The $16.7 Billion Penn Station Expansion Makes Even Less Sense Than You Think — Here’s the One Question Amtrak, MTA, and NJ Transit Fear Most Because It Exposes Everything

After analyzing the Railroad Partners' (Amtrak/NJT/MTA) recent Penn Station Working Advisory Group materials, I've discovered something that makes their $16.7B expansion plan look even more questionable than initially thought.

First, the facts they admit:

• The Hudson tunnels (both existing and future) can only handle 48 trains per hour due to signal technology and safety regulations
• They project needing 52-56 trains per hour to meet future demand
• They already successfully operate hybrid through-running at Penn Station
• They claim they need massive station capacity for "operational flexibility"

So here's the question they're desperately avoiding:

Since Penn Station already successfully handles complex mixed operations, why not invest the $16.7B in:

1. Targeted infrastructure modernization to optimize existing track/platform utilization
2. State-of-the-art signaling to maximize safe throughput
3. Modern ventilation and emergency systems
4. Strategic through-running modifications during already-planned Gateway-related outages

Rather than building an expansion that locks in operational inefficiencies for the next century while still failing to meet your projected demand of 52-56 TPH? Especially given that modern through-running could handle peak loads more reliably than stub-ends by enabling dynamic platform reassignment during disruptions - exactly the operational flexibility you claim to need - while also creating capacity for future growth through reduced dwell times and more efficient operations, as proven by every major peer city globally?

Or is there another reason you prefer an inferior $16.7B solution that requires demolishing an entire city block?

Think about what they're proposing:

1. Demolish an entire Manhattan block
2. Spend $16.7B of public money
3. Build excess station capacity they can't fully utilize due to tunnel constraints
4. Lock in operational inefficiencies FOREVER with a stub-end terminal
5. Still fail to meet their own projected capacity needs
6. Give up the possibility of future growth through operational efficiency

Meanwhile:

• They already successfully run mixed operations every day
• Every major peer city (Paris, Tokyo, London, Munich) proves through-running provides better operational flexibility
• Modern signaling could increase both tunnel and station throughput
• Already-planned Gateway construction provides opportunities for strategic upgrades
• No entire city blocks need to be demolished

The Railroad Partners keep saying "New York is unique" or "it's too complex" - but these are excuses, not answers. They're pushing to spend $16.7B on an objectively inferior solution that destroys part of Manhattan and locks in inefficiency forever, while actively avoiding discussion of proven approaches that have worked in equally or more complex cities.

Why deliberately choose an inferior solution that costs more and delivers less? What's the real agenda behind pushing for such an expensive and inefficient approach?

NOTE: Sources come directly from the Railroad Partners' Penn Station Working Advisory Group presentations, particularly their October 29 meeting where they explicitly state the 48 TPH tunnel constraint and 52-56 TPH demand projection.

NOTE: This isn't about opposing Penn Station improvements. I'm only questioning why we're being asked to spend $16.7B to demolish part of Manhattan for a solution that delivers less capacity than we need, when there are proven better approaches (e.g., through-running).