Expanded City Zone service/Paycard Entry/Crew Reduction

onorclose7 wrote:I read your pipe dream post. My question was about where do you intend to get the money for the initial capital projects, not the extra fares ten years down the road?

Did you?

lirr42 wrote:Implementing something like this would also not require any additional infrastructure expansions beyond what is currently planned for East Side Access.

If implementing that would not require any additional infrastructure expansions beyond what is currently planned for East Side Access, you would not have to get any money for any initial capital projects from anywhere........

There was a complaint about some of the responses on here. We all have opinions and welcome them. Just try not to post like it's a private conversation and be respectful of other members. Thank you.

You speak of opening a station at Springfield Gardens. I don't see that anywhere in the ESA project. That money would have to come from somewhere.

In fairness to lirr42 this is all hypothetical so there's only one place the money could come from and that's the capital projects budget. However, the proposal was made by NIMBYkiller not lirr42. As proposed the plan would require capital investment.

NIMBYkiller wrote: Fares: Paycard entry/exit gates installed at all city zone stations except FBA, NYP, GCT, Douglaston, and Little Neck. At the city zone stations you would swipe to enter and then exit at NYP as normal (or swipe to exit your intermediate station), and on the return you would do the same but reverse (swipe when exiting your station). For anyone traveling city zone to LI, you would continue to use your ticket as normal, but the city zone entry/exit gates will still have to read it as well. Paycard enables free transfer to NYCT

Setting up the fare collection system would require a lot of money and development. Not only the collection equipment but you have to modify the stations to establish a fare-controlled area.

I don't mind discussing this as a hypothetical -- in fact I enjoyed looking up the numbers on the PW Branch (I've looked at that report before but I didn't remember much of it and now I will) -- but I also don't think this is at all realistic. I agree with an earlier comment by onorclose. The labor agreement part of this would be difficult to implement. And there seems to be a glitch there too. You have a 6- or 8-car train with one train crew member that is also making local stops at Nassau County stations, how does that work?

For the scheme to have any chance of working, the whole railroad (except perhaps east of Ronkonkoma and Babylon (or Patchogue) would have to be put on Proof of Payment--which can be made to work, despite denial in certain quarters. But I think working out a revenue-protection system would be the least of the problems.

Lets say all this could be funded/sorted out. You've got constraints with the tunnels into Manhattan. I don't know that they can add more trains even mid day. There is the platform at LIC though, that is barely used... that could be 'minimum viable' until new tunnels are built (yea I know, it'll never happen...).

All of this might be very impossible at the moment, but NYC's outgrowing its transportation options (if it hasn't already). Talking about new ideas hurts no one.

Now feels like as good a time as any to respond. First, I posted this here because I don't have all the answers and wanted feedback from those who had better knowledge than myself. To Slippy and onorclose, the reason for conversation is for collaboration, so next time if you're going to have such a condescending tone to your post, just don't bother responding. To answer both of your questions, yes, given that I work in operations management for a bus company, crew cycles, maintenance cycles, vehicle inventory, vehicle storage space, etc all do come to mind, so thank you for the arrogant assumption.

Slippy: The idea is not to turn the RR into a subway, but the truth is that as the city and the region continue to grow and evolve, so to do the utilities serving it. If you try understanding what I'm saying, you'll see the only thing in common with the subway anywhere in my idea is the introduction of fare gates at the city zone stations. The idea is that since Eastern Queens has poor rail transportation to Manhattan relative to its population, the CITY could fund LIRR service expansions to those areas instead of having to figure out how to expand subway service (which would require REAL capital construction such as new trunk and branch lines).

onorclose7: The idea is just that, an idea. I don't work in finance so I can't tell you where the money would come from. But the idea is that since this is something that would be done to benefit the city, that the city would pay for it. Well where does the money come from? I couldn't tell you, but when they do figure it out, they'll be needing a whole lot less from that (those) source(s) than if they were to try to provide better access for those areas via subway expansion. Also, when insulting someone on their idea, try insulting the right person

Now, if either two of the above gentlemen are done being condescending hysterics, perhaps they wouldn't mind contributing by giving their opinion on just how much of this idea would actually necessitate additional equipment during peak hours vs how much can already be covered by restructuring the schedules.

lirr142: The big flaw in your thinking is that you assume this service would absorb existing local bus ridership which won't happen. Parallel routes like the Q12 will not simply vanish and neither will their ridership. This idea, while it could certainly be used for local transportation to a certain degree, is more geared towards Manhattan access. The only bus routes that would be drastically affected by this are the express routes, of which you'd see elimination (QM3 E of Willets Pt) or combinations (QM21 and X64). Private message me if you want a better idea of what I'm thinking on those and other routes since this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Also, I'm suggesting the fare for this be equivalent to the express bus fare ($6.00), not subway fare. Also, stop looking at this like a business. While we need to be conservative with how money is spent, this is a public utility and not a for-profit business, which is why we pay our taxes. The area already suffers from horrible congestion and allowing that to continue (and degrade) will only harm our economy. Any ideas on how to make this cost less though are always welcome

