What would your ideal Amtrak station look like?

[Neil_M]

You know, embracing the homeless population of a station can often improve security more than trying to kick them out. I have never been solicited or harassed in NYP.

Perhaps they think you are just some sort of hobo!!

How does keeping homeless people in a station improve security then? Having loads of bodies strewn over the floors doesn't give an impression of security and it hardly likely to encourage people to linger.

Because if you embrace your homeless population, and make your station their "home", they will generally treat it like their home. Meaning cleaning up after themselves- you don't want to leave your **** in your own home, after all. Meaning when you lay down ground rules, such as staying out of the main concourse during rush hour, they are more willing to listen then when you try to keep them out altogether. Meaning when its their home, they tend to protect it, looking for security issues- and reporting them. And meaning when you allow homeless people to stay in your station as a privilege, it makes them behave because they want to have the privilege of staying there. There is no point to acting clean, neat, tidy, and so on when you are going to be thrown out anyway.

I have spent a few nights in Penn Station New York. As far as I know, it is the only station in the Amtrak system that does not even pretend to keep homeless people out. They have a little lighted sign in the main concourse that tells homeless people when they are allowed in the main concourse. So it is the only station in the system that actually allows homeless people. I have been to many stations, and I am going to say: PSNY is the only station I have been to, the only one, where I have never been asked for money.

And here's me thinking a station is for people to use before and after they get on the train, rather than some rancid flophouse for the local tramps to use.

 

[sunchaser]

Lots of talk about having a security guard to kick the homeless back to the street. How about the ticket agent just calls a church to pick them up and bring them someplace that can help them. If they don't want their help then the security guard can take over.

IMHO the concern is not so much with the homeless per se but the criminals around some stations are a concern/also,the homeless do tend to utilize the restrooms in a less than sanitary manner(aka p****ng on the floor/bathing in the sinks/stalls etc.)Best example Ive seen lately is SAS, a fairly new Amshak that has absolutely 3rd world restrooms!It hasnt been popular the past few years to help the homeless,most of whom are Veterans!,most churches

and religious organizations seem to want to give them a sandwitch after they are "saved",also the ones that usually can afford it dont want those "types" in their neighborhood!I do like the way that Detroit locks their station,you must have a ticket to get in,even if Im not wild about the neighborhood or the bank like look as the OP said!Ticketed pax and invited guests only seems like a good policy IMHO,of course this hurts railfans but since the new picture "rules" that Amtrak came out with make no sense,is there an answer to this? :unsure:

I would like to see a cross between SAC & PDX on services/intermodal/layout. It should have adequate accessable parking, clean, & large enough to accomodate the travelers/railfans. Granted, I have limited train station experience, but I only saw two homeless people anywhere near the stations. That was at SAC.

Most of the homeless in our area hang out in one park during the day, & there are several places that provide hot measl & a bed, clean clothes & showers. They do not require them to be saved to get food or help. I interact with homeless people on a regular basis, & most of them are not Veterans. Sometimes, they are substance abusers, sometimes fresh out of jail, running from or to something, sometimes they just don't have job. They even have residential program to help them get back on their feet, get a job & a place to live. They have access to medical & dental, too. All of it is provided by private donations. IMHO, I don't see a problem with them hearing some singing & preaching to get a free shower, hot meal, & clean, warm, safe place to sleep, & a chance to get their lives back together. I also know that some people pretend to be homeless so they can panhandle because they can make more money begging than working! Sorry to sidetrack the thread......

 

[DowneasterPassenger]

It's August 2059, and I'm waiting in the new Amtrak HSR station to hop on the Maglev. Security is no longer a concern, thanks to the Great Peace declared in 2047. Anyone who causes problems is dealt with by the Compassion Police, with their rainbow-adorned uniforms. One of them gave me a hug when I entered the station.

There's no need to bring clothing in a suitcase of course because it's all disposable and recyclable now. I have only a small carry-on for a few toitetries. My computer is embedded in my hat of course.

Located right across the street from the Center for the Aid to Displaced Persons and Homeless, and very near the Domestic Partner Temple, our new station has all the latest conveniences. There is even a National Health Service first-aid center right in the station.

The machines offered all the latest food pills. I chose Thai cuisine and selected a German beer from the microbrewer.

The computer announces that my train is ready for boarding, on time of course, and I get up from the comfortable LA-Z-Boy Advanced-Posture seat. If you think this is comfortable, you should see the First Class Lounge and Meditation Center.

The station is spotless thanks to the robot cleaners. I notice that the solar panels on the roof have adjusted slightly to catch the afternoon rays.

The moving walkway takes me to my gate, where Julie's sweet voice announces that my e-ticket is good for this ride, and directs me to my seat.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

You know, embracing the homeless population of a station can often improve security more than trying to kick them out. I have never been solicited or harassed in NYP.

Perhaps they think you are just some sort of hobo!!

How does keeping homeless people in a station improve security then? Having loads of bodies strewn over the floors doesn't give an impression of security and it hardly likely to encourage people to linger.

