NYT calls for Federal transit regulation
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
I think this is a really bad idea for multiple reasons:
1) Mainline railroads, which suffer from Federal oversight, are
excessively regulated. Tracks which used to handle faster trains are
no longer allowed to. Trains themselves must be much heavier "Tier
II", although nobody seems to have any true evidence that will make
them safer.
So, bringing federal oversight to transit will not solve anything.
2) Most transit systems exceed Federal track and signal standards per
speed. I believe under 50 mph the feds allow 'dark' operation, yet
transit systems are fully signalled with protection better than the
mainline railroads have. Good signal protection--which transit has--
is critical to prevent collisions which is better than surviving them.
3) To upgrade light rail and subways to heavy railroad strength--as
the NYT demands-- would require replacing every car in service. But
that's just for starters. The far heavier weights would require large
power supply upgrades. Some elevated lines and bridges might not be
able to handle the weight.
4) It was the Feds who dictated the light weight used by Washington
and its card builders. Not a vote of confidence for their expertise.
5) Transit operators nationwide are very concerned about safety. It's
not something they neglect.
6) The safety record of transit systems is excellent. Given the heavy
frequency of trains run closely together and the years of safe
operation, the record is really "super excellent".
7) Heavier equipment is not necessarily safer. High 'g' forces can do
more damage.
Philip Nasadowski
<c4a5417f-c047-4941...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I think this is a really bad idea for multiple reasons:
I think it's a bad idea because the problem isn't the industry, the
problem is WMATA is run by a bunch of idiots who shouldn't be let
anywhere near a transit operation. The trouble is, nobody wants to
address a particular operator, who can't get their act together, they
want to punish an entire industry, that by and large does it's job as
well or better than Amtrak and the commuter operators.
Bold prediction: with unrealistic standards imposed on transit
operators, you will see a heavy, if not overwhelming shift towards bus
systems, as light rail's bang:buck will be so low as to not make it
worth consideration, period. In effect, the current
congress/president/administration would accomplish something that would
have been Bush's wet dream - killing off rail transit growth in the US,
period.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
eliminating variations. Every difference in technology requires yet
another warehouse for parts, specialists in the technology..
This is why I opposed monorails and light rails..
Columbia had a reindustrialisation conference about a decade ago and
the former Chicago transit chief (teaching at CCNY) answered me we
would never get standardisation, which really ticked Seymour Melman
off.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
J.R.Guthrie
> eliminating variations. Every difference in technology requires yet
> another warehouse for parts, specialists in the technology..
There must be alot of incompetence among Industrial Englineers if they think
this can be applied to legacy transit systems. One would be hard-pressed to
get a return on investment in the differing systems used around New York
City by rebuilding all the infrastructure.
Back in the day, Industrial engineers came up with other solutions. For
example, the BRT and the LIRR had different Third Rail metrics. What they
designed was a third rail shoe that adjusted for each, and installed a
device along the third rail on the ramp that connected the two systems at
Chestnut Street to allow through operation of both BRT and LIRR equipment
from Rockaway Park to Chambers Street.
The New Haven worked out systems that allowed their trains to run both on 11
kv 25 cycle AC and 650v DC third rail; They also bought dual-mode diesels
that could run on over-running or under-running third rail.
The BRT and The PRR both had equipment that could run on overhead wire or
third rail.
Public Service had Al-Service vehicles that could run on trolley wire or
internal combustion engines (they used these vehicles on Coney Island
Excursions -- and "stole" electricity on Brooklyn Trolleybus routes --
surprising substation operators who suddenly saw spikes and usages on lines
that had no Sunday service <g>.
But as long as we're addressing the Balkanization of NY -- let's also
remember that until 1968 (the NYS&W dropped out in 1960), one could purchase
rail commuter tickets that were good from any point to any point in the
region -- Monthlies. weeklies, 10-trips, one ways from Ridgewood to
Hempstead or Islip to Danbury or White Plains to Metuchen.
And people bought and used these tickets -- I sold Huntington-Linden
monthlies on the LIRR as well as Hicksville-Newark Student monthlies, for
example.
The MCTA (later the MTA) killed all that off. When one speaks of the value
of a regional approach to commuter transit, it's important to start with the
easy steps. Universal ticketing, common purchase of TVMs and the like would
be a great start -- making regional trips seamless and obvious. Heck, one
could program the machines to spit out a point-to-point timetable with
instructions on changing trains for starters.
There are some who apparently would not want to see anything like that. The
NJ-ARP people insist that a tunnel to Grand Central is required, for
example -- even though the ONLY line left out at present is NJ points to the
Harlem Division without such a tunnel.
In short, if there was any thinking that a regional service would be
worthwhile, much of the basic infrastructure is in place. The technology
that the New Haven (and later the MTA) used to get through service from New
Haven to Grand Central would work just as well between Trenton and Babylon
or Long Branch to Long Beach. The Football specials demonstrate one could
easily run Trenton-New Haven (or a direct train for a Yale-Princeton game
<g>.
But the thinking is that any such regional thinking requires all manner of
impossibilities and requires tens of billions of dollars (or goofiness like
trains have to run from NJ to the Harlem Line or nothing can be possible --
those hordes needing to ride Trenton-Tremont and Wassaic-Watsessing Avenue
must be served or it "can't be done" ] is certainly evidence of the quality
of thinking that goes into regional planning in NYC.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> But as long as we're addressing the Balkanization of NY -- let's also
> remember that until 1968 (the NYS&W dropped out in 1960), one could purchase
> rail commuter tickets that were good from any point to any point in the
> region -- Monthlies. weeklies, 10-trips, one ways from Ridgewood to
> Hempstead or Islip to Danbury or White Plains to Metuchen.
>
> And people bought and used these tickets -- I sold Huntington-Linden
> monthlies on the LIRR as well as Hicksville-Newark Student monthlies, for
> example.
>
> The MCTA (later the MTA) killed all that off.
I suspect the Penn Central and Amtrak also had a hand in killing off
such inter-line ticketing, as well as the introduction of NJDOT
I also suspect decreased ridership killed off the need. Even back in
1968 I'd be surprised if you sold that many inter-line tickets as a
percentage of all tickets sold; or if today there is a high percentage
of such riders.
Apparently no agency has ever done an origin destination study for
NYC's Pennsylvania Station to see where the throngs of passengers go
when they get off their trains. How many walk? How many take a bus
(which bus)? Taxi? Subway (which line?) How change to the other
railroad?
> When one speaks of the value
> of a regional approach to commuter transit, it's important to start with the
> easy steps. Universal ticketing, common purchase of TVMs and the like would
> be a great start -- making regional trips seamless and obvious. Heck, one
> could program the machines to spit out a point-to-point timetable with
> instructions on changing trains for starters.
As an interline passenger, buying a second ticket is the least of my
concerns. I wish there was an easier way to get between GCT and Penn
instead of taking two subways. I wish NJT had some 'quiet cars'. (I
do wish NJT sold Metrocards, however). There's a variety of
improvements needed on the NJT side.
> There are some who apparently would not want to see anything like that. The
> NJ-ARP people insist that a tunnel to Grand Central is required, for
> example -- even though the ONLY line left out at present is NJ points to the
> Harlem Division without such a tunnel.
Has NJ-ARP's website been updated lately?
> In short, if there was any thinking that a regional service would be
> worthwhile, much of the basic infrastructure is in place. The technology
> that the New Haven (and later the MTA) used to get through service from New
> Haven to Grand Central would work just as well between Trenton and Babylon
> or Long Branch to Long Beach. The Football specials demonstrate one could
> easily run Trenton-New Haven (or a direct train for a Yale-Princeton game
> <g>.
