In a recent investigation conducted by The Post, it has been found that the contentious $17 billion expansion project of Penn Station could potentially be avoided, saving taxpayers a significant amount of money and preserving three midtown blocks. The key lies in cooperation between the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New Jersey Transit (NJT), and Amtrak, as their combined plans could effectively double the capacity of Penn Station, rendering the new terminal unnecessary.

Experts and activists have emphasized the importance of prioritizing cost-effective solutions to enhance throughput and improve the overall rider experience at Penn Station. Barry Caro, a prominent transit activist and political consultant, voiced concerns over the current plan, stating that it undertakes an approach that assumes an unlimited budget from Washington, which is evidently not the case.

Officials from local governors to transit chiefs have argued that the expansion is necessary to handle the influx of trains expected upon the completion of the Hudson River tunnels. However, The Post's investigation reveals that combining the MTA and NJT's shelved plans could achieve the desired 48-train capacity and reduce the cost by approximately $10 billion. These alternative proposals were initially disqualified for failing to meet the required standard when evaluated independently, as Amtrak and the two other transit entities pushed for the "Penn Expansion."

The primary obstacle to pursuing the more affordable option lies in the strained relationship between the MTA, NJT, and Amtrak. The unwillingness to collaborate more closely stems from each railroad's aspiration to have autonomous operations within Penn Station, as outlined in a 2011 Amtrak presentation that emphasized the benefits of the "Penn Expansion" project, including "stable, semi-independent operations." However, experts and activists argue that the cheaper alternative can indeed be accomplished through coordination and cooperation.

The combined proposals closely align with the plan presented by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in 2022, a longstanding transit policy watchdog. Their infrastructure expert, Felicia Park-Rodgers, explains that it is possible to create a new Penn Station that prioritizes riders' needs by enhancing safety, reliability, and service through improved signals, tracks, and redesigned platforms. Park-Rodgers emphasizes the need for the railroads to work together, suggesting that riders' needs can be accommodated without a $17 billion price tag if cooperation is achieved, with Amtrak's participation being vital.

It is important to note that while Penn Station is owned and operated by Amtrak, NJT and the MTA run a majority of the trains passing through it. The MTA has already invested considerable effort in the controversial "Penn Expansion" proposal, despite Amtrak's ownership. Some proponents argue that the planning process should be led by the agencies that utilize the complex most, specifically the MTA and NJT, highlighting their primary role in Penn Station's operations.

NJT's proposals, spanning over 170 pages, projected that their plan could potentially accommodate up to 38 trains per hour at Penn Station and under the Hudson River. The "Penn Station Capacity Improvement Project" outlined the construction of new platforms and extensions to the existing ones, estimated to cost around $1.3 billion when adjusted for inflation.

Combining NJT's proposal with the MTA's shelved plan would result in a capacity of 50 trains per hour, surpassing what the four Hudson River tunnels can currently handle. The joint effort would involve upgrading signals in tunnels and the station complex, enabling trains to operate more closely and at higher speeds, similar to ongoing improvements on the subway lines. The analysis from 2020 indicates that these enhancements could potentially increase capacity by four trains per hour.

Furthermore, the plans entail a reengineering of the middle section of Penn Station (Tracks 5 to 16), addressing the problem of narrow train platforms that lead to overcrowding. The reconstruction, estimated to cost between $3.5 billion and $3.9 billion after adjusting for inflation, would involve removing two tracks and reworking support columns. This modification would allow wider platforms, enabling simultaneous boarding and disembarking, and eliminating the need for reversing trains that cause traffic congestion. The result would be improved service, including direct routes from locations such as the Bronx or Queens to Newark Airport.

Presenting the challenges of implementation, the plans necessitate extensive cooperation from Amtrak and the two transit agencies, particularly in terms of scheduling and infrastructure programs. Such collaborations have been historically challenging to establish.

Eric Goldwyn, who led a New York University team conducting a comprehensive report on MTA construction costs and design practices, highlights the importance of value planning. He suggests that achieving goals can be accomplished through a combination of smaller initiatives rather than constructing a large-scale project. Goldwyn emphasizes the need for cooperation to reach the desired outcome.

Statements from the railroads—Amtrak, the MTA, and NJT—largely abstained from commenting specifically on The Post's findings. Amtrak spokesman Jason Abrams acknowledged that these scenarios would be analyzed for safety and feasibility. The MTA's focus remains on improving the existing Penn Station for its daily riders, according to executive John McCarthy. NJT spokesman Jim Smith raised concerns over assumptions made in combining theoretical concepts with preliminary studies but reiterated NJT's commitment to collaboration in designing a functional and implementable solution that maximizes Gateway Program capacity.

Overall, The Post's investigation sheds light on the potential for significant savings and the preservation of three blocks by adopting a collaborative approach between the MTA, NJT, and Amtrak. By combining existing plans, Penn Station's capacity could be substantially increased, providing an alternative to the costly expansion project.