Because if you embrace your homeless population, and make your station their "home", they will generally treat it like their home. Meaning cleaning up after themselves- you don't want to leave your **** in your own home, after all. Meaning when you lay down ground rules, such as staying out of the main concourse during rush hour, they are more willing to listen then when you try to keep them out altogether. Meaning when its their home, they tend to protect it, looking for security issues- and reporting them. And meaning when you allow homeless people to stay in your station as a privilege, it makes them behave because they want to have the privilege of staying there. There is no point to acting clean, neat, tidy, and so on when you are going to be thrown out anyway.

I have spent a few nights in Penn Station New York. As far as I know, it is the only station in the Amtrak system that does not even pretend to keep homeless people out. They have a little lighted sign in the main concourse that tells homeless people when they are allowed in the main concourse. So it is the only station in the system that actually allows homeless people. I have been to many stations, and I am going to say: PSNY is the only station I have been to, the only one, where I have never been asked for money.

The reality is that the mast majority of homeless individuals are afflicted with either mental illness or substance abuse, or a combination of the two. A train station is not a homeless shelter, and the traveling public shouldn't be subjected to the presence of a reeking, resident homeless population. Does anyone honestly believe that having dozens of untreated, schizophrenic junkies wandering around a train station improves the security of ticketed passengers?

The reality is that the homeless should be strictly excluded from train stations due to the security risk that they pose.

The reality is that the police used to strictly enforce vagrancy and public intoxication ordinances, and that there used to be a massive, publicly funded inpatient mental health care system to treat the sort of mental illness that is at the root of homelessness. The modern homeless problem stems from the systematic closure of state mental health facilities, as well as other factors.

NY Penn is a much cleaner, safer place than it once was, but until there are public restrooms for the sole use of ticketed passengers, there won't be any usable restroom facilities due to the homeless population.

 

[stntylr]

May I point out that our favorite station Beaumont, TX was torn down because homeless people had broken the doors and windows and were living inside of it. I'm sure it must have been a welcoming site to arrive at Beaumont and find a group of homeless people greeting you.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

The reality is that the mast majority of homeless individuals are afflicted with either mental illness or substance abuse, or a combination of the two. A train station is not a homeless shelter, and the traveling public shouldn't be subjected to the presence of a reeking, resident homeless population. Does anyone honestly believe that having dozens of untreated, schizophrenic junkies wandering around a train station improves the security of ticketed passengers?
The reality is that the homeless should be strictly excluded from train stations due to the security risk that they pose.

The reality is that the police used to strictly enforce vagrancy and public intoxication ordinances, and that there used to be a massive, publicly funded inpatient mental health care system to treat the sort of mental illness that is at the root of homelessness. The modern homeless problem stems from the systematic closure of state mental health facilities, as well as other factors.

NY Penn is a much cleaner, safer place than it once was, but until there are public restrooms for the sole use of ticketed passengers, there won't be any usable restroom facilities due to the homeless population.

I take serious offense to what you are saying, mainly because it is not particularly true. But for the good grace of my parents and their generosity, in this time of economic struggle I myself would be homeless. I am not a mental case. I am not schizophrenic. I enjoy a good belt as much as the next man, but I am not an alcoholic or a drunk. Drugs? All I use, ever, are caffeine and on occasion alcohol.

"Inpatient mental health care system"? That's a really nice way to describe the depraved, dirty, dingy, inhumane containment centers that used to exist as a way to save snobs from the trouble of having to know that homeless and or mentally unstable people exist in their rose tinted world.

The reality is that the majority of this countries homeless population is completely invisible. They hide, they keep to the shadows, because they can neither find work nor allow other people to see the shame they feel at not being able to succeed. The homeless people you don't like are but a small percentage of the actual group.

Most of the "reeking" population smells such because they have no access to facilities in which to clean themselves.

Are there junkies in the population? For sure. Do they exist in a larger percentage than in the "homed" population? Probably. Are some of them nuts? Yes. Are all of them? No. Is a large percentage of them? No.

What it amounts to, honestly, is that you and far too many people like you, don't want to see what happens when people fail. Because you know that but for the grace of god, it could damned well be you. Or me for that matter.

Since the discontinuation of the 2:18 train out of NYP, I have spent numerous nights in NYP. I have had conversations with quite a few of these homeless people. Most of them: Are human. Are sane. Are not addicts. Some of them were even fairly intelligent.

Why should public funds be spent to keep homeless people out of sight for the comfort of the ignorant? For the comfort of snobs? For the weak stomach of decadent Americans? Why should people be urged, nay, forced- even, perhaps, deprived of their freedom- to accept public help they don't want just to keep you and your kind from seeing them?

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

The reality is that the mast majority of homeless individuals are afflicted with either mental illness or substance abuse, or a combination of the two. A train station is not a homeless shelter, and the traveling public shouldn't be subjected to the presence of a reeking, resident homeless population. Does anyone honestly believe that having dozens of untreated, schizophrenic junkies wandering around a train station improves the security of ticketed passengers?
The reality is that the homeless should be strictly excluded from train stations due to the security risk that they pose.

