|
|
| Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested (1445621) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
|
| (1445864) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Aug 7 19:28:04 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Aug 7 12:50:44 2017. "subject to tariff rules & regulations"That covers a multitude of sins, to be sure. |
|
|
| (1445865) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Aug 7 19:34:00 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Aug 7 12:18:34 2017. And if you get caught counting cards in a casino, or you just win a lot without any explanation, they will politely but firmly bar you from the casino, and there's nothing you can do about it. As the saying goes, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. |
|
|
| (1445880) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Aug 7 23:09:14 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 6 18:44:28 2017. "That makes it look more like a rule designed to keep out riff-raff, although Harlem, like other areas, has been making a comeback of sorts. "As info, the majority of rush hour passengers who use 125th st are white Columbus, West End & York Ave types who reverse commute to Fairfield, New Haven & Westchester Co jobs. They get in their car service cars that pick them up at their home & drop them off at the 125st Sta. Hardly riff-raff. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1445885) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Mon Aug 7 23:52:44 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Aug 5 12:41:38 2017. On the SURFACE, why DETAIN a detraining passenger? Gay gezuntaheit!! |
|
|
| (1445889) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by lirr42 on Tue Aug 8 01:49:20 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:20:25 2017. There is NO legislative backing that makes it illegal for a passenger to get off at a receive-only stop or board a train at a discharge-only stop. MNR may have grounds to charge you an extra fare to the next station, I haven't looked at their passenger tariff too closely, but neither MNR nor any of its employees have any legal basis to prohibit or bar you from boarding or alighting a train on the basis of the line the train is on or a letter in the timetable. If a conductor bars you from boarding or alighting the train at a "D" or "R" stop, they are actually the ones acting unlawfully. Remember, MNR policies cannot supersede state or federal law! |
|
|
| (1445890) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by B1bus on Tue Aug 8 03:01:10 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:20:25 2017. Is someone going to physically stop someone from exiting? Wouldn't that be kidnapping? |
|
|
| (1445909) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Aug 8 10:16:07 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by B1bus on Tue Aug 8 03:01:10 2017. Is someone going to physically stop someone from exiting? Wouldn't that be kidnapping?In this section of the thread, the question seems to be more whether or not a law has been broken, not so much if the person should be physically stopped. One may argue (though I'm still not sure myself) that the person is moving around MTA property (from a vehicle to a station), and that both the vehicle and the station exist for purposes of the transportation service. So the person is not using the transportation service in accord with its intended purpose (as convoluted as that intended purpose might be) and therefore is breaking the law (though not committing theft unless actually trying to evade the fare). The person going from train to station is not "exiting" as much as changing the type of MTA property he is on. Really, until the person is completely off MTA property, one cannot say that he has exited. Thus, there are legal exit-barriers (turnstiles, requirements to "tap-out," etc.) The tap-out requirement takes care of itself because if you fail to do it you just get charged automatically. . .assuming your card had the max fare on it already to be deducted. The turnstiles seem like "kidnapping devices" but really they are just preventing you from moving from one portion of transit property to another, even if that other side is really close to the exit you want. A similar case are limited-stop buses or even any bus at all where a passenger demands to exit immediately even when not at a bus stop. Is the bus operator holding the passenger hostage in this case? Usually limited-stop drivers hold their ground and drive to the next limited-stop but I wonder, in sympathy with them, if they in their heads are wondering if they can be charged somehow for "holding" the passenger in this way. Of course, all of this goes out the window when it comes to planes. Of course a pilot does not need to let anyone off except at an airport but there are a whole set of safety standards involved here that do not apply to buses, or trains at stations. |
|
|
| (1445910) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Aug 8 10:17:41 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Aug 8 10:16:07 2017. To clarify, I mean that exit barriers exist in the world. . .I was not speaking specifically of MTA here. |
|
|
| (1445911) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 8 10:29:57 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Aug 8 10:16:07 2017. Not kidnapping, in a real stretch, unlawful imprisonment (not the same thing)but just not going to play out that way in the real world.Maybe a cause for a civil action, but I wouldn't spend the money so fast.... |
