A Penna Station improvement proposal

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Would the following be feasible? If not, why not?

Build two new tunnels next to the existing ones (south side), so the
route becomes four tracks.

Connect the two tracks to the existing Penna Station throat, and add
four tracks to the south side of the terminal. Extend them westward
as far as possible to allow an interlocking and storage for 12 car
trains.

???

[Stephen Sprunk]

Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
retaining wall, which is a no-no.

The Macy's basement station was a result of needing to tunnel deep
enough to go _under_ the wall. I didn't see any explanation why that
basement couldn't be under the existing station, like the new station
under GCT for the ESA.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[houn...@yahoo.co.uk]

On 25/06/2012 07:01, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 24-Jun-12 20:33, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Would the following be feasible? If not, why not?
>>
>> Build two new tunnels next to the existing ones (south side), so the
>> route becomes four tracks.
>>
>> Connect the two tracks to the existing Penna Station throat, and add
>> four tracks to the south side of the terminal. Extend them westward
>> as far as possible to allow an interlocking and storage for 12 car
>> trains.
>
> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> retaining wall, which is a no-no.
>
> The Macy's basement station was a result of needing to tunnel deep
> enough to go _under_ the wall. I didn't see any explanation why that
> basement couldn't be under the existing station, like the new station
> under GCT for the ESA.
>
> S
>

Where is the Macy's basement station, BTW, 33rd Street on the Lex?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 25, 2:01 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> retaining wall, which is a no-no.

The wall would have to go.

[Stephen Sprunk]

That's not how it works. No matter how ridiculously illogical, no
matter how expensive to taxpayers, and no matter how injurious to the
public good, you just can't mess with a "historic landmark".

[Stephen Sprunk]

> Where is the Macy's basement station, BTW, 33rd Street on the Lex?

It would have been in Macy's basement, of course.

(That's two blocks north of, and about 150ft lower than, Penn Station.)

[Miles Bader]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> The wall would have to go.
>
> That's not how it works. No matter how ridiculously illogical, no
> matter how expensive to taxpayers, and no matter how injurious to the
> public good, you just can't mess with a "historic landmark".

Wouldn't any hole be beneath the waterline anyway...?

-miles

--
Abstainer, n. A weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure. A total abstainer is one who abstains from everything but
abstention, and especially from inactivity in the affairs of others.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jun 25, 2:01 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> retaining wall, which is a no-no.

What is your evidence for the claim of a "'historic landmark' harbor
retaining wall"?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 25, 11:05 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> matter how expensive to taxpayers, and no matter how injurious to the
> public good, you just can't mess with a "historic landmark".

When the politicians truly want to do accomplish something, you'd be
amazed at how fast they work and what gets shoved out of the way.
Even supposedly 'sacrosanct' stuff, legal precedents, etc.

Historic Landmarks are a very subjective thing, and not necessarily
protected. Indeed, i wasn't even aware that a "wall" was landmarked.

[Stephen Sprunk]

One of the original studies for the project, which evaluated various
options for ARC. That wall--and its protected status--was cited as the
reason new tunnels to Penn were not possible.

Never mind the fact that the tunnels would be well below the seabed, so
no observer would even know there were two new holes in the wall--in
addition to the several holes already there. It's historic! It must be
protected at all costs!

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 25, 1:48 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> Never mind the fact that the tunnels would be well below the seabed, so
> no observer would even know there were two new holes in the wall--in
> addition to the several holes already there.  It's historic!  It must be
> protected at all costs!

I have a book authored by a former member of the NYC Historical Review
board. I was curious about the author and looked her up. Turned out
she was very passionate about historic preservation. Also turned out
she was remvoed from the Board, apparently because she was too
passionate.

The historic business gets idiotic. In Phila, there is a former
historic bank tower that is now a hotel. Atop the tower was the
bank's initials, and they must stay as is. To me, it seems sensible
to change said initials to the hotel's name, but keeping the same size
and typeface. It's foolish to advertise a bank that no longer exists
atop a building no longer used for that function. But 'they' said no.