The reality is that the police used to strictly enforce vagrancy and public intoxication ordinances, and that there used to be a massive, publicly funded inpatient mental health care system to treat the sort of mental illness that is at the root of homelessness. The modern homeless problem stems from the systematic closure of state mental health facilities, as well as other factors.

NY Penn is a much cleaner, safer place than it once was, but until there are public restrooms for the sole use of ticketed passengers, there won't be any usable restroom facilities due to the homeless population.

I take serious offense to what you are saying, mainly because it is not particularly true. But for the good grace of my parents and their generosity, in this time of economic struggle I myself would be homeless. I am not a mental case. I am not schizophrenic. I enjoy a good belt as much as the next man, but I am not an alcoholic or a drunk. Drugs? All I use, ever, are caffeine and on occasion alcohol.

"Inpatient mental health care system"? That's a really nice way to describe the depraved, dirty, dingy, inhumane containment centers that used to exist as a way to save snobs from the trouble of having to know that homeless and or mentally unstable people exist in their rose tinted world.

The reality is that the majority of this countries homeless population is completely invisible. They hide, they keep to the shadows, because they can neither find work nor allow other people to see the shame they feel at not being able to succeed. The homeless people you don't like are but a small percentage of the actual group.

Most of the "reeking" population smells such because they have no access to facilities in which to clean themselves.

Are there junkies in the population? For sure. Do they exist in a larger percentage than in the "homed" population? Probably. Are some of them nuts? Yes. Are all of them? No. Is a large percentage of them? No.

What it amounts to, honestly, is that you and far too many people like you, don't want to see what happens when people fail. Because you know that but for the grace of god, it could damned well be you. Or me for that matter.

Since the discontinuation of the 2:18 train out of NYP, I have spent numerous nights in NYP. I have had conversations with quite a few of these homeless people. Most of them: Are human. Are sane. Are not addicts. Some of them were even fairly intelligent.

Why should public funds be spent to keep homeless people out of sight for the comfort of the ignorant? For the comfort of snobs? For the weak stomach of decadent Americans? Why should people be urged, nay, forced- even, perhaps, deprived of their freedom- to accept public help they don't want just to keep you and your kind from seeing them?

These are the same tired arguments that I heard back in the 1980s, back when you literally had to step over and around hundreds, if not thousands, of homeless in Grand Central and Penn Station.

If ticketed passengers can't feel safe in a train station, they seek out alternative forms of transportation. After all, you don't see the homeless taking up residence in the airports. It all comes down to security.

The situation in NY Penn isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, but it still is deplorable, and with the current economic and social conditions being similar to those of the 1970s, there is the real threat of a return to those bad old days of aggressive panhandlers and violent homeless threatening travelers and commuters.

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

May I point out that our favorite station Beaumont, TX was torn down because homeless people had broken the doors and windows and were living inside of it. I'm sure it must have been a welcoming site to arrive at Beaumont and find a group of homeless people greeting you.

That sort of thing can't be much of an encouragement for ridership? If the homeless were do that to the station, just what were they doing to the cars in the parking lot?

 

[DET63]

Can we get this thread back on-topic? Sorry to be a bit testy, but while issues of what to do with (or for) the homeless are a legitimate concern in our society, I'd like to keep this thread focused on what an ideal Amtrak station would look like.

Certainly in large cities the homeless (or derelicts, bums, or whatever you want to call them) may have to be considered in planning and developing train stations (as well as other public works), but there are a number of other concerns that can be addressed in designing, remodeling, rehabilitating, repairing, or doing anything else to make an Amtrak station passenger-friendly.

 

[jmbgeg]

Can we get this thread back on-topic? Sorry to be a bit testy, but while issues of what to do with (or for) the homeless are a legitimate concern in our society, I'd like to keep this thread focused on what an ideal Amtrak station would look like.
Certainly in large cities the homeless (or derelicts, bums, or whatever you want to call them) may have to be considered in planning and developing train stations (as well as other public works), but there are a number of other concerns that can be addressed in designing, remodeling, rehabilitating, repairing, or doing anything else to make an Amtrak station passenger-friendly.

You are largely on point. All that needs to be said is CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) principles need to be considered when building a new station or rennovating a historical station, and then the rest comes down to operating and security policies.

 

[chertling]

My ideal "Hub" Amtrak station would incorporate the grandeur and permanency of stations from the golden age of rail travel (IE: Large, high ceilinged waiting areas, extensive use of stone and marble) with more modern elements, such as large windows looking out on the platforms and to the skyline nearby (if applicable) Extensive use of natural light both inside the station and on the sheltered platforms would be much more welcoming than what you see in CHI and NYP.

Ideally, any "Hub" Amtrak station would also be a hub for local transit, commuter rail, light rail, subway, etc. Separate concourses would be a MUST. While many more passengers would use commuter rail, their time spent at the station would be minimal... so their accommodations could be more utilitarian.

