Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
GENERATING ECONOMIC RECOVERY (TIGER) DISCRETIONARY GRANT
Name of Project: MOYNIHAN STATION PROJECT ‐ PHASE I
Type of Project: Transit
Organization Submitting Project: New York State Department of
Transportation
Contact Person:
Robin Stout, President, MSDC
633 Third Avenue, 36th Floor
New York, New York 10017
212 803‐3819
rstout@empire.state.ny.us
th
Project Location: 421 8 Avenue, Farley Post Office Building, located
between 8th and 9th Avenues and between West 31st and 33rd Streets, New
York, New York.
Congressional District: NY‐8
Project Sponsor: New York State
Amount of TIGER Grant Funds Being Requested: $98,271,730
I. Introduction
Penn Station is the busiest train station in the country. It is the most heavily trafficked gateway into the
nation’s largest city, serving both the 8 million residents of New York City (the “City”) and an additional 12
million people in the surrounding metropolitan region as well as 8.5 million intercity rail passengers
annually. On an average weekday, approximately 640,000 passengers use the station. It is the central
hub for the Long Island Rail Road (“LIRR”) and New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) – the largest and third largest
commuter railroads in the nation – and the place where 60% of the intercity rail passengers on Amtrak’s
Northeast Corridor and 25% of all intercity rail passengers in the country originate or terminate their trips.
Penn Station is also a critical link to the City subway system – 14 of the City’s 25 subway lines are
integrated into or are located within one block of the station. In short, Penn Station is the lynchpin of the
mass transit system in the Northeast.
Because of their size and density, the City and metropolitan region depend heavily on public
transportation in general, and Penn Station, in particular, to move people efficiently, stimulate economic
growth and improve the quality of the environment by reducing pollution and relieving airspace and
highway congestion. New York State (the “State”) and the City have actively encouraged transit‐oriented
development and discouraged urban sprawl. An important example is the Hudson Yards District directly
to the west of Penn Station. The City rezoned this 47‐block area in 2005 to stimulate both commercial
and residential development, is extending the #7 subway line to service the area, and anticipates between
one and two million square feet of new development in the area per year for an extended period of time
once the real estate market in the City begins to rebound. The expansion of Penn Station to service this
new district is critical to its success.
Notwithstanding its vital role at the center of rail transit in the City, Penn Station has serious deficiencies
that constrain service delivery and efforts to increase intercity rail and transit ridership. As a result, it has
become the central choke point in ongoing federal, State and local efforts to increase rail and mass transit
ridership, develop high‐speed rail and take automobiles off the roads. The Station is operating at more
than 100% of capacity, and station congestion is getting worse as ridership on all three of its tenant
railroads‐ Amtrak, LIRR and NJT‐ has been steadily growing and is projected to continue increasing.
Pedestrian movement during rush hour at the LIRR and NJT concourses is difficult and quickly deteriorates
to Level of Service (LOS) E and F in even moderate delay conditions (see Appendix K for a photograph of
typical peak hour crowding on the NJT concourse). Amtrak’s busiest train station is an unattractive,
undersized, inefficient, underground facility that is a poor sister to the grand stations at other major cities
on the Northeast Corridor. While it serves many passengers today, Penn Station must grow if it is to
accommodate rising demand.
Moynihan Station will address this problem by expanding Penn Station to include a new, world‐class
th
station in the historic Farley Post Office Building, directly across 8 Avenue from Penn Station. The
Moynihan Station Project (the “Project”), in its full form, will create a new sky‐lit train hall, on the scale of
Grand Central Terminal, to which Amtrak will relocate its passenger operations, will dramatically increase
vertical access to and from trains, will enable the three railroads to maximize their use of existing
platforms that already extend west of Penn Station under the Farley Building, and will provide station
entrances west of Eighth Avenue. The new station will also be part of a public‐private partnership
involving a private development team that will develop approximately one million square feet of the
Farley Building and its Western Annex for retail, office and institutional uses, and incorporate unused
development rights from the Farley Building in new residential and/or commercial development on
nearby sites.
In addition to its transportation benefits, Moynihan Station is an important historic preservation project
and, as it entails the renovation of an underused landmark, will meet the highest standards for green
development. The Farley Building was designed by McKim, Mead and White, the architects for the
original Pennsylvania Station, and was expressly designed to complement the original station. It would
not be possible to construct a new station building today in the same monumental style, from the ground
up, without a massive capital outlay. The Farley Building, because of the care taken in designing it, and
the quality of the materials used in its construction, offers an opportunity to reclaim some of the lost
glory of the original Pennsylvania Station at a fraction of the cost of a new structure. By virtue of its
central location, the creative re‐use of a landmark, and maximizing the use of existing below‐grade tracks
and platforms, the Project meets the most critical tests for sustainable development – it makes the most
of existing infrastructure in a dense urban area rather than calling for new construction (and the usage of
new materials) on either scarce open space or space that should logically be preserved for other public
needs.
Phase I of the Project, for which this TIGER Application seeks $98,281,730, is the critical first step in
expanding Penn Station, relieving congestion, and opening the doors of the Moynihan/Penn Station
complex to the development district to the west. Phase I consists of significant improvements to the
below‐grade rail infrastructure in and around Penn Station that have independent utility and will increase
capacity for both intercity and commuter rail services, enhance subway connections, reduce congestion,
allow for easier access by persons with disabilities, and improve passenger safety and security.
Additionally, Phase I will serve as an engine for economic recovery and future development through the
creation of thousands of construction‐related jobs, and thousands more associated with transit‐oriented
development in the Hudson Yards District.
Specifically, and as further detailed in this Application, Phase I would:
• Expand the existing West End Concourse (“WEC”) by doubling its length and width, thereby
providing access to eight tracks that are not currently served by this concourse, significantly
enhancing passenger circulation space, and for the first time providing space for the sale of
tickets (by vending machine) on the concourse;
• Provide thirteen new vertical access points to and from platforms, significantly reducing the time
required for passengers to clear the platforms, plus six new vertical access points from the WEC
to the street;
• Provide two above‐grade entrances through the Farley Building west of 8 Avenue at 31 and
th st
rd
33 Streets, decreasing congestion at Penn Station and improving access to the development
district to the west;
• Expand the existing passageway below 33rd Street (the “33rd Street Connector”) between Penn
Station and the WEC by doubling its width, thereby increasing capacity, providing access to the
subways and the new NJT station to be built a block north, and to facilitating compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and
• Improve Penn Station safety and security by adding six new platform ventilation fan rooms
beneath the Farley Building, which with the faster egress described above, will maximize the
extent to which the Station complies with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard
130 (hereinafter defined).
Upon completion, Phase I will save nearly 470,000 passenger hours annually for NJT and LIRR passengers,
over 28,000 passenger hours annually for Amtrak passengers and, over 225,000 passenger hours for
riders shifting from buses, ferries and cars to rail. Additionally, these mode shifts will yield a savings of
almost 20 million vehicle‐miles traveled per year. Construction spending on Phase I is expected to
generate or support almost 2,500 job‐years of employment and $134.7 million in payroll wages (in 2009
dollars). It is anticipated that at least $41 million of the construction spending on Phase I will be awarded
to minority‐owned, woman‐owned, small or disadvantaged firms. Furthermore, Phase I of the project is
2
expected to generate travel, economic development and life safety benefits ranging between $498‐548
million, when discounted at 7%, depending on whether the hypothetical scenario of an emergency
evacuation is included. If the same benefits are discounted at 3%, they range from $1.048‐1.12 billion.
Phase I has independent utility and will produce significant benefits on its own even if Phase II is delayed,
and is the necessary pre‐requisite to Phase II. Phase II of the Project will include a new Train Hall and
station facilities for Amtrak and related development in the Farley Complex.
The Phase I below‐grade construction, in the midst of daily operations by three busy railroads, is complex
and requires close coordination and substantial force account work by the railroads (e.g., closure of
tracks, rerouting of trains, de‐energizing catenary and third rail, and ensuring flag protection while
construction workers perform tasks on or near tracks in active use). The construction schedule for Phase
I accounts for the need to do much of the construction work in the trainshed at night and on weekends
during track outages, in order to keep Penn Station in operation. Phase I below‐grade construction must
be advanced in a timely manner to ensure that the Phase II above‐grade work can proceed with adequate
room for staging and marshalling labor and equipment, and without unnecessary obstruction or delay.
The above‐grade Phase II construction does not involve major work in the train shed and therefore will
proceed more quickly than Phase I. The objective is to complete Phases I and II at the same time.
The Project has been developed in consultation with federal, State, and City governments, Amtrak, the
LIRR, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), NJT, environmental, historic preservation and
transportation advocates, elected officials and community groups.