Yet in another city with exactly the same situation, 'they' said yes.
go figure.

obtransit: SEPTA uses to have office space in that building. It's HQ
is next door. It really is a shame the bank failed; that was the
halycon 1980s.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 25-Jun-12 13:01, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> The historic business gets idiotic. In Phila, there is a former
> historic bank tower that is now a hotel. Atop the tower was the
> bank's initials, and they must stay as is. To me, it seems sensible
> to change said initials to the hotel's name, but keeping the same size
> and typeface. It's foolish to advertise a bank that no longer exists
> atop a building no longer used for that function. But 'they' said no.
>
> Yet in another city with exactly the same situation, 'they' said yes.
> go figure.

Dallas has several square miles of "historic" housing that can't be
demolished despite being in horrible condition and a public health
hazard. The property values _should_ be high because they're close to
downtown but have actually dropped below zero; they're now all owned by
the City because nobody else will take them. Most of the houses are
used by squatters, drug dealers or prostitutes, who simply move a few
houses down whenever the cops roust them. Drive-by shootings are
common, and the yards are used for illegally dumping trash and toxic
waste. Every now and then, a few will burn down when a meth lab blows
up, and a few more collapse each year under their own weight due to lack
of maintenance. And they're a blight on that entire side of town,
preventing development of nearby areas that _aren't_ historic.

A few decades from now, they'll all be gone, and the City will be able
to sell the land off to developers and everyone wins. Not until then,
though; they're historic!

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jun 25, 1:48 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 25-Jun-12 11:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 2:01 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> >> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> >> retaining wall, which is a no-no.
>
> > What is your evidence for the claim of a "'historic landmark' harbor
> > retaining wall"?
>
> One of the original studies for the project, which evaluated various
> options for ARC.  That wall--and its protected status--was cited as the
> reason new tunnels to Penn were not possible.

What source is given in this "original study"? What phrase would I
look under to find some record of this supposed landmark designation?

[Stephen Sprunk]

I have no clue, Petey; it was years ago that I found it, and I have no
desire to do your homework for you now by spending another several hours
trying to find it again--if it's still posted anywhere at all.

[Michael Finfer]

On 6/25/2012 2:01 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 24-Jun-12 20:33, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Would the following be feasible? If not, why not?
>>
>> Build two new tunnels next to the existing ones (south side), so the
>> route becomes four tracks.
>>
>> Connect the two tracks to the existing Penna Station throat, and add
>> four tracks to the south side of the terminal. Extend them westward
>> as far as possible to allow an interlocking and storage for 12 car
>> trains.
>
> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> retaining wall, which is a no-no.
>
> The Macy's basement station was a result of needing to tunnel deep
> enough to go _under_ the wall. I didn't see any explanation why that
> basement couldn't be under the existing station, like the new station
> under GCT for the ESA.
>
> S
>

That was NJT's excuse for not doing it, but Amtrak seems to have no
problems doing it in their Gateway tunnel proposal. Could someone
explain to my why?

Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article
<f5e966d1-0a69-4b59...@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> The historic business gets idiotic. In Phila, there is a former
> historic bank tower that is now a hotel. Atop the tower was the
> bank's initials, and they must stay as is. To me, it seems sensible
> to change said initials to the hotel's name, but keeping the same size
> and typeface. It's foolish to advertise a bank that no longer exists
> atop a building no longer used for that function.

The PSFS building was not just another 'bank tower', it was arguably the
first 'modern' skyscraper built in the US. The PSFS sign was probably
seen as an integral part of the building's design and look, and thus a
part of the building to be preserved.

[Jimmy]

Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> >>>> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> >>>> retaining wall, which is a no-no.
>
> >>> What is your evidence for the claim of a "'historic landmark' harbor
> >>> retaining wall"?
>
> >> One of the original studies for the project, which evaluated various
> >> options for ARC.  That wall--and its protected status--was cited as the
> >> reason new tunnels to Penn were not possible.
>
> > What source is given in this "original study"? What phrase would I
> > look under to find some record of this supposed landmark designation?
>
> I have no clue, Petey; it was years ago that I found it, and I have no
> desire to do your homework for you now by spending another several hours
> trying to find it again--if it's still posted anywhere at all.