Separate passenger and baggage/service platforms are another must. Centering the train under the waiting area for boarding would also be beneficial (rather than the stub end platforms you see at CHI) as this would minimize the walk between the train and the station.

For train status, two or more large status boards at strategic points in the station (IE: Ticketing and at the center of the waiting area) would be a good primary display. Smaller "airport style" displays could be added near any secondary entrances to the station. Plus, I would add smaller displays at each boarding gate that show the status of the next few trains departing from that gate.

A Food court would be a good addition in the "Head House" area of the station. Free parking wouldn't be realistic in the urban setting where most "Hubs" would be located, but convenient and reasonably priced parking would be a necessity. (obviously, not needed in cities with comprehensive public transit systems, such as NYC)

Last, but certainly not least, any new Hub station would need a Metropolitan Lounge / Club Acela large enough to accommodate not only the current levels of traffic, but also future growth. A direct connection to the platforms (like WAS) would be much preferred to having to form a line and be walked to the train (like CHI)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

These are the same tired arguments that I heard back in the 1980s, back when you literally had to step over and around hundreds, if not thousands, of homeless in Grand Central and Penn Station.
If ticketed passengers can't feel safe in a train station, they seek out alternative forms of transportation. After all, you don't see the homeless taking up residence in the airports. It all comes down to security.

The situation in NY Penn isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, but it still is deplorable, and with the current economic and social conditions being similar to those of the 1970s, there is the real threat of a return to those bad old days of aggressive panhandlers and violent homeless threatening travelers and commuters.

The conditions you mention are what happen when you attempt to kick every homeless tom, dick, and larry out of a station that is an essential transit hub for the city (A/C/E/1/2/3, Amtrak, LIRR, NJT, not to mention buses and the like), a shopping and food center, and open 24 hours. You can't do it, there are too many of them, and there are too many places to hide deep in the bowels of Penn station. Trust me, I know of passages, hallways, and rooms that I doubt anyone else on the board is aware of, and it wouldn't shock me if Amtrak didn't know all of them. Due to the nature of its construction, the architectural plans of Penn Station are incomplete. I use incomplete because I can't think of a strong enough word to describe it.

You will be more successful keeping a clean, safe environment when you concentrate on kicking out people that are of the type most people can't stand. The inherently dirty ones, the loud ones, unstable ones, the junkies, and so forth. Not to mention pan-handlers. Instead of the impossible task of four separate police entities (APD, NJTPD, MTAPD, NYPD) attempting to determine who belongs in the station and kicking out the rest, they instead have established a sort of code of conduct.

You pan handle, you get kicked out. You get in the way of the functions of the station, you get kicked out. You act in an intimidating or unstable manner, you get kicked out. You lay peacefully on the floor in an out of the way location and keep warm out of the cold and sleep, you are allowed to stay.

If the group remains, on the whole, well behaved, they are allowed to stay. If people in the group act inappropriately, the group itself often deals with them. Most of them are aware that staying in the station is a privilege, that problematic actions by even a few of them could revoke that privilege for all of them. A few of them even went so far as to express gratitude for, in essence, Amtrak's hospitality. They expressed that they consider the station their home, and that they get annoyed when people disrespect their home.

If I had no room to stay in, no hotel to stay in, and nowhere to go, I can think of no safer place to spend the night in New York City then Penn Station.

 

[pennyk]

These are the same tired arguments that I heard back in the 1980s, back when you literally had to step over and around hundreds, if not thousands, of homeless in Grand Central and Penn Station.
If ticketed passengers can't feel safe in a train station, they seek out alternative forms of transportation. After all, you don't see the homeless taking up residence in the airports. It all comes down to security.

The situation in NY Penn isn't nearly as bad as it used to be, but it still is deplorable, and with the current economic and social conditions being similar to those of the 1970s, there is the real threat of a return to those bad old days of aggressive panhandlers and violent homeless threatening travelers and commuters.

The conditions you mention are what happen when you attempt to kick every homeless tom, dick, and larry out of a station that is an essential transit hub for the city (A/C/E/1/2/3, Amtrak, LIRR, NJT, not to mention buses and the like), a shopping and food center, and open 24 hours. You can't do it, there are too many of them, and there are too many places to hide deep in the bowels of Penn station. Trust me, I know of passages, hallways, and rooms that I doubt anyone else on the board is aware of, and it wouldn't shock me if Amtrak didn't know all of them. Due to the nature of its construction, the architectural plans of Penn Station are incomplete. I use incomplete because I can't think of a strong enough word to describe it.

You will be more successful keeping a clean, safe environment when you concentrate on kicking out people that are of the type most people can't stand. The inherently dirty ones, the loud ones, unstable ones, the junkies, and so forth. Not to mention pan-handlers. Instead of the impossible task of four separate police entities (APD, NJTPD, MTAPD, NYPD) attempting to determine who belongs in the station and kicking out the rest, they instead have established a sort of code of conduct.

