NYCDOT: What if we saved the subway by getting folks to use the other trains we have here???

[Via Garibaldi 8]

3 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Consider station platform lengthening, infill stops, and added frequencies as a second phase of commuter rail improvements. The thing that makes railroad improvement an attractive way to ease pressure on the subway and increase transport options within the city is the fact that the first phase would cost next to nothing. The first phase could solely consist of reorganizing stopping patterns so that commuter rail services actually stop in the city. I understand keeping the longer-distance services from Poughkeepsie, Wassaic, or Speonk as expresses, but the local electric trains (originating at, for example, North White Plains, Croton-Harmon, or Huntington) should make all the inner-city stops. Melrose and Tremont should no longer get 1 tph off-peak; the reason for this isn't that there aren't more than 1 tph through that area, it's simply that most of those trains aren't stopping.

Because they're commuter trains for areas without subways like Riverdale. We get semi-express service while University Heights and Morris Heights don't.  Little Neck and Douglaston also receive frequent service.

[officiallyliam]

4 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Because they're commuter trains for areas without subways like Riverdale. We get semi-express service while University Heights and Morris Heights don't.  Little Neck and Douglaston also receive frequent service.

University Heights and Morris Heights don't have close (walking-distance) subway access either. It shouldn't cost more for them to use their closest (MNRR) rapid transit option, when the only alternative is a bus to an already-crowded subway line.

Why, then, does Riverdale deserve express service? Would it really be so bad to stop at University Heights and Morris Heights? The same goes for Harlem line trains stopping in the Bronx, or LIRR trains stopping in Queens.

[BreeddekalbL]

Lower the fares within city limits then we will talk

[LTA1992]

6 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

University Heights and Morris Heights don't have close (walking-distance) subway access either. It shouldn't cost more for them to use their closest (MNRR) rapid transit option, when the only alternative is a bus to an already-crowded subway line.

Why, then, does Riverdale deserve express service? Would it really be so bad to stop at University Heights and Morris Heights? The same goes for Harlem line trains stopping in the Bronx, or LIRR trains stopping in Queens.

Actually, University Heights is a 5 minute walk from the  at 207th.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General response:

The fare within the city should be lowered regardless of how close a railroad station is to the subway. The goal is to create a viable alternative. Frankly, if a few trains have to make a couple extra stops, so be it. People will adjust their schedules accordingly.

"Why should they have to?" Because humans are a species that adapts to change. Get over any pretensions you have about why these simple solutions cannot occur. 

[checkmatechamp13]

7 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Consider station platform lengthening, infill stops, and added frequencies as a second phase of commuter rail improvements. The thing that makes railroad improvement an attractive way to ease pressure on the subway and increase transport options within the city is the fact that the first phase would cost next to nothing.

The first phase could solely consist of reorganizing stopping patterns so that commuter rail services actually stop in the city. I understand keeping the longer-distance services from Poughkeepsie, Wassaic, or Speonk as expresses, but the local electric trains (originating at, for example, North White Plains, Croton-Harmon, or Huntington) should make all the inner-city stops. Melrose and Tremont should no longer get 1 tph off-peak; the reason for this poor service isn't that there aren't more than 1 tph through that area, it's simply that most of those trains aren't stopping.

3

Little vent, but on a lot of commuter rail lines in general, the rush hour stopping patterns are confusing as anything. For example, on the Harlem Line, even on the Wassaic Express trains, there's no set stopping pattern between Southeast and 125th. The first train of the day makes all stops to Goldens Bridge, then White Plains, then 125th. The next train runs express from Southeast to Katonah, then local stops to Chappaqua, then express to White Plains, then 125th. The next train runs local to Brewster, then stops at Goldens Bridge, then White Plains.