|
|
| (1445962) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Aug 8 19:55:14 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by lirr42 on Tue Aug 8 01:49:20 2017. There are probably very broad regulations that have some basis in law that pretty much permit the railroad to do whatever it wants within reason. It would probably take a good lawyer and a careful reading of the "tariff rules and regulations" to make a strong case, but restricting passenger movements is certainly within the rights of the railroad. One does not have to like the rules and regulations, nor does he have to believe that they are sensible, but he has to abide by them. In general, that's part of the bargain that one makes when he takes public transit. Those who don't like the rules can walk, bicycle, or drive. Even on the streets are found "one-way" signs that must be followed, regardless of the immediate danger or sensibility of the rule. The railroad has essentially erected the equivalent of "one-way" signs for the platform at 125 St; it's as simple as that. I have a hard time understanding why this has generated so much debate. The only weak spot here is perhaps a lack of clear warning ahead of time. Perhaps a recorded announcement played before 125 St would correct that. |
|
|
| (1445964) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Aug 8 20:02:40 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Aug 8 19:55:14 2017. The only weak spot here is perhaps a lack of clear warning ahead of time.LOL. The list of stops posted at the track entrance in GCT gives Mt Vernon East (or whatever) as the first stop. While sitting on the train, still in GCT, there are multiple announcements listing the stops, starting with Mt Vernon East. The schedule has an "R" next to 125th and Fordham. I have a hard time understanding why this has generated so much debate. You must be unaware of Nilet's persistence. |
|
|
| (1445971) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 8 20:27:56 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Tue Aug 8 20:02:40 2017. you mean his idiocies ? |
|
|
| (1445972) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 8 20:29:32 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Aug 8 19:55:14 2017. You are correct. Most of the MTA rules and regulations are codified under NYS Law through the Public Authorities Act that created it. It is truly amazing to see some of the stuff the latter day Clarence Darrows on this site come up with. What people see on TV, or think is right, is just not usually how it works in the real world. |
|
|
| (1446224) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by B1bus on Fri Aug 11 10:08:34 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Aug 8 10:16:07 2017. I was on a B1 bus years ago , and at 18ave the dispatcher told the driver not to pick up until 13/BR ave..The driver went overboard. He made all the little old ladies sitting in the front to walk to the back to get off taking sooo much time. There was a man who spoke no English ringing the bell and waiting at the front doorat 13/86st to get out. The driver would stop and not open the front door telling him to exit out the back, but he didn't understand. THe bus moved on, he rang the bell again, same, at 78st, people motioned for him to go the back, THEN he opens the door for a female and the man got off in the back. The driver wasted so much more time with no common sense, I actually wrote an email about him to about this. |
|
|
| (1446231) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:26 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:17:20 2017. Not if the train does not discharge passengers at 125th.Nearly every train does. If you physically travel from Grand Central to 125th, you have to pay the fare from Grand Central to 125th. |
|
|
| (1446232) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:30 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:20:25 2017. This is the flaw in your argument. You have NOT boarded a train to 125th, as the train does not discharge passengers there.If you get off the train at 125th, then it has discharged a passenger at 125th. Any claim that the train doesn't discharge passengers at 125th is thus disproven. |
|
|
| (1446233) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:32 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 7 09:47:52 2017. I'm trying to say that many people decide to do things that we choose not to. They make a choice not to have cell phones or computers or banks. For many different reasons.Or homes? If you want to buy a house, you need a mortgage from a bank. If you want to rent a house, your options will be incredibly limited by your lack of credit— and you will have no credit, because you've never had any contact with a bank. As noted, you don't seem to understand just how difficult it is to live without having any contact with any major company. Yes, you technically can do it, and some people may choose to— but that doesn't mean you should be forced to agree to unconscionable exploitation as a condition of making any other choice. |
|
|