How many people rode the New Haven trains to the Meadowlands?
The paper reported they're cutting back on the Atlantic City express
trains.
The Pennsylvania Railroad gave up on through service to Princeton Univ
as far back as 1954, a few years after the NJ Tpk was finished.
Would there be a demand today for a through train from Princeton Univ
direct to Yale? Would the passengers be willing to pay the total cost
of it or the authorities subsidize the cost? (Likewise from Univ of
Penna to Princeton to Yale, Brown Univ, or Boston; all along the NEC?)
> But the thinking is that any such regional thinking requires all manner of
> impossibilities and requires tens of billions of dollars (or goofiness like
> trains have to run from NJ to the Harlem Line or nothing can be possible --
> those hordes needing to ride Trenton-Tremont and Wassaic-Watsessing Avenue
> must be served or it "can't be done" ] is certainly evidence of the quality
> of thinking that goes into regional planning in NYC.
There already is a 'regional service'. It's called Amtrak. The
problem is simply that Amtrak fares for regional travel are extremely
high. Everybody seems to be busy trying to kill off Amtrak rather
than get at the underlying issues.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
My first day in Tokyo the agent insisted on punching my
ticket and mistakenly punched my long distance ticket,
costing me like thirty bucks more.
Bolwerk
> I suspect the Penn Central and Amtrak also had a hand in killing off
> such inter-line ticketing, as well as the introduction of NJDOT
>
> I also suspect decreased ridership killed off the need. Even back in
> 1968 I'd be surprised if you sold that many inter-line tickets as a
> percentage of all tickets sold; or if today there is a high percentage
> of such riders.
That may all be, but I suspect it's a lot easier in 2009 to utilize
computer information systems to coordinate a common fare system. I also
*suspect* the only reason it hasn't been done --- even incompetently ---
is hostility to the idea on the part of interests that might be
threatened by it.
But I'm a suspicious person. :-D
Adam H. Kerman
I think you're right on the motives, but I think in any era, designing
compatible systems, whether paper or electronic, is a matter of willingness
to cooperate and not ease of integration. It's amazing what can be designed
when the goal is to solve problems, not create barriers.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > I also suspect decreased ridership killed off the need. Even back in
> > 1968 I'd be surprised if you sold that many inter-line tickets as a
> > percentage of all tickets sold; or if today there is a high percentage
> > of such riders.
>
> That may all be, but I suspect it's a lot easier in 2009 to utilize
> computer information systems to coordinate a common fare system. I also
> *suspect* the only reason it hasn't been done --- even incompetently ---
> is hostility to the idea on the part of interests that might be
> threatened by it.
Actually, it was easier back then to do it manually since everything
was already manual. More significantly, given the common PRR
parentage and back office, they likely used the same procedures. (It
was stated that the LIRR used PRR for ticket processing long after
divesture).
Today, common ticketing could be done with computers, but of course at
a cost of programming and hardware. The amount of joint ticketing is
probably not enough to just the effort.
Note that SEPTA and NJT have a joint ticket option between their
service territories. I believe SEPTA's railroad ticketing remains all
manual.
I do think NYCT should have NJT sell Metrocard tickets. They could
treat NJT as an external newstand vendor; they don't have to integrate
the ticket machines. (Though, it appears all machines are from the
same vendor). I don't know if it's NJT or NYCT holding things up.
But the $64k question is how many, in terms of volume and percentage,
of NJT psgrs change to the LIRR or MNRR (and vice versa).
Along these lines, we should also know where motorists go after
driving into Manhattan from NJ. Do they terminate in Manhattan, or
continue to another location? Providing better train service to serve
such motorists would help regional transportation.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I think you're right on the motives, but I think in any era, designing
> compatible systems, whether paper or electronic, is a matter of willingness
> to cooperate and not ease of integration. It's amazing what can be designed
> when the goal is to solve problems, not create barriers.
At one time it (LIRR/NJT) was all under common parentage, the
Pennsylvania Railroad.
But today the agencies are completely separated. More significantly,
they answer to the politicians of their respective states. NJ
politicians do not care about New Yorkers and vice-versa. Thus, it
would be quite hard for an NJT official to go to the legislature and
ask for funding for a joint ticketing arrangement to benefit LIRR
passengers.
There are joint arrangements (like the MNRR Meadowlands trains), but
those are few and far between. It's not technical differences holding
back a through train from New Jersey straight out to Long Island, but
political.
Note that NJT wanted to build a lay-up yard for NEC trains in
Morrisville, PA because it would be far more efficient than a
turnaround in Trenton. New Jersey politicians went ballistic at this
idea and sat on it for years. Finally the yard was allowed to be
built.
Stephen Sprunk
> Today, common ticketing could be done with computers, but of course at
> a cost of programming and hardware. The amount of joint ticketing is
> probably not enough to just the effort.
>
> Note that SEPTA and NJT have a joint ticket option between their
> service territories. I believe SEPTA's railroad ticketing remains all
> manual.
All one has to do is train the crew to accept properly-marked tickets,
regardless of who issues them.
Getting one TA to sell another TA's tickets is more difficult, but the
majority of the work is on the back end, related to who sends how much
money where and when. Actually printing and selling them is fairly easy.
> I do think NYCT should have NJT sell Metrocard tickets. They could
> treat NJT as an external newstand vendor; they don't have to integrate
> the ticket machines. (Though, it appears all machines are from the
> same vendor). I don't know if it's NJT or NYCT holding things up.
>
> But the $64k question is how many, in terms of volume and percentage,
> of NJT psgrs change to the LIRR or MNRR (and vice versa).
The question is not how many _currently_ do it but how many _would_ do
it if there were better through service, including ticketing.
> Along these lines, we should also know where motorists go after
> driving into Manhattan from NJ. Do they terminate in Manhattan, or
> continue to another location? Providing better train service to serve
> such motorists would help regional transportation.
I suspect the closest, most reliable data to what you're seeking is
collected by the Census bureau: they track what county people live in
vs. the county worked in. At a high level, at least, that should give
you the commuter flows that you're looking for.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Michael Finfer
> I do think NYCT should have NJT sell Metrocard tickets. They could
> treat NJT as an external newstand vendor; they don't have to integrate
> the ticket machines. (Though, it appears all machines are from the
> same vendor). I don't know if it's NJT or NYCT holding things up.
It's not necessary to have NJT do anything. If NYCT wanted to, and NJT
would allow it, MetroCard vending machines could be set up at key NJT
stations. It won't happen.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Michael Finfer
> All one has to do is train the crew to accept properly-marked tickets,
> regardless of who issues them.
This is apparently a stretch for some people. An LIRR crew had a
passenger arrested because she had a valid ticket that happened to be
printed on old stock.
Vigilance is always required.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Joseph D. Korman
> On Dec 8, 4:35 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I think you're right on the motives, but I think in any era, designing
>> compatible systems, whether paper or electronic, is a matter of willingness
>> to cooperate and not ease of integration. It's amazing what can be designed
>> when the goal is to solve problems, not create barriers.
>>
>
> At one time it (LIRR/NJT) was all under common parentage, the
> Pennsylvania Railroad.
>
>
to the PRR. Not the other parts of NJT, which were Erie Lackawanna and
the Central RR of New Jersey. The North Jersey Coast line was jointly
run by the PRR and CRRNJ.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Joseph D. Korman
Exchange Place to Newark. I was surprised that one of my ticket choices
was a pay per ride Metrocard sold from a regular PATH TVM.
