transit and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are planning to spend $7.6 billion to build a second set that will more than double, to 48 an hour, the number of trains that can traverse the Hudson.
The project, called Access to the Region’s Core, or ARC, is in some ways as monumental as the first tunnels, which cost the Pennsylvania Railroad $111 million, a price tag that included the old Pennsylvania Station and four other tunnels under the East River. (It’s about $2.5 billion now when accounting for inflation.)
If federal approval is given this summer and grants are secured later this year, construction will begin in early 2009 and take eight years. Contractors will deploy boring machines the length of football fields to drill through granite, schist and other materials, use laser-guided satellite signals to pinpoint their location, and carve a path under 34th Street so wide that commuters will be able to walk underground to 14 subway lines, and to PATH, Amtrak, New Jersey Transit and Long Island Rail Road trains.

Also see a multimedia explanation about the two different tunnels and what the Future Stewart Express Might Look Like which would utilize the new tunnels.

What the Future Stewart Express Might Look Like

Virgin Wing
I’ve discussed the Port Authority’s new Hudson tunnel project for Stewart International Airport before but there is a new, if fluffy, article in the WSJ, Sending Fliers Up the River To Ease Traffic:

Stewart Airport, an abandoned Air Force base 60 miles up the Hudson River from Manhattan, is being transformed into a fourth airport for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York’s airport operator.

Chicago proposed creating a third airport in Peotone, Ill., but airlines fought the proposal vehemently. Los Angeles has pumped lots of money into Palmdale, Calif., hoping to make it a reliever for the congested LA Basin, but so far only United Airlines is offering limited, subsidized service.
The idea has worked elsewhere. London’s satellite airports in the countryside have been growing rapidly, driven largely by discounters easyJet and Ryanair. Boston is ringed by several competing airports with commercial service, from big operations at Providence, R.I., and Manchester, N.H., which have become major destinations for Southwest Airlines and others, to fledgling development at Worcester, Mass., and former military bases in Portsmouth, N.H., and Bedford, Mass. Skybus now flies to Portsmouth, formerly Pease Air Force Base about 44 miles from Boston.

What is missing in this cheerleading is investigating why exactly the the airports noted above work. The difference between successful reliever airports, moderately successful reliever airports and unsuccessful reliever airports has everything to do with transportation. London’s Gatwick, Stansted and Luton airports are all successful because they have direct rail links to Central London which takes 30 minutes (Gatwick) to 45 minutes (Luton & Stansted). Additionally, for anyone who has repeatedly flown in and out of London’s Heathrow airport, the chance at flying to a different airport and take a similarly long train to centre London is greatly appealing.1 The Boston airports, Providence, Manchester & Portsmouth all have direct bus connections with Boston’s South Station with an under-hour trip.
For Stewart to become a fully-functioning reliever airport, two things must happen: the three New York airports, La Guardia JFK & Newark must continue their slide into chaos and delay, thus making the trip to Stewart palatable; or, a dedicated single-seat (and quick – a trip of no more then 45 minutes) train service from Stewart-to-Penn Station must be built. Both have costs: time and lost revenue for the airlines, and the cost of connecting Stewart with Penn Station.

Gatwick Express photo by Les Chatfield

Here is how it could be done:
It currently takes 1 hour 33 minutes from Salisbury Mills/Cornwall, the closest Metro-North station, to NY Penn Station with a change at Secaucus Junction.2 The future Stewart Express, would not only need to connect from Salisbury Mills/Cornwall. Suffice to say, this travel time would be trimmed by the Access to the Region’s Core tunnel project, but one problem which will hamper this line is the existing two track right of way. This will need to be upgraded to a minimum three track, but realistically, four track ROW in order to safely operate the Stewart Express to and from Penn Station. An additional staging/repair yard would need to be located somewhere in the system for the additional Stewart Express trains. This is all predicated on being able to purchase, or use the State’s power of eminent domain, to acquire the additional ROW to access Stewart and appropriating the capital expenditure required to build and upgrade the line.
Stewart Express map

ROW of the mythical Stewart Express

All of this adds up to a very long-term project, which in today’s political climate doesn’t have a great deal of chance without a strong support throughout all levels of government.

  1. I deeply love waiting in the cattle pen-like security line, or the three different security checks LHR presents current travellers &#8617
  2. Current riders travel 69 minutes on a local train from Salisbury Mills/Cornwall to Secaucus Junction, wait approximately 10 minutes and then take a NJ Transit train an additional 15 minute NY Penn Station. See complete timetable (pdf) &#8617

New York Penn Station Terminal Service Plant

NY Penn Station Terminal Service Plant - Exterior

The Penn Station Service Building; A 1908 Structure Survives A ‘Monumental Act of Vandalism’:

The service plant held the key to the railroad’s new operation, for it provided the electric power for the engines in and out of New York. Research by the industrial archaeologist Thomas Flagg indicates that it was also used to supply heat, light, elevator hydraulics and refrigeration for the station as well as compressed air for braking and signaling. It even incinerated the station’s garbage.

The mid-block building, 160 feet long and 86 feet high, is divided by a north-south fire wall with boilers for power generation on the west side and power distribution, offices and other elements on the east.

The station and the service plant were designed by McKim, Mead & White, specifically Charles McKim and partner William Symmes Richardson. Writing in Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers for October 1910, Richardson said that, on the station itself, “all unnecessary detail of ornamentation was omitted.”

For the service building the architects assembled some of the simplest elements from the station in the Stony Creek pink granite.
The Roman Doric exterior, a row of severe pilasters bracketing ventilation windows covered with iron grills, is about as plain as a building can get and still have an identifiable style. Cleaned, it could be a post-modern historical society or a crematorium.