| (1446234) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:34 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by lirr42 on Tue Aug 8 01:49:20 2017. There is NO legislative backing that makes it illegal for a passenger to get off at a receive-only stop or board a train at a discharge-only stop.Exactly! MNR may have grounds to charge you an extra fare to the next station, I haven't looked at their passenger tariff too closely... Either way, you can't be arrested for refusing to pay. Even if they had grounds for charging you, your refusal to pay would be a civil dispute. You can't be arrested for a civil dispute, and the MTA isn't going to sue you for $2.75 in damages. ...but neither MNR nor any of its employees have any legal basis to prohibit or bar you from boarding or alighting a train on the basis of the line the train is on or a letter in the timetable. Actually, they can prevent you from boarding a train. It's common practice for conductors to bar people from boarding southbound New Haven trains at Fordham. I can ban you from my store but I can't lock you in until you've agreed to buy something. Remember, MNR policies cannot supersede state or federal law! SubChatters as a whole have demonstrated a strange inability to understand that transit agency policies aren't law. In addition to "it's a crime to disembark at 125th," I've also had people tell me it was illegal to take photos on PATH and one even tried to claim it was illegal to enter an Amtrak platform without a ticket even with explicit permission from Amtrak. |
|
|
| (1446235) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:38 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Aug 8 19:55:14 2017. There are probably very broad regulations that have some basis in law that pretty much permit the railroad to do whatever it wants within reason. It would probably take a good lawyer and a careful reading of the "tariff rules and regulations" to make a strong case, but restricting passenger movements is certainly within the rights of the railroad.Physically preventing passengers from exiting a train at a normal station stop would be a PR nightmare and the scandal would make the clever lawyer's reading of the tariff rules moot. That said, even if the clever lawyer could make the case that the MTA was allowed to bar your exit, they still couldn't have you arrested for failing to pay the fare for the journey you were forced to take. The railroad has essentially erected the equivalent of "one-way" signs for the platform at 125 St; it's as simple as that. Except that there's an actual law that makes it a traffic violation to disobey a one-way sign. The MTA has no law barring exit at 125th, nor do they have the authority to make such a law. Nobody in this thread is saying it's a crime to exit at 125th; they're making up bizarre stories about it being "theft of service." I have a hard time understanding why this has generated so much debate. It's probably the weird authoritarian attitude many SubChatters have. Since the MTA is an Authority, its policies must have force of law— and so they reach for whichever real crime looks superficially closest and try to make it fit. I've seen the pattern before; there was a thread about people who got arrested on an Amtrak platform despite having explicit permission from Amtrak to be there, where someone tried to claim that since they didn't have an Amtrak ticket, they were trespassing. Though they didn't spell it out, their logic seemed to be something along the lines of: Amtrak policy says you need a ticket to be on the platform; Amtrak is an Authority, so their policy has force of law; the superficially-closest crime is trespass; as such, they were trespassing. It resulted in a rather amusing thread in which someone ended up arguing the claim that Amtrak doesn't have the right to let people onto its own property all because they couldn't shake the idea that Amtrak Policy is a law that not even Amtrak can override, and they ended up making bizarre arguments about "entrapment" in much the same way that Italianstallion is trying to claim that a train which discharged a passenger at 125th doesn't discharge passengers at 125th. |
|
|
| (1446236) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:40 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 8 20:29:32 2017. You are correct. Most of the MTA rules and regulations are codified under NYS Law through the Public Authorities Act that created it.If you want to claim NYS law bans passengers from exiting a northbound train at 125th, you'll need to provide a cite for that. It is truly amazing to see some of the stuff the latter day Clarence Darrows on this site come up with. What people see on TV, or think is right, is just not usually how it works in the real world. Actually, this thread has made it abundantly clear that it's not TV or what people "think is right" that's leading them astray so much as an absurd pseudo-legalism that treats what exists on paper as paramount while ignoring all the real-world practicalities (eg, the scandal of physically preventing a passenger from exiting at 125th or the impossibility of suing over an amount less than $5). It's a distant cousin of the impulse to assume you can look at a track map and figure out a better routing system without regard for timing, passenger loads, and all the complexities of actually running a transit system. Although in this case, there's also a distinct vaguely-authoritarian issue as well; the MTA would rather you not exit at 125th and the MTA has "authority" right there in the name, so it must be a law of some sort! |
|
|