II. Project Description
Phase I
Phase I, which is the subject of this Application, consists of the following:
• Expand the existing WEC by doubling its length and width, to significantly enhance passenger
circulation space. The WEC would be extended to Penn Station’s southern retaining wall,
providing access to 17 tracks as compared to the 9 tracks served today (platforms 3 through 11
will be served as compared to 7 through 11 today). The larger WEC will be of benefit to NJT and
Amtrak passengers and will serve all the LIRR tracks. The WEC will be large enough to
accommodate ticket vending machines for LIRR passengers, who now must buy their tickets at
the other end of Penn Station (approximately 800 feet away at 7th Avenue). Also, the WEC
expansion will allow for future WEC access to Platforms 1 and 2 (for NJT) and to Platform 12 (aka
the Diagonal Platform for Amtrak’s Empire Corridor and/or potential future Metro North service,
which is part of Phase II of the Project).
• Provide thirteen new WEC vertical access points to and from the platforms, plus six additional
elevators, stairs and escalators between the WEC and the Farley Building, significantly reducing
the time required for platform clearance. Vertical access is critical at Penn Station, because the
tracks are located three levels below grade, and the speed with which passengers can get in and
out of the station has a direct bearing on train throughput. Vertical access is particularly
important at the west end of Penn Station, because the existing tracks and platforms extend
under the Farley Building, but today there is little or no vertical access from this end of the
platforms. The WEC expansion is critical to maximizing the use of the existing track‐level
infrastructure at Penn Station.
• Provide two new above‐grade entrances west of 8 Avenue into the Farley Building, improving
th
access, decreasing congestion at Penn Station and opening up the Moynihan/Penn Station
3
complex to the development district to the west. Passengers will be able to enter the station at
the corners of 31st and 33rd Streets through the historic Farley Building and new improved public
plazas. The entrances will flank the magisterial staircase leading up to the retail lobby of the
Post Office and will restore some of the grandeur associated with entering the station that was
lost when the original Penn Station was torn down in the 1960’s.
• Expand and renovate the existing 33rd Street Connector between Penn and the WEC by doubling
its width, thereby increasing capacity and making it ADA‐compliant for the first time. This will
accommodate passenger flow between Penn, the WEC, and Moynihan Station, as well as provide
direct access to the 8th Avenue A, C, and E subway lines, and to the NJT station under 34th Street
that will open when NJT completes the tunnel under the Hudson River now under construction.
• Improve Penn Station safety and security by creating new platform ventilation beneath Farley.
Six new ventilation fan rooms would provide additional, much‐needed emergency platform
ventilation capacity and include critical design elements and features that would adhere, to the
maximum extent practicable, to guidelines established by the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) Standard 130: Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail
Systems.
Attached as Appendix A are (1) a diagram showing the platforms and tracks located beneath the Farley
rd
Building, as well as the planned Phase I improvements to the West End Concourse and 33 Street
th
Connector and the six new ventilation fan rooms; and (2) a diagram showing one level up (8 Avenue
grade). Additionally, please see Appendix A for a diagram showing the location of the Farley Building in
relationship to Penn Station and the surrounding area, including the Hudson Yards District, and Appendix
K for an aerial photograph of the Farley Complex, and an artist’s rendering of the front of the new
Moynihan Station, showing one of the new entrances on 8th Avenue.
Completion of Phase I will have independent utility, but will also mark the necessary first step in the long‐
awaited revitalization of the entire Penn Station complex – expanding its capacity, enhancing its
frequency and quality of service, and creating or enabling thousands of new jobs – all of which are
fundamental pre‐requisites to accommodate long‐term regional growth in population, employment, and
transportation.
Phase II
Phase II, which will be compatible with and build upon Phase I, will be separately funded and constructed.
Phase II will include the following:
• A new, iconic, sky‐lit, train hall and related new facilities for rail passengers in the Farley Building.
Amtrak will be the anchor transportation tenant. Facilities will include a train hall and main
concourse (slightly larger than Grand Central Terminal), dedicated Amtrak ticketing, waiting, and
boarding areas, and more than fifteen new vertical access points to/from platforms (in addition
to those created in Phase I).
• Intermodal Hall. This grand entrance hall will have a glass and metal skylight and will provide mid‐
block entrances to the Farley Building from both West 33rd and West 31st Streets.
• Improved Passenger Circulation. An approximately 30 percent increase in the combined total of
passenger stairs, escalators, and elevators; an approximately 50 percent increase in passenger
circulation space; and direct access from the Farley Building to 10 of the 12 the platforms at track
level.
4
• Building systems and infrastructure improvements. The Farley Building’s mechanical systems
would be upgraded to meet the needs of the new station and reconfigured facility.
• Landmark restoration. The historic Farley Building and its Western Annex, designed by McKim,
Meade & White, is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is designated as a
landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The exterior of this
complex would undergo a comprehensive building restoration, with stonework and mortar
cleaned and refurbished, and windows restored and replaced as necessary.
• Transit Oriented Retail. Approximately 86,000 square feet of transit‐oriented retail and
commercial space will be created. This space is in addition to the approximately 300,000‐square‐
foot train station.
• Activation of the diagonal mail platform. Platform 12 would be lengthened and vertical
circulation elements added to allow the two adjacent tracks beneath the Farley Building, which
have never been used for passenger service, to accommodate additional Amtrak Empire Service
trains, and/or potentially Metro‐North service.
III. Project Parties, Background and Qualifications
The applicant is the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). NYSDOT is an executive
agency of New York State, established pursuant to Section 11, et seq. of the New York State
Transportation Law. NYSDOT’s functions, powers and duties include the coordination and development
of comprehensive, balanced transportation policy and planning for the State to meet present and future
statewide needs for adequate, safe and efficient transportation facilities and services at reasonable cost
to the public; and coordinating and assisting in the development and operation of such transportation
facilities and services.
The State and NYSDOT have worked together with the following governmental entities to develop the
Project and this application:
A. Moynihan Station Development Corporation (“MSDC”), a public benefit corporation and a
subsidiary of Empire State Development Corporation (“ESDC”), the primary economic development
agency of the State. MSDC was specifically created to advance the development of a new passenger rail
station for the City, and has been involved in the planning and design work for Moynihan Station, and in
securing funding partners for the Project, since its formation in the mid‐1990s. ESDC (web site:
www.empire.state.ny.us) is a public benefit corporation that administers a series of loan, grant, and
technical assistance programs to attract and retain business in the State. ESDC purchased the Farley
Complex in 2007 to facilitate its adaptive reuse as a train station.
B. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “PA”), a bi‐state agency created by
Compact between the states of New York and New Jersey, and approved by the U.S. Congress, has
developed this Application together with MSDC and will be part of the team that will oversee the Project
with MSDC going forward. The PA (web site: www.panynj.gov) is charged with designing, building and
operating public transportation facilities, and currently operates and maintains a network of five major
airports (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, Teterboro and Stewart), six interstate bridges and tunnels, two
interstate bus stations, six port terminals (passenger and cargo), and a commuter rail system (PATH)
serving the City’s greater metropolitan area.
5
C. The three operating railroads that currently serve Penn Station: Amtrak, which operates all of
the nation’s intercity passenger rail service; the LIRR and NJT, which provide commuter rail service in New
York and New Jersey.
1. Amtrak was created by the federal government in 1972 to operate and maintain the
nation’s network of intercity rail passenger service. In fiscal year 2008, Amtrak carried
approximately 28.7 million passengers, of which 8.5 million passed through Penn Station, by far
the busiest station in the entire country.
2. The LIRR is a unit of the MTA, a public authority established by the State to operate
various public transportation services in the City’s greater metropolitan area. The LIRR, the
nation’s busiest commuter railroad, carries approximately 88.5 million passengers per year, of
which more than 66 million use Penn Station.
3. NJT is New Jersey’s public transportation corporation. It was established by the State of
New Jersey to provide transportation services (bus, rail and light rail) between various points
within New Jersey and between New Jersey and the City. NJT, the nation’s third busiest
commuter railroad, carries approximately 82.5 million passengers per year, of which 47.5 million
use Penn Station.
IV. Shovel Ready Criteria; Feasibility
The Phase I work that is the subject of this Application, is both technically and financially feasible for the
following reasons:
A. Realistic Schedule. Phase I project elements, including the WEC and platform ventilation
systems, are substantially designed, and construction of these elements can commence by mid‐2010.
Below is the currently projected schedule for Phase I, including a description of the work, cost, and jobs
created by calendar quarter, from commencement to completion.
The projected schedule has been carefully and conservatively developed, by MSDC’s engineering
consultants (URS) in conjunction with the PA’s Engineering Department, to reflect the complexity of
advancing construction within the Amtrak trainshed while at the same time keeping Penn Station fully
operational while work is ongoing. Phase I trainshed work generally requires Amtrak, LIRR and/or NJT to
de‐energize catenary and/or third rail, and to take tracks out of service, which is not possible during peak
load periods (Monday‐Friday, early morning to late evening). Accordingly, a good portion of the Phase I
work must take place during nights and weekends. Night work is typically limited to between 11 PM and
5 AM. Weekend work has a roughly 52‐hour window (between late Friday evening and early Monday
morning) but, because of Amtrak operations, major holidays, and other station work (e.g., repairs to the
East River and Hudson River tunnels, which normally take place over weekends), this window may be
available for as few as 32 weekends a year on average. Moreover, when Amtrak does provide a specific
track outage, it will likely only de‐energize two adjacent tracks at a time. This limits the work area to
space directly above the de‐energized catenary and tracks. All of these factors were taken into account in
developing the attached schedule, which reflects a conservative overall construction duration to
substantial completion of all Phase I elements of 72 months.