I think the biggest problem for the TA would be the expense of getting
the Metrocards to the NJT points. It's one thing to go as far as
Newark, but quite another to get them out as far as Trenton. I could
just see the outrage of the city politicians when they find out that a
TA employee went out on the NEC to refill the machines. Those news
stands that sell MC's only stock a few denominations of wrapped cards,
much like the local stores in the city.
Jimmy
> I also suspect decreased ridership killed off the need. Even back in
> 1968 I'd be surprised if you sold that many inter-line tickets as a
> percentage of all tickets sold; or if today there is a high percentage
> of such riders.
Also note that there are *very* few intercity buses that serve the tri-
state area but don't originate/terminate in NYC (and it's far easier
to add or change a bus route than a train route). AFAIK, the only
such buses are a few trips from Long Island to Albany or Binghamton,
and an infrequent seasonal service from the Hamptons to Boston via the
Bridgeport ferry.
> Would there be a demand today for a through train from Princeton Univ
> direct to Yale? Would the passengers be willing to pay the total cost
> of it or the authorities subsidize the cost? (Likewise from Univ of
> Penna to Princeton to Yale, Brown Univ, or Boston; all along the NEC?)
All of those colleges are within walking distance of Amtrak stations
served by direct trains (except Princeton which requires a transfer to
the dinky), so I'm not sure what you're proposing.
I know of a startup bus company that is thinking of running a Boston-
New Haven-Philly-DC service, *without* a stop in NYC. I'll post if
it's ever implemented.
Jimmy
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> All one has to do is train the crew to accept properly-marked tickets,
>> regardless of who issues them.
>
> This is apparently a stretch for some people. An LIRR crew had a
> passenger arrested because she had a valid ticket that happened to be
> printed on old stock.
On what charge? Counterfeiting a ticket?
Hopefully the passenger sued the LEA for false arrest, legal fees, etc.
and the crew for filing a false police report (or whatever the civil
equivalent is), legal fees, etc. She could have even prosecuted the
parties qui tam for the criminal offenses they committed.
> Vigilance is always required.
Yet another reason to get as many humans out of the system as possible
and leave law enforcement to those who are actually trained for it.
Mark Mathu
>1) Mainline railroads, which suffer from Federal oversight, are
>excessively regulated. Tracks which used to handle faster trains are
>no longer allowed to. Trains themselves must be much heavier "Tier
>II", although nobody seems to have any true evidence that will make
>them safer.
Isn't Tier II an emissions requirement, not a crash requirement?
Jishnu Mukerji
Tier II buff strength requirement is a crash requirement for trains
certified to operate at above 125mph. That is totally independant of the
Tier II and III emission requirements, which are DEP regulations not FRA
regulations.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> All one has to do is train the crew to accept properly-marked tickets,
> regardless of who issues them.
Not hard.
> Getting one TA to sell another TA's tickets is more difficult, but the
> majority of the work is on the back end, related to who sends how much
> money where and when.
Because they are different states reporting to separate and
independent political bodies, that would be very hard.
> The question is not how many _currently_ do it but how many _would_ do
> it if there were better through service, including ticketing.
Through _ticketing_ would not make a bit of difference.
Through trains might. Does anybody know how the Meadowlands specials
from New Haven worked out?
There are many motorists who drive from New Jersey into suburban New
York. Could they take the train? One major problem is _delivery_ to
the ultimate destination from a suburban train station. (Metro North
is offering rental cars in conjunction with Enterprise, which is a
start). The other question is would they take a through train?
Obviously people have to be already going in that direction and exact
travel points isn't known.
> I suspect the closest, most reliable data to what you're seeking is
> collected by the Census bureau: they track what county people live in
> vs. the county worked in. At a high level, at least, that should give
> you the commuter flows that you're looking for.
Unfortunately, in terms of congestion and travel, Westchester and
Nassau counties are huge.
There is heavy traffic on offpeak times for social visits.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> This is apparently a stretch for some people. An LIRR crew had a
> passenger arrested because she had a valid ticket that happened to be
> printed on old stock.
Are you sure about that? It's very surprising that a busy conductor
would even notice the paper stock, let alone call a cop and have
someone arrested over it. I can't help but suspect there's more
details to the story.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I think the biggest problem for the TA would be the expense of getting
> the Metrocards to the NJT points. It's one thing to go as far as
> Newark, but quite another to get them out as far as Trenton. I could
> just see the outrage of the city politicians when they find out that a
> TA employee went out on the NEC to refill the machines.
Let's repeat that for emphasis: ">I could
> just see the outrage of the city politicians when they find out that a
> TA employee went out on the NEC to refill the machines. "
It sounds silly, but this is a major issue and impediment to joint
ticketing and services.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > Would there be a demand today for a through train from Princeton Univ
> > direct to Yale? Would the passengers be willing to pay the total cost
> > of it or the authorities subsidize the cost? (Likewise from Univ of
> > Penna to Princeton to Yale, Brown Univ, or Boston; all along the NEC?)
>
> All of those colleges are within walking distance of Amtrak stations
> served by direct trains (except Princeton which requires a transfer to
> the dinky), so I'm not sure what you're proposing.
The Pennsylvania Railroad used to run through trains to/from Princeton
University, no change to the 'dinky shuttle' required. There is no
reason such trains could not be run today.
My question, in line with the common on football specials, is whether
there would be enough patronage today to justify a direct non-stop
football train from say Princeton University to say Yale for a
football game. Years back such trains were provided in many places.
It was actually until relatively recently that railroad specials were
run to the Philadelphia stadia complex in South Philadelphia for major
events. (There's a yard nearby). Even NJ Transit tried its hand at
it.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > This is apparently a stretch for some people. An LIRR crew had a
> > passenger arrested because she had a valid ticket that happened to be
> > printed on old stock.
> Yet another reason to get as many humans out of the system as possible
> and leave law enforcement to those who are actually trained for it.
Well let's see. If it was an automated system the old stock probably
wouldn't activate the ticket gates.
As mentioned, there is likely more to the story.
Philip Nasadowski
Jishnu Mukerji <jis...@nospam.hp.com> wrote:
> That is totally independant of the
> Tier II and III emission requirements, which are DEP regulations not FRA
> regulations.
EPA, and I believe they're up to IV already.
Michael Finfer
There was a big fuss made about this in the news a few months ago. That
lady has a really good lawsuit if she wants to go that route. They took
her off the train in handcuffs.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Michael Finfer
> The Pennsylvania Railroad used to run through trains to/from Princeton
> University, no change to the 'dinky shuttle' required. There is no
> reason such trains could not be run today.
The line is single track, unsignaled, and the connection to the
Northeast Corridor is a hand operated switch.
It would take a significant investment to run regular through service.
A football special would shut down the regular service as long as it was
on the branch.
I wonder if this service will continue past 2015.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > The Pennsylvania Railroad used to run through trains to/from Princeton
> > University, no change to the 'dinky shuttle' required. There is no
> > reason such trains could not be run today.
>
> The line is single track, unsignaled, and the connection to the
> Northeast Corridor is a hand operated switch.
> It would take a significant investment to run regular through service.
Actually, a modest investment, unless every train was to run through.
> A football special would shut down the regular service as long as it was
> on the branch.
It would be cumbersome, but operations like this are not unusual in
railroading.
> I wonder if this service will continue past 2015.