It would be easier for passengers to understand if, for example the Wassaic trains all ran local to Brewster, then stopped at Mount Kisco and White Plains, then the Southeast trains ran all local to White Plains, then the NWP trains ran local to Crestwood, and then the Crestwood trains ran local the rest of the way. It also makes it easier for intra-suburban travelers. 

Off-peak, I agree that those local trains should just make the last couple of inner-city stops.

On a side note, the SIR used to be like that a while back. Check out an old AM ferry-bound schedule (Even in the PM, some local trains skipped Tompkinsville/Stapleton, and some skipped Tompkinsville/Stapleton/Clifton, though the Tompkinsville skipping had a little to do with the fact that some people would walk to Tompkinsville to save the fare).

6 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

University Heights and Morris Heights don't have close (walking-distance) subway access either. It shouldn't cost more for them to use their closest (MNRR) rapid transit option, when the only alternative is a bus to an already-crowded subway line.

Why, then, does Riverdale deserve express service? Would it really be so bad to stop at University Heights and Morris Heights? The same goes for Harlem line trains stopping in the Bronx, or LIRR trains stopping in Queens.

1

To be fair, in Upper Westchester, the lower-ridership stations also have a lot of trains bypassing them (for example, Scarsborough & Philipse Manor). In the case of the Bronx stations it's not that there isn't too much demand from those areas, but rather that the price and availability of cheaper (albeit slower, more crowded) alternatives results in low ridership (not to mention the frequencies themselves deter ridership)

In any case, I don't think that the commuter rail fare should be the same price as the subway, but I can definitely agree with having the Freedom Ticket expanded citywide (so basically, have intra-city fares be the same as an express bus ride, with free transfers offered to the subway). For that matter, I think all commuter rail riders should get a free transfer to the subway (or for that matter, NICE/SCT). At $6.50 per trip with a free transfer, it's a lot more palatable than $9.25 with no transfer, especially if a person is relatively low-income, but still works a lot (multiple jobs and/or long shifts at one job) and needs to travel quickly.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

13 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

University Heights and Morris Heights don't have close (walking-distance) subway access either. It shouldn't cost more for them to use their closest (MNRR) rapid transit option, when the only alternative is a bus to an already-crowded subway line.

Why, then, does Riverdale deserve express service? Would it really be so bad to stop at University Heights and Morris Heights? The same goes for Harlem line trains stopping in the Bronx, or LIRR trains stopping in Queens.

Because Riverdale, Little Neck and Douglaston use their service. There is no point in making stops at stations with low ridership which is why stations like Tremont, Melrose, Morris Heights and University Heights have short platforms to begin with. The has said that it can't compete with subway service in some areas. If people in areas like University Heights and Morris Heights can barely afford $2.75, where are they coming up with the money for higher fares? There's no way the fare would be $2.75 and it shouldn't be a for a much faster commute. It would likely be $6.50 or thereabouts.

There's also this notion that there are TONS of empty seats across the board. A lot of these trains are already packed which is why they don't need to make more stops. If the city wants to provide the service then they can pony up the money for trains to start within CITY LIMITS. After all this is about service within the city, so there is no need for example for a train coming from deep in the suburbs like Croton-on-Hudson for said train to keep making stops after Riverdale. As someone who frequents Metro-North I take the service for a fast commute, otherwise there's no point. 

 

[officiallyliam]

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Because Riverdale, Little Neck and Douglaston use their service. There is no point in making stops at stations with low ridership which is why stations like Tremont, Melrose, Morris Heights and University Heights have short platforms to begin with. The has said that it can't compete with subway service in some areas. If people in areas like University Heights and Morris Heights can barely afford $2.75, where are they coming up with the money for higher fares? There's no way the fare would be $2.75 and it shouldn't be a for a much faster commute. It would likely be $6.50 or thereabouts.

There's no reason, though, that Melrose, Tremont, or University Heights should have low ridership. They're in very dense areas; the only reason for the rounding-error ridership is because the services are very infrequent and cost an exorbitant amount to use. The point of opening up commuter rail service within the city isn't to compete with the subway at all; rather, it is to complement the subway and shorten the commutes of people who'd otherwise have to use buses and crowded subways.

