LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

[Truckie]

And why are they so short? If they barely have enough cars to make service......

You already know the answer. You rave about the reason but rant about the result.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

 

You already know the answer. You rave about the reason but rant about the result.

Actually I didn't know... You see what confused me was that I know how the holds on to the bus fleet that they have, keeping them in storage well past the time in which they should keep them, but they still keep them just in case they need them.  In this case, it just doesn't make sense to retire fleet with no structural issues when you know that you're already tight on cars.  Even if they never put them in service because riders like me would complain , at least have them.  

Edited April 16, 2014 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Truckie]

None of what Metro North has recently retired has to do with less or shorter trains.  It's a strict "robbing Peter to pay Paul" reason from the increased service over the last few years.  Shorten existing trains to make more trains.  That's all.

 

Granted there are occasions were what is usually an 8 car train only has 6 due unforeseen reasons. 

Edited April 16, 2014 by Truckie

[Via Garibaldi 8]

None of what Metro North has recently retired has to do with less or shorter trains.  It's a strict "robbing Peter to pay Paul" reason from the increased service over the last few years.  Shorten existing trains to make more trains.  That's all.

 

Granted there are occasions were what is usually an 8 car train only has 6 due unforeseen reasons. 

But one has to wonder what projections with regards to MNRR ridership the had, versus what they've actually received, and whether or not that has caused stress on the amount of cars available to them.  

[bobtehpanda]

But one has to wonder what projections with regards to MNRR ridership the had, versus what they've actually received, and whether or not that has caused stress on the amount of cars available to them.  

 

Any sort of forecasting on transportation usage is highly flawed. It's perfectly reasonable that the agency did not anticipate MNR usage to rise what it is today. Just be glad you didn't wind up with a situation like the , where they thought the R143 order would be enough for 20 years and completely missed Williamsburg, Bushwick, Brownsville and ENY gentrifying. At least there are cars projected to replace them (and the option for M9s, if fully used, is extremely large)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Any sort of forecasting on transportation usage is highly flawed. It's perfectly reasonable that the agency did not anticipate MNR usage to rise what it is today. Just be glad you didn't wind up with a situation like the , where they thought the R143 order would be enough for 20 years and completely missed Williamsburg, Bushwick, Brownsville and ENY gentrifying. At least there are cars projected to replace them (and the option for M9s, if fully used, is extremely large)

Yeah but the completion of the M9's will be years from now at the earliest...

[lirr42]

But one has to wonder what projections with regards to MNRR ridership the had, versus what they've actually received, and whether or not that has caused stress on the amount of cars available to them.  

 

The M7's were procured in the 1990's.   Ridership back then was not anywhere near were it is today.  Can you accurately predict, to within a couple thousand riders, what ridership will be like 20 years from now?

That still has nothing to do with them retiring the old cars though... The point still is that if you know that ridership continues to grow and you know the situation with the capital budget, then you don't retire those cars unless it's absolutely necessary.  That's poor planning.  Simple as that. It doesn't take rocket science to know that it will be years before monies are approved and new cars can actually be built.  You can down vote me all you want but it's just common sense. Did the old cars have structural issues? If they didn't then you keep them in storage.

 

Actually I didn't know... You see what confused me was that I know how the holds on to the bus fleet that they have, keeping them in storage well past the time in which they should keep them, but they still keep them just in case they need them.  In this case, it just doesn't make sense to retire fleet with no structural issues when you know that you're already tight on cars.  Even if they never put them in service because riders like me would complain , at least have them.  

 

Last time I checked, rail cars were quite large, and storage space on the railroad is quite tight, so it's not as easy as parking a bunch of buses in a parking lot someplace.  Do you have space in your Riverdalian backyard for a couple hundred M1's?

[railroad rider]

I don't need to know and don't care quite frankly because that isn't my job to care. It's the 's job to provide adequate service.