What would be a worthwhile investment, and not expensive if done
right, would be extending the line in both directions and operating it
as a light rail train. It would serve both as a feeder to the
railroad and also cross region circulator.
The shuttle has good patronage and Princeton is rather influential, so
it will probably continue.
Of course, not helping is NJT's removal of service meeting busy
afternoon weekend trains, forcing passengers to wait over an hour.
Philip Nasadowski
<125a893d-aecf-44fa...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Actually, a modest investment, unless every train was to run through.
Power operate the switch. The big issues though, are the
interlocking/signal system needs rework,and the turnout's likely not
very fast. Thus, you're going to kill capacity unless it's a rare train
well scheduled. From NYC, it's a cross platform transfer. To NYC, it's
not, but IIRC, there's a tunnel to the other side at the station.
For the traffic a through train would create, is it _really_ worth the
effort? We're not talking bout a major walk to transfer, here.
> What would be a worthwhile investment, and not expensive if done
> right, would be extending the line in both directions and operating it
> as a light rail train.
Extend it which way? IIRC, there's no way to go on the Princeton side,
and there's no easy way to extend on the PJ side, either.
> It would serve both as a feeder to the
> railroad and also cross region circulator.
Extending the RiverLINE makes more sense than this. And if it weren't
for the %^$#ing FRA, NJT likely would have done that by now. That line
should be extended either north of Trenton, or up the NEC and ditch
somewhere up a bit (Jersey Ave?) - the platform issue could be solved
(expensively!) by a short low platform next to the main one. IIRC, the
GTWs can *technically* do 80mph, and accelerate well enough that it
wouldn't be a huge killer of capacity (and hell, south of Hamilton, put
a 5th track on the south side to get 'em out of the way before Trenton).
Then you'd get a good mid-state to Camden/Philly feeder, and the form
factor of the RiverLINE has clearly gained passenger acceptance...
> The shuttle has good patronage and Princeton is rather influential, so
> it will probably continue.
I can't imagine it's a huge cost item for NJT: The line's long paid
for, it's not high traffic, it's electric, and it's not very long. The
biggest cost item so far seems to be payouts to dumb Princeton students.
> Of course, not helping is NJT's removal of service meeting busy
> afternoon weekend trains, forcing passengers to wait over an hour.
Maybe they're taking the LIRR's approach to it: Cut the trains to
justify killing the service at a later date. They've been trying it
with the OB line for years now...
Jimmy
Nope, there's nothing more to the story. The old stock didn't have
the MTA "hologram" (actually a watermark) on the back, and the
conductor didn't know that the old stock had never officially been
deemed invalid. See http://wcbstv.com/local/lirr.forgery.snafu.2.1129231.html
and http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6966034 .
I don't understand why the cops who met her at Penn Station didn't
just write down her ID info, take the ticket as evidence, and let her
go while they investigated.
To make things worse, after this incident, the LIRR still didn't get
rid of the old stock, and sold another ticket on that stock to the
same woman: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/oops-lirr-sells-her-another-ticket-on-old-paper-1.1404343
.
With any luck, conductors heard about the incident, and won't have
anyone else wrongfully arrested.
Jimmy
Bolwerk
> On Dec 8, 4:26 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I also suspect decreased ridership killed off the need. Even back in
>>> 1968 I'd be surprised if you sold that many inter-line tickets as a
>>> percentage of all tickets sold; or if today there is a high percentage
>>> of such riders.
>> That may all be, but I suspect it's a lot easier in 2009 to utilize
>> computer information systems to coordinate a common fare system. I also
>> *suspect* the only reason it hasn't been done --- even incompetently ---
>> is hostility to the idea on the part of interests that might be
>> threatened by it.
>
> Actually, it was easier back then to do it manually since everything
> was already manual. More significantly, given the common PRR
> parentage and back office, they likely used the same procedures. (It
> was stated that the LIRR used PRR for ticket processing long after
> divesture).
I don't see how everything being manual is supposed to be easier. Since
much is automated today, EVEN DOING IT MANUALLY should be easier to do.
Besides, couldn't you more or less get a ticket from anywhere to
anywhere until the 1960s? That should be *easy* today with computers.
> Today, common ticketing could be done with computers, but of course at
> a cost of programming and hardware. The amount of joint ticketing is
> probably not enough to just the effort.
I don't see why you need to bring this up either. If the economic
impact of that system exceeds the cost of programming and hardware, it's
justified.
Anyway, hardware probably already exists. Networks already exist. All
that's probably left is shared standards and programming. If we're
smart, we could get that from Europe or the airline industry.
> Note that SEPTA and NJT have a joint ticket option between their
> service territories. I believe SEPTA's railroad ticketing remains all
> manual.
>
> I do think NYCT should have NJT sell Metrocard tickets. They could
> treat NJT as an external newstand vendor; they don't have to integrate
> the ticket machines. (Though, it appears all machines are from the
> same vendor). I don't know if it's NJT or NYCT holding things up.
>
> But the $64k question is how many, in terms of volume and percentage,
> of NJT psgrs change to the LIRR or MNRR (and vice versa).
Actually it is, how many would if it were convenient? There's probably
no reason not to have cross-platform transfers, if not through service.
> Along these lines, we should also know where motorists go after
> driving into Manhattan from NJ. Do they terminate in Manhattan, or
> continue to another location? Providing better train service to serve
> such motorists would help regional transportation.
I believe that data is quite easy to find. Motorists, of course,
include commercial and non-commercial drivers.
Joseph D. Korman
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 4:26 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I also suspect decreased ridership killed off the need. Even back in
>>>> 1968 I'd be surprised if you sold that many inter-line tickets as a
>>>> percentage of all tickets sold; or if today there is a high percentage
>>>> of such riders.
>>> That may all be, but I suspect it's a lot easier in 2009 to utilize
>>> computer information systems to coordinate a common fare system. I
>>> also
>>> *suspect* the only reason it hasn't been done --- even incompetently
>>> ---
>>> is hostility to the idea on the part of interests that might be
>>> threatened by it.
>>
>> Actually, it was easier back then to do it manually since everything
>> was already manual. More significantly, given the common PRR
>> parentage and back office, they likely used the same procedures. (It
>> was stated that the LIRR used PRR for ticket processing long after
>> divesture).
>
> I don't see how everything being manual is supposed to be easier.
> Since much is automated today, EVEN DOING IT MANUALLY should be easier
> to do.
>
> Besides, couldn't you more or less get a ticket from anywhere to
> anywhere until the 1960s? That should be *easy* today with computers.
> non-commercial drivers.
between Philadelphia and North Philly.
http://www.thejoekorner.com/ticketbooks/nyccut1.gif
I bought it in 1971, the agent had to look up the tariff to write it.
Clark F Morris
>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 4:26 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> much snipped
>>
>> But the $64k question is how many, in terms of volume and percentage,
>> of NJT psgrs change to the LIRR or MNRR (and vice versa).
>
>Actually it is, how many would if it were convenient? There's probably
>no reason not to have cross-platform transfers, if not through service.
Cross platform transfers in Penn Station would be difficult to arrange
given that NJT is on one side of the station and the LIRR is on the
other. Since both operations have many trains that reverse direction
in the station, setting up cross platform could be a nightmare.
I am for through running for the following reasons:
1. Reduce dwell time in Penn Station. This should be coupled with an
East Side station for BOTH NJT and the LIRR to spread the load.
2. Through running reduces conflicting movements and if there were
another two tracks under the Hudson along with through running to the
East from tracks 1 -4 virtually all reversals could be eliminated.