NY Penn Station Terminal Service Plant - Interior

NY Penn Station Terminal Service Plant - Control Room

All photos care of the Library of Congress:

New York Penn Station Terminal Service Plant

Port Authority to give $3B to new Hudson tunnel project

, originally uploaded by michael cinque

Another $1B slated for tunnel for the new Hudson rail tunnel named Access to the Region’s Core:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will provide another $1 billion to build a tunnel to carry trains under the Hudson River, bringing its total contribution to the $7.5 billion project to $3 billion.
The authority had committed $2 billion to the tunnel, which is scheduled to be completed by 2017. The agency operates the region’s airports, the bridges and tunnels that carry automobiles between New Jersey and New York City, and the PATH train system.
New Jersey Transit says the tunnel will almost double the number of trains that can travel into Manhattan at rush hour, easing congestion as more commuters switch to mass transit amid rising gas prices and more crowded highways, and reducing travel time into the biggest city in the United States.

The authority also will ask the board today to approve a toll increase of $2 on its Hudson River and Staten Island crossings and a 50-cent raise on PATH train fares, the Star-Ledger of Newark reported Wednesday, citing unidentified transportation officials.

the tunnel project study map
The project aims at connecting the Main/Bergen/Pascack Valley Lines of New Jersey Transit with the North East Corridor service. Passengers will be able to take a “one seat journey” to NY Penn Station instead of transferring at Secaucus. A new 6 track terminal facility will be constructed under 34th Street with connections to the existing Penn Station. Additionally, the two new single-track tunnels will be linked to the existing Penn Station facility to facilitate periodic repairs and maintenance on the existing 1917 Hudson Tunnels.
the_tunnel NY Penn Station Cross Section
Taking the long view, the linking of the NJ Transit Main/Bergen/Pascack Valley Lines to Penn Station will allow rail service to the Port Authority’s newest airport acquisition, Stewart International Airport, some 55 miles north of NYC via the Port Jervis Line. This rail link will be necessary to make this facility commercially viable, much like the rail links to London’s Gatwick, Stansted and Heathrow airports.

A Survey of Pennsylvania Railroad Stations


List of Pennsylvania Railroad stations:

List of jointly operated stations:

New York Pennsylvania Station – McKim Mead & White

Detroit Publishing Company Photograph Collection: exterior & interior
Newark Pennsylvania Station – McKim Mead & White

Gottscho-Schleisner Collection (Library of Congress) & Newark Pennsylvania Station Interior
Philadelphia 30th Street Station

Historic American Engineering Record (Library of Congress)
Baltimore Pennsylvania Station

Historic American Engineering Record (Library of Congress)
Pittsburgh, PA Pennsylvania Station

Historic American Buildings Survey (Library of Congress)
Cincinnati Union Station

Central Union Station
Detroit Publishing Co. no. 071318.

Washington DC Union Station

National Photo Company Collection (Library of Congress).
Chicago Union Station

leftIn the waiting room of the Union Station & right Union Station concourse Farm Security Administration – Office of War Information Photograph Collection (Library of Congress)
Cincinnati Union Terminal

Union Terminal looking west
Historic American Buildings Survey (Library of Congress)

Madison Square Garden wants Farley alterations before moving to make way for Moynihan Station

penn_station_dev_C_tower_map

Madison Square Garden, is requesting significant alterations to the James A. Farley Post Office interior as part of an agreement to move MSG into the building’s western annex, say two people who participated in a state-sponsored tour last week.
The most striking change would be the installation of a huge glass wall between the proposed train hall and MSG, which the Garden wants in order to better advertise events. Garden officials also want to expand two large arches that lead from the post office area into the train hall, and create four arches instead.

Read more: MSG wants Farley alterations before moving. The glass wall is alluded to can be made out in the below rendering from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (pdf):

The alterations could also jeopardize $250 million in federal tax credits if the National Park Service decides that they trample on historic preservation rules. The building’s exterior would be largely unchanged.

Again, as every large New York City development deal, discussions are made in the back rooms and the public is rarely let in. A new EIS is expected this month, stay tuned.

Updated Penn Station Design

This post appeared in a previous blog and is here for posterity’s sake.

According to the New York Times and the New York Observer, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (more info) unveiled the fourth (yes, fourth) design for the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Station (Penn Station), this time by Skidmore Owings and Merrill. It is deja-vu all over, again. A good resource to follow the history is this Wired New York’s thread.
Delving into the environmental impact study dredges up plans for a 700′ tower and a new home for Madison Square Garden, but let’s focus on the Station first, and then what the EIS says.

For those following at home, the second design was showcased by David Childs with SOM back in 1999, and more recently (due in no doubt by behind-the-scenes machinations) in July 2005 a new developer and architect – HOK New York and Jamie Carpenter Design Associates unveiled a new design.
Which brings us back up to speed to today, where David Childs and SOM are – in no doubt due to the smashing success of 7 World Trade – back in the city’s and (more importantly) developer’s good graces; thus now SOM is re-redesigning Penn Station, this time shedding the project of any sort of technical whopp-de-doos, and sticking with two barrel vaults, which while not exactly sexy from the “God-view” hold promise as monumental space for daily straphangers.

So, I wanted to see what all of the designs looked like together. In chronological order, here are the three designs I could find:

Poking around the Moynihan Station Draft Environmental Impact Statement (27 April 2006), I found some interesting tidbits which I don’t think has been reported yet.

Continue reading “Updated Penn Station Design”