|
|
| MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement (1446373) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1446374) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Aug 12 19:48:04 2017, in response to MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 19:22:27 2017. It's a legacy from the ICC, New Haven RR trains on NYCentral turf, and franschise protection. MTA has been too lazy to remove it.You are right, there is the opportunity to sell the same seat twice. But the MTA is too dumb to get that too. People don;'t care if it's a Blue train or a Red train. Notice we don't have this nonsense between Hoboken and Secaucus on Port Jervis trains. It was all the Erie RR. |
|
|
| (1446376) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 20:05:20 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Joe V on Sat Aug 12 19:48:04 2017. I know it's a legacy. And I'm sure somehow ConnDOT has a role in preserving the rule too. And back in 1980 or so when the Fordham stop was started, ridership patterns were different.But it's 2017 now and surely someone in the MTA must have floated the idea. The Harlem Line has weekend inbound trains at x:04 and x:42. The New Haven Line has them at x:20 and x:50. It would just be a great opportunity to increase ridership a bit at no real cost. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1446377) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Aug 12 20:19:39 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 20:05:20 2017. Since MTA also subsidizes operation of the New Haven line, and this is in New York State, COnn-DOT really has no say, and such restrictions do not save time in the schedule.It would be like MTA telling Conn-DOT they cannot handle local passengers between the 2 New Haven Stations. Conn-DOT would tell them to go fuck themselves. |
|
|
| (1446378) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Aug 12 20:31:24 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Joe V on Sat Aug 12 20:19:39 2017. It would be like MTA telling Conn-DOT they cannot handle local passengers between the 2 New Haven Stations. Conn-DOT would tell them to go fuck themselves.Not really - the Connecticut riders must pass those stations, so it does affect them (slightly). Think of the Port Jervis & Pascack Valley lines - every stop in NJ makes the train cheaper for NYS. I am guessing CDOT would ask for a per-train contract reduction in exchange for adding those stops, which very well may end up reducing the number of trains which stop at Fordham to make that less of a hit. |
|
|
| (1446382) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Aug 12 20:43:02 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Aug 12 20:31:24 2017. They stop there as it is. Conn DOT pays a fixed percentage for New Haven Line main line service, not a per train situation. The only variation would be the zone trains that only get as far as Port Chester, NY.Since NJT does not have a "D" and "R:" situation at Secaucs, Ridgewood, or anywhere else, the anaology does not really hold up. |
|
|
| (1446384) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 20:47:50 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Aug 12 20:31:24 2017. I am guessing CDOT would ask for a per-train contract reduction in exchange for adding those stopsI was not proposing that even one single train have one single added stop. All I was proposing is that when a southbound Stamford local pulls into its existing stop at Fordham, after maybe 200 people get off through the 12 open doors, 50 or 100 are allowed to get on. And CDOT would get a share of the added revenue. |
|
|
| (1446401) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Sat Aug 12 22:53:43 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 20:47:50 2017. Float your idea to the MTA. Lhota seems willing to try new things. |
|
|
| (1446446) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Aug 13 13:29:17 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 20:05:20 2017. New Haven Line revenue is most likely a different color of money due to how the costs are split between the MTA and CDoT. CDoT pays 2/3rds of net NHL costs, MNRR 1/3rd. Who would get the revenue on NHL passengers to Fordham? Currently that revenue goes all to the MTA. Under current rules Fordham passengers on an NHL train would divert revenue to CDoT. If those tickets are exempted, the passengers are STILL using NHL equipment, some portion of which technically belong to CDoT so then CDoT is experiencing a new cost. |
|
|
| (1446517) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by jasonnyc on Mon Aug 14 08:27:22 2017, in response to MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 19:22:27 2017. What happens to a passenger if he/she boards at Fordham on a NHL train unknowingly? The conductors aren't at every door. I'm sure they get yelled at but once the doors close they can at least get to 125th for the subway. |
|
|
| (1446518) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 14 08:45:24 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by jasonnyc on Mon Aug 14 08:27:22 2017. They probably get charged a fare from Mt Vernon East. :) |
|
|
| (1446522) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by jrf2 on Mon Aug 14 09:36:54 2017, in response to MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 19:22:27 2017. As a side note - do we want them grabbing a seat for the short trip denying a passendger going further-maybe to NH? |
|
|
| (1446524) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 14 09:55:00 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by jrf2 on Mon Aug 14 09:36:54 2017. Keep in mind that there is a long term plan to add 4 stations in the Bronx, part of the "sales pitch" for that plan is the ability to increase CT-BX travel including reverse commutes. Revised agreements between the MTA and CDOT have been works in progress to facilitate this added service level. |