| (1446237) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:42 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by italianstallion on Mon Aug 7 14:18:48 2017. No. It does not discharge passengers there.If you get off the train at 125th, then it has discharged a passenger at 125th. Any claim that the train doesn't discharge passengers at 125th is thus disproven. |
|
|
| (1446238) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:45 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Aug 7 12:18:34 2017. If you have a frequent flier membership with them, they can cancel it (and with it any rewards you may have earned but not spent).Also, some airlines will simply ban you from flying with them again for using tricks involving abandoning segments. Yes, they can do both of those things. What they can't do is charge you the additional $30. |
|
|
| (1446239) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:48 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Aug 7 19:34:00 2017. And if you get caught counting cards in a casino, or you just win a lot without any explanation, they will politely but firmly bar you from the casino, and there's nothing you can do about it.They can ban you at any time for any reason (or no reason at all). However, you can't be arrested for counting cards or winning a lot. Depending on the jurisdiction, they'd probably even be required to pay your accrued winnings (although they'd be within their rights to kick you out first and send you a check later, of course). |
|
|
| (1446241) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Fri Aug 11 11:56:17 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:40 2017. I don't need to cite anything, this is a discussion group, not an adversarial proceeding. |
|
|
| (1446242) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:07:17 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Fri Aug 11 11:56:17 2017. In that case, we can agree that no such law exists. |
|
|
| (1446243) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Fri Aug 11 12:09:13 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:07:17 2017. you are free to believe what you wish, my unwillingness to waste anymore time on the subject doesn't mean I agree to anything. |
|
|
| (1446244) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:24:02 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by pragmatist on Fri Aug 11 12:09:13 2017. That no such law exists is a fact, whether you believe it or not. |
|
|
| (1446245) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by jrf2 on Fri Aug 11 12:25:32 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:38 2017. While I ahven't read every post on the thread - it keeps mentioning Metro-North. Which line was it on?Somewhere-I remember hearing the New Haven line trains could only pickup passenger going outbound and discharge only going inbound. Am i mistaken. |
|
|
| (1446246) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:32:51 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by jrf2 on Fri Aug 11 12:25:32 2017. Somewhere-I remember hearing the New Haven line trains could only pickup passenger going outbound and discharge only going inbound.The MTA has set that policy, though their enforcement of it is somewhat lax. It's not just New Haven trains, though— the same policy applies to Hudson line trains bound for Poughkeepsie and Harlem line trains bound for Brewster. Am i mistaken. You're not mistaken about that being the MTA's policy, but that's really not what this thread is about. Much of this exchange has been an amusing "debate" between the people who think a policy set (but largely ignored) by the MTA is actually a state law and the people who know that it's not. |
|
|
| (1446248) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 11 12:54:27 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 11:29:34 2017. It is, according to NJ Transit Public Information Officer William Smith, forbidden to take pictures on trains "because it is a safety issue", and on station platforms "because of privacy, safety, and passenger maneuverability issues". According to him, these rules have the force of law, and can result in expulsion from the property, or arrest if disobeyed. I myself was warned about this while attempting to photograph Newark Light Rail cars from the street , and at Newark Penn Station.NYCT rules also have the force of law, and are enforced by the Transit Adjudication Bureau, as you well know. |
|
|
| (1446255) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 13:25:53 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 11 12:54:27 2017. It is, according to NJ Transit Public Information Officer William Smith, forbidden to take pictures on trains "because it is a safety issue", and on station platforms "because of privacy, safety, and passenger maneuverability issues". According to him, these rules have the force of lawWhat's his handle here? Just kidding, the idea that some agency's half-assed or even nonexistent policy is written into state law is hardly unique to SubChat. I've dealt with similarly-misinformed people in various places— one even tried a SubChat-esque: "I'm a lawyer so I know what I'm talking about!" routine. I myself was warned about this while attempting to photograph Newark Light Rail cars from the street , and at Newark Penn Station. A PATH cop once told me that PATH rules meant it was illegal for me to take photos of anything anywhere