Further to that point, could you explain why intra-city commuter service shouldn't cost $2.75 (or be matched to the subway, if/when that fare goes up)? The trains are, for the most part, underutilized within the city. Lowering intra-city fares to $6.50 wouldn't change a thing, other than make things a little more convenient for existing railroad riders.

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

There's also this notion that there are TONS of empty seats across the board. A lot of these trains are already packed which is why they don't need to make more stops. If the city wants to provide the service then they can pony up the money for trains to start within CITY LIMITS. After all this is about service within the city, so there is no need for example for a train coming from deep in the suburbs like Croton-on-Hudson for said train to keep making stops after Riverdale. As someone who frequents Metro-North I take the service for a fast commute, otherwise there's no point. 

Nobody's saying that every commuter train running through the city is running empty. But a lot of them are, especially in off-peak hours. If the MTA could fill those seats for $2.75 - and there's no doubt in my mind that they could - then why shouldn't they?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

24 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

1. There's no reason, though, that Melrose, Tremont, or University Heights should have low ridership. They're in very dense areas; the only reason for the rounding-error ridership is because the services are very infrequent and cost an exorbitant amount to use. The point of opening up commuter rail service within the city isn't to compete with the subway at tall; rather, it is to complement the subway and shorten the commutes of people who'd otherwise have to use buses and crowded subways.

Further to that point, could you explain why intra-city commuter service shouldn't cost $2.75 (or be matched to the subway, if/when that fare goes up)? The trains are, for the most part, underutilized within the city. Lowering intra-city fares to $6.50 wouldn't change a thing, other than make things a little more convenient for existing railroad riders.

2. Nobody's saying that every commuter train running through the city is running empty. But a lot of them are, especially in off-peak hours. If the MTA could fill those seats for $2.75 - and there's no doubt in my mind that they could - then why shouldn't they?

1.  Uh yeah there is a reason.  Melrose, Tremont and University Heights have some of the lowest median incomes in the city and in the country for that matter.  They're all below $30,000.

Melrose: ~ $27,000

Tremont: ~$25,000

University Heights: ~$29,000

I've rounded up to be generous in each case.

This is a case of simple economics. Years ago the  released a report about stations such as Melrose.  It's main point was that people at such stations were reverse commuting into Westchester.  For other commutes, they used the subway.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140425/melrose/mta-refuses-repair-melrose-metro-north-station-citing-low-ridership

Quote

Even if Metro-North increased service, the subway would still provide more frequent and cheaper service to southern destinations like 125th Street and 42nd Street, Donovan said.

"So no matter how much Metro-North could increase service, it would never be able to compete with the subway for Bronx residents who are looking to get to Manhattan," Donovan wrote in an email.

This means that people looking to go farther north are the main market for the Melrose station, including those who live upstate and work at the nearby businesses or courthouses or reverse commuters who live in the city but work in the northern Bronx or Westchester County, Donovan said.

Now, you want the fare to be $2.75 for Metro-North and the LIRR... Here's my issue... You need VERY high subsidies from NYC to be able to provide such a service, and you would need EXTREMELY high ridership at the few stations in the Bronx that you're targeting. Based on travel patterns, I don't see enough people from these neighborhoods riding in either direction to justify such subsidies.  However, I did support increased service to stops like Melrose previously, which it did receive... Going from 2 hours on weekends to every hour.