You pan handle, you get kicked out. You get in the way of the functions of the station, you get kicked out. You act in an intimidating or unstable manner, you get kicked out. You lay peacefully on the floor in an out of the way location and keep warm out of the cold and sleep, you are allowed to stay.

If the group remains, on the whole, well behaved, they are allowed to stay. If people in the group act inappropriately, the group itself often deals with them. Most of them are aware that staying in the station is a privilege, that problematic actions by even a few of them could revoke that privilege for all of them. A few of them even went so far as to express gratitude for, in essence, Amtrak's hospitality. They expressed that they consider the station their home, and that they get annoyed when people disrespect their home.

If I had no room to stay in, no hotel to stay in, and nowhere to go, I can think of no safer place to spend the night in New York City then Penn Station.

I applaud you for your courage to express your thoughts. You appear to be an open minded and thoughtful person. BTW, I too, feel safe in NY Penn Station.

 

[Tygercat]

My favorite station is 30th St in Philadelphia, and I think this is an ideal model- an older building, properly restored and thus architectually pleasing, with services such as a reasonably complete food court, full newstand, and connections to other public transit. And once in a while, free entertainment- we were waiting for a Regional there once when a wedding party that had rented out one of the large rooms for the reception was literally paraded across the station by a Mummer's band! The food court could definitely use a decent cheesesteak place, though...

I do like the "bridge" over the tracks at BWI, it's a fine place to watch trains and stay warm (or cool) and comfy while you're waiting for yours. Apart from that, though, BWI has little to recommend it....

And FTR, the only time we have felt unsafe at NYP was when caught up in the mad stampede to get to the train!

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

If I had no room to stay in, no hotel to stay in, and nowhere to go, I can think of no safer place to spend the night in New York City then Penn Station.

First of all, there is no excuse for any traveler to sleep in Penn Station. There are plenty of hotels within easy walking distance, and if they are all booked or beyond your budget, you can simply call a Town Car and stay in New Jersey or around JFK, where lodgings are much cheaper.

Second of all, I refuse to address your remarks idealizing the homeless. The reality is far different, and it isn't the purpose of Amtrak, or the MTA, to house the homeless. If you want to help the homeless, you'd be better off advocating an increase in the number of beds in mental health facilities and increased access to drug treatment, as well as aggressive law enforcement to remove these people to facilities where they can be treated.

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

I do like the "bridge" over the tracks at BWI, it's a fine place to watch trains and stay warm (or cool) and comfy while you're waiting for yours. Apart from that, though, BWI has little to recommend it....

Amtrak's BWI station has easy access to the airport by a shuttle bus, plenty of indoor parking and MARC commuter service. I'd say that this is a great station on the basis of location alone. This is a great station stop with lots to recommend it......

Ideally, more major airports would be accessible from rail corridors.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First of all, there is no excuse for any traveler to sleep in Penn Station. There are plenty of hotels within easy walking distance, and if they are all booked or beyond your budget, you can simply call a Town Car and stay in New Jersey or around JFK, where lodgings are much cheaper.
Second of all, I refuse to address your remarks idealizing the homeless. The reality is far different, and it isn't the purpose of Amtrak, or the MTA, to house the homeless. If you want to help the homeless, you'd be better off advocating an increase in the number of beds in mental health facilities and increased access to drug treatment, as well as aggressive law enforcement to remove these people to facilities where they can be treated.

Well gee whiz, I'm just a poor guy out of college who can't find a job in this economy. There are plenty of hotels within walking distance, all of which charge well over $100 a night to sleep in as a walk up. Call a Town Car? Are you freakin' nuts or something? If I really really wanted to spend the night in a hotel, there is a little something called PATH a long block from Penn Station which goes right into either Hoboken or Newark, both of which have cheaper hotels within walking distance of their stations. You know, $1.30 (what they charge when I use my smart card) vs, oh, $50? If Public transit REALLY wasn't an option, a concept which has no excuse in this area, I guess I could take a standard taxi.

Are you made of money or something? I'm not. I don't think many people on this forum are made of money to the point that they would go so far as doing what you are suggesting!

I mean, lets see here. I get to NYP at, say, 1:20. I miss the 1:18 train. This means I am going to take the 4:30 train out in the morning. But no. I should take a Town Car for $50 to a Hotel that will cost me, lets say, $70. I have just spent $120 to... avoid spending 3 hours and 10 minutes napping in a train station?

You know, when I can just go into the bathroom, place my valubles in my bag, place my bag behind my back, and sleep in main concourse? For nothing.

My parents have money. My parents have a lot of money, actually. We've gone on vacations to all kinds of exotic places, I've stayed at all kinds of nice hotels- 5 star items. I think the best one I've ever stayed at was the Willard Inter-Continental. But the Watergate, Chateau Frontenac, and Queen Elizabeth were pretty nice, too. And from the day I started being able to understand, they have constantly pointed out to me that you do not get rich by spending money for no good reason.