within walking distance of PATH. Not in those exact words, but since I wasn't on PATH and I wasn't taking pictures of PATH, I have no idea what he could have meant. Meanwhile, I took a RFW video from Newark to WTC and back with no one raising even the slightest fuss. Though I think the record was when an American customs official told me it was illegal to take pictures in Vancouver, apparently unaware that being as Canada is, you know, another country, he was a little out of his jurisdiction. And before anyone tries to make excuses, no, this was not actually at a border crossing, and no, he didn't know who I was or my nationality. As far as he was concerned, he was an American invoking US law to a Canadian in Canada. NYCT rules also have the force of law, and are enforced by the Transit Adjudication Bureau, as you well know. Actually, what the Transit Adjudication Bureau enforces has only a somewhat tenuous relationship to the law. |
|
|
| (1446257) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Aug 11 14:02:08 2017, in response to On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Aug 5 05:57:32 2017. Without having to wade through all of these responses, can someone tell me what happened to this conductor. Were the charges dropped, or what??? |
|
|
| (1446259) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Aug 11 14:05:18 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:32:51 2017. Nilet - Maybe this point has been covered before. I do not understand WHY the MTA would rather some riders exit at 125th Street?Why is the 125th Street station treated differently than other stations? My question has NOTHING to do with the behavior of conductors, legalisms about "theft of service", or the quirks of the New Haven line versus the Hudson or Harlem trains, or peak or non-peak tickets. Why is the 125th Street station treated differently than other stations? Is this due to a history of commuter railroads gnerally attempting to leaving "inside of city" train travel to local transit agencies, or some "other factor"? From another message: "Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 6 19:36:39 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 6 19:32:17 2017. As you know, the New Haven line was originally the NH Railroad, while the Harlem line was NY Central. I believe the restriction has to do with the respective rights of these 2 roads to serve various stations. I suspect the NYC did not want the NHRR poaching its Harlem line passengers for 125th and Fordham, and the NHRR dod not want its trains burdened with people traveling within NYC." Is the "poaching of riders" really a grave concern when it comes to a unified Metro-North transportation system? Or is this issue mostly about the contract that New Haven Railroad had or currently has that imposes drop off restrictions at Fordham Road and 125th Street? Mike |
|
|
| (1446260) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 11 14:09:37 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Aug 11 14:02:08 2017. AFAIK, the charges are still pending, the conductor is suspended while the MTA investigates. |
|
|
| (1446262) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 14:18:43 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Michael549 on Fri Aug 11 14:05:18 2017. Why is the 125th Street station treated differently than other stations?I don't know that it really is all that different; yes, a majority of trains are marked in the schedule as not carrying local passengers within Manhattan, but that policy is at best questionably enforced. Is this due to a history of commuter railroads gnerally attempting to leaving "inside of city" train travel to local transit agencies, or some "other factor"? They clearly don't want to restrict travel within the city; the Hudson and Harlem lines have 8 and 9 stops within city limits respectively, and there's no shortage of local trains that make all of them. That said, every southbound train that stops at 125th is marked as either "discharge only" or "primarily discharge, may leave ahead of schedule." Perhaps they fear that if a substantial 125-GCT market develops, they'll face pressure to conform to schedule for that service? Is the "poaching of riders" really a grave concern when it comes to a unified Metro-North transportation system? No, but the "no intra-Manhattan travel" markings aren't unique to the New Haven line. Harlem and Hudson trains have them too. |
|
|
| (1446263) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 14:19:05 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 11 14:09:37 2017. Do we know what the charges are? |
|
|
| (1446264) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Aug 11 14:33:51 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Michael549 on Fri Aug 11 14:05:18 2017. Why is the 125th Street station treated differently than other stations?Nobody really knows for sure. There are lots of educated guesses. - NHRR / NY Central history - ConnDot contract - Too much chance of people getting a free ride / need more conductors to enforce ticket purchase And it isn't only 125th. It's also Fordham. |
|
|
| (1446265) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Aug 11 14:35:31 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 14:19:05 2017. Assault, resisting arrest. |
|
|
| (1446267) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 11 14:40:17 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 14:19:05 2017. That is a matter of public record. And the article was nice enough to give us his name. |
