schlimm Intercity rail service: fast, frequent, convenient and competitive might benefit development of cities, but not lines running through lightly populated places. In transit, the concept of TOD - Transit oriented development - is important.
Intercity rail service: fast, frequent, convenient and competitive might benefit development of cities, but not lines running through lightly populated places. In transit, the concept of TOD - Transit oriented development - is important.
transit, the concept of TOD - Transit oriented development - is important.
A Very revealing operation was what I found on US-50 east of Sacramento, Ca. up in the mountains each location ran a mini bus along the old Pony express road ( old US-50 ) each route connected with the town down the mountain with a 1 fare ride. At Folsom that mini bus connected with the Sacramento light rail for a trip to downtown including the Amtrak station. That is definitely transportation orientated service leading to TOD..
Had not it happen before but a post on another thread showed up on this thread on this block. ???????
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmIMO, civic improvements, like parks, preserved waterfronts, roads and public transit (Heavy rail commuter, light rail, trolleys, etc.) frequently contribute to increased economic activity, increased property values of adjoining and nearby lands and thus raise the tax base.
Schlimm,
Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, intercity rail transportation might also make a similar contribution?
John
IMO, civic improvements, like parks, preserved waterfronts, roads and public transit (Heavy rail commuter, light rail, trolleys, etc.) frequently contribute to increased economic activity, increased property values of adjoining and nearby lands and thus raise the tax base.
I don't know why the Marcel Breuer design would have demolished the main waiting room (which today is unused except for special occasions) and the facade. Most of the original design proposals for the office tower envisioned in the beginning show all of the terminal being preserved, including its facade, and just the top of the roof wouldn't be there.
NittanyLion Compare property values along Central Park to property values not on Central Park. Parkland is valuable as a modifier to real estate prices, and therefore tax revenue.
Compare property values along Central Park to property values not on Central Park.
Parkland is valuable as a modifier to real estate prices, and therefore tax revenue.
I don't follow your logic, Lion. I said Central Park was not built for the profit it would yield. Do you disagree? (I wasn't talking about nearby property).
And eventually all his demands were met -except it's buses and not streetcars. Interesting that the list mentions streetcars, which were mostly horse- and cable-cars, and not the then steam-operated elevated railroads!
This is a fascinating thread, with various POV expressed in a polite and factual manner. Quite a contrast with the ruckus on some of the General Forum threads. I was particularly amazed to see NKP guy's reference to Henry George. I found the following on that election:
"Some of the energy of resentment in late 1886 was poured into the electoral campaign for mayor of New York that fall. Trade unions formed an Independent Labor party and nominated for mayor Henry George, the radical economist, whose Progress and Poverty had been read by tens of thousands of workers. George's platform tells something about the conditions of life for workers in New York in the 1880s. It demanded:
The Democrats nominated an iron manufacturer, Abram Hewitt, and the Republicans nominated Theodore Roosevelt, at a convention presided over by Elihu Root, a corporation lawyer, with the nominating speech given by Chauncey Depew, a railroad director. In a campaign of coercion and bribery, Hewitt was elected with 41 percent of the vote, George came second with 31 percent of the vote, and Roosevelt third with 2 7 percent of the vote."
John WR And the profit motive certainly does not explain Central Park.
And the profit motive certainly does not explain Central Park.
NKP guy Nah, Hoffa's in Detroit somewhere, ain't you heard?
Nah, Hoffa's in Detroit somewhere, ain't you heard?
Nah, Jimmy's not there either! He's under the 50-yard line at Giants Stadium! That's so he won't miss any of the action or outstanding plays.
I was thinking there's OTHER people in the Meadows you don't want to find!
In the same vein, in the Richmond Virginia area where I live now, if you see a guy running out of the woods around an old Civil War battle site, and he's screaming bloody murder, it's usually a relic hunter who got a good hit with his metal detector, started digging, and OMG! HE found something he didn't want to find!
Then the Civil War re-enactors get to hold another funeral.
The problem with building anything in NYC is layers and layers of utilities and high cost union labor. I would move the station W to here---- http://binged.it/14zHmUV Along the W side Highway
ndbprrWhy don't they just go out to the meadows and get the old one they threw away there?
I think you have a really great idea. I remember riding the train to New York Penn Station and seeing these hugh blocks sinking into the primeval ooze. But if Heinreich Schliemann could dig up Troy why can't we dig up Penn Station and re-erect it somewhere? Certainly not in the Meadowlands where it would just sink again.
They might find other things in the Meadows they REALLY don't want to find, if you get my drift.
Thank you for your historical note, Dave. I can add that after New York Penn Station was demolished a lot of people were appalled and got involved to prevent it from happening again. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was among them. With Grand Central Terminal, as you point out, they succeeded.
On a more personal level I'm not sure how I feel. Today most of it is a giant food court. It just isn't the same as when I used to take the train at GCT to go to Providence. But at least it is still there.