Tommy Meehan: The difference is that the Lower Montauk was the topic of discussion back then. The Lower Montauk has very little capability of providing access to Manhattan (connect to either the 7 or the ferry at LIC) and as much I miss it (and know people who could still use the service for LI based travel), the transit and MTA were right, the money was better off elsewhere. Where transit is wrong is their belief that they are the sole providers of transportation in the city and that they don't need help. Eastern Queens has great local buses, but piss poor transportation to/from Manhattan. Other than the network of express buses (which are painfully slow and some of which run a very limited peak only schedule), LIRR IS the only provider of transportation to/from Manhattan for that region of Queens. Also, the idea is that the fare paid for this city zone service would include a free transfer to transit. I realize that you are just relaying NYCTs message from a previous account, but the scenarios are different. Regarding the crew, that is something I am unsure of and is why I posted it here for input. Perhaps on the Bayside and Belmont trains, only 1 conductor is needed since all of the stations are automated fare collection, but on trains originating in Freeport and Valley Stream have the 3 man crew. Perhaps there's a way that they only have that additional crew member E of Jamaica? Perhaps they install fare gates at those few Nassau County stations? Perhaps ExCon is right and the only way this can work is the whole LIRR goes to automated fare collection (be it the entire system or leave out E of KO and E of Babylon as he suggested)?

DogBert: I'm curious as to how much of this plan would actually require an overall addition in the # of trains going into Manhattan versus how much of the plan can be met by restructuring the schedules. Also, does anyone have a definitive answer on what exactly LIRR is doing with the Atlantic Av branch? Will they continue to thru-run peak service, or will it be full time scoot only? That's a chunk of capacity right there, and to an area that is growing faster than any part of the city too. And yes, there's LIC too which can be modified to install another couple of platforms perhaps?

Yes, guys, THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE to the LIRR that we are all used to, but something is needed. LI needs more service, eastern Queens needs more service, NYC needs more subways, problem problem problem. The LIRR is doing a great job of addressing that problem for LI riders through ESA and other capacity expansions. NYC is doing a great job for Manhattan by finally building a portion of SAS and by working to install other capacity enhancements for the existing network. Where both fall short are Eastern Queens. Obviously that much subway expansion is far outside of NYCs reach and LIRR should not have to pay for something that is primarily to the benefit of Queens residents. Why can't a hybrid solution be found where the city funds LIRR expansion in these areas if it is going to be the most cost efficient way of providing a real improvement to the regions transportation network?

There is no crew size requirement at the Federal level for railroads. Currently, NYS also does not have minimum crew size. The requirement is that the person operating the train is certified as an Engineer and that there is a crew member on the train certified as a Conductor. The Engineer can be certified as both and because of that, operate alone on a train. Union rules if applicable, are what requires more than an Engineer on a train in NY. Until recently, the LIRR had jobs that were only staffed with an Engineer. LIRR Engineers are certified as Engineer and Conductor, what they call dual certified. The conductors union/SMART insisted on a conductor being on those jobs and to get that agreement, agreed to pay for medical to the tune of 2% of their 40 hour week and a continued pension contribution by new employees.

The sidebar agreement about conductors on the CE jobs has never been proven. I view it as an urban legend. As far as a Metro card system for the LIRR, you'll never see it in my lifetime. It would eliminate too many jobs for the union to agree to and it would cost a fortune to control entrance to the stations, especially the outer lying street level ones. But you can dream.

A practical problem with this idea is, I think the Long Island's suburban ridership -- which is the vast majority of LIRR riders -- those people would hate this. Example:

• Having to swipe to enter or leave the platform at Penn Station would drastically slow things down.
• If I ride from Great Neck to Penn Station I'm paying $11.00 peak one-way. Someone boarding at Bayside 3.1 miles down the line is going to pay $6.00?

I have no problem with this as a hypothetical so long as we agree it's not going to happen. The opposition would include labor, most riders and NY City Transit and is probably insurmountable.

Zone 4 riders are already paying twice the price of city ticket on the weekends. I mentioned that Penn Station wouldn't have fare gates for that very reason, which is why you swipe both in and out at the neighborhood stations. Those stations are the control points. Thinking about it now though, there'd be a problem of deducting the correct amount if someone is going between neighborhood stations (currently $3.75 for travel within zone 3 I believe, no?) vs the $6 I'm proposing to get to NYP/GCT. The subway crowds handle fare gates just fine though. You could install them at the corridor entrances at NYP (with a sectioned off corridor to access the NJT section of course). Tracks 20-21 would need to also be sectioned off. It's all certainly doable. Either that or just merge zones 1 and 3 all into one big city zone with $6 fare throughout (Douglaston and Little would become zone 4, sorry guys).

Nimby, Nice to see your back. But seriously why give them any job eliminating ideas any faster then they already plan?