 

Well if you're not going to take the time to learn, you are in no position to speak on the subject.  You can get off your high horse now, please.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The M7's were procured in the 1990's.   Ridership back then was not anywhere near were it is today.  Can you accurately predict, to within a couple thousand riders, what ridership will be like 20 years from now?

 

 

 

Last time I checked, rail cars were quite large, and storage space on the railroad is quite tight, so it's not as easy as parking a bunch of buses in a parking lot someplace.  Do you have space in your Riverdalian backyard for a couple hundred M1's?

Of course it's tight when you don't plan... The fact of the matter is it's their job to be proactive about these things, not just sit back and make excuses.  They seem to spend more time boasting about record ridership rather than studying ridership patterns to understand where there's the most potential growth, etc.  Again, common sense things... I wonder when was the last time that they did a study on that... You can't sit here and tell me with a straight face that if they're marketing Metro-North as heavily and aggressively as they have been over the last few years through various parts of the tri-state area that they're not going to expect ridership to grow.  I mean give me a break.  If they're having such problems with capacity, then it doesn't make sense to market a service that you can't provide.  

Edited April 17, 2014 by Via Garibaldi 8

[bobtehpanda]

Of course it's tight when you don't plan... The fact of the matter is it's their job to be proactive about these things, not just sit back and make excuses.  They seem to spend more time boasting about record ridership rather than studying ridership patterns to understand where there's the most potential growth, etc.  Again, common sense things... I wonder when was the last time that they did a study on that... You can't sit here and tell me with a straight face that if they're marketing Metro-North as heavily and aggressively as they have been over the last few years through various parts of the tri-state area that they're not going to expect ridership to grow.  I mean give me a break.  If they're having such problems with capacity, then it doesn't make sense to market a service that you can't provide.  

 

The MTA barely has enough money for the capital plan as it is (the last three years of the current plan are all MTA-issued debt) and hindsight is 20/20. Projecting something as fickle as travel patterns for five years is difficult enough; pretty much every transportation agency, from USDOT to MTA and everything in between, has not had accurate forecasting since their beginnings, and that's because transportation demand follows very few laws, unlike, say, power or water usage.

 

It's in the MTA's best interest to be fiscally conservative with its plans; if it buys too few cars, it risks a car shortage, but if it buys too many, it gets yelled at for wasting lots of taxpayer money, and on top of that has to raise fares to cover the interest on the debt taken on with these extra cars. Car orders also have a significantly longer timespan than five years; in fact, the M9 order will be funded out of this capital plan and the next one, as well as the one after that once East Side Access is done and they have leftover money for M9As. No one has the ability to project travel patterns extremely accurately; it would be like trying to predict the weather every day for the next ten years.

 

I'd also like to point out that transportation studies are generally bunk; either they overestimate wildly (usually highway projects and anything involving a toll road) or underestimate wildly (most transit studies). In the case of transit projects, they usually somewhat realistic (they'll undershoot for the first year or two, and then end up wildly overshooting by year five), but there are still limits to what you can and cannot predict.

Edited April 17, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The MTA barely has enough money for the capital plan as it is (the last three years of the current plan are all MTA-issued debt) and hindsight is 20/20. Projecting something as fickle as travel patterns for five years is difficult enough; pretty much every transportation agency, from USDOT to MTA and everything in between, has not had accurate forecasting since their beginnings, and that's because transportation demand follows very few laws, unlike, say, power or water usage.

 

It's in the MTA's best interest to be fiscally conservative with its plans; if it buys too few cars, it risks a car shortage, but if it buys too many, it gets yelled at for wasting lots of taxpayer money, and on top of that has to raise fares to cover the interest on the debt taken on with these extra cars. Car orders also have a significantly longer timespan than five years; in fact, the M9 order will be funded out of this capital plan and the next one, as well as the one after that once East Side Access is done and they have leftover money for M9As. No one has the ability to project travel patterns extremely accurately; it would be like trying to predict the weather every day for the next ten years.