By comparison, the upper middle to upper class areas which have better MNRR and LIRR service such as Riverdale, near Westchester, and Little Neck and Douglaston out in Queens near the Long Island border, have the incomes to afford the service and use it, not to mention, the need to frequent places like Grand Central and Penn Station for work:

Little Neck: ~$94,000

Riverdale/Fieldston: ~$91,000

Douglaston: ~$87,000

We can add Forest Hills/Forest Hills Gardens as well since it gets decent usage: ~$98,000

2. The  has already looked to address that issue by lowering the fare substantially on weekends to $4.25 for travel within City Limits, which is very reasonable.  It's been highly successful on lines like the Harlem Line, where lots of people go to Botanical Garden in the Bronx, but lowering the fare to $2.75 at all times is just absurd.  I should also point out that Metro-North's intermediate fares are just $3.00 from parts of the Bronx to Westchester. 

Metro-North and LIRR trains are expensive to operate, and the fares are high in order to off-set such high costs. Ultimately, if your main ridership comes from affluent areas of the city like Riverdale, Little Neck and Douglaston, and to some extent areas like Forest Hills/Forest Hills Gardens, then you have to go where the money is. The suburbs of Westchester and Long Island pay a lot of money to commute, and they can't simply be overlooked.  Connecticut also gives the  substantial funds to operate the New Haven Line, and ultimately money talks.  The city talks a lot but is cheap when it comes to putting out the money. 

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Uh yeah there is a reason.  Melrose, Tremont and University Heights have some of the lowest median incomes in the city and in the country for that matter. 

Since when is median income a determinant of ridership? Many of the corridors in the city that are in dire need of increased transit service have lower-than-average median incomes. That's not a reason they don't deserve new or improved transit connections. The low ridership at Melrose is a product of the service, not the other way around.

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Now, you want the fare to be $2.75 for Metro-North and the LIRR... Here's my issue... You need VERY high subsidies from NYC to be able to provide such a service, and you would need EXTREMELY high ridership at the few stations in the Bronx that you're targeting. Based on travel patterns, I don't see enough people from these neighborhoods riding in either direction to justify such subsidies.  However, I did support increased service to stops like Melrose previously, which it did receive... Going from 2 hours on weekends to every hour.

Yes, I think that the fare for a journey within the city of LI/MNRR should be $2.75. There wouldn't need to be huge subsidies to make this work, because the railroads would collect more money from intra-city riders than they do now, even with a much lower fare.

As for travel patterns, I'm not sure what you're talking about. People along the Harlem line (or the south Bronx part of the Hudson line) aren't traveling into Manhattan? In that case, why are the nearest Manhattan bound subways constantly crowded? In the case of the Harlem line, why do the nearest bus routes always rank very high in terms of annual ridership? MNRR has more value for reverse-commuters now because the fare is reasonable; if the fare was matched with the subways for Manhattan-bound service as well, people would certainly use it. 

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Ultimately, if your main ridership comes from affluent areas of the city like Riverdale, Little Neck and Douglaston, and to some extent areas like Forest Hills/Forest Hills Gardens, then you have to go where the money is. The suburbs of Westchester and Long Island pay a lot of money to commute, and they can't simply be overlooked.  Connecticut also gives the  substantial funds to operate the New Haven Line, and ultimately money talks.  The city talks a lot but is cheap when it comes to putting out the money. 

Having commuter rail trains stop in the city is not sacrificing service for commuters in the suburbs. I'm not proposing that they be overlooked at all. As I said, charging $2.75 for intra-city travel on any of the commuter rail lines would garner enough ridership not to need massive subsidies. The main ridership of commuter services comes from affluent areas today because the trains skip over the less affluent areas. 

What you're saying here is that the LIRR and MNRR should be preserved as a railroad for the affluent, and that median income should determine where trains stop. Public transit should be public. That means picking up poor people sometimes, especially when doing so will improve mobility in the city without high upfront costs. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

On 4/13/2018 at 1:44 PM, officiallyliam said:

Since when is median income a determinant of ridership? Many of the corridors in the city that are in dire need of increased transit service have lower-than-average median incomes. That's not a reason they don't deserve new or improved transit connections. The low ridership at Melrose is a product of the service, not the other way around.