6
Moynihan Project - Phase 1 Schedule
National Jobs
Platform Ventilation Dollars West End Concourse Dollars Total (Job-years)
2009 Q4 Design Procurement 1,458,000 Design Procurement 1,671,907 3,129,907 33
2010 Q1 Design / CFD Smoke Analysis 1,458,000 Design 1,671,907 3,129,907 32
Q2 Design / Amtrak Review 1,458,000 Design 1,671,907 3,129,907 32
Q3 Design / Final Amtrak Approval 4,833,000 Design/Construction starts: AMTRAK 1,671,907 6,504,907 66
begins catenary relocation
Q4 Design and Equipment 5,333,000 Design work ongoing: AMTRAK continues 1,671,907 7,004,907 71
Procurement with catenary relocation
2011 Q1 Design and Major Equipment 5,833,000 Bid /Award Main Package, AMTRAK 2,528,462 8,361,463 82
Procurement continues catenary relocation work
Q2 Bid /Award Main Package; 5,533,000 Bid /Award Main Package, AMTRAK 3,131,769 8,664,769 85
Equipment Testing, Mobilization completes catenary relocation work
Starts
Q3 Mobilization and Demolition Start 5,840,000 Mobilization; Construction begins North 4,613,125 10,453,125 103
end of WEC
Q4 Demolition and Construction / 6,166,000 Mobilization; Construction begins, staging 5,941,073 12,107,073 119
Excavation for Column Foundations areas developed, openings created
2012 Q1 Construction: Foundation 6,166,000 Construction begins, demolition of 6,251,073 12,417,073 118
existing WEC select elements
Q2 Construction: Structural Steel Shop 6,322,000 Construction; steel surveys, shop 6,521,137 12,843,137 122
Drawings drawings, demolition continues
Q3 Construction: Structural Steel and 7,573,000 Construction of all West End Concourse 7,116,970 14,689,971 140
Drawings / Fabrication Components
Q4 Construction: Start Steel Erection 8,073,000 Construction of all West End Concourse 7,116,970 15,189,971 145
Components
2013 Q1 Construction: Construction Fan 8,073,000 Construction of all West End Concourse 7,273,445 15,346,445 142
Rooms Components
Q2 Construction: Steel Erection, major 7,603,290 Construction of all West End Concourse 7,273,445 14,876,735 138
electrical rough-in Components
Q3 Construction: Construction Fan 7,573,290 Construction; Punch List and 8th Avenue 7,273,445 14,846,735 137
Rooms; major electrical rough-in Grade Entrance Close-out
Q4 Construction: Set Fans within the 7,160,000 Construction; Punch List and 8th Avenue 6,973,445 14,133,445 131
Rooms Grade Entrance Close-out
2014 Q1 Construction: Set Fans within the 6,747,000 Construction; Punch List and 8th Avenue 6,973,445 13,720,444 123
Rooms Grade Entrance Close-out
Q2 Construction: fan room floors, walls 6,335,000 Construction of WEC to Platform 3, 6,973,445 13,308,444 120
Additional Landings, WEC to Platform 1 &
2, and 33rd Street Connector
Construction of WEC to Platform 3,
Additional Landings and 33rd Street
Connector
Q3 Construction: fan room floors, walls 5,322,000 Construction; Punch List and WEC to 6,890,970 12,212,970 110
Platform 1 & 2 close out
Q4 Construction: System tie-ins, 3,446,000 Construction; Punch List and WEC to 6,491,137 9,937,137 89
connections to AMTRAK systems Platform 1 & 2 close out
2015 Q1 Construction: System tie-ins, 3,033,000 Construction of WEC Remaining 6,261,137 9,294,137 81
connections to AMTRAK systems Components
7
B. Design Work Substantially Advanced. Design of the expanded West End Concourse (WEC) is
almost complete. Construction documents were essentially taken to the 90% completion stage in late
2006, and submitted to Amtrak for approval, along with a force account schedule and cost estimate.
Modest revisions will be required to reflect extension of the WEC to the south retaining wall of Penn
Station (in 2006, the WEC was to be extended only to Platform 3), and modified staircases. It is
anticipated that Amtrak review of the WEC will be completed by no later than early 2010. Additionally, a
force account agreement will be entered into with Amtrak prior to commencement of the Phase I work.
With respect to platform ventilation, in August 2006, MSDC submitted a 90% complete construction
package to Amtrak. Amtrak requested certain modifications, which were made and incorporated into the
design. The final plans will be resubmitted to Amtrak, with the requisite computer‐simulated smoke/fire
modeling, for Amtrak’s final approval, which is expected no later than early 2010.
C. Environmental Reviews Nearing Completion. A number of federal and State discretionary
actions are needed in order to implement the Project, and therefore the Project is undergoing
environmental review under both the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). MSDC, ESDC and the PA are confident that the
environmental review process, already underway, can be completed by year end 2009 and will confirm
that the current Project, including the proposed Phase I work, will not result in any significant adverse
environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated through identified and readily available measures.
This confidence is based on the following:
1) Detailed Draft EA Already Submitted; Builds on Substantial Prior Work. The lead
agency for purposes of NEPA is FRA. FRA is currently considering a draft Environmental Assessment
(“EA”) for the Project, which was submitted by MSDC and ESDC on August 24, 2009. This draft EA
analyzes the full Project in detail, including Phase I and Phase II, and builds upon the substantial body of
environmental review work already completed by FRA, USPS, MSDC and ESDC, with respect to the
proposed development of a new train station in the Farley Complex, including, most recently, a final
environmental impact statement, issued by ESDC under SEQRA in 2006 (the “2006 SEQRA FEIS”), for the
same basic proposal [available at: www.nylovesbiz.com/MoynihanStation/FEIS_default.asp], and a final
EA issued jointly by USPS and FRA in 2006 (the “2006 NEPA EA”) (see Appendix H), based in large measure
on the 2006 SEQRA FEIS. USPS issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in 2006 based on this
EA prior to selling the Farley Complex to ESDC (see Appendix H).
Prior to 2006, the proposal to construct a new train station in the Farley Building had
been the subject of multiple environmental reviews, and decision‐making under both NEPA and SEQRA.
In 1995, FRA issued a draft EA followed by a final EA in 1999. Based on the final EA, FRA issued a Finding
of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in 1999 (see Appendix I), and ESDC issued a negative declaration under
SEQRA in 2003.
2) Current Project is Very Similar to What Was Analyzed in 2006. The Project is very
similar to what was analyzed in the 2006 SEQRA FEIS and the 2006 NEPA EA. Based on the 2006 NEPA EA,
USPS issued a FONSI. Similarly, MSDC and ESDC concluded, on the basis of the 2006 SEQRA FEIS, that the
project as then proposed would not have any significant adverse environmental impacts that could not
readily be addressed and mitigated. Although changes in scope and in background conditions warranted
an updated NEPA and SEQRA review, the draft EA that was recently submitted to the FRA is intended to
fulfill that purpose and reaches the same conclusion.
3) Consultations with FRA. Before submitting the draft EA, MSDC and ESDC, through
counsel, discussed applicable NEPA requirements with FRA staff and the proposed approach towards
satisfying those requirements − namely, the preparation and submission of a detailed draft EA, building
upon the 2006 SEQRA FEIS. Based on the draft EA, it is expected that a new FONSI could be issued by FRA,
8
imposing as conditions those mitigation measures identified in the draft EA, just as USPS did in 2006 and
FRA did in 1999.
The final decision of whether or not to accept the draft EA and issue a FONSI rests with the FRA. If issued,
it would constitute the sole remaining environmental approval under NEPA. MSDC and ESDC are
prepared to continue a dialogue with FRA, to respond to any questions or comments, to prepare a final
EA, and (if requested) to prepare a draft FONSI for FRA review and consideration.
4) Remaining SEQRA Review. With respect to SEQRA, a technical memorandum, similar
to the draft EA, is being prepared to determine whether any project modifications or changes in
circumstances occurring since preparation of the 2006 SEQRA FEIS require further examination in a
supplemental EIS. If the technical memorandum demonstrates that the updated Project does not present
any significant adverse environmental impacts not previously addressed in the 2006 SEQRA FEIS, it is
anticipated that ESDC and MSDC would determine that no supplemental EIS under SEQRA is required,
thereby completing the SEQRA review of the updated Project.
5) No Approvals Required Under Historic Review Laws. No approvals are expected to be
required with respect to the Project under the applicable historic review laws and regulations.
Consultation has and will continue to take place with the New York State Historic Preservation Office
(“SHPO”) and other consulting parties identified pursuant to the Section 106 process, as required by
federal and State law, and it is anticipated that SHPO will confirm in a revised Programmatic Agreement
(that would replace a Programmatic Agreement executed in 2006 (see Appendix J) that, subject to review
of the final design, it expects the current Project would not have any adverse effect on historic resources.