3. While the actual amount of travel east of Penn Station (or my
proposed East Side Station would be relatively small, it would be a
bonus added on to the storage space freed up in Manhattan and Queens.
Stephen Sprunk
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Actually, it was easier back then to do it manually since everything
>> was already manual. More significantly, given the common PRR
>> parentage and back office, they likely used the same procedures. (It
>> was stated that the LIRR used PRR for ticket processing long after
>> divesture).
>
> I don't see how everything being manual is supposed to be easier. Since
> much is automated today, EVEN DOING IT MANUALLY should be easier to do.
>
> Besides, couldn't you more or less get a ticket from anywhere to
> anywhere until the 1960s? That should be *easy* today with computers.
Computers have to be connected together and taught how to understand
each other. In the US passenger rail industry today, there is no
motivation to do that. Even the Europeans are having horrible problems
trying to integrate their systems, and they have far more motivation
than we.
More important are the business issues. The carriers have to agree to
let each other issue their tickets and to settle accounts periodically.
The human issue of crews accepting tickets printed by another carrier is
trivial in comparison.
Consider the airline industry. They have a global computer network
(SITA) and reservations system (SABRE) which every airline but one (SWA)
participates in, which any travel agent can use to book a ticket from
any point to any other point on the planet in one transaction--and deal
with rental cars, hotels, border permits, etc. The ubiquity of that
system (and all the contracts behind it) is the core of why air travel
is so darn easy to arrange--and completely transparent to passengers.
The rail industry has nothing like that, which is why I have repeatedly
said here that, until Amtrak (or other potential intercity carriers) are
in SABRE, they will never be more than niche players.
>> Today, common ticketing could be done with computers, but of course at
>> a cost of programming and hardware. The amount of joint ticketing is
>> probably not enough to just the effort.
>
> I don't see why you need to bring this up either. If the economic
> impact of that system exceeds the cost of programming and hardware, it's
> justified.
>
> Anyway, hardware probably already exists. Networks already exist. All
> that's probably left is shared standards and programming.
You are trivializing the part that will consume at least 90% of the money.
> If we're smart, we could get that from Europe or the airline industry.
See above.
>> But the $64k question is how many, in terms of volume and percentage,
>> of NJT psgrs change to the LIRR or MNRR (and vice versa).
>
> Actually it is, how many would if it were convenient?
That's definitely the better question. The number of people who do so
today _despite_ the present difficulty is not a particularly useful
number. It is a mere distraction from what really matters.
> There's probably no reason not to have cross-platform transfers, if
> not through service.
Cross-platform transfers are difficult for logistical reasons.
NJT and LIRR could learn a lot from DART and FWTA on running joint
services (i.e. the TRE).
Clark F Morris
I think that there are a number of reservation systems. Apollo for
United and friends comes to mind. You can book some Amtrak on
Continental code share.
>
>> rest snipped
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Computers have to be connected together and taught how to understand
> each other. In the US passenger rail industry today, there is no
> motivation to do that. Even the Europeans are having horrible problems
> trying to integrate their systems, and they have far more motivation
> than we.
The MTA, being the parent organization, provided the "motivation" for
MNRR and LIRR to sell Metrocards.
There is no such parent between NJT and the MTA. The minute such a
proposal is made politicians will ask "what's in it for us?". Don't
look for them to think logically about it; they will not.
> More important are the business issues. The carriers have to agree to
> let each other issue their tickets and to settle accounts periodically.
Transaction costs can be an issue. Let's say, for argument, that NJT
wants to charge the MTA 5% for selling its tickets, while the MTA only
thinks it should pay 1%.
Suppose NJT decides, in order to attract ridership, to eat the joint
transaction costs. You can be sure a NJ politician will scream about
that.
> Consider the airline industry. They have a global computer network
> (SITA) and reservations system (SABRE) which every airline but one (SWA)
> participates in, which any travel agent can use to book a ticket from
> any point to any other point on the planet in one transaction--and deal
> with rental cars, hotels, border permits, etc. The ubiquity of that
> system (and all the contracts behind it) is the core of why air travel
> is so darn easy to arrange--and completely transparent to passengers.
SABRE has been around since the early 1960s, so the airline industry
has had a long time to work out transaction pricing. Further, SABRE
and the others were developed when airlines were regulated and they
made good money. As such, they were far, far, more service oriented
that today and cooperated a great deal with each other.
> The rail industry has nothing like that, which is why I have repeatedly
> said here that, until Amtrak (or other potential intercity carriers) are
> in SABRE, they will never be more than niche players.
I believe Continental Air supports Amtrak and it is in their system
for code sharing. Unfortunately, Amtrak connects at very few
airports. Joint ticketing with the airlines, while a nice feature, is
not a major impediment to Amtrak growth.
(Actually, in common areas, I'd like to see Amtrak issue commuter
tickets for connections.) (In Phila, a legacy arrangement allows all
Amtrak passengers a free connection on SEPTA to Suburban Station and
Market-East Station.)
> NJT and LIRR could learn a lot from DART and FWTA on running joint
> services (i.e. the TRE).
Note that NJT and SEPTA have timed transfers, shown in each others'
schedules, and joint tickets. So they do do it.
The problem with NYC is that so many people are going in so many
different directions and Pennsylvania Station is so overcrowded
(people and trains) that special arrangements aren't easy to make.
Many NJT and LIRR trains run every half hour anyway.
But as mentioned, an easy connection or even through service is not
the only issue. Delivery at the suburban station is a challenge.
Many times the door to door via a highway is superior than via the
train.
Stephen Sprunk
Each airline originally had its own system, e.g. Apollo for United.
However, they started divesting them after deregulation, and the systems
started merging, with the result there are now four major systems
(SABRE, Worldspan, Galileo, and Amadeus) that control almost the entire
market. More importantly, though, the systems now all talk to each
other (via SITA), so it doesn't matter which you use to book an airline
ticket (or rental car or hotel), and you can book a single reservation
using flights from each one.
I said SABRE in the quote above because it is the biggest and
best-known, since it handles about half of the entire industry by
itself, but you are correct that they're not alone. And, to be
complete, there are many private networks that bypass SITA to save
money. Rail carriers aren't connected to any of these systems, though;
they're still stuck where the airlines were in the 1970s, i.e. each with
their own proprietary system that connects to few, if any, others.
> You can book some Amtrak on Continental code share.
Those are Continental "flights", not Amtrak "trains", and they are only
available if you book through Continental directly, AIUI. The "airport"
codes that Continental uses (Zxx) for that are unofficial and not
recognized by anyone else's reservation systems.
James Robinson
> I said SABRE in the quote above because it is the biggest and
> best-known, since it handles about half of the entire industry by
> itself, but you are correct that they're not alone. And, to be
> complete, there are many private networks that bypass SITA to save
> money. Rail carriers aren't connected to any of these systems,
> though; they're still stuck where the airlines were in the 1970s, i.e.
> each with their own proprietary system that connects to few, if any,
> others.
You can book Amtrak tickets on Sabre, plus rail tickets in a number of
other countries:
http://www.sabretravelnetwork.com/home/products_services/products/sabre_rail
Stephen Sprunk
> On Dec 10, 7:26 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Computers have to be connected together and taught how to understand
>> each other. In the US passenger rail industry today, there is no
>> motivation to do that. Even the Europeans are having horrible problems
>> trying to integrate their systems, and they have far more motivation
>> than we.
>
> The MTA, being the parent organization, provided the "motivation" for
> MNRR and LIRR to sell Metrocards.