Even if I had the money to spend on extravagances like you are suggesting, which make you sound pretty pompous by the way, I wouldn't. There is no need for it and the $120 I don't spend on this silliness is $120 I can spend on something I like doing, like going to Chicago and having Pizza at Giordano's, plus a small portion of the ticket for getting back home.

Seriously, your perspective on the homeless is clearly influenced by unreasonable factors.

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

First of all, there is no excuse for any traveler to sleep in Penn Station. There are plenty of hotels within easy walking distance, and if they are all booked or beyond your budget, you can simply call a Town Car and stay in New Jersey or around JFK, where lodgings are much cheaper.
Second of all, I refuse to address your remarks idealizing the homeless. The reality is far different, and it isn't the purpose of Amtrak, or the MTA, to house the homeless. If you want to help the homeless, you'd be better off advocating an increase in the number of beds in mental health facilities and increased access to drug treatment, as well as aggressive law enforcement to remove these people to facilities where they can be treated.

Well gee whiz, I'm just a poor guy out of college who can't find a job in this economy. There are plenty of hotels within walking distance, all of which charge well over $100 a night to sleep in as a walk up. Call a Town Car? Are you freakin' nuts or something? If I really really wanted to spend the night in a hotel, there is a little something called PATH a long block from Penn Station which goes right into either Hoboken or Newark, both of which have cheaper hotels within walking distance of their stations. You know, $1.30 (what they charge when I use my smart card) vs, oh, $50? If Public transit REALLY wasn't an option, a concept which has no excuse in this area, I guess I could take a standard taxi.

I wouldn't bother with PATH at 2 AM, and in any case, if you're going to New Jersey or Queens at that hour, a Town Car makes a lot of sense. Basically, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the service, although I'd rather wait for a cab during daylight hours.

Moreover, there are a lot of lodging option, both in Manhattan, where prices are obviously higher, and a short ride away in New Jersey and Queens. In many cases, it costs less to stay at a hotel outside of Manhattan than it does in many rural and suburban markets. I've also seen times when you can get a very nice hotel room in Manhattan for less than $200 - although on some heavily booked nights you're not going to stay for less than $400. If you travel frequently enough, you might even save enough "points" with a major chain to stay for free. I've done that too.

Are you made of money or something? I'm not. I don't think many people on this forum are made of money to the point that they would go so far as doing what you are suggesting!
I mean, lets see here. I get to NYP at, say, 1:20. I miss the 1:18 train. This means I am going to take the 4:30 train out in the morning. But no. I should take a Town Car for $50 to a Hotel that will cost me, lets say, $70. I have just spent $120 to... avoid spending 3 hours and 10 minutes napping in a train station?

You know, when I can just go into the bathroom, place my valubles in my bag, place my bag behind my back, and sleep in main concourse? For nothing.

I'm writing about viable options for the normal traveler, people of normal means, with a normal threshold for discomfort. Normal people take Town Cars to destinations outside of Manhattan.

I'd say that it isn't normal to sleep on the floor at Penn Station. Historically, the traveling public didn't expect to sleep on the floor in a train station, which is precisely why there were so many hotels in the immediate vicinity of train stations.

If it was me personally, I'd stay in a decent hotel for the night, get up at a normal hour, shower and shave, have a decent breakfast, check my baggage, spend a few pleasant hours in Manhattan, and then take a later train. I wouldn't sleep with the homeless on the floor of the station.

Seriously, your perspective on the homeless is clearly influenced by unreasonable factors.

My perspective is grounded in compassion and reality, as well as experience and knowledge when it comes to diagnosing mental illness and substance abuse. The tragedy of modern homelessness it that this at-risk community was better served 60 years ago than it is today.

 

[MattW]

And BWI is simple. Just a small building with (what looked like) adequate seating and they never said anything about a person sitting in the benches on the platform with a big camera jumping up and down like a spastic yoyo every time a train came rolling past

Simplicity for me is pretty well the most important thing I tend to look for. Even a very large station that serves numerous trains every day doesn't *have to* be complex. I could see an alternate-reality NYP having little more than a line of gates which lead to escalators, a big waiting area in front of the gates, and just one other level maybe for a food court. The LIRR/NJT side of things can be even simpler as there's not as much need to have large waiting areas.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I wouldn't bother with PATH at 2 AM, and in any case, if you're going to New Jersey or Queens at that hour, a Town Car makes a lot of sense. Basically, the price isn't all that unreasonable for the service, although I'd rather wait for a cab during daylight hours.

The price isn't unreasonable for the service? I have coupons for the Hilton right across from Newark Penn Station for $85 a night. I can spend $1.30, walk about 3 blocks total, and stay at the Hilton, or I can save myself the 3 blocks and spend $50. $48.70 for three blocks. $16.23 a block? Gosh damn, man, if I could make $16.23 for every block I walked, I'd be a bloody rich man. And as Ben Franklin said, a penny saved is a penny earned.