In the event FRA determines, on the basis of the draft EA submitted on August 24, 2009 and the Section
106 consultation process, that the Project would not have adverse effects on the Farley Complex, the de
minimis exemption to the Section 4(f) requirements would be applicable, and no additional findings
would be needed to satisfy the requirements of that statute.
D. Legislative Approval. The Project, including Phase I, will require approval of the New York
State Public Authorities Control Board (“PACB”), a body consisting of one representative each from the
New York State Assembly, the New York State Senate, and the New York State Governor’s Office. Such
approval will be sought in late 2009, and should take approximately five months. No other legislative
approvals are required.
E. Project Already Incorporated into State and Local Transportation Planning. The Project,
including the Phase I improvements described in this Application, is included in both the region’s
Transportation Improvement Program (“TIP”) and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Project
(“STIP”).
The Metropolitan Planning Organization (“MPO”) covering the Project is the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council (“NYMTC”). NYMTC’s current TIP was adopted in October 2007 and covers the
federal fiscal year (FFY) period of 2008‐12 (October 1, 2007 thru September 30, 2012). The Project was
part of this adopted program.
On December 10, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration formally approved the New York Statewide
TIP (STIP) for the same period (FYY 2008‐2012), which included the Project.
The approved TIP listing does not identify all currently available public funding sources, and is, therefore,
in the process of being amended. The amended listing will reflect the increase in total funding, amend
the name of the project, and update the project description. NYMTC has worked closely with project staff
on the amendment and it is expected to be completed by the end of 2009.
9
F. Funding Sources Have Been Identified and Secured. NYSDOT, ESDC, MSDC and the PA have
worked hard to identify and secure a package of funding sources covering all of the projected costs of
Phase I work. The overall Project has received several federal funding awards since its inception. These
have included awards within the recent rounds of the various transportation authorization bills passed by
Congress, as well as specific earmarks within other funding bills. Starting in 1997, the Project was
provided funding as part of ISTEA, and later received funding within the TEA‐21 authorization process.
FHWA funding, managed by New York State and matched with State funds, provided an additional source
of funding for the Project in its early stages. These sources, combined with local matches provided by the
City, paid for all public pre‐construction and planning costs for the Project. Other federal funding was
included in spending bills for fiscal years 2001‐2003, although these funds remain currently un‐obligated.
The projected costs of the Phase I work, and the sources of funds to be applied to cover such costs are
summarized below:
Total estimated cost of Phase I work: $267 Million
Funding Sources:
TIGER Discretionary Grant: $98, 281,730
Other funds (federal, State and
local) $168,718,270
The currently available public funding sources for Phase I are:
Federal
PL 104‐59 (ISTEA/NHSDA) Executed $5,167,062
PL 105‐66 Executed $12,000,000
PL 105‐178 (TEA‐21) Executed $16,478,285
FY 01 PL 106‐346 Not Executed $19,956,856
FY 02 PL 107‐87 Not Executed $20,000,000
FY 03 PL108‐7 Not Executed $19,870,000
SAFETEA‐LU Not Executed $15,000,000
FHWA Executed $1,246,067
Total Federal sources: $109,718,270
State/Local
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Not Executed $10,000,000
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Not Executed $35,000,000
Other State and Local Funds (CMAQ
application pending) Not Executed $14,000,000
Total State/Local sources: $59,000,000
Total Sources: $168,718,270
Project Cost: $267,000,000
TIGER Request: $98,281,730
The total estimated cost includes a contingency factor of 10% (approximately $25 Million), to address
potential overruns. This is consistent with contingency reserves established for large infrastructure
projects, including FRA projects. In addition, MSDC, ESDC and the PA are advancing the Phase I work on
10
behalf of the State. It is anticipated that the State, and/or MSDC, ESDC and the PA, will absorb any cost
overruns not covered by the contingency amount.
G. An Experienced Project Team Has Been Assembled to Manage the Work Going Forward. The
Phase I work going forward will be jointly managed by senior officials at MSDC and the PA, assisted by a
team of nationally‐recognized engineering, design and environmental consultants. The overall
coordinator of the Phase I project will be Andrew Lynn (PA ‐ Senior Advisor to the Executive Director and
Director of Regional Development), assisted by Robin Stout (MSDC – President), Peter Rinaldi (PA ‐
Assistant Director for Special Projects ‐ PA Engineering Department), and Mark D. Hoffer (PA ‐ Special
Advisor to the Executive Director and Senior Counsel). Each of these individuals has 25‐35 years of public
nd
and private sector experience, including work on major public projects such as Moynihan Station, the 42
nd
Street Bus Terminal, the World Trade Center, the PATH commuter rail system, the 42 Street (Times
Square) Development Project, and the Jacob Javits Convention Center. The team has been supplemented
by outstanding, internationally recognized consultants, including but not limited to: Skidmore Owings &
Merrill, long‐term design architects for the Project; Systra Engineering, specializing in below‐grade
coordination with the railroads; Severud Associates, providing structural engineering; URS, providing
engineering, design, and "owner's representative" services; AKRF, an environmental services firm with
decades of specialized expertise in Manhattan mega‐projects; and Bryan Cave, a multi‐disciplinary law
firm with specialties in real estate and environmental law.
H. Significant Experience in Managing Federal Grants. The PA, which has developed this
Application with MSDC and, together with MSDC, will be part of the team that will administer the Project
going forward, has successfully managed previous federal grants that are equal to or substantially greater
in amount than the TIGER Discretionary Grant being sought herein. The PA manages an extensive
program of capital investments in its transportation facilities. It currently anticipates spending
approximately $26 billion on such investments during the 10 year period of 2007‐2016.
I. Significant In‐House Financial Management Capabilities. With respect to financial
management of the Phase I work, both ESDC (the parent of MSDC) and the PA are established
governmental organizations, each having been in existence for decades. Each organization has a chief
financial officer and an in‐house accounting and treasury staff. Each has the legal authority to issue
bonds, notes and other evidence of indebtedness, and each regularly issues debt instruments for general
corporate purposes that has been highly rated by national rating organizations (The PA’s Consolidated
Bonds were most recently rated Aa3 by Moody’s Investors Service, AA‐ by Standard & Poor’s, and AA‐ by
Fitch; ESDC’s senior general corporate purpose debt was most recently rated Aaa by Moody’s, AAA by
Standard & Poor’s, and AAA by Fitch).
J. Wide Support for the Project. The Project, including the Phase I work, enjoys wide support
from many stakeholders including transportation advocacy and historic preservation groups, the real
estate and construction industry, State and City elected officials. (See Appendix B for letters of support. )
For all of the above reasons, NYSDOT, ESDC, MSDC and the PA believe that the Phase I project is feasible,
and that timely completion of the Phase I work can be readily achieved. Although any large‐scale
construction project poses risks, the aforementioned parties believe that the risks in this case are
manageable and have been effectively addressed.
V. Long‐Term Outcome Discussion
A. Summary. Phase I of the Project will make significant improvements to the capacity and
functionality of the Penn Station complex as a whole. By rehabilitating existing, and building new,
concourse space and vertical access points, Phase I will improve existing elements of Penn and will reduce
overall operational stress and cost (See “State of Good Repair” below). Phase I elements will also
11
directly increase the economic competitiveness of not only the Far West Side of Manhattan, but of the
City and the entire region. This has national and international ramifications as global companies make
world‐wide decisions on where to locate their operations (See “Economic Competitiveness” below).
Further, the Phase I improvements improve mobility and connectivity, and the reuse of existing facilities
over existing rail tracks is a very efficient use of resources (See “Livability” and “Sustainability” below).
The platform ventilation improvements are critical life‐safety enhancements that will safeguard the lives
of hundreds of thousands of people daily (See “Safety and Security” below). Finally, Phase I will be
coordinated with the Access to the Region’s Core (“ARC”) Project and the expansion of the #7 subway
line; these two projects are companion projects to the larger Project, and will also assist in moving
employees and residents to and from new commercial development expected throughout the Far West
Side.
B. State of Good Repair. Existing Penn Station operates well beyond its capacity, is inefficiently
organized, fails to operate in full compliance with NFPA 130 life safety standards, and consists of many
antiquated elements in need of rehabilitation. These defects constrain and discourage both inter‐city and
commuter passenger rail travel into the City, impede the implementation of true High Speed Rail on both
the Northeast and Empire Corridors, and constitute a drag on the entire New York/New Jersey regional
economy. Without efficient and welcoming public transit access, fewer people will live, work, play, visit,
and spend in the region, and projected future growth will fail to materialize. Phase I will begin to take
direct, tangible, quantifiable steps to substantially alleviate constraining conditions in the Penn Station
complex, and specifically will repair, rehabilitate, and extend existing Station elements such as the West
rd
End Concourse, the 33 Street Connector, and Platform Ventilation, which in their current inadequate
condition do not adequately serve Penn’s existing passengers (let alone additional future passengers) and
therefore threaten economic growth and stability.