>
> There is no such parent between NJT and the MTA. The minute such a
> proposal is made politicians will ask "what's in it for us?". Don't
> look for them to think logically about it; they will not.
DART, FWTA, and DCTA have no common "parent" organization other than the
State of Texas, which couldn't care less about their fare policies.
Not all motivation is external.
>> More important are the business issues. The carriers have to agree to
>> let each other issue their tickets and to settle accounts periodically.
>
> Transaction costs can be an issue. Let's say, for argument, that NJT
> wants to charge the MTA 5% for selling its tickets, while the MTA only
> thinks it should pay 1%.
Why the heck would there be a charge for selling tickets? DART and FWTA
do not charge each other, nor will DCTA next year. They simply print
the tickets and forward the revenue.
Note: Neither sells a ticket for _only_ another carrier's service. For
instance, FWTA will only sell you a FWTA ticket or a FWTA+DART ticket,
and DART will only sell you a DART ticket or a DART+FWTA ticket.
Even independent retailers buy and sell tickets and passes at face
value, just like postage stamps. They do it because it attracts more
customers to their stores, not because they like selling zero-margin
items. (However, unlike regular passengers, they can return any unsold
stock back to the TA for a full refund, so there's no risk either.)
> Suppose NJT decides, in order to attract ridership, to eat the joint
> transaction costs. You can be sure a NJ politician will scream about
> that.
Then you produce studies that show the additional NJT revenue that it
generates outweighs the costs, which should be minimal.
>> Consider the airline industry. They have a global computer network
>> (SITA) and reservations system (SABRE) which every airline but one (SWA)
>> participates in, which any travel agent can use to book a ticket from
>> any point to any other point on the planet in one transaction--and deal
>> with rental cars, hotels, border permits, etc. The ubiquity of that
>> system (and all the contracts behind it) is the core of why air travel
>> is so darn easy to arrange--and completely transparent to passengers.
>
> SABRE has been around since the early 1960s, so the airline industry
> has had a long time to work out transaction pricing.
The railroads have been around since the 1800s, so they've had a lot
more time to figure this out. As many people have pointed out, several
decades ago they _were_ able to sell each others tickets, so there was a
conscious decision to _stop_ doing so.
>> The rail industry has nothing like that, which is why I have repeatedly
>> said here that, until Amtrak (or other potential intercity carriers) are
>> in SABRE, they will never be more than niche players.
>
> I believe Continental Air supports Amtrak and it is in their system
> for code sharing.
First of all, those are Continental "flights" operated by Amtrak and not
Amtrak "flights".
Second, tickets on those "flights" can only be purchased through
Continental. The "airport" codes (Zxx) aren't even found when trying to
book through any other source I've tried.
> Unfortunately, Amtrak connects at very few airports.
That is another problem, yes.
> Joint ticketing with the airlines, while a nice feature, is
> not a major impediment to Amtrak growth.
IMHO joint ticketing doesn't matter as much as being able to put in "DAL
to HOU" (or whatever) at any random travel agent's web site and have
rail options pop up in addition to air options.
Most people don't even _think_ about rail as an option, much less go
through the hassle of finding Amtrak's web site and pricing tickets to
compare to airlines.
If your potential customers are not beating a path to _your_ door, you
must show up at _their_ door.
(OTOH, when you're losing money on nearly every customer, the logic may
work differently. Amtrak can't afford to serve substantially more
customers than they do today, due to limited equipment and schedules.)
> (Actually, in common areas, I'd like to see Amtrak issue commuter
> tickets for connections.) (In Phila, a legacy arrangement allows all
> Amtrak passengers a free connection on SEPTA to Suburban Station and
> Market-East Station.)
The simplest strategy would be fore Amtrak tickets to include a one-day
transit pass at each end of the trip. Conductors, fare inspectors, etc.
from each TA could be easily trained to accept an Amtrak ticket in
addition to their own fare instruments.
>> NJT and LIRR could learn a lot from DART and FWTA on running joint
>> services (i.e. the TRE).
>
> Note that NJT and SEPTA have timed transfers, shown in each others'
> schedules, and joint tickets. So they do do it.
>
> The problem with NYC is that so many people are going in so many
> different directions and Pennsylvania Station is so overcrowded
> (people and trains) that special arrangements aren't easy to make.
> Many NJT and LIRR trains run every half hour anyway.
Timed transfers is a symptom, not a solution.
If you are going to serve through passengers, the correct way to do it
is with a through _train_. Who collects the money on each side of some
arbitrary boundary is a minor detail in comparison.
The major problem in the northeast, as I see it, is the obsession with
tying together operations and finances. Neither DART nor FWTA operate
TRE trains; they just manage their respective finances and contract with
Herzog to operate _all_ TRE trains, with each paying for the service in
their respective territory. In fact, half the trains turn around at the
boundary because FWTA's side doesn't have as much demand (or available
subsidy) as DART's. Through trains between NJT's and LIRR's territories
could work the same, with similar limitations based on the capacity
problems at NYP and the tunnels to/from it.
> But as mentioned, an easy connection or even through service is not
> the only issue. Delivery at the suburban station is a challenge.
> Many times the door to door via a highway is superior than via the
> train.
That has nothing to do with the topics at hand, AFAICT.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> I said SABRE in the quote above because it is the biggest and
> best-known, since it handles about half of the entire industry by
> itself, but you are correct that they're not alone. And, to be
> complete, there are many private networks that bypass SITA to save
> money. Rail carriers aren't connected to any of these systems, though;
> they're still stuck where the airlines were in the 1970s, i.e. each with
> their own proprietary system that connects to few, if any, others.
As an aside, SABRE was a pioneer in on-line teleprocessing, conceived
in the 1950s. (Aboard an airplane, interestingly enough, through a
chance meeting between IBM and American Airlines staffers).
In the late 1960s airlines most certainly were connected to each
other, indeed, in that regulated era, cooperated much more with each
other in sharing passengers. It was very common back then to fly out
on one airline and return on another as best met the passenger's
needs, and one airline would book the whole flight.
As to "rail carriers", there is only one US rail carrier, which is
Amtrak, the rest are commuter systems and the vast majority of seats
are unreserved. Amtrak might tie into Canada's VIA.
rsh...@gmail.com
question, I can buy a joint tkt from Metro Park to 30th st station
from a NJT tkt machine at Metro Park
do you happen to know if NJT gets a cut for their machine issuing a
Septa tkt?
or does NJT just give Septa what they are due?
Stephen Sprunk
> On Dec 10, 10:56 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Rail carriers aren't connected to any of these systems, though;
>> they're still stuck where the airlines were in the 1970s, i.e. each with
>> their own proprietary system that connects to few, if any, others.
> As to "rail carriers", there is only one US rail carrier, which is
> Amtrak, the rest are commuter systems and the vast majority of seats
> are unreserved. Amtrak might tie into Canada's VIA.
Reserved or unreserved, intercity or commuter (or heavy/light rail) is
irrelevant. They are still operating passenger trains and selling
tickets for them, and there is almost no integration that allows through
ticketing between carriers.
Granted, I don't really expect transit operators to sell Amtrak tickets,
but I _do_ expect Amtrak to sell transit tickets as part of an intercity
ticket, provide an end-to-end itinerary, etc. I also expect through
ticketing to VIA (if it doesn't already exist) and to any other rail
operators that might appear, e.g. CAHSRA.