Here's an article, which took me about 2 minutes to find:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/commuter-regional/reconquering-gotham.html

While the historic harbor wall was a factor, it was not the only
reason for the proposed tunnel and station's depth:

"Among the obstacles are an historic river bulkhead, NYCT’s Number 7
Subway Line Extension project (tunnels for which are nearly complete),
and city water mains and sewers. A higher approach would have involved
additional Hudson River fill, which the Army Corps of Engineers said
would not be possible, and tearing down and rebuilding an historic
bulkhead and a portion of a Hudson River park. But worse than that, it
would have involved trenching—making a huge open cut, temporarily
shutting down the West Side Highway, displacing structures in LIRR’s
West Side Yard, relocating Amtrak’s West Side Connection, clearing out
a major office building to underpin it, and other disruptions."

Another issue with the dredging required by a shallow tunnel would be
stirring up contaminated silt on the river bottom, and disrupting
shipping.

Jimmy

[John Levine]

>The PSFS building was not just another 'bank tower', it was arguably the
>first 'modern' skyscraper built in the US. The PSFS sign was probably
>seen as an integral part of the building's design and look, and thus a
>part of the building to be preserved.

I've stayed in the hotel, and I can't say the PSFS initials made it
hard to find.

R's,
John


--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jun 25, 4:59 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 25-Jun-12 15:11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 25, 1:48 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> On 25-Jun-12 11:33, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Jun 25, 2:01 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >>>> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> >>>> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> >>>> retaining wall, which is a no-no.
>
> >>> What is your evidence for the claim of a "'historic landmark' harbor
> >>> retaining wall"?
>
> >> One of the original studies for the project, which evaluated various
> >> options for ARC.  That wall--and its protected status--was cited as the
> >> reason new tunnels to Penn were not possible.
>
> > What source is given in this "original study"? What phrase would I
> > look under to find some record of this supposed landmark designation?
>
> I have no clue, Petey; it was years ago that I found it, and I have no
> desire to do your homework for you now by spending another several hours
> trying to find it again--if it's still posted anywhere at all.

Well, Stephey, I found a list of all the designated landmarks in New
York City, and went to the group for Midtown Manhattan (the area that
includes 32nd-33rd St.), and there was nothing remotely like that in
it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jun 25, 10:19 pm, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> >The PSFS building was not just another 'bank tower', it was arguably the
> >first 'modern' skyscraper built in the US.  The PSFS sign was probably
> >seen as an integral part of the building's design and look, and thus a
> >part of the building to be preserved.
>
> I've stayed in the hotel, and I can't say the PSFS initials made it
> hard to find.

A really clever hotel owner would have given it a name with those
initials.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Jun 25, 9:19 pm, Jimmy <JimmyGeldb...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> > >>>> Tunnels at the depth necessary to connect to Penn Station were rejected
> > >>>> because it would require going through the "historic landmark" harbor
> > >>>> retaining wall, which is a no-no.
>
> > >>> What is your evidence for the claim of a "'historic landmark' harbor
> > >>> retaining wall"?
>
> > >> One of the original studies for the project, which evaluated various
> > >> options for ARC.  That wall--and its protected status--was cited as the
> > >> reason new tunnels to Penn were not possible.
>
> > > What source is given in this "original study"? What phrase would I
> > > look under to find some record of this supposed landmark designation?
>
> > I have no clue, Petey; it was years ago that I found it, and I have no
> > desire to do your homework for you now by spending another several hours
> > trying to find it again--if it's still posted anywhere at all.
>

> Here's an article, which took me about 2 minutes to find:http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/commuter-regional/recon...

>
> While the historic harbor wall was a factor, it was not the only
> reason for the proposed tunnel and station's depth:
>
> "Among the obstacles are an historic river bulkhead, NYCT’s Number 7
> Subway Line Extension project (tunnels for which are nearly complete),
> and city water mains and sewers. A higher approach would have involved
> additional Hudson River fill, which the Army Corps of Engineers said
> would not be possible, and tearing down and rebuilding an historic
> bulkhead and a portion of a Hudson River park.

Not one single word about "landmark" status. Considering that most of
the North River piers are no longer there, there clearly hasn't been
much opposition to the destruction of "historic" waterfront
structures.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Because Stephey doesn't know what he's talking about. He didn't bother
to do what Jimmy said was two minutes of googling before he made his
incorrect assertions.

[Bolwerk]

My memory may be faulty, but I don't remember the wall being landmarked.
There was simply political concern about its preservation, perhaps even
as matter of cross-river dick waving.