John WR: Thank you for the excellent suggestion, but I read the book several years ago; it's probably on a bookshelf in my attic. As you know, The Wreck of the Penn Central is a real eye opener. I totally concur with everything you said.
On August 2, 1967, New York City's recently established Landmarks Preservation Commission — formed in response to the demolition of Pennsylvania Station — designated Grand Central Terminal as a landmark, subject to the protection of law. The decision ensured the terminal's safety. For the moment.
In 1968 Penn Central, the resultant conglomerate of a merger between the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads, leased Grand Central Terminal to developer UGP Properties, Inc. UGP proposed building a 55-story tower designed by Marcel Breuer above Grand Central. The terminal's facade would have been preserved, but rendered virtually invisible; the entire main waiting room and part of the main concourse would have been demolished.
In 1976 Penn Central filed an $8 million lawsuit against the city of New York, which was blocking the renovation. Litigation lasted for nearly a decade. City leaders, including Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Brendan Gill, rallied against changes to Grand Central Terminal. In December 1976, the national register of historic places named Grand Central Terminal as a national historic landmark.
That is why GCT did not suffer the same fate as NYP.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe VetThat is the nature of capitalism, which is the foundation of our economy.
I just don't see that, Dave. No company was a greater monument to capitalism than the Vanderbilts' New York Central Railroad. Yet Grand Central Terminal was never torn down; rather the Pan Am building was built over the top of it. If the profit motive is the driving force of Manhattan every single building would be a high rise but that is not true; many buildings are 5 or fewer stories. And the profit motive certainly does not explain Central Park. Certainly the profit motive is important in our society but it is not the only thing that is important. Of course, New York Penn Station was torn down; that cannot be denied.
NKP guyNow, round up the usual suspects.
You might want to read The Wreck of the Penn Central by Joseph R. Daughen and Peter Binzen. They document the whole sad story. Pennsylvania Railroad's Stuart Saunders tried to turn the railroad into a real estate holding company while led to the desecration of New York Pennsylvania Station. When the companies merged he and Alfred Perlman had offices in different cities and did not speak to each other. Daughen and Binzen reported that after the merger freight cars would simply get lost, often for weeks. That is the kind of "leadership" the largest company in the United States had. For all of that, Alfred Perlman was and always remained a railroad man. From what I have read there was no better railroad man in the country. Had he been in charge rather than Stuart Saunders we might still have the Penn Central. But don't take my word for it; read the book.
It may be in your library; it is in mine. If not, it is available on line. Amazon has several reader reviews. It may not answer all of your questions but it will answer a lot of them about the last days of our private passenger railroads.
Sam1Until recently I had not given Penn Station much thought. But some of the discussions in the Trains forums prompted me to look more critically at it this time. It is pretty ratty, and it should be replaced. The platforms are too narrow, the flow of passengers is helter skelter, and the lighting reminds me of the basement in our house in Altoona. It was lit by a single bulb.
Amtrak owns New York Penn Station and now pays no rent for its own property. That is a real advantage. Madison Square Garden does pay rent. I can't find out how much or who they pay it to but logically it should go to Amtrak and provide a stream of income. Many want to kick MSG out and have the station open to the sky but a more practical solution would be to leave MSG right where it is and renovate the existing space.
The narrow platforms are far from ideal but they have served since 1910 or so and I don't see that they are impossible. Supporting posts cannot be moved. However, there are a lot of old utility lines that are no longer used and could be removed. That would improve the space. If you are familiar with the station you know where the escalators and elevators you need are. They are in the same places they have always been. It is true there could be better signs to direct people between the tracks and the station. Improving the lighting seems not to be all that big an issue.
The concourse and waiting areas often fairly crowded but the surrounding area tends to be pretty empty. That level has a lot of wasted space that could be put to better use.
If a commitment to keep MSG were made that stream of income could be used to improve the present station. Better use of now wasted space could make things work more smoothly or yield additional income. I sure would like to see two more escalators at the 7th Avenue entrance.
Over the past 50 plus years I have passed through Pennsylvania Station hundreds of times. I did so several times just last week.
Until recently I had not given Penn Station much thought. But some of the discussions in the Trains forums prompted me to look more critically at it this time. It is pretty ratty, and it should be replaced. The platforms are too narrow, the flow of passengers is helter skelter, and the lighting reminds me of the basement in our house in Altoona. It was lit by a single bulb.
The great question, at least from my point of view, is from whence will the money come to fund a new station?