|
|
| (1446528) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by jrf2 on Mon Aug 14 11:01:21 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 14 09:55:00 2017. But the 4 stations are not on the current line, they are for the line going to Penn. |
|
|
| (1446531) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by jasonnyc on Mon Aug 14 11:16:11 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 14 09:55:00 2017. Hah, good point. I was thinking they'd charge a Fordham > Zone 1 fare with some scolding, but Mount Vernon East actually makes more sense. |
|
|
| (1446532) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by jasonnyc on Mon Aug 14 11:18:22 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Mon Aug 14 08:45:24 2017. Hah, good point. I was thinking they'd charge a Fordham > Zone 1 fare with some scolding, but Mount Vernon East actually makes more sense. |
|
|
| (1446542) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Aug 14 12:53:15 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by jrf2 on Mon Aug 14 11:01:21 2017. But they will connect to the existing line, hence the need for a revised agreement. |
|
|
| (1446544) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Aug 14 12:59:21 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by jasonnyc on Mon Aug 14 11:18:22 2017. In January 2015 I rode Acela Express 2126, which now in the schedules has a "D" for the Newark Station (before it terminates at NY Penn). I'm not sure whether or not it had a "D" back in 2015 as well, but I can tell you that the train crew were at the doors of that train telling people on the crowded platform (I think a NJ Devils game had just let out) that "you don't want this train" and I overheard one C/R say "this train's 50 bucks (just to NY)" which made someone who was approaching it step back. If the D was around back then, I would be inclined to think that it was more just as a courtesy to let people know that it doesn't make sense for them to take that expensive train from Newark to NY when there are better options available. And the crew, especially the 1st class crew, probably did not want to be giving out menus this late in the run. |
|
|
| (1446576) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 14 18:55:19 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by jrf2 on Mon Aug 14 09:36:54 2017. 1. I'm talking about Stamford locals.2. The Fordham to Mount Vernon East segment is considerably more crowded than the GCT to Fordham segment. So there is room for extra riders between GCT and Fordham. I would not be making this suggestion if it weren't for the fact that outbound Stamford locals become considerably more crowded at Fordham. Note that back in 1980 or whenever there wasn't anywhere near as much travel between Fordham and Westchester. |
|
|
| (1446578) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon Aug 14 19:36:00 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Aug 13 13:29:17 2017. Believe it or not, on this sort of thing the accountants would probably have to sign off before the lawyers. |
|
|
| (1446587) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Aug 14 23:11:05 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Aug 13 13:29:17 2017. Yes, I can see that the accounting would have to be carefully done to insure a win-win situation. |
|
|
| (1446615) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by checkthedoorlight on Tue Aug 15 10:39:04 2017, in response to MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by AlM on Sat Aug 12 19:22:27 2017. What's going to happen when those Hell Gate Line stations open? Under the current policy, there would be NO legal ridership between NY Penn Station and Co-Op City, only between Co-Op City and points outside NYC, or between NYP and points outside the NYC. If New Haven trains would be allowed to ride intra-city customers on the Hell Gate, then why wouldn't they also let intra-city customers now ride on the Harlem? This tariff is going to cause a sticky situation if it doesn't get eliminated. |
|
|
| (1446616) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 15 10:44:38 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by checkthedoorlight on Tue Aug 15 10:39:04 2017. They will renegotiate. Since CT kicked in a bunch for the new cars on the NH, they will obviously get a "piece of the action" The sales pitch to CT involves improved reverse commute to places like Stamford. I-95 is so bad, anything helps. |
|
|
| (1446627) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 15 13:10:58 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 15 10:44:38 2017. kicked in ??? they own 67% of electric fleet and enough Bombardier cars to cover all branch line service. |
|
|
| (1446628) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 15 13:11:54 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 15 13:10:58 2017. to clarify the 67% is of New Haven line equipment. |
|
|
| (1446630) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 15 13:19:23 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 15 13:10:58 2017. I probably just should have said paid for..... |
|
|
| (1446633) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 15 13:30:15 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 15 13:19:23 2017. I was thinking about the comments made about how operating expenses were being considered but not the (considerable) capital expenditures...... |
|
|
| (1446634) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Aug 15 13:37:06 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by pragmatist on Tue Aug 15 13:19:23 2017. they paid for their 67% hence the ownership. |
|
|
| (1446662) | |
Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Aug 16 06:51:18 2017, in response to Re: MNRR/CDOT Revenue Enhancement, posted by checkthedoorlight on Tue Aug 15 10:39:04 2017. Maybe this is when they will abolish all that ICC-vintage silliness. |
|
|