1) Historical Design Issues of Access and Ventilation. For decades, federal, State,
regional, and City transportation officials have labored to improve Penn Station. One critical design flaw
in the Penn Station complex for today’s rail passengers is that although approximately one‐third of the
length of Penn’s platforms extends beneath Farley (west of 8th Avenue), for decades there was no
passenger vertical access beneath Farley. This is a vestige of Penn Station’s days as primarily an inter‐city
hub in the first half of the last century, when the eastern two‐thirds of the platforms (east of 8th Avenue)
was more than sufficient for passenger rail, and the western one‐third of the platforms (west of 8th
Avenue) were dedicated to USPS for “mail‐by‐rail” (hence, the Farley Post Office). The physical structures
have not changed, but demand has undergone a staggering reversal: in the latter half of the last century,
through today, passenger rail travel (particularly commuting) has expanded exponentially, while USPS
reliance on rail transport has dwindled to essentially nothing. Therefore, although no mail has been
dropped from Farley to the platforms in years, nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of commuters who
every day board or exit the western third of trains (beneath Farley) are forced to walk hundreds of feet
east before they can access Penn Station and the City beyond. This keeps the platforms dangerously
crowded beyond their capacity, increases train dwell time, and generally clogs inter‐city and commuter
rail traffic throughout the entire region and the entire Northeast Corridor.
The LIRR recognized this situation, and began to address it with the construction of the WEC, completed
th
in 1988. For the first time, platform access for passengers became available west of 8 Avenue, but only
for Platforms 7 to 11 (Penn Station’s northern‐most platforms, used primarily by LIRR), and not to Farley
(which remained a postal facility). Senator Moynihan took the Farley possibilities much further by
conceiving of the conversion of the Farley Building itself into a train hall with myriad direct connections to
all platforms and to the WEC.
Additionally, again as a result of the historic “Penn passenger”/”Farley mail” split, for decades platform
ventilation has existed in the trainshed only between 7th and 8th Avenues. No platform ventilation exists
west of 8th Avenue, although the entire Farley block has been decked over (to 9th Avenue) for more than
70 years. Such an arrangement would present difficulties in the event of an emergency smoke condition
in the trainshed, and fails to comply with NFPA Standard 130 (see “Safety” below).
12
These historic design issues stymie the potential for Penn Station and threaten future economic growth
and stability for the entire New York/New Jersey region.
2) Current Plan to Substantially Upgrade Existing Access and Ventilation, and Minimize
Life‐Cycle Costs. Phase I of the Project will immediately address these issues by rehabilitating and
expanding the WEC, creating thirteen new passenger vertical access points between the platforms and
the WEC, creating WEC access directly to/from 8th Avenue, rehabilitating and expanding the 33rd Street
Connector between WEC, the subway, and Penn Station, and creating six new platform ventilation fan
rooms in the trainshed beneath Farley to extend the existing system currently in operation at Penn
Station.
These improvements are part of, and are wholly consistent with, federal, State, City, and railroad efforts
to maintain Penn Station complex facilities in a state of good repair. But even further than merely
rehabilitating and improving current facilities, the Phase I work will substantially lessen the strain on,
increase the useful life of, and reduce costs connected with the maintenance of, existing circulation and
ventilation elements throughout the Penn Station complex as a whole. Thus, by extending the life and
reducing the cost of maintaining the Penn Station complex facilities as a whole, these improvements lay
the groundwork for a future new train hall within the Farley Building (part of Phase II) and future
increases in train and passenger capacity, which are fundamental pre‐requisites to future regional
transportation and economic growth.
3) Funding Capital and Operating Costs. The Phase I capital construction budget is $267
million, of which $98,281,730 is sought via this TIGER Application and the remainder would be funded as
set forth in Part IV, “Shovel Ready Criteria; Feasibility” above. Revenue sources available to pay for the
costs of long‐term operation and maintenance of Phase I facilities can be divided into several sources.
Amtrak will be responsible for on‐going operation and maintenance of new platform ventilation, so as to
coordinate fully with the existing ventilation under Penn. It is expected that LIRR and NJT will participate
in the upkeep of the extended WEC for the benefit and comfort of their passengers. The trainshed space
is owned by Amtrak, which has an agreement with LIRR for the existing WEC. This agreement will serve
as a model for future arrangements between Amtrak, LIRR and NJT with respect to the WEC.
The capital costs of the Phase I work will be covered as described above. It is expected that the capital
costs of Phase II of the Project will be financed through a combination of some or all of the following
sources: (1) payments by private developers of the non‐train station portion of the Farley Building; (2)
retail revenue generated in the new train hall; (3) funding from the PA; (4) CMAQ funding; (5) City
contributions from its capital budget and/or incremental tax revenues or payments in lieu of taxes; (6)
federal funds awarded by the FRA under its High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program; and (7)
the sale of unused development rights from the Farley Building, which will be used to support new
residential/commercial construction in the immediate area.
C. Economic Competitiveness. Phase I of the Project is expected to create significant economic
benefits for the City and the greater metropolitan region. The Project will facilitate the efficient and safe
movement of commuters, and inter‐city travelers through Penn Station, the most heavily trafficked
transportation hub in North America. The WEC expansion and platform ventilation project is expected to
generate tangible transportation benefits through:
Time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and
congestion and shorter walk distances; and
Increased railroad ridership resulting from a shift to rail travel from other modes.
The time savings benefits result from four different factors: reduced time required to clear platforms
following train arrivals, shorter walking distances for passengers going to or coming from locations on the
13
West Side of Manhattan and the Eighth Avenue Subway, and reduced congestion within the Penn Station
concourses.
The addition of vertical circulation elements to the expanded WEC will result in faster platform clearance
and will reduce passenger queuing times by 85,500 passenger‐hours annually.
Improved access for users of Penn Station provides a more direct route to the West Side of Manhattan, an
area expected to receive up to 50 million square feet of new residential and office space in the coming
decades. The improvement in accessibility is expected to reduce walking for the 1,823 passengers (1,770
commuters and 53 intercity travelers) that will walk to and from locations to the west of Penn Station in
the year 2015 using the WEC. Annually, the reduction translates into a cumulative walk time‐savings of
201,340 passenger‐hours.
The WEC extension offers passengers the same opportunity for a more direct and less congested walking
path to and from the Eighth Avenue Subway station. On average, these passengers will save
approximately 200 feet in walk distance, which, at an average walk speed of 3.5 ft/sec, generates an
average time‐savings of slightly less than two minutes per trip. Peak hour cumulative passenger time‐
savings in the year 2015 would be 197,000 passenger‐hours annually.
The additional concourse space of the extended WEC will divert passengers away from Penn Station’s
biggest bottlenecks to reduce congestion and consequential delays. The reduction in congestion levels is
expected to improve peak level of service from D to C at major bottleneck locations throughout the
station. For the year, 2015, the reduction translates into daily time‐savings of 3,000 passenger‐minutes
and cumulative annual savings of 14,000 passenger‐hours.
As previously described, Phase I will reduce platform queuing times during the peak periods, which can
reduce the length of time that trains need to dwell in the station and potentially shorten the intervals
between trains arriving at a platform to discharge passengers. The reduction in overall queue times would
be on the order of 0.5 minutes per train. With the station operating at or above its practical capacity
during the peak periods, the augmentation of the station’s throughput capacity by even a small amount
will result in the ability of the railroads to carry incrementally more passengers.
An analysis was performed of a hypothetical morning peak hour. For purposes of this analysis it is
assumed that (1) space for one additional commuter train within the peak period is made available by the
passenger circulation benefits of the WEC expansion, (2) latent demand will exist for this additional
capacity, and (3) peak period commuters will shift to trains from other modes (including driving to
Manhattan, driving to a Hudson River ferry, and taking commuter buses). One additional full‐length NJT
peak train would carry approximately 1,600 passengers. The annual NJT ridership increment attributable
to the project would be approximately 800,000 trips. Over the course of a year, trips diverted to rail
would result in a reduction of 640,000 bus‐miles and 4.7 million vehicle‐miles traveled (VMT) annually.
Commuters switching from other modes of transportation would also realize a time savings benefit.
Assuming an average time‐savings of approximately 11 minutes per trip (equivalent to an increase in
average speed from 30 mph to 35 mph), passengers shifting from bus to rail would save 122,000
passenger‐hours of travel time per year. For passengers shifting from the ferry and auto modes, assuming
an average time savings of approximately 10 minutes per trip, the associated time savings would be
26,700 passenger‐hours of travel time per year. These ferry and auto passengers would also realize an
out‐of‐pocket cost savings associated with not having to park either in Manhattan parking garages or at
the Hudson River ferry terminals.
Amtrak also would realize an incremental capacity benefit during the commuter peak periods, associated
with shorter platform clearance times, modest reductions in average platform dwell times and reduced
pedestrian congestion within the portions of the station jointly used by Amtrak and the commuter
14
railroads. This analysis assumes a shift of 560 daily passengers to intercity rail, with two‐thirds being
diverted from air travel and one‐third from the automobile mode. The mode shift to intercity rails would
yield an annual savings of approximately 77,500 passenger‐hours in travel time and nearly 13.9 million
VMT in the Northeast Corridor.