Moreover, there are a lot of lodging option, both in Manhattan, where prices are obviously higher, and a short ride away in New Jersey and Queens. In many cases, it costs less to stay at a hotel outside of Manhattan than it does in many rural and suburban markets. I've also seen times when you can get a very nice hotel room in Manhattan for less than $200 - although on some heavily booked nights you're not going to stay for less than $400. If you travel frequently enough, you might even save enough "points" with a major chain to stay for free. I've done that too.

You know, while I am sure my parents have often spent that much on the hotel rooms I've stayed in with them, the most I've ever personally spent on a hotel room is $110, and the point was to impress a woman. It didn't work, but that's because Audrey is an even bigger cheapskate than I am.

Spending $200, which is a crazy sum of money for lodging, is beyond my comprehension, unless I was staying at some really spectacular hotel. Like the King David, or the Kempinski, or the Goldener Hirsch. Spending it for the purposes of transitioning through a city less then 50 miles from my home is incomprehensible. A hostel is almost as comfortable and cheaper. The floor of Penn Station is less comfortable, but free. Free is good.

I'm writing about viable options for the normal traveler, people of normal means, with a normal threshold for discomfort. Normal people take Town Cars to destinations outside of Manhattan.
I'd say that it isn't normal to sleep on the floor at Penn Station. Historically, the traveling public didn't expect to sleep on the floor in a train station, which is precisely why there were so many hotels in the immediate vicinity of train stations.

If it was me personally, I'd stay in a decent hotel for the night, get up at a normal hour, shower and shave, have a decent breakfast, check my baggage, spend a few pleasant hours in Manhattan, and then take a later train. I wouldn't sleep with the homeless on the floor of the station.

The use of an automobile within the confines of Manhattan is an anathema to everything in my being. It is wrong. It is disgusting. It is ridiculous. It is wasteful. People who drive cars over the roads leading off of Manhattan should be charged thousands of dollars each time, and I only suggest that because the cat-o-nine-tails is considered inhumane.

I travel into the city frequently for wide varieties of reasons. Once in a while my business there runs later than usual and I miss the last train out. I can't afford to spend money to stay in hotels every time. I'd imagine the vast majority of people in my situation wouldn't bother to, either. If I was in Chicago, or some other city I did not know, as an unusual item, I might spend the money on a hotel. More likely if I thought I'd miss the train, I'd probably find out the location of the nearest hostel- but I admit the normal traveling public doesn't do that.

My perspective is grounded in compassion and reality, as well as experience and knowledge when it comes to diagnosing mental illness and substance abuse. The tragedy of modern homelessness it that this at-risk community was better served 60 years ago than it is today.

Your perspective is grounded in pure selfishness masked by a fallacious facade of self-righteousness. The City has homeless facilities. Many people simply do not want to use them, either out of pride or other reasons. You are suggesting that you have some kind of background in psychology. Although my father is a psychologist, I admit to not having a significant amount of knowledge about the subject.

But instead of turning to psychology, which is actually not very useful in this area, lets turn to its cousin, sociology- which I do know a lot about. In fact, my study of Penn was part of a sociological study I was doing. Instead of making assumptions based upon the few that catch your attention, perhaps we can turn to the many that do not? With the exception of Northeast Regional 66/67, Amtrak runs no trains out of Penn after 261 at 11:45. All service running into or out of Penn at that time are through the Subways, NJT and LIRR.

NJT has its own concourse, as does LIRR, and the Subway stations are not really part of the station proper. The few people waiting for 66/67 do so in the Amtrak waiting area, for which you need a ticket. With a few exceptions, everyone hanging around at that time is, in fact, homeless. Most of them are not crazy. You'll find a few quiet drunks. I can usually pick out a few that are high on something or have just crashed off of something.

There are always police standing around- from four different departments, no less- but most people are just quietly asleep. A few snore. Most do not smell. You are making assumptions or are simply revolted by what you no doubt see as rabble. I know this because you would not be saying what you are saying if you had ever actually witnessed the conditions there.

Why don't you get yourself a room at the Hotel Penn, since you seem to like hotels so much, and spend some hours watching what actually happens?

 

[user 1215]

I would like to see stations and terminals with over 100,000 alightings have full service hotels that can accomodate simultaneously an $80/room night guest and the $300/night business rail traveller. These stations should have either classical gothic architecture, or modern design like Victoria, BC hotel or Fort Worth's T&P Station. Sorry - no desire to see stuff from the 70s and 80s here (OK for homes, not OK for train stations). In addition, there should be PLENTY of retail, fine local cuisine dining, and food courts.

Between 25,000 and 100,000 alightings, I would suggest a motel/hostel, a staffed snack and newsstand. This is the size station that I could imagine a Harvey House type facility complimenting the station.

Under 25,000 alightings, and an airconditioned Amshack with comfortable pews would be great.

All stations should have a proportionate amount of vending machines for its size.

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

And BWI is simple. Just a small building with (what looked like) adequate seating and they never said anything about a person sitting in the benches on the platform with a big camera jumping up and down like a spastic yoyo every time a train came rolling past Simplicity for me is pretty well the most important thing I tend to look for. Even a very large station that serves numerous trains every day doesn't *have to* be complex. I could see an alternate-reality NYP having little more than a line of gates which lead to escalators, a big waiting area in front of the gates, and just one other level maybe for a food court. The LIRR/NJT side of things can be even simpler as there's not as much need to have large waiting areas.