|
|
| (1446268) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:09:25 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Michael549 on Fri Aug 11 14:05:18 2017. Mike, per a news story I posted somewhere else in this thread, the restrictions are due to the contract between ConnDot and MNRR. |
|
|
| (1446270) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:23:02 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:07:17 2017. About 3 clicks on the MTA website found this, from Title 21 of the NY Codes, Rules and Regulations:"Section 1085.9 Presentation of tickets. "No person shall refuse or fail to present a valid Metro-North ticket, employee pass or dependent pass, or tender the applicable fare, as required." I'm sure there are many other MTA rules that have been codified into law. |
|
|
| (1446273) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:35:34 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:07:17 2017. About 3 clicks on the MTA website found this, from Title 21 of the NY Codes, Rules and Regulations:"Section 1085.9 Presentation of tickets. "No person shall refuse or fail to present a valid Metro-North ticket, employee pass or dependent pass, or tender the applicable fare, as required." I'm sure there are many other MTA rules that have been codified into law. |
|
|
| (1446274) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:36:10 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:07:17 2017. And more:21 CRR-NY 1085.1 1085.1 Authorization and purpose. (a) Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (“Metro-North”) is a public benefit corporation and an independent subsidiary of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”). As such, Metro-North is empowered by the New York State Public Authorities Law to make rules and regulations governing the conduct and safety of the public in the use and operation of its terminals, stations and trains. Public Authorities Law, sections 1265(5), (14) and 1266(4) and (8). |
|
|
| (1446275) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:36:28 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 12:07:17 2017. About 3 clicks on the MTA website found this, from Title 21 of the NY Codes, Rules and Regulations:"Section 1085.9 Presentation of tickets. "No person shall refuse or fail to present a valid Metro-North ticket, employee pass or dependent pass, or tender the applicable fare, as required." I'm sure there are many other MTA rules that have been codified into law. |
|
|
| (1446281) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Aug 11 16:04:44 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:09:25 2017. But trains to Southeast and Poughkeepsie also have an R on the timetable at 125th.I think it's probably also because a longer distance train can operate with fewer conductors if they don't have to get everyone's ticket until White Plains or Croton. |
|
|
| (1446283) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 16:18:03 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:23:02 2017. I'm sure there are many other MTA rules that have been codified into law.Yes, but there's no law making it a crime to exit a northbound train at 125th Street. Which is the point I just made. |
|
|
| (1446284) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 16:18:05 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Italianstallion on Fri Aug 11 15:36:10 2017. Still nothing in there making it a crime to exit a northbound train at 125th. |
|
|
| (1446285) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Aug 11 16:28:05 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 16:18:05 2017. Conductor in Park Ave tunnel: Sorry, your ticket to 125th is no good. First stop for discharge on this train is Mt Vernon East.Passenger: I disagree. Take my ticket. Conductor: Pay an extra $3 or you'll be arrested. Passenger: No. Conductor radios MTA Police, and they happen to be at 125th so they meet the train. Passenger gets off the train. MTA Police Officer: you are under arrest for refusing to pay the required fare on this train, which is GCT to Mt Vernon East. OK, counselor, how do you argue this case? |
|
|
| (1446286) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Aug 11 16:57:10 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by Nilet on Fri Aug 11 16:18:03 2017. such expert with so little knowledge !! |
|
|
| (1446288) | |
Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Aug 11 17:18:14 2017, in response to Re: On-Duty Metro-North Conductor Arrested, posted by AlM on Fri Aug 11 16:28:05 2017. So many ways around this, first the officer with conductor present, train on platform w/doors open will ask one final time. Then the passenger (if smart) claims no funds. Passenger produces Id, gets a bill & promises to pay later (which gets promptly torn up). The PO can not search the passenger to validate his claim of insufficient funds. If the pass had no ID or refuses to show it, then out come the cuffs. Possibly entering disorderly conduct territory if he causes a commotion or delays the train.BTW, those insufficient funds for providing transportation bills used to be referred to as "Pink Slips" buy the beancounters. The railroad takes a terrible beating on those, but that story is for another thread. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