Michael Finfer
You can buy one way SEPTA tickets from Trenton-Philadelphia from NJ
Transit vending machines and ticket agents. You would need a separate
NJT off peak round trip ticket to Trenton. I haven't tried this
purchase, so I don't know how seamless it is. The one time I made this
trip, I mail ordered a SEPTA weekend round trip ticket. It's the only
discount available off the peak one way fare from NJ points.
> do you happen to know if NJT gets a cut for their machine issuing a
> Septa tkt?
>
> or does NJT just give Septa what they are due?
Don't know.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> DART, FWTA, and DCTA have no common "parent" organization other than the
> State of Texas, which couldn't care less about their fare policies.
>
> Not all motivation is external.
I strongly suspect politicians in Texas might not be too pleased if
their state agency was doing stuff for another state gratis. To this
day, many states _refuse_ reciprocal agreements with other states for
all sorts of things even though it would benefit their own citizens.
> > Transaction costs can be an issue. Let's say, for argument, that NJT
> > wants to charge the MTA 5% for selling its tickets, while the MTA only
> > thinks it should pay 1%.
>
> Why the heck would there be a charge for selling tickets? DART and FWTA
> do not charge each other, nor will DCTA next year. They simply print
> the tickets and forward the revenue.
> Note: Neither sells a ticket for _only_ another carrier's service. For
> instance, FWTA will only sell you a FWTA ticket or a FWTA+DART ticket,
> and DART will only sell you a DART ticket or a DART+FWTA ticket.
Transactions do have a cost and somebody has to pay it. Every
business constantly evaluates the cost of a transaction against the
revenue it generates, and the transaction mechanics itself.
(Ticket machines don't service themselves. More transactions means
more machines must be purchased, connected, and serviced).
Say for example, all the NJT-LIRR joint riders buy the joint tickets
on the NJT side and not on the LIRR side. That means NJT is bearing
the brunt of the transaction costs. It's not gonna like that. More
importantly, the politicians won't like it--as they have objected in
the past.
> Even independent retailers buy and sell tickets and passes at face
> value, just like postage stamps. They do it because it attracts more
> customers to their stores, not because they like selling zero-margin
> items. (However, unlike regular passengers, they can return any unsold
> stock back to the TA for a full refund, so there's no risk either.)
If a store were to learn that the 'attracted customers' were merely
buying train tickets and not other goods, they'd quickly terminate the
arrangement. Many stores have done just that with low margin goods.
> > Suppose NJT decides, in order to attract ridership, to eat the joint
> > transaction costs. You can be sure a NJ politician will scream about
> > that.
>
> Then you produce studies that show the additional NJT revenue that it
> generates outweighs the costs, which should be minimal.
Who is going to pay for such studies?
Do you think a politician, who has to answer to charges made by
dingbat newspaper columnists or citizens, care about logic? No, they
do not. (see prior about the yard NJT wasn't allowed to build.)
> > Joint ticketing with the airlines, while a nice feature, is
> > not a major impediment to Amtrak growth.
>
> IMHO joint ticketing doesn't matter as much as being able to put in "DAL
> to HOU" (or whatever) at any random travel agent's web site and have
> rail options pop up in addition to air options.
>
> Most people don't even _think_ about rail as an option, much less go
> through the hassle of finding Amtrak's web site and pricing tickets to
> compare to airlines.
Because, regretfully, Amtrak is not an option in far too many travel
corridors.
How many flights are there a day between Chicago and NYC (all
airports)? There is but one Amtrak train.
> If your potential customers are not beating a path to _your_ door, you
> must show up at _their_ door.
Sure. But there is a cost to that. Will the cost be exceeded by
generated revenues? Will your Board of Directors (that's Congress)
allow that expenditure? Amtrak has TV commercials, but I know some in
Congress complained about that.
> (OTOH, when you're losing money on nearly every customer, the logic may
> work differently. Amtrak can't afford to serve substantially more
> customers than they do today, due to limited equipment and schedules.)
Bingo!
>
> > (Actually, in common areas, I'd like to see Amtrak issue commuter
> > tickets for connections.) (In Phila, a legacy arrangement allows all
> > Amtrak passengers a free connection on SEPTA to Suburban Station and
> > Market-East Station.)
>
> The simplest strategy would be fore Amtrak tickets to include a one-day
> transit pass at each end of the trip. Conductors, fare inspectors, etc.
> from each TA could be easily trained to accept an Amtrak ticket in
> addition to their own fare instruments.
Nice, but a one day pass runs about $5-$8 each. The local carriers
will want some reimbursement for that. Thanks to their restrctive
state charters, 100% reimbursement mandatory.
> If you are going to serve through passengers, the correct way to do it
> is with a through _train_. Who collects the money on each side of some
> arbitrary boundary is a minor detail in comparison.
Fine. So tell us exactly where this through train will orginate,
where it would terminate, when it will run, and how many people it
will carry?
How many people are riding on the Meadowlands through train?
> The major problem in the northeast, as I see it, is the obsession with
> tying together operations and finances. Neither DART nor FWTA operate
> TRE trains; they just manage their respective finances and contract with
> Herzog to operate _all_ TRE trains, with each paying for the service in
> their respective territory. In fact, half the trains turn around at the
> boundary because FWTA's side doesn't have as much demand (or available
> subsidy) as DART's. Through trains between NJT's and LIRR's territories
> could work the same, with similar limitations based on the capacity
> problems at NYP and the tunnels to/from it.
> > But as mentioned, an easy connection or even through service is not
> > the only issue. Delivery at the suburban station is a challenge.
> > Many times the door to door via a highway is superior than via the
> > train.
>
> That has nothing to do with the topics at hand, AFAICT.
It has _everything_ to do with the topic at hand. There are legtimate
reasons people won't take a train and a through train won't change
that.
Jishnu Mukerji
Yup. Sorry about the slip. It is indeed the EPA and not DEP. Thanks for
the correction.
Jishnu Mukerji
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> The Pennsylvania Railroad used to run through trains to/from Princeton
>> University, no change to the 'dinky shuttle' required. There is no
>> reason such trains could not be run today.
>
> The line is single track, unsignaled, and the connection to the
> Northeast Corridor is a hand operated switch.
Yup, and the crossover faces the wrong way too.
Jishnu Mukerji
> On Dec 9, 7:52 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> The Pennsylvania Railroad used to run through trains to/from Princeton
>>> University, no change to the 'dinky shuttle' required. There is no
>>> reason such trains could not be run today.
>> The line is single track, unsignaled, and the connection to the
>> Northeast Corridor is a hand operated switch.
>
>> It would take a significant investment to run regular through service.
>
> Actually, a modest investment, unless every train was to run through.
>
>
>> A football special would shut down the regular service as long as it was
>> on the branch.
>
> It would be cumbersome, but operations like this are not unusual in
> railroading.
OK let us take a closer look a this. To run a train from Princeton to
New York the train will have to pull past the crossover switch east of
PJC. Then back up over the crossover onto track 4. Then since track 4 is
signaled only westbound, it will have to run west to Ham to cross over
at least to track 3, before it can move east. Alternatively it will have
to operate under Form-D to Midway before it can cross over to any
eastbound signaled track, while of course all regular NJT westbound
service stand still east of Midway waiting for this special move to
conclude. I don't think that is practical. Also because of siding length
s the train could not be longer than 4 cars or so.
Now if Nassau interlocking at PJC had not been removed it would be a
different story. But there is no crossovers among the main line tracks
at Nassau anymore. Only evidence that there were such is in the catenary
which has not been modified when the crossovers were removed.
So I agree with Michael. It will require a huge investment to make this
even remotely practical.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Dec 11, 1:11 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> DART, FWTA, and DCTA have no common "parent" organization other than the
>> State of Texas, which couldn't care less about their fare policies.