 

I'd also like to point out that transportation studies are generally bunk; either they overestimate wildly (usually highway projects and anything involving a toll road) or underestimate wildly (most transit studies). In the case of transit projects, they usually somewhat realistic (they'll undershoot for the first year or two, and then end up wildly overshooting by year five), but there are still limits to what you can and cannot predict.

I'm sorry but from a PR standpoint, it's a terrible idea to heavily market a service and not be able to produce the service that you're marketing, and this is true regardless of what the circumstances are.  I understand your points, but it still doesn't make sense to encourage people use a service via marketing if you're having problems keeping up with the current service that you're providing.  

[lirr42]

I'm sorry but from a PR standpoint, it's a terrible idea to heavily market a service and not be able to produce the service that you're marketing, and this is true regardless of what the circumstances are.  I understand your points, but it still doesn't make sense to encourage people use a service via marketing if you're having problems keeping up with the current service that you're providing.  

 

I really don't care about PR standpoints.  It's their job to run a railroad, not a private yacht club.  It is their one and only function to get you from point A to point B.  Anything else is secondary.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I really don't care about PR standpoints.  It's their job to run a railroad, not a private yacht club.  It is their one and only function to get you from point A to point B.  Anything else is secondary.

And that's precisely the problem.... They're not doing a good job at that, yet they're advertising their services to the public, encouraging them to use it.

[lirr42]

And that's precisely the problem.... They're not doing a good job at that, yet they're advertising their services to the public, encouraging them to use it.

 

99.2% of trips get from point A to point B.  They're doing a very good job at that.

Of course it's tight when you don't plan... The fact of the matter is it's their job to be proactive about these things, not just sit back and make excuses.  They seem to spend more time boasting about record ridership rather than studying ridership patterns to understand where there's the most potential growth, etc.  Again, common sense things... I wonder when was the last time that they did a study on that... You can't sit here and tell me with a straight face that if they're marketing Metro-North as heavily and aggressively as they have been over the last few years through various parts of the tri-state area that they're not going to expect ridership to grow.  I mean give me a break.  If they're having such problems with capacity, then it doesn't make sense to market a service that you can't provide.  

 

Cost is also a significant factor, one that you are completely ignoring.  Back in 1994, the LIRR was told they could get 134 C3's or they could get 0.  They would not have been able to keep the old diesel equipment in maintainable condition for another 20 or 30 years until more money came up, so they took what they could get.  The Capital Program is not an open-ended check.  They may plan and decide they need X amount of cars, but once it gets to the bookeeper, they wind up only getting Y.  There's nothing you can do, unless you want to pay the difference between X and Y...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

99.2% of trips get from point A to point B.  They're doing a very good job at that.

 

Talk about exaggerating... 

[lirr42]

Talk about exaggerating... 

 

That statistic is taken directly from the MTA Board Minutes, publicly available on the MTA's website.  Do some research before you type!

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That statistic is taken directly from the MTA Board Minutes, publicly available on the MTA's website.  Do some research before you type!

Yeah and?  The has been known to collect information to suite their own agenda... 

[lirr42]

Yeah and?  The has been known to collect information to suite their own agenda... 

 

Again, do some research before you type.  There is the Late/Canceled Train Information database on Metro-North's website. It lists all trains that are late or canceled.  That is the list the percent scheduled completed runs figure is factored from that.  Find me multiple examples of trains that were canceled and not indicated as such in the database (then provide tangible proof to support your claim), and then we can talk.

[railroad rider]

Talk about exaggerating... 

 

Yeah and?  The has been known to collect information to suite their own agenda... 

 

lolololol.  And you've never exaggerated or made up information to suit your agenda??