Yes, I think that the fare for a journey within the city of LI/MNRR should be $2.75. There wouldn't need to be huge subsidies to make this work, because the railroads would collect more money from intra-city riders than they do now, even with a much lower fare.

As for travel patterns, I'm not sure what you're talking about. People along the Harlem line (or the south Bronx part of the Hudson line) aren't traveling into Manhattan? In that case, why are the nearest Manhattan bound subways constantly crowded? In the case of the Harlem line, why do the nearest bus routes always rank very high in terms of annual ridership? MNRR has more value for reverse-commuters now because the fare is reasonable; if the fare was matched with the subways for Manhattan-bound service as well, people would certainly use it. 

Having commuter rail trains stop in the city is not sacrificing service for commuters in the suburbs. I'm not proposing that they be overlooked at all. As I said, charging $2.75 for intra-city travel on any of the commuter rail lines would garner enough ridership not to need massive subsidies. The main ridership of commuter services comes from affluent areas today because the trains skip over the less affluent areas. 

What you're saying here is that the LIRR and MNRR should be preserved as a railroad for the affluent, and that median income should determine where trains stop. Public transit should be public. That means picking up poor people sometimes, especially when doing so will improve mobility in the city without high upfront costs. 

The  has already said that any such reduction in fares would be expensive, and they expect the City to be willing to cough up the money for it (despite your claims, the has stated publicly that more service would have to be added among other things), so as I said, the City can talk all it wants about wanting lower fares.  It WILL be expensive (whether you think it won't be or not) and if the City won't subsidize it, then it'll be a lot of talk and nothing more.  This is exactly why they're now moving away from what they said about rolling out the Freedom Ticket.  Notice how they're changing that (See below)...

 

Queens officials blast proposed changes to MTA ‘Freedom Ticket’ plan for discounted LIRR rides

Read more: http://qns.com/story/2018/03/07/queens-officials-blast-proposed-changes-mta-freedom-ticket-plan-discounted-lirr-rides/

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

I mentioned on here before that Commuter service should be increased within the city with fares competitive with the subway. The cost of running a few more TPH in the Bronx and Queens is far lower than the subway upgrades necessary to bring the Lex and QBL where they need to be. You're also likely to garner decent usage on these commuter lines as well since the rail portion of trips would be short and people can connect to the same local buses they're already using to get to the subway. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

10 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If the city wants to provide the service then they can pony up the money for trains to start within CITY LIMITS. After all this is about service within the city, so there is no need for example for a train coming from deep in the suburbs like Croton-on-Hudson for said train to keep making stops after Riverdale. As someone who frequents Metro-North I take the service for a fast commute, otherwise there's no point. 

 

I’d have no problem if the City did this. In fact, I’d welcome it. If it’s faster than taking the QM20 express bus and way more reliable than taking the unreliable Q16 to Flushing for the daily shitshow that is the  train, well sign me up then! But not if it’s only once or twice an hour. Running on traditional commuter rail frequencies is going to be a hard sell for most riders within the city. I don’t expect City-only LIRR trains to be as frequent as the  is (supposed to be), but only one to three trains per hour in the peak just won’t cut it.

[W4ST]

On 4/12/2018 at 6:45 PM, officiallyliam said:

Consider station platform lengthening, infill stops, and added frequencies as a second phase of commuter rail improvements. The thing that makes railroad improvement an attractive way to ease pressure on the subway and increase transport options within the city is the fact that the first phase would cost next to nothing.

The first phase could solely consist of reorganizing stopping patterns so that commuter rail services actually stop in the city. I understand keeping the longer-distance services from Poughkeepsie, Wassaic, or Speonk as expresses, but the local electric trains (originating at, for example, North White Plains, Croton-Harmon, or Huntington) should make all the inner-city stops. Melrose and Tremont should no longer get 1 tph off-peak; the reason for this poor service isn't that there aren't more than 1 tph through that area, it's simply that most of those trains aren't stopping.