The time‐savings of individuals as a result of faster platform clearance, and reduced congestion and walk
time is reinvested in the economy. By reducing the transportation costs of Penn Station users, the New
York City region increases productivity and efficiency. Increased productivity in the largest U.S. regional
economy, which contributes the largest share to the national Gross Domestic Product, has substantial
effects on the economic competitiveness and growth of the Nation. In addition, the project’s location
supports new growth that will increase transit use, reduce high‐cost auto‐dependency, and thereby
indirectly increase the Region’s and the Nation’s economic development and productivity.
D. Livability. Phase I of the Project focuses entirely on improving passenger mobility and safety
in the nation’s busiest rail station by enabling faster boarding and exiting, reduced train dwell time, and
reduced congestion in the Moynihan/Penn Station complex, for all Penn Station users. In addition, Phase
I is the necessary first step to Phase II’s new train hall and to any long‐term plan to add tracks and
platforms at existing Penn Station. Collectively, these Moynihan Station improvements become a
lynchpin between the region’s housing markets and its main commercial market, and will make rail a
more attractive commuting choice, thereby encouraging transit‐related development and density in
accordance with sound urban planning.
Taken as a whole, Phase I will accomplish the following:
1) Enhances User Mobility and Modal Connectivity. As demonstarted under
“Economic Competitiveness” above, Phase I improvements will enable more people to move more quickly
through Penn Station, to the subway, and to the street. Ticketing and improved information displays in
the WEC will reduce passenger boarding, exiting, and transfer times. Currently, passengers seeking to
transfer between railroads are required to exit from their arriving concourse before seeing displays with
departing train information for other railroads.
rd th st th
The new street level exits from the WEC on 33 Street and 8 Avenue and 31 Street and 8 Avenue will
reduce congestion in Penn Station and give rail riders direct access to the street and to bus and taxi
connections. Conversely, these entrances give surface travelers, for the first time, rail access through the
historic Farley Building, which was designed as a companion to the original Pennsylvania Station. Thus,
the Phase I improvements as a whole expand the traveling public’s opportunities for easily and
conveniently transferring between modes.
2) Improves Accessibility and Transportation Services. The expanded and
extended WEC and 33rd Street Connector, will, for the first time, be compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). Incline angles will be reduced to allow for safe passage for customers with
wheelchairs and ease of passage for customers with mobility issues. In addition, the improved 33rd Street
Connector will now allow those customers to access the 8th Avenue subways from Penn Station, Farley
and the WEC.
3) Comprehensive Planning Process. The Project design is the culmination of
coordination and planning among many stakeholders. Government agencies, including ESDC, MSDC,
USPS, the PA, SHPO, the New York City Office of the Mayor and the Department of City Planning, have
collaborated on the design and worked to maximize improvements for commuters and neighborhood
residents alike. As the coordinating agency, MSDC has worked closely with the railroads and civic groups,
including Friends of Moynihan Station and the Municipal Arts Society to incorporate their ideas. The
public has had the opportunity to comment on the design through numerous public hearings throughout
the process.
15
E. Sustainability. The Project as a whole, including Phase I, is expected to divert passenger trips
to more energy‐efficient travel modes, thereby reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
The shift to rail will also reduce criteria pollutant emissions within the New York‐North New Jersey‐Long
Island, NY‐NJ‐CT PM2.5 and ozone nonattainment areas (New York and New Jersey portions).
In order to quantify the energy and emissions benefits from Phase I, the following assumptions were
made:
1) Although some mode shift from bus to rail is predicted to occur, it is conservatively
assumed that bus headways will not be increased (i.e., bus frequency will not decrease). Therefore, bus
emissions were not assumed to be reduced. Similarly, predicted reductions in aviation emissions were not
included, although passenger air trips may be reduced.
2) Increase in rail ridership is not assumed to result in increased emissions from rail
since significant capacity currently exists in the system. According to the Amtrak National Fact Sheet: FY
2008 (Amtrak, February 2009), Amtrak sold 8,739,345 tickets to/from NYC in 2008. The increase in annual
Amtrak ridership due to Phase I is estimated to be 280,000 trips, representing a 3.2% increase, equivalent
to less than 1 additional passenger per car. Similarly, the NJ Transit Annual Report, 2008 (NJ Transit, 2009)
reported 52.9 million riders for FY2008 on the Newark Division. If we assume half of those are to/from
Penn Station (it is likely more) that would result in 26.5 million. The Phase I increment on NJ Transit lines
is estimated to be 800,000 trips—an approximate increase of 1.5% (likely less).
3) Vehicle criteria pollutant emissions were calculated based on EPA’s Mobile6.2
emissions model, using the latest assumptions available from New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT).
Criteria pollutant emission reductions were calculated only within the nonattainment areas.
4) Greenhouse gas emission reductions were calculated for all vehicle trips reduced,
based on an average fuel economy rate of 22.1 miles per gallon in 2015,1 and 8,877 grams of CO2 per
gallon of gasoline2 (this includes only direct emissions—an additional 22% would be reduced upstream
due to the reduction in extraction, refining, and transport of fuels).
The emission factors and mileage calculations are presented in detail in Appendix C. The predicted
reduction in vehicular emissions due to Phase I in 2015 would be as follows:
Pollutant Emissions Reduced (tons per year)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 2.8
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 4.1
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 74.1
Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.2
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 0.1
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 6,378
Gasoline Consumption Reduced: 651,771 gallons per year.
Note: Criteria pollutant reductions include emissions within nonattainment areas only. CO2 emission
reductions include all areas.
1
Energy Information Administration, An Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook, 2009. Table 7: Transportation Sector Key Indicators
and Delivered Energy Consumption.
2
Based on the carbon content of gasoline. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113).
16
Since reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption is both a State and City goal under the
State Energy Plan, PlaNYC, New York State Executive Order 24 of 2009 and other policies and initiatives,
the Project would be consistent with those policies.
F. Safety and Security. Phase I is a passenger rail transportation facility rehabilitation that will
significantly upgrade safety and security for the more than 640,000 passenger trips that pass through the
Penn Station complex on a daily basis, not simply in emergency situations, but also for the “day‐in, day‐
out” rail passenger in ordinary circumstances.
1) Life Safety ‐ Ordinary Circumstances. Today, in ordinary circumstances, the platforms
and concourses of Penn carry crowds far in excess of their intended capacities. This not only
compromises the ability to navigate the complex in any sort of prompt or efficient manner, but more
importantly produces dangerously overcrowded conditions. Further, in circumstances where two or
more trains simultaneously board or discharge in close proximity, these conditions become even worse.
When even modest delays occur, levels of service can promptly fall to “F”, or virtual stand‐still, with
lengthy dwell times at platforms, and an occasional need to restrict movement at Penn (e.g., on certain
occasions, due to congestion, the LIRR has found it necessary to close off its entrance to Penn Station on
34th Street). If extraordinary disruption were to occur (whether explosive, air‐borne, or otherwise), the
likely result would be catastrophic. These are unacceptable concerns in the country’s busiest
transportation facility.
Phase I will redistribute passenger loads over a wider area, which will substantially ease congestion and
reduce conflicting movements of inter‐city and commuter rail users at both access points and concourses.
It will also provide easier and faster access for passengers descending to or coming up from the platform
level, for passengers moving from Penn Station to Farley and vice versa, and for passengers moving
between the WEC, the 8th Avenue subway and Penn Station.
2) Life Safety – Emergency Evacuation. As noted above, for most of Penn Station’s
platforms, approximately one‐third of the platform length lies under the Farley Building. However, there
are currently no vertical access points allowing passengers to ascend from the platform level to the Farley
Building and then out to the street. Instead, they must walk hundreds of feet eastward to utilize
stairways, elevators and escalators located beneath Penn Station. In the event of a fire or other
emergency, this could create a dangerous condition, especially during the morning and evening peak
periods. Moreover, there is currently no platform ventilation system in place covering the portions of
platforms lying under the Farley Building, even though these areas can become crowded with both
commuter and intercity rail passengers. In the event of a fire or smoke condition, passengers could be
exposed to serious injury due to smoke inhalation, or ‐‐‐ even worse ‐‐‐ could become confused or
uncertain as to how to evacuate the station if these areas become filled with smoke. The Phase I work
addresses these issues in two ways. First, as already described, the extension and expansion of the WEC,
and the creation of new vertical access points under the Farley Building, will allow passengers at the
western end of platforms to ascend from the platforms and exit the Moynihan/Penn Station complex
much more quickly and directly. Second, the installation of platform ventilation systems under Farley,
similar to that already in place under Penn, will allow smoke to be more readily purged from the platform
level, thus avoiding smoke‐related injuries and improving visibility for safer and more efficient station
evacuation.