 

Other than the industry standard grace period, there is no "fudging" of OTP statistics.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Again, do some research before you type.  There is the Late/Canceled Train Information database on Metro-North's website. It lists all trains that are late or canceled.  That is the list the percent scheduled completed runs figure is factored from that.  Find me multiple examples of trains that were canceled and not indicated as such in the database (then provide tangible proof to support your claim), and then we can talk.

Okay, so you're saying that those stats are 100% accurate is that right?? 

 

lolololol.  And you've never exaggerated or made up information to suit your agenda??

 

Other than the industry standard grace period, there is no "fudging" of OTP statistics.

You want to talk about "agendas".... You're a "new member" and you have five posts and they're all pertaining to me.... 

[bobtehpanda]

Okay, so you're saying that those stats are 100% accurate is that right?? 

 

You want to talk about "agendas".... You're a "new member" and you have five posts and they're all pertaining to me.... 

Now, I don't know about you, but it would be very hard for the MTA to fudge a train that was declared late or canceled across all of those little signs and across the systems. The data is now pulled through various sites and apps in real-time. Unless you can point to a specific train on a specific date that is not listed as late or cancelled and should be, your complaints have no merit. You can't just go around running around and pointing fingers for no reason.

[lirr42]

Okay, so you're saying that those stats are 100% accurate is that right?? 

 

Yes, I am.  You will need to do more than say they are not. Find me multiple examples of trains that were canceled and not indicated as such in the database (then provide tangible proof to support your claim), and then we can talk.  Other than that, your complaints have no merit. You can't just go around running around and pointing fingers for no reason.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Yes, I am.  You will need to do more than say they are not. Find me multiple examples of trains that were canceled and not indicated as such in the database (then provide tangible proof to support your claim), and then we can talk.  Other than that, your complaints have no merit. You can't just go around running around and pointing fingers for no reason.

 

 

Now, I don't know about you, but it would be very hard for the MTA to fudge a train that was declared late or canceled across all of those little signs and across the systems. The data is now pulled through various sites and apps in real-time. Unless you can point to a specific train on a specific date that is not listed as late or cancelled and should be, your complaints have no merit. You can't just go around running around and pointing fingers for no reason.

LMAO... I suppose you're right, but they've been known to fudge stats in other areas (i.e. two sets of books, etc.).

[bobtehpanda]

LMAO... I suppose you're right, but they've been known to fudge stats in other areas (i.e. two sets of books, etc.).

 

A judge found that there was no evidence to back up "two sets of books" half a decade ago, just that the budget was terribly vague (and it was, but the agency has improved and publishes better numbers and data than most of the rest of state government.) It's also been audited by the comptrollers various times, all of which could provide no evidence of "two sets of books". That trope is just trotted out by anti-transit politicians because they don't want to have to actually fund the MTA at an adequate level.

 

Keep in mind that the politician who initiated that claim, Alan Hevesi, was convicted of corruption regarding the state pension fund.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

A judge found that there was no evidence to back up "two sets of books" half a decade ago, just that the budget was terribly vague (and it was, but the agency has improved and publishes better numbers and data than most of the rest of state government.) It's also been audited by the comptrollers various times, all of which could provide no evidence of "two sets of books". That trope is just trotted out by anti-transit politicians because they don't want to have to actually fund the MTA at an adequate level.

 

Keep in mind that the politician who initiated that claim, Alan Hevesi, was convicted of corruption regarding the state pension fund.

LOL... I'll give you that much... I'll go one further and say that the current folks running the show are a big improvement.  I think now more than anything, the suffers from ineptitude on some fronts, but I think they're making an effort to improve and weed out rude, unprofessional workers.  The workers on the Hudson Rail Link that I get are very courteous, warm and professional, even the non-regulars.  This morning I had a lovely Latina who I've had before filling in for the regular guy I get who is on vacation, and my ride in was pretty nice and relaxing.  Granted it was off-peak, so I had a seat and all, but still...  The person who collected my ticket, who I've also had before clearly enjoys what she days.  That's what I've been getting when I ride MNRR overall. Very few rude types.