Metro-North to close two station ticket offices next month

Cindy Ramkissoon was just one in a loyal throng of commuters yesterday who were devastated to learn that Tom Tinen will no longer be selling their Metro-North Railroad tickets and greeting them with his bright-and-early banter after April 8.

Although he's been with the railroad for 37 years, Tinen, the Tuckahoe station agent, isn't retiring. After raising fares and the cost of parking earlier this month, Metro-North has decided to delete the personal touch from its Tuckahoe and Pelham stations to save some money. No one will lose a job. But by reducing its ticket agent hires by two, the railroad expects to save $142,000 a year from a $944 million annual operating budget.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 018/NEWS02

I'm always surprised to find out that there are ANY agencies open any more. Once, I left my portfolio on the platform at Harrison. I get to New York with no portfolio under my arm. My cell phone rings, "Hi, this is the ticket agent at Harrison, we found your portfolio..." I was like, "Harrison has a ticket agent?"

Railroads are becoming increasingly self-serve. Railroads are always looking at the bottom line, and if they can reduce paid positions, they will. Criticise the railroad for spending too much, criticize them for not having enough agents- MTA can't win.

-otto-

I think I speak for a vast majority of commuters when I say that I would pay more for more service. If MTA is going to cut service agents, then tickets prices should go down, not up.

Not to mention that on-time performance is down, too.

You mean like how a pound of coffee is the same price it was 15 years ago - except it's only 11 ounces now, not a pound?

Prices don't go down. Prices only go up. That includes the prices the MTA pays for the raw materials and labor it needs in order to provide your train service. While I won't argue that the MTA is as efficient with their money as they can be (far from it, actually), it's unreasonable of anyone to expect prices to remain stable for years and years and years with no change in service to compensate.

And if you want to throw darts about the latest fare increases, aim at Albany. Pataki and crew are the ones who forced the MTA to borrow so much to pay for the capital program, and it's the debt service on that borrowing that's got us where we are now.

Jim

Yeah, why did all those Republican commuters ever reelect him? Not reading their papers, I guess.
For the first time in a century, Pelham will no longer have a railroad ticket agent. This "improvement" comes to one of the busier stations on the line -- anyone got an up to date list of Metro North stations with total passengers?
In some way, according to a quote from an MTA spokesperson, it is because Pelham and Tuckahoe are leased or will be, to tenants. Not only is MTA making extra money on Pelham station by leasing it, but the tenant is supposed to maintain the building as well.
There is far less excuse to cut the agent at Pelham than at most other stations on the line.
Wait and see. The other stations, and most personal service on the line. will be next.
Roger

Cutting some of the waste at MTA headquarters would cut expenses a lot
more and affect the paying commuters a lot less.
Noel Weaver

As one friend explained it to me, TVM's don't put in claims for overtime or worker's compensation.... hey, if it were up for me, every depot on MN would have an agent. Nothing made me feel more at home than the times I used to ride out of Mount Kisco on Sundays. This was back in the 1990s... the depot was restored, and the agent was on duty! Sitting on a polished wooden bench in the waiting room, I felt like I was actually riding a RAILROAD. But nostalgia aside, I don't know how efficient it was to have an agent on duty to sell four fares on a Sunday afternoon.

How many agencies are left? When I was a kid, I remembered agencies at Brewster, Bedford Hills, Mount Kisco, Chappaqua... they probably dont have long for this world.

-otto-

Noel Weaver wrote:Cutting some of the waste at MTA headquarters would cut expenses a lot more and affect the paying commuters a lot less.

This kind of statement never ceases to amaze me, and especially from someone who formerly worked for the railroad.

Now let's look at this objectively. If we take a look at the MTA's financial plan documents that are posted on its web site (http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/), we'll see that MTA Headquarters has a budget for 2005 of $252 million. In the scheme of things, not a big number. But let's say, for grins and giggles, that we wipe MTA HQ off the map. A ridiculous proposal, because there are some valuable things they do over there at 347, in spite of the waste, fraud and corruption that goes with any government agency. But let's just say we get rid of MTA HQ and save $252 million. How would that affect the fare increase?

Looking a little further, we see that the projected deficit reduction brought about by the fare increase in 2005 is $219 million. So for 2005, wiping out MTA HQ obviates the need for a fare increase. What about 2006? Well, even with the 2005 fare increase, there's a projected deficit of $695 million. So what good did wiping out HQ do? In 2006, none. So we saved a year of paying an additional 5% for our commuting expenses (and I pay it too - I ride the subway, which ain't free for MN employees).

Note that putting off the fare increase to 2006 doesn't reduce the need to cut costs at the agencies - so all the service and amenities being cut out this year still would have to be cut out, even if you get rid of MTA HQ.

So go on, rant, rail, moan and groan about all the outrageous waste of MTA HQ, but keep in mind that getting rid of it is not going to save meaningful dollars. If it makes you feel good to blame MTA HQ for all of society's ills, then go ahead. But rationally, it's nonsense.

