Op-Ed: A Better Plan Than Cuomo’s $8B Penn Station Annex

Gov. Cuomo’s $8-billion plan to enlarge Pennsylvania Station by acquiring a full city block between 30th and 31st streets for an annex may appeal to many commuters who (during normal times, at least) cram daily into the outdated facility. The plan would build eight tracks to accommodate 175,000 daily trips and complement the proposed Amtrak “Gateway” trans-Hudson tunnels.

Yet, for less money than an annex — and with much less disruption of Midtown — New York and New Jersey could recalibrate the existing station and the Long Island Rail Road and NJ Transit rail networks to accomplish the same goals.

How so? Instead of operating in the same-old inefficient, disjointed manner, the railroads could adopt the modern practice of through-running. Furthermore, through-running would add one-seat rides from New Jersey on to Long Island or Connecticut that the annex — which would be connected only to New Jersey — wouldn’t allow.

Most (15 out of 21) Penn Station platform tracks connect both to New Jersey and Queens, so, in theory, most arriving trains could continue through the station to other destinations. But because of decades-old practices — trains in New Jersey use overhead wires while Long Island trains use third rail — many suburban trains turn around at Penn Station. The snarls of many trains crossing paths decrease efficiency. Others simply drop off passengers and continue empty to train yards.

Through-running, on the other hand, carries passengers from a suburb through the city center to another suburb without reversing, as the New York/New Jersey trains do. Among the rail networks that use it is London’s Thameslink, which features a mixture of overhead-wire- and third-rail-powered track. Thameslink uses dual-power cars that can switch power sources when stopped. 

Replacing the NJ Transit and LIRR fleets with similar cars would cost about $4 billion — and would pay off quickly. Today, trains that drop passengers sit in yards all day, which costs more per service-hour than through-running because their crews split the workday — half in the early morning and half in the evening. 

New cars also accelerate and brake faster than many current ones, which would allow express trains to run local while still cutting travel time. These additional stops plus new one-seat rides would spur more ridership, especially from underserved inner suburbs.

A 2014 Amtrak study confirmed the feasibility of through-running suburban trains at Penn Station, finding that 15 platform tracks each could handle five trains an hour — more than the three to four they handle now. That would enable a capacity of 35 trains each way per hour. Using tracks 1 to 4 to turn trans-Hudson trains and using tracks 20 to 21 to “drop and go” from Queens would contribute more capacity. With through-running, the rate at which passengers clear platforms, not track capacity, limits train flow.

Unfortunately, fragmented management of Penn Station’s concourses impedes efficient circulation of passengers. Although Amtrak owns the whole station, it only manages the western portion of the concourse, renting the northern part to the LIRR and the southeast part to NJ Transit. Signage and design cues encourage each company’s passengers to board trains through “their” area of the station.