Just curious: What is the highest TPH that can run on Metro North / LIRR tracks, typically?

[B35 via Church]

Band-aids doesn't cure cancer.

 

[officiallyliam]

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It WILL be expensive (whether you think it won't be or not) and if the City won't subsidize it, then it'll be a lot of talk and nothing more.

I'm not saying that the city shouldn't subsidize it. Of course they should; this is about increasing mobility in the city. But because the city will be able to fill more seats at a lower price ($2.75 with transfers) than they can at the current rates, the service wouldn't need to be heavily subsidized in the long run.

11 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

If the city wants to provide the service then they can pony up the money for trains to start within CITY LIMITS. After all this is about service within the city, so there is no need for example for a train coming from deep in the suburbs like Croton-on-Hudson for said train to keep making stops after Riverdale. As someone who frequents Metro-North I take the service for a fast commute, otherwise there's no point. 

That's silly. Why, really, can't we just add stops to existing services? I want to know real, operational reasons that prevent this from happening, not that you don't want your commute slowed by two minutes. Adding stops allows for reverse-commuting (which, as you noted, is popular along the Harlem line) and, let's be real, stopping at Morris Heights and University Heights isn't going to add much time at all to the trip from Riverdale. Likewise, a commute in from inner Long Island wouldn't be ruined by stopping at Forest Hills and Kew Gardens.

30 minutes ago, W4ST said:

Just curious: What is the highest TPH that can run on Metro North / LIRR tracks, typically?

I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but both LIRR and MNRR capacity is limited by at-grade junctions. MNRR capacity through the Bronx is lowered by the junction at 149th; LIRR service by Jamaica, as well as by capacity at Penn Station.

[bobtehpanda]

11 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but both LIRR and MNRR capacity is limited by at-grade junctions. MNRR capacity through the Bronx is lowered by the junction at 149th; LIRR service by Jamaica, as well as by capacity at Penn Station.

It's interesting to note that it is actually possible to run LIRR services without worrying too much about the flat junctions, but that would require ending rush hour service from Penn to Far Rock, Long Beach, and WH.

The LIRR has more western capacity than they know what to do with, and that's mostly because the LIRR doesn't recognizing having western terminals other than Penn Station.

[checkmatechamp13]

49 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I'm not saying that the city shouldn't subsidize it. Of course they should; this is about increasing mobility in the city. But because the city will be able to fill more seats at a lower price ($2.75 with transfers) than they can at the current rates, the service wouldn't need to be heavily subsidized in the long run.

1

Have you checked the supply-demand curve to verify this?

[KK 6 Ave Local]

On 4/11/2018 at 9:00 PM, bobtehpanda said:

So you're both concerned that too many people will try to use the service and that the stations are too far for people to actually use the service. Both statements can't be true at the same time.

The most true thing I have ever heard. People cant use the service does not equal too many people use it.

[RR503]

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

The  has already said that any such reduction in fares would be expensive, and they expect the City to be willing to cough up the money for it (despite your claims, the has stated publicly that more service would have to be added among other things), so as I said, the City can talk all it wants about wanting lower fares.  It WILL be expensive (whether you think it won't be or not) and if the City won't subsidize it, then it'll be a lot of talk and nothing more.  This is exactly why they're now moving away from what they said about rolling out the Freedom Ticket.  Notice how they're changing that (See below)...

Yeah so that's false. I know a thing or two about how Freedom Ticket was looked at internally, so lemme add my two cents. 

For a while, it will lose money; existing riders will see their fares lowered. After the service gains in popularity, however, the revenue effect of additional fare-paying riders will outweigh that of the fares lowered. IIRC, for SE queens, the number was around 3,000 new riders, or hardly some impossible number. That said, Freedom Ticket is premised upon a continuation of a premium on LIRR service. A ride+NYCT transfer would cost 6.50, and a monthly with the same benefits would be 215. This proposal lowers fares to 2.75, moving that break even point much further in terms of the necessary number of riders gained. I am waaaaaaaaay too tired to run those numbers now, but I'm sure someone here could. 