The probability of occurrence of a fire or other emergency incident at Penn Station and the magnitude of
the benefit that the proposed project would generate compared to the existing conditions is difficult to
quantify. In the absence of a rigorous risk assessment, however, an analysis has identified two
hypothetical scenarios where the improved configuration of passenger egress points would reduce the
size of the population of passengers vulnerable to an emergency event. One scenario is a track fire or
other significant smoke‐generating incident at platform level. The second scenario would be a fire or
other emergency occurring at the level of the WEC or within the Eighth Avenue Subway station, requiring
evacuation to street level of the occupants of the WEC.
17
For the platform level scenario, emergency egress platform clearance times are calculated for the existing
condition and for the Moynihan Station Phase I condition with the WEC extension constructed. The
methodology report attached as Appendix D, contains a table that compares the time needed to clear
selected platforms (3 through 6) of passengers with a full trainload of passengers simultaneously
occupying each platform track and indicates the extent to which platform clearance time would be
reduced as a result of the WEC improvements. Using the maximum clearance rate for stairs and
escalators, according to NFPA 130 criteria, the table calculates the number passengers who would be
exposed or vulnerable to adverse conditions at the platform level with the existing configuration, but who
would be able to safely exit the platforms under the proposed configuration. The average for the four
platforms would be 933 passengers. Assuming a hypothetical casualty rate of 10 percent for a serious
incident at track level, one occurrence of this emergency scenario could generate an estimated 93
casualties (see Appendix D, Section 3, “Life Safety‐Emergency Evacuation”).
Farley would also reduce the time needed to get passengers from any point within the station complex to
a point of safe refuge at street level, thanks to more vertical circulation elements, and two additional
station entry/exit points. Having 9 street exits instead of the existing 7 will increase the overall throughput
capacity of the station’s street‐level entrances from 2,200 persons/minute to 2,600 persons/minute. The
methodology report attached as Appendix D, contains a table that presents an estimate of the
incremental egress capacity benefits of the Moynihan Phase I project relative to existing conditions. The
project will eliminate an existing cul‐de‐sac condition and increase street egress capacity by a greater
amount than ridership is estimated to increase. Once again, assuming a hypothetical casualty rate of 10
percent, one occurrence of this emergency evacuation could cause an estimated 82 casualties (see
Appendix D, Section 3, “Life Safety‐Emergency Evacuation”).
3) Roadway Accident Reduction. The reduction of auto and bus VMT will result in safety
improvements in the form of fewer incidences of traffic accidents for local and regional users of the
roadway network. The total expected annual VMT savings of 18.5 million would lead to a reduction in
fatalities and accidents. The per‐VMT rates of all freeway accidents were obtained from National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 3 The per‐VMT accident rates applied to the total VMT reduction
translates to 7 fatalities, 428 injury accidents, 834 property‐damage‐only accidents, and 280 minor
accidents avoided over the analysis period.
V. Long‐Term Outcomes, Benefit/Cost Analysis Requirements
A. Introduction. As explained more fully in other sections of this Application, Phase I of the Project is
expected to create significant economic, safety, and environmental benefits for City and surrounding
region. Several primary benefits of Phase I are quantified in economic terms in the following analysis:
o Time savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and
congestion and shorter walk distances;
o Vehicle operating, ownership, and parking cost savings associated with less vehicles trips and
vehicle miles traveled;
o Safety gains from reduced highway and roadway accidents;
o Improved life safety conditions within the station; and
o Environmental benefits from reduced vehicle emissions.
The primary results of the economic benefits analysis are summarized in Table 1 below. At a 7% real
discount rate, the Present Value (PV) of the Phase I total benefits is $498 million for the base case
scenario. At a 3% discount rate, the PV of the Phase I benefits would be $1.05 billion.
3
NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2009, “2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment‐ Highlights”
18
Table 1: Summary of Benefits at 7% Real Discount Rate in the Base Case Scenario
Benefits Value of Benefits Value of Benefits
Benefit Category (2009$M) (2009$M) (2009$M)
Discounted @ 3% Discounted @ 7%
Economic Competitiveness
Local Travel Time Savings Benefit $603 $300.5 $143.3
Intercity Travel Time Savings Benefit $107.4 $53.6 $25.5
Vehicle Operating & Ownership Cost
$266.8 $132.0 $63.4
Savings Benefits
Parking Cost Saving Benefits $40 $19.9 $9.5
Safety
Roadway Accident Reduction Safety
$1,009.1 $503.0 $239.8
Benefits
Sustainability
Environmental Benefits $80.2 $37.8 $16.9
TOTAL Benefit 2,106.5 1,047.9 $498.4
For details regarding methodology of development of this analysis please refer to the “Moynihan Station
Project‐Phase I: Economic Benefit‐Cost Analysis Report, September 2009, attached as Appendix D.
B. Economic Competitiveness
Travel Time Savings: There are two main categories of travel time benefits that were included in the
benefits quantification:
1) Existing rail users (i.e., walk/ wait travel time savings): This includes, travel‐time
savings for rail passengers in and around Penn Station resulting from reduced queuing and congestion and
shorter walk distances. These will be accrued by both local as well as intercity rail passengers.
2) New rail users (i.e., trips diverted to rail from other modes such as bus, auto and air)
Incremental railroad ridership will result from people shifting from other modes – buses (in case of local
passenger), autos (in case of both local and intercity passengers) and air (in case of intercity passengers) –
to rail.
In accordance with the United States Department of Transportation (“USDOT”) guidance, the travel time
of new rail users was valued at weighted average rates prescribed for all purposes. The travel time of
existing rail users (which mainly includes walk and wait time that has greater disutility than in‐vehicle
time) was valued at 100% of personal travel value of time. The values of time as used in the analysis are
summarized in Table 2 below.
19
Table 2: Hourly Values of Time in 2009 Dollars 4
Hourly Value of Time
Travel Time Category
(2009 $/ Hour)
Local In‐Vehicle Travel Time (all modes) $16.88
Local and Intercity Travel Walk/ Wait Time $26.59
Intercity In‐Vehicle Travel Time (all modes) $24.95
Using the above assumptions, time savings benefits were estimated to have a present value of $168.8
million over the evaluation period.
Vehicle Operating and Ownership Cost Savings Benefits: With fewer automobiles on the road, and hence
fewer miles traveled there will be reduction in auto operating and ownership costs for non‐transit users.
In terms of operating costs, shifting from driving to transit reduces overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by
18.5 million miles annually, which provides savings in the marginal costs of auto travel (fuel, maintenance
and tires).
The reduction in auto VMT due to the Moynihan Station project will result in reduced vehicle operating
costs, vehicle ownership costs for households, and reductions in vehicle usage costs. Overall vehicle
operating cost, ownership and usage cost is valued at a weighted average rate of $0.36 per vehicle mile
(in 2009 dollars).
Vehicle operating cost benefits accruing from the Moynihan Station project are estimated to have a
present value of $63.4 million over the evaluation period.
Furthermore, as a result of the auto VMT savings, fuel consumption is reduced by nearly 700 thousand
gallons annually. Reducing the use of fuel, and thereby lessening U.S. dependence on foreign supply of oil,
is a key imperative of the nation’s economic competitiveness and sustainability policy.
Parking Cost Reductions: Reductions in the number of auto trips caused by the Moynihan Station may also
reduce expenditures on parking, depending on trip destinations. With additional rail use, short‐term
parking benefits could manifest in terms of reduced demand for parking spaces, and hence, potentially
lower parking costs. In the long run, reduced land requirements for parking facilities may free up land for
other uses.
An estimate of parking cost savings based on number of one‐way auto trips eliminated was found to be a
$1,000,000 annually in 2009 dollars. This assumes that 75% of the eliminated auto trips use the parking at
a ferry station and 25% use parking available in Manhattan. This results in parking cost savings of $9.5
million over the evaluation period in present value terms.
D. Safety
1) Accident Reduction Safety Benefits: Reductions in VMT lower the incidence of traffic
accidents, which results in direct savings. Highway accident frequencies obtained from National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are applied to annual VMT reduction estimates obtained from the
regional travel demand model. Using $6,000,000 (in year 2009 dollars) as the value of a statistical life
4
All values of time were obtained from Revised USDOT Guidance: Value of Travel Time in Economic Analysis, 2003 in 2000 dollars
and escalated to 2009 dollars based on a factor of 1.26 as proposed by USDOT in Response to Questions and Requests for
Clarification Submitted to DOT regarding the TIGER Discretionary Grants Program, August 28, 2009.
20
(VSL), and using the ratios prescribed by USDOT to value other accidents as a fraction of the VSL, the
associated annual economic savings were computed. 5
The present value of accident savings benefits accruing from the Moynihan Station project over the
evaluation period are estimated at $239.8 million.
2) Life Safety – Emergency Evacuation: There are insufficient data to quantify
definitively the probability of occurrence of a fire or other emergency incident at Penn Station and the
magnitude of the benefit that the proposed project would generate compared to the existing conditions.
However, to add some quantification to the project’s life‐safety benefits in the absence of a rigorous risk
assessment, a sensitivity analysis was also performed to analyze a hypothetical scenario where two
accidents have a 10% probability of occurring in 2020, resulting in 175 casualties. For this scenario, the
probability‐weighted present value of the economic benefit of avoiding these impacts is estimated to be
6
$50 million (using a 7% discount rate). If these benefits were included in the benefits analysis, the
present value of the project’s total economic benefits would be $548 million. Using a 3% discount rate,
the present value would be $1.12 billion.