However, the one place I'd know to check was the list of alternatives
that NJ Transit used to host. That seems to have been taken down.
There were lots of better alternatives than the Macy's basement cave.

[Bolwerk]

Oh, here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110429194828/http://arctunnel.com/pdf/library/ARC_MIS_Summary_Report.pdf

I don't see any mention of the wall. Lots of fantasy maps to fap to
though! *nudges hancock*

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 25, 8:48 pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:

> The PSFS building was not just another 'bank tower', it was arguably the
> first 'modern' skyscraper built in the US.  The PSFS sign was probably
> seen as an integral part of the building's design and look, and thus a
> part of the building to be preserved.

The sign is mounted on the roof and not "integral".

Anyway, as mentioned, the sign _could_ be preserved sensibly by
replacing PSFS with the name of the present occupant, using the same
style of letters.

It's not like PSFS is carved into the facade or the building is shaped
like the letters.

[danny burstein]

In <f7a6c5e2-e5c7-4787...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

>Anyway, as mentioned, the sign _could_ be preserved sensibly by
>replacing PSFS with the name of the present occupant, using the same
>style of letters.

Kind of like what hapened to the (former) McGraw Hill building
when it was taken over by GHI...

(We won't mention the Pan Am building in mixed company)

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Jishnu Mukerji]

For what it is worth, here is a rough history as far as I can figure
out, of how it all unfolded. With reference to the MIS Summary posted
earlier in this thread:

0. For some yet to be explained reason which possibly, among other
things, involved internecine bickering between MTA, NJT and PA, NJT did
not choose the so called Alternative G which according to the MIS report
had the most favorable returns. This is not to say that there may be
perfectly good reasons for that, but such has not been publicly shared
by NJT or PANYNJ so far. This is still a matter of hot debate since
PANYNJ has so far tried to bury the full report claiming it was a draft
and not subject to release through the NJ or NY equivalent of the
federal Freedom of Information Act. But recently the NJ Legislature has
subpoenaed that and other PA documents, so we will see what happens.

1. initially NJT proposed doing Alternative P which was to build a clone
of the ESA station under GCT, under NYP fed through the new tunnels.
Afterall the primary consultant for both was Parson Brinkerhoff (sp?).
Then they found that if they did so it would be impossible to connect
the new tunnels to the existing station. Similarly the ESA tracks do not
connect to the existing GCT tracks.

2. So they displaced the new station to the north side of NYP and moved
it under 34th St keeping both the depth and the width the same. They
threw in a connection from the new tunnels to the existing station too.
This is what the original DEIS was based upon.

3. Then they discovered that there is a bad fault line under Penn
Station and 34st St at the proposed depth which would destabilize stuff
above during construction. So they moved it a little deeper to avoid it.

4. This caused the approach tunnels to run smack dab into the 7
extension tunnels, so they moved it even deeper, which snapped the
connection to the existing station reducing utility of the project.

5. Meanwhile Manhattan Real Estate interests put their foot down
insisting that the station must fit within the building lines along 34th
St, which reduced the number of platforms by one at each level thus
reducing capacity though NJT claimed that it would not affect capacity,
mysteriously. This is what the Supplemental DEIS was based on.

6. Meanwhile the money spent on real estate acquisition, which was being
done by PANYNJ, spent the budget and the contingency and then some,
which set all sorts of alarm bells ringing all round, and Christie, in a
partly politically motivated and partly real fear of significant
overspending nixed the project.

In all this the pier line and retaining wall was a minor annoyance thing
at best, and would most likely would have been handled if the other
factors did not materialize as they did.

Now why did NJT go this route? Apparently because partly they wanted
their station to be closer to the subway stations rather than further
away which is what NYP South will be, if actually built, and partly
because they were trying to go it alone without any participation from
Manhattan interests, which bit them in their caboose anyway.

Amtrak's Gateway project is materially different in that its primarily
goal is to connect with the existing station and possibly build an
extension to it to the south of it in the so called Block 780. Indeed
even while ARC was being contemplated by NJT, Amtrak had insisted on
keeping easements available for what has come to be known as the Gateway
Project. The other significant difference is that NJT had insisted on
the gradient being less than or equal to existing gradient (1.98% AFAIR)
in the Hudson Tunnels. Amtrak has managed to get NJT to yield on that to
move it upto 2.05%, though they really want to go upto 2.5% but NJT is
baulking at that so far. But even with 2.05% they can make the Army Core
of Engineers and EPA dictated depth of the tunnel below the river bed
and yet make it upto the track level of NYP while avoiding the #7 tubes.

