(rshsdepot) Amtrak Is Slow to Embrace New Pennsylvania Station

["Bernie Wagenblast" <brwagenblast_@_comcast.net>]

From today's New York Times.

Amtrak Is Slow to Embrace New Station
By MICHAEL LUO and CHARLES V. BAGLI

After years of delays, plans for a grand, new Pennsylvania Station built
within the city's main post office building are being muddied by demands
from Amtrak, the intended tenant, that it be allowed to use the space
without paying any rent.

Amtrak was supposed to anchor the soaring, glass-enclosed complex in the
landmark James A. Farley post office building between Eighth and Ninth
Avenues and 31st and 33rd Streets in Manhattan. But over the last few
months, Amtrak has been weighing whether it should even continue to take
part in the project, given its financial problems, said railroad. The
railroad had said previously that it would not pay anything for the
renovation of the station. And now Amtrak notes that it already has a sweet
rent deal.

''We own Pennsylvania Station, and we pay no rent,'' Mr. Black said of the
current station below Madison Square Garden. ''We wouldn't want to incur new
rent.''

In another potential complication, if Amtrak does move ahead with the
project, it will move only part of its new station, Mr. Black said. Until
now, the plan was for Amtrak to move its main ticketing and waiting areas to
the Farley building and keep only a small presence in the current Penn
Station, said Mark Yachmetz, associate administrator for railroad
development for the Federal Railroad Administration, which has been active
in the planning of the new station. But, citing concerns about access to
platforms under the Farley building and passenger preferences for easier
access to the commuter railroads to New Jersey and Long Island, Mr. Black
said that at this point, Amtrak would probably splitits ticketing windows
and waiting areas evenly between the current Penn Station and the new one.

This would not thrill the boutique stores and restaurants that were supposed
to take space in the rest of the building, since they would be drawing
customers from Amtrak trains and those passing through to and from Long
Island Rail Road and New Jersey Transit trains.

The new station, if built, would be named after Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, one of the project's biggest advocates, who died last year.

Empire State Development Corporation officials, who are overseeing the
project through its subsidiary, the Moynihan Station Development
Corporation, accused Amtrak of wanting to renege on a 1999 memorandum of
understanding on the project, essentially a promise that it would contribute
to the costs.

"We're disappointed that Amtrak isn't meeting the commitments they made in
the 1999 M.O.U.," said Charles A. Gargano, chairman of the development
corporation. "We want to be flexible and work with Amtrak. We know the
Northeast corridor is one of the strongest sectors in their system. We feel
it would be in their interest to participate in the development of Moynihan
station as an important gateway to New York."

According to Mr. Gargano, Amtrak had committed to paying about $3.9 million
a year for the space. He also suggested that Amtrak could lease its current
space below Madison Square Garden for more money than that.

Mr. Black denied that Amtrak had reneged on anything. The agreement was
contingent on a lease being completed in 1999, he said, making it moot at
this point. He also said that agreement said nothing about a specific rent
amount.

Development corporation officials are now exploring whether New Jersey
Transit - which has seen its number of riders climb in recent years and its
space in Penn Station grow more crowded - might be able to use the space,
although no deal has been struck yet, Mr. Gargano said.

Until recently, little thought had been given to New Jersey Transit's access
to the new station, said George D. Warrington, New Jersey Transit's
executive director. It recently spent $125 million to upgrade its current
space in Penn Station, and for many of its customers, access to jobs on the
East Side make its current situation closer to Seventh Avenue more
convenient.

Mr. Warrington said he has asked his staff to begin exploring options for
how the commuter railroad might use the new station. Right now, its tracks
on the southern side of Penn Station do not even run under the Farley
building. But the railroad is planning to extend its platforms under Farley,
in conjunction with its ambitions to dig a new rail tunnel under the Hudson
River, he said.

As for Long Island Rail Road, which sends the most passengers into the
current Penn Station of the three railroads that use it, officials there
said they have no interest in taking Amtrak's place in the Farley building.
The Long Island also recently spent money to improve its space in the
current Penn Station and build its own entrance. More important, the way its
tracks, on the northern side of the station, are set up, Long Island
passengers would have to take a circuitous route to get in and out of
Farley.

Some theorize that Amtrak may simply be bluffing to get a better rent deal
and that the agreement is not in any danger after all.

This is the latest twist in the new station's saga. Ideas for the project
began in 1993, but completion dates have come and gone. After Sept. 11,
2001, the Postal Service threatened the project when it decided that it
needed to stay in the Farley building because one of its main centers in
Lower Manhattan was severely damaged in the terrorist attack. In October
2002, however, the state intervened, and the post office agreed to sell the
Farley building and vacate most of it.

Despite the current questions, the development corporation has been pushing
forward with plans to redesign the project. It will seek bids from potential
developers in September and award the project by the end of the year, Mr.
Gargano said. The cost, now estimated at $1 billion, has been inching
upward, especially after the project grew when the post office agreed to
give up most of the building. Most of the money for construction has already
been set aside from federal and state sources.

The project had been applauded by preservationists, who see it as a chance
to right a wrong. The Farley building, with its imposing row of Corinthian
columns, was designed by McKim, Mead & White, the same firm that did the
original Pennsylvania Station across Eighth Avenue, destroyed 40 years ago
and arguably the city's greatest lost landmark. The new station would
provide a fitting gateway to New York City, they said, contrasting sharply
with the cramped current station.

"It's a chance to redeem ourselves after tearing down one of the most
beautiful stations ever built, the original Penn Station," said Peg Breen,
president of the New York Landmarks Conservancy. "You ask any of the current
passengers whether they want to come up in that current drab building or
into the new Moynihan station."

=================================
The Railroad Station Historical Society maintains a database of existing
railroad structures at: http://www.rrshs.org

------------------------------