Today’s profile in the Times’ Public Lives is Clark Hampe, director of terminal planning (which can be an interesting oxymoronic title, read a certain way) at Penn Station. The focus is mostly on a timely subject (the recent announcement that most of the entrances/exits will be closed during the Republican National Convention), though buried in there is an interesting comment:
In recent years, as ridership has grown significantly, the railroads have clamored to send more trains into a station that has essentially reached capacity.
This is interesting because some big monies are being proposed (with some already committed) that have some potential impact on this situation, namely the LIRR Grand Central connector (also called East Side Access), and the 7 line extension (as part of the Hudson Yards plan). The reason being is that Penn and GCT are crucial nodal points (intra- and intermodal junctions at both locations), and both are already operating at near capacity. The Regional Planning Association lays out the numbers in one of the three reports they generated in anticipation of the Hudson Yards announcement. Their calculations indicate that the 7 line might not be severly overburdened for 10-15 years under the current proposals, but the transfer point at GCT (critically, the connection between the Lexington Avenue line and the 7) will be almost immediately. And it will likely stess capacity at Penn Station, as commerical development is front-ended (meaning commuters will be added to before residents). The East Side Connector should, in theory, offset some of this, since Long Island commuters would connect directly to the East Side, but unless they work within walking distance of Grand Central, they will only intensify conditions on the Lexington Avenue line, which is already functioning at its logical capacity (conversion of the line to full computer control as is happening on the L might not enable the addition of even a single train at rush hour).
What are the possible solutions? Given the current dispersal of workforce, the two strongest contenders an accelerated commitment to the Second Avenue subway line, which could add a connection to the LIRR at 63rd street, as well as the 7, and an additional Hudson River tunnel that would not run to Penn Station. Though the numbers aren’t stellar (at its peak, only 50,000 commuters used the Hudson crossing via PATH, though that may have to do with the relatively limited reach of PATH relative to New Jersey Transit trains), the WTC terminal makes the most sense. Given the commitement to a $2 billion dollar showpeice terminal, some actual capacity benefit might be nice. But those aren’t the current money plays right now. Yet we are stuck with an ill-defined and conceived East River connection for LIRR to downtown (the downsides of which are track compatibility issues and a reduction of subway service). The $2 billion is burning a hole in Pataki’s pocket, and you can bet pouring it into the hands of suburban voters is a far more attractive carrot that improving infrastructure that doesn’t have a big ribbon cutting ceremony scheduled in your next term.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
It’s the capacity, stupid.
Today’s profile in the Times’ Public Lives is Clark Hampe, director of terminal planning (which can be an interesting oxymoronic title, read a certain way) at Penn Station. The focus is mostly on a timely subject (the recent announcement that most of the entrances/exits will be closed during the Republican National Convention), though buried in there is an interesting comment:
This is interesting because some big monies are being proposed (with some already committed) that have some potential impact on this situation, namely the LIRR Grand Central connector (also called East Side Access), and the 7 line extension (as part of the Hudson Yards plan). The reason being is that Penn and GCT are crucial nodal points (intra- and intermodal junctions at both locations), and both are already operating at near capacity. The Regional Planning Association lays out the numbers in one of the three reports they generated in anticipation of the Hudson Yards announcement. Their calculations indicate that the 7 line might not be severly overburdened for 10-15 years under the current proposals, but the transfer point at GCT (critically, the connection between the Lexington Avenue line and the 7) will be almost immediately. And it will likely stess capacity at Penn Station, as commerical development is front-ended (meaning commuters will be added to before residents). The East Side Connector should, in theory, offset some of this, since Long Island commuters would connect directly to the East Side, but unless they work within walking distance of Grand Central, they will only intensify conditions on the Lexington Avenue line, which is already functioning at its logical capacity (conversion of the line to full computer control as is happening on the L might not enable the addition of even a single train at rush hour).
What are the possible solutions? Given the current dispersal of workforce, the two strongest contenders an accelerated commitment to the Second Avenue subway line, which could add a connection to the LIRR at 63rd street, as well as the 7, and an additional Hudson River tunnel that would not run to Penn Station. Though the numbers aren’t stellar (at its peak, only 50,000 commuters used the Hudson crossing via PATH, though that may have to do with the relatively limited reach of PATH relative to New Jersey Transit trains), the WTC terminal makes the most sense. Given the commitement to a $2 billion dollar showpeice terminal, some actual capacity benefit might be nice. But those aren’t the current money plays right now. Yet we are stuck with an ill-defined and conceived East River connection for LIRR to downtown (the downsides of which are track compatibility issues and a reduction of subway service). The $2 billion is burning a hole in Pataki’s pocket, and you can bet pouring it into the hands of suburban voters is a far more attractive carrot that improving infrastructure that doesn’t have a big ribbon cutting ceremony scheduled in your next term.