Still there is considerable uncertainty about what will happen with the
Block 780 plan as real estate realities strike again. Unless Amtrak is
able to get a coalition of Manhattan Real Estate interests to buy into a
consolidated plan it is doubtful that anything will get built there, and
without that Penn Station will remain hobbled for capacity. Building at
least one tunnel irrespective of that is probably still a good idea to
get some redundancy in.

Incidentally extension of the so called I Ladder at A interlocking in
NYP is budgeted as part of the funding from the $450 million grant for
the NJ HSR project. This would eventually be used to make the north side
platform tracks accessible from the Gateway Tunnels.

Source of these last pieces of information is from attending the two
sessions of TransAction 2012 in Atlantic City which was co-hosted by
Amtrak (Drew Galloway - NEC Capital Program) and NJ Transit on the
Gateway Project and the HSR Project in NJ. If you ask me to produce
citeable documents, I can't since they did not share any such that is
easily available on the web.

That is the very short version of this unfolding saga.....

Jishnu.

[Sancho Panza]

On 6/29/2012 4:24 PM, Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
> 0. For some yet to be explained reason which possibly, among other
> things, involved internecine bickering between MTA, NJT and PA, NJT did
> not choose the so called Alternative G which according to the MIS report
> had the most favorable returns. This is not to say that there may be
> perfectly good reasons for that, but such has not been publicly shared
> by NJT or PANYNJ so far. This is still a matter of hot debate since
> PANYNJ has so far tried to bury the full report claiming it was a draft
> and not subject to release through the NJ or NY equivalent of the
> federal Freedom of Information Act. But recently the NJ Legislature has
> subpoenaed that and other PA documents, so we will see what happens.

The Jersey OPRA Law is especially useful, and the Port Authority seems
to be trying to move to releasing more information. This could be a good
moment for someone(s) or some interested groups to pursue OPRA requests,
especially in view of the possibility that the grand opening special
mentioned below might still be in effect:

"The Port Authority reviewed, as it has in the past, the records access
policies of the two States: in New Jersey, the Open Public Records Act
and regulations adopted in connection with that Act, decisions of the
Government Records Council, executive orders and judicial decisions
regarding access to public records, and in New York, the Freedom of
Information and Privacy Laws, regulations adopted in connection with
those laws, the decisions and advice of the Committee on Open
Government, and judicial decisions regarding access to public records.

"A revised statement, in the form of a Port Authority Freedom of
Information Code applicable to the Records of the Port Authority was
presented to the Board. Upon adoption, the Freedom of
Information Code is to be effective on or about April 15, 2012,
consistent with the Governors’ reviews, and will be applied to all
responses to requests for records after its effective date unless
otherwise precluded by law or contractual provision.

"In addition to today’s adoption of a Freedom of Information Code, the
Board has directed staff to expand efforts and to continue to make
Records and information available to the public through other means,
such as the Port Authority’s Web site. Finally, it is proposed that the
fee provisions of the Freedom of Information Code be suspended, on a
trial basis, to determine whether the proposed posting of information on
the Port Authority’s Web site may preclude the necessity for imposing
such fees.--https://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/foi-code.pdf

Ditto for the materials mentioned below:

[Jishnu Mukerji]

Thanks. I am forwarding this info to folks who handle such things in
case they were not already on it. I know a previous Jersey OPRA
application was denied by the PA, but that was before April 2012.

> Ditto for the materials mentioned below:
>
>> Source of these last pieces of information is from attending the two
>> sessions of TransAction 2012 in Atlantic City which was co-hosted by
>> Amtrak (Drew Galloway - NEC Capital Program) and NJ Transit on the
>> Gateway Project and the HSR Project in NJ. If you ask me to produce
>> citeable documents, I can't since they did not share any such that is
>> easily available on the web.