The Freedom Ticket rollout issues are more because of LIRR kicking and tantrum-throwing than they are about some flaw in the program itself. The railroad is using the work at Penn as a crutch to claim limited capacity (and therefore no space for FT riders) there, and runs so little service to HPA and LIC that they're honestly irrelevant. Once those are cleared, we can have a workable program. I also, FWIW, don't think Atlantic terminal is some horrible death knell for FT. It's the best way to get to Lower Manhattan, downtown Bk, and is a 20-30 minute ride from midtown on any of the gazillion lines that stop there. So even if it isn't as convenient as penn, it'll still bring massive time savings for SE Queens. 

 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah so that's false. I know a thing or two about how Freedom Ticket was looked at internally, so lemme add my two cents. 

For a while, it will lose money; existing riders will see their fares lowered. After the service gains in popularity, however, the revenue effect of additional fare-paying riders will outweigh that of the fares lowered. IIRC, for SE queens, the number was around 3,000 new riders, or hardly some impossible number. That said, Freedom Ticket is premised upon a continuation of a premium on LIRR service. A ride+NYCT transfer would cost 6.50, and a monthly with the same benefits would be 215. This proposal lowers fares to 2.75, moving that break even point much further in terms of the necessary number of riders gained. I am waaaaaaaaay too tired to run those numbers now, but I'm sure someone here could. 

The Freedom Ticket rollout issues are more because of LIRR kicking and tantrum-throwing than they are about some flaw in the program itself. The railroad is using the work at Penn as a crutch to claim limited capacity (and therefore no space for FT riders) there, and runs so little service to HPA and LIC that they're honestly irrelevant. Once those are cleared, we can have a workable program. I also, FWIW, don't think Atlantic terminal is some horrible death knell for FT. It's the best way to get to Lower Manhattan, downtown Bk, and is a 20-30 minute ride from midtown on any of the gazillion lines that stop there. So even if it isn't as convenient as penn, it'll still bring massive time savings for SE Queens. 

 

Well you should tell that to Queens politicians then because they don't favor transferring at Atlantic Avenue. The people who support a $2.75 fare should be showing stats to support such a set up. I think it's too low for the to not lose money, forget about making a profit. People seem to forget that the only gets a portion of its revenue from fares, not to mention how heavily this has to be subsidized due to high labor costs that will only increase in the years to come, so who is going to pay for that? $2.75 won't cut it and the knows that which is why they're now backing away from original plan. If they can't get the pilot rolled out at $6.75, no way are they going for $2.75.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Well you should tell that to Queens politicians then because they don't favor transferring at Atlantic Avenue. The people who support a $2.75 fare should be showing stats to support such a set up. I think it's too low for the to not lose money, forget about making a profit. People seem to forget that the only gets a portion of its revenue from fares, not to mention how heavily this has to be subsidized due to high labor costs that will only increase in the years to come, so who is going to pay for that? $2.75 won't cut it and the knows that which is why they're now backing away from original plan. If they can't get the pilot rolled out at $6.75, no way are they going for $2.75.

They're not running new trains for this service, they're using the 10,000 seats to Atlantic that aren't occupied anyways on existing trains. (Far Rock, Long Beach, and West Hempstead aren't exactly the busiest of branches - WH almost got completely cut during the last round of service cuts.)

In that sense, no additional net cost and more fares = pure upside for MTA.

It's also not as if current passengers of the railroad are causing LIRR or Metro North to make profit. I remember reading those agencies cover maybe 40% of their operating costs with fares, to say nothing of grandiose projects like frivolous ESI improvements or the financial black hole that is East Side Access.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

31 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

They're not running new trains for this service, they're using the 10,000 seats to Atlantic that aren't occupied anyways on existing trains. (Far Rock, Long Beach, and West Hempstead aren't exactly the busiest of branches - WH almost got completely cut during the last round of service cuts.)