>>
>> Not all motivation is external.
>
> I strongly suspect politicians in Texas might not be too pleased if
> their state agency was doing stuff for another state gratis.
In general? You're probably correct.
However, DART and FWTA are not state agencies and do not get any state
funding, so the state politicians don't care what they do with their
money. Yet, somehow, they both seem to think it's in their own best
interests to do it...
And, since DART and FWTA collect their own taxes, none of the local
elected politicians particularly care either; it's not like it'd matter
at all if they did anyway.
> To this day, many states _refuse_ reciprocal agreements with other
> states for all sorts of things even though it would benefit their own
> citizens.
Texas is generally happy to sign reciprocal agreements with any other
state that wants one; most just can't afford to because of population
and/or tax rate differences that usually favor Texas.
>>> Transaction costs can be an issue. Let's say, for argument, that NJT
>>> wants to charge the MTA 5% for selling its tickets, while the MTA only
>>> thinks it should pay 1%.
>>
>> Why the heck would there be a charge for selling tickets? DART and FWTA
>> do not charge each other, nor will DCTA next year. They simply print
>> the tickets and forward the revenue.
>
>> Note: Neither sells a ticket for _only_ another carrier's service. For
>> instance, FWTA will only sell you a FWTA ticket or a FWTA+DART ticket,
>> and DART will only sell you a DART ticket or a DART+FWTA ticket.
>
> Transactions do have a cost and somebody has to pay it. Every
> business constantly evaluates the cost of a transaction against the
> revenue it generates, and the transaction mechanics itself.
>
> (Ticket machines don't service themselves. More transactions means
> more machines must be purchased, connected, and serviced).
You're looking at it the wrong way. Joint ticket sales mean that there
are _fewer_ transactions for each agency (since some of their ticket
will be sold by the other) but _more_ revenue (the ease of use means
more people will use _both_ systems).
You would be right if either sold other-zone-only tickets, but they
don't. There is no meaningful cost difference between selling one-zone
and two-zone tickets, just a trivial bit of bookkeeping on the back end.
> Say for example, all the NJT-LIRR joint riders buy the joint tickets
> on the NJT side and not on the LIRR side. That means NJT is bearing
> the brunt of the transaction costs. It's not gonna like that. More
> importantly, the politicians won't like it--as they have objected in
> the past.
NJT is already bearing the brunt of the transaction costs for selling
those riders NJT tickets; if it costs even a penny extra per ticket to
add on one or more LIRR zones, you're doing it wrong.
Also, even if it were as one-sided as you postulate (which I doubt),
that would actually _benefit_ NJT because they'd have that extra cash
earning interest (or reducing interest they pay to someone else) between
the ticket sale and the settlement.
>> Even independent retailers buy and sell tickets and passes at face
>> value, just like postage stamps. They do it because it attracts more
>> customers to their stores, not because they like selling zero-margin
>> items. (However, unlike regular passengers, they can return any unsold
>> stock back to the TA for a full refund, so there's no risk either.)
>
> If a store were to learn that the 'attracted customers' were merely
> buying train tickets and not other goods, they'd quickly terminate the
> arrangement. Many stores have done just that with low margin goods.
Still, postage stamps _are_ available at a variety of retailers, just
like DART and FWTA passes.
>>> Joint ticketing with the airlines, while a nice feature, is
>>> not a major impediment to Amtrak growth.
>>
>> IMHO joint ticketing doesn't matter as much as being able to put in "DAL
>> to HOU" (or whatever) at any random travel agent's web site and have
>> rail options pop up in addition to air options.
>>
>> Most people don't even _think_ about rail as an option, much less go
>> through the hassle of finding Amtrak's web site and pricing tickets to
>> compare to airlines.
>
> Because, regretfully, Amtrak is not an option in far too many travel
> corridors.
>
> How many flights are there a day between Chicago and NYC (all
> airports)? There is but one Amtrak train.
True, but even on the NEC (where frequency _does_ rival the airlines) my
point stands.
If Amtrak improved speed and frequency on other routes where rail wasn't
already known to be a viable option, the problem would be even worse:
the millions of people booking travel on Orbitz, Travelocity, etc. would
not see those new options. You'd need a _massive_ marketing effort to
get even a tiny fraction of people to check rail fares for their next
trip--and it would have to be repeated all year long in every market.
Integrating ticketing would be a one-time cost that would cover the
entire country.
(Once rail "flights" were in the system, joint ticketing would be a
trivial addition anyway. It's more work to make flights _not_ connect.)
>> If your potential customers are not beating a path to _your_ door, you
>> must show up at _their_ door.
>
> Sure. But there is a cost to that. Will the cost be exceeded by
> generated revenues?
Currently, with Amtrak so strapped for capacity that they already can't
handle the demand? Certainly not. That's not the scenario I'm talking
about, though.
> Will your Board of Directors (that's Congress) allow that expenditure?
Amtrak's Board is quite separate from Congress.
> Amtrak has TV commercials,
Really? I've never seen one, though it'd be rather silly to run them
here given the level of service. Then again, I don't really see _any_
commercials these days except the blur of Fast Forward on my DVR.
> but I know some in Congress complained about that.
That "some" will complain about _anything_ Amtrak does. If it turned a
profit by some miracle, they'd complain about that too...
>>> (Actually, in common areas, I'd like to see Amtrak issue commuter
>>> tickets for connections.) (In Phila, a legacy arrangement allows all
>>> Amtrak passengers a free connection on SEPTA to Suburban Station and
>>> Market-East Station.)
>>
>> The simplest strategy would be fore Amtrak tickets to include a one-day
>> transit pass at each end of the trip. Conductors, fare inspectors, etc.
>> from each TA could be easily trained to accept an Amtrak ticket in
>> addition to their own fare instruments.
>
> Nice, but a one day pass runs about $5-$8 each. The local carriers
> will want some reimbursement for that. Thanks to their restrctive
> state charters, 100% reimbursement mandatory.
... which would be tacked onto the price of the Amtrak ticket. Heck,
even just offer it as an option to save people the hassle of having to
buy the transit passes separately. I bet you'd have a lot of takers.
>> If you are going to serve through passengers, the correct way to do it
>> is with a through _train_. Who collects the money on each side of some
>> arbitrary boundary is a minor detail in comparison.
>
> Fine. So tell us exactly where this through train will orginate,
> where it would terminate, when it will run, and how many people it
> will carry?
Both NJT and LIRR undoubtedly have planning departments which _already_
have all that information on hand.
> How many people are riding on the Meadowlands through train?
Based on the comments here, a heck of a lot more than were expected.
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> > How many people are riding on the Meadowlands through train?
>
> Based on the comments here, a heck of a lot more than were expected.
I find it funny, in a way, that it's no issue getting through ticketing
and all up and running for a *football stadium*, but to do it for the
benefit of joe.traveler is too much headache.
Why is it that Tokyo can do this, between 30 or so different agencies,
Zurich can do this, among a bunch of agencies AND MODES, and plenty of
other places can do it, but the largest metro area in the US, with the
HQ of the largest, most experienced computer firm just a few miles
north, can not, even though it'd require getting the computers of a
whopping THREE different agencies (NJT, MTA, PA NJ/NY) and about 4 or 5
private firms (Decamp, Lakeland, Red and Tan - ok, 3), to talk to each
other?
Clark F Morris
But you also have the almost impossible task of getting NJT rail to
work with NJT bus.