As for your (Queens service) If they wanted to they can bring back Union Hall, Hillside as a passenger stop, and Bellaire. and run City zone locals to Belmont using it as a year round park and ride, And these trains makeing all local stops to Penn Station.
(Kew, Forest, (Rego Park?) (Grand st?). Woodside) Leaving all other trains as Flyers or Woodside-Jamaica trains and points East is most plausible.

I doubt they would ever re open Springfield Gardens as its walking distance from Lauralton. If it weren't for the VA hospital St Albans probably would have been closed too.

I do agree that a mentality change is severely needed here but its unlikely.

NIMBYkiller wrote:I mentioned that Penn Station wouldn't have fare gates for that very reason, which is why you swipe both in and out at the neighborhood stations...Thinking about it now though, there'd be a problem of deducting the correct amount if someone is going between neighborhood stations (currently $3.75 for travel within zone 3 I believe, no?) vs the $6 I'm proposing to get to NYP/GCT.

That's what I'm talking about, if you only swiped in and out at the neighborhood stations how would it work?

You could install them at the corridor entrances at NYP (with a sectioned off corridor to access the NJT section of course).

How about Amtrak? What you would have to do is, realistically, rebuild the entire station. And for what? So people in eastern Queens could save a couple of bucks getting into Manhattan?

Okay I'm playing devil's advocate here but it's based on experience. I used to go to the Metro-North President's Conferences at 347 Madison Avenue where the public could make comments and ask the CEO questions. People would come in with proposals like this. But when somebody tries to explain something like this to the professionals that's when you discover the basic concept might be a good one but the devil's in the details. Most of the ideas are essentially unworkable in the real world.

onorclose7 wrote:You speak of opening a station at Springfield Gardens. I don't see that anywhere in the ESA project. That money would have to come from somewhere.

Please show me a direct quote of someplace where I spoke of opening a station at Springfield Gardens.....

lirr42 wrote:Back when the AirTrain to LGA plan came out, I did some math as to determine how much it would cost the LIRR to add two trains per hour all day long to Little Neck, and then lower the zone 3 fare for Port Washington Branch stations from what they are now to $2.38, the same effective price as the subway.

Adding two additional trains per hour all day long (48 trains, 9 crews working 9-hour shifts) would provide 15-minute headways during most of the off-peak periods, a minimum of 30 minute headways during the late night period, and eight additional trains during each rush hour period. The approximate annual additional operating expenses for doing that would be approximately $4.4 million per year. The impact of additional crews, equipment, or track maintenance is minimal, considering this is largely an expansion to off-peak service, where the LIRR operates well below capacity. Implementing something like this would also not require any additional infrastructure expansions beyond what is currently planned for East Side Access.

Next, lowering the fares from the existing zone 3 fare ($9.50 peak, $7 off peak) to the effective fare for the subway ($2.38) at stations Woodside through Little Neck would result in about $34.6 million per year in lost revenue. This does not consider those that might travel with monthly commutation tickets or unlimited MetroCards, but considering that the multi-ride ticket proportion is much higher for an unlimited MetroCard (47 trips) than it is for a zone 3 monthly (22 trips peak, 30 trips off-peak) the impact is likely not that significant.

Both of those together results in a $39.0 million shortfall for the LIRR. To plug that gap, the railroad would need to attract approximately 16 million annual new riders paying $2.38 fares to break even, or about 44,000 a day. Considering that the ridership on local bus routes that roughly parallel the Port Washington Branch sums to over 14 million riders per year, the LIRR is only left with an effective difference of 2.1 million riders per year, or a little over 5,800 additional riders per day, which is reasonably attainable given the fast, more frequent, and significantly cheaper service, and general growth patterns in Queens.

Something like this would do a ton to stimulate growth in eastern Queens, and as long as the LIRR can attract slightly more than 5,800 new riders per day (which is very possible, especially considering Cuomo's AirTrain to Willets Point...), they would even stand to make money off of something like this.

ExCon90 wrote:For the scheme to have any chance of working, the whole railroad (except perhaps east of Ronkonkoma and Babylon (or Patchogue) would have to be put on Proof of Payment--which can be made to work, despite denial in certain quarters. But I think working out a revenue-protection system would be the least of the problems.

Proof of payment for the LIRR would be very desirable since it would save them an awful lot of money, and from a physical hardware point of view, would not be extraordinarily difficult to implement. It seems like it would be difficult to get the labor unions to agree however.

I have mentioned this before, but I find the union's continued opposition to progress and their desire to undermine the financial solvency of the very agency that employs them strange. Reducing costs benefits everyone--if things were cheaper to operate, the LIRR would be able to operate more trains to more places with the same amount of money, and that increases the amount of work that is available. You can get rid of the ridiculous three-person crew minimum, reduce costs, make things more efficient, and then increase service. That way, everyone keeps their jobs, and the riders and the taxpayers get a substantial benefit from the arrangement too.