> The other is to create more efficiency with a through-running system, where you would have what are now New Jersey Transit trains coming to the city, crossing through Manhattan, and out the other side to Long Island. Or run Amtrak trains and freight trains coming from Pennsylvania through the city and up to New England. That idea is not technically insurmountable, but it’s bureaucratically daunting, because multiple organizations oversee those lines. In a perfect world, New Jersey Transit, the Long Island Railroad, and Metro North would be united and even integrated with the New York City subway system.
The irony is then he immediately explains why this wouldn't work:
> The problem is, you can build highways and bridges and towers from scratch much faster than you can reorganize a bureaucracy.
More ironically, much of the interview is saying we need to use this behemoth of a bureaucracy to implement changes. Yet he then says the City can't do the one thing it actually can do:
> The situation is complicated by the fact that Amtrak (not the MTA) owns the station, and MSG owns the Garden; it’s a rare case of double-decker ownership. MSG isn’t a tenant. It’s not like a lease runs out and you can evict it. If you’re going to get the Dolan family, who own the Garden, to move, you would have to buy it from them.
If MSG doesn't have a permit to operate, it's mostly worthless! MSG called the City's bluff this summer and got an extension on their permit -- but the City could have decided not to renew it, and MSG would've had to close.
A bit later, he suggests using eminent ___domain to take property by force:
> The idea was to use the power of eminent ___domain to condemn large parts of the neighborhood around Penn Station, override the city’s zoning and allow massive new amounts of FAR in an area that’s largely owned and controlled by Vornando.
I'm not advocating for this, just pointing out the the interviewee is dismissing one of the few things the City can do on its own.
And more generally, neither the City of New York nor the State of New York are known for respecting property rights (or Constitutional rights broadly), so they _could_ do anything they wanted and just drag the victims through decades of legal proceedings after the fact.
(Again, I'm not advocating for this.)
There are lots of ideas for renovating/ expanding/ rebuilding Penn Station. Most of them are crap, but some are good. Unfortunately, even the good plans have to get through the government bureaucracies, where they either get axed or become ludicrously expensive.
> And more generally, neither the City of New York nor the State of New York are known for respecting property rights (or Constitutional rights broadly)
I don't really want to get sidetracked (no pun intended), but can you list a single ruling from SCOTUS on any constitutional issue that the state or city of NY is flouting? Because I think what you mean is "the city/state of New York have frequently followed interpretations of the constitution that I disagree with", despite the fact that when SCOTUS rules against their interpretation, they follow the ruling.
> The other is to create more efficiency with a through-running system, where you would have what are now New Jersey Transit trains coming to the city, crossing through Manhattan, and out the other side to Long Island. Or run Amtrak trains and freight trains coming from Pennsylvania through the city and up to New England. That idea is not technically insurmountable, but it’s bureaucratically daunting, because multiple organizations oversee those lines. In a perfect world, New Jersey Transit, the Long Island Railroad, and Metro North would be united and even integrated with the New York City subway system.
The irony is then he immediately explains why this wouldn't work:
> The problem is, you can build highways and bridges and towers from scratch much faster than you can reorganize a bureaucracy.
More ironically, much of the interview is saying we need to use this behemoth of a bureaucracy to implement changes. Yet he then says the City can't do the one thing it actually can do:
> The situation is complicated by the fact that Amtrak (not the MTA) owns the station, and MSG owns the Garden; it’s a rare case of double-decker ownership. MSG isn’t a tenant. It’s not like a lease runs out and you can evict it. If you’re going to get the Dolan family, who own the Garden, to move, you would have to buy it from them.
If MSG doesn't have a permit to operate, it's mostly worthless! MSG called the City's bluff this summer and got an extension on their permit -- but the City could have decided not to renew it, and MSG would've had to close.
A bit later, he suggests using eminent ___domain to take property by force:
> The idea was to use the power of eminent ___domain to condemn large parts of the neighborhood around Penn Station, override the city’s zoning and allow massive new amounts of FAR in an area that’s largely owned and controlled by Vornando.
I'm not advocating for this, just pointing out the the interviewee is dismissing one of the few things the City can do on its own.
And more generally, neither the City of New York nor the State of New York are known for respecting property rights (or Constitutional rights broadly), so they _could_ do anything they wanted and just drag the victims through decades of legal proceedings after the fact.
(Again, I'm not advocating for this.)
There are lots of ideas for renovating/ expanding/ rebuilding Penn Station. Most of them are crap, but some are good. Unfortunately, even the good plans have to get through the government bureaucracies, where they either get axed or become ludicrously expensive.