On Jan. 21, Amtrak released a list of three finalist teams for the redevelopment of New York City’s Penn Station, moving the project into a phase that will test whether a fast-paced public-private partnership can improve core infrastructure at an active rail hub while maintaining daily operations.
The listing follows bid submissions by four teams last December under a design, build, finance and maintenance procurement. Narrowing the field to three finalists, the Penn Station rebuild moves from an open solicitation to detailed evaluation as the railroad prepares to select a lead developer in May and announce an award in June.
RELATED
Reconstruction of New York’s Penn Station to begin in 2027, USDOT says
When Amtrak launched its search for a private partner last fall, Andy Byford, who was then a special adviser to Amtrak’s board, emphasized the scope of the effort. “This will be one of the largest and most significant construction projects in American history, and we want the most skilled and knowledgeable partners to help make it a success,” Byford said in comments reported by public media.
Project organizers said early construction activity could begin as early as 2027, compressing design development, research work and enabling the construction of one of the most operationally constrained station reconstructions in the US.
The three shortlisted teams are Grand Penn Partners; Halmar International; and Penn Forward Now, a development-led consortium that includes Tutor Perini, Parsons and Arup. Of the three, only two have publicly discussed design strategies.
Grand Penn Partners has proposed relocating Madison Square Garden to allow for the construction of a new upper station concourse; Halmar International has outlined an approach that keeps the arena in place and focuses on internal reconfiguration and new access points. Penn Forward Now has not released the details of the proposal.
Amtrak has characterized the project as a rebuild driven by reconfiguration rather than expansion. According to media reports, officials have ruled out any design that would require expanding Penn Station’s footprint south to add tracks or platforms, emphasizing circulation, concourse geometry, natural lighting and upgrading existing systems.
RELATED
MTA executive blames Amtrak for three-year delay on $2.9 million Penn Station access project
Structural and architectural limitations under active sand
From a structural point of view, the defining limitation remains the arena located directly above the railway complex and supported by a structural cover carried on a dense network of columns and transfer elements. Federal transportation officials have said the lead developer selected will be responsible for leading the delivery of a comprehensive transformation while maintaining rail operations. This mandate underscores both the scale of the temporary works and the sequencing challenges inherent in either design approach.
A concept rendering by Grand Penn Partners shows a Penn Station concourse reimagined with expanded circulation, higher ceilings and streamlined passenger flows under a proposal that would relocate Madison Square Garden and build a new upper station concourse.
Representation courtesy of Grand Penn Partners.
Under Grand Penn Partners’ concept, the arena relocation would allow for the demolition of the existing deck and the construction of a new station hall with long-lasting deck systems and simplified loading lanes, according to proposal materials released by the team.
Supporters of this approach have argued publicly that clearing the site would reduce long-term structural constraints, although it would require extensive coordination related to arena relocation, demolition logistics, and rail protection during work above the track.
The approach outlined by Halmar International keeps MSG in place and focuses on internal reconfiguration, including new vertical openings and access points, as described in the company’s concept materials. The execution of this strategy would normally require temporary shoring, vibration control and construction in narrow phases directly above active tracks and platforms.
Project officials have not publicly endorsed either approach, but have said proposals that involve relocating the arena remain under consideration. The arena’s operating permit expires in 2028.
RELATED
Amtrak disputes MTA over Penn Station access delay, calls for retraction
Congress reconfiguration and systems implications
A basic requirement established by the project sponsor is the replacement of the current multi-level passenger environment with a single-level concourse, a change that officials have described as critical to improving circulation and orientation.
Achieving this result would likely involve demolishing existing slabs, rerouting utilities, and rebuilding fire separations while maintaining code-compliant exits during construction.
A diagram illustrates how Penn Station could function as part of a commuter rail network, showing the station’s relationship to Moynihan Train Hall and adjacent corridors as federal officials study operational changes that could affect track layouts and design flexibility.
Chart courtesy of the Penn Station Capacity Expansion Project.
For engineers and builders, consolidating circulation into a single plane would concentrate mechanical, electrical, and life-safety systems into a tighter vertical envelope. HVAC distribution, smoke control, emergency power, and redundant communications systems should typically be rebuilt incrementally, with temporary systems maintaining operations during phased outages.
Project requirements also emphasize new entrances and increased natural light, changes that would generally require new penetrations through exterior walls and roof structures while protecting the living rail infrastructure below.
Below the concourse, existing track and platform layouts have additional constraints, including limited clearances, aging interchanges and shared use by Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road and NJ Transit.
Officials said operational improvements are being studied within the existing agreement, including possible reconfiguration of the interlockings and platform use. Federal transportation officials have also said the Federal Railroad Administration plans to commission a study on the circulation, an operational concept that would allow commuter trains to run through the station instead of terminating there.
Construction under either scenario would rely on coordinated outages, overnight work windows, and temporary traction power, signal, and communications systems to maintain daily service. The reconstruction overlaps with the MTA’s Penn Station Access Project, which is now under construction and scheduled for completion in 2027.
Hiring structure and risk allocation
The P3 bidding structure envisages that the selected team will design, build, partially finance and maintain the rebuilt station. Federal grants and loans are expected to cover a substantial portion of the project’s costs, although no cost estimates or funding breakdowns have been released. New York state officials have said the state will not contribute funds.
Amtrak has not released a cost estimate for the Penn Station rebuild, but previous planning studies and public comments have cited figures of more than $6 billion for various redevelopment concepts, but officials have not tied the current procurement to a set budget or scope-based cost range.
Under a design-build-finance-maintain structure, bidders must price not only construction, but also long-term operations and maintenance obligations. Some transit advocates have questioned whether the schedule is realistic.
“There are some decided red flags around the realignment of Penn Station,” Sean Jeans-Gail, vice president of government and policy affairs for the Rail Passengers Association, told WNYC, reflecting broader concerns about the delivery and oversight of the project as procurement moves forward.
Amtrak officials have said the P3 model is intended to impose delivery discipline on a project that has stalled under previous government approaches.
What remains unresolved
Proposal documents, preliminary designs, cost ranges and phasing plans have not been released. Nor have officials revealed how unforeseen conditions — common in station work — will be handled under the P3 contract or how construction and operational risks would be shared between the public owner and the private developer. These details are expected after selecting the lead developer. For now, the shortlist announcement is a mile marker that signals the momentum from concept to delivery.
What is clear is the scale of the undertaking: Rebuilding Penn Station without an expanded footprint, under an active scenario and within one of the nation’s most complex rail environments, will test whether a P3 structure can handle sequencing, systems integration and risk at a level rarely required of US transportation projects.