Jim

I've got a better idea. Since the MTA is trying to eliminate so many jobs with automation and robotics, TVM's, trains without conductors or motormen (I'm sorry, I meant train operators), lets replace the executives at 347 with robots. They could do the job much easier and efficiently and we wouldn't have to worry about corruption or job integrity, vacations, sick time, etc. Furthermore since computers wouldn't take up as much room as the humans they would replace you could probably lease out three quarters of 347. Think of it, awarding of contracts by computer, wouldn't have to worry about favoritism in the awarding of contracts. The list could go on and on.

As Otto points out, TVM's don't put in for overtime or Workmens' compensation but who do you have to go to when the TVM's break down as often as they do, the ticket agent. The ticket agent gives you the form to fill out to attempt to get your money back.

I think they want to eliminate all ticket agents and this is just the beginning. They want to do on the railroad what they're doing on the subways with the railroad clerks (or as some call them token booth clerks).

MN Jim wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:Cutting some of the waste at MTA headquarters would cut expenses a lot more and affect the paying commuters a lot less.

This kind of statement never ceases to amaze me, and especially from someone who formerly worked for the railroad.

Now let's look at this objectively. If we take a look at the MTA's financial plan documents that are posted on its web site (http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/), we'll see that MTA Headquarters has a budget for 2005 of $252 million. In the scheme of things, not a big number. But let's say, for grins and giggles, that we wipe MTA HQ off the map. A ridiculous proposal, because there are some valuable things they do over there at 347, in spite of the waste, fraud and corruption that goes with any government agency. But let's just say we get rid of MTA HQ and save $252 million. How would that affect the fare increase?

Looking a little further, we see that the projected deficit reduction brought about by the fare increase in 2005 is $219 million. So for 2005, wiping out MTA HQ obviates the need for a fare increase. What about 2006? Well, even with the 2005 fare increase, there's a projected deficit of $695 million. So what good did wiping out HQ do? In 2006, none. So we saved a year of paying an additional 5% for our commuting expenses (and I pay it too - I ride the subway, which ain't free for MN employees).

Note that putting off the fare increase to 2006 doesn't reduce the need to cut costs at the agencies - so all the service and amenities being cut out this year still would have to be cut out, even if you get rid of MTA HQ.

So go on, rant, rail, moan and groan about all the outrageous waste of MTA HQ, but keep in mind that getting rid of it is not going to save meaningful dollars. If it makes you feel good to blame MTA HQ for all of society's ills, then go ahead. But rationally, it's nonsense.

Jim

I am not ranting or moaning, just stating my opinion. I just happen to
think that maybe there are a few too many levels of people in HQ, more
than they need. Just to compare the New Haven Railroad in 1957 with
Metro-North in 2005. The New Haven in the New York commuter area,
had a Chief Dispatcher, Superintendent (covered the whole division),
Assistant Superintendent (again covered the whole division) 9 Trainmasters and 7 Road Foremen of Engines. These people were all
responsible for commuter traffic, freight trains, through passenger trains
and the yards in the territory as well as freight only lines of which there
were plenty.
Today Metro-North has four times as many people and all they handle are
commuter passenger trains for the most part. Amtrak has their own
people and freight trains (at least on the New Haven Line) are almost a
thing of the past.
I don't think that this is the big waste, however, I think these people do a
fine job in the field. I only used this example as an illustration but I do
sincerely think there is some "fat" at 347 Madison Avenue and maybe at
Grand Central too.
The agents at Tuckahoe, Pelham, Chappaqua, Mt. Kisco, Brester or any
other station where there are still agents is the railroad's contact person
with its customers and I do not think it is a good idea to get rid of them.
The daily commuters have a "relationship" with these people, not with
some bureaucrat in headquarters.
I do not participate here to just bash the management but if I do not
agree with what they are doing, I will voice my opinion.
Noel Weaver

You're absolutely right Noel. That's all this is, it is a discussion board. My previous posting is trying to put a humorous spin on how management tries to eliminate the everyday workers while protecting their ivory towers.

Looks like Noroton Heights is gone as well. Kind of baffling, the station is locked 90% of the time, and a good chunk of money just went into it.

Oh well.

Noel, I can't disagree with you - there absolutely are a few too many bodies lounging around at 347. I don't think a comparison to the NHRR is valid - after all, the service today is better, and it's a different world we live in - frankly, people (in general - nothing personal here!) need more supervision than they did even 20 years ago just to get the job done. But yes, there's fat to be trimmed and fraud/corruption to be rooted out.

My gripe is with the people (and you were just the latest - sorry if I went off on you) who say that getting rid of the fat and corruption would make a difference in terms of fare increases. It just won't. That's not to say I think they shouldn't trim; they should. But let's not throw the weight of a fare increase on the backs of HQ, when that's not going to solve anything.

Jim

Well I do remember the same reasoning when there are complaints
of rank and file layoffs and the CEO gets millions per year. They
say"but it is only a very small amount of the total cost of doing
business and he is the guy who is the mastermind".
Well I work for the taxpayer and my lord, the amount of waste
is STAGGERING. If tax dollars are involved, 90% of the suits
just see a bottomless well. It is astounding and depressing.
However, your reasoning is sadly true enough.
It would help if the big guys were supervised as well as
the little guys and had to share a bit in the pain.

In the article, someone mentions that they buy from the ticket agent because he gets a "NYC Bus Pass" with it. Does this person mean MetroCard, and if so, then do they not know they can get that from the TVM?