I realize I'm already over my limit in boring readers of this thread, but henry6 and Sam1 have raised such interesting and important points that I can't resist saying this:
Sam1, your factual analysis is most impressive and convincing. I can't think of a single thing to refute anything you wrote. About all I can say is that salvation via public money came not that many years later. With better political and corporate leadership it might have happened earlier. You are right about a CEO's obligation to shareholders, but when it comes to major pieces of a city's infrastructure and sense of itself, something else needs to be remembered. At this point I address myself to henry6.
henry6, you're a knickerbocker, I take it. Are you familiar with the works and ideas of Henry George, the great Socialist candidate for Mayor of NYC and the author of Progress and Poverty? In his famous "single tax theory" he addresses the situation you present. I do not claim to know his work perfectly or necessarily support his ideas. But, George pointed out that the public has a stake in projects like Penn Station.
For example, George would say that Penn Station was built to make money for the PRR, not to "serve" the public. Penn Station would have no value at all or even been built without the previous contributions of society or the city. For example, who put those people in Manhattan before the station was built? The PRR? Who built the streets, added the sewer lines, offered the franchises for the trolley lines? George would say that Penn Station was no risk to the PRR at all; it was bound to be successful because all the elements were in place at public expense to make it so. Including the ROW under Manhattan. Interesting question: I know what air rights are, but if I own a building at 3rd Ave & 33rd Street, how can a company build a privately-owned tunnel beneath my property unless I give it permission? The city, George would say, even gives or sells that right to the private developer, again making his project possible and profitable.
Now, I know Henry George's ideas became discredited, but he came within a whisker of being elected mayor. Such a Socialist victory might have had major and interesting consequences in the United States.
Of course both of you, and Phoebe Vet are right. The whole thing, lately anyway, is an intricate dance performed together by public and private interests. I get that and largely like it. The bottom line is that old Penn Station probably had to die in order that GCT (and the historic preservation movement generally) could live.
Penn Station might have been saved with more creative thinking and better corporate and civic leadership. But as so often happens, good things can come out of bad.
And it's been pretty bad for 60 years now at Penn Station.
A. J. Greenough was the president of the PRR at the time the decision was made to allow Penn Station to be demolished. In order to act he would have had to have the approval of the PRR Board of Directors.
Rumors of the PRR's desire to rid itself of the financial burden imposed by Penn Station had been afoot since the middle 1950s. As Greenough noted, because of the decline in long distance passenger rail service, Penn Station was no longer a major portal for the city. No one from the city, at least with any real clout, i.e. money, resources, etc., stepped forth with a real plan to save Penn Station.
The president of a company has an obligation to protect the interests of his key stakeholders. Amongst these are the shareholders, creditors, regulators, employees, etc. It is a difficult balancing act. At the end of the day, however, his or her primary obligation is to ensure the survival of the company. The PRR could no longer afford to keep Penn Station, and it made that clear to New York's civic leaders. Apparently they were not overly impressed. In 1960 NYC hit Penn Station with a $1.3 million property tax bill.
Ultimately, Irving Felt, who was a major NYC developer, organized the deal to raze Penn Station and replace it with what we have today.
According to Jill Jonnes, Conquering Gotham, most New Yorkers did not place a high value on Penn Station. It was out of the way, in many respects, and did not strike a strong cord in their collective hearts. For many New Yorkers, as per Jonnes, Penn Station was imposed on the city from Philadelphia. New Yorkers did not identify with it like they did with Grand Central Terminal. Or like modern day rail revisionists.
There is no evidence that Greenough profited from the sale and demolishment of Penn Station. In fact, within a few short years, the PRR disappeared into the Penn Central debacle. And Greenough, if I remember correctly retired.
The demise of Penn Station, however, gave rise to the preservationist movement in NYC and ultimately throughout the country. It was this movement that helped save Grand Central, which required private as well as public funds.
What I enjoy about this is the phenomena that a private business erects a structure and provides a service to the public with their own capital on private land. But it is such that the public takes the stance that they own it and have final say over its survival or destruction. Because it was private property Penn Station's demolition was the purview of the property owners yet the public was outraged because of their attachment to it. The same with GCT, as long as we are in NY City, but with different results. And how many other depots on private railroads across the country, have been saved by the public as if it were theirs to begin with?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I take your point about re-hashing being "returning to the story time and time again but not being able to change the outcome." You mean, it's like many of the other topics in this forum, such as Amtrak, or dining cars, or train expenses, or the efficacy of LD trains? LOL This entire forum is based on re-hashing topics.
And if the definition of history is that it's written, well, the re-hashing in this forum is written too, no? Did you mean published, instead? That's a pretty narrow definition.
And be assured, I've got the right RR history books and Google to help me find the names. I'd just enjoy seeing them published here along with comments on their other decisions by the experts in this forum.
NKP guy:
That is the nature of capitalism, which is the foundation of our economy. We temper it with regulations and social programs to protect society in general, but it is still driven by the profit motive. If you want to know why the upper portion of the station was torn down, just look at the value of Manhattan real estate. All those tall buildings were not built just so that the people in Queens don't have to look at New Jersey.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.