This stuff is not withheld. I have paper copies. it is just not on the
web. The technical slidesets were distributed in paper form during the
sessions at the Conference. It should soon be on the new website setup
for NEC Future associated with the Tier I EIS that is being run by the
FRA, funded by NJ. Currently it just has a scoping document.

Jishnu.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jun 29, 4:24 pm, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:

> Still there is considerable uncertainty about what will happen with the
> Block 780 plan as real estate realities strike again. Unless Amtrak is
> able to get a coalition of Manhattan Real Estate interests to buy into a
> consolidated plan it is doubtful that anything will get built there, and
> without that Penn Station will remain hobbled for capacity. Building at
> least one tunnel irrespective of that is probably still a good idea to
> get some redundancy in.

While it would be nice to have private real estate interests on board,
their agenda is not necessarily the same as Amtrak's. Doesn't Amtrak
and the other agencies have the power of eminent domain?

(IMHO, improved Manhattan access would only enhance the value of
property in the area.)

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 02-Jul-12 09:57, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 4:24 pm, Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Still there is considerable uncertainty about what will happen with the
>> Block 780 plan as real estate realities strike again. Unless Amtrak is
>> able to get a coalition of Manhattan Real Estate interests to buy into a
>> consolidated plan it is doubtful that anything will get built there, and
>> without that Penn Station will remain hobbled for capacity. Building at
>> least one tunnel irrespective of that is probably still a good idea to
>> get some redundancy in.
>
> While it would be nice to have private real estate interests on board,
> their agenda is not necessarily the same as Amtrak's.

It'd be a lot easier if you could convince them all it was in their
interests to do so, in which case they might be able to arrange part or
all of the necessary funding--most likely through corporate welfare,
rather than out of their own pockets. If Amtrak were to try to get the
same money from the same politicians, there would be more resistance.

> Doesn't Amtrak
> and the other agencies have the power of eminent domain?

Railroads (and other "utilities") do in most (all?) states, but I don't
know NYS law in particular.

> (IMHO, improved Manhattan access would only enhance the value of
> property in the area.)

Every block--or part of a block--has a different owner. If Amtrak were
to take one block via eminent domain, they would only have to pay its
FMV _before_ the new tunnels/station were built. Its former owner(s)
would lose out on the increase that all the owners of the neighboring
blocks enjoyed. So, everyone wants you to take an _adjacent_ block, not
_their_ block.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 2, 1:06 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> > While it would be nice to have private real estate interests on board,
> > their agenda is not necessarily the same as Amtrak's.
>
> It'd be a lot easier if you could convince them all it was in their
> interests to do so, in which case they might be able to arrange part or
> all of the necessary funding--most likely through corporate welfare,
> rather than out of their own pockets.  If Amtrak were to try to get the
> same money from the same politicians, there would be more resistance.

Very true.

But sometimes to get things done a Moses approach is needed.

(Contrary to myth, he did not always simply bulldoze the opposition,
he tried to work with them at first, then pulled out the bulldozers.)

[Phil Kane]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:57:06 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>While it would be nice to have private real estate interests on board,
>their agenda is not necessarily the same as Amtrak's. Doesn't Amtrak
>and the other agencies have the power of eminent domain?

Yes, they have the power but do they have the money? Eminent domain
condemnation requires "purchase" at the fair market value (my
son-in-law is an eminent domain attorney for the State of California)
---

Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Jul 2, 5:52 pm, Phil Kane <Phil.K...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:57:06 -0700 (PDT), hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >While it would be nice to have private real estate interests on board,
> >their agenda is not necessarily the same as Amtrak's.  Doesn't Amtrak
> >and the other agencies have the power of eminent domain?
>
> Yes, they have the power but do they have the money?  Eminent domain
> condemnation requires "purchase" at the fair market value (my
> son-in-law is an eminent domain attorney for the State of California)

That's all part of the tunnel's cost. These things won't be cheap.
Heck, it cost the PRR a lot of money to buy up all the lots
originally.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

Actually NYPS South is a separable project with a separable budget. So
the inability to pull that one off should not sink the entire tunnel
project notwithstanding Amtrak's huffing and puffing to the contrary on
alternate days.

Let's remember again that one of the primary things that saw ARC costs
go through the roof was gross under-estimation of real estate costs in
Manhattan. FMV even before any tunnel is built is pretty steep around
Penn Station.