In that sense, no additional net cost and more fares = pure upside for MTA.

It's also not as if current passengers of the railroad are causing LIRR or Metro North to make profit. I remember reading those agencies cover maybe 40% of their operating costs with fares, to say nothing of grandiose projects like frivolous ESI improvements or the financial black hole that is East Side Access.

That's because the LIRR and MNRR have such high operating costs. 

[officiallyliam]

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's because the LIRR and MNRR have such high operating costs. 

Operational costs are high, but that's not the whole problem once construction costs are added. As noted though, it's also because they're both pretty bad at spending the money they have; case in point: East Side Access. I'm expecting that the Third Track will go the same way, as optimistic as I'd like to be. Both costs, however, are controllable. Cost reform needs to be implemented across the board in the MTA, but that's a discussion for another day.

As for operating costs, those are more controllable in a short-term way that pertains to the topic at hand. As the new fare system comes online (next year?) that should allow for parity between subway and commuter rail services, the railroad services should transition to using faregates at inner-city and busier suburban stations, obviating the need for several conductors per train and allowing for better smartcard integration into commuter rail. This is a model easily copied - just like commuter rail integration in the first place - from various successful European and Asian systems.

[kosciusko]

On 4/12/2018 at 6:57 PM, officiallyliam said:

Why, then, does Riverdale deserve express service? Would it really be so bad to stop at University Heights and Morris Heights? The same goes for Harlem line trains stopping in the Bronx, or LIRR trains stopping in Queens.

Not a commuter, but frequent Harlem-Line user here. 

While I do support lowering the fare to 2.75 for in-city trips, Increasing MNR service in the Bronx to match that of a rapid transit poses a number of problems. First off, axing skip stop service makes no sense from an operational standpoint, there are enough people to fill the express trains. Forcing those trains to dredge through the Bronx and packing in even tighter with passengers is pretty nonsensical. Secondly, increasing the conga-line at GCT. As it stands now, there is usually a (short) queue for inbound trains waiting to receive a platform, I fear that increasing Bronx service would exacerbate this problem, and would lead to longer queues, not a huge problem I know but still something that should be considered. Lastly, crowding on the . As it stands right now the Lex can't handle the amount of passengers from MNR, there's almost always a line to get down onto the platforms during rush-hour. It's already overcrowded and unsafe, and with the additional 3000~ riders would just add to the delays. We would need PSDs at the very least.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Not a commuter, but frequent Harlem-Line user here. 

While I do support lowering the fare to 2.75 for in-city trips, Increasing MNR service in the Bronx to match that of a rapid transit poses a number of problems. First off, axing skip stop service makes no sense from an operational standpoint, there are enough people to fill the express trains. Forcing those trains to dredge through the Bronx and packing in even tighter with passengers is pretty nonsensical. Secondly, increasing the conga-line at GCT. As it stands now, there is usually a (short) queue for inbound trains waiting to receive a platform, I fear that increasing Bronx service would exacerbate this problem, and would lead to longer queues, not a huge problem I know but still something that should be considered. Lastly, crowding on the . As it stands right now the Lex can't handle the amount of passengers from MNR, there's almost always a line to get down onto the platforms during rush-hour. It's already overcrowded and unsafe, and with the additional 3000~ riders would just add to the delays. We would need PSDs at the very least.

Yes, it should be noted that it takes 10 minutes from GCT to Harlem-125th street, mainly because of that whole switching of tracks from GCT.  I also agree a lot of trains already being crowded enough.  The semi-express trains to Croton Harmon see huge crowds from Riverdale, and those trains are used by people in my neighborhood precisely for that reason.  The Bronx stops simply don't get enough usage to justify more service.