I would agree that BWI is "simple," but there again, it is clever mix between a conventional suburban station and an innovative rail gateway to a major airport. I think it serves both purposes quite well and I wish there were more opportunities to tie rail and air travel together.

As far as Penn Station, the original track layout remains a superb example of early 20th century engineering, while the overlying 1960s structure has notable limitations, despite being a brilliant, and successful, instance of real estate redevelopment. I think that if it had been done a few years later, Penn Station would have been quite a bit different, perhaps even close to what you've described, even thought the demolition of the old station was nearly inevitable.

For Penn Station, the "ideal" would be something short of the now unlikely "Moynihan Station," but not much more than what you've suggested. The problem of course, is that the current Madison Square Gardens is still very much an ideal multipurpose venue, which has developed its own sense of history, much like old Penn Station.

 

[goodnightjohnwayne]

I would like to see stations and terminals with over 100,000 alightings have full service hotels that can accomodate simultaneously an $80/room night guest and the $300/night business rail traveller. These stations should have either classical gothic architecture, or modern design like Victoria, BC hotel or Fort Worth's T&P Station. Sorry - no desire to see stuff from the 70s and 80s here (OK for homes, not OK for train stations). In addition, there should be PLENTY of retail, fine local cuisine dining, and food courts.

Actually, there are intermodal facilities with annual ridership figures in that range that support a food court and new agent. I'm not sure that there's any demand for adjacent lodging facilities, since these are medium sized markets where people tend to drive to the station.

Basically, patronage supports amenities, assuming that there's the upfront investment in the station itself, meaning that even if you build a station with the amenities, they won't stay open for long if they aren't patronized. However, I do know of a thriving station that has multiple restaurants and a new stand with a ridership figure just slightly above the 100,000/year mark.

Under 25,000 alightings, and an airconditioned Amshack with comfortable pews would be great.

There are existing stations where the facilities are a lot more impressive than what you are suggesting, despite far lower annual ridership numbers.

 

[DET63]

And BWI is simple. Just a small building with (what looked like) adequate seating and they never said anything about a person sitting in the benches on the platform with a big camera jumping up and down like a spastic yoyo every time a train came rolling past Simplicity for me is pretty well the most important thing I tend to look for. Even a very large station that serves numerous trains every day doesn't *have to* be complex. I could see an alternate-reality NYP having little more than a line of gates which lead to escalators, a big waiting area in front of the gates, and just one other level maybe for a food court. The LIRR/NJT side of things can be even simpler as there's not as much need to have large waiting areas.

I would agree that BWI is "simple," but there again, it is clever mix between a conventional suburban station and an innovative rail gateway to a major airport. I think it serves both purposes quite well and I wish there were more opportunities to tie rail and air travel together.

As far as Penn Station, the original track layout remains a superb example of early 20th century engineering, while the overlying 1960s structure has notable limitations, despite being a brilliant, and successful, instance of real estate redevelopment. I think that if it had been done a few years later, Penn Station would have been quite a bit different, perhaps even close to what you've described, even thought the demolition of the old station was nearly inevitable.

For Penn Station, the "ideal" would be something short of the now unlikely "Moynihan Station," but not much more than what you've suggested. The problem of course, is that the current Madison Square Gardens is still very much an ideal multipurpose venue, which has developed its own sense of history, much like old Penn Station.

Isn't MSG set to be torn down and replaced by another similarly named facility a few blocks away? Well, according to Wikipedia:

In 2004–2005 Cablevision (the Garden's owner) battled with the City of New York over proposed West Side Stadium which would compete with the Garden. New stadium proposals halted; and Cablevision announced its own plans to raze the Garden, replace it with high-rise commercial buildings and build a new Garden one block away at the James Farley Post Office site in conjunction with the Moynihan Station project. However, on April 3, 2008 MSG executives announced plans to once again renovate and modernize the current Garden in time for the Knicks and Rangers' 2011–12 seasons,[2] though the vice president of the Garden says he remains committed to the original Moynihan project - the installation of an extension of Penn Station in the Farley Post Office. Executives have not responded to accusations that renovating the existing structure is like putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[TVRM610]

I have been to many stations, and I am going to say: PSNY is the only station I have been to, the only one, where I have never been asked for money.

I was in NYP this week and I am going to say: A man followed me down the stairs while I was boarding a NJT train begging me and others for money while he smoked a cig. I'm sorry... but THAT needs to be stopped if possible.

Now on the other hand.. I didn't really care that much and if i had had some change I would have even given him some. I also realize that this is New York city for crying out loud and I expect it to some degree. I have much respect for the homeless and I truly wish them the best and help them when I feel safe about it, but that is me. I think that the safety and comfort of the PASSENGERS should be the top priority of the railroads.