E. Sustainability
Environmental Benefits: As indicated above, one other key benefit of reduction in VMT is a reduction in
emissions. With fewer vehicles on the road, there will be a reduction in such pollutants as Carbon Dioxide
(the primary greenhouse gas), Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Oxides, and Volatile Organic
Compounds.
Average vehicle emissions, for both autos and trucks for each of the above‐named pollutants, in terms of
grams per mile traveled, were obtained from the Caltrans Cal‐B/C model, as well as the EPA’s MOBILE6
Vehicle Emissions Modeling Software. 7 The total amount (in tons) of avoided emissions was computed
using the differential VMT. The health cost of emissions per ton was obtained from National Center for
Statistics and Analysis. 8 These were then applied to the emissions rate and an annual health cost of
avoided emissions was estimated. Using the above assumptions, the present value of the monetary
benefits accrued due to saved emissions, are estimated at $16.9 million in present value terms over the
evaluation period.
VI. Job Creation & Economic Stimulus
During Phase I of the Project, a total of $256.1 million, net of finance and insurance costs, will be spent on
the Project. The impact of the construction spending will benefit not only the economy of the New York
Metropolitan region, but also the broader national economy through the ripple effects of materials and
equipment purchases and the spending of workers employed by the Project.
Construction spending on Phase I is expected to generate or support almost 2,500 job‐years of
employment and $134.7 million in payroll wages (in 2009 dollars) for the nation. In the immediate region
of the Phase I work (see Appendix for a profile of the region), it is estimated that the construction outlays
will create or support nearly 1,560 job‐years of employment and $88.4 million in payroll wages (in 2009
dollars). Direct employment from developing Phase I is estimated at 820 job‐years, with wages of $55.2
5
Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analysis, U.S. DOT, March 18, 2009.
6
If the scenario assumed the accidents had a 100% chance of occurring in year 2020, the economic benefit of avoiding these
accidents would be approximately $500 million in present value terms.
7
http://epa.gov/otaq/m6.htm
8
USDOT Benefit‐Cost Guidelines; Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011 Passenger Cars
and Light Trucks, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, March 2009.
21
million. The distribution of total construction impacts over the design/construction of Phase I is given in
the Phase I schedule appearing in Part IV, “Shovel Ready Criteria; Feasibility.”
The PA and the other sponsoring agencies for the Project have a history of using minority‐owned, woman‐
owned, small and disadvantaged businesses in procurement awards and encouraging their participation in
sub‐contracting opportunities. From 2002 – 2007, for example, the PA awarded construction, engineering
and goods and services contracts totaling $7.1 billion, of which $1.1 billion, or 15.7 percent, went to
either minority, woman‐owned or small businesses (see Appendix F on PA Minority Participation). Based
on this historical ratio, it is anticipated that at least $41 million of the construction spending on Phase I
will be awarded to minority‐owned, woman‐owned, small or disadvantaged firms.
Job Generation during the Operational Phase
Operation and maintenance spending on the completed Phase I is expected to total $1.4 million annually.
It is estimated that this level of spending will support 14 total permanent jobs nationally, with annual
wages of $0.8 million (in 2009 dollars).
VII. Secondary Benefit Discussion
A. Innovation. Moynihan Station is a creative response to the daunting challenge of expanding
Penn Station – a station in a dense urban setting with tracks and platforms laid out over a century ago
that was never intended to be the nation’s busiest commuter rail station as well as its busiest intercity rail
station. The Project will create a major new 21st Century train station by making the most out of
resources at hand.
The Farley Building was designed with a grand façade in the fashion of the original Penn Station, but the
interior was built to be a postal facility, serviced by tracks and platforms directly below. The design team
led by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, has found a way to convert a dark, drab covered courtyard, where mail
was sorted for decades, into a grand sky‐lit train hall on the scale of Grand Central Terminal. Cutting holes
in the Farley floor plates will provide access from the train hall to the existing platforms and tracks under
the building. The undersized West End Concourse will be expanded and integrated into Farley. In this
process, a beautiful landmark that now is largely off limits to the public will become accessible to many
thousands of railroad passengers every day. This process will begin with the two new entrances into the
th st th rd
Farley Building at 8 Avenue and 31 Street and 8 Avenue and 33 Street, which are part of Phase I.
This adaptive reuse of Farley allows for the creation of a striking new station and new intercity and
commuter capacity at a fraction of the cost of constructing a new building from scratch. The
environmental benefits in the form saved energy and material are massive when this renovation is
compared to green field or new building construction. The stone, steel, concrete, metals and other
materials conserved by the innovative reuse of the Farley Building can be measured by thousands of tons,
by hundreds of millions of dollars, and by countless BTU’s saved.
B. Partnership. The Moynihan Station Project involves a remarkable collaboration over many
years of federal agencies (USDOT, the FRA, the Senate, the House), state agencies (ESDC, MSDC, NYSDOT,
the State Historic Preservation Office), the City (Mayor’s Office, City Economic Development Corporation,
Department of City Planning, Community Boards 4 and 5, City DOT), railroads (Amtrak, LIRR, NJT, MTA,
and MTA New York City Transit), private developers (The Related Companies and Vornado realty Trust
were conditionally designated in 2005 to develop the commercial portions of Farley), the United States
Postal Service (which will remain a major tenant of the Farley Building), and the bi‐state PA. Each of these
participants in the Project has devoted significant resources to advancing it since the late Senator
Moynihan first proposed expanding Penn Station into the Farley Building. A number of business,
transportation and civic groups have played an active role in supporting and shaping the project, including
the Regional Plan Association, Friends of Moynihan Station, the New York Chapter of the American
Institute of Architects, the Municipal Arts Society, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Tri‐State
th
Transportation Campaign, Transportation Alternatives, the 34 Street Partnership, the General
22
Contractors Association, the Partnership for New York City, the Real Estate Board of New York, the
Building and Construction Trades Council, the New York Building Congress and the Building Trades
Employers’ Association. Many of these groups have written letters of support, which are attached in
Appendix B. In addition, Amtrak and the State recently announced a general agreement on the basic
terms and conditions that will lead to the development of Moynihan Station and the relocation of Amtrak
services to the new train hall to be constructed in the Farley Building. See Appendix G attached hereto.
Collectively, this participation reflects wide consensus that the Project will deliver national, regional, and
local benefits to a vast array of stakeholders.
VIII. Evaluation of Project Performance
MSDC and the PA propose to monitor and evaluate the performance of the Phase I project in a number of
ways, and to periodically report the results to USDOT.
At present, MSDC and the PA contemplate taking the following steps to monitor and evaluate project
performance:
• Construction employment generated by Phase I– collect payroll information and/or provide
forms to contractors and subcontractors to report on numbers of workers engaged in
construction of Phase I.
• Increased ridership on Amtrak, LIRR and NJT – collect data from each railroad to ascertain
increases in ridership.
• Shifts from Other Modes ‐ conduct surveys to determine whether riders switched from other
modes and whether the Phase I improvements were a motivating factor.
• Increased passenger usage of the WEC and 33 Street Connector – conduct passenger counts
rd
and/or prepare and collect surveys to estimate numbers of passengers using expanded WEC and
33rd Street Connectors.
• Level of Use of New 8th Avenue entrances ‐ conduct passenger counts and/or prepare and collect
surveys to estimate numbers of passengers using new 8th Avenue entrances into the Farley
Building.
• Rents and Vacancy Rates in Surrounding Area ‐ conduct market research (brokers, City records,
other sources) to ascertain whether rents have risen and vacancies have declined in the
surrounding area as a result of the larger Moynihan Station Project, including Phase I.
MSDC and the PA would be willing to entertain additional or alternative measures to monitor and
evaluate project performance, based on consultation with and input from USDOT.
IX. Certifications
A.
23
B. Section 1511 Certification
The Governor’s Section 1511 Certification for this project will be executed after grant approval.
It will indicate that the project has received the full review and vetting required by law and that
the investment is an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. It will also indicate that the specific
information required by Section 1511 concerning the investment (a description of the
investment, the estimated total cost, and the amount of ARRA funds to be used) is provided on
the New York Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
24
Appendices – Table of Contents
Appendix A: Station Diagrams and Area Maps
Appendix B: Letters of Support
Appendix C: Emissions Benefits of West End Concourse Extension
Appendix D: Moynihan Station Project‐Phase I: Economic Benefit‐Cost Analysis Report
Appendix E: Profile of the 26‐County New York‐New Jersey Metropolitan Region
Appendix F: Port Authority MWBE Participation Summary
Appendix G: Press Release from the Office of the Governor of the State of New York
Appendix H: 2006 USPS NEPA Environmental Assessment
Appendix I: 1999 FRA Finding of No Significant Impact
Appendix J: 2006 Programmatic Agreement
Appendix K: Additional